[0:03] progress. >> Hello everybody. I'm going to call the

[0:08] uh September 3rd workshop meeting of Burough Council to order and I'll lead

[0:15] us in the pledge.

[0:21] To the flag of the United States of America and to the stands one nation

[0:28] under God and justice for all.

[0:37] » President Bush >> here.

[0:39] » Vice President Ricks >> here.

[0:41] » Council member Samson >> here.

[0:42] » Council member Barack >> here. Council member Spear

[0:45] » here. >> Council member Godini

[0:46] » here. >> Council member Stratton

[0:48] » here. and Mayor Dana Edwards >> here.

[0:51] » Okay. Uh

[0:57] I don't think I have any comments uh at this time. I will note

[1:03] that

[1:07] we do have one consideration item. So I think I will take um public comment

[1:13] before we vote on that consideration item.

[1:16] Uh otherwise public comment will be at the end of the meeting as it generally

[1:19] is a workshop. Okay. Um Mr. Mayor, do you have

[1:25] comments? >> No comments. Thank you.

[1:27] » Okay. Uh so let's move on to the agenda. Uh our first discussion item is the uh

[1:33] bridge project update. So let's begin with a a summary and then

[1:39] we can see if there's a motion. Um but right now

[1:44] you want to give us our sum of the situation.

[1:48] » Yeah. And I want to also mention that we have um Mo Gawe here. Uh he's with

[1:53] traffic planning and design. Um so we have him online. Uh he is our

[1:57] construction manager uh for this project. Um so what is before you

[2:02] tonight is a consideration for some options to uh alter the the bridge uh

[2:09] project slightly. And this is because the site access was originally intended

[2:14] to be through the uh parking lot. Um that access is not available at this

[2:20] time and so we are pivoting to taking access from the south side um of the

[2:25] tracks which would result in us bringing um um you machines and uh materials uh

[2:32] on the tracks themselves as opposed to coming in off of the right of way.

[2:38] um because of the uh number of trips that we would have to take um that does

[2:44] increase the project cost. Um so we have a couple of options ahead of us. Uh

[2:49] these numbers so I produced a memo to council a couple days ago as part of

[2:53] your packets. Those numbers have been revised. So we do have those available

[2:57] um if we want to pull them up. Um and actually we should probably because the

[3:02] numbers are are different nominally but they're different. Um so if we do

[3:09] nothing to the bridge design, option one would maintain the um existing

[3:13] pedestrian access um would have the two-phase bridge construction uh but it

[3:18] would cost some additional money to um potentially to the burrow and this is

[3:23] going to be the um

[3:26] the ECMS.

[3:34] So, while we're getting this up, I'll just keep going through the the three

[3:37] options. Is it going to not show up because it's

[3:40] in word? Yeah. >> Okay. [clears throat] Sorry. I'm sorry.

[3:44] Stand by. We have um it's in Word, so it won't show up on our

[3:49] screen. >> Correct.

[3:58] » Okay. My apologies. We'll just read out the numbers then.

[4:01] So option one um this would maintain all of our

[4:06] existing um design configurations and timeline for the project. One of the

[4:10] things that we want to mention is that we do have an approved budget. This is a

[4:14] fedally funded project but we have a maximum approved budget for this. So any

[4:18] costs above that budget uh would be borne by the sponsor and the bureau is

[4:23] the sponsor. So we uh would anticipate then that we would be on the hook to pay

[4:28] any additional funds above what the project approval costs um have that have

[4:34] been already approved. So option one um in order to access the the construction

[4:39] entrance um it would result in an an additional estimated cost of $244,000.

[4:47] This maintains the original completion date of July 24th, 2029.

[4:51] um because we did start looking at other options uh beyond just that one. We did

[4:56] come up with two others that are before you this evening and I will give a brief

[5:00] overview of them and then I'll turn it over to Mo to to talk a little bit in

[5:03] more detail about them. So option number two would be to install a temporary

[5:07] pedestrian bridge. Um this would be about a million dollars worth of

[5:12] construction cost to build the bridge. What it does allow us to do though is

[5:16] actually demo the bridge in a uh rebuild the bridge in a single phase as opposed

[5:19] to a two-phase. So, it eliminates that construction seam in the middle of the

[5:22] bridge. Um, that is, I'm told, a better product overall for long-term

[5:26] maintenance. >> Sorry, sorry, I got feedback from people

[5:30] on Zoom that the audio is garbled and getting worse. Is there anything

[5:34] different or is it the same? >> Yeah, I don't know what we can do about

[5:38] garbles. >> Yeah, sorry. Sorry.

[5:42] That usually has to do with the noise like noise cancellation is on somehow

[5:46] either with Zoom [clears throat] or the um the

[5:51] or the owl. >> Yeah. Um

[5:54] » sorry. >> Yeah. I just

[5:59] » It's all the same.

[6:03] » Does it help if we speak up? >> Yeah, we'll try speaking louder. But

[6:08] » I do see the audio isn't jumping as much as it normally does.

[6:13] The little icon there. >> I mean, short of me unplugging

[6:17] everything. Um, >> I don't We can try I don't want to

[6:23] interrupt the meeting too much. I understand that folks are having a hard

[6:25] time hearing us online. Um, we can pause for a few minutes and try to fix this or

[6:29] give people an opportunity to come down.

[6:36] What's what is council's pleasure here? >> I do not think we pause the meeting. I

[6:40] think we've got a lot going on. >> Okay.

[6:43] » I think we'd speak up and if if we can identify a specific thing we can do

[6:48] » to try that would be fine. But like rebooting the whole setup is

[6:52] » is it supposed to be red? >> Yeah, that's the camera.

[6:55] » Oh, that's No, no. On the owl itself there's a Is that okay? So maybe we do

[7:01] need to reboot the owl. All

[7:05] right. In that case, yes, let's read with the [laughter]

[7:13] Apologies to the folks in the room. [snorts]

[7:20] What is this connected to? That's that.

[7:35] This is very uncomfortably close to me. [laughter]

[7:39] The video is on. Oh, there we go. >> Oh, there we go. It just went off.

[7:56] a little tucked. >> Sony online want to tell us

[8:02] to see if it >> I will note that there is a budget

[8:06] proposal at some point to redo the audio setup in here.

[8:10] » Keep that in mind. >> It's jumping.

[8:14] » Okay. It seems like that's an improvement. So, I think we're going to

[8:17] proceed and hope that that fixes it. Okay.

[8:20] » Maggie, if you want to jump back into the second option.

[8:23] » Yeah. Where was I? So, option number two is the pedestrian bridge. Um, the

[8:28] pedestrian bridge does uh cost about a million dollars. Um, there are cost

[8:33] savings though on the back end because it would save um about 7 months on the

[8:38] schedule. So, uh net cost for this one would be

[8:43] about $700,000 and 7 months ahead of schedule and we

[8:47] maintain pedestrian access through this temporary pedestrian bridge. Uh but

[8:50] again, because these additional costs would likely be borne by us, that would

[8:56] be $700,000 that we would need to budget for uh for this construction project

[9:00] that we don't currently have budgeted. Option number three, um would eliminate

[9:08] the pedestrian access. So this would be no pedestrian bridge and we would do a

[9:12] singlephase construction. So we would terminate pedestrian access for the

[9:15] duration of the construction project, which is about 15 months. Um, the

[9:20] benefit of this one is that it would actually be a net savings of about

[9:24] $270,000 to the overall project cost. Now, we

[9:28] don't get that money back. This is fedally funded. It just means that we

[9:31] wouldn't spend any extra money of burough funds. Um, and we anticipate

[9:35] that this could wrap the project up almost 11 months ahead of schedule with

[9:40] an anticipated completion date of um, September of 2028. So, this would

[9:46] dramatically reduce the overall construction timeline for this project,

[9:51] but it would eliminate the pedestrian access. So, those are the three options

[9:55] before you. I'm going to turn it over to Mo u Mo if you're online um to add in

[10:02] any um additional details and then we'll open it up to questions from council.

[10:09] » Thanks, Maggie. Can everybody hear me? Okay.

[10:11] » Mhm. Yes. Thank you. I think so. >> Yeah, Maggie summed it up perfectly. Um,

[10:15] option one, um, you know, we have to access from the Overbrook tracks, um,

[10:22] and move equipment through that fourth track up to the north side of the

[10:26] bridge. There's no savings in time. There is additional costs. Um, option

[10:31] two, we would construct a temporary pedestrian bridge. It would still need

[10:35] to go through the design and approval process um, with the contractor and

[10:39] Penoni to make sure that it's it's going to support pedestrians. We would also

[10:43] need to coordinate with uh Pico Electric and Comcast to uh transfer the utilities

[10:49] onto the pedestrian bridge to allow us to do the singlephase construction and

[10:54] eliminate that construction joint. And again, that would be um an overall

[10:58] additional cost of over 700,000. It would save 7 months on the schedule.

[11:03] eliminating um option number three, eliminating pedestrian bridge um seems

[11:08] to be um the preferred method by you know the contractor and and pendot would

[11:14] would result in the overall savings. Um we feel like we can you know try to

[11:22] save you know 11 months of of time as well.

[11:29] Does anybody have any questions about any of the three options that I can

[11:32] answer for you? >> Yeah. So, at this point, questions for

[11:36] uh about the logistics would be appropriate and then we can discuss

[11:39] afterwards.

[11:43] » Just a point of clarity because I I know what you mean, but other folks might

[11:46] not. When you said eliminate pedestrian access, we're talking about for the

[11:49] duration of construction. >> That's correct.

[11:51] » And there will be pedestrian access on the bridge post construction.

[11:56] » Yes. And we would actually be able to reopen pedestrian access before the

[12:02] bridge is fully open to vehicular traffic as well. So this wouldn't

[12:05] necessarily need to wait until the project is fully completely done, all

[12:09] elements of it. So the the deck, like the bridge deck, the actual

[12:16] paved portion of it, um could be open to pedestrians while they finish some of

[12:22] the freeze work and the utility connections, things like that that

[12:27] wouldn't impede pedestrian access, but the bridge would not yet be open to uh

[12:30] vehicles. So we would try to expedite the pedestrian reopening as as much as

[12:35] possible. Um but yes, this is just eliminating pedestrian access just for

[12:40] the period of construction which is anticipated to be about 15 months.

[12:44] » Yeah. And just and also just to to resum up even though you already said it,

[12:48] there were unforeseen circumstances that we now have to respond to. And so our

[12:54] options are keep on the main pass but meaningfully increase what we need to

[12:59] spend on that which has implications for our CIP.

[13:02] um try to maintain pedestrian access at at a significant additional cost which

[13:08] would also have to have implications for a CIP or try to take a option that will

[13:15] speed up the process. It will lose access for that period of time. Um there

[13:20] will be a net savings because of the truncated um time frame.

[13:24] » Correct. >> Okay.

[13:25] » Yep. Great summary. >> So you say 15 months is the expected

[13:30] duration of construction. >> Yes. You mentioned that the pedestrian

[13:33] access might open up earlier than 15 months or is 15 months inclusive of that

[13:37] earlier in you know early. >> Yeah, Mo, correct me if I'm wrong, but

[13:41] the 15 months is the expedited opening for pedestrians. Correct.

[13:47] » Yeah. Yeah. We we would figure that by the time we have the deck board and the

[13:52] barriers installed and and working on the architectural features, we should be

[13:56] ready to allow pedestrians on the deck. um

[14:02] probably late June of 2028. >> Um

[14:07] » 20 >> that's assume that the contractor can

[14:09] get the road paved and try to get us back in a situation where we can at

[14:14] least get them back on before it's open to ve vehicular traffic.

[14:18] » And when would the closure pedestrian closure start? immediately or

[14:23] » with that option, we said January of 2027

[14:28] through about June of 2028. [clears throat]

[14:34] » Um, hi Mo, thanks for being here. by the way. Um can I ask a question about

[14:37] option three because again it's a significantly earlier completion date um

[14:44] which is very attractive and I know one of the issues is certainly the concern

[14:47] of neighbors adjacent to the bridge that are going to hear a significant amount

[14:52] of work happen at night. Does that that new date in option three alleviate some

[14:58] of that night work by agents? Um, I would say the night work probably

[15:04] stays close to the same, if not a little bit less, because now, um, we're

[15:09] basically consolidating instead of having to do the two stages of of the

[15:12] excavation on the bridge and having to set the bridge beams in two different

[15:17] phases, we would be consolidating those uh activities into a single operation.

[15:23] Um, so yeah, I guess you would could you could say that um like towards the

[15:27] middle of the project and definitely towards the end we would be saving um I

[15:32] guess some of the there would be some relief with the night work.

[15:44] » No, I think we're still on questions for >> I have a question.

[15:46] » Go ahead. Um you mentioned that the doing the bridge in a singlephase

[15:53] construction would result in a structurally uh better bridge and

[15:59] potentially lower cost maintenance over over time.

[16:03] Can you go into detail um >> about that and what what the the cost

[16:09] difference might be long term for maintenance?

[16:13] Well, when when you introduce a construction joint where we have it

[16:17] currently designed, you have a bigger potential of a failure point and and

[16:21] more um more of a maintenance concern. When you eliminate the construction

[16:26] joint and you or the deck and the abupments in a single pore, um you

[16:33] reduce that risk long term.

[16:38] You you you eliminate the failure point. Do you have a sense of what the

[16:43] maintenance cost difference over the long term might be between a singlephase

[16:48] bridge project and a a two-phase bridge project with the

[16:54] seam?

[16:57] » You mean in terms of maintenance? >> Yeah, in terms of long-term maintenance

[17:01] costs. Um, I I don't have the figures on how

[17:06] much savings it would cost for long-term maintenance, but I would imagine it

[17:10] would definitely, you know, longterm it it would in terms of bridge inspections

[17:15] and having to come back and possibly address future failure points and

[17:18] concerns. It would, you know, there would be time basically that that you'd

[17:22] be saving and any shutdowns of the bridge that you would have to do to to

[17:26] address those concerns. Um, but as far as a dollar amount, I don't have that.

[17:31] Well, but I can I can look into it for you.

[17:34] » And Jean, along with that as well, just in terms of local maintenance, just the

[17:38] snow plow operations, having the smoother road versus the seam road just

[17:42] for um salting and plowing operations would be uh just easier and less uh less

[17:49] concern. Um but obviously the bridge was designed in a two-phase, so we are

[17:54] committed to building it that way. However, if we have the option to pivot,

[17:58] um, then that is a benefit to option two or three.

[18:03] » If if we make these changes, do we have to go through all of the cycle of

[18:08] approvals that we had to go through? Cuz, you know, those took so long.

[18:14] Like I'm just hesitant about these time frames. Are they taking into account

[18:19] whether and to what extent we need to get approvals from Comcast, Verizon,

[18:24] Pico, Amtrak, SEPTA, and all the other all the other folks that we need to get

[18:30] approvals for the initial construction. >> You have you have you have more levels

[18:34] of approval with the pedestrian bridge than you would for eliminating

[18:38] pedestrian access. the had not been made aware that, you know, we could if we

[18:44] build we eliminate the pedestrian access, you know, they cuz the site's

[18:48] currently not ADA compliant, they would approve that change. It seems like they

[18:54] would approve that change pretty pretty quickly. Things in construction tend to

[18:58] get approved a lot quicker than during the the traditional design process and

[19:02] trying to get it out to bid. When we're in construction, we can we can make

[19:05] things happen a little bit faster. [clears throat]

[19:08] » Okay. Thanks. >> Is it correct to say that um the

[19:14] construction project is waiting on this decision right now that we are not

[19:18] proceeding because this decision needs to be made?

[19:22] » That that would be correct. Um if we would go with pedestrian bridge option,

[19:26] we would need to know sooner rather than later so the contractor can submit their

[19:30] plans and submit their um designs for approval. get there will be some

[19:35] fabrication and and lead times with associated with that. Um doing the

[19:42] elimination of the pedestrian bridge um would allow the contractor then to um

[19:47] complete their designs for excavation support in one stage rather than having

[19:54] to try to um figure out, you know, to a second stage um excavation support. and

[20:01] also submitting the beam placement plan. We can do that all

[20:07] in one shot now versus having to do a peace meal.

[20:11] » Okay. >> Anybody else have some questions for

[20:14] him? >> Just one clarification. Uh if um we were

[20:19] talking about 15 months without pedestrian access, when I count from

[20:23] January 27 to June 28, I get 17 months. Uh just want to make sure I'm counting

[20:30] correctly.

[20:34] » I mean to go from June 1st to these were estimated they estimate.

[20:40] » I just want to make sure we're that people listening. No, [clears throat]

[20:47] » it is 15 or 17 but but it's it's in that range. Sounds

[20:52] like it's 16 plus minus. It would be about 16 months is what we were told by

[20:56] the contractor. >> 16.

[20:58] » Okay. 16 months. >> Thank you.

