[0:00] call to order the city council transportation energy and utilities

[0:04] committee at 5:32 and um I would entertain a motion to

[0:14] amend and then adopt our

[0:19] what has been discussed is moving items um 4.3

[0:24] to the top u or right after right after public

[0:29] I would >> second a second. Uh is there any other

[0:35] discussion on the uh adoption of the agenda as amended? Seeing none, all

[0:41] those in favor indicate by saying I I >> I.

[0:45] » Any opposed? I guess not. That's unanimous. Um and so we have that. Next

[0:51] is adopting of our minutes from our July 28th meeting. Can be a motion on that. I

[0:58] would move to adopt the minutes. >> Second.

[1:03] » Any discussion? See none. All in favor adoption of his

[1:07] minutes by saying I >> I

[1:09] » I >> I

[1:11] » and that's also unanimous. Um noting that council for the public council

[1:16] Bergman is not with us tonight. So it's just a

[1:21] um and then um next thing would be a public forum. Um and I don't anybody has

[1:28] We do have two signed up. Is there anybody else here that wants to hasn't

[1:32] signed up that wants to sign up for a public forum?

[1:36] Okay. Um is and if anybody online once we handle the in-person uh uh forum

[1:43] participants will move to online and you if you want to participate indicate by

[1:48] using the raise hand function on Zoom. >> So the first uh person is uh is it

[1:55] Caris? Caris. Okay. And Simone. Okay. Simone the first.

[2:11] So, thanks everybody for having here. My name is Cara Simone. I live at 29

[2:16] Chitten Drive. And I want to begin by thanking DPW for the work that has gone

[2:20] into um the memo we provided um as part of the meeting agenda. I think that the

[2:26] phased approach represents progress and I was encouraged to see Chitman Drive

[2:30] included in phase one. Um I also appreciate the recognition that

[2:34] Leverland historical research needs to be part of this process and that the

[2:37] existing city services will continue while the review is underway. I do

[2:42] continue however to have some questions about the proposed timeline and about

[2:46] how much investigation needs to occur before the council begins making policy

[2:50] decisions. I think it's important to remember how we got here. Residents did

[2:56] not come to the city asking for our streets to be accepted so that they

[2:59] could immediately be reconstructed or upgraded to current standards. The issue

[3:03] arose because residents of streets that the city has maintained for decades were

[3:07] told that the city might discontinue services such as snow plowing because

[3:12] those uh streets were considered unaccepted or private.

[3:16] The current memo provides an important clarification. The acceptance itself

[3:20] would not require immediate reconstruction, which is great. Future

[3:24] improvements could be evaluated and prioritized through the city's normal

[3:28] capital planning process. That distinction matters because it raises

[3:31] the question of how much engineering analysis and cost estimation is actually

[3:36] necessary before council can establish a policy for these streets. I certainly

[3:41] understand the need for appropriate technical review. The city needs to

[3:46] understand what infrastructure it would be assuming and different streets may

[3:49] ultimately require different decisions. I also understand the need for legal and

[3:53] historical research. But for Chin Drive for example, the ownership history is

[3:58] not entirely mysterious. Road was associated with deforest realies the

[4:03] original developer uh which is now defunct. There is no homeowners

[4:07] association or other functioning private entity maintaining the road. Meanwhile,

[4:11] the city has plowed and maintained Chip and Drive for decades, issued curb cut

[4:16] permits associated with properties on the street and otherwise treated it as a

[4:19] public roadway in a number of ways. So, it seems to me that one of the threshold

[4:24] questions should be relatively straightforward.

[4:27] Is there actually a private owner or successor today who asserts legally

[4:31] enforcable ownership interest in the road and is prepared to assume

[4:36] responsibility for it? I would say that it's highly unlikely somebody's going to

[4:41] come forward say I want to own a street. There's no home ownership of like me

[4:45] saying I want to have my own private fire department. It's just not something

[4:49] people necessarily want to take up. Um I recognize that answering that question

[4:57] uh may lead may uh require land records and legal research, but I would

[5:01] encourage the city to determine the most efficient and proportionate way to

[5:05] resolve it. If notice to potential owners or successors is appropriate, for

[5:10] example, could that be done before substantial resources are committed to

[5:14] more extensive engineering investigations? That um brings me to the

[5:19] larger policy issue. Um I appreciate DPW's technical role,

[5:25] but ultimately the question of how Burlington should treat streets with

[5:28] unresolved ownership, longstanding municipal, and decades of public use is

[5:34] a policy question for city council. This memo indicates that because of

[5:39] funding and staffing constraints, much of phase one work may not be completed

[5:43] until fiscal year 28 with recommendations coming after that uh

[5:49] work is completed. I understand that DPW cannot undertake unlimited work without

[5:54] resources. What I'm less certain about is why the council's policy decision uh

[5:59] discussion needs to follow that same timeline. I don't think council needs to

[6:04] decide tonight every phase one street should be accepted and I'm not

[6:08] suggesting that technical information is irrelevant. I'm asking whether council

[6:13] can begin establishing the principles that will guide these decisions while

[6:16] DPW conducts the necessary technical and legal work. That policy guidance

[6:23] guidance could also help determine what technical work is actually necessary.

[6:27] The city's policy is that streets with no functioning private owner, decades of

[6:32] municipal maintenance, and long-standing public use should generally be

[6:36] considered for acceptance unless significant legal or infrastructure

[6:39] problems are identified. That would provide DPW with a framework for its

[6:43] analysis. Other circumstances might appropriately lead to a different

[6:48] outcome. I also think that when the city

[6:51] evaluates the financial implications of acceptance, it should look at the

[6:55] complete picture. not simply the future expenses the city might assume. Um for

[7:01] example, I would be interested to know whether acceptance could affect

[7:04] eligibility for state or federal transportation infrastructure funding

[7:08] and if so potential how might potential outside funding be part of the financial

[7:13] analysis as well. So I support the phased approach and I appreciate the

[7:18] progress reflected in this memo. Uh my request is that we not allow the

[7:23] technical process to substitute for or unnecessarily postpone the policy

[7:27] discussion. DPW can continue determining the condition of these streets and

[7:32] clarify their legal status. At the same time, the council can begin deciding

[7:37] what Burlington's policy should be once these facts are known.

[7:42] » Um I notic you were reading from something. If you want to provide those

[7:45] writing, you can mail them to what's the address again.

[7:52] If that's that works for you and then be happy to get the numbers.

[7:56] » Okay. The address just for people watching,

[7:59] » of course. Yes. Um, you can send it to rgu

[8:03] i n burlington bt.gov. >> Thank you.

[8:10] » And then then we'll have those back. Thank you.

[8:14] » Thank you. Next we have Michael. >> Hi. Thank you Michael. I also have

[8:23] thanks for the opportunity to talk and thank you from DPW for the work they've

[8:29] done on this and the new uh alley the plan to accept streets.

[8:37] It's helpful. I just have a few brief comments as you know as I was looking

[8:42] through the cost estimates. It just it would be nice if uh there could be a

[8:49] public accounting of where the estimates come from. You know what what goes into

[8:54] them. that uh our street there was 800,000 for

[9:01] water sewer and there was prior to that

[9:08] there's a brief explanation of things that might affect it but it would be

[9:12] nice to have the line I what the costs are in those estimates

[9:19] and uh the other thing I was thinking would be helpful is an accounting uh or

[9:27] an offset. If the cities were to the streets were

[9:32] to become accepted and then eligible for the next the town highway grant program,

[9:39] what money would be coming into the city uh related to accept those streets

[9:44] through that program? Not much is that?

[9:48] it'd be nice to to just have an accounting that

[9:53] and then the other comment I had uh was with respect to concern if it still

[10:00] exists that some people may claim ownership for uh portion of the

[10:08] street or all the street. Is there a way to accomplish that through public notice

[10:16] with an intent to city intents to accept these streets and assume ownership and

[10:21] you have I don't know what the legal uh banker you have x amount of time to

[10:28] reply to this public notice um or you know

[10:34] you know that's not but it may be a less expensive option

[10:38] than doing the d research search and I think the goal is to save money. We

[10:44] should say investigate allies.

[10:50] » Thank you. Yes. >> Um is there anyone on the island who

[10:57] wants to participate in public forum indicate by uh indicating their interest

[11:04] by using the race function of sort

[11:09] seem I guess we'll go ahead then and we close public forum

[11:15] um and we had moved item

[11:21] 4.3

[11:25] deliberative agenda which is the uh adoption of the updated 1.6 not coming a

[11:30] pretty stand

[11:34] us. >> Yeah. Uh so this is a pretty standard

[11:39] uh item. This came through in 2019. It came through I believe 2011 before that.

[11:45] Every now and again standards get updated. What this is particular for

[11:48] this year was more or less just one item updated in culvert sizes um increasing

[11:54] the minimum size and the city's obligation to update that um or accept

[11:59] that in our uh future rehabilitation projects and making sure that things

[12:04] moving forward meeting standard. Um the compliance with standards is uh one of

[12:10] the requirements for some funding sources with the state and so uh we

[12:15] again shared this with other departments, water resources primarily

[12:18] um to ensure that they were supportive of this um and we are now moving forward

[12:24] just to formalize the acceptance of this for your current

[12:31] recommendation. recommendation to council sorry yes motion reads

[12:37] » I have no internet I just I just got I just got my husband

[12:44] um so um questions from committee but um yeah so you you talked about the

[12:56] the letter that was the the major update And in the last paragraph, it says that

[13:03] municipalities are encouraged to consider adopting additional optional

[13:06] standards. Uh what are those optional standards and are are we adopt those as

[13:12] well? >> Uh

[13:17] I apologize.

