City Council - Regular Meeting

All right, I'm going to call the meeting of the Essex Junction City Council to order for April 15th, tax day, in case anybody forgot, go pay your taxes. Um, so first item on the agenda is any agenda additions or changes. And I do have one, which is we are going to remove what is now consent item 6C, the recreation software contract, and we're going to make that item 5F in the business items. and then we'll move the executive session to G. Any other additions or changes? Not for me.

Okay. Uh because we made that change, I do need to entertain a motion to approve the agenda as amended. I will so move. A second. I'm just going to arm wrestle over it. Oh. Okay. All in favor? I I All right. That was unanimous. I don't need any any public to be heard. All right. Anybody in the room? George, come on up.

George Dumbar, uh, I'm happy you took that action because I was going to ask you to do it anyway. So, um, I do have a lot of questions about the, uh, contract and I I don't know if you want to I was going to I'm going to throw them out here now. You can do it when you get to the business item or talk to me at this point. But okay.

Um I just wonder who the current provider is for the current recreation management software that we have. How much is it costing us in FY26? Um did we follow the bidding process of the city when we took the current provider into place in FY26? and was a competitive bidding process followed for the proposed change that we're going that's being brought forward to you tonight. Um, I'm assuming since this has probably been in discussion for a while, is there a line item in the FY27 budget that covers the 65 plus,000 in costs? I didn't see it there. So, those are my questions. Um, and that's the only thing I just want to get try to get those answered.

Are you going to stick around or do you want to Yeah, no, I'm gonna stick around. Okay, thanks. Cool. I wrote them down, but if I if we don't cover them, just Sounds good. Hit me up. Yeah. Thank you. All right. Anybody else? Anybody online? All right. I'm not seeing any hands online. So, we'll move on to business item 5A, which is discussion in of Green Mountain Transit, potential elimination of the number four service. And we have Clayton here with us.

Good evening everybody. Uh Clayton Clark, general manager for Green Mountain Transit. Uh thanks for having me. Um although I can tell you that this is uh not the type of meeting that I like to attend because I don't like to talk about the potential of reducing service. um we would prefer to be doing the opposite. Um and so I want to uh to provide just a few minutes of background. Um but I suspect that you all are probably pretty well verssed of of why we're here. Um but the uh the Essex circulator as it's called now um and its various iterations for the last decade um has been on the GMT's report card in the in the wrong way. And so uh the state of Vermont uh agency of transportation um uh scores every single fixed route transit route uh in the state. um and they provide a score based on economic efficiency. And for the past 10 years, uh the service that we've had um um in the Essex junction and the town of Essex um and uh previously when it connected to Williston uh was uh determined to be financially um uh inefficient and uh and so for 10 years it's been on uh Vrans's list of of of routes that should be eliminated or modified. And so um when we look at the most recent um u uh report, the average cost per ride, uh for our urban uh bus system is about $7. And so that's the the total cost uh to

GMT. Um, and the cost per ride uh for uh the number four in its previous form was $28 per ride. So, four times the price. Um, and to give you an idea of how much an outlier it is, the next highest is half the amount at $14 uh per rider. Um GMT is facing a uh I don't want to say unprecedented in our history um but uh very likely I'm sure it's the largest deficit that we've pro we've ever faced uh since coming about 1973. We know that um we're about $2.5 million in the hole or projected to be $2.5 million in the hole for uh fiscal year 28. Uh for fiscal year 27, um we are about half a million dollars in the hole and uh reducing this service will provide us with a net savings of about $112,000. And so that's why we're considering it. Um the board will be um uh considering the action at their meeting next week. Um and um one of the things that we will need to uh work with the city and the town on if the service is eliminated is how we want to handle the ADA service. Um and so folks may recall that uh folks who are unable to use um uh fixed route transit because they have a disability um uh are able to receive our u paratransit service that we contract with SSTA with. And so one of the things that uh we would probably suggest is having a a period of time uh for people

to adjust where if the service were ended that we would continue to have the ADA service and we'd want to talk to you about how long that should be and and uh the potential cost associated. Um, and then the last thing I want to say is that um I am actually more hopeful about the number four uh now than I was a few weeks ago. And the the reason why is that uh the current um state uh T bill includes uh language that would alter GMT statute. And uh right now uh in order for us to collect uh our local funds for our service, we must go through our formula for assessment. And that's what uh we come here and we give you your annual assessment and I talked to you about uh the reasons for the changes and u but our statute limits us to accepting our local funds through that formula. The challenge is is that that means that um any type of service that is um not superefficient then ends up weighing down the whole system uh because the formula was built you know to be a collective uh revenue generation source for all eight members. What the T bill will do is will allow us uh to collect money outside of the formula for assessment. And so when um I mentioned earlier that it would be about $111,000 worth of savings, that's from uh personnel costs and gas uh not from the overhead savings like uh my salary or you know our website and and insuranceances and all that stuff. That's just the true cost. So, what that means is that um I'm

hoping that the uh that the board um will include in their memo or not memo in their motion next week um that if they do decide to eliminate the service that they authorize me um to enter into an agreement with the Essex school system protect uh potentially Essex Junction uh and the town of Essex to see about uh raising local funds to cover the cost and whether that would retain it in its existing uh full day or whether a partial day, you know, would basically be how that uh how that would be negotiated. And so, um we have uh talked a bit with the school. They do seem to be very interested and motivated in keeping that as a service for their students. So my hope is is that we would be able to come up with a uh pathway that will retain um some level of service for there. Um but uh um mostly I wanted to be available to you all to answer your questions and um and so that concludes my remarks and we'll do the best I can to uh to respond to your concerns.

Any questions for Clayton? Go ahead. Thanks Clayton. Thank you. I'm wondering what the numbers are. You talked about the financial efficiency of Route 4. Yes. But can you talk about the decline in actual people who ride the bus? Like what what is the average number of riders on that bus?

So I can tell you that um it's measured in the hundreds where most of our routes are measured in the thousands. And instead of hazarding a a guess, um what I could do is send to Regina um exactly what those numbers are uh have been for so far this fiscal year. Um and what I can tell you is that uh it's been averaging uh four to five boardings per uh circle. So that's you know obviously not per entire circle. Yes. Okay. Yep. And uh and that's what's really driving the cost per per rider. Is there an indication of which stops are the most heavily used?

Interesting that you mentioned that. We just um uh were able to get some new data that uh we have a new dashboard that's out that shows. Um what we did is we took our GPS information from our bus and then the payment time information

so that we could match those two up. And uh we we um uh hired a new data analyst that is got much greater capacity than we've had in the past. And so for the first time we're able to really see at a stop level um at least the the boardings. We don't have the folks getting off yet. Um but uh but we have uh the boardings and so uh we can um what I'll do is included in that link uh or included in the message to Regina will be a link to a map that you'll be able to look at where all the boardings are um along that route. That would be interesting. Yeah.

Yeah. And can you remind me please how far out into Essex Town does route two route two is the is it two or 10 that comes through here is one of the most popular routes

number two uh uh comes out it's our second most popular and it uh goes to the Amtrak. Uh, one of the things that we did uh discuss at our uh public meetings and with our surveys um is if there would be interested in or if there would be interest in having the number two extend out to Essex experience if the uh number four were to uh u be eliminated. And so um I think that that is definitely something that we'll be looking at um if if the four were to go away. I'm glad to hear you say that because I remember H probably five or seven years ago when you were considering eliminating a route

that went out to the Essex Experience, there was 30 or 40 people in this room. Mhm. Upset about that. Oh, yeah. Because that route 15 corridor from here to the experience is a big job, you know, a comm a comm a commute. Yes. And people were very unhappy about that. And so I would be concerned that we would be losing that. Yeah. Absolutely. that uh uh uh that's probably the most well attended public meeting that GMT has ever had and uh people are still traumatized about it and uh welcome to our world.

Exactly. And so uh uh and so I think that uh the people that attended that night uh probably got five or six years of extra service uh just because of uh the making GMT gunshy for that. Well, I think that indicates though just how incredibly important GMT is to folks being able to get to their jobs and their doctor's appointments, etc.

I think you're absolutely right. And the thing that um um so the the first public meeting that uh we had to discuss um service reductions um one of the service reductions that was on the list was a single run that connected the south side of Burlington to the downtown transit center like at 6:15 in the morning and it only averaged three riders. And so I'm looking at this thinking, "Oh man, this is going to be the least controversial of all of our, you know, things that we do." The very first person who spoke at that meeting was one of those three writers who talks to us about about how his day will be so much more difficult um with the connections if that is is uh lost. And that really taught me more than anything that um we measure our bus's um performance based on the number of people that are on the bus, but for the people who are on it, whether it's full or they're the only ones, it's their most important service.

Exactly. And so, uh, and so I think that, uh, certainly when I was here last week in this room, uh, at our public, I think it was last week, um, uh, with the public meeting, it was only a few folks that were here, but it was very clear that it was important to their lives. And so that's certainly something that, um, um, uh, you know, weighs on me. I appreciate that. I just have one more question that's separate from that topic. you were talking about the your board next week is going to discuss giving you additional authority to I'm assuming bill outside of the um municipal assessment process. Yes.