[21:00] » Sorry, maybe I missed it because it's getting a little loud in here. But that

[21:05] you say this is going to have to be submitted for some kind of approval. If

[21:09] we approve a design change, not design change, but a, you know, construction

[21:14] change. any like is there any peril with that

[21:19] that it it gets caught up in like a delayed approval

[21:24] again like what um what's your sense of whether that could get caught up in

[21:29] somebody's desk for you know 6 months or more it

[21:33] » I don't know that that's going to happen uh we've been talking about this um now

[21:37] for the past few weeks I'd say for at least a month Maggie with the value

[21:42] engineering and and when we started discussing the elimination of pedestrian

[21:45] access. Everybody on the project team seemed to, you know, ready to do what it

[21:51] takes to get that plan approved. Um there would have to be, you know, some

[21:56] modifications to the structural plans, but we could work through that in the

[22:00] interim before um before we get to that point. It's the these changes are, you

[22:06] know, would be field changes essentially. Um and it could happen a

[22:11] lot quicker than having to go through the the design process, you know, before

[22:15] going out to bed. >> Yeah, I think we're not worried so much

[22:19] about the contractors as about all the state agencies and all the uh you know,

[22:23] Amtrak and the [snorts] Conrailman and all of that.

[22:28] » Amtrak's been committed to helping the project, you know, get access through

[22:32] their through their yard um down by the Overbrook Station to allow us to use

[22:37] their tracks. Um, now obviously there's there could always be hiccups along the

[22:41] way, but they they have been committed to making sure that we um complete this

[22:46] project as as as quickly as we can if we do this modification to the contract.

[22:51] » Okay. Has your company done a project like this before bringing in materials

[22:56] on the tracks like this?

[23:01] » Um, my company TP, no. Um, but the contractor has, you know, experience

[23:06] with, uh, railroads agencies and and SEPTA and Amtrak and they have the the

[23:11] connections there and and and have the equipment to be able to access uh, the

[23:16] tracks and and bring their equipment and materials into where we need it to be

[23:19] and uh, move quickly and efficiently. >> I'll point out that all three plants, I

[23:24] think, have the equipment coming in through the rail, right? So, those are

[23:28] that that is a a a change that we'll have to

[23:31] » Yeah. regardless of the options that we choose because of the access we will

[23:35] have to bring in everything on the on the rails. Um and and uh Joe to your

[23:40] question earlier um I I'm referencing my notes. So our previous discussions with

[23:47] the contractor again these are estimated timelines.

[23:50] If we proceed with no pedestrian bridge we're thinking January 2027 through

[23:54] April 2028 not June. My apologies. Um if we do the pedestrian bridge option two,

[24:01] then we would be looking at uh demolition

[24:04] um starting about May 2027 through August 2028. Again, rough timelines.

[24:10] » Totally understood. Great. So January 27th through April 28. There we go.

[24:14] Thanks. [clears throat]

[24:18] » Estimated timelines. >> Estimated timelines.

[24:20] » Estimated. Yeah. >> Yep.

[24:21] » All right. Uh, thank you, Mo. If you don't mind sticking around uh for a few

[24:24] minutes in case we have more questions while we're discussing this, that would

[24:27] be very helpful. >> Okay, council members,

[24:34] Mr. Mayor, anybody have thoughts they want to

[24:37] » I guess I'll I've expressed some concerns already about this. Um

[24:43] um I guess my concern about deciding tonight is

[24:48] that I feel like we have not complete information and that's based on my view

[24:54] that it's not clear to me who bears the risk of

[25:01] uh loss contractually for the misapprehension in terms of what the

[25:08] access for this project would look like. uh I tried to look at the contracts

[25:12] today. I really don't feel comfortable making the determination that these

[25:18] costs would fall in the burrow as opposed to contractor based on um where

[25:24] those risk of loss provisions are. And so it's

[25:29] um I guess I I feel like I

[25:34] I and I recognize what President Bush said about you know if we wait it's

[25:38] means that they can't start but I feel like in the next two weeks we could get

[25:42] an opinion from our solicitor as to to ensure that these costs would actually

[25:48] be fall on the bureau and not the contractor or some other third party. I

[25:53] know the state has said that it's not on them. Um, but I do have real concerns

[25:58] about making decisions [snorts] largely I think on these cost considerations

[26:04] when we're not even sure that those cost considerations are accurate in terms of

[26:09] whether they would fall in the burrow or not. Having said that, I you know my own

[26:14] view is if if these are accurate, I think option three um is the obvious

[26:20] choice here. As much as I would love to keep the pedestrian access

[26:26] uh going, you know, we bicyclists can get under the bridge, I do have some

[26:31] concerns about accessibility and we pride ourselves on being a burough for

[26:35] all. I don't know whether we can come up with some sort of ability to transport

[26:43] people from the southside who are wheelchair bound or otherwise limited in

[26:48] their ability to get underneath the tunnel. Um whether that's getting share

[26:53] rides from the police force or something else. But I think we have to consider

[26:56] that if we're going to eliminate pedestrian access over the bridge

[27:01] because we can't cut off a third of our population. some people who might have

[27:06] accessibility issues. Um, so I think I think

[27:09] » Yeah. So I think we have to, you know, put that into consideration if we're

[27:13] going to adopt option three. >> Okay. So you're you're concerned about

[27:18] the contract. Like I don't think there is a way that we could get option two

[27:23] paid for by the contractor. Like I it looks [clears throat] like if if if we

[27:27] somehow manage to um you know persuade a judge that uh well I think potentially

[27:34] your argument applies to option one right that the fees option one which is

[27:37] not a design change. I don't think we could force a contractor to change their

[27:41] design and pay extra out of their >> No. I Well, and I think option my sense

[27:46] is option two isn't really a consideration

[27:49] » among any of us, right? I mean, it doesn't necessarily make sense

[27:53] regardless. So, it's really just evaluating option one versus option

[27:56] three. I agree with that. >> Okay. We'll leave that in mind. other

[28:00] council members. >> Are we going around or

[28:03] » Well, people feel that we can go around. Do you want to go?

[28:08] » Sure. Yeah. I mean, it would be painful to eliminate the continuous pedestrian

[28:12] access since we that was one of our specificifications, you know,

[28:16] originally. Um although to be fair with that it wasn't apparent until very late

[28:24] in the game then that that maintaining pedestrian access would bear

[28:29] a higher time frame. remember that it was kind of we were not

[28:33] » confirmed. They were definitely there was a tradeoff and it appeared that we

[28:38] couldn't do anything about it at that time. You know that it just wasn't a

[28:41] consideration anymore about you know we were kind of stuck with our previous

[28:45] decision to maintain pedestrian access. But now it looks like we have the

[28:48] opportunity to revisit that with not only cost savings but time savings which

[28:53] is you know it's still not the best thing but I agree probably probably it's

[29:00] the way to go under the circumstances as option three which eliminates pedestrian

[29:05] access for 15ish months. I like the idea that we come up with some kind of

[29:10] shuttle or something for people who I mean there must be people who approach

[29:15] even to use the the train station who need to get to the other side that can't

[29:20] use the the stairs who you know have to go over the bridge at this point. I

[29:24] don't know how many people that is. >> Yeah. I mean, we we have the numbers for

[29:30] how many people use the bridge as a pedestrian or as a bicyclist, but it

[29:35] doesn't say whether they're impaired in any way. So, you know, it could be two

[29:39] people a day. It could be 20. Who knows? I I don't think it's that significant,

[29:44] but I do think we should at least if we're going to adopt

[29:49] number three, I I feel pretty strongly that we should come up with some sort of

[29:53] whether it's through public health and safety or some sort of

[29:57] » plan to ensure access for those who won't be able to walk under the tunnel.

[30:04] I guess. >> So, I've had the same discussions,

[30:09] obvious concerns about the pedestrian accessibility, mobility impaired, um,

[30:14] and bicyclists. And it it's a long time. Um, at the same time, like when you're

[30:21] weighing uh when how quickly the how many months we're going to save 11

[30:28] months, that's a significant length of time. Um there's also the benefit of uh

[30:34] the the structurally stronger stronger bridge and there's the cost. Um and so

[30:42] Maggie I talked to you about whether it would be possible to work with SEPTA to

[30:48] see if we can install some sort of temporary bike ramp um in the pedestrian

[30:53] tunnel at that station. Um, I've I've also seen kind of these uh handicap

[31:01] accessible ramps, the ADA accessible ramps. Um, and I think I've seen them at

[31:07] museums where they have old infrastructure where you can fold them

[31:12] away or you can blow them out. So I would definitely like to explore what we

[31:17] can do at that pedestrian tunnel to see if we can provide for that access for

[31:23] for both mobility impaired people and for crisis folks.

[31:27] » And just to touch on that, so I did um start reaching out to some folks at

[31:32] SEPTA just to get some sense of that. So haven't yet gotten through to the person

[31:37] I need to talk to. Um but uh the the fora has been made to get

[31:46] some information there. Um and then our engineer is also going to be taking a

[31:50] look um to see if it would even be kind of technically

[31:56] feasible to put in, you know, ramps because SEPTA is not a partner in this

[32:02] project. So they aren't actually part of the the scope here. So [snorts] to bring

[32:06] in another agency um as part of the official project scope could be

[32:12] problematic. Um but if there's a way that we could work with them kind of as

[32:17] a one-off. Um but we are taking a look at the the actual design of the the

[32:22] tunnel to see if it would be technically feasible because you have to have

[32:25] certain >> clearances and the tunnel is pretty

[32:29] » short and narrow and it's deep. So the height I don't see. So the the the the

[32:35] slope that you need to get because of how steep the stairs are and the height

[32:40] of the tunnel, it might not be possible because it's just technically

[32:43] infeasible. But we are looking into it to try to exhaust all of our

[32:47] possibilities.

[32:52] » That was my question. It looks like the the Zoom is down.

[32:55] » Yeah, we lost the internet. >> Okay,

[32:57] » let's pause for a second. >> Backup is roll.

[33:01] Okay. Nonetheless, it goes right. >> Yeah.

[33:07] » So, we're just going to wait a second. See if we can get back online

[33:12] in a prompt fashion. >> Good news is the audio seems to be

[33:17] fixed. [laughter]

[33:21] » In order to save the audio, it was necessary to destroy it. Yeah. Okay.

[33:24] [snorts]

[33:30] And we are also looking into different >> internet service provider as well. So

[33:44] [clears throat]

[33:51] » how long ago did that go down? I listening. [clears throat]

[33:53] » It just >> It just did.

[33:56] I think that we're be having a whole long conversation.

[33:59] » Yeah. >> Recording in progress.

[34:01] » Okay. >> Back in

[34:04] » sound.

[34:10] The recording and the Zoom are two different things.

[34:15] » Still got to get the audio the video. >> Yeah, we're in. I'm just

[34:20] » Okay. So, we're live again. All right. Thanks. Uh, we are proceeding. Uh, we

[34:24] paused while the technical difficulties were going, so we're proceeding again.

[34:28] Michael, >> yeah, I guess I had a lot of similar

[34:30] questions like about, you know, the ramp and and other things of that nature. Um

[34:35] the I mean it's this is obviously really

[34:40] tough cuz no one wants to like we know we have residents that have mobility

[34:44] issues on the southside and no one wants to be put in the position of having to

[34:49] take that offline for a period of time but the the just the totality of the

[34:54] information set that we're dealing with um

[34:58] does predispose me to to option three. Um the I'm not sure the um I'm not a

[35:06] lawyer, but I'm not sure that kind of like trying to to to

[35:11] have Walco spend time jocking with the contractor and putting us in like an

[35:16] adversarial stance for a couple weeks makes total sense to me individually. Um

[35:24] the and then I also thought there's like time sensitivity to this. So if we don't

[35:29] take action, we're effectively taking a action, right? So if we if we take no

[35:33] action, we are choosing option one. Is that correct?

[35:39] » Yes, option one is happening more or less without

[35:44] anyone taking proactive decision making because that is the way that this

[35:49] project can proceed. >> Sure. So So we do not we are making a

[35:54] request of the contractor. We are not telling the contractor what to do. The

[35:58] contractor has a lot of power to make this project happen according to the

[36:03] terms that they signed. >> Right. So,

[36:06] » but I just wanted to clarify that like contractor is actually

[36:10] » if we don't make a choice ultimately the contractor will make a choice.

[36:13] » Right. Right. >> So, yeah, just with

[36:16] » and that choice will be number one. >> Yeah. So, I spent a lot of time kind of

[36:20] thinking through those different pieces. And I don't, you know, I don't feel

[36:26] particularly great about uh removing the the pedestrian multimodal access for

[36:31] that period of time, but just the totality of all these items predisposes

[36:36] me to options, right? >> We we didn't even talk about that end of

[36:40] the street. you know, actually opening it up much earlier solves the end of

[36:47] Havford health and safety issue, you know, which is really significant. We

[36:52] haven't even mentioned that, but that's actually a collateral benefit.

[36:56] » So, I would say regardless of checking on the contract and the

[37:00] numbers, I would still pick option three. I don't need to repeat all the

[37:03] concerns that you say, but um I actually have confidence that our our neighbors

[37:09] will show up and there will be a communitydriven shuttle organized by our

[37:14] residents, you know, in collaboration with the burrow because we all care

[37:17] about getting our neighbors the accessibility that they need. So, I

[37:20] support option three.

[37:24] » Excuse me. I agree with option three as well. um agree with the concerns that

[37:27] have been brought up and and the reasons why um option three seems like the the

[37:31] best of the options available at this time.

[37:36] » I'm full support for option three. Um there's a note in here about admin staff

[37:43] basically having the same amount of workload. Am I reading that right? I'm

[37:46] I'm wondering if I'm wondering if there's additional workload for you all

[37:50] because like maybe the communications are higher at the start and questions

[37:54] and whatever else they're going to do. Obviously, if we do pivot on the design

[38:01] of the plan um and um eliminating the pedestrian access, so if we proceed with

[38:07] option three, then yes, we will want to certainly message this to the community

[38:12] um to ensure that everyone understands what decision has been made, why it's

[38:16] been made, and the impacts that this will have. Um but we we would be

[38:21] messaging and communicating any construction activities regardless. So,

[38:26] this may add some additional work kind of upfront with the initial kind of

[38:30] change and and getting that word out. Um, but I don't foresee that uh that

[38:37] this would create enough of an administrative burden that we would

[38:42] recommend against it.

[38:45] » Yeah, I'm also generally in favor of option three. I think that the the

[38:50] amount of time saved for the project is just so so large that

[38:56] it is, you know, in addition to the the the

[39:01] cost savings, it's hard. I mean, I value the pedestrian access and the bicycle

[39:06] access. I think it is important, but you know, there are about 10 times as

[39:11] many cars using that bridge as pedestrians on a general day. So, we

[39:15] have to weigh both of these factors.

[39:20] I'm not happy about having to make this decision, but I think that that is the

[39:24] right decision. Um, moving ahead with option three.

[39:29] » I'm not convinced we wouldn't have made that decision to begin with.

[39:33] » If it had been offered to us when we were designing this bridge, we would

[39:37] have had the same qualms, but ultimately I think we would have

[39:41] » we may well have made that choice. Can I ask um if we express our

[39:47] preference for a change for option 3U uh will the contract change with with the

[39:54] contractor will or will they still be held to the July 2029 completion date?

[40:02] » So the project agreement has the July 2029 as the ultimate project completion

[40:07] date um regardless of this pivot. Uh Mo, do we have you back

[40:13] » here? >> Yeah. Yeah, I'm here.

[40:15] » Um could >> you need to speak up a little? We can't

[40:16] I couldn't I could barely hear what you said there.

[40:18] » Uh could you speak to could you speak to the question about any any impacts this

[40:22] would have on the uh contract? Um, I think, you know, we we kind of

[40:28] hold the power here that if we wanted to do a time reduction and hold the

[40:32] contractor to this new date, um, we would we can have that conversation with

[40:38] PennDOT and and the contractor to incentivize them to, you know, maintain

[40:43] it. Um, that's one option or, you know, it's certainly a conversation we can

[40:49] have with them. Yeah, I I I had expressed that to Fred

[40:53] that, you know, if we're buying if what we're getting in exchange for this is an

[40:57] accelerated time frame, I do want to make sure that there are incentives

[41:01] built into any contract addended that says if they don't make those time

[41:05] frames, you know, there's some disincentives for them penalties, delay

[41:09] penalties, etc. because it would be terrible to buy this on the assumption

[41:13] that we're getting accelerated time frame and then we don't get it and

[41:17] there's no [laughter] there's no recourse for that. So I would

[41:22] definitely want to make sure that there's some contractual incentives

[41:26] slash disincentives to stick to these anticipated time frames.

[41:34] » We we can we can I guess talk about that Maggie. Um

[41:38] the the one thing I'll mention just for transparency is you know we can we can

[41:42] do a time reduction and and hold the contractor to liquidated damages with

[41:47] the new completion date. Um that's where we're going to go. Um the contractor

[41:51] will still have um I guess there are delays due to utilities for example that

[41:58] hold up that that could potentially add time but not significant amount of time

[42:02] compared to the 11 months that we're saving.

[42:04] » Yeah. All right. So, we did not have a public

[42:08] comment period at the beginning of this meeting. We are coming close to taking

[42:11] an action here. So, I will at this point allow public comment on this one issue.

[42:16] Um, so if anybody in the room wishes to make a public comment on this issue on

[42:20] the the change to the bridge contract, please let me know. And u Okay, don't

[42:26] see anybody in the room. Does anybody online wish to make a public comment

[42:29] specifically about this bridge? If so, uh, please raise your hand.