[13:22] Which portion are you? >> Um so on 2026 Town Road and bridge

[13:28] standards cover letter. Oh, the cover letter in the third paragraph it said

[13:32] colleagues are encouraged to consider adopting with additional optional

[13:35] standards. Um I will apologize I don't have that. That's the state standard

[13:40] letter everybody. Um and so these are the ones that are required for

[13:46] compliance to that.

[13:49] » Yep. So uh Laura Will city engineer I was involved in kind of various

[13:55] different iterations of previous standards that we've adopted. The state

[13:58] statute standards are very broad and very minimal to apply to the all the

[14:03] communities in Vermont. So they speak to sometimes wire highways ditching other

[14:08] standards um many of which that actually just don't.

[14:13] So the other standards that we're still talking about are like our engineering

[14:16] design standards which the council adopted back in 2024 or the great

[14:20] streets design standards which even enhance the downtown. So they're talking

[14:24] about ones that are specific to your community which we do already have in

[14:28] place. Um and nothing in those two documents goes against what the state

[14:33] has done to update some of their water management.

[14:39] So basically the optional ones either don't apply or our standards already

[14:44] matches exceeded. >> Yeah. The other standards are our own

[14:47] our city of standards. >> Great. Thank you.

[14:52] » Becca, do you have any questions? >> Nope. Nothing for me. Thank you. Sounds

[14:57] good. Um and so in the memo

[15:02] from staff there is a recommended motion for the two

[15:10] willing to make that. Um, I would move to recommend to the city council the

[15:16] adoption of sections 1 through eight of the 2026 Vermont Agency of

[15:20] Transportation Town, Road and Bridge Standards and authorized Chapen Spencer,

[15:24] director of public works to execute the certificate on behalf of the city

[15:28] council. Is there a second?

[15:31] » Second. >> We have a motion and a second. Any other

[15:34] discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor of the

[15:38] motion by saying I >> I

[15:40] » I

[15:50] next we're going to GMT funding initiative update.

[16:02] Is that I believe

[16:10] We had

[16:19] um so we had asked um Marty Jas I think was his last name to

[16:25] come and present but we have um wait

[16:33] director Yeah, Mark, I'm sorry. I had some

[16:38] problem with the audio and I don't I didn't hear what you said.

[16:41] » No, I I said we weren't I I I'm happy to see you as always at our meeting, but um

[16:46] are you here to present on um the initiative that's ongoing to

[16:51] » No, I just I knew that this was going to be a topic and I wanted to be available

[16:55] in case you >> No, I appreciate that. Um

[17:00] I um I have not heard yet from Marty after he confirmed

[17:06] there's a delay. >> So what we might do is um uh move

[17:11] forward in the agenda to um unaccepted streets and when Marty shows up um then

[17:18] we can um slot this in after that. How does that sound everybody? Yeah. Good.

[17:25] Well, thank you for disappearing. Um, so we'll move on to unaccepted streets

[17:32] and I'm not sure who's >> start

[17:36] this one. >> Yes, panelist.

[17:44] » All right. Well, thank you uh to the toque for uh

[17:50] inviting staff back and I want to thank the council and members of the public

[17:55] for uh continued work with us on this decades long issue to resolve the issue

[18:02] of unclear ownership of these private and unaccepted streets. And we're

[18:06] returning tonight to get your feedback. No formal action is needed. We're

[18:10] seeking feedback on the phasing that we have proposed on reviewing the streets

[18:17] in question. Uh the proposed technical and legal research that we are proposing

[18:23] uh to do next really are the responsible steps for determining staff's

[18:28] recommendation or uh the city council on the

[18:32] disposition of these streets. um as you're seeing in the charts and I made

[18:38] sure to attach at least a summary of one of our charts with a lot of numbers and

[18:44] spread the cells on it really to demonstrate that that's just the tip of

[18:48] the iceberg of the work that staff has done to understand the very uh detailed

[18:55] needs and specifications and existing conditions

[18:59] and levels of risk of these various streets. Um the future maintenance and

[19:06] capital costs of these streets are significant. We already struggle to

[19:12] maintain our existing street network. So any decision by the council to accept

[19:17] streets in our belief needs to be done with the technical detail that we want

[19:24] to collect for you so that you understand the full financial burden

[19:29] that the city is accepting. You'll see that the schedule tonight is

[19:35] uh longer than I would like. Uh but the reality is we want to promise you a t

[19:41] well we want to offer you a timeline that we think is uh more practical given

[19:47] the financial constraints we have to do the work. So you'll see in the memo

[19:52] chart laying out showing that it would take us through uh much of FY28 to bring

[19:58] back a recommendation to council on the phase one streets. Uh senior engineer

[20:05] and planner Philip Peterson's going to go more into the detail here. Happy to

[20:10] answer questions. We have city engineer Laura Wheelock and also division

[20:15] director Megan Moyer here uh to answer questions for the respective divisions.

[20:21] » Awesome. Thanks Jen. Uh thanks everyone uh for letting me be here. Philip

[20:25] Peterson, senior transportation junior planner with the city of Bronson. I

[20:28] think it's super important to acknowledge that you know what I

[20:31] represent right now is periscope on the engineering submarine. There are a lot

[20:35] of folks on our team that have done a tremendous amount of work. Um I would be

[20:41] super remiss if I don't mention specifically uh Calvin Bri who's a

[20:46] social engineer who's really kind of an engine that's led a lot of our work um

[20:51] both from a technical aspect and a legal aspect as well. Um and he's learned a

[20:57] lot. We've learned a lot. Um, so I'm I'm going to walk uh the committee through

[21:04] um kind of what our assessment work has been, why the phasing looks the way it

[21:09] does and what the technical review actually involves and um but I'm going

[21:15] to try not to talk too much about water resources. We obviously have director

[21:21] here to get into that. So what we've done is we've completed a desktop

[21:25] analysis of all unaccepted and private streets and we've done a surface

[21:31] inspection of all unaccepted and some limited private streets. Uh that work

[21:37] gives us a baseline understanding of pavement condition, geometry,

[21:44] does the street have sidewalks, does it have curb? Um and general street

[21:48] character. Is it designed to some kind of street standard um that we would uh

[21:55] approve? Um what it can't tell us is the condition of the subsurface and buried

[22:01] utilities which is where water resources lives where their work is underground.

[22:07] Um and this is the core reason the project requires kind of a multi-year

[22:10] phase approach. Um if you look at the cost breakdown between

[22:15] um public works technical services, what we do on service in comparison to the

[22:21] underground utility work, water resources

[22:25] uh work is exponentially more expensive. Um and that that is a big driver. So um

[22:32] phase one in general includes streets that generally resemble an accepted

[22:38] street in design and construction. Some phase one streets even have city signs

[22:44] on them already. Um, and these are kind of the lowest risk candidates for deeper

[22:49] investigation. Um, that we feel like um, we have worked closely with water

[22:54] resources on developing that list of phase one streets. Um, when we think

[22:59] about phase two and phase three, those include streets with higher uncertainty.

[23:05] Don't get me wrong, just go back to phase one streets real quick. that there

[23:10] are things about phase one streets that we're not sure about either. And as we

[23:15] do this deeper investigation, we may find that a phase one street is not as

[23:19] easy as we thought it would be to accept from a variety of standpoints. We're

[23:24] hearing from residents that want us to accept these streets. We haven't heard

[23:28] from residents that do not want their streets accepted. And those people, they

[23:33] may exist as we go through our investigation and we do more public

[23:37] engagement. The fact of the matter is is that, you know, one of the questions

[23:41] that I anticipate that the tube will ask is why can't we just accept these

[23:45] streets wholesale? We can't because it's a two-step process. It's land that needs

[23:52] to be accepted, but it also has to be dedicated, right? Or it has to be taken.

[23:58] and we don't really have the legal framework to just condemn the property

[24:05] and move forward which is also why we need legal help. That's why we need to

[24:09] seek lawyers. Um a major driver with this work is coordination with water

[24:13] resources. Um accepting water, wastewater, storm water infrastructure

[24:18] has come some like I'd said some long-term financial obligations. Um, so

[24:24] kind of the next step is this in-depth assessment. What we can do before FY28

[24:31] is dedicate tech services and water resources staff

[24:35] times toward that legal look, that historical look. Do have documents that

[24:41] we can look at and get documentation on up to public engagement. Um, we have

[24:46] received some documentation as it discusses in the memo. Uh, Deorest is

[24:51] the street where we received some supplemental documentation from

[24:55] residents and went, "Okay, this is a section of street that we had not

[24:59] thought was accepted and it is and it's part of the city public rightway." That

[25:04] was helpful, but there may be other documentations out there that residents

[25:09] have locked away in their own personal files that we don't have access to, and

[25:14] those things will come out the further we get along. Once we get to FY28,

[25:20] that's when the more indepth subsurface evaluation, drainage

[25:26] performance, utility inspections such as CCTV that water resources needs to do

[25:31] for sewer and storm water and potholeing for water, but also B tech services. We

[25:37] would need to do potholeing to see what do we have for a street. What does the

[25:41] subgrade look like? Are we building these streets on clay? Are we building

[25:46] these streets that have just an inch and a half of asphalt, which is not thick

[25:51] enough for a city street? For a city street, we want it to be at least three

[25:56] inches thick for a low volume residential street. Thicker if we're

[26:01] talking about high volume streets. So, um, we will be requesting funding. We

[26:08] did try to get a budget put together for FY27

[26:12] given funding constraints. That's was challenging this year, but we will seek

[26:17] funding and I can see Ashley Parker um with the Department of Finance and

[26:21] Accounting here, which is great. Uh to develop that FY28 budget to support

[26:26] consultant services for the subservice investigation,

[26:30] surveying, we'll need a land surveyor. Um we don't have a land surveyor on

[26:35] staff and the legal work. Without that support, we cannot provide council with

[26:39] the information you need to make informed decisions that you do need to

[26:43] make. And that's the structure of the work. Um, if we're missing anything,

[26:49] Megan, >> explain her investigation.