So are you saying then and that you wanted to talk to the town and to the city and to the school district? Yes. So, are you saying then that the possibility of keeping Route 4 could depend on EWSD, Essex Town, and Essex Junction paying an additional 112,000 approximately dollars a year just for that one route in addition to the assessments we're already paying.

Correct. Yes. And so obviously that is a big financial contribution. Um, and that's why I I would probably not suspect that you all would want to do the full day of service, but maybe target where uh the school especially thinks that it would be most useful for their students. Um, and so my guess would be that um unless you all have some hidden reserves that you would probably want a uh modified or reduced schedule. Can I just ask a clarifying question? Sure. Um so part of our assessment right now is tagged to the number four. Yes. Existing. Yes.

And so um when you talk about the 111 112 that you would need to raise um are we essentially considering a portion of our current assessment that pays for the number for as potentially helping with that or is it all in addition to what we pay now? And and so when I say that there would be 111K in net savings, that would be uh because we would have less income from the your assessment because we would remove that portion of your assessment. Yep. Yep. Okay. Any other questions, Marcus?

Um so first off, uh just so you know, the link is in the packet on page three. So you can find the link to the dashboards and Okay. you can see the numbers. Um the I think I don't know that I have a real question on this. I I I just want to acknowledge the fact that um look, I continue to feel your pain, but I'm so glad that you're there as as advocate for this. Um but at the same time, it is hard to look at this map

and see that there's probably seven, eight stops in uh the city. Um, and then there's about 22 stops in uh the town. You know, not knowing how this is going to kind of slice and dice in order to figure out who is going to pay what for what and what that's going to look like. I think that brings up a lot of concerns for me in the future. Um, obviously there's still some decisions that need to be made. Mhm. Um, you know, I know that busing generally, not just public service, but the school bus service in this area has been a problem for years. Um,

I, you know, I'm not sure how we particularly solve this problem unless we get a gift from God of a lot of cash. Yeah. Um, so, you know, I it it just hurts me to see this because I I do think about the people who are going to be impacted and struggle to get to and fro. Um, and especially those seniors who rely on that special assistance that they can only get because they're just close enough to a particular stop. Yes. Um, so I I think we're going to need more discussions around this in the future to really Oh, yes.

figure out how what we need to do for our community, but I I think a key piece of that is understanding that ridership at those stops potentially even who that wrership is. I'm going to assume, you know, are they students, are they seniors, are they, you know,

um just so that we can try to understand the impact and then try to mitigate best we can. Um very happy to report that we're doing uh our next rider demographic survey starting uh next month so that we will be able to uh have fresh data on exactly who is using the service. Um uh my impression is that it is primarily students that are that are using it. Now, um the uh uh what I can tell you is that the uh you're absolutely right that uh majority of the route operates in town of Essex and that's reflected in the different contribution levels uh between the city and and the town and uh and so the contribution level for the city is is lower than it is uh for the town reflecting that. Um, and something I I also just want to mention uh on a personal note, the the last time I was here, um, I had submitted my uh, resignation and Marcus, you had uh, um, and uh, said some very nice things and, um, and and that was part of what, you know, led me to decide to stay. And so I I'm not departing GMT. I've I've rescended my uh resignation and um uh happy to continue to to do the work.

Thank you. I appreciate that a great deal.

Can and I don't I'm just going to ask one question. I don't necessarily need an answer to it tonight. I just want to know the implications of a reduced route as it would relate to then the availability of the SSTA rides. And so typically the um SSTA service is available at the same time that the that the routes are available. Uh so that would be uh something that we would want to consider if it was only going to be say operating from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and then again from 2 to 4. You know whether uh we would want the ADA service to match those times or uh to be connected during the middle of the day. And that's something that I would definitely want a conversation with you all about.

Thank you. Appreciate it, Clayton. Thank you. Thank you. Any public comment? Not seeing any. Thanks, Clayton. Thank you. Hearing from you soon. Before you go, you did have a public hearing here last week. There's still more to come. or is there the last one of those was uh actually a tableabling at the Waterbury State Office complex today. So yeah, we I knew it was I didn't realize it was today. I thought it was tomorrow. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate your time, Clayton. Thanks. Have a good night. All right. 5B Tree Advisory Committee brief to the council. Okay.

Come on up. two partners in crime here. Warren Spinner, who we're silent one.

Yeah. Oh, no, he's not. Uh, and we're uh very fortunate to have him as a resident and all of his experience in Burlington for 30 plus years as the city arborists there. So, we count on him as our tree warden a lot. Um, I'm not sure how you'd like to progress. Um, I had sent out the annual report back in February which has comments some the work we've done over the past year and I can go through that again. Um, I can leave it open for questions and I can tell tell you what we've got going for um, uh, this year. Um, so I can just run through some bullet points of last year and then maybe go to the other.

Yep. I think that makes sense. We've got we've got this you said this is from February, the what's in the packet. Yes. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. So, we have that and maybe just the kind of the highlights and then a couple of highlights for what's going on and the future and we'll throw some questions at you.

Okay. Sounds good. Um, so last year we put in about 40 trees. Uh uh we did receive a grant and that was the um the final planting for um ash remediation and uh and then we um we put in about 25 of our own trees. Um so and it was a challenging year if you can remember back in uh probably the middle of July we started to have no rain. So, um, some of the trees suffered, especially the ones that were planted along the, uh, the Crescent Connector. Um, soil conditions were not the best there. Probably should have been. This is what the contractor put in. Uh, maybe done a few more amendments and other things to it to, um, have a little better water holding capacity. So, we're hopeful um that they're going to survive and not create a a nightmare of having to replant those trees again. Um time will tell. We'll know more in another 3 months or so. Um we are still growing almost all our trees at the branch out Burlington Nursery. Um as I've said before, it's it's a a great process. It's an opportunity for volunteers to get involved and we're able to produce a tree that's probably a third the price of if we were buying them off from the um from wholesalers. Uh and this marks our like fifth year of doing that. Um continuing the work down in what I call Asheville. Um um and we have removed interplanted and um gone back. So, we're we have a little bit of a reprieve this year. Uh but

we're already starting to see the signs of the uh demise of a lot of the trees on the private property and uh residents are starting to take action and remove them. Um we're hoping that we're going to be able to maybe offer some trees on those uh to those residents. Uh it's probably not going to happen this year as we've already got things called for u. So that will be ongoing. Um uh we did uh our usual Arbor Day events at schools involving and did it at two schools this past year. Um and that was a great success. We were awarded our 11th year as a Tree City USA. Um so we are um we're doing good work in the eyes of others. Uh and we're trying to do more with the uh planning commission and um development review board. uh we're contacted about where our expertise might be needed and uh have been working with them and I suspect we'll be doing a lot more as we go through the potential new comprehensive plan land development code and the move to some u uh formbbased code there where I see is some potential real opportunities ities and maybe big changes in how landscaping is done in the city. I think it's been kind of a I'll say a dismal failure um in the fact of how it is judged where if you have a property above a certain amount of money 3% of that budget is supposed to go towards uh landscaping and that definitely is not happening and I think

we've learned some mistakes in terms of Park Street that the raised uh platforms there and throwing some trees in there is just it's a tree coffin. They're not going to survive. So, we're not really doing justice to it and there's money should be spent in other ways. And I'm hoping that um with some of the changes that we can maybe expand the setbacks to some of these buildings that allow opportunities for more green infrastructure and um also a little bit more of a buffer for citizens walking on the road because first and foremost, we're a walkable community. you're supposed to be and we really have got to focus on those things. So, um but that's not in our our role. So, we would encourage it. Um let's see and tell you what we've got going this year. We're um we're planting about 25 trees along the village right ofway. Um this is becoming because of the design of and the old design of the streets. We have very little room in the uh and there are very few green spaces that space between sidewalks and the street and so we are having to plant in front yards now and it requires a lot of work on our part to be knocking on doors. We may own 10 ft of the right ofway on that person's property, but we don't want to put a tree there if they're not in favor of it. So, we knock on doors two, three times to try and get open. So, we're trying to come up with a a better method to do this that doesn't take so much of our time to do it. Um, and still be u, you know, respectful for the residents

there. Um um we're doing our Arbor Day event on May 13th and we're going to be planting trees at uh two trees at two schools um and Maple Street Park. ADL students applied for a grant uh as part of their crew program to plant trees and they asked us to help them. So we're we are helping them with that project. Um and um uh the second we do our big planting at the Bob nursery with that's branch out Burlington uh behind uh Heritage Toyota at the UVM Horicultural Center. Um so we put in the small seedlings then take care of them throughout the um the summer months and in about two to three years they're ready to go on the streets here or into the parks. We've got a tree walk at um St. Michael's College scheduled for uh with Declan McCabe who is an ecologist there who is just a really exciting guy to be around. He lives and breathes the ecology of that area. And so he's going we'll be advertising that to uh residents here. And we've got our great tree contest coming up in the fall. Um, so it's another area to try and engage residents of the work that we're trying to do and um, yeah, so we'll be doing that and then I think working more with um, with the planning commission and review board uh, over the future of the city and try and be engaged as much as we can. We have six members of our committee. We lost one member who was terrific, but

she moved to Fletcher and uh so uh we can't get her to come back. Uh but that's what we're doing. Great. Yeah. Thanks. Any questions? Go ahead. Um I know it's not your purview, but I do expect I do really appreciate your expertise and your experience in this. So when you talk about 3% not being enough, what what do you think that number should look like?