[42:37] Okay. I don't see anybody online who wishes to

[42:42] make a public comment. Okay. [clears throat]

[42:44] So, at this point, what they are looking for is a request to change the contract.

[42:52] » I'm not sure if it's a request to change the contract, but a request to amend the

[42:56] the scope. And then this would allow us to proceed with um negotiating with all

[43:02] of the project partners including PennDOT, Amtrak, the contractor, TPD,

[43:07] and the burrow um to proceed with whatever changes we need to make uh to

[43:13] effectuate the change to pivot to the design scope from option three.

[43:18] » Okay. >> I move to do that. [laughter]

[43:23] » Second. >> Second.

[43:24] » Second. >> All right. Any further discussion? All

[43:26] right. I will I will point out that we recognize this is the first time the

[43:30] public is hearing about this and ordinarily I think we would like to give

[43:37] residents more time to weigh in on matters like this but as we said earlier

[43:42] this decision right now is slowing down the bridge construction. So we feel as a

[43:46] council that it is important for us to take action even without taking as much

[43:51] time to get public feedback as we usually would because this project is

[43:55] too important. So ultimately if you feel like you're you know you are

[44:00] not being able to be heard on this we apologize but this uh time is of the

[44:05] essence here. So with that in mind uh the proposal is to

[44:11] has just been enumerated to uh work with option number three as stated in in the

[44:18] memo. All those in favor? Okay. So

[44:24] so directed. >> Okay. Okay,

[44:26] » thanks a lot for being here. >> Thank you.

[44:29] » Thank you. >> Appreciate it.

[44:32] » All right. [laughter] Next item is um 201.

[44:38] So uh first of all we have um received a

[44:44] proposal for uh adaptive reuse of the property um from Refugeia and the

[44:50] founder of Refugeia is here to uh um do you want should we summarize the

[44:58] proposal? Okay Jeff, why don't you take a a few

[45:02] minutes introduce yourself and and uh walk us through your proposal. The

[45:06] proposal is in the packet. Um, and uh, yeah, go ahead. Make sure to speak up.

[45:13] So, >> sure.

[45:15] » Good evening. Uh, my name is Jeff Ren. I am the founder of Fugia Design. We're an

[45:19] ecological landscape design build. >> Can tell you have to speak up a bit or

[45:23] come close. >> Yeah, maybe if you want to

[45:26] » or we'll move a mic near you. >> You want to come over here?

[45:31] » No, there's one right there. Just come up a little bit next to Chief Strings

[45:34] mic. Thank you. All right, there you go. >> Is that better?

[45:38] » Hopefully. >> Hopefully. Okay. Um and um I live also

[45:42] on I'm a resident of Narbirth. I live on Lance Twin Lane and we are currently uh

[45:48] we have our place of operations in the Price House on Meeting House and

[45:53] Montgomery Avenue. Um so we've been looking for um uh an alternate location

[46:00] to potentially move our business. I would love to keep the business in

[46:04] Narbirth. Uh as we know there are very like limited uh [clears throat]

[46:09] properties that may offer some [snorts] of the uh the spatial requirements that

[46:14] we need. Um and also our current place of business is up for sale. Um and it

[46:20] doesn't entirely work for us. We're making it work. It doesn't entirely

[46:24] work. So started looking for options and I said so I kind of want to say first

[46:29] and foremost I'm presenting also looking for is this feasible that our needs and

[46:38] what Seabine has to offer might like match or they might not. Um because we

[46:44] would need some parking lot space. Um there's definitely an indoor space that

[46:49] we could utilize for a design studio, but the outdoor space we will need

[46:53] functional uh parking lot space um which I have illustrated in in uh this

[47:00] presentation, but also maybe it's just the entrepreneurial brain in me and also

[47:06] um just living in the community kind of always searching for catalysts to kind

[47:11] of kind of um break the ice uh a little bit for for our town to uh to to see

[47:18] some of our potential um uh and to ignite some community

[47:24] uh [clears throat] spark, if you will. I think the Sine Property offers that. Um

[47:31] uh or potentially offers that. Um, so I've put together

[47:36] um a presentation that has like kind of a a

[47:40] potential new footprint that we're thinking about for the property that

[47:45] shows place of operations for us and also some of the potential adaptive

[47:51] reuse for the space that's currently available that is not um the daycare,

[47:57] the wonders, which is the they they take up the bulk of the twotory

[48:03] section of of the property. Um but currently um [clears throat] most of the

[48:09] rest of the property is um either occupied by Lavner camps although they

[48:15] no longer and Maggie maybe you could correct me if I'm wrong. I'm not sure

[48:19] where they are in their lease like they're they have a lease but they're

[48:23] not occupying space. Is that correct? >> The lavender.

[48:27] » Yeah. Sorry. Yeah. Okay. Um so this kind of illustrates you'll

[48:32] see um the parking lot space in the back um an area that's currently um Lavender

[48:41] Camps, one of their office spaces highlighted in yellow there. And then we

[48:45] were looking at the cafeteria space which is in orange as this kind of great

[48:50] glass in kind of mid-century public school room that could be great

[48:56] community event space. Um, and there's also the old um, principal's office,

[49:00] which is in highlighted in purple there, which is already kind of divvied up into

[49:05] these really kind of oddly shaped rooms and hallways. Um, that actually would

[49:09] work quite well for um, artist studios or maker studios. So, it just got my

[49:15] brain started kind of cranking on this and thinking about, well, what are some

[49:19] other things that could potentially be done um to the [clears throat] property

[49:23] in addition to us being potential long-term tenants, which we would love

[49:27] to explore the auction. Um, in addition, one of the first things that we noticed

[49:34] when we kind of tour the property is that the parking lot is massive. I think

[49:41] it takes up almost an acre. >> [clears throat]

[49:43] » Um, and it has like a few really puny storm water drains in it. So, it's

[49:49] definitely it has uh a lot of storm water problems. Um, and the idea of

[49:58] thinking about more of an ecological campus potentially for the state vine

[50:03] property would allow us to address um upgrades to the property in an

[50:10] ecologically focused manner that could also be a way that we we use it almost

[50:14] as like a display landscape. Something that can still it remains functional for

[50:20] the public. Uh it allows us to run our business out of this space, but also it

[50:27] allows us to use it as a sync potentially for um MS4 credits, which

[50:32] are being updated this year in draft form. They're focusing less on

[50:36] pollutants and more on volume, which is a huge difference for the for for

[50:42] burough consideration and storm water management. And it's a huge upgrade

[50:45] because a lot of the work that we do as a as a business is dealing with volume

[50:50] of storm water. It's less about pollutants, more about volume. Um so I

[50:56] have highlighted Maggie, I don't know if you could go just to to show some of the

[51:01] um inspiration photos. This >> is that in the same document.

[51:06] » It is. So all if you just kind of continue to scroll.

[51:12] So this well actually this would zoom in to kind of show more of like the

[51:17] footprint that we'd be looking to have in the back side of the

[51:22] parking lot. So um currently there are there's a lot of open spaces. Some

[51:29] people rent spaces for like RVs or work trucks. There's um some space for um a

[51:35] little a community garden. I think some of the plots are being used. A lot of

[51:40] them aren't anymore. who are looking at an option to kind of bring them out into

[51:44] a more accessible space. Um, but our plan would would allow for there to

[51:49] still be 47 available spots for the public and we would take

[51:55] 24 of them during weekdays and they would be back in use for the

[52:03] for the public at night and on weekends. So, it's a total of 71 spaces would

[52:07] still be available. Um, and we're just really kind of, and maybe I'm kind of

[52:11] like ping ponging back and forth here a little bit, but the idea is like how can

[52:15] we how can we connect this space? How can we adaptively reuse the public

[52:22] school connected to the park so that the park becomes a more utilized park. Um,

[52:30] by by thinking about this as more of like a campus that can be community

[52:33] focused, it allows us to start thinking about how we can connect the green space

[52:39] and the buildings in a way that they become

[52:43] uh, you know, more used by the public in a way that I I don't know has been

[52:48] explored quite in this in this way before. Um, and still offers revenue

[52:54] opportunities for the burrow. Um [clears throat]

[52:59] um if you could scroll down.

[53:06] Our business isn't new to working in public spaces. So these are just some

[53:11] kind of inspiration photos from work that we did at the Media Upper Proidence

[53:17] Public Library. And this is a a demonstration storm water management

[53:22] system that we put outside of a barren landscape on the on the side of the uh

[53:28] on the side of the library which was it had um just they post construction a

[53:34] bunch of lawn and highly compacted soils and nobody used it, no one walked near

[53:40] it. Um, so we we took the opportunity to create an educational space in there

[53:45] that also functioned as a storm water management system. And the same type of

[53:49] potential that we did here could be [clears throat] done at Safeine. Um,

[53:54] I've been speaking extensively with Moren McGee from the Lower Marine

[53:59] Conservancy. They're very interested in in getting involved in a project like

[54:05] this where they could help fund and and help tackle the storm water issues in

[54:11] place and also create educ an educational landscape and something

[54:16] that's also a functional landscape. Um so these are just some inspiration

[54:22] photos to kind of show how we can kind of reimagine that space. Um, and also

[54:27] think about the flow of traffic through that space as something that feels far

[54:30] more immersive, something that invites you into the property rather than just

[54:33] walking by it. Um, and brings people into the park.

[54:38] Um, if you don't mind scrolling a little further, you'll see how like zoom out a

[54:45] little bit. It really becomes even we even took care of like putting plants

[54:49] into the hellst strip along the sidewalk. So, you're you're kind of

[54:53] drawn into the space. Um, and there's a uh the media school is like just a few

[54:59] blocks down. So, kids travel down the street to get to school and they all cut

[55:04] through and go through the landscape to get there, which is really cool. That

[55:07] was the intention. Um, if you don't mind continuing to scroll. Um,

[55:14] I like the idea of thinking about this potentially and maybe thinking about it

[55:18] because it's a school like thinking about a campus, but um, this is a

[55:23] picture of Evergreen Brick Works, which is a um, it's a former factory that was

[55:28] converted into an environmental center in Toronto, Canada. They do a lot of

[55:33] community programming. Um, and they were able to kind of take this like desolate

[55:39] space. I think it also had like a functional um, quarry on it and they do

[55:44] lots of um, community- based programming in it. And if you go onto their website,

[55:50] there is links that I shared in the presentation so you can go in and and

[55:56] learn more about them as an organization. But they they facilitate a

[55:59] lot of community planning. Um, they're a really cool organization, but I just

[56:04] like the way that they kind of present themselves, and I like, if you can, you

[56:07] can see before and after pictures on their website. And we were also inspired

[56:12] by the Bach building in downtown Philadelphia. It's a form of occasional

[56:17] high school that has been converted into like artist studios. I think there's I'm

[56:22] not suggesting that we have like some people know it's popular for a bar. Not

[56:27] considering the bar part of this, but it is used for um community space. There's

[56:32] a there's a music venue inside of there or performance venue. There's artist

[56:36] studios. A lot of this infrastructure already exists in the school. Mhm.

[56:42] [clears throat] >> Um and the other thing that we wanted to

[56:45] acknowledge is that we understand that this is um you know, one of the reasons

[56:50] that there's there's been a lot of conversation about different uses for

[56:55] this property has to do with um that it's not really much of revenue

[56:59] generator right now and there's a lot of deferred maintenance. So, um I'm not an

[57:04] expert at print right now, but thought about this through the lens of okay, how

[57:09] can we think about the potential for something like this and also not

[57:15] overlook the challenge of funding something like this. So, if you don't

[57:21] mind scrolling up a little further.

[57:26] Oh, oh, I should mention too, so in the parking lot, sorry, forgot about this.

[57:30] Um, [clears throat] so Manny on Timber, where we used to rent some space from,

[57:34] they've done a uh a deep paving effort as part of managing the storm water

[57:38] management on this like massive parking lot. Um, and they also have a couple of

[57:44] um companies in there, a landscape company, um, is one of them. Um, they've

[57:51] done public art to kind of contain like that's a that's just a cargo container

[57:57] that they put public art on. And that's one of our ideas is to kind of use

[58:02] potentially like um quar containers like that to to delineate our space with

[58:08] potentially putting some of the um public garden spaces on the outside so

[58:12] that there's like a nice like it's an inviting kind like we we create

[58:16] something that looks looks nice and and so you're not seeing our equipment and

[58:21] also for safety but something that we could invite um some public art

[58:26] opportunities. They've also taken the opportunity by depaving

[58:30] big sections of the parking lot. They've built retaining walls out of the old um

[58:36] pavement and created this little micro forest inside of it.

[58:40] » So, if you if you don't mind scrolling up a little further, you can see how you

[58:45] kind of walk through. There's a couple of entrance ways and then they have

[58:48] these um sitting areas in there. So, I I put this in more just to kind of say

[58:52] like, look, there's there's a lot you can do with with a 1 acre parking lot.

[58:58] Um, and it could it could be a place of uh business for us, but also something

[59:03] that we make better use of, and also it it has the potential to be um, you know,

[59:09] we could get MS4 credits out of it as well, which is another huge plus. Um, so

[59:17] if you don't mind scrolling again. Um, so I I put some work into this. Uh, I

[59:23] basically took the uh deferred maintenance report that was put out in

[59:29] um I think it was 2022. I'm I'm not 100% sure. I I shared a secondary PDF that is

[59:36] just an excerpt of that particular document and it lists all the deferred

[59:40] maintenance for the property and created kind of a top level set of um

[59:46] potential grant opportunities and funding partners which is here in this

[59:50] on this page of the document. And then fur like further down I broke down every

[59:56] section of the property into the deferred maintenance potential more

[1:00:00] ecological or sustainable alternatives that [snorts] grants could be written

[1:00:05] for that funding. There's funding opportunities around doing a lot of the

[1:00:09] infrastructure upgrades that were mentioned. Um but I don't think we would

[1:00:16] have the time nor do I have I think the brain power to dive into like lots of

[1:00:20] specifics on that. And that can be for another time potentially if this idea is

[1:00:25] of interest. Um, but I did want to just go through that and create that gesture.

[1:00:31] Um, just to show that there's a lot of potential behind this. As soon as you

[1:00:34] kind of change the lens, you kind of reframe the intent of the property.

[1:00:39] Funding opportunities and really creative ones open up. Um, so I like the

[1:00:45] idea of kind of creating this umbrella like ecological campus idea and then it

[1:00:51] starts to um it it creates a set of it's it's mission based. It creates a set of

[1:00:57] tenants that you start to figure out how to slide in brand opportunities, other

[1:01:01] potential um not just funding partners, but maybe there's other um organizations

[1:01:06] that are interested in renting space. How can the community start taking

[1:01:10] advantage of this? um and utilizing the space for um symposiums, different

[1:01:16] events that could be hosted. Um so I did make a list of some of those potentials

[1:01:21] in my write up and we really want to also make sure and again I'm presenting

[1:01:27] it council meeting tonight but [clears throat] that a next step if

[1:01:31] there's interest in this would be immediately engaging the different like

[1:01:36] community members and community organizations. We're not blind to the

[1:01:39] fact that this is something that if it's going to be community kind of centered

[1:01:44] that we need everyone's voices kind of to to see the full potential. We want to

[1:01:51] open that up and see see where we can kind of explore this idea further. Um,

[1:01:58] and we also know it's there's there's a lot of contention around the use or the

[1:02:01] proposed uses for the property. And so don't want to, you know, not acknowledge

[1:02:06] that that that is a situation and and hope that this might be again another

[1:02:12] catalyst for a conversation that gets us past that or or allows us to explore

[1:02:17] other alternatives that may have not been presented yet. Um, but I do think

[1:02:22] it is important to go, if you don't mind, just go back to that document for

[1:02:26] just a second. Um,

[1:02:31] and I apologize. I don't remember on what page

[1:02:35] it was. Let me see on my end here. I wasn't sure if I was going to be able

[1:02:40] to present or not. So, I I put this into like a document that people could just

[1:02:45] review. So, I apologize that it's not like in slides. Yes. So, this right here

[1:02:51] is just kind of like these are like the more top level um

[1:02:56] grants that are available and and potential funding partners that I

[1:03:02] reviewed with Moren as just a kind of somebody else to kind of help like think

[1:03:09] through like these are these are folks that we work with on a more regular

[1:03:13] basis to to fund um other public facing projects. Um, and so there really is a

[1:03:21] lot of potential. I I would feel kind of foolish to come here tonight and and

[1:03:24] present something that I didn't think had potential or had these opportunities

[1:03:28] to to to also find ways that the burrow doesn't necessarily need to invest their

[1:03:34] own money in trying to make something to this this like this come to fruition. um

[1:03:39] refugeia on our own wouldn't be able to like help manage the full like

[1:03:45] [clears throat] like the grant writing etc. But we would

[1:03:49] we'd want to be involved in helping with the the vision and maybe

[1:03:55] organizing a a group that helps kind of take the next steps um or even in

[1:04:01] helping the burough. I I know one of the common practices is that if there's

[1:04:05] grant writing that needs to happen that we're we're kind of writing that

[1:04:09] administration, uh we're writing part-time part-time

[1:04:13] positions into those grants so that we're thinking about how to actually get

[1:04:18] the the folks in place to help make them happen. Um, so on your own time you can

[1:04:25] kind of like look through what I wrote in wrote up in in a little bit more

[1:04:29] detail. But um it's been pretty cool just and I can say to kind of to the

[1:04:35] community that I I've done I've had the opportunity to speak nationally at at

[1:04:40] various events kind of presenting the work that we do. And um we have around

[1:04:46] 150 uh properties in our ecological greenway that are in within a 5 mile

[1:04:52] radius of the building we're sitting in right now. And [clears throat] when I

[1:04:56] present at at national conferences, it blows people's minds to see. And I have

[1:05:02] this little map that's on our website uh showing all of these um kind of like

[1:05:09] like their native landscapes that we've helped uh [clears throat] homeowners in

[1:05:13] particular do. But what we also feature is all of the properties that other home

[1:05:19] gardeners and other public spaces have kind of taken on in their own. and we're

[1:05:24] kind of like somewhat secretly recognized as being this kind of like

[1:05:28] we're we're we're seen as as like uh the sea change of this comic. So, it's

[1:05:34] pretty cool that in our we're a little bit of an incubator in our area for um

[1:05:39] for a national an international trend that that's well, I wouldn't even call

[1:05:44] it a trend anymore. It's it's a it's a crop movement. Um and the landscape like

[1:05:50] industry and gardening is heading in this direction. It's one of the reasons

[1:05:54] that uh we do so much storm water work is because we consider our landscapes

[1:05:59] functional. I mean they're doing something. They're not just pretty to

[1:06:02] look at, but they are also the plants have functionality. They're helping

[1:06:07] manage storm water. They're creating um wildlife habitat and recreating wildlife

[1:06:12] habitat. We're putting natural systems back in place in very small properties

[1:06:17] normally. But when you add up the impact of all of those postage stamp

[1:06:22] properties, you start to see major impact. And we've we've seen like Anwin

[1:06:26] Road is one of the streets we have five or six properties on. A bunch of

[1:06:30] neighbors have al also done um a lot of work similar to ours and

[1:06:35] we've been able to start mitigating people's basement flooding. So over

[1:06:40] time, more lawns and starting um put more energy in what can we do on

[1:06:47] our own properties. We we see that payoff. Um so with that, I'll [snorts]

[1:06:53] uh I'll conclude, but uh I'm open if anyone has any any questions.