[26:51] » Yeah, I think this would probably be an appropriate time. Um, Megan, if you'd

[26:55] like to talk about what your team, your excellent team has done.

[27:00] » Certainly. Um, yeah. I know it's been a uh you know an initial desktop analysis

[27:08] of the infrastructure that exists on these various streets. A lot of what we

[27:13] looked at and where we are interested in this project and maybe less hesitant as

[27:19] we are with some of the potential recommendations is where there's a

[27:25] street where it would be beneficial to the larger system um to take over the

[27:30] infrastructure there. for instance, water pipes where uh they're providing

[27:34] what we call looping benefits. It's actually connecting a section of public

[27:38] pipe to another section of public pipe, but we don't currently have um complete

[27:42] oversight over the pipe that may be on a private street. Um but as as Philip

[27:49] said, a lot of what's challenging is not knowing the full condition of any of

[27:53] these pipes. And so we've tried to put together some rough numbers of what

[27:57] potential short-term costs would be if if say we took over all of the streets

[28:03] um or accepted all the streets that are in phase one. We are looking at some

[28:07] pretty substantial uh capital investments, capital investments that

[28:10] are not currently in our capital plan and that we don't currently have

[28:14] borrowing authority for. And so the question will become with the council,

[28:18] you know, are we going to push off other potentially vi uh important projects in

[28:23] order to then invest in these new streets? Um, you know, how are we going

[28:27] to handle that as a community because it is going to increase everybody's rates

[28:32] uh to be able to take on these things. I'm not saying that we shouldn't do it.

[28:35] I understand that the people on these streets, they do pay the same rates as

[28:39] others. Um, but it is going to layer an additional amount of work on what

[28:47] already seems like an impossible amount of work. Um, and so we're just trying to

[28:52] proceed cautiously. Um, I don't know if anybody has any specific specific

[28:56] questions, but uh, our team has been very involved. We appreciated the

[29:00] collaboration with uh the tech technical services and uh yeah, we look forward to

[29:07] hearing what the council's feedback is on here on these streets and whether or

[29:13] not I guess the intention really is to take over every single last street or if

[29:19] the council does believe that there's certain streets that sort of fit more of

[29:23] the city street test than others because I

[29:28] certainly can see some that don't make as much sense as as other streets.

[29:37] » Megan, >> um I I think it's important to also note

[29:42] that the cost projections outline both immediate what it would cost to upgrade

[29:49] and also the 20-year total cost of ownership because once we do take on

[29:54] ownership with these streets, they're ours and they're our responsibility.

[29:58] um it's not one and done. You fix it and then

[30:03] ideally was the last one because it again I'm happy to walk through some

[30:09] examples of some phase one streets and what thinking was also happy to turn it

[30:14] over to take questions. I think Phil the only thing I would have you add a little

[30:20] bit more because I think it's important is how the private streets play into the

[30:24] phasing because some of that work may get done in the short term.

[30:28] » Yeah, happy to do that. Um we have a really good associate engineer uh

[30:33] Christina Kangallocei who is stepping into the unaccepted streets project

[30:37] specifically because she's very good at organizing things and the private

[30:41] streets are streets that require a lot of legal organization. We have

[30:46] documentation few of these streets. Uh little legal bay has a covenant that

[30:52] clearly states we're a private street. We do our own stuff. Leave us alone.

[30:58] We've had communications with them and documentation that makes it clear we're

[31:02] a private street. Uh there are others where we have some documentation, but

[31:06] there are a lot of private streets. UVM has several private streets that we

[31:11] don't necessarily have that documentation on. And what we don't want

[31:15] to do at the end of this project is leave loose ends for the next generation

[31:20] of folks coming to work for public works going why didn't they finish this

[31:23] project get all the documentation need on these private streets so we can

[31:29] button it up and those are not our responsibility for sure. So that's what

[31:34] I have to say about private streets. Thanks.

[31:36] » Um just to clarify point that there is a separate chart for probably the least

[31:43] clear subset of streets that we have. These are ones where entities have

[31:48] claimed them but they haven't provided his documentation.

[31:52] They put up signs. stands court has assigned marked to private but there's

[31:56] no documentation for or it's one like um

[32:03] » Northgate where it's very clearly owned by

[32:08] » by uh an organization who is currently taking

[32:12] » care of it and has never expressed to the city in the past they would like us

[32:16] to accept that from them. Um, but there is a different portion of one of the

[32:20] streets they own and maintain right now than they would like to accept. So, this

[32:24] one's just a little bit squishier. We think it falls in the documentation

[32:27] point until it doesn't and it will either move down into the totally

[32:31] private chart or it may move up into needing to be a phase three street.

[32:36] Um, I would like to answer during public comment.

[32:40] » Just to be clear on what you just said about the private streets, there's two

[32:43] groupings here. One is actually >> so we have the phase one, two and three

[32:48] » right unaccepted declared private or proposed private private student

[32:53] documentation. >> That is all currently under

[32:56] documentation review which is shown in the chart table. uh the ones that are

[33:01] kind of listed at the top of that list are the ones that have the least amount

[33:05] of certainty that I think we will find what we need

[33:10] in uh in kind of an easy like company or HOA

[33:16] » and do you send you wanted to address comments?

[33:19] » I can when you're ready. Yes, >> if you like if you're if you're done

[33:23] with the presentation you like to do that before we open it up.

[33:26] Um so quickly some very astute residents did note that VR does pay the city an

[33:31] annual mileage rate for any accepted south highway. Um some of these streets

[33:37] may fall under class two and for example the sherb trans pays about $5,000 a mile

[33:43] to the city for maintenance on class two streets and for class three streets

[33:47] which is what chip and drive would be classified as is $1,800 of a mile. Um,

[33:54] so Chipman Drive specifically, it's about a thousand fees. It's dollars a

[33:59] year. So there is some money that VR does pay us. It's definitely not enough

[34:03] to maintain a paved street. Um, but we do receive some funding. And anything

[34:09] that becomes a class two or one street does become eligible for a town highway

[34:14] grant, which is a maintenance grant. we uh are pretty successful using

[34:20] um as it relates to the documentation that goes into the estimate. These

[34:24] estimates were developed based on our average cost per linear foot of similar

[34:28] infrastructure. So the paving estimate is similar to

[34:32] what we are currently paving streets for. I guess is Megan's estimates are

[34:36] coming from costs of similar size pipes for replacement of those types of pipes

[34:42] that are in there. I think we added some inflation factors four or five years as

[34:48] well

[34:52] rough estimates. >> Yes.

[34:54] » Yep. Um I'm going to open it up to committee members next. Um so any

[35:02] members questions? >> Go ahead.

[35:08] » Thank you. Um this is great. Appreciate all the work. Um, I just had a little

[35:14] bit of a clarifying question. I mean, well, first of all, I think I should say

[35:17] from my perspective, I do lean towards um I kind of feel like we've already

[35:24] accepted these streets in in many ways by doing the work over the years and

[35:29] showing up and um in some cases doing maintenance. So, uh, to me it it feels

[35:34] like more of a a technicality and a absorption of of the planning of the of

[35:40] a lot of work that's been going on. Um, but of course I understand, you know,

[35:46] this the dollars get realer the the further along we go in the process. So,

[35:51] it's important to to to get that full accounting and I'm glad you're doing

[35:56] that. Um, so more I I think more discussion to come on that part, but I

[36:02] did want to Phil, you had you had said something about Deforest AB that I

[36:06] thought was I I just wanted to clarify because that particular street caught my

[36:11] eye. Um because the resident that sent the documentation about accepting it

[36:18] sent some city council meeting minutes from like the 70s and I happen to notice

[36:22] that the one of the counselors was the man I bought my house from and so two

[36:28] city councilors have lived in this in the house where I live which is like a

[36:32] crazy Burlington story and it's great but anyway uh I just want to make so

[36:37] that you had you had described that and I might be mixing up the roads so

[36:41] apologies if I am, but you kind of described that as like a document that

[36:45] surfaced from somebody's basement and I had thought it was an old city

[36:50] council minutes and so I just want to make sure that you all have act like it

[36:55] made me realize I don't know do you have access to city council minutes from the

[36:59] 70s and 80s that you can look through to try to answer some of these questions

[37:05] because um it seems that that seems important. So,

[37:10] I just wanted to clarify that >> we do um and we had staff on Junth um

[37:17] actually go to the clerk treasures office for an entire day and um we

[37:23] looked through how far did we go back? >> The city council resolutions, not just

[37:29] the minutes. The resolution started in about the mid60s and we combed through

[37:34] them until 2014 which is about the time that the become

[37:39] a little bit more accurate. Um and that's all that they said they're down

[37:43] to their fault. >> They do have city council resolutions

[37:46] that are older. Um but they are well they are a lot less organized. Um so

[37:51] we've not delved into that. Uh but we did come across the actual city council

[37:56] resolution from the meeting minutes reference that accepted the forest in

[38:01] the lane. >> Okay, great.

[38:02] » Forest road through the south side of Chinton.

[38:08] » Okay, >> cool. I just wanted to clarify that as

[38:11] because if you didn't, I think we would have to make a real call to the public

[38:14] to like go look in basement and that would not be a very efficient way of

[38:19] going about this. So, um that's that that answers my question. Um thank you.

[38:26] » Yeah, which is where we talk about our staff time. Just the next step is way

[38:30] less organized and it's not going to be nearly as efficient. Um but the

[38:35] information is possibly there uh to be found.