I don't think it should be a number. I think it should be a set of there is a um a point I think how it was explained to me in some communities that you have to reach a certain number amount not now I'm not talking dollars

but all these things that make up that matrix to do it and that's what we should be shooting for you know um at one point there was talk about and we had been pushing it because we've noticed in a lot of these projects they're not spending the money that they should be and um there is supposed we were hoping that a fund would have been set up that in lie of the landscaping spending that that money would go to the city as a streetscape fund and u that has never happened. I we were working Robin for a long time about this

and uh we're fairly vocal but that was years ago and uh but I think there's maybe a better method of doing it to you know to set some really good standards on it. Yeah, that issue's been kicking around since I was on the planning commission. Oh yeah. So yeah, it's definitely been around. Yeah. So I think the consultant has provided this other methodology um that is in the planning commission's realm of looking through and Nick thank you for going to those meetings to start thinking through that and see what it looks like but it's just a completely different system

separated from give us what you think your cost of construction is going to be and what that two or 3% equates to and then yeah it's just it's just not a great system. So, and again, I don't know what projects you might be referring to, but are I mean, are we enforcing this with our developers or are they kind of getting away with it? Um, I I don't I cannot answer the question. It's fine.

No, I look I No, I totally understand. And I just want to I want to make sure that the process is being followed. And again, you know, from what we all have to play by the rules on this side of the table, and I would hope the people who sit on the other side are doing the same. Mhm. So, yeah. Um, last but not least, um, I I do just want to say again, Nick, you came over to to my house. I was totally unavailable, but you talked to my wife because you're planting tree. You're going to be planting a tree at my property. Not just happened to be picked. that was not check here for me too.

BUT like if it's a problem, give it to somebody else. But um no, it look in not just that experience cuz she had a wonderful interaction with you. Um was really thrilled about the possibility of having a tree there and not just from the fact that oh there's a tree in our yard. it was about making the our neighborhood look greener, look better cuz it has been very sparse down our road. Um, and she did not realize that we had this committee doing this kind of work and when she had that interaction and then asked me many questions about it, she was just really excited the city takes this kind of effort and there are people who do this kind of work um because it it does make a difference. Even if you're only able to put 25 trees in an year,

it's a significant effort and it's really appreciated. So, thank you. Yeah. Any other questions for Nick or Warren?

I spoke to Warren a little bit at the polls yesterday. I know they're working through that door knocking thing. So, you know, I uh I'm sure they'll come to a solution there. Uh and you know, I always like to hear what you guys are up to. And I've lived in Marcus's neighborhood for 20 plus years now. So I've seen all the trees come and go, including including one on my property that had uh reached a point of deterioration that it needed to come down before it fell on someone's car. So it is it's uh it's nice to see that it'll be coming back around. So I appreciate all of your efforts, gentlemen. You're really invaluable to us as a community. Uh, and it's a wealth of knowledge and we're extremely grateful for your time and effort.

Thank you. Appreciate it. Thanks, guys. Appreciate what you guys do as well. And I look forward to seeing whatever comes out and moves away from an arbitrary percentage to somewhere down the line. There's lots of change coming. Yeah. So, thank you. Thank you both. Thank the entire the entire committee really. Yeah. And uh it's I guess I'm sad to see that Andrea left and maybe we could make her an adviser to the advisory committee. Is that is that out there at all? We'll work on it. All right. Thank you both. All right. Thank you. Have a good night, guys. Thank you.

All right. 5C. Discussion and consideration of the new purchasing policy. So, we have Jess online. Yep.

All right. Good evening. Uh here with the long awaited purchasing policy revision update for you. Um so I'll just kind of quickly run through some high points from the from the memo that's in the packet. Um this is a policy that we have had on the to-do list for quite some time now. um with separation being completely done last year and um some federal and state regulations that have come down over um the last two years. Um we were able to kind of take a look at where things stand today. Um assess some other policies that are available to us. So I looked at VLCT's model policy, looked at six or seven other communities, neighboring communities to us, um, and became very clearly that this was going to be a much smoother process to just redo the whole the whole policy. There is a lot that has changed. Um, there's a lot that's in our policy right now that's actually more appropriate for an internal procedure document. Um so one of the one of the things that we've um updated in this version that you have before you today is those procedural instructions are going to be removed and put into their own internal procedure documents. We've kept the language that is strictly policy related. Um, in this version, uh, we have, I mentioned, lots of federal, um, language that has changed over the last couple years. Uh, one of the largest, biggest impacts being on the the purchasing thresholds and those dollar amounts. Um, so

the chart that's in your um, memo basically shows you previously we had six different purchasing thresholds, varying levels, varying authorities. Um, the federal requirement is for just three thresholds and it's really just to simplify things and make this pro make this policy easier for everyone to follow. Um so we've moved to that model. Um and we also had decided to and this was a VCT recommendation as well to mimic whatever is on the federal side apply that to the purchases that happen at the with municipal funds as well. Um again it simplifies things for everyone. Right now, the current policy has it feels like a a constant circle that you're going in because you're starting at one point and um having to refer to three different other points in the policy to figure out what to do. So, super confusing for staff. Um Regina and I struggle with it. So, uh what you what you have before you today is um a much simpler, efficient document for everyone to follow. Um the code of conduct section that exists today has been updated to the municipal code of ethics as defined by state statute. Um and then there's also some updates to the language about the bidding process. So RFPs versus RFQS. um what is required and again this is another area where the the current policy has a lot of process documentation in it um that we have pulled out. We're going to create a

separate internal document and keep the language that is recommended by um the federal regulations and also VCT's recommendations. Um so those are kind of the high points. We also have had um some questions and comments about the purchasing thresholds. So, I just wanted to touch on those a in a little bit more detail for everyone tonight. Um I think the biggest concern or comment that we've had is that the minor purchasing threshold um is basically going from today $40,000 up to 75,000. Um the federal rule allows for that to be 150,000. So I kind of picked something that was like middle of the road. Um comparing to other neighboring communities, their policies range anywhere from 10,000 to 100,000. Um and then also there are some policies that have no threshold identified. It's really they state just what is within budget. Um, so no specific amount. Uh, that number it was just a thought to have a discussion on. Um, totally fine adjusting that um, as the council sees fit. Um, and I think I think that was it. Regina, was there anything else that we've talked about that I missed?

I think that was it. Okay. So just thank you. Just just to be clear, Jess, the the requirement from the federal perspective is the three the incidental, minor, and the major categories, but the amounts that are tied to those, we can change those. Correct. Correct. Okay.

Um the in Right. Yep. The incidental threshold, they recommend up to 15,000. Um previously we had 10,000 um for that. purchasing threshold I increased to 15 just because the cost of doing business is much more than it was back in 2018 when the original polic or the existing policy was adopted. So just factoring in a little bit of inflation in that first tier. Um and then the minor and major obviously we can adjust however. Um, like I said, today the minor threshold would be at 40,000.

The minor to align with the current purchasing guidelines, which would give Regina what 40,000 up to $40,000. Do you see any negative impact to you and your ability to run to run this the city doing that?

I don't think so. It's the It's the dollar amount we've been working with. It's fine. Uh Jess did take a look at some of our um invoices. A lot of the invoices that we see between 40 and 70,000 uh 40 and 75,000 really end up being components of much larger projects that you guys already did approve. Um so I think it it would be fine either way. Um later on in your agenda is an example of a softwarebased project which is much more in the operational realm of things and those on occasion can be more expensive and they can sometimes be more expensive if we are trying to engage in a three-year contract instead of a one-year contract because we get a better rate at a three-year contract than a one-year contract. Um, so but the majority of the time we are going to be prepared in advance to bring it through this process if we if we need to at over 40,000. Um, but just the way of the world, we're starting to see more operationalbased things at that dollar amount. And it's um you know one overarching principle in all of this that everybody should understand is we can't operate above budget on any purchases. Um we can um if we need to be operating outside of a particular general fund category code, we've got to come to you folks to do that. So, um, and you've seen as we bring different capital projects, if we need an amendment to the capital plan because we don't actually have the appropriate amount of budget set aside, we do that through all those same motions. Um, so I I don't feel strongly. I think 40,000 is fine. I think um

50,000 is fine. I mean, um, but we can operate at 40,000 if it's, um, where folks would like it to be. Any, so looking at it myself and researching it, I would, you know, I I concur that it looks like this, the recommendation is in line with many other municipalities. Um, but it varies wildly, so there's no kind of standard.

Yeah. Um the one thing that kind of stood out for me though and I wondered about in again trying to create more transparency around this understanding that yes we have a fiduciary responsibility at this table but that has its limits because obviously in order to operate the day-to-day we can't be in every single purchase decision that happens. We have to let some of that go. That being said, um I did see the city of Burlington and other municipalities um some not all but there are some that have reporting that happens. So if you and in the case of the software that we're going to be talking about later for instance, right?

This would be something that would be publicly reported. Now the city of Burlington seems to have a process by which that happens. So that way publicly it is seen that the city manager has written up a you know signed a contract for X. It still has to stay within you know they have boundaries for what that spend is. It still has to go to the council if it exceeds a certain limit.