[1:06:59] » Sure. I'm just going to start around the table. I will say that you know walking

[1:07:02] around the bur routinely encounter you know your signs and the the gardens

[1:07:06] you've worked on. I think we we all um are familiar with the the and the

[1:07:12] product and I think it's a it's a great asset um to burn. Uh right now just want

[1:07:18] to note we are is a discussion item. We are not going to take any action after

[1:07:22] this but questions for or comments. >> Yeah, I mean I see your work everywhere

[1:07:27] and I'm I'm very impressed by it. Um, and I really thank you for bringing your

[1:07:33] creative ideas to the table and I think it's always healthy when community is

[1:07:37] coming to us with ideas. Um, but I do want to go back to something that we had

[1:07:42] agreed on as council uh last year which was that um any plan for this particular

[1:07:49] site needs to uh relieve the burrow of the the cost and responsibility of the

[1:07:56] the buildings. And [clears throat] so other than preserving and expanding

[1:08:01] the park space, I do think that was the clearest consensus item on council that

[1:08:08] that was a big goal for for that particular site. And and I would say

[1:08:14] that was probably one of the the main reasons we started that process in the

[1:08:18] first place. So, um I think that's the biggest piece that might be missing. I I

[1:08:23] recognize that there's um there's grant opportunities, but also brands are not

[1:08:29] guaranteed. They often require a thorough match um and they're they also

[1:08:36] require a lot of administrative time to to explore to administer and all of

[1:08:41] that. Um, so I think the the main issue that that I

[1:08:49] would have is uh that the burrow would still be a landlord and we're trying to

[1:08:54] extricate the the burrow from that position. I think there's a risk um in

[1:09:00] having the burrow continuing to be a commercial landlord. Um

[1:09:06] there's always the risk that commercial tenant might leave. So then we're right

[1:09:10] back in the same position that we were uh

[1:09:14] where we started and then there's all the millions of dollars of capital

[1:09:19] improvements that are needed to bring the building which you have gone

[1:09:24] through. Um but I do think that we're looking for a plan that uh takes that

[1:09:31] risk and the cost um off of the bureau and off of the burough taxpayers. Um so

[1:09:37] I would I would say um any any plan that we would need to look

[1:09:43] at would have to meet that minimum requirement. So um and also I I do want

[1:09:50] to like as a creative myself um I come from a design background. I appreciate

[1:09:56] the the the concept of bringing artists and makers. Um I know the box building

[1:10:04] too. I've gone to several events. I think it's a different economic model

[1:10:08] there though. I mean, it's in the middle of a very dense area which um I will say

[1:10:15] has like a lot of different diverse uh price points for housing. Um and it's

[1:10:22] that makes it possible. It also has the you mentioned the black bar. That's part

[1:10:28] of its financial model. That's that's why the rents are so low and artists can

[1:10:32] come in and occupy that building and make it successful. So, um I don't think

[1:10:38] that will translate so well in

[1:10:45] » I would love to put a block party. Um thank you. Thank you so much for for

[1:10:51] uh bringing this forward for putting time and energy into it. Um

[1:10:56] we see like the fruits of your labor all around actually.

[1:10:59] my neighbor across. Sorry to put you on the spot, but I get to see the fruits of

[1:11:03] your labor in Barb's uh front yard every day. Um it's and it's it's really

[1:11:09] awesome and it's it's awesome to actually have some local folks come

[1:11:13] forward with uh with really like, you know, creative ideas. Um, I think that,

[1:11:19] so I'm going to I'm going to riff a little bit on what Jean said, but I I

[1:11:23] have um something that was also Kate Brenley that I'll get to um at the end,

[1:11:28] but I had a lot of like the similar um kind of concerns which are

[1:11:34] not you concerns. They're more so just and you spoke to this about just kind of

[1:11:38] like the needs um that we've had approaching the site and kind of the

[1:11:42] thicket of it. One of the things that we've heard from uh prior people who've

[1:11:47] sat in the seats because the the the the property has been discussed since before

[1:11:51] our time as well. It's just the difficulty of being able to maintain and

[1:11:57] manage the site that our local government is not a particularly good uh

[1:12:02] commercial landlord. And that's part of the that's been part of the difficulty

[1:12:05] that got us to this kind of spot. Um I you know uh I think that grant funding

[1:12:12] our our old manager used to describe grant funding as coupon bonds where um

[1:12:16] they're good funding source um they're not your overall kind of strategy for a

[1:12:21] recurring um operational um or financial situation which is I think what we have

[1:12:28] there. And so some of the things that we've discussed in the past, including

[1:12:32] in December, um, and if folks are listening online, they can go and we

[1:12:36] have them listed on the Sabbine page under the December 2025 links. Um, and

[1:12:42] we hit a bunch of things and we kind of like tried to pull together a lot of the

[1:12:45] different items that have been discussed through the engagement process and a lot

[1:12:49] of the different needs. Um, and one of the one of the main things was how do we

[1:12:54] figure out a way to simultaneously maintain ownership of this property as a

[1:12:59] key asset while also relieving the bearer of some of those financial and

[1:13:04] administrative and operational um, uh, issues. Um, and that's been a

[1:13:10] tricky thing to solve. I feel very confident that we can solve that. I feel

[1:13:14] very confident that we can get um, proposals in front of us that hit a

[1:13:18] variety of different needs. Um, and I also really appreciate you've elevated

[1:13:22] kind of this other aspect of it that hadn't kind of come up before. Um, but I

[1:13:28] really appreciate the time and energy you've given to that. And I went back to

[1:13:32] um the uh document that we had discussed and agreed upon. It was a different we

[1:13:37] had a one different council member different mayor at the time but the

[1:13:40] there were six of us who were here and went back to that document and um

[1:13:45] there's a portion of that that said I'm just going to read from it um additional

[1:13:51] consideration be given in proposals that incorporate existing uses that serve the

[1:13:55] community publicly available community space and/or park plan improvements or

[1:13:59] maintenance and I think at the time we had we had specified it that way because

[1:14:04] we were expecting um that in addition to kind of the

[1:14:07] anchor uses that we're in that that we might have proposals that would allow us

[1:14:11] to carry forward um incorporate existing uses and serve the community and when

[1:14:16] we're kind of considering the site. Um but you've raised another um you know

[1:14:21] potential need that might be able to be incorporated into that kind of component

[1:14:25] of the of the of the plan set. Um so that folks so that that would be out

[1:14:30] there. We could potentially put add this to the letters of interest online if we

[1:14:35] wanted to. We could um specify either um space for small local existing

[1:14:41] businesses or ecological based businesses. We could kind of figure that

[1:14:44] out. Um and then that would that along with the letter being available online.

[1:14:50] um would I think allow folks to come in through that RFP process that we've been

[1:14:56] envisioning would allow this kind of space to be incorporated into this

[1:15:00] broader kind of campuswide vision. Um and I think would also put us the Vera

[1:15:05] in a in a good position to have a lot of these kind of like just the full

[1:15:09] creativity. um and then channel it through a like a standardized process

[1:15:14] because I think one of the things that has given us difficulty in the past, one

[1:15:17] of the things that I thought um the RFP process was intended to resolve for was

[1:15:22] we would get kind of like popcorn type ideas. And this is a great one cuz it's

[1:15:26] coming from internally. Uh but I do think that we should get back to a

[1:15:30] standard um process and then at a policy level we can kind of work through that

[1:15:37] process the way that we've been doing. Um, but then it also puts our local

[1:15:40] partners in a good position as well because then they know what the steps

[1:15:44] are and everyone kind of has clarity. Um, and then you know at what step to

[1:15:48] kind of schedule your energies as well cuz the last thing I want to do is be

[1:15:52] like, "Oh, go do all of these things." Oh, and then wait for this like we will

[1:15:56] have everyone will have clarity on all of that. And I think that that could um

[1:16:01] kind of incorporate this into this process that we've been discussing since

[1:16:05] December and put us in a really productive position together. So I

[1:16:09] really appreciate um your time and coming and raising this. And

[1:16:13] » um yeah, it was one of the questions I had for Maggie cuz I was like um and all

[1:16:18] of these things make sense, right? Like >> if I'm to be a little blunt, it's like

[1:16:23] like waiting through waiting and I would say maybe waiting through an RFP process

[1:16:28] when we do need to move our business is becomes a deal breaker

[1:16:33] » for a business like ours in the community or a potential deal breaker,

[1:16:37] right? And that's not to apply any pressure to say if you like this idea

[1:16:42] can we explore some other options or does it just get digested into a larger

[1:16:47] RFP process where our ideas it doesn't just become adaptive reuse for housing

[1:16:52] but then it's this other idea of this potential like a hub idea and then our

[1:16:58] we get but we kind of get taunted from or or I I see what you're saying by it

[1:17:04] becomes a popcorn idea but we want it to be more than a popcorn idea. [snorts] Um

[1:17:10] there's there's intellect there's like some intellectual property. I'm sharing

[1:17:14] a very top level concept. Um, and I think there's more I I'm always a

[1:17:19] believer that there's and I'm not asking for exclusivity with this, but I think

[1:17:24] sometimes like and I [clears throat] understand why going through certain

[1:17:28] processes are very important to follow just for I know and I know it's it has

[1:17:33] to happen that way sometimes, but I I do wonder like options to explore not

[1:17:40] having >> to like go through all that because I

[1:17:42] just I don't quite I honestly don't know that we'd be able to wait

[1:17:47] however long it's going to be. I might have to be out of the Price House in 2

[1:17:52] months. I don't know. So, and then I would end up just like everybody else

[1:17:57] like going to Ka Haken or somewhere and we are looking at other properties. I've

[1:18:02] I've spoken with uh [clears throat] uh Laura Marian a few times like the

[1:18:06] properties didn't quite add up but they were keen and interested in this same

[1:18:10] kind of model. Um, and also looking at another property in Armore, but I'd

[1:18:14] really like to keep I'd like to stay in Arbor and I think a lot of people would

[1:18:20] like to see us stay in Nar. And I think that putting that energy

[1:18:28] behind like not just community members but our businesses allows us to kind of

[1:18:33] like I I I think there there's got to be some room for

[1:18:38] like we have to search for catalysts to kind of up like like we have a downtown

[1:18:46] that's been sitting I know you guys have a lot of challenges in front of you. we

[1:18:49] have a downtown that's just been like mostly vacant. How do we [snorts] spark

[1:18:54] that, right? And it and I don't know, we haven't seen other people coming in and

[1:18:59] doing things. I I haven't seen stuff happen in years. Um and I think there's

[1:19:05] an opportunity like finding even if that property is a sitting duck right now to

[1:19:09] do something with it allow like allows for some energy to come in and start to

[1:19:15] like for us to see more of our full potential. Um, that's part of the

[1:19:19] intention behind this and I know that's not really something I can say in a

[1:19:23] presentation, but >> point well everybody.

[1:19:27] » Well, it's a point well made because I I thought we could have actually started

[1:19:29] that process like at the earlier the year. There were logistical reasons why

[1:19:33] that didn't happen, but I would think that if we were able to incorporate that

[1:19:36] into an RFP process, I would advocate for us to get started on that very

[1:19:40] quickly so that we actually can resolve some of these issues um through that

[1:19:45] standard, pick up the pieces that like right, one of the main themes we have is

[1:19:49] being able to hit all of these varying needs and and I think that we should get

[1:19:53] started on that and pick up that work that we've been doing, incorporate the

[1:19:56] good bits of things, try to hit this whole variety of needs and and actually

[1:20:01] move forward rather than just be caught in constant stasis which you know it's

[1:20:07] been a little bit. [laughter] Um so Michelle Paninopoulos um she and I were

[1:20:13] elected about 9 years ago. She really took the lead on Sabine and she said

[1:20:17] somebody has this great idea that we've never ever thought of. And I think

[1:20:21] that's this um and when I thought when that you were even considering Sine is

[1:20:26] when I got involved to say tell me what you're thinking. And quite honestly,

[1:20:29] this idea of an eco campus that hits so many of the missions and values of our

[1:20:35] community felt like it was worth exploring and it was worth exploring

[1:20:39] with the community. I I think um I appreciate your timeline very much so

[1:20:44] right is that you are going to have to leave Nar. Um, I think it is worth our

[1:20:50] time to explore given the connection and the support of the conservancy and the

[1:20:54] county is for us to explore this a little bit more seriously as some type

[1:20:59] of long-term lease that alleviates us from that maintenance and being a

[1:21:03] landlord because I do believe that it hits not only the mission but community

[1:21:07] feedback of stormwater community expanding green space you know the

[1:21:12] opportunity to have a multigenerational living learning and garden with New

[1:21:17] Horizons and Wonder Springs is something that I think deeply reflects the values

[1:21:22] of our community. Um, with that said,

[1:21:27] you know, not to sound crass, but I'm also interested in keeping your business

[1:21:31] privilege tax and your EIT in our [clears throat and laughter]

[1:21:35] um would be a reality. I mean, if we if we could get that um and really

[1:21:42] seriously explore how the conservancy and the county would leverage those

[1:21:45] funds and do something that might be a really great gift to our community,

[1:21:50] I would love to see us seriously explore this. And I suspect now with the the

[1:21:55] adoption of fungi that we might even have community donors coming through

[1:21:59] wanting to really earmark funds in a way that perhaps they had not in the past.

[1:22:05] » Okay. Thank you, Sarah.

[1:22:09] » I'll be brief. This is really valuable. Incredible. [clears throat] Thank you so

[1:22:13] much. And uh I agree. I think it's something that we should be exploring uh

[1:22:18] really carefully. But I agree. Thank you.

[1:22:23] [clears throat] [snorts]

[1:22:24] » D you want to jump in? Okay. >> Uh just a couple of thoughts. Um I'm not

[1:22:30] sure. I think we'd have to check with Mr.

[1:22:33] But my recollection is that he has advised that we would have to do

[1:22:40] this through an RFP which I understand could be problematic.