[38:40] » And could I could I just respond to one one thing that uh counselor said? I

[38:45] think >> Go ahead. there has has been potentially

[38:48] a history and I can't say that we've been perfect in water resources but I

[38:52] think the tendency to you know plow a street or do other things may be

[38:56] different from the level of involvement we've had with the subsurface utilities

[39:00] um I think where it has gotten fuzzy sometimes is the drinking water system

[39:05] because it is still our system and we do still have sort of right of refusal we

[39:10] are involved when um there is a water main break we may actually respond to a

[39:14] water main break on a private street and repair it. But per our ordinance, we're

[39:18] able to charge the full cost of that repair to um to the private homeowners.

[39:25] Um yes. Is it complicated if you have multiple homes on a street?

[39:31] Absolutely. And that's where I can see some benefit of just going ahead and

[39:35] taking things over. But I just wanted to be clear that I don't know that that's

[39:39] happening with the subsurface utilities. And because those costs are so much

[39:42] greater, it's just something to keep in mind. Um, on the sewer lateral piece, I

[39:47] do feel like we have been much more clear over history with when a pipe is a

[39:54] piece of private infrastructure and that they've had to call in other folks in

[39:58] order to uh rotorooer or you know clean pipes like that. So, I don't know if

[40:03] that's that's helpful, but >> yeah, thank you.

[40:05] » That's part of the history. Yep.

[40:13] » Yeah. Thank you for um all the work that has come into this this document. I this

[40:21] approach makes s sense to me even as as someone who is also um currently in the

[40:28] camp of we should um in I think in most of these cases we should be accepting

[40:34] these streets. Um, but I think but I agree that the this due diligence is

[40:39] necessary both for what we're trying to do now and also in the future. So

[40:44] there's no complaint for me and I I completely support the funding and

[40:50] potentially staffing necessary to get the work done uh now and in the future.

[40:55] Uh my question is um well

[41:02] yeah this was kind of spo spoken about in public forum. Um it's about

[41:08] um the policy side of this. Uh I I understand that when the for example

[41:16] when the phase one streets are done you're going to come back to us with

[41:19] recommendations and then we're going to to move from there. But between now and

[41:24] then, um what do you all see as um what policy should the toque the full

[41:33] council maybe the toque and ordinance combined? What should what policy should

[41:39] we have ready? Um because as you brought up, there's um there's certain um

[41:49] challenges here with potentially um trying to accept streets that have no

[41:54] owners um like the whole like dedication process and stuff. So what what do you

[42:00] see as um the policy goals from the council um before we even get the

[42:07] recommendations? Is there work to be done? I think it's a couple of things.

[42:12] First of all, I I just want to point out that the work that we have to do is not

[42:16] the technicality. I can appreciate the thought process behind that.

[42:21] Because these a lot of these streets they look and function like a public

[42:26] street and so but we have to understand we do know yet whether all owners are

[42:33] dedicated and we don't have it doesn't like resident parking where

[42:40] 51% residents on a street all say we want resident parking 49% we don't want

[42:44] it the 51% wins out one resident on that

[42:51] says no, we can't proceed because we cannot go through eminent domain. In

[42:56] order to go through eminent domain has to be based on an actual project, a

[43:02] street project. So if and that's work that we have to do. So that that's that

[43:08] I think what the city council do is help us with developing.

[43:14] » So wait, let's not let's not move past your policy and your evidence do because

[43:18] it does speak to the legal question. The advice the recommendation of the

[43:21] guidance we've received from the city council is either we find the person who

[43:24] owns it and assign it over to us or every property street agrees that city

[43:30] the owners of the right way and dedicates it and the city council

[43:33] accepts it. Condomination by state statute requires that there be an

[43:38] accepted plan by the municipality that has been publicly vetted towards a

[43:44] highway project that needs that land. And that's hard on the streets that we

[43:50] have because we don't have an accepted public plan which maybe speaks to the

[43:55] policy end of this that as we work with the city attorney's office if we find

[43:59] that is 98% of the property owners are ready to sign and there's just

[44:05] an example one person who lives in France who's just not going to do that

[44:08] for us um >> which happened

[44:11] » despite how agreeable they may be >> uh that that stops our process so that

[44:17] might be the area where your policy or approach needs to start to be developed

[44:22] to complete this entire project. >> And this is where we need consultants.

[44:26] There may be some whisbang lawyer way of going about it, but some title search

[44:33] lawyer would know that as civil engineers, we don't.

[44:40] » So, you're going to go through budget. >> Yeah. And I think the other thing we'll

[44:42] do with he is how are we going to develop budget to to pay for to pay for

[44:50] not just the consultant work but also the long-term budget leads because as we

[44:55] add more mileage you know payments is something we talk about a lot. These are

[45:00] streets that are going to come under that banner of needing to be maintained

[45:04] or just rebuild.

[45:10] Um

[45:15] um well I guess that thank you um that's helpful. I and I I appreciate I I don't

[45:21] view that as a technicality. I think this work is very necessary. Um it's

[45:26] tough. Um,

[45:32] yeah. I guess I guess I I guess I I would personally want to to learn more

[45:36] and maybe I I would need to reach out to the city attorneys about this about what

[45:41] um about what we could possibly do. I'm I'm interested to see if this is a um if

[45:49] like if we have the ability to to to alter these um these standards for

[45:58] like for dedication for condemnation for eminent domain even if it's through the

[46:03] charter process and if it's through the charter process and that's something

[46:06] that we need to get ahead of that would be something we need to work on now to

[46:10] to get to to to have everything lined up by 2028. So if that's if the city

[46:16] attorney comes back and recommends that we need to go through the charter

[46:19] process that that'd be something that I want to hear hear back from the law. So

[46:24] yeah, I'm interested in staying in touch about that.

[46:27] » Yep. Um, I might recommend that one of our future updates because we're going

[46:32] to be doing a lot of work, but maybe we'll have a substantial

[46:36] amount to bring back as an update, but maybe find the right time to bring back

[46:40] um either someone from the city attorney's office or whoever they choose

[46:43] as an outside council secret. >> Great.

[46:50] » Yeah, I'm good. >> I had um a few different questions.

[46:54] » Um, >> first I'll give a comment. Uh Sharon

[46:57] Busher um wasn't able to make or she a long voicemail. Uh basically the gist of

[47:05] her voicemail which you can treat as a public comment is that um given the type

[47:12] financial uh circumstances the city's in right now that maybe um we might want to

[47:18] push all this work out um till after I think she specifically talked about um

[47:25] some of the water bonding started to work its way way through. Um so there's

[47:30] additional costs taxpayers uh they would be incurring those um in

[47:36] the next three or four budget years. And some part of her rationale which I don't

[47:42] necessarily disagree with is this isn't a problem that just happened. This is a

[47:46] problem that's sort of out there for decades. Um and so what would would

[47:51] three or four more years make a difference? Now I I'm not saying that we

[47:56] should postpone it. I'm just offering those because Sharon wasn't here to

[48:01] speak at public forum and she had made the effort to give those comments. Um I

[48:05] do uh have a couple questions around some of the things that were said. One

[48:10] was around the review of city council minutes. It's more of just curiosity.

[48:15] Are these things digitized at this point or are you got is the research project

[48:20] actually going through paper? >> It's a paper effort. We brought in

[48:25] several city staff. This is why we ask staff who were already choosing to work

[48:28] on the holiday um to do this one task because it was very invasive in our

[48:33] treasurer's office and doing that on a regular day would have been hard with so

[48:36] many staff. >> Um there is also a book of meeting

[48:39] minutes which the attorney's office recommended that we take a look at but

[48:42] that was too cumbersome to include the other research we did that day. Um but

[48:47] that is another place where they noted that street acceptances could be noted

[48:51] and maybe the resolution would never be found. I think there was an effort when

[48:55] I first got on the council to I think councelor high tower even maybe

[48:59] experimented it and it was about trying to appropriate money some of the co

[49:05] monies even to digitize >> the land records are digitized

[49:09] » it's just land >> um which is amazing to have the

[49:12] resolutions if you want to talk about policies this

[49:16] is not related to this one although probably would have helped um the

[49:20] resolutions are a mess and there is definitely some inefficiencies in the

[49:23] treasures the attorney's office um where people will literally look through the

[49:26] same boxes we just looked through but they're looking for different things.

[49:29] » Right. Okay. Well, that sounded a matter but thank you for clarifying that. Um my

[49:34] next question was about private streets going forward. I understand we have to

[49:38] untangle this right now. >> But it's like how do we keep ourselves

[49:42] from having to untangle future private streets? Is there policy now around like

[49:46] if someone's building condo development or something that is there policy and

[49:51] procedure in place that they have to adhere to in order to get sign up

[49:55] » remain private? Yes. Um additionally we have talked internally we will replace

[50:00] every street sign with the word PBT on it for streets that we find that are

[50:04] declared private. So there's a lot more clarity,

[50:07] » right? >> Um

[50:08] » we already have one that we're working on with fire department right now. It's

[50:12] right off Broadway. It's gone through a couple of name changes. I think it's now

[50:17] broad jump. >> I think so.