But there is this transparency that I don't think we have in our rules based on the reading. And I just wonder if that would help in some ways to have more transparency, more public insight, um make the public a little bit more comfortable um about it. But so anyway, I just wanted to put that on the table as a potential option or tweak to this

other question. Oh, go ahead on to that. Sorry, just tag on to Marcus. Um, so I get what I totally understand what you're saying, Marcus. One of the things that we do have in place is that the warrant. So every AP check run that gets issued goes into the council packet. So you you see every check that is cut by the city. Um, so we do have that in place. I understand you're looking for something more probably more specific and detailed for larger purchases. Yes, but in that view if and yes we see it every every couple of weeks and

it's my favorite part of the packet. I'm just saying I don't George is one that you scan. I mean, this is one of this is one of those things that brokerage,

you know, we have seen this happen before where we've seen checks cut for X dollar amount and it's like then you look at the description, it's like, what what was that? What is this lining up to? And I think that's different than this that I'm kind of talking about. This is about entering into contracts or purchases that are handled by probably I I would probably say at the city manager level, not department head level. So those sorry I the minor major thing I still think is a little confusing because um but at the department head I don't know every purchase does we don't need to know if they bought a stack of chairs for something but you go into a $50,000 contract if that's within the purview of the money that we allow then that would be something that would reported in some way. Um, and again, I know the city of Burlington has something. Um, but it is not it is not that check piece. I I think that just will provide confusion and I think if we can do it in a way that's simpler um it'll just be easier for people to find.

What about putting it in the consent? I mean or the reading file or I guess the reading file. Yeah, reading file would be more appropriate if that's how we were I didn't want to define it, so I wanted to give you because I knew in throwing this idea out, it would be something you'd probably want to walk away and kind of think about. Yep. So, okay.

No, I actually like this idea a lot. I haven't seen the Burlington dashboard, but I would like to do it. And I and I use that term dashboard um intentionally because I don't think that Marcus is implying or that um that um information that he's trying to make easier to read and um view for the public is it doesn't exist, right? I agree. It's in the it comes in the packet, right? Um but uh but I think all of us know the number of people that read the packet is less than 20, right? Um so something that would be for so something so I guess my question is this. Um if if if you were directed to um to um generate a page that was updated whenever we spent over $50,000 or X dollars, right? Um, does the uh does the website vendor slashdesign slash um staff have the you know the the technical expertise to pull that off?

I don't think it's about staff expertise. I think it's about system limitations. Yeah, we would have to think about it. I mean, yeah. Um yeah, we just would have to think whatever the direction is, we just would need some time to think through what we can I mean, but it's not hard, is it just to like if I if I said, can you filter out this uh with the the check warrants for all for all checks over $50,000 or X dollar, whatever the dollar amount is, right? That's that's straightforward, right? It's converting it into a dashboard. That's the challenge, right? Right. Great.

Okay. I I would I understand and I appreciate and I I think a dashboard is a potential way, but I think this is one of those moments where I I would say staff probably needs just some time to muddle the idea and figure out how it again to fit it into your workflow. Mhm. If it's again, if you're in agreement, if it's something you can work into your workflow and it's something that we can um deliver with whatever skill, whether it's internal or external. So, but because again, I don't think we need to solve it right now.

So, but we there is a motion in the in the packet to approve the purchasing policy. So, are would you be wanting to table this until we hear the until they're able to noodle a little bit about that concept or would you still be in favor of approving this?

I would suggest tableabling because of the fact that I think if we can do some level of reporting increase this level of transparency in some form. It then I think helps helps it helps us get to a point where whatever that number is that final range that we agree on it's going to make it easier to make that decision because I totally I could absolutely understand somebody saying I don't want to change this let's just leave it at 40. Mhm.

I can also understand and you know look the economies of scale things have changed. I can totally understand increasing it whether it's 50 75 or whatever it is but I think if we have a way to respond to the public and say hey we're going to you know I think consent is fine but sometimes that's also a place where I think things can kind of disappear and if we can provide some level of transparency that gives the public more access to it then um it'll just make it easier to empower you better I personally

uh so because this agenda topic is tied to the Amtrak agenda topic um my suggestion would be that uh we if for all if anything everything else for all other reasons we're good with this policy as it is that uh and you're more comfortable at 40 we keep it at 40 at this point get this approved and then we can take more time to think about um a transparent more transparency with a if we were to shift that upper amount.

But could we not agree because we're about to have that discussion on that other item. Could we not just potentially approve that other item independently? The purchasing policy is is it go it goes with the Amtrak discussion is the point. That's why these two were brought together. Okay. So if we table that then we've got some Amtrak issues. Okay. Oh, sorry. I was thinking about one of the other issues on the agenda. Yes. Okay. You're thinking about soft. Yeah. Not about that. Okay. Yep. Yep. So,

can I'll just throw it out like I I completely get and understand that we're talking in magnitudes of, you know, 12 13 almost $13 million budget. But to the general person when they hear $75,000 unchecked, they're like, "So acknowledging the fact that we you you've given the department heads essentially taken them from 10 to $15,000 in this proposal. I would then suggest that we take the 40 and make it 50 and there's a little bit more room in there and we can deal with that as you've been used to dealing with it at 40 and it gives you a little bit more flexibility and we go with that until we can is it

I mean I would I would be

I mean I'm perfectly happy to leave it at 40 as well. I just, you know, I I'm just thinking through recent increases and in everything uh you know a little morelex back to the issue. I' I'd be fine with with increasing to 50, but I'm wondering if we could just approve approve the purchasing policy as amended or whatever we decide to do um and ask that staff come back to the April 29th meeting um with a plan regarding the um transparency of contract purchases above whatever that the major you know what I'm talking about.

Would that be it's it's approved, but it's also like asking to do additional work on your side. Would that be sufficient enough for the Amtrak discussion if we did that? So, the purchasing policy is good. We would approve it, but we would also say, but we still want this other thing to come back to us in two weeks. Yeah. I don't think would you guys be okay with that? I don't think you were proposing that um that you do not support the purchasing policy without without more like a simpler way to look at the big purchases. He wanted to table it which which meant we were No, I understand that I heard you say that not him. That's why I'm asking. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. No, I would agree. Yeah. Okay then. Yeah.

No problem. Is there any other questions, comments about the dollar amounts and the purchase of question? Yeah. Clarification. So, are you looking for um speaking to like the dashboard and um more information on contracts? You're looking for that information on the minor level, right? That that Regina has authority to approve because you're going to see everything else at the major level. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Cool. Great. I didn't have my thing next to me, but yeah. No, just wanted to make sure the super astronomical. I don't know whatever.

Ela, any comments? No. But anything else? I'll open it for public comment and then I'll come back and we can I guess finish the conversation. Public comment in the room. I I'll just make one. You go up to the mic, George. Sorry. I had two comments. Like I said, I'm getting all um write them down.

I guess can just back to the discussion that you're having about it's in the warrants. It's available and I think about our open source contract that was several hundred,000, but it's parsed out in checks of $5,000. So that clarity isn't there. that you're discussing. And so I I fully agree that I like the idea of some greater transparency, some way to show that, you know, we've gone through the process. It's a $50,000 item. You know, we've done the due diligence on competitive bidding and all those other types of things. Um, so I guess that's where I'll just leave that. So

that one did come that one comes to us and we would have approved that particular one. You're right in that instance. But but they are understood what you're saying. They are parsed out at monthly checks. Yes. Yeah, there are there are definitely so they won't be visible from a warrant. Yeah. If I can just clarify, are you talking about open approach? Yeah.

Oh, sorry. We 100% went through a full procurement process that was brought to the council for the random thing he thought of just as example. So, you see the checks come out in the warrant over time. Yeah, if I may, George, your your point seems to be that the warrants would not show pro would not show clearly for the public who is not used to reading the pages and pages of that data um for for one reason is because their monthly checks for for annual things. Is that that's your point? Correct. That's true. Because they would be un they wouldn't show a $50,000 expense. They show, you know, four a $4,000 expense over 12 months. Right. Fair enough. Thank you. Okay.

And and Jess was that one when I was asking for some kind of data analysis before we went to the web and and I agree that it shouldn't be a prerec for this for this motion. Um but is that one of the challenges to which you were referring? Yeah. Um because even if I were to run um a check register report for example like you were talking about earlier um to show amounts over a certain or checks issued over a certain amount. you're still going to have that same issue that we have with the warrants because you won't you're going to see individual check amounts, not an entire contract amount. Thank you. Yeah,

I think an effort to get a dashboard is going to result in a much longer conversation and is may result in an investment in some software and then a person who knows how to colle uh to collate the data and report it in a user-friendly way. I think while the concept of this transparency is important and a good thing to pursue, I would not want to delay approving this policy while we wait for that to happen because it will develop into an 18-monthlong project. I guarantee.