[1:22:45] I would definitely I mean I love this idea so I would certainly want RF RFP to

[1:22:51] be inclusive enough to allow for you to put that in. I understand that could

[1:22:57] create a but we may be and I do want to check with John on this. we may be

[1:23:01] legally bound to have to put out an RFP. Um I guess you [clears throat] know

[1:23:09] having having just spent the last 5 months dealing with storm water

[1:23:13] [laughter] issues you know one thing is our storm

[1:23:16] water you know if that's going to be a change in volume you know one thing that

[1:23:21] we have to think about is yes the cost of all the deferred maintenance is

[1:23:26] significant what do we balance against that we balance against that the EIT

[1:23:31] business privilege tax if we can do a lot of storm water mitigation up on that

[1:23:37] property and it, you know, allows us then not to spend

[1:23:42] how much per how much are we paying per bump out

[1:23:45] » different as of now it's in the wrong watered

[1:23:50] the rules >> completely in the whole state

[1:23:55] into an unimpacted >> unimpacted water

[1:23:59] if they change the rules. >> Yeah. Yeah. Well, you know, we don't

[1:24:02] know. And I guess the other changes there,

[1:24:04] » right? So, the other question is you presuppose that we're maintaining

[1:24:10] the properties as is and maybe a smaller,

[1:24:16] you know, maybe some of those properties do come down the the and we don't have,

[1:24:21] you know, you're you're assuming, hey, let's make use of everything that's

[1:24:24] there. If we're concerned about the deferred maintenance, especially on

[1:24:28] certain portions of that property, the alternative is not well, we don't keep

[1:24:33] all those properties. We tear them down and we only maintain, you know, to start

[1:24:39] with at least a smaller footprint of properties. Maybe

[1:24:43] in the future we get additional grant funding and things like that. So, I'm

[1:24:46] just trying to think that through about addressing Jean's concern, which we did

[1:24:51] say, you know, go, do we really want to be a landlord? Do we want it? You know,

[1:24:55] this is becoming more and more of a burden as every year goes by. I think

[1:24:59] there are ways we can try to be as creative as you're being in terms of how

[1:25:04] to mitigate those things by perhaps looking at at some of those things. Um,

[1:25:10] and [clears throat] you know, the deferred maintenance included the

[1:25:13] driveways and the pavement and all the things that that you're pointing out

[1:25:17] that would need to be fixed regardless. I think if we own the

[1:25:22] property, some of the ADA stuff is probably on us regardless. Not

[1:25:27] » you unless we really do just pure groundies. Um, so I I definitely think

[1:25:33] this is I I'm excited by the idea. It meets the

[1:25:38] educational component that some people have contended is a necessary predicate

[1:25:43] to you know the use future use of the property. Whether we agree with that or

[1:25:48] not is a different issue. But um you know I think we have to be

[1:25:54] honest about that being a potential issue out there and I think this

[1:25:58] adequately addresses that. You know it definitely addresses a lot of the things

[1:26:03] you know we have these competing objectives throughout always. You know

[1:26:07] it's funny we were at that fundraiser last night and I was talking to somebody

[1:26:10] in uh Plymouth Township and I was like what are your you know what are your

[1:26:14] issues? What are our issues? affordable housing, land use, you know,

[1:26:18] preservation of open space. Um, you know, it's those are definitely

[1:26:23] competing objectives. Um, and at the end of the day, we have to make a policy

[1:26:28] decision on that. But this is definitely one of our objectives is is I I think

[1:26:34] this is consistent with sort of our long-term environmental objectives that

[1:26:40] that we as Bur adopted. So I I definitely think it's worth more

[1:26:47] exploration. [snorts]

[1:26:48] » So yeah, I share the concern about the RFP process and you know and um that

[1:26:56] that's probably going to have to be how we determine what what goes forward on

[1:27:01] this property is through an RFP because you know it's what we've been uh

[1:27:07] [clears throat] I feel like that's the way to put it out and we may well be

[1:27:11] bound to that. Um, so just the other part of it is it's always has been my

[1:27:17] hope that we could c stop being a commercial landlord on this property

[1:27:22] like for good like for the long term. um more than just

[1:27:28] 10 or 20 years, you know, but for 100 years, you know, we should we should be

[1:27:33] able to hopefully dispose of this property in a way that's both beneficial

[1:27:39] uh to the community and doesn't do so much uh uh

[1:27:46] harm uh financially. Uh we do currently uh get rental income

[1:27:53] from this property that offsets our taxes. It's not it's you know it's still

[1:27:58] significant. Uh it is sitting but that's only contingent because we're it's

[1:28:03] sitting on top of a ton of deferred maintenance. So we kind of have this

[1:28:06] dual problem here is that you know every year the risk gets higher. Uh you know

[1:28:13] the peril that something goes wrong on that property is higher. you know, does

[1:28:17] it need a new roof? Does it need a new boiler? Does something completely

[1:28:22] unforeseen happen? That's on us. Um, so and it's also the reason why I would

[1:28:29] favor an RFP for something uh for an extended ground lease because

[1:28:35] it would enable the new user to take over deferred maintenance.

[1:28:40] That's kind of my top priority on this. Um, the presentation itself is

[1:28:44] beautiful. you know, I I love the idea of more green space. Um,

[1:28:52] and uh, as far as the storm water map, while you were talking, I did pull up

[1:28:57] the the MS4 map. MS4 only covers uh, properties that drain into Delaware.

[1:29:04] And most that property is actually split. Like there's the line goes right

[1:29:09] through the building. I'll pull it up again. Um,

[1:29:13] look [clears throat] at

[1:29:16] » uh where is it?

[1:29:21] » Up here. Right here. >> Yeah.

[1:29:22] » Yeah. So, uh, at the end of Elm Terrace, there's a line that goes, it looks like

[1:29:27] it cuts off the very, um, eastern most part of the building. Everything to the

[1:29:34] west of that drains into the Delaware. everything to the east of that which is

[1:29:38] the the edge of the building the parking lot and what's currently say by park

[1:29:43] drains into the Skookul River. Um and I don't think that's likely to change. you

[1:29:49] know, the the most we've heard about is that we'd be responsible for retention

[1:29:55] with a change in NS4 law, but not a change of river because uh and I gather

[1:30:00] that's because the part of the school we drain into is not titled.

[1:30:05] Um,

[1:30:08] so

[1:30:11] if there were going to be a storm water solution on that property, it would have

[1:30:14] to take place where the building is now, you know, on the Essex side. And I'm not

[1:30:21] sure how that would work. Um, it'd be great if we could we could, you know,

[1:30:28] borrow >> you know, it's so painful to have to put

[1:30:32] these to put these bumpouts in every year and I just thinking about it. Okay,

[1:30:37] but no, that's an extra. Um, okay. I'm sorry for the mish mash of

[1:30:42] concerns, but I echo everyone else's enthusiasm for this kind of thing and

[1:30:48] also for the concerns raised about, you know, the disposition of this property

[1:30:53] in the very long term. And that's it's a >> Yeah. So, Jeeoff, I think you'd make a

[1:30:59] fantastic tenant for the property. I think that the the vision you've laid

[1:31:02] out for what you would do, you know, as an as a as a tenant of the property, as

[1:31:06] as an occupant of the space is uh is very attractive and it works well with

[1:31:13] the the park, you know, which we have existing infrastructure. you'd be, you

[1:31:18] know, transitioning from a park to a, you know, a park-like environment with

[1:31:22] your your storage area and back would, you know, with all the plants would be,

[1:31:27] you know, it's a it transitions well into into the, you know, the the actual

[1:31:32] public park space. I I agree that the the problem is the

[1:31:36] the moving from what you would do as a tenant to how the whole building would

[1:31:41] function and how the burrow would you know how it would be managed, what would

[1:31:45] happen to the maintenance, the grants. So I think that portion is is the

[1:31:50] difficulty. I think that you know were we looking to continue our current setup

[1:31:55] where we're we're renting out the space I think you'd be an ideal tenant for

[1:31:58] that space. Um but we are looking beyond the tenency and I think that's where

[1:32:05] you know more we're looking for more certainty I think

[1:32:10] than than than what you've suggested. I mean, it would be great if grants were

[1:32:15] able to cover um a transformation like this, but I

[1:32:21] think that's it's far from clear. And I I I don't

[1:32:28] Yeah, I don't think we can commit at this time to something where the burrow

[1:32:31] would be on the hook for the the transformational costs. Uh I think if if

[1:32:37] it could be grant funded um you know that would be a much more appealing

[1:32:41] prospect than the certainty of the burrow you know having to having to

[1:32:46] cover these costs. So those are my concerns right now. I will note that the

[1:32:50] lavender space is currently empty and uh there is 18 months uh in the contract uh

[1:32:58] of teny before anything we have to give any tenants 18 months of warning before

[1:33:03] any changes to the property. that [laughter]

[1:33:07] [snorts] uh you could apply to be a tenant if you

[1:33:10] wish to be handled by our uh primarily by our our manager and our building

[1:33:15] manager not by council but it is a possibility even outside of what happens

[1:33:20] here. Okay. Um

[1:33:25] » can I just ask you a question? What if we do an RFP and we say the preference

[1:33:30] is you know to dispose of the property and we don't get a bid for that

[1:33:39] like can we have as the alternative like a less attractive alternative is you

[1:33:45] know a full tenant for the property. >> Let's let's pause that because we're

[1:33:49] going to have a an RFP discussion logistics RFP in a minute. So any any

[1:33:53] other comments about chess proposal? >> I guess just a question. How long of a

[1:33:58] lease would you want to sign for? >> I was I thought 5 to 10 years.

[1:34:02] » Yeah. >> Uh or more. It it really depends. I mean

[1:34:05] I think if I could just summarize a little bit. I think what I was thinking

[1:34:10] and presenting right was to kind of like find this nucleus of like okay

[1:34:16] understanding the challenges of the landlordship,

[1:34:19] the deferred maintenance, right? Like I went through that section of the

[1:34:23] deferred maintenance and some of it didn't freak me out at all. I mean it's

[1:34:27] like you have companies that like want to put advanced sustainable technology

[1:34:33] in places where people can see them at work. Like that's one way to deal with

[1:34:38] the HBA systems or HVAC systems. Like there's there's ways to kind of think

[1:34:44] about some of this that I don't even know could potentially bypass grants. I

[1:34:48] just I think there's like an opportunity to um think through some of that middle

[1:34:54] ground that is that's unclear or that is kind of pushing for like want to see the

[1:35:00] burrow be able to like shed themselves as responsibility. Um but I think

[1:35:06] there's there's just opportunities to do that and maybe I I you know grants was

[1:35:11] not the entirely right way to like look at this. Um, I I think with the Bach

[1:35:17] building there was some some level of like like um sweat equity for ownership.

[1:35:25] And I'm not suggesting that I'm like looking to own this property

[1:35:28] necessarily, but there's probably other ways to think about like funding

[1:35:35] for some of this that maybe is a little bit easier and more

[1:35:39] streamlined than hoping for grants or like look Yeah, I I I by by talking with

[1:35:45] Moren from the consery and like I I and thinking about I mean it's like a

[1:35:51] million something for deferred deferred maintenance which is Not an

[1:35:55] insignificant amount of money. >> Significantly more than that.

[1:35:59] » Is it from like 2018 or >> No, it's even bigger than that. It's

[1:36:04] more like four or five. >> Does anyone have an actual figure on it?

[1:36:08] » We can get it. We have it somewhere. [clears throat]

[1:36:11] » It's It's more than that. It's >> okay.

[1:36:13] » I think it was a million to tear it down.

[1:36:16] » A million just to tear the village down. Yeah, those are the data estimate was a

[1:36:20] precoid estimate. >> I think

[1:36:23] I think the last time we talked about it's closer to two.

[1:36:26] » So the um the 2021 econult report estimated that the total deferred

[1:36:34] maintenance is $4.7 million and this was 2021.

[1:36:38] » That's why we're so worried about if it was 1 million. Yeah, there's a lot of

[1:36:41] creative solutions. 4.7 million. >> Is that preverb for post? That's

[1:36:45] » I was going to say there have been we've done some stuff

[1:36:48] » that that is um

[1:36:53] » No, this is post this is post roof. >> So, the burrow has replaced the roof and

[1:36:58] damaged sophets, gutters, and downspouts for $600,000 in 2020. It has identified

[1:37:03] other deferred but necessary maintenance totaling approximately $4.7 million.

[1:37:11] » All right. Well, thanks Jeeoff. And we do have

[1:37:13] » You're welcome. Yep. And uh uh next we're going to discuss the uh

[1:37:20] the RFP process and how it would work if we decided to proceed along that route.

[1:37:25] So Maggie, if you want to talk to us about logistics here.

[1:37:29] » Sure. Um so I've been doing a little bit of uh looking into what a process like

[1:37:34] this might look like um if we were to draft an RFP. Um so based on the

[1:37:39] direction that council gave in December of last year, um we were looking at

[1:37:44] adaptive reuse for this property, looking at workforce housing and maybe

[1:37:49] some other supporting services uh to be retained on the property and

[1:37:54] preservation of the existing park space um and general layout of the parking

[1:37:59] lots uh to service both of those uses. Um the process uh if we were to proceed

[1:38:07] then with the RFP is um either uh in-house or with the aid of a consultant

[1:38:14] to help us draft the RFP. We would outline all of the necessary asks. We

[1:38:20] would say what we're looking for. Um we would give the scoring rubric that we

[1:38:25] would be evaluating responses against and we would vet that out. um we would

[1:38:34] uh take that before the community for some feedback before we actually issue

[1:38:38] the RFP which is the direction that we've given in the past is that there

[1:38:41] would be some public engagement. The RFP would then be issued. We would then

[1:38:47] receive responses and then again if we were doing this in-house or if we have a

[1:38:52] consultant we would then evaluate those responses again using the pre-identified

[1:38:58] scoring matrix um as our benchmark for how we evaluate these.

[1:39:05] We would then make a decision if one of those options is something that we would

[1:39:09] want to proceed with. Um again highest ranked based on that predetermined

[1:39:14] scoring matrix. um if we don't like any of the options, we're not beholdened to

[1:39:18] any of this. Um but otherwise, uh if if the price is right, if the project is

[1:39:24] right, um and the um the proposal hits all of the marks, then we would engage

[1:39:30] in a u you know, professional services agreement with this developer and

[1:39:35] proceed with getting all the necessary um documents um orders and and whatever

[1:39:40] else we need to to proceed with that work. um from the timeline of drafting

[1:39:46] the RFP to potentially awarding a contract is about a six-month timeline

[1:39:53] in a perfect world. Um so that would be about a month to develop the RFP. Um

[1:39:59] about a month for a public engagement process, about a month then for this RFP

[1:40:04] to live out in the world to receive responses. So what do we have? 3 months.

[1:40:08] Um, and then once we receive responses, we want about a month to evaluate them.

[1:40:15] I feel like I'm missing a month in there. [snorts]

[1:40:18] » Are we rewriting after the public engagement? Are there any to put a time?

[1:40:23] » It was a month. So, a month to write it, a month for engagement,

[1:40:27] a month to put it out in the world, a month to evaluate responses,

[1:40:33] » turn um

[1:40:36] » and incorporate revisions based on public engagement feedback.

[1:40:40] » There's a month in there before. >> Okay.

[1:40:44] » Anyway, so about 6 months. Um and uh Right. So, we'd be looking at a

[1:40:51] six-month process. So if we were to have an RFP drafted

[1:40:56] at the end of September, it would be 6 months from so figure October, November,

[1:41:01] December, January, February, March. So we'd be looking at a spring timeline for

[1:41:06] having um having a decision point before us at that point and then we would be

[1:41:12] able to compare apples to apples with these proposals um if that was something

[1:41:18] that you would want to proceed with. Okay. Can I do the Fred and Maggie know

[1:41:23] this is coming before we even start down this path? I think council has to say

[1:41:28] what are we taking off our plate. You know, we talked this time last year

[1:41:32] about TOD and recodification. I was very vocal with let's get the recottification

[1:41:38] done. Feel good about it. Ask the questions of what is missing and why do

[1:41:42] we need to reevaluate form based zoning. Then start a COD process.

[1:41:48] um that has got so conflated and we're off the timeline and there's questions

[1:41:53] and still concerns if we are going to move forward with an RFP, what are we

[1:41:57] taking off Maggie's plate and how do we answer to the community because you have

[1:42:00] a bridge that now we're having problems with and hopefully have a good solution.

[1:42:04] We have a downtown that has got vacant. We've not had had any substantial

[1:42:08] changes to the master park plans. Um what are we taking off our staff's

[1:42:15] plate? Because as soon as we start this process, even though we're going to have

[1:42:19] the consultants with the county, we relied on that for this recotification

[1:42:24] process and that did not save anybody any time.

[1:42:28] You know, we will be paralyzed with right to nose and threats of litigation.

[1:42:33] So what are we willing to take off the plate and how do we address the

[1:42:39] community when they say you're saying that right now you need to be doing

[1:42:43] recodification to and save when we have these other outstanding projects. So, I

[1:42:48] I just want to kind of publicly voice the same concern I did last year on

[1:42:52] being thoughtful, being rightsized for our burrow, and being able to

[1:42:56] demonstrate that we're listening to our community and we're doing things that

[1:42:59] they can see that are tangibly increasing their quality of life.

[1:43:03] » So, >> I want to pick up on that cuz that's a

[1:43:06] good point. Like I think one of and this is one of the reasons why I felt

[1:43:10] strongly last year and still do that we should hire that we should bring in

[1:43:14] expertise um to manage the RFP process to be a

[1:43:18] single accountability point. I felt strongly in December that that that we

[1:43:23] we shouldn't try to do it in-house, but we should do that specifically because I

[1:43:27] thought that there was too much on your plate and that we would actually have a

[1:43:30] single accountability person to both help us um have the expertise to design

[1:43:35] the RFP in a way that puts us in a best position going forward. Um then also

[1:43:41] helps us manage the engagement process. I really appreciate the admiral optimism

[1:43:45] about the uh the six months. I don't know that I carry optimism, but I really

[1:43:50] love it. [laughter] Um, but like but have someone throughout that process

[1:43:54] that is actually um that that is that has taken that work off of your plate

[1:43:59] and then on the back end because they've been involved through this entire time,

[1:44:03] they're going to be able to help in a good position to help us score things

[1:44:06] and and provide us professional expertise. So, I felt um pretty strongly

[1:44:11] about that. And I think that like the one of the best aspects of this is

[1:44:15] getting to a position where Safe Mine isn't on your plate at all. Right. That

[1:44:19] is like that's what we're heading towards. Um what what I don't want to do

[1:44:24] is put you back in a position where you and the rest of of our staff are having

[1:44:29] to actively manage manage um say mine for the next forever and and having to

[1:44:37] um rearrange the CIP to write grants and all of these other things. I think we do

[1:44:41] have like a there's an intensive moment ahead of us, but we're heading towards

[1:44:46] something that will really uh potentially offer beautiful

[1:44:50] opportunities for a community, hit a bundle of needs, take this off your

[1:44:54] plate, retain ownership of it, and I think that there is a a clear way to to

[1:44:58] get to that through, you know, a very uh structured and important process.