[50:21] » Let us make this. >> Yeah. The planning through the zoning

[50:28] process these uh issues get worked out. We have

[50:33] engineering standards now that make it very clear what they need to build it to

[50:36] for us to be willing to accept it. So really this is a problem of looking

[50:41] backwards not a problem current day going

[50:44] » but I'm not even talking about accepting any of these streets in the f new street

[50:48] gets built a new private street gets built it'll have a different engineering

[50:52] standard than what we would maybe uh insist upon for our own public streets

[50:58] right >> and I mean is there some standard by

[51:02] which those streets have to I mean they some documentation process I guess so

[51:07] that we know and it's clear so that some future generation as Philip alluded to

[51:13] of DPW employees isn't like wondering about it and we have that those

[51:18] standards in place now. Yes, the the form-based codes

[51:23] appendix uh comprehensive development ordinance references engineering

[51:28] standards that are outlined um by the city of Burlington either as adopted

[51:32] speaking back to the 2024 standards and then they also lightly describe what's

[51:36] required so that there's a hint as to kind of as people are like I don't want

[51:40] to go to this whole other document like what's needed about

[51:44] » just ownership and all that >> and also you know how to how to build a

[51:48] driveway. ways it's or a road or that you know

[51:52] » so that it's also going to just be durable for the residents that speaks to

[51:55] the timing which um Sharon Busher mentioned

[51:59] » a lot of these as um we look through this list especially on the paving side

[52:04] but uh sometimes within the water side you'll see it's like one of the middle

[52:09] middle columns it talks about transportation timeline or water

[52:13] resources timeline and you'll either see a short medium or long term which is our

[52:19] best estimate based on the information we've gathered

[52:22] about how long before we need to make the financial investment in the street

[52:25] and there are some of these that are within the one to fiveyear time frame

[52:28] and so pushing us off five years is going to make it so that waiting to

[52:32] invest in the street if we accept it we're dealing

[52:36] um which has to be financially planned for so

[52:39] » I get it >> that would be the concern

[52:41] » the other the other piece to what Laura just said is what's challenging from the

[52:45] subsurface utility perspective is that even if we have a pipe that's like a

[52:49] medium term right uh need but if Laura's going

[52:54] to get in there and do her surface work then it ends up accelerating when we

[52:59] should coordinate and maybe make that investment. So it's just an additional

[53:03] layer of sort of uh unanticipated capital expenditures that we're we're

[53:08] trying to juggle. No, I I appreciate that. And I again, I

[53:13] wasn't advocating. I was relaying a public comment. Um and but it seemed

[53:18] like a legitimate >> Yeah. legitimate issue to raise.

[53:23] » Um then the next thing and the last thing I'll I'll we'll talk about right

[53:27] now is that I I I appreciate all this work and I think we absolutely have to

[53:32] be doing this. Um the the thing I wonder about though is

[53:37] like when we and I think we need to know these these numbers uh that are in the

[53:43] um the Excel sheet here um and and the expected timelines and whatnot. But the

[53:50] reality is I think for many of these streets or let's say a significant

[53:55] number of them we're doing this work already anyways. If there's a break on a

[53:59] water break somewhere we're going to fix it. Um I don't know that we're charging

[54:04] back residents. >> We are.

[54:06] » We are. Okay. Well, that's good to know as well. But but

[54:10] » but if there are, you know, there's some of these things I know that we're we're

[54:14] fixing in an ongoing way. Um so it's not like these are all necessarily

[54:22] new costs, but what we're doing is formalizing

[54:25] the costs that we would incur. So if we're doing future bonding and capital

[54:29] planning, we know what that is. Um, and it's not just pothole.

[54:35] » No, I understand. >> I totally get it. I totally get it. But

[54:38] I'm just I just want to >> name that we are doing some of this work

[54:43] already and we have been doing it for decades.

[54:46] » The the life maintenance costs are not the financial concern. is the

[54:52] substantial reinvestment to bring a asset back up to beginning of its useful

[54:56] life, which is the cost that staff have concerns about as we've considered the

[55:00] budget. Um, as we've done capital forecasting or our capital program

[55:05] director, those have just never been in it because

[55:09] they've not been part of the city's asset classes. Uh,

[55:13] » and that is the the costs that we are the most concerned about. plowing, pott

[55:17] filling, adding a little bit of dirt, grading, you know, some of the dirt

[55:21] streets is small enough. >> They're also also accepted streets in

[55:27] our network now that when we go to fix them, we realize that they're

[55:31] substandard and need a lot more than we expect. I think Main Street was one of

[55:36] them, right? I mean, >> Bennington Court Bennington Court. So,

[55:40] so I mean the these these infirmities of these streets are are are lack of um

[55:47] living up to current standards are >> they're they're not unique to the

[55:52] unaccepted streets and the private streets. They're also

[55:56] characteristics of some of our streets accepted streets. There is a history um

[56:02] back in the middle 70s early 80s that the um city council and the

[56:07] administration at the time went through a massive acceptance of anything that

[56:12] looked like a street look like a duck, walk like a duck. That is literally what

[56:15] they did. They grabbed it, they brought it in, they accepted it. Uh

[56:21] and there are, for example, Ben Court had barely an inch of asphalt on it.

[56:27] when we went to repaint it, we build it up, we found sand underneath, um, which

[56:32] changed the way we had to approach our this season. So, yes, there's still

[56:35] those surprises that exist out there as, uh, we find these streets that were

[56:39] developed. >> So, it is better to go into this with

[56:42] our eyes open and clear, but but I just want wanted for the record known that

[56:47] this is not unique to this cl these unaccepted streets that these are these

[56:52] are other problems that we encounter regularly. discover new

[56:57] » rediscover and new things and surprises and hopefully with our engineering

[57:00] standards and um and other recent advancements we'll say that we're less

[57:05] likely to find those things going forward.

[57:08] » Correct. Um, you know, I I do want to say, you know, as we consider this, you

[57:13] know, you have a a group of city staff here who understand the commit the

[57:18] scenario that we're currently in and needing to solve this problem one way or

[57:22] the other of either accepting or uh asking residents to become some sort of

[57:27] association with private. If for some reason, you know, as we're looking at

[57:31] phase one, a street under phase two, I lane I think

[57:37] is the least likely I lane comes forward. Every resident on the street

[57:41] says we have we have signed this deed. We are ready the city to accept this

[57:45] street. We will that's it. We'll move it forward. We'll tell you that this is

[57:49] what's happening. This is all the information we have on it. Do you want

[57:53] us to collect more or are you ready to accept the risk that you know we're

[57:57] using 20% estimates to give you a asset value of the street?

[58:01] » Have to be a property owner. >> Yeah. But that's possible if possible if

[58:05] as we share with the public what we're doing here.

[58:10] North Cove is probably one of the ones that I suspect may, you know, as a

[58:14] neighborhood come together and just be like, I'm doing this. We're all doing

[58:18] this. Collecting signatures. We're going to go forward. extension,

[58:23] » right? Um, okay. And and the other thing, Becca alluded to it a little bit,

[58:29] but I think as we are doing outreach to these streets, I think it's probably

[58:34] worthwhile saying go to your basement and your filing cabinets and give us any

[58:39] documentation you might have that might be different than what's in some of the

[58:43] city records or might be harder to find in the city records. That's right.

[58:47] » Of the way way. We welcome any private information. The

[58:52] more information we have collectively, the better decisions we and frankly you

[58:56] all as the deciders get to make. >> We should depend on it. But it's a it's

[59:01] a nice to have if we can get it. >> Exactly. And Laura segueed to uh two

[59:08] streets that I think is as Merrick you talked about policy that we will need to

[59:13] get the council to be thinking about are streets uh such as North Cove Road that

[59:18] don't have some utilities on it and what your expectation is about whether or not

[59:27] utilities will be built out on those streets as part of acceptance or not.

[59:33] Currently, North Cove does not have sewer service and they have private

[59:38] septic. So, that's going to be an important policy discussion for the

[59:43] council to grapple with. If you have any additional initial kind of thoughts now,

[59:49] fine. But ultimately, this is going to be a long-term uh policy decision

[59:55] squarely council understanding that those roads it's

[59:58] probably not as simple as just running a new sewer line. We're talking pump

[1:00:02] station and force main which the costs are much heavier.

[1:00:08] » It's a low point. You got to get it up the hill.

[1:00:10] » Yeah. >> So, um what for? So, you don't need

[1:00:14] anything else from two tonight. This is more of an update. Are you bringing this

[1:00:18] same update to the council at some point?

[1:00:20] » We have uh not thought about a full council presentation. We one idea just

[1:00:27] speaking off top of my head is that we could share with the council in a

[1:00:31] communication what we discussed with the toque so that there was awareness about

[1:00:36] the phased approach and see if there's any input from them given that we're

[1:00:41] really limited at least in FY27 to staff time desktop review initial research

[1:00:48] that that may be sufficient for now. >> Okay. But you tell me if if the council

[1:00:54] feels otherwise. >> We might um ask that I think maybe we

[1:00:59] attach this um this memo and maybe commun well with the

[1:01:04] communication to the council's >> and then you could speak to it as part

[1:01:09] of your council committee updates. >> Yeah, you can do that.

[1:01:12] » Okay. Would it be good to know too city council would like city staff to

[1:01:17] continue public engagement at this point? Like what you all would envision

[1:01:23] city staff doing for public engagements? U well certainly street I mean for

[1:01:29] myself and I'll open up to the committee. Certainly if you've I I don't

[1:01:34] disagree with your phasing. I know that you have reasons for phasing things this

[1:01:39] way. Um but within the phase one streets eventually I would think we would need

[1:01:45] to start doing outreach in some form to all of the residents of

[1:01:51] I don't know what you're whether you're talking about a meeting like you're

[1:01:54] talking about a mailing or what >> so that was kind of proposed I wrote the

[1:02:00] section which is why I feel a little less familiar with it um that basically

[1:02:04] you know we need to work internally on our own budget um to try to continue to

[1:02:09] build out a 28 and funds to the investigation. Uh concurrently, it's the

[1:02:14] public engagement at a street level conversation because all of almost all

[1:02:20] of these streets are very different or in a different part of town or will have

[1:02:24] different conditions based on their size and availability. And even as much as

[1:02:27] Chitn and Iran are right next to each other, the streets themselves are very

[1:02:32] fundamentally different in how they're built. one may allow on street parking

[1:02:36] and the other one is probably not going to have enough space to fit it. Um so

[1:02:40] you know very much a neighborhood street by street level discussion is what we

[1:02:46] envision >> and we can involve counselors in those

[1:02:49] words as well the MPA >> I don't know that I want to bring it in

[1:02:55] through the NPA just because that brings in such a large component of a

[1:03:00] neighborhood and this literally needs to be an understanding if you become an

[1:03:04] accepted city street you're paying incumbrance fees if you want to have a

[1:03:07] moving truck on the street you're going to have to do this. Do you envision

[1:03:11] wanting on street parking? Do you not want on street parking? You're not going

[1:03:15] to be able to get resident parking if we put, you know, so it's extremely

[1:03:20] specific to just these property owners. >> I I we can do it as a communication

[1:03:26] tool. >> Okay. Yes.