No, no, absolutely. And on that and I agree with you wholeheartedly in order to do it right, I I would foresee the same thing. Um I'm not sure that it require I mean again we've talked about dashboards off and on for the last three years that I've been here as well in use for all kinds of things and so I think there will come a point that hopefully we'll have more of that kind of ability within the website. I don't know that this requires that. I mean it could just be as simple as I don't know if it's a page with basically a Excel chart on it you know that kind of lists like contract date you know here's the contract with whom yada yada basic stuff so again from an overall standpoint I mean this is how I'm thinking about it but again I want to leave it to the staff to kind of work through but no I agree with you and I'm sorry that I forgot about the relationship with with the Amtrak because you're right so Um, so with that being said, no, I I don't want to hold this up for that so that we can have that Amtrak discussion. I just wanted in thinking about it, I didn't want to force a change and then say, "Okay, well, here you go. We're going to force you into this versus allowing you the chance to think it through." So,

sounds like a great topic for your next retreat. Yeah. I mean, I think just to that point, you said bringing us back in two weeks. I mean, yeah, it's that's probably not realistic. I am I will entertain a friendly motion or to that motion. I was just trying to get us to the point of like yeah, understanding the concept. So, I'm I mean that's flexible, I think. Um

I didn't go to the folks online to see if anybody had comments online before I kind of wrap it up with us. I'm not seeing any hands though. Um, so is it safe to assume that folks are okay with the language in the purchasing policy there? Is there any changes that anybody asks? Brian, uh, I assume we're going to have the DI portion of this that discussion under the Amtrak item.

Yeah. So the the purching the purchasing policy that you have in front of you in this packet um we think is going to satisfy the Amtrak grant conditions as worded what you've got in front of you for the purchasing policy. There are other policies we will talk about when we get into the Amtrak grant conversation but uh we think how we have worded the purchasing policy we will be okay. Okay. I'll hold my questions on on that part until they enter discussions.

Okay. Um so everyone's good with the language in the purchasing policy. There's a question online. Oh okay. Raj. Yeah, just a quick question I hope. Um, thank you. Um, can you describe briefly what's changed with that language to satisfy the federal government or I don't know if the DEI sections that you're talking about are in the purchasing policy or if they span this policy and later, but it'd be I'd be curious to hear articulated what we had to change to get this money if that makes any sense.

The Amtrak discuss. Yeah, I think the DEI stuff is is the conver the next uh topic of conversation. It's not the purchasing policy, but Regina can certainly correct me. Yeah. But so I can answer that real real quick to try to not get too far into the next conversation, but essentially um the page 15 in the full council packet um uh includes the section of the purchase purchasing policy that starts getting into the um federal codes that we have to meet when we use federal funds and a lot of that information is in federal law. Um when we jump over into the Amtrak conversation, we're going to start talking a little bit about executive order versus federal code. Um so basically what we have done is we've tried to make the purchasing policy as flexible and allincclusive as possible. And the statement at the top of that says these are the uh codes and general standards that we have to adhere to unless otherwise specified in the grant agreement. So hopefully that helps. Um there are probably changes in federal code between our current purchasing policy and what is on the table right now just because um that was done in 2018. And a lot of these things change along the way. So we've got this as updated as possible and it basically includes everything that could come into play. So we are not we have not excluded any language in the purchasing policy if that I think helps

answer your question Raj. Thank you. Okay. So going to come back again. Is there any changes to the wording in the purchasing policy? Forget about the numbers for a second. Okay. Deal with one thing at a time here. No, no. Numbers-wise, I've heard incidental seems to be okay. I don't want to put words in anybody's mouth, but I didn't hear any changes to incidental.

Um, so minor seems to be where we're kind of wondering where we could go with that. And I heard changing it to 50. So, decreasing it from 75. So, Regina would have authority from 15 to 50. without council approval. Is there anybody that would be in favor? Does everyone seem to think I mean, you know, I I appreciate the what we're trying to accomplish with that this change over over the years. I found that staff has come to us to make changes to policies with very thoughtful reasoning behind why they've arrived at the new changes that they're asking us to approve.

Yep. I do not have a problem with $75,000. Okay. Go ahead. I was just going to rebut that that the the reasoning for this one seems to be somewhere between 50 and 150. So, I picked something in the middle. Yeah. And our current policy is been at 40. It's at 40. It lives at 40. It has lived at 40. They're used to working at 40. But I want to acknowledge that it might be a slightly different environment than what has existed at 40. Otherwise, I would be completely in favor of leaving it at 40. What number was from 2018? I'm sorry.

40 numbers from 2018 at least. I don't know if it existed even prior to 2018. It's pretty old.

Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I I think the other thing I would just say to this is that um I don't think there's a lot of contracts that you're signing that are that are not coming in front of us at any level. I I mean, I think it's um it to me the 40 to 75 is kind of arbitrary. It's going it's probably going to be something that is an open approach contract or whatnot that is going to land in front of us anyways. Um, so and I and keeping in mind that we we do have the discussion the future discussion about is there a way to add some transparency to that in addition to what we already have, right?

Um, so I mean I would be okay with leaving it as presented. Um, but

okay I I think as a practical matter I I would agree with the comments that have been made. I I think gutturally my my first instinct was thinking about all the discussions we've had where we make this rough assumption around 100,000 is about 1% of our of our general fund. Um and it's like okay so we're giving authority over three threequarters of a percent you know it's like okay I so kind of checking my gut on that I think is a practical matter. I think I'm okay with um this number being moved. So, I'm okay. Can I get somebody to do the motion?

I'll move that the city council approve the purchasing policy as presented. I will second. We want a friendly amendment to add the Oh, yes. piece about the transparency just with a different date. Do we need it? Do we need it or do you guys need it? I don't think we need it. Okay. I think we can ask that separately, can we? Okay. Sorry. Okay. Sorry. Second. All right. All in favor? I I All right. That passes. Okay. Thank you.

You're welcome. All right. D. Discussion and consideration of the multimodal train and bus station improvements. I'm not reading all of that. Okay. Um so you folks have seen this project all overall quite a few times. Um we are essentially at the stage of obligation. Um we already went through the process of doing some pre-authorization work. We've been um working on the design of the project in order to achieve this level of obligation from the federal government. Um, so with this stage of the process, um, there's some information in the memo from Chris to kind of just keep you up to date on all of those project pieces. Um, really the only thing, um, of concern um, from my end is really just being very clear with everybody about what the grant conditions are, um, from this. And so this is page 21 in the packet. Um I have included condition 20.1 um from the grant agreement itself. It is about a 100page grant agreement. Um and so essentially this refers to executive order 14173. um and it's really applicable to um DEI initiatives and uh anti-discrimination laws. Um so really what this condition is um asking us to say is that we um are uh provide equal opportunity as the

federal law allows. Um it takes issue with uh DEI init initiatives diversity, equity and inclusion um uh because there is an assumption under the current current federal administration uh that that those practices are not equal opportunity. Um so we have had many conversations with VLCT about this. Um, NVLCT has been talking to many folks about this because there's a lot and this these things look differently depending on the federal grants that are coming down. Um the city attorney has looked at this. Um and really there is um some statements in our existing policies that could potentially raise a flag of concern under this grant condition. um FRA, the Federal Railroad Administration, who this grant is coming from, um are have essentially said a number of these different things are under litigation, so they can't necessarily give us very clear guidance on exactly what it is that we need to do. Um they also uh were clear to say that as of right now there is nobody that they're aware of um checking to ensure that this uh grant condition is being met. Um and in the grand scheme of things in federal railroad administration projects this one is probably fairly small. Um

that said, uh we have to sign this grant agreement. Um and I think at the end of the day, once we've kind of looked at all these documents and what could potentially be flagged by either federal audit or a um interested citizen who wants to um make sure that we're following everything correctly. Uh we've identified in here all of the sections of our policies and um procedure documents that could be at issue. Um, my recommendation after spending quite a bit of time thinking about all of this, um, is, uh, I would say a, um, minor adjustment to, um, our personnel regulations. Um, currently our P personnel regulations has a equal opportunity statement in it that you can find that on page 22 of the packet bottom of this memo um on page three. That statement is really the overarching policy in our purchasing policy about equal opportunity. And there is nothing wrong with that statement in light of this new executive order. The questionable statement is in the mission, value, and goal statement section. Um that uh clearly highlights diversity, equity, and inclusion. Um the recommended change is really um an art of words smithing. I don't think uh

we are going to change our practice at the end of the day in terms of what we are actually doing certainly not in terms of what we do in terms of advertising for jobs or uh filling jobs. And um so my recommendation at the end of the day is we make that one change. The other thing I do want to be clear about that change is the organizational values mission goal statements. I might be there's three phrases. I might be getting them wrong in order but um they are also quite old. Um, uh, staff can't remember exactly when those were put together, but we are right now working with, uh, Tabitha Moore on a whole staffwide effort to redo mission, value, and goal statements. Um, so I anticipate we will be having much more conversation on that whole section of the policy and really have an opportunity to get that to be what we what we want it to be. Um so yeah then the other sections in here um that I would recommend changing and this is not a decision for the council to make. We would make these changes internally um are the statement that we include on our job descriptions and the statement that we include on our um job advertisements. Um, and essentially we would refer back to the full equal opportunity statement that we do have in our personnel policy that we don't have to change. I hope that

is making some sense. I know this is um tough

and um uncomfortable and tough because I don't want to be saying to anybody that I don't want to be doing diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts. That's not our that's not our hope. Um and I think in practice at the end of the day that is a value we are going to but uh we are also and I could say 100% in agreement that we are here to serve every member of this community period and that is what we do that is what we do in practice and even with these changes that is what we will Thank you. Questions, Brian. It seems like from reading reading the packet that you are recommending making these changes despite them conflicting with our values. Um because because the risk the risk of of the risk of uh not doing it is too high. Is that a meaning we would lose $3 million. Is that fair characterization?