[1:45:06] So Maggie, why don't you talk about your workload and whether it makes sense

[1:45:10] to bring in a consultant like I suggest? >> Yeah. What you would take off?

[1:45:17] » Do you want to say a spot? Yeah,

[1:45:21] » we can talk more. >> Why don't you think about a response? I

[1:45:24] mean I definitely agree that um with the idea of bringing outside expertise in to

[1:45:32] do this our school process um and I think whatever you know nominal money

[1:45:39] that we pay for that we will get that back in dividends in terms of removing

[1:45:44] the cost of the buildings removing the risk of the buildings uh and bringing a

[1:45:50] long-term solution for this which really has been like a albatross around their

[1:45:57] neck for for you know almost a decade now. So um I think it will [laughter]

[1:46:04] pay like it it's money well spent basically. Uh

[1:46:09] and I I completely agree that we need that's the route we need to take and we

[1:46:15] need to move forward. And we also need to recognize that the longer we wait on

[1:46:20] this RFP process, the the higher the cost and the higher the risk is for the

[1:46:26] burrow and we have to take that into account.

[1:46:32] » I I agree with that. I'm really eager I'm really eager to be done with this

[1:46:37] property as as it exists in relation to the burn now and I think we should move

[1:46:44] to RFP as soon as possible and and the hiring someone

[1:46:49] seems very reasonable seems very seems a lot very straightforward

[1:46:55] uh interested in the manager's comments as whether that ads or subtracts work um

[1:47:02] uh I mean we just had a another presentation that that contemplated

[1:47:07] giving her a lot more work in terms of writing a lot of grants. So,

[1:47:13] you know, I'm not sure which is which is asking more from the manager which is

[1:47:17] which is uh alleviating some of the some of the work. Um but definitely long-term

[1:47:25] it seems to be on the alleviation side. So, you know, I uh I would certainly

[1:47:32] like to see this done while I'm alive. [laughter]

[1:47:41] » My question was, what are we individually going to take

[1:47:44] [clears throat] off our chefs? >> I What I'm saying is that I think

[1:47:48] I think what I'm saying is I think this does represent taking something off of

[1:47:52] her plate. Um and taking something off of all of her plates. you know, it's

[1:47:57] something we've wanted to do for a long time. It's something we are have

[1:47:59] articulated as a council, you know, since day one that I've been on council.

[1:48:04] Um, and I I don't want to see this get bumped another four years or, you know,

[1:48:10] or whatever it is. Um, >> yeah. Okay. I'm sorry. I don't mean to

[1:48:16] » No, I think Okay. >> I I think two two basic points. I I mean

[1:48:20] I agree that if we're going to do this we should be

[1:48:24] outsourcing the proposal unless unless May test says no actually that turns out

[1:48:30] to be more complicated for her but I suspect she's not going to say that. So

[1:48:34] I I would actually say I would take the probably the most forceful position say

[1:48:40] I would only agree to to proceed in relatively short order if we agreed

[1:48:47] to have [clears throat] engage an outside consultant to do it. Um, and I

[1:48:52] think it's, you know, it's short-term pain for long-term gain,

[1:48:57] right? The dividends will pay out the sooner this property is disposed of.

[1:49:02] Now, having said that, I I'm a little concerned about the scope of the RFP and

[1:49:08] whether that moving quickly creates a problem for us because if

[1:49:15] depending on how the 4B and 5A discussions actually play out,

[1:49:22] for me at least, will inform my views of how much and to what extent

[1:49:31] that property affordable housing or workforce housing.

[1:49:36] I want to say workforce housing because affordable housing is not really

[1:49:40] appropriate term. You know, the need for that on that property, you know, if it's

[1:49:45] going to end up that we end up with a solid plan for that kind of development

[1:49:52] in 4A and 5B and elsewhere in the world. You know, we haven't even talked about

[1:49:57] other places where that kind of development could take place.

[1:50:02] To me, that's going to inform the prioritization of the RFP. So, I'm a

[1:50:08] little concerned that until we finish having the discussion, the zoning

[1:50:12] discussion at least in regard to 4 A 5B, if not the broader one,

[1:50:19] that we're acting a little bit prematurely in

[1:50:23] terms of deciding what what we want, if that makes sense. But that's not to say,

[1:50:31] right? I I again, if it's a six-month process, we may have finished that four

[1:50:37] 4 A and 5B process by then. But I I do share Cindy's concern that we've, you

[1:50:43] know, we thought we were trying to keep these things separately tracked and they

[1:50:47] definitely have not been. Um, and so I feel like we're falling over each other

[1:50:52] at every step when we're talking about these big issues and it would just be

[1:50:56] nice to be sort of finish something before we start the next thing.

[1:51:01] » So just just in terms of the timeline for those, our expectation is to have 5B

[1:51:06] in front of council by the end of the year either in November or December. Um

[1:51:12] 4A is going to be a while. Um, there was requests for more information and just

[1:51:17] the way planning commission is scheduling their time, they're not going

[1:51:20] to be able to get through everything until

[1:51:24] next year. So, we will have 5B by the end of the year. I

[1:51:30] » have 5B before us, but it may not be by the end of the year. Yes, it may not be

[1:51:36] approved. I believe we should vote on it. I I would like to see a resolution

[1:51:40] to 5B one way or the other by the end of the year. we need to make a decision and

[1:51:43] move on. The 4A is going to take longer. So this process would the four we would

[1:51:49] still we would not have made our final determination about 4A um while this

[1:51:54] process proceeds if it goes along the timeline I'm talking if we start working

[1:51:57] on the the uh if we start working on the RFP now we will still have 4A

[1:52:02] » at some point in the future. >> That's a concern. I'll just express it

[1:52:06] as a concern. >> Okay.

[1:52:08] » Not a deal breaker but a concern. Mhm. >> Uh I have a question and then a comment.

[1:52:13] Um the question is u we're talking about 4A and 5B. Uh this property sits in 3B.

[1:52:22] Do we have >> cuz Mike brought it [clears throat] up?

[1:52:23] » No. >> I'll finish my question. Do do we have a

[1:52:28] plan to talk about zoning in 3B or or is that not something we're going to

[1:52:35] discuss? It's a Okay, so we have a long-term plan. It is not on our

[1:52:41] immediate agenda, but um since this property is burrow owned, the zoning is

[1:52:48] more flexible. The burough can determine what can be built on it regardless of

[1:52:53] the zoning. So, >> but understanding that has an impact for

[1:52:57] the people who live in >> of course I mean and any anything that

[1:53:01] we allowed on this property would not necessarily be allowed on the rest of

[1:53:04] the 3B. So we're not whatever we do here is not open up the rest of 3B to similar

[1:53:10] um building options. I think at our our last meeting when we

[1:53:15] were discussing like the missing middle typologies, we asked planning commission

[1:53:20] to like look >> why at the missing middle which includes

[1:53:24] [laughter]

[1:53:27] » we asked them to be looking at lot sizes and allowing row houses and cottages and

[1:53:34] » staff standards. So, we asked them to look at those throughout the other

[1:53:37] districts, but that's going to take more. I mean, this will be okay.

[1:53:40] » Sometime next year, they'll get to that. >> Thank you. Uh, my comment is uh I

[1:53:46] recommend that we table um consideration for an RFP. I know this will be

[1:53:51] unpopular with people, but my recommendation is that uh we table it.

[1:53:57] My my rationale is a couple of points. Um the uh I wasn't here in December. I

[1:54:04] wasn't on council in December when this was previously discussed. I see

[1:54:08] information about community feedback in uh but I don't see any documentation of

[1:54:13] community feedback or that was collected or not. Uh so I don't have that

[1:54:17] available to me. I just see a summary of um community feedback. Uh I'm I

[1:54:24] mentioned before, I'll mention again I've been only on council for a short

[1:54:27] period of time and I've seen us make mistakes when we rush and uh and it

[1:54:33] sounds like we're we're pushing to uh push this through when there are other

[1:54:39] things that we're working on. Um and I am concerned that uh we're going to push

[1:54:47] hard. we're going to make mistakes and uh and those are going to have

[1:54:51] long-lasting consequences as Jim mentioned perhaps for 100 years that we

[1:54:55] might not have to worry about this property. So I I just want to state very

[1:55:00] firmly and strongly uh I recommend that we do not vote today to move forward

[1:55:07] with uh preparing an RFP for this. Thank you.

[1:55:12] » Well, I was not planning to vote on this. I was just planning to get a sense

[1:55:16] of council and then we will have a vote when we have a a formal action to take

[1:55:20] which will probably be to authorize hiring consultant or such. Um but and

[1:55:26] I'll also note that the community feedback that is anticipated is we

[1:55:30] present a draft RFP to the community, they offer comments on it and then we

[1:55:35] incorporate that in any final RFP. So sorry I'm referring to the community

[1:55:40] feedback that was cited in the document um from the December 2025 meeting.

[1:55:46] You're talking about the prior survey that we

[1:55:49] » did we did a uh we pulled together kind of like the various themes council

[1:55:54] members for all provided feedback on it that was incorporate but your point is

[1:55:58] » it's called community >> feedback

[1:56:03] processes on the website >> yeah for you I appreciate that

[1:56:10] » I just I agree with all of you but say for this was the first topic we explored

[1:56:15] nine years ago I think it's naive for us to say we're

[1:56:18] going to hire a consultant and it's going to alleviate things to do from our

[1:56:23] office.

[1:56:26] » Yeah. And I think we should demonstrate um that we have incorporated our

[1:56:32] community's feedback as we go through to I would feel much more confident as an

[1:56:36] elected official to say look we collected feedback and this is how we

[1:56:40] heard you and we implemented that as we go through a thoughtful process to

[1:56:45] continue maybe we take off and say you know what we're going to back burner

[1:56:49] that if the [clears throat] will council is concentrating moved to an RFP but I I

[1:56:55] want to demonstrate straight to the people that elected us that we can get

[1:56:58] something done. [laughter] >> I mean, you're laughing. I'm like,

[1:57:02] seriously, like the park plan, you know, the the bridge in downtown we have very

[1:57:06] little control over. Um, what can we demonstrate and what has to come off?

[1:57:10] You know, maybe it's the sidewalk maintenance and vegetation, maybe it's

[1:57:13] the traffic calming, cuz to think that hiring a consultant to do this RFP is

[1:57:17] going to take work off of your plate, I think, is naive. And so, correct me if

[1:57:22] I'm wrong, but I mean, I know Emily spends weeks of her time doing right to

[1:57:27] know requests that a consultant would not be legally

[1:57:31] able to do. >> Is that correct?

[1:57:33] » Yes. >> Okay.

[1:57:35] » Um, so first of all, I appreciate you all being mindful of my time. I do want

[1:57:40] to say it's not just my time. It is all staff's time. So, I'm not solely working

[1:57:44] on this. and I want to recognize the the efforts of Emily and the rest of our our

[1:57:48] staff and and all of the the support that they provide to the burrow. So, um

[1:57:53] I'm just very appreciative that that I have a council who is mindful of of our

[1:57:57] workflow workflow and workload. Um so certainly hiring a consultant for

[1:58:06] this would be the preferred option. Um, I don't have the time or expertise to

[1:58:12] really devote to this effort. Um, you know, to Council Member Stratton's point

[1:58:18] here, we don't want to rush through this and make mistakes. Um, having a

[1:58:23] consultant who does this for a living, they would have much more uh

[1:58:27] sophisticated means of analysis, of research, of of comparison. Um, so I

[1:58:33] would certainly recommend that we do that. Um, it doesn't necessarily

[1:58:37] alleviate all of the scope of work. um it does still add a substantial amount

[1:58:41] of work because the finding of the consultants and working with them on

[1:58:45] drafting uh the RFP and getting the coordination that that entails that's

[1:58:50] another kind of large project that that we would undertake. So it does add work

[1:58:55] to the staff. Um it doesn't add as much work though as if we were to be doing

[1:59:01] this by ourselves. I will say though in terms of

[1:59:05] prioritization of projects, we kind of put Seabine a little bit on the back

[1:59:11] burner because we had a full complement of tenants. Um other priorities came up

[1:59:16] this year um that took our focus away from this. However,

[1:59:22] given that we now have lost all but essentially one tenant, um one tenant

[1:59:29] being Wonders Daycare and the Wonders admin. So, two tenants but under the

[1:59:34] same umbrella. Um, Lavner still has an active lease, but they're not actively

[1:59:39] using the sites. Um, so we don't really have as many tenants um as we used to

[1:59:46] and we have not yet found tenants to backfill those spaces. So when we talk

[1:59:50] about Sabbine being a revenue generating property or at least a revenue neutral

[1:59:54] and that the money that we're spending on the maintenance of the building is

[1:59:58] being offset by the uh rental income that we're receiving, that number is

[2:00:03] going to flip next year. So if we don't get new tenants in, the building is

[2:00:08] still going to require certain amounts of maintenance. And now we no longer

[2:00:11] even have the rental revenue to make up for that. So this is now amplified as a

[2:00:17] priority project for the burrow, for our staff, for our financials. Um, so I do

[2:00:24] recommend that we do something with this regardless of what whatever council's

[2:00:29] will is. We do need to make a decision on this and I I do not recommend that we

[2:00:34] push this off any longer because we are very quickly turning into a situation

[2:00:39] where we will now uh be financially constrained by this property. Um, and

[2:00:45] and I don't want to get us into a situation where

[2:00:48] we we en encumber ourselves with something where it's too late to make a

[2:00:53] decision that we otherwise [clears throat] may have wanted to make.

[2:00:55] So, I put that out there just to um express the the the pace at which I

[2:01:02] think or the prioritization I feel of of the large project. So, we have the

[2:01:06] bridge going on. Um, so I'll be working with our consultants on uh pivoting to

[2:01:12] that option three. So there'll be updates coming um on that. Um the

[2:01:18] recottification efforts, I know we still have some more discussion. Um we have

[2:01:22] other smaller ordinances that we're working on. We have the budget season is

[2:01:27] kicking off and I'll be giving a overview of our our scope and timeline

[2:01:32] um tonight. So that's obviously going to be kind of a big thing for the next

[2:01:35] couple of months. Um we've got some staffing turnover as

[2:01:39] well that we're dealing with. So there's a lot on the plate. um in terms of

[2:01:43] things coming off the ordinance work is is

[2:01:47] you know certainly something that um requires a lot of coordination and

[2:01:51] effort. Um we do have our consultants to help with that. Um, so in terms of kind

[2:01:57] of that prioritization, it's it's hard to make those judgment

[2:02:01] calls about what needs to come on and off. But really the main point what I

[2:02:04] want to make tonight is that 2011 binding needs to be prioritized because

[2:02:09] we are we are now at an inflection point more so than we ever have been and we

[2:02:14] need to proceed with a path forward. >> Okay. I'd like so we're not going to

[2:02:19] take a vote tonight on this, but I'd like to propose that you bring us um

[2:02:25] more

[2:02:28] you bring us more details about hiring a consultant. Uh

[2:02:33] and that I I heard a several council people say they'd like to hear more

[2:02:38] information about Jeff's proposal. So I think that the next step there would be

[2:02:43] to bring in um the Lower Marian Conservancy, which would be a partner

[2:02:49] for any kind of grant application. I'd like to hear from them. So this can be

[2:02:53] like a private meeting to start with or potentially a presentation to council.

[2:02:58] But I think that that would be the appropriate step there because our

[2:03:02] concerns are about the the concerns that I heard were primarily about funding and

[2:03:06] the Laurian Conservancy has offered to work on grant funding as part of the

[2:03:12] proposal and uh you know they've written grants with us before and we've worked

[2:03:16] with them and it's been a very helpful process. So

[2:03:20] I'm hearing that we proceed with both of these steps and then we'll need to vote

[2:03:23] on one or the other pretty soon. Um, so do we, so like one of the ways to

[2:03:30] do that is rather than having them spin their wheels, which is incorporate

[2:03:36] just the concept of that into portion of the process where we were talking about

[2:03:43] all of these other things and then that can be handled rather than like now

[2:03:48] we're like having kind of two parallel things occurring in process where this

[2:03:54] where like the partnership kind of piece may not even work for us

[2:03:58] to begin with and rather than forcing that energy, we can incorporate it into

[2:04:02] the process in the way that I was describing earlier and that might just

[2:04:06] solve for that. >> But that doesn't meet refugeia's

[2:04:08] timeline. Is that up to >> It sounds It sounds like nothing might

[2:04:12] at that point. But if we're actually trying to get this started, then I think

[2:04:17] that puts us in the best position to potentially meet that time.