[1:03:30] » Um we Is there more Beck if you have more?

[1:03:36] » No, thank you. >> Okay. Um I I want to move us I know you

[1:03:41] had a question if you can keep it the to less than a minute we allow.

[1:03:46] » Sure. I just want to say that um I'll talk about finances and projected

[1:03:51] expenses and whatnot. I think the city like I pay a lot of taxes for a very

[1:03:56] small house a raised ranch which is constantly prepare 13,000 a year of

[1:04:01] payment. I get nothing. No Vermont asset, no telephone, whatever. And I

[1:04:07] have to do this. And I really object to the flip value where you just say, "Oh

[1:04:12] yes, the comm the homeowners are going to pay for a water break." It's like

[1:04:15] that's horrible. That would be like my retirement. And I don't feel like I'm

[1:04:18] part of the community. I've lived in Burlington since 1986. And when you can

[1:04:22] just dismiss these kinds of things so out of hand, it doesn't feel great. I

[1:04:27] would say in terms of what this is going to cost, you know what we're paying now?

[1:04:31] Nothing. And the city, I feel like, is liable for allowing these streets. My

[1:04:35] street was built 60 years ago. And Tony Pomelo, when he was alive, would say,

[1:04:38] "We're gonna sell it to the city for a dollar." They did that all through the

[1:04:42] 70s and 80s. And you know, nobody wanted to take assume the cost. Well, I'm a

[1:04:46] member of this community. I pay taxes. And the fact that um this can just you

[1:04:51] could be so flippant like, "Oh, they've only have they don't have three inches

[1:04:53] of tarmac. We're not gonna, you know, like I'm going to tell the community

[1:04:57] that it's going to be a exorbitant cost and everybody's going to get upset." You

[1:05:01] know, it's like I am a member of this community to dismiss my

[1:05:06] » But thank you. Thank you for asking. It's kind of outrageous and I think you

[1:05:10] guys are at fault. >> We appreciate you being here.

[1:05:13] » So many years that nobody dealt with this and of

[1:05:17] course the streets are in disrepair because nobody the city didn't want

[1:05:20] Steve Goodkind in 2014 said I don't want to pay for the streets and they didn't.

[1:05:25] And they got further and further and worse repair. And it's it's the city's

[1:05:29] fault. It's not my fault. >> Well, we're we're we're we're working on

[1:05:32] it and we appreciate your input. >> I'm sorry. I'm so

[1:05:34] » No, no, it's fine. And I'm I'm hoping >> I just it's just it's just the the the

[1:05:39] attitude. It's just it's it's people's lives, you know. I know it's a budget. I

[1:05:43] know there's technical stuff and I know there's legal stuff, but it's people's

[1:05:46] lives. >> Yeah, it's understandable.

[1:05:50] » I Okay. >> Um but this this is to be continued. Um

[1:05:55] and I think we're making good progress on plan. Yeah. And we're gonna discuss

[1:06:01] the policy aspects of council.

[1:06:05] » Follow up about the estimates or >> we can talk,

[1:06:11] » but appreciate appreciate those who came with me. Thank you.

[1:06:15] » Thank you. Um, so we're going to continue on and now we're going to go

[1:06:20] backwards in our agenda to our GMT funding initiative and

[1:06:26] clarity. >> Hi, nice to meet you.

[1:06:30] » Join us at the table. >> Um, and um, we were talking that um,

[1:06:34] despite best intentions, neither or Merrick or I or Becca could make it

[1:06:41] to either of the things we've had so far. were hoping you could do giving

[1:06:45] give us an update on how this initiative is proceeding and and what you sort of

[1:06:54] um say your name for the record. >> Sure. Yeah, my name is Marty Gillies.

[1:06:59] » Um apologies for >> um so this initiative kind of came from

[1:07:05] some local citizen advocates. Uh it's been sort of taken up by the BNRC or not

[1:07:11] natural resources council. um they operate the transportation for Vermont's

[1:07:16] team for BT program. So it's uh it's got its own website but it is part of BNRC

[1:07:21] and the staff people who run it are BNRC staff um and B T forBT is sort of a

[1:07:27] broad coalition of uh transportation um minded groups clubs in there 350 per

[1:07:35] month other climate organization AP so just a kind of a wide consortium of

[1:07:41] folks that are interested in transportation mostly public transitive

[1:07:44] walk bike groups um and So they're sort of leading the

[1:07:49] charge here. And so um we've had two meetings to date. Um and

[1:07:57] the first sort of thing on the the agenda is the September 22nd press

[1:08:02] conference. Um

[1:08:05] I believe at the last meeting it was agreed that that would be at the GMT

[1:08:11] um headquarters, but then there was some talk maybe we'll have it at the downtown

[1:08:14] training center. Um but that'll be on September 22nd. Time has not yet been uh

[1:08:19] locked in. Um and I think the point of press conference is sort of as before

[1:08:27] November elections and as uh legislators at the state level are sort of ramping

[1:08:32] up for the January start session. um just trying to communicate to the state

[1:08:37] and to our policy makers at that level that there's a sort of a large

[1:08:42] demographic group that cares um pretty deeply and has a great need for transit.

[1:08:49] Um, I think one of the discussion points has

[1:08:53] been, you know, the urban versus rural elements. And in this press conference,

[1:08:59] are we going to try to fold in um folks from central Vermont, Northeast Kingdom,

[1:09:05] southern Vermont, or is this going to be more of a concerted shifting county push

[1:09:09] to say, hey, like specifically here in our area that is more urban than most of

[1:09:13] Vermont? This is especially important to us and you know, kind of get a little

[1:09:16] bit steamrolled or lost sometimes at the state level. Um so I think the ultimate

[1:09:21] decision over the first two meetings was uh there is a January press conference

[1:09:26] in Montpillar that maybe it would make more sense for central Vermont and

[1:09:30] Northeast Kingdom folks to come to and sort of present that unified front that

[1:09:33] across the state this is a need. Um but this September press conference I think

[1:09:38] it's going to be more of a Chen County focus. Uh

[1:09:43] speakers at this time I think we have Tosh Rener mayor Wooki is planning on

[1:09:47] being there. Um I believe someone from Essex Junction

[1:09:53] City Council is going to be there. Uh ARP

[1:09:58] CATMA Champ looking at maybe grabbing the housing

[1:10:01] person or two um just to sort of you know find that interconnectedness of

[1:10:08] transit enabling more housing less money less traffic etc. Um, so that's kind of

[1:10:15] where we're at on that element of the the thing. And then beyond September

[1:10:21] 22nd, uh, I think that is still a little bit more in the air, but the idea is

[1:10:27] that transportation for Veranters would be in their platform and and this group

[1:10:31] would be sort of working to highlight um, existing

[1:10:36] um, and ongoing efforts to promote bus

[1:10:40] ridership. I think broadly speaking bit more of advocacy education campaign

[1:10:45] looking to get choice riders just trying to spread the word a little bit more

[1:10:49] about whereab routes exist stuff like that for example GMT just extended the

[1:10:55] number nine route so now it goes to the Shaw Pchester it's the first time that

[1:11:00] will have transit access to a like a major grocery store that's kind of a big

[1:11:05] deal and that's no it's not in the news and that's not something that's super

[1:11:07] well publicized just I'm trying to to do more to make those little victories and

[1:11:13] make things more public. But I think so far a lot of the effort has been on the

[1:11:17] set of second press conference and I think the sort of education advocacy

[1:11:20] campaign comes next. Um the other big I guess thing worth talking about is that

[1:11:26] there it's not going to be so much a policy or a legislative campaign. I

[1:11:31] think a lot of folks um in the T4BT coalition feel that the

[1:11:37] way things are set up right now, there's not a ton of wiggle room budget wise or

[1:11:42] politically speaking to make big moves on transit funding this session. Um so I

[1:11:48] think the intention is sort of to get the ball rolling to sort of prime

[1:11:52] legislators and media and stuff like that to to cover this in a different way

[1:11:56] or to be more receptive of this issue moving forward. But I don't think that

[1:11:59] there's any expectation that there's going to be huge

[1:12:04] changes made this session as result. >> Okay. Um, I will add, uh, Councelor

[1:12:11] Bergman isn't here this evening, but he sent me a note prior to the meeting, um,

[1:12:16] suggesting that we send we, uh, draft a statement um,

[1:12:22] sent to send to the full council in support of this and also send it to

[1:12:26] legislators and legislative candidates, the mayor and their administration, ask

[1:12:30] that they join u this effort or support this effort at a point.

[1:12:36] Um, and so that's also something that we as a committee could could help

[1:12:42] undertake if there was interest in doing that. So I'll open it up to uh committee

[1:12:47] members for um comments and discussion. Um but yeah, sure. Uh thanks for thanks

[1:12:55] for coming. Um um

[1:13:02] uh you uh for the press first for for the press conference if you uh want one

[1:13:08] of us for to speak the press conference have some or maybe someone from the

[1:13:12] mayor's office or something a Burlington speaker. Uh I think that would be cool.