Um I think that um it's not just this $3 million. I think we are one year into a four-year federal administration. Um and uh we are talking about potentially not using federal funds at all for the next three years. That I think is could be tricky.

Okay. And did did and did I say that did I hear you say that we were going to have a more uh lengthy and formal process about how to update these policies and procedures um you know in you know uh soon as opposed to you know um here's the thing I really do not like this look um this is Columbia University folding right and that's what that's what we're we're talking about doing. Um, so I'm trying to get my head around can we um, you know, can we do this and and also you also um is my my understanding and I think you mentioned this that that there's litigation ongoing about whether the EO is legal at all. So u I would be super disappointed if we made a change um to you know which that is contrary to our to our values um you know for no reason. Right. So, if that if those if those lawsuits succeed. So, um I guess what I'm saying is yeah, I'm I'm trying to get my head around whether it's we're I mean I how likely it is that um we're that we're going to get caught and how likely it is that we're going to lose um and multiply that times $3 million. So, you're right to point out that it's more than this this one grant. Um but yeah, I don't I don't like I don't like the look that we're that we're proposing. Um congratulating.

Thanks, Marcus. um totally understand emotionally that it definitely feels that way. Uh I I think the characterization with Colombia is a little a little extreme in comparison. But that being said, you know, trying to wrap my head because I did have a resident talk to me today about this very specifically. Um, and I guess it it comes down to this question to help try to understand is if we were to say no to this for whatever reason and this so this project does not move forward, what is the impact to our community?

So I can say without a doubt this project does not move forward without this $3 million. We are not going to be able to come up with that elsewhere. Um, and you know, the the benefit and the hope of this project is that it it helps raise the um look and feel of the downtown and a pretty critical um section of the downtown and um a facility that um serves a lot of folks uh coming in and out of the city on the bus, on Amtrak um And you know, I I've been clear before that this $3 million is going to basically get us a steel frame, which is very frustrating that that's all it's going to do. Um, but it is going to get the station in a better looking place than before. And in, you know, in theory, the more uplifting we do in our downtown here, the more valuable and appreciated everybody will feel of the community as a whole.

That's the idea. I think it's pretty important. Um, yeah. Yeah. I I again I mean I took it as word smithing really like that to me is is how it resonated is how I read it.

It doesn't again change any of our practices. It it brings so I yeah I mean it's it's really horrible to think this is but um you know it uh is the cards we're dealt at the moment. Again, it doesn't it doesn't change who we are or what we do or how we do it on the dayto-day or the values that we bring to the table every day or that the city institutes and yeah

yeah the edits that are being proposed do not change the fact that in spite of the fact that diversity diversity, equity, and inclusion are now bad words doesn't mean that we're not going to continue to practice diversity, equity, and inclusion. And I think that the potential for um revising this language again at a future time exists. And I will also just add a historical context that I mean this project has been

Yeah. I mean, I I was I think it was one of the very first things that I learned about when I became a village trustee 12 years ago. Mhm. So, um, and just a reminder that, you know, the funding that we got for this that that 3.7 or at least three of it

came from Senator Lehey himself and he went out of his way to find to get it for us. And it is part of the vision of having the being the first terminus after a train comes from Canada once they reestablish the Vermonter and the Montrealer, not the Vermontter, the Montrealer and we would be the first stop after they open up their new supposedly under construction customs office that would allow us. But at any rate, this was part of a much larger plan and um we really multiple boards and multiple employees here at this at the city have gone through so much to make sure that this project happens and I wouldn't want this small piece to be a hitch of it. Mhm.

So, yeah, I'm willing to make these I'm willing to make this small concession on language that could be changed again later uh in order to make that project happen. Well, that that that I think is an interesting point why I asked about the review that's already forthcoming, Regina, the what what do you estimate the time frame for that process will be? So, specifically what we're updating is the mission and goal statements. It currently lives in the personnel regulations. Um, uh, it's going to be until the fall, I would gather. I would guess until we have a

And and when would the US government cut us a check? We have to sign this on the assumption that we sign it today. Um I don't know how I'm not sure how often the reimbursement is happening but from my perspective the commitment and the assurance that we are doing this correct is at the point of signing the grant. Okay. Thank you. Open it up to public comment. I can say something. Just Yeah, go ahead.

I'm sorry you find yourselves in this situation. I commend Brian on his statement. Uh my worry is is that you change things, you obtain the money, we're challenged, they they try to draw it back, which we know has happened. And then where do we find yourselves? So, like I said, I'm sorry I find you guys in this situation. It's an unfortunate time in our country. Um, but I'll leave it at that. So, thank you.

Well, if if in the unfortunate event that this is challenged in some way, our attorney general is that's her job is to help defend us on stuff like this. So we would have substantial resources to fight this off and but it seems unlikely. I think that the the hope is is that's why we're doing this is to avoid the potential of even but you're compromising your values is what you're saying. Yeah. In words words in words. Exactly. Mark Mark has a comment. Yeah. This is this is a question for the for the manager. Um, Regina, this would affect all federal grants if I'm understanding correctly.

So, um, we know that this particular federal grant has this particular contract clause in it.

Um, we have reviewed our policies based on that particular clause. um depending on the variety of different federal grants, some of the agencies are using are rolling this out in different kinds of ways reflecting on different kinds of executive orders. Um, so but I think the majority of the thought process is all typically the same. And I think the way that we're looking at this right now should be fine for all other federal grants, but we'd have to look at each of them as they come. And the reason I ask is we have the Cascade project rolling out soon, and that's the LWCF, which is fally funded. Yeah, that was my Yeah.

Yep. That's a half a million dollar grant, right? What's that? That's a half a million dollars. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. And without without the grant, it wouldn't be possible, right? Yeah. Right. Yeah. Yeah. Uh any other questions, comments online before I bring it back to us? All right. Brian, did you want to add something before I Yeah.

Yeah. I just did want to say um um in uh Rob Bank attention news. I I George's uh comments were appreciated. Thank you. Um certainly by me at least shouldn't speak for everyone else. Um the only question I have for the council is um have you noticed that um when um the administration asks uh people to back down that they stopped? Thanks.

Read the motion. I have it. I move that the city council approve the amendments to the personnel regulations identified herein and authorize the city manager to execute the federal railroad administration grant agreement for the Essex Junction multimmoal train and bus station improvements project. You need a second. I'll second. All in favor? I I Any nays? Nay. Okay. I I didn't vote and I I'm sorry. Okay. I didn't No, I I'm I'll be honest. I'm struggling with this

because I honestly I want to stand in No, I I get the point on the Amtrak station, but at the same time, I'm less worried about Amtrak than I am some of the other projects that will come like Cascade and things of that nature. And I don't know what those impacts look like. And I do appreciate the verbiage that's on here. Um, and believe me, I trust you and the staff to treat this with the with the care that we expect. Um,

you can do it. I'm going to vote n. Okay. All right. All right. So it's 32. Motion passes. Thank you everybody. All right. Discussion topic E which is 2026 council retreat. Okay. Uh much more fun topic. Yes. Um okay. So uh we are beginning to think about and plan um the retreat second annual retreat. Yes.

Um and uh just want this is just an initial conversation about thoughts, ideas, things that um you might want to see happen in the retreat. Ashley is on with us and um I'll let her take it because I'm just rambling and not saying anything helpful.

You were doing great. Um as Regina said, this will be our second year for the retreat. You do guys have the agenda that we did last year. As if you guys will remember, we did a um half part of the retreat with just the city council where you guys could discuss um some topics that you guys were really pressing and then the second half of the day was with the department heads where we focused on the priorities uh for FY27. We plan on doing something similar this year um and having it facilitated again like we did last year. Um, so tonight we're really just trying to get some initial feedback from the council to see if there's anything uh that you guys would like to specifically include in the agenda. What went well, what didn't go well, or anything that we need to address before we finalize the um agenda. We will be working with our facilitator to put the agenda together again um over the next couple weeks so that we can get that uh finalized. But that's what the discussion is for tonight. I think it's going to be hard to top last year's retreat and public works facility came out of that

and meet me on Main. Yeah. And Me on Main. I remember throwing out that wild crazy idea about shutting down Main Street. Look how great that was. Awesome. Uh well, that was part of the second portion which was the prioritization piece. And so I think we would that that piece stays. Yeah. It's just not going to have public works on it, right? I mean, you probably come up with something, but I'm going to put a plug in for retreat 2027 or 2028 at the public works. Yeah. I think that makes sense.

Uh, you know, Ashley, I speaking for myself, I had a great time last year. I do really wish I remembered the one thing I wanted to change because it involved where staff was and where we were. And I don't I can't put my fingers on it. So I've you done jog memory. Yeah. And it worked pretty well last year honestly there. And if it was important to me I would have written it down or put a note somewhere or and or remembered it because you know I had all my retreat notes in my budget binder from last year and I looked through that this morning this afternoon before I left and I well so it's year two. It's exciting. Yeah.

Yeah it is. Brian, when do you need a final answer on that, Ashley? I'd like to have some discussions with especially some of the new members before I answer you. Um, go ahead, Regina.