[2:04:20] » I just wonder I mean I would ask this is such a creative idea. I would hate for

[2:04:25] kind of bureaucracy and well this is how we always do it to not at least explore

[2:04:29] what is really an entrepreneurial innovative idea and it sounds like you

[2:04:34] and the conservancy and even the county have had some really substantive

[2:04:37] conversations. I think in a month we're not going to make any decision but to

[2:04:42] have another bite at the apple to address some of those questions with the

[2:04:46] good that we might see and save mind I think it would be worth it. Joe, Mike.

[2:04:52] » Yeah. I mean, I I don't want to say again, my my only

[2:04:59] concern about this is whether we have to I'm on check with John whether we have

[2:05:05] to do it through the RFP process. We may have to um legally I'm not sure. Um not

[2:05:12] if he's a tenant. Right. >> Right.

[2:05:14] » I mean, if it's a pure tenency, I don't think that's an issue. But if there's

[2:05:18] going to be any sort of land transfer and you know I feel like

[2:05:24] we're at the beginning of the discussion, right? Like I always say the

[2:05:28] devil's in the details, right? I think there's a lot of great ways there's sort

[2:05:32] of I'm already spinning about land trusts and things like that. I mean it

[2:05:36] may be that we can, you know, set up a land trust and and

[2:05:41] have the land trust essentially buy the property from us over time.

[2:05:46] um you know and where we're not responsible for. So I feel like we're

[2:05:51] sort of at the beginning of the discussion, not at the end. And

[2:05:57] I guess my my my you know, all this makes me think like the RFP process we

[2:06:02] should start in January after budgeting after we know what happens with 5B.

[2:06:06] Again, from my perspective, I don't know what I would want the RFP to look like

[2:06:13] until I know what our the rest of our zoning looks like and whether we have

[2:06:18] been able to fairly and fully accommodate the missing middle, which if

[2:06:23] we don't, 2011 say to me is a prime space to address that issue. Maybe maybe

[2:06:30] we say we do it all over town, but you know, again, Joe, I I echo Joe's

[2:06:36] concerns about I feel like we've been rushing through stuff

[2:06:41] and quite frankly giving a month of public input on 2011 when we know it is

[2:06:47] a high. I mean to me that's just not realistic that you know it's a high

[2:06:55] visibility item and you know we've been previously

[2:07:00] criticized about how we got that public comment the first time around. I wasn't

[2:07:04] on council back then but I share that concern because of the way that was

[2:07:08] structured. Um and so I want to make sure that

[2:07:13] for something that's going to go for hopefully a hundred years that we do it

[2:07:17] slow. We do it deliberate and we do it right. And I don't think that's,

[2:07:22] » you know, [laughter] I asked Joe for his opinions.

[2:07:26] » I just want to express Megie, I appreciate that uh everything that you

[2:07:30] described and also that the urgency is um that we don't you know we have two

[2:07:35] tenants right now uh under one umbrella and um and that's creating some urgency

[2:07:42] and there may be an opportunity for another tenant. Um uh so it it it um you

[2:07:49] know if the lack of tenency is the reason for the urgency um maybe it makes

[2:07:55] sense to you know really explore if there's a willing able tenant who's very

[2:08:00] interested um to help address that gap. Is there any way I could just say

[2:08:04] something because I feel I it this take two seconds but I feel like I'm an

[2:08:09] example of the urgency that popped up in in a positive way. Like Maggie and I

[2:08:14] kind of talked like I was looking at the property and then there was like kind of

[2:08:18] an increase in the schedule for me to come in and present my idea. And I feel

[2:08:24] like it's I mean like I presented something that I feel is has tons of

[2:08:28] potential but is incomplete in the sense that like I just haven't like I

[2:08:32] literally threw together like I I talked with um with Moren. We started getting a

[2:08:39] lot like some like some energy going around the like grant opportunities.

[2:08:44] There are some like larger funders that that look at at public space like this

[2:08:50] that there is opportunities. It's not it's not and and this isn't just like a

[2:08:54] a project that started off for graffiti, but it's really for the community, too.

[2:08:59] And I felt like I'm I'm extremely appreciative to come in and present

[2:09:03] tonight, but I did feel a bit rushed. And and so, but I also don't think it

[2:09:08] needs to take forever. And I really appreciate like right when you and I

[2:09:12] talked I was kind of just like I put together like kind of what I could some

[2:09:16] of what when when I was away in Maine I was just like I was like kind of

[2:09:19] scrambling to like get something that I felt at least decent about to like come

[2:09:23] in and present. like I do feel like there's

[2:09:27] like there's a lot of potential and just to having a bit of time to like flesh

[2:09:33] flesh that out especially the funding opportunities

[2:09:36] have like kind of to Fred's point like having the opportunity to come back and

[2:09:40] and present that in like [clears throat] more fleshed out with Moren to have that

[2:09:45] opportunity I feel like we can make a lot of headway and I I feel like I could

[2:09:48] come back in here with something really digestible to have that conversation cuz

[2:09:52] I agree like and this has been humbling like understanding a bit more about the

[2:09:57] challenges of the the deferred maintenance, the the level of the the

[2:10:02] amount and also just like how much this it like I just I appreciate that and so

[2:10:08] um but equally it'd be great to come back in here and and and look at a

[2:10:13] solutionoriented approach to this that um it could work for everybody. Right.

[2:10:19] But first, we have a lot of other >> I do want to mention one other piece

[2:10:22] though because it was it was you know it was brought up like should we wait till

[2:10:25] next year? Should we not? And I think that like I do think that like part of

[2:10:32] part of why I thought we should got started last year. Why I think we should

[2:10:36] get started in terms of hiring a consultant now is specifically because I

[2:10:40] expect this process is going to take much longer than 6 months.

[2:10:46] As much as I love your optimism, it's going to take a while because it will

[2:10:49] necessarily take a while in order to do all the things. And every kind of like

[2:10:54] time we push that timeline back 3 months, we're pushing this broader thing

[2:10:58] out there back 3 months, back 5 months, and then it becomes impossible to like

[2:11:04] even get all of the information and do workman like so we can take our time so

[2:11:09] we can we can really make a wise decision and do all these things. So

[2:11:12] that's why I think that even if folks are coming back, we should also be

[2:11:17] identifying some potential consultants to help so that we're not continuing to

[2:11:22] push that. >> Okay, that that is what I'm hearing. We

[2:11:24] are we are we got a lot of other items tonight. We are not making we're not

[2:11:27] voting on anything tonight. So I think we should proceed. Uh I'm hearing

[2:11:32] significant support for two different positions. Uh I think we need to

[2:11:36] continue to explore these and to the point where we have a vote. I think

[2:11:40] we're going to need to have a vote to clarify our position. Um because I agree

[2:11:46] with Maggie's position that the time has come to move on. Uh so

[2:11:55] all right. Do you is that clear enough? >> Yes.

[2:11:59] » Okay. Uh I'd like to move on to the next

[2:12:02] discussion item then

[2:12:07] downtown tree maintenance.

[2:12:11] All right. So, get to my memo here.

[2:12:20] Um, so the burrow has an ordinance that

[2:12:25] defines that all street trees, also called shade trees,

[2:12:31] um, that extend within the public right away are the maintenance responsibility

[2:12:36] of the property owner on whose property that tree sits.

[2:12:42] This extends to both commercial and residential properties. The ordinance

[2:12:46] doesn't make a distinction between the two. And

[2:12:51] what that means practically is that all of the street trees on Hammerford Avenue

[2:12:58] and in our downtown generally are then the responsibility

[2:13:01] [clears throat] of each individual property owner um of however many

[2:13:07] properties that may be. So some of them are owned by the same person, some of

[2:13:10] them are owned by different people. Um there is there has been in the past a

[2:13:16] practice that the burrow has maintained these trees in a uniform manner um using

[2:13:22] burough funds uh to do so. This is because there is a vested interest in

[2:13:30] keeping a uniform maintenance of those trees. Those trees are hugely [snorts]

[2:13:36] uh impactful on the streetscape of our downtowns. really contribute to the

[2:13:41] character of the downtown. But as I understand it in speaking with

[2:13:46] our director of public works is that this has not been done in a uniform

[2:13:51] manner by the burrow since about 2017 or 2018. Um the trees have gotten uh older

[2:13:58] and are in need of some pruning. Um so the question really that we wanted to uh

[2:14:05] pose to council is that um this being you know it's within the right of way so

[2:14:12] it falls within the burough's jurisdiction. Uh the ordinance though

[2:14:16] defines street trees in the right of way as being the property owner's m

[2:14:19] maintenance responsibility. Um but should the burough wish to take

[2:14:25] on that maintenance responsibility it would add additional cost to our tree

[2:14:29] maintenance budget. Um, but it would provide the benefit of maintaining the

[2:14:34] trees in our downtown in a uniform way. So, the question really is, uh, the

[2:14:40] trees are in need of some repair. I actually had, um, a conversation with

[2:14:44] one of the larger property owners just this week, um, who expressed, uh, some,

[2:14:50] um, concern that he didn't realize that this was a a maintenance responsibility

[2:14:56] that was born by the property owners. um and just had some questions about what

[2:15:00] that means in terms of liability. Um the proposal that we're putting forth is not

[2:15:05] that we would not that we the burough would then take u maintenance

[2:15:08] responsibility for everything about the tree. Uh it really just to provide some

[2:15:12] uniform um pruning and periodic maintenance. Um so if we were to do that

[2:15:18] uh we would just hire a tree contractor to come and do all of the trees. Um and

[2:15:22] Jeff, this was for avenue. There's two trees up forest that are

[2:15:29] larger, two trees on Essex that are larger, and two or three of them north.

[2:15:36] So in total around about 20 trees. >> So [clears throat] we're looking at uh

[2:15:42] that work would be about $5,000. Um they would need to be maintained about every

[2:15:46] 3 to 5 years. Uh so if this is something that we want to undertake, we would then

[2:15:51] um share this information with the property owners to let them know you

[2:15:55] know we will be maintaining these trees. However, that does not mean that we are

[2:15:59] taking full ownership of these trees. So if they are to be damaged, if they need

[2:16:04] to be replaced or there's other larger maintenance needs with them, um you

[2:16:09] know, sidewalk repairs, those are all still legally the maintenance

[2:16:13] responsibility of those property owners. um and we would simply um you know uh

[2:16:19] reiterate that to them or just provide explanation for that. So this would be

[2:16:24] um something that we would need to coordinate with our solicitor to make

[2:16:27] sure that we uh draft this language appropriately to clearly define

[2:16:32] responsibilities and what we're offering to take on versus what would still

[2:16:36] remain the the responsibility of the property owner. Um, but rather than make

[2:16:42] a unilateral administrative decision regarding that, I did want to bring that

[2:16:46] before council because this does have implications on our budget.

[2:16:50] » Okay. [clears throat]

[2:16:53] » Who who pays for this? Do do we do the work? Can we charge the property owners

[2:16:58] or >> So, the proposal is that we would do the

[2:17:01] work and we would pay for it. The other option is we could do the work um and

[2:17:06] then lean the property owners um or send them invoices um but that is not what's

[2:17:12] being proposed. What's being proposed is that we would uh incorporate this just

[2:17:15] as part of our budget. >> I would just support

[2:17:22] not charging or putting a lean to the property owners at this point given the

[2:17:27] vacancies downtown and you know they are struggling so much. We're trying to

[2:17:31] control what we can control this we can. I mean 5,000 I think we can find that in

[2:17:35] the budget and let folks know we're not committing to this in perpetuity.

[2:17:40] However, we want to recognize that with the bridge out and downtown vacancies,

[2:17:44] we don't want to add this to what is already a struggle in your storefront at

[2:17:49] this time. Can we put that language in? Um yeah, and I think that's that's very

[2:17:55] much kind of the spirit that this is being undertaken in as we care about our

[2:18:00] downtown. We care about um you know providing um assistance where where

[2:18:06] possible. Um this has been something that we've

[2:18:09] done in the past, but we've never formalized it. And the the other intent

[2:18:14] as well is that um if we proceed with this, I do want to make it clear that

[2:18:21] we're not then taking that ownership. So I I do want to be very intentional about

[2:18:26] this and clear as to kind of we're we're doing this as a matter of courtesy.

[2:18:32] We're doing this as a matter of interest in our downtown. we're doing this as a

[2:18:37] matter of um kind of a a good uh good neighbor sort of a thing. Um there's a

[2:18:44] lot of great benefits to that. Um the property owners benefit from this

[2:18:47] because then they wouldn't have to spend the money to maintain the trees

[2:18:50] themselves. The trees are maintained in a way that supports their their

[2:18:54] long-term health for our downtown. Um but again clearly creating that um that

[2:19:00] that division for this is what we're doing to help out. But we're not doing

[2:19:05] this in a way that would mean that we would then in perpetuity take ownership

[2:19:10] of these trees. We're simply taking periodic maintenance of these trees on

[2:19:15] ourselves. >> Two one question and one nit um question

[2:19:20] is what happens if the property owner says I don't want you touching my tree?

[2:19:24] I mean we can't we can't say we are going to do this right

[2:19:32] » but only but only if it's a health or safety issue right if it's I mean I

[2:19:38] guess we can say if their trees are not being properly pruned I guess it's a

[2:19:42] safety issue the other thing I guess then is in our communication I I also

[2:19:47] think and we should probably talk to John about this

[2:19:52] I I want to make sure that we're not undertaking potent potential liability

[2:19:55] if somebody if the tree then falls and somebody claims that we pruned it

[2:19:59] improperly. I would like to put that indemnification on the property owner to

[2:20:04] say you are still liable for this condition of this tree no matter what.

[2:20:08] And if we do this work, you're going to indemnify the burrow if any third party

[2:20:12] claims against us because of our pruning. You know, a basic

[2:20:16] indemnification. I think we need that. This the cost isn't a lot, but I don't

[2:20:21] want to create a I don't want to unnecessarily create a risk of exposure

[2:20:25] to the burrow if you know the tree falls down in a storm and they're going to

[2:20:29] claim we mis pruned it. Not that Jeff would ever mispr.

[2:20:35] But [laughter] but I think we need to make sure we have those legal

[2:20:38] protection. >> So yeah, similar concern about what if

[2:20:43] they what if they deny like you can't prune my tree. Um but um the downtown is

[2:20:51] I think it's the only area where we mandate plantings you know in the verge

[2:20:55] or in the street you know um and we require that trees not only be

[2:21:01] maintained there but also uh be replaced if they're if they're damaged or they

[2:21:07] die. Um uh

[2:21:12] the shade trick commission they have been

[2:21:18] I don't know if you remember this but years ago we did task them with coming

[2:21:21] up with a downtown crew replacement and maintenance plan.

[2:21:25] » Mhm. >> They've back burnered that forever. They

[2:21:28] have a lot of lot on their plate, you know, but this is one thing they have

[2:21:33] been working on and it might sort of behoove us to fold something like this

[2:21:38] into, you know, future maintenance. I I mean, I agree that we can do this now

[2:21:42] and it's not a great cost. $5,000 over 5 years doesn't seem like that

[2:21:48] much. Um uh since this is an area where we mandate trees be planted and

[2:21:53] maintained, it seems natural that we should you know codify that in some way

[2:21:58] that we you know we articulate what is our responsibility or what is you know

[2:22:02] what kind of action can we take when it's time to maintain or improve them.

[2:22:08] Um the

[2:22:12] question I had is some of these uh trees that are in the downtown area, they have

[2:22:17] lights in them, you know, that the shop owners have put up. Some even have

[2:22:21] electrical boxes in them. Are we contemplating doing anything like that

[2:22:26] like removing them or asking them to remove them or shift them or

[2:22:32] » The electrical boxes were all taken out. >> Oh, okay.

[2:22:36] That was back when when Samantha was here. Um that was a catch by Pico. They

[2:22:42] didn't authorize that, so they came out. And then the string lights that are in

[2:22:47] there used to be plugged in by the burrow when we when we would hang up our

[2:22:53] wreaths and stuff on the lights. Um we have not plugged them in in years. So,

[2:23:00] you know, each year you say we're going to unravel them and take them down and

[2:23:04] just be here that that do it. >> Jim, can I ask you a question?

[2:23:09] » It's probably for Jim, Jeff, or Jeff even.

[2:23:13] » Um, do we qualify as a level one arburetum that tree American and is

[2:23:19] there any funding available because of that distinction to property owners?

[2:23:24] » Yeah. Tree city. >> Yeah, the tree city. And

[2:23:28] » I don't think we get any funding directly from Tree City, but maybe

[2:23:33] » you know there's no direct funding. It's actually the opposite. We have to spend

[2:23:39] two bucks per resident to maintain that and that is qualified with tree

[2:23:46] prunings, tree takedowns, tree plantings.