[1:13:18] uh if that's a need or want. Um I guess now now going into what I guess

[1:13:27] what you were talking about um and Clayton maybe you can um confirm

[1:13:34] this. Um you so you said that um in going into the next session there aren't

[1:13:40] there doesn't there aren't plans currently for a I guess like a

[1:13:44] legislative logging campaign around around the budget specifically. Do you

[1:13:49] think the budget's going to remain stable for GMT? Because my concern is

[1:13:55] that I maybe maybe there's not um like you said the wiggle room, the

[1:14:02] consciousness among among the legislature yet to make a full push for

[1:14:05] increased funding which I think we desperately need. Um but for for years

[1:14:11] now it's been it's not even been about increasing funding, it's been about

[1:14:15] holding the line. Do you think that um would there be worth in having some type

[1:14:21] of effort on even just holding the line because it seems like it just gets

[1:14:25] chipped away to learn more? >> No, it definitely does. Um yeah, like I

[1:14:29] said, I'm not a huge Montillar policy expert or anything like that. Um the

[1:14:34] BNRC folks are are like professional lobbyists. Um so they're the ones who

[1:14:39] are sort of reading the room. >> Yeah.

[1:14:41] » Relaying that to me. Um, I think the big push

[1:14:45] policy wise would be the dedication of a separate

[1:14:49] dedicated transit funding source. So there's some some tax or some fee at the

[1:14:54] state level and all that always goes to transit and there's a pot of money

[1:14:57] specifically reserve for transit and it's not we're not taking a little bit

[1:15:00] out of the trans general fund that you're hearing kind of argu about how

[1:15:02] much that is. Um, and my understanding is that folks feel like it's maybe not

[1:15:10] the right time or not yet the right time to um go for a full court

[1:15:17] push on our legislators to make that happen this session. I think the thought

[1:15:21] is that there should be some sort of priming that hey like this is an issue,

[1:15:25] this is an issue and once folks sort of accept and our our donkey business says

[1:15:29] that this is an issue then that's the solution, right? Um

[1:15:33] Paul order to get that immediately done. I think especially Bill Scott is pretty

[1:15:39] vocal that he wants to know your taxes fees. Um and this you know if it maybe

[1:15:45] comes out to be a net zero any less of the this general fund is coming from

[1:15:50] this other pot maybe the total total amount is the same but it would probably

[1:15:54] end up having a new sort of tax or fee or or something like that. And so the

[1:16:00] thoughts that the Scott administration would be pretty opposed and unless

[1:16:04] there's pretty widespread grab support for something like that. Um they might

[1:16:10] be like sort of dead on arrival. >> Yeah. Not well I I agree with you about

[1:16:14] that. I think it's a I think that's a great long-term goal. Uh, and I yeah, I

[1:16:20] would also agree that based off of past sessions that it's um

[1:16:25] not not great chances, but yeah, just just flagging that like we've seen just

[1:16:29] year over year, you know, this that the data is that it's not just been like

[1:16:33] they're leaving it stable, that they're they're forcing GMT to cut millions of

[1:16:38] dollars. And I um yes, like I I agree with you about like any sort of

[1:16:44] increasing um and even what you said about creating a dedicated funding

[1:16:48] source. Uh but if if Phil Scott comes out and says we're we're going to make

[1:16:52] GMT cut another $3 million um it's they think there needs to be and

[1:16:59] even just a campaign to hold the line could also be part of that priming the

[1:17:04] pumps for doing more in the future. And like I said, um the first two meetings

[1:17:09] of the sort of organizing committee have been some logistics of the match went

[1:17:13] too. And I think there's there's a lot of wiggle room for what this campaign

[1:17:16] looks like moving forward. And so I think um I certainly don't mean to like

[1:17:21] shut like doors to the table and stuff. There's there's

[1:17:26] ton

[1:17:29] to respond with any insights that you might have at this early stage about

[1:17:33] future funding. too early or is it too early? Um,

[1:17:38] » it's not too early because um I have um so I have some good news and bad news as

[1:17:43] usual. Uh but before I I dive into that, I I do just want to thank Marty for his

[1:17:48] efforts um uh both with this and his uh work on our uh ridership um uh

[1:17:55] accessibility council uh that we have. So thank you very much for uh for

[1:17:59] supporting GMT in such a great way uh Marty. And so, um, one of the things

[1:18:04] that, uh, uh, Mariki brought up about funding uncertainty and the last time I

[1:18:10] was there, I talked about, uh, concerns about the federal funding levels and,

[1:18:14] uh, one of the things that it appears that next year's federal funding levels

[1:18:19] will be, uh, flat for GMT, so that we won't have a reduction. So, so that's

[1:18:24] the the good news that um we have to report. But I I I should say that, you

[1:18:30] know, until a continuing resolution is fully passed and signed by the

[1:18:33] president, um you know, we don't know exactly if that funding will be uh level

[1:18:39] as we think it will be. The thing that I'm more concerned about, and uh this is

[1:18:44] something that Chapen um heard at our last uh GMT board meeting, is that the

[1:18:49] ridership uh numbers um uh have gone down more than we anticipated with our

[1:18:55] service reductions from the past year. Um we are in my opinion dangerously

[1:19:00] close to losing some of our performance awards. um if we do lose those

[1:19:05] performance awards, that is the first step in a death spiral. And uh people

[1:19:10] don't like it when I say it, but that's the reality. And so uh uh so that is

[1:19:15] really the thing that concerns me because any future cuts we're we're

[1:19:19] already probably have cut to the point that we're going to lose performance

[1:19:22] awards and any future cuts is means in my mind that that will be pretty much

[1:19:28] definite. >> Thank you. Um,

[1:19:33] Becca, did you want to make comments or ask questions?

[1:19:37] » Uh, no, just thank you for all this work. It's it's important and um I

[1:19:43] definitely support keeping the funding and um I hope that we um don't see the

[1:19:51] wrership continue to go down. I think that that's not great news, Clayton. And

[1:19:56] but I'm I'm glad you're flagging it so that we have the opportunity to do

[1:20:00] something. Thanks. >> Thank you. Um, so it seems like there's

[1:20:05] two actions that um, we could take. One is to send a representative to the press

[1:20:11] conference on the 22nd. Merrick, would you be willing to be a representative

[1:20:15] since you're inhouse uh, transit expert, sorry, or GMT expert? Anyways, um, be

[1:20:22] happy to. Um, and so we could do that. Um, and we could also uh I could work

[1:20:28] with Marty to to draft a um a communication on behalf of the committee

[1:20:34] that we could maybe circulate to the council.

[1:20:37] » I think Jean had sort of mentioned that maybe you've done this in previous

[1:20:41] years. >> What we've done in in the past is we've

[1:20:43] actually sponsored resolutions probably on three different occasions that I can

[1:20:48] recall. um and that we would sponsor resolutions at the council level that

[1:20:54] then go on to um the legislature, you know, about and usually during the

[1:21:00] legislative session to try to to advocate for funding and we've done that

[1:21:06] um in the past and I don't know how effective they've been, but hopefully

[1:21:10] they've been they've been helpful and Clayton and worked with us on on those

[1:21:15] um as well at times. So um in this in this particular case you see how you're

[1:21:21] the press conference is really vehicle ahead of the election cycle and trying

[1:21:26] to get people to commit to them and whatnot. We could certainly um try to

[1:21:31] help with that with some sort of statement of support. I I would work

[1:21:35] with you if the committee is good with me doing so um on that and maybe um we

[1:21:41] could you know not as committee because we probably won't vote on it tonight but

[1:21:45] as in as we've done in the past as individual counselors we could sign on

[1:21:50] as two members as individual counselors if we could have a statement that's

[1:21:54] acceptable to all four of us and we could bring that to the full to

[1:21:59] constitute obvious sign. >> Absolutely.

[1:22:03] Yeah, that goes with the sort of the two items that Gene had certified for me if

[1:22:07] possible action. >> So I can work with you directly. I think

[1:22:10] I could contact email,

[1:22:15] you know, you'll work with America on that.

[1:22:22] » Um and and Jim, thank you for your advocacy because we need that.

[1:22:27] » Yeah, no problem. And thank you for reflectioning the schedule.

[1:22:31] » No problem. >> I don't know if Clayton if I kept you

[1:22:34] sitting in Zoom for an hour, but apologies for that.

[1:22:38] » We kept we kept Clayton entertained with unaccepted streets.

[1:22:43] » I actually got a lot of work done, so thanks.

[1:22:46] » Worked out great. >> Okay. Well, thank you.

[1:22:51] » Yeah. Um, so we'll we'll move to uh you'll move to Our

[1:22:59] next agenda item which is our last deliberative item

[1:23:02] » must be me >> which is the proposed FOY27 fleet

[1:23:06] purchases presentation. >> Has it been a year already?

[1:23:11] » Almost. >> Yeah, almost a year.

[1:23:13] » I think it was last August. >> I believe

[1:23:19] we'll move on to that next. >> And we have Ashley Parker as well for

[1:23:24] the setting. And unfortunately, fleet manager Nate G cannot be here tonight

[1:23:28] because he has sort of personal commitments as

[1:23:34] » we'll be representing the fleet committee uh which uh the fleet

[1:23:38] committee is here to request the transportation energy utilities

[1:23:41] committee recommend the board of finance and city council approve the proposed

[1:23:46] FY27 vehicle purchase replacement

[1:23:50] recommendations and list the vehicle side optional.

[1:23:54] So as uh for the fleet policy, our fleet manager Dave Hammond, myself met with

[1:24:00] both uh representatives from both general fun departments and revenue

[1:24:05] special revenue departments to come up with a recommended uh list for FY27.

[1:24:12] Out of those meetings, he identified 15 vehicles were total for FY27.

[1:24:17] 13 of those being general fund vehicles or equipment that are also in urgent

[1:24:24] need of replacement. Uh the other two remaining are water resources

[1:24:31] of revenue. Um available funds for the general fund

[1:24:36] purchases will be uh funded by the general

[1:24:40] obligation bond series 2025A. There's a little over a million dollars left in

[1:24:45] there from previous purchases that can be used. And of those four funds that

[1:24:52] mentions in the vehicle purchase list, there will be four uh large capital

[1:25:00] vehicles purchased through the GO bond and then the remainder of the general

[1:25:05] fund vehicle purchased using $750,000 that was allotted by administration.