So, in terms of the date, uh, we are landing on Wednesday, June 3rd. Both the new council members are able to make that day. Um, so this is just a very initial conversation about thoughts and ideas of what folks might want to see. because we are going to have this facilitated, we um will take the thoughts and we will work with the facilitator and come up with a more specific agenda and we can bring that folk back to you folks and that will likely be more like the one of the two May meetings when the two new council members are in place to really kind of finalize things if that makes sense.

Sure. I I to be clear I wasn't asking about the date for the meeting. I was asking about the contents of the agenda. Yeah. So I think what I what I heard you say is May the middle May I would have to give give yall my my ideas by then. Yeah. Thank you. Yeah.

Um we've had a significant amount of conversation about revenue. I would like to see some focus on that. Um I don't I think it needs to be in the prioritization section. Um it's going to encompass not only prioritizing but also concepts of what are we thinking like what what avenues can we tap that we haven't tapped that that general um piece. I also don't think that the the council continues to stay focused on public engagement and um so any conversation about what that means from the council's perspective even down to the nitty-gritty about you know what events uh meeting people where they're at. um do we want to make sure that we are at um you know discussions about front porch forum like all of those what are we doing to continue to keep the public engaged um and so that would be obviously our portion of the of the morning

um so those are the two things that I that I have off the top of my head Marcus

I know I won't be sitting at this table and this side for that particular discussion but I did yesterday have a discussion with Regina about this um because it's something I wanted to do but um I I'll be there sitting as member of the public um and hope that what the uh council with the administration talk about is kind of listing out and as I described it to Regina yesterday, what are the amenities that we provide as a city to our to our constituents? And I say that from this standpoint. Put all the things that we do to to provide for the public statutoily aside. That is not part of this discussion. And again, I'll throw this out. It's just an example. Plowing sidewalks, right? That particular effort has a particular value. And I think if we kind of lay out that list of what those things look like because I think a conversation about revenue needs to happen. But if nothing else, it would really help inform the public a little bit as well as again informing the council even more so on what those efforts are and what the value of that is. During the strategic planning, loud and clear, we want to keep our services in the city. That's what we heard and I I think to a certain extent that's still true. But we also continue to hear the argument around affordability and it's not gotten any better and it's not it's not you know so much 99 8 or 9% is not in our control. Um, but that being said, maybe it's just an exercise to take to take a look at those

things and then have a moment of evaluation or at least the start of a conversation into because I think if if that kind of exercise waits until the budget, it'll be too late. I think you have to start that kind of dialogue early so that if you are to consider tweaks depending on how the budget comes out for FY28. Then at least you'll have some real clarity around those services and the value of those services so that informed decisions can be made about what you may or may not sacrifice in order to make those budgets work. because you know while we got caught up on storm water this year um a bit I don't know what the economy is going to look like in a year we did not go into this budget cycle with an adjustment for the gas prices right so these things are going to impact our ability in the upcoming fiscal anyway so what is that going to look like in the next I don't know but I think that kind of discussion at the retreat would the start of that discussion really be helpful in that dialogue Anyone?

Yeah, I'll just add one thing. Um, you mentioned Amber returning the focus to meeting residents where they are.

And I think that includes when you have residents interested in forming a committee. That's a group of residents showing you where they are. And so, um, I'm particularly interested, always have been, always will be, in economic development and a downtown organization, like anything we can do to support our business community and improve it. Um, and there are citizens out there anxiously awaiting the ability to do something about it. So um balancing that with the conversation we have frequently had about the capacity of the staff and the budget to handle the citizen energy that is coming. Um that is the easiest way for all of us all of you to meet the community where they are is if they're organizing to accomplish something there they are right there. Mhm.

So, I would um just really encourage you to follow that energy and embrace it and do what you can to let it keep building and to be willing to entrust and empower citizen groups to do some work on behalf of the city that they love. They wouldn't be forming groups if they didn't believe in where they lived. So, um, I really think that's a a direction you should look and encourage. Thank you. Anything else? Do we continued? Regina, did you have anything?

I want I want to ask only because you you and the department heads were equally a part of it this day. Yeah, I mean I think that we will definitely think through the prioritization piece and what that looks like. Um other thoughts on my mind are that we didn't um we didn't really talk about the budget much in the retreat itself. You know, we actually had that conversation in terms of like what's the goal parameter that we were trying to heat hit separate from that. Um, and I don't want to get take that conversation too down into the weeds. So, I don't know, can still think about whether that makes sense. Um, but I think overall kind of bigger picture resourcing and if there are other things that we want to do, trying to figure out from the prioritization perspective how how we get there and what we do. Um the prioritization piece is a little bit tough because we're working with a list of little teeny tiny things in the weeds and ginormous concepts and so it's a little bit of a difficult list to actually prioritize. So uh Ashley and I are kind of thinking through that. Um the other thing that occurred to me today is that we will have two new council members of a board of five. So, we may want to do something that's just um team building of some of some kind for the council itself. Um potentially.

Yeah, spruce up this space a little. Great idea. So, yeah. Cool. Look forward to it. Okay. Anything else that would be helpful, Ashley? Nope. I think that'll get us taken care of to start working with the facilitator and get this moving forward and we will have um some more information for you guys at a later meeting. Awesome. Thank you. Thanks. Thank you.

All right, we are going to move on to what is now F, which is the recreation software contract. Mark, you can come up and join us. Not sure who wants to. I mean, we we obviously have the memo in the packet. I don't know. Yep. You've got the memo. Um, so Mark can kind of just run through that for you and then we have had a couple of questions and so we can uh take those too.

Yeah, I have some talking points if you don't mind me run through them and then if we have questions at the end, happy happy to answer them. Um, so first, thanks for the opportunity. I know there were a lot of questions after we put the the memo in the packet and I got pulled to an agenda item which is great. I think transparency on this is important and I'm happy to be here to answer the answer any questions. Um first thing I do want to start just by noting is this is not a new challenge. Uh this is something that has been um we've been struggling with since the uh program launched and and that was uh late August of 2025. Um while the system works for basic registration has not met organizational expectations especially with financial reporting, child care payments, tracking and um modules like facility rentals, memberships and ticketing. Uh staff has worked hard to make um to make this functional including uh weekly meetings with um with the company and they just been coming up with uh manual workarounds basically from from those meetings. Um just to give you a sense of impact, we're spending around 10 hours per week, sometimes more, um on tasks that should be fully automated. Um we've maintained accuracy through internal controls, but it's not efficient or sustainable. Um I also want to note that we have not pursued recovering costs from this vendor. Um our focus has been working with them and trying to move forward. Um through that process, it's become very clear um and the provider has acknowledged that this system cannot meet our daily expectations. Um our current contract was set to end on May 1st. Um and the vendor has agreed to extend that service through the end of August to allow for a smooth transition. Um from a cost standpoint, um the

proposed system that we're looking at is $50,000 annually. Um, our goal is to cover that through a 1% fee to the users. Um, if there's a remaining balance, that would come from the program fund. Also, there's a $15,000 uh startup and training fee, and that would also come from the program fund. Uh, just to add context to that, um, the current system um currently charges a 1.5% fee that's passed on to the users. um they had proposed as of May 1st to go to a straight $40,000 annual fee. Uh it was unclear to us if that 1.5 was going to be added to the 40,000 or not. Um but we are based on all the information that I just provided you, we are set to move on to a new company. Um the recommendation in front of you is based on experience over the past several months and the need for a system that better supports operations um for us to serve our community moving forward. Happy to answer any questions.

So Mark um George who's sitting behind you had a number of questions before you got here but one question um I just want to be clear. So there is no impact to the general fund. This is the anticipation is this is all coming out of the program fund program fund are passed on to the users. Okay. Yes. Um, so George's questions were really who's the current provider? Yep. Uh, so the current provider is is Kaizen. Um, was there a bidding process for that particular contract? Um, the current con the current provider. We've we've vetted we vetted several

different um companies out there, but with our we're unique where we have a complex childare program and recreation programs. There are not there is not good software that does both. Um so we the the one that we are recommending rec Technologies um we have talked to several other rec departments um that have they're similar to us that have um child care programs provide subsidy uh do payment plans um and they give it thumbs up. What did I miss George?

Well I'm just I'm not sure you're meeting your policy objectives on competitive bidding. So, I guess I would I'll be I'll get a hold of Jess or somebody to get copies of what's occurred to figure out what the uh what we've done to look at all our options and what cost options. So, we can go from there. Did I miss any of your questions though on or do you think you got it? Did he get them all? Um, I guess the only one question was how much did it cost us this year in 26 for our current for our current um

for the current contract? Yeah. Yeah. Um Yeah. And so right now we're um we're coming up up in that contract and it it is close to about $30,000 again out of program fund or general fund. Uh that was passed on to the users. Okay. Passed to users. All right. Because the man had mentioned something about general fund. That's why I asked that question. No. No. We are not we are not looking for this to affect the general fund at all. Okay. Thank you for the clarification, Brian.

Yeah, Mark, did I and I did I basically understand you saying that you've determined you're going to go you're going to ride out this summer with this vendor and you're going to look for another one for next summer? It's it's about so it's about a four to six month process to on board a new a new system. Um so we are planning to go live with a new with a new system September 1. So we will get through with this system through the end of August and then September oneish launch a new system. Fair enough. So I think I I think the questions that I sent to you before the meeting then are are therefore moot, right? Because these are questions about how to deal with this vendor and how to work with their system and and that doesn't matter because we're rolling we're starting a new one.