[1:25:13] uh revenue purchases will be using their own revenue streams to make those

[1:25:19] purchases. Total purchase amount is not to exceed

[1:25:23] 1,974,788.

[1:25:27] You can see the list of vehicles to purchase. We could run through them, but

[1:25:32] they are in the memo. I'm sure you have a look at those. Um

[1:25:40] and we still have a rather large uh deferred list of vehicles or like 93

[1:25:45] vehicles which makes up about 30% of the general fund fleet. So that does not

[1:25:51] include BE vehicles or uh water resources

[1:25:57] just general fund vehicles with a total amount a little over 6 and a half

[1:26:01] million. Now not all those deferred vehicles are in need of replacement.

[1:26:07] Some are assets that are um can be deferred due to limited use or limited

[1:26:14] wear to them and are not expensive to maintain. So we have you know there's

[1:26:18] trailers, we have a top cell screen. We've had for years that would be

[1:26:24] replaced but because of the amount of use it gets and the amount of

[1:26:27] maintenance that it requires is not on make to the top of that list.

[1:26:34] the age of our fleet has a lot to do with the deferred vehicles list and how

[1:26:39] it impacts our fleet maintenance team and their ability to properly maintain

[1:26:43] the fleet. So, we've been moving from more of a preventative maintenance

[1:26:47] program to more of a responsive maintenance program due to the aid of

[1:26:52] the fleet and the amount of repairs that it needs.

[1:26:56] also the size of the fleet compared to the size of our fleet technician team

[1:27:02] which we are down a few fleet technicians right now. So it's making it

[1:27:07] uh as I said more of a responsive playing catch up. So due to that, we've

[1:27:14] been outsourcing a lot of our larger repairs

[1:27:18] to local vendors, which has increased our contractual vehicle repair line,

[1:27:25] which we had to amend in FY26 by about almost $76,000.

[1:27:32] But we do have a new fleet funding strategy, as I mentioned in the memo,

[1:27:37] antennal service fund, which will hopefully be implemented in the next

[1:27:40] year too. that allow general fund departments to set aside money within

[1:27:46] their budget to pay for their individual departments fleet purchases.

[1:27:51] That's something that we're working on the administration.

[1:27:58] And then EV purchases this year. We don't out of those 15 vehicles, a lot of

[1:28:05] them are large block trucks, tandoms, one a trailer

[1:28:10] that there's not an EV option for. We did have five uh police cruisers that

[1:28:16] were purchasing that are hybrids. Um, of the vehicles on the list, when we met

[1:28:23] with Burlington Electric to review possible EV options,

[1:28:29] the only option was the walkbehind mower,

[1:28:35] which we dealt with the one parks and recreation cemetery. We had one on site.

[1:28:41] Their crews took it, mowed all over the the uh cemeteries. used it out in other

[1:28:48] areas, other parks. Um, it just the way that mower works and as it states in

[1:28:56] supporting memo that the parks department,

[1:29:00] it's just not conducive to the lay of the cemetery,

[1:29:06] especially with a lot of the ledge slopes that are there.

[1:29:11] Previous years I demoed one myself there and found it difficult and unsafe on

[1:29:16] those steep slopes because it's not controlled like a traditional more with

[1:29:21] belt drives. So we are not pursuing that as an

[1:29:26] electric vehicle where there are no electric vehicle purchases here just by

[1:29:31] hybrid.

[1:29:36] Um, Ashley, do you have anything to add?

[1:29:42] » Um, no. I think I just wanted to highlight again the um general fund. I

[1:29:48] don't want to say earmark, but contribution that was approved as part

[1:29:51] of the budget this year to support um the cash purchase of that long list of

[1:29:58] general fund vehicles that Lee was was mentioning, almost $750,000. and that it

[1:30:03] is part of the attempt to work towards that internal service fund where we um

[1:30:10] more formally set aside money to make sure we have money to purchase uh

[1:30:15] vehicles every year. So, I just wanted to to call that out in addition to the

[1:30:19] bond dollars that um are also supporting purchases.

[1:30:27] Um, committee members on the uh the fleet just

[1:30:36] there. Becca, do you have anything?

[1:30:42] » I don't have anything. This all looks good to me. Thank you. It's nice to see

[1:30:46] the progress being made on the financing side certainly too. So, thank you.

[1:30:54] » I guess I had a question. So just to understand the mo the so parks one of

[1:31:00] the fleet purchases is a is a walkbehind mower

[1:31:03] » correct >> and is it for parks?

[1:31:05] » Yes. >> Okay. So it was a clear about

[1:31:09] » um and so and they demoed one an electric model that that wasn't suitable

[1:31:15] for what they needed and so that's why we're not pursuing that. the other

[1:31:20] electric vehicles um the other fleet purchases aren't eligible for because

[1:31:26] there there aren't electric >> options for them except for like the

[1:31:31] police cruisers where they're hybrids. >> Correct.

[1:31:33] » Okay.

[1:31:37] » Um I'm just anticipating >> Yeah.

[1:31:39] » other questions that may come up like they have in prior years um as this

[1:31:43] groups beyond the committee and off to the council.

[1:31:46] » Yeah. And we did discuss with Burlington Electric about the

[1:31:50] um ship command vehicle because originally we were going to go with an

[1:31:55] F150 light or something similar to that, but because of the weight that they

[1:32:02] carry the gear, it exceeded the capacity of the pickup. So then we looked at

[1:32:08] maybe the the Chevy Silverado, a heavier duty version, but based on again

[1:32:16] There's a difference between carrying capacity and towing capacity. And again,

[1:32:20] with the size of the batteries that are on the vehicle and the additional weight

[1:32:24] that they would add in gear, it exceeded what they could use it for. So,

[1:32:31] » well, uh, thank you for this. Um, is 15. I mean, I've seen a few of these come

[1:32:36] through since I've been on the council. >> Yeah, I mean on this on this on the It's

[1:32:40] even below last year, but I think was maybe 17.

[1:32:42] » Yeah. So I mean there's been years where 20,

[1:32:46] » right? So it's bad, you know. >> So I mean it's important not to lose

[1:32:52] sight of the fact that there is that deferred list that's becoming more some

[1:32:57] of which are becoming more and more critical.

[1:32:59] » Correct. And and our fleet software has a scoring system that rates vehicles in

[1:33:04] urgent need. So these 13 that are in the general fund are urgent need vehicles

[1:33:09] from the department. Well, thank you for bringing this

[1:33:13] forward. Um, I know that you would like uh the toque to

[1:33:20] » make a motion on this and take take action to move it to the full council.

[1:33:24] So, I don't know if one of the committee members would

[1:33:28] make a motion. There's one in the memo. Uh

[1:33:33] uh so I would move to approve and recommend the board of finance and city

[1:33:39] council approve the proposed whites 17 fleet purchasing list as detailed in

[1:33:44] attachment a vehicle replacement list and authorize the director of the

[1:33:48] department of public works who purchased the vehicles listed therein for a total

[1:33:52] authorized expenditure in an amount not to exceed 1,974,788.

[1:34:01] And I and I would move to approve and

[1:34:05] recommend that the board of finance and city council authorize the director of

[1:34:08] the department public works or designate to dispose of the FY27 replaced vehicles

[1:34:15] equipment through any of the following means as they shall in their responsible

[1:34:19] judgment determined to be in the city's best interest and to take such further

[1:34:23] actions and execute such further instruments approved as to form by the

[1:34:29] city the attorney as may be necessary or convenient to affectuate the

[1:34:33] transactions contemplated hereby auction the vehicle/equipment through any of the

[1:34:38] various online public auctions by trade in where vehicle equipment is being

[1:34:42] purchased or if the vehicle is is of no value to the vendor fleet maintenance

[1:34:47] will have the vehicle equipment hauled away for scrap at the current market

[1:34:52] price thanks for that very motion is there a second

[1:34:58] » wow Oh, I'm really glad I didn't volunteer to read that. Thanks, Eric.

[1:35:02] Second. Yes. >> Um, any further discussion?

[1:35:07] I see none. All those in favor of the motion while motion is read by indicate

[1:35:12] by saying I. >> I.

[1:35:14] » I. >> Um, so there you have it.

[1:35:17] » Thank you. >> Thank you.

[1:35:18] » Thank you. >> Thank you all.

[1:35:21] » Thank you, Ashley.

[1:35:24] Um and that brings us to the end of our deliberative agenda. Next we have a

[1:35:30] director's report. >> Yeah. Given the hour, uh I defer.

[1:35:35] » Yeah. Councelor items. Any councilors have items to

[1:35:40] for the committee? You're not seeing any. Um so that moves

[1:35:46] us to our last item which is SK setting. Our next meeting is currently scheduled

[1:35:51] for the 22nd uh of September at 5:30 p.m. Is that work for everybody still?

[1:35:57] And is this room available?

[1:36:02] » Is everybody okay with that as a meeting date? Uh assuming the press conference

[1:36:07] is not 5:30. >> Yeah, they did. It was like 11 or 4.

[1:36:11] » Yeah. >> And that will work for me. I got it.

[1:36:16] » Um >> Yep. That works for me.

[1:36:19] » Okay. So, let's let's let's say we're going to do that and I will

[1:36:25] let team know and the item is so further business and

[1:36:32] that's the injunction. I'll journ at 7:09.

[1:36:35] Thank you everybody. >> Thank you. Have a good night.

[1:37:08] Come

[1:37:18] on. Come on.

Transportation, Energy, and Utilities Committee

Agenda

Transcript