Yeah. And we've we've tried workarounds. We've met with them on like I said every week we're on the phone and meeting and it's difficult. Thank you. Yep. Relationship is over. Mark, just for clarity because I think maybe I got confused in reading some of these letters. So did this new vendor go through an RFP process? Uh we we did not we did not do an RFP process with this. So, prior we had problems with this one vendor. We're moving on to a new vendor, but we didn't go through a bidding or an RFP or

we met we met with we met and interviewed several companies prior to prior to this one with the rec department for the current one that we're talking about. Not I'm not Yeah, I'm not talking about the one right now. Okay. Yes, we inter We interviewed and went through several interview processes. Okay. Okay. Lane, any questions? Yeah, I'll just make a comment and a question. Um, it does say in the memo that this this particular vendor that you're looking at now seems to satisfy the requirements best. So, you're taking a sole source proc approach then. So, you Yes. Okay.

Yep. So I when you were making the choice for the previous vendor that you're departing from like what was what what got us excited about them? Yeah. And then and then at what point how early on in the relationship did you realize like this is not going to work. It's not satisfying our needs and how come they didn't how come they weren't satisfying the needs that you surely made clear.

Sure. Um, so when we met with them, one thing that got us excited was they were um, and there's other I'm hearing that there's other people that signed on about the time that we did that felt the same way that it was exciting. They were going to kind of make this unique to us and work with us to meet meet our needs. So if we need special reports, if we want to do facility rentals, they can do this for us. And

sound sounded great. and you know they were showing us and um they were not able to meet those expectations. Um and pretty much close to day one um we've had those issues and there is certain points different aspects were supposed to be launched at different times. So we got the registration and childcare up and running. Um and then the next launch was supposed to be uh ticketing for the Halloween event. um that didn't work out the way it was supposed to. So, we had to do a workaround for that and we still ran Halloween successfully and uh you know, everybody got through. We collected it wasn't a to the public. It wasn't a problem,

right? And and this um the software we're using now, great feedback from the public. It's it's a great user face. It's mobile friendly, but on our end, in the back end, it's um people wouldn't know. So, how are you going to prevent that with this vendor?

Yeah. So, we've we've talked to we've talked to several other communities that that use them that have a similar size as us and run childare and programs. Childcare is a tricky one because the subsidy and payment plans um and they they all spoke very highly. We've seen um we've seen copy um examples and copies of their reports. Um we feel pretty confident and uh the girls in the office, Caitlyn and Alyssa who do a lot of that. Um they're very excited by what they're seeing and what they're hearing. And do you think that this experience will require you to make changes to the way you approach future software acquisitions or I mean

Well, I'm hoping I'm hoping we don't have to do it again. I'm hoping this this is good. Um, and so far they've been um any questions that we've had any you know I understand the sales part of things and um but it's it's been pretty it's been pretty um pretty good so far. Thank you. And they and they're also going to come to us for the onboarding. So the training they're actually going to come and do inerson training. Nice.

Okay. Um you mentioned earlier the fact that you're not going after the the first provider for any compensation or anything. Um is that because of the fact that you've got an agreement on this extension because it sounds like when you talk about expectations I I in having done some of these myself uh these kinds of contracts usually those expectations are usually contractual in some form. Yeah. And so it feels like if you had that expectation, that's something that we could go back to and say, "Hey, you didn't meet this. Therefore, we need to talk about some Yeah. some compensation of some."

Yeah. And we have the contract for this extension and the contract for um the new provider um that's currently being looked at by the um by the city attorney. Okay. Um as well. All right. Appreciate that. Any Brian? Follow up. One quick question. I mean, it sounds like my question is also moot because you've already made the decision. Um, but but I'm actually having flashbacks to having worked on a child care um subsidy subsidy reimbursement for New Jersey in my software days. Um, uh, have you have you thought about buying buying one set of one system for child care and one for parks and recck operations?

We have. We went we looked at that process um and thought about it but it for us it makes sense to have one system that can do everything. People are signing up for child care then they're signing up for baseball and other things. So for us having one compatible system makes the most sense. Thank you. Yep. As a former user, I would agree with that approach. A little less confusing one-stop shopping. And you and you have a lot of people that sign up, a lot of families that sign up for multiple programs for multiple kids. Oh, yeah. Pool passes and Exactly. Yeah. Yep.

All right. I'm going to open it up to public comment. Uh George, do you have anything else or I just guess one comment because I raised this question last year about another contract. Sorry, I made the comment, but I hope we never have to do this again. I think that's something that we should have in our purchasing policy, at least something that dictates some routine review of our contracts and how long we can keep them so we're not using the same person 20 years without ever looking at.

Any comments online? Not seeing any. Um, anybody want to take the motion? I move that the city council authorized the city manager to enter into an agreement with Wreck Technologies for recreation management software services, including a one-time cost of $15,000 and an annual fee of $50,000 effective September 1, 2026. Second. All in favor? I All right. No, that was unanimous. Can I just ask one more question? Was there the group that were going to Were they in play last time last year?

Uh, they were not. Okay, good question. Thank you, Mark. Appreciate it. Thanks, Mark. All right, so the next topic is an executive session. So, we'll move on to the consent agenda. I'll move we approve the consent agenda. I'll second. All in favor? I I It's unanimous. Council member comments and city manager report. Regina.

Um just a thank you to everybody who worked at the polls yesterday and thanks to all of the voters for coming out. Um it's um appreciate the support on um the budget and the public works facility and many of the articles on the ballot. Sorry, Amber. It was it was the it was the the the president's salary was basically the only one that went down. Oh,

it is it is okay. It is okay. I am just glad to see that the budget passed and that the public works bond passed. That is by far the most important things and I appreciate everyone that came out and did what Regina said. Can I make a quick comment? So on the postmark article, I talked to so many people who did not understand what we were asking. Even though we sent out the newsletter, the newsletter was clear, the article was completely not clear. And and and when the newsletter came out, the article language wasn't in the newsletter.

So I had like a 45minute conversation like, "So if I vote yes, what does that mean?" like like it was just opposite of whatever you right and so constant comments about couldn't we just have regular language on the ballot which I know there's we have to word the articles in a way that makes the positive vote be the outcome whatever however that works but we have to do a better job like could we do a chart that says if you vote yes

this is what happens if you vote no this is what will happen like that simple like bring it down to a second grade uh level so that everybody possibly who needs help with it can understand it. Well, even sitting in this seat, I remember reading it three or four times before making my decision to make sure I read it right. Right. What am I voting along the lines of I know what this is about, but this verbiage sounds a little different than I recall. Yeah. And people, I think, approach ballot articles with like consequences. What am I? What happens if I vote yes? What happens if I vote no? It's not so much the how we're going to get there in the language. It's like just what happens if we do this.

Yeah. So, I would I if we could somehow and that's the every year this comes up. So, I don't think this is the last time we're going to see that particular ballot item. That's my that's my thoughts, but maybe in a different iteration. Well, cuz maybe people thought that if they voted yes, we were going to keep the postmark, right? Exactly. Yeah. Yeah. That's why it passed so well. 100%. Yeah. Because when we did it in the community, we did it in the Maple Maple Maple Street. It was 75% No. Yeah. So, I just think the language was awkward.

I think that's a valid valid point for sure.

Uh yeah. So, I I will just acknowledge and say I'm personally disappointed because I do love sitting at this table with all of you and would love to have done it for three more years. Um, but I'm also proud of the democracy we have and the way that this process works, giving residents the ability to determine the type of representation they want. They expressed that yesterday and I couldn't be happier and prouder that this community continues to lead that. Um, and let me just acknowledge I couldn't be more jazzed about having Bethany join this particular body, to have that different point of view, to have that other insight that will that other experience that will be brought to this particular table. Um, I'm pumped by it and I as and I appreciate all the comments from everybody around this table and I appreciate the comments from supporters. Um, look, the universe is going to be fine. This is all going to be fine. Uh I know that you all have SX Junctions uh best interests at heart and you're working your damnest to make this just the best damn place and I still believe that it is. That's why I'm not going anywhere. I will be uh trying to compete with RAC's uh attendance records best I can. Um, and you know, I look forward to continuing to be around here in these conversations. And hey, who knows? You might see me in another race.

I guarantee you will. It'll be good. It'll be good. So, thank you all. Anybody else? All right. Um, somebody want to read the motion for the executive session? Oh, yeah. Yeah. I know. I was going to say a motion to adjurnn, but sorry. Uh, I move that the city council make the specific finding that premature disclosure of the confidential attorney client communications regarding a probable litigation would place the city at a substantial disadvantage. I'll second. Thank you. Sorry, squirrel. Uh, all in favor? I. All right. It's unanimous. We are. Yeah. You want me to get motion?

Second. Sorry, I closed my thing. So, yeah. I'll also move the city council enter into executive session to discuss confidential attorney client communications regarding probable litigation pursuant to one VSA 313A1E and 1 VSA 313A1F to include the city council and city manager. I'll second. All in favor? I I Okay, we will not be coming back out of executive session.