[2:23:49] » Okay. I I I've been researching like uh Narn

[2:23:54] qualifies as a a level one arburetum through ARNET which accredited the

[2:24:00] Barnes Foundation among others like Barnes Foundation Arburum and when you

[2:24:05] get accredited one one of my questions was actually how does this uh I I I met

[2:24:11] with the Chry Commission this month to to kind of talk about this a little bit

[2:24:16] to see if there's ways to like utilize that then for available funding to

[2:24:21] because after the micro burst, right? It was like this exact scenario where like

[2:24:26] all these trees came down on p like privately owned trees came down in

[2:24:30] public space. You clear them off the road, but then the land owners are still

[2:24:35] left with like5$10,000 like tickets to, you know, take either

[2:24:42] take their tree down or sometimes it's deferred maintenance of the trees if

[2:24:47] they're cabled. if there's money that's put into like preventative care for the

[2:24:51] street trees or even if they're on private property. Um, being an

[2:24:55] accredited arboritum and plenty of municipalities have gone through this,

[2:25:00] it it opens up funding opportunities and also changes the guidelines about how

[2:25:05] trees that are owned either primarily by a municipality but then also there can

[2:25:10] be secondary guidelines for how um uh property owners can contribute in the

[2:25:16] same way. So, it's something that can be further explored. I I'm trying to learn

[2:25:20] more about it so I can help the Shade Tree Commission potentially

[2:25:25] apply. I'm sorry to jump in there, but it is a pretty cool It's a pretty cool

[2:25:29] option. >> It was a direct question. I think that

[2:25:31] it'd be good for that to keep going through the Shane Tree Commission until

[2:25:34] they come to a recommendation and then it can rise to council.

[2:25:37] » We were calling it a NAR

[2:25:42] t-shirt. >> Yeah. Other concerns about Jeff

[2:25:45] proposal? Anybody else? >> I mean, I would just put this under the

[2:25:49] umbrella of streetscape improvements for the downtown and I think that's money

[2:25:56] spent there in terms of >> Yeah.

[2:25:58] » Yeah. >> I'm hearing general approval. It does

[2:26:00] sound like we want to tighten the the language a bit. Um, so make sure that

[2:26:04] » John Walker's involved with the is comfortable with the

[2:26:07] » Y. All right. >> One additional point. Uh there's a I

[2:26:11] think looking at Google maps looks like there's a tree on Windsor corner of

[2:26:14] Windsor in Arbor that that uh I don't know if that's I don't know if we want

[2:26:20] to include Windsor or not but it looks like there's a large tree there. Also

[2:26:24] just in terms of uh in terms of uh guidance to staff, um I think you know

[2:26:29] we want to be very specific about which trees uh there are trees um uh that go

[2:26:35] into the parking lot kind of behind um uh the south side of Narworth or are we

[2:26:42] considering that we're doing those or I I don't need an answer but I think we

[2:26:46] just want to be very specific. This is the trees along the street um only or

[2:26:51] what about going into the parking lot >> the traffic circle how are the trees

[2:26:57] selected how did you select the trees >> so face and circle are our trees you

[2:27:03] know we we own in there we prune in there you know we take care of those

[2:27:07] elms you know the trees were selected by which ones reside in the sidewalk within

[2:27:14] the right away you know the tree that you're referencing at the post office is

[2:27:20] actually like on their front lawn. So, I think it's just beyond, you know, the

[2:27:25] right of way there. The only time we touch that tree there is if it starts to

[2:27:29] impede with this stop sign there. And then that's just a quick cut. That's not

[2:27:34] a horicultural endeavor. That's we need folks to see

[2:27:39] the sign. >> Perfect. Thank you,

[2:27:43] » All right. Sounds like got approval to proceed with that plan.

[2:27:49] » Great. Thank you. >> All right. [snorts]

[2:27:53] Um, next discussion item is the fitness and indoor recreation is

[2:28:02] uh we lost our parking commission unfortunately. Uh,

[2:28:07] so how do we want to structure this? >> Right. So this is a new format that I

[2:28:13] would like to introduce um is the table read. Uh so the table read being

[2:28:19] something that we would introduce at work sessions. This is a nonvoting

[2:28:24] meeting uh for most things and um this just gives us an opportunity to be

[2:28:31] deliberate about reading our ordinances, making sure that everyone has read them,

[2:28:36] making sure that all questions are answered, making sure that any edits

[2:28:39] that we would like to make to them um have been addressed before they come

[2:28:42] before council for any formal action for authorizing authorizing advertisement um

[2:28:49] or adoption. So the table read is going to be something that we introduce before

[2:28:53] we authorize advertisements. Um it can go through as many table reads as we

[2:28:57] feel necessary until the ordinance is um satisfactory so that by the time that we

[2:29:02] get to our business meetings and we authorize advertisement and then we go

[2:29:06] to authorize adoption, we will have already have vetted all of our um

[2:29:11] questions, comments, concerns ahead of time. So then those business items just

[2:29:14] become uh very um de facto at that point because it it already would have gone

[2:29:21] through uh full review um and approval. So what we're proposing then for tonight

[2:29:27] is a table read. This is ordinance 1073 fitness and indoor recreation uses. This

[2:29:32] is actually what we discussed at the last business meeting in August. So we

[2:29:38] have made the changes that were recommended at that meeting. Um I had

[2:29:44] recommended that we table the movement. We were going to move to advertise with

[2:29:48] all of those amendments and I felt that the amendments were too numerous to do

[2:29:52] that. So we have made those changes to the ordinance that is incorporated into

[2:29:56] the draft that you have before you. Um [snorts] so really at this point it's an

[2:30:00] opportunity for us to just take a look at the ordinance. um make sure that the

[2:30:05] changes that were recommended at our August meeting have been incorporated to

[2:30:08] your satisfaction. If there's any other changes, we can make them ahead of the

[2:30:12] the business meeting. Um but otherwise, this is kind of the opportunity to uh uh

[2:30:21] get out anything that we want to get out and and discuss uh discuss the the

[2:30:25] ordinance. Um and so again for not just this table read but all moving forward

[2:30:31] uh once we have then the um the okay at our work sessions on the table read we

[2:30:38] proceed then at the following business meeting for authorization to advertise.

[2:30:42] So if this passes muster at this table read then you will see this before us

[2:30:46] for authorization to advertise at our September business meeting.

[2:30:53] » Okay. Thanks for that summary and yeah, we're hoping this will avoid some of the

[2:31:00] so more discussion time for some of the legislation. Um,

[2:31:05] so we've already seen this a few times, but uh comments at this point on this?

[2:31:11] So I I wasn't here obviously at the business meeting so [clears throat]

[2:31:16] express I I still think that this rule for Habford of having the first 12 ft be

[2:31:23] some other use is unnecessary and um I [clears throat] just you know we're

[2:31:29] trying to fill that space in particular and creating an additional restriction

[2:31:34] there to me just completely counterintuitive.

[2:31:38] I I get that in general the thought process for Hford is you know you want

[2:31:44] people coming in and out and you know not just coming in but we have

[2:31:49] restaurants that that's not the case um and other kind types of businesses

[2:31:55] potentially they're not the case and I just I I think it's an unnecessary

[2:32:00] restriction and is at a time when we're desperately trying

[2:32:06] to fill those spaces is like I don't it maybe it's a nice thing to have. I I

[2:32:14] but I I really don't see the problem with you walking down a river road and

[2:32:19] seeing a a bunch of people on a bunch of exercise bicycles. It doesn't offend me

[2:32:24] and I don't think we should be zoning for

[2:32:29] um uh you know because it doesn't look nice to see people in sweats or

[2:32:34] whatever. In fact, I think it creates a vibe. If anything, you know, more

[2:32:38] energy, maybe more people will go in and sign up for classes. Oh, you know,

[2:32:42] that's like a fun class or there's [snorts] so and so. I know there's my

[2:32:46] neighbor. Maybe I'll join that class. So,

[2:32:49] that that's my only comment. I didn't get to say it last month cuz I wasn't

[2:32:53] here. >> Well, I actually have the exact same

[2:32:55] apology in common. Um because we do we do have businesses that kind of skirt

[2:32:59] this by you know selling trinkets that no one ever goes in to actually buy in a

[2:33:04] storefront. Um and what I would be even kind of more concerned was you know I

[2:33:10] think the spirit behind this I'm all behind. Um however in practice you know

[2:33:15] I would hate to see a fitness studio sell a smoothie or a soda cuz we want

[2:33:19] them to go in and use that fitness plan and then walk down to get cafe and then

[2:33:22] walk to Yasu. Like I think the landscape of retail has shifted such particularly

[2:33:27] at the time where we have such vacancies 12 ft of depth for them to sell socks or

[2:33:33] something to qualify for this zoning. [snorts]

[2:33:36] Um I don't think it's I think it's prohibitive or sets up an unfair

[2:33:40] barrier. >> So we we did we did send this back to

[2:33:42] planning commission. They changed it slightly so that it only applies to

[2:33:49] » certain there's more than just so like what what is being described as

[2:33:53] functionally like a new building scenario which I think at that point it

[2:33:58] would be a new build scenario so they could program it in the broader concern

[2:34:04] and I share this concern is like is not the new build scenario it's the existing

[2:34:09] space scenario so the reason why 20 feet of foot of a

[2:34:13] was selected is because that's basically the individual storefronts today. And

[2:34:18] what we potentially do if we do not keep that in place is we incentivize

[2:34:24] a number of businesses to become one gigantic space. And once you make that

[2:34:30] interior change to tear down a bunch of those walls, you're not going to get

[2:34:35] kind of like small stall spaces back. and small stall spaces have

[2:34:42] a potentially good need. Obviously there this individual property has a um a

[2:34:48] troubled history for like really a really specific subset of reasons, but

[2:34:52] if you look throughout the rest of downtown, those um classically sized uh

[2:34:59] commercial spaces serve a specific type of need. So if in fact the building

[2:35:06] like we don't know what's going to happen with that space if it becomes

[2:35:09] like if there ends up being some sort of new build scenario because we've

[2:35:13] troubleshot stuff and that ends up being then we kind of at this point they can

[2:35:18] just deal with that and they can deal with this and give us an active street

[2:35:22] and hopefully they're going to be choosing those active uses. Um, but for

[2:35:26] the time being, if we're going to have the existing spaces as they are, I don't

[2:35:31] want to incentivize someone to come in, tear down the walls throughout, turn it

[2:35:35] into one big large footprint use, um, rather than, you know, someone ends

[2:35:42] up with it and then it's just going to be a large footprint use for the rest of

[2:35:46] » something. Aren't you incentivizing them to take more property because they can't

[2:35:51] use the first 12 ft for >> No, the point this the point of this is

[2:35:55] that you if you come into one of those individual spaces, you can totally you

[2:36:00] can run your fitness studio out of any of those individual spaces

[2:36:05] » uh any >> like give an example. So the um village

[2:36:08] streets the former village treats. >> Yeah. So it's not more than 20 ft. It's

[2:36:12] not more than 20 ft. So they could come into village treats and run a fitness

[2:36:16] studio, >> right? Which

[2:36:17] » under this rule they could do that >> so small and they could do another one

[2:36:21] next to it. They could do that. >> So do we know Okay, I'm getting a better

[2:36:26] sense of this now. So do we know which individual properties

[2:36:30] are more than 20 like are any of >> I think it's like the I think it's a

[2:36:34] like a basically >> it's [snorts] Yeah. Um I

[2:36:38] » mean theater is probably more than 20 ft. I mean it's a post office, right? I

[2:36:43] mean it'd be large properties. >> Yeah.

[2:36:46] » Of current of the current building footprints it was American Family Market

[2:36:52] and I think there was one other that might qualify like where shift is now.

[2:36:58] » Yeah. Former family. >> Yeah. made a shift. I was looking we

[2:37:04] were just looking at the um >> of the of what's considered under 230

[2:37:10] Habford, but yes. So, >> no, that's what I'm thinking. Okay. Like

[2:37:14] there there's broader like there are >> there are broader problems with the

[2:37:19] downtown commercial use mix that like this doesn't address at all. And in

[2:37:24] fact, I think that this kind of just like says we're out of ideas. please

[2:37:28] come put in the large footprint space. And and I think that that

[2:37:32] » No, I get it now. I I now that I've seen the 20 foot, I understand that

[2:37:39] I I thank you. [laughter] You address my concern.

[2:37:42] » Yeah. I think that that Yeah.

[2:37:46] » Okay. Yeah. >> I mean, 12 ft a lot and I'm afraid we're

[2:37:50] going to get not an unintended consequence of a store saying, "Oh god,

[2:37:54] you got to subtract 12 ft and sell some stuff. only 12 ft if you're combining

[2:38:00] for the major the but >> right it can also be a completely

[2:38:03] different business >> right [laughter]

[2:38:07] you can enter from the rear and it would be fine

[2:38:08] » but you have a lot of small little studios and things place

[2:38:16] » yeah I mean I guess 12 ft seems like if you're going to have like sort of a

[2:38:20] counter a front c I think of like the yoga studio right by my office you know

[2:38:25] you don't you don't See behind it there's sort of a counter up front. I I

[2:38:30] don't I mean well feet is I guess I don't have a sense of is that

[2:38:35] from me as Cindy is >> two of these tables.

[2:38:39] » Yeah. >> Oh yeah. This a 6ft table. Yeah. These

[2:38:40] are probably sixt. >> I think it basically reflects what their

[2:38:44] other recommendation for the ground floor on Montgomery Avenue had been

[2:38:47] which I think was for a depth of 12 ft. I think they were keeping it consistent

[2:38:51] in terms of like what the minimum like amount of like activated space and

[2:38:55] obviously you can go beyond that but >> is anybody else uncomfortable with this

[2:38:59] rule? I you know I don't want to spend a huge amount of time that are

[2:39:04] » no I support it. I I think I I'd have concerns if it was broader but because

[2:39:08] it's so >> um specific to Habford Avenue and

[2:39:13] Northworth Avenue I think it makes sense to keep those as active as

[2:39:17] » possible. Yeah. And we're allowing uses that are not allowed there today. So

[2:39:21] you're >> getting

[2:39:25] positive. >> Okay. My question was more about the

[2:39:27] noise part of this. Um >> uh I wasn't really clear on whether this

[2:39:33] is meant to relate to the business use. You know, is this is this put in because

[2:39:38] uh it's a sort of a newly allowed active use that might generate more noise. Um,

[2:39:44] and just looking at the wording of it, it

[2:39:49] seems like you would need to insulate sound between the 12T section and the

[2:39:55] rear section, you know, since you have since they are different uses since the

[2:39:58] fitness uses in the back and the retail uses in the front. This this seems to

[2:40:03] say additionally you need to provide some buffering between those two uses

[2:40:08] even if it's the same operator or the same.

[2:40:11] » So it's at the law boundary. So it would have to be on it's measured at the

[2:40:15] boundary. >> Yeah. And I thought it was along

[2:40:16] boundaries with the res. >> I don't think I don't think it applies.

[2:40:20] » It says adjacent uses. >> Mhm.

[2:40:22] » So it's not to be only if the other place says it's a nuisance. I mean the

[2:40:26] other the other business have to complain about it.

[2:40:28] » It it's complaint based. >> Nuisances are complaint driven, right? I

[2:40:32] mean in general the public nuisance law, somebody has to complain about it. I

[2:40:35] think a business would not be happy as a gym studio like [snorts]

[2:40:40] and it feels like then you would really have the problem of retrofitting a space

[2:40:44] for that. Right. >> I think our

[2:40:46] » preemptively address that >> I think it's mostly the people that

[2:40:51] would be sharing space with and they're going to have some kind of deal with

[2:40:54] whatever they share. >> I think that would be like it would be

[2:40:57] » but I mean you're not allowed to be a nuisance to your neighbors. So like if

[2:41:00] they were >> well but this is in there so that heaven

[2:41:04] can take action rather than it being like a simple

[2:41:06] » just I'm just curious about the wording because since adjacent uses and since

[2:41:09] we've defined fitness as a new use we're demanding that the first 12 ft be

[2:41:16] separate from that they become adjacent. >> Yeah. So if if their business partners

[2:41:20] complained about them, I mean, but they would, you know, yes, I I understand,

[2:41:25] but like they they would have to be sympatico with the other use in front.

[2:41:29] » But if I hear you saying the front use is retail, the back use is Jim. So

[2:41:34] soundproof by if the front use complains, then they send it, but the

[2:41:38] front use would have to complain. Like we're not going to proactively enforce

[2:41:41] the front use complaint.

[2:41:45] » Would you like to exempt the front use from instance? No, I just that the you

[2:41:50] know I was I was thinking about the where the noise part of this came from

[2:41:55] and the rationale behind it and we had had not had a chance to talk about this

[2:41:59] before so I thought no it's a good question to bring up the first thing I

[2:42:03] thought of when I thought of this was um what was the uh crossfit like I remember

[2:42:07] this being a big thing when I was working at council office like people

[2:42:10] would come because the crossfit people were throwing the bars and stuff and

[2:42:13] like it became a noise like nuisance issue So, that's kind of what I had

[2:42:19] thought of when I was looking at like why this would be included in general

[2:42:22] performance standards. Um, >> yeah, I mean, I assumed it was like if

[2:42:27] you're doing something with music that's thump thump, you know, a rhythmic thing,

[2:42:32] you certainly are. That [snorts] is actually a great example because the

[2:42:36] reality is walking down the street you don't hear the thump and the music which

[2:42:41] is probably why then they're saying yes the thump th something has to be now

[2:42:45] you've just convinced me of the 12 ft [laughter]

[2:42:49] » right right >> because you don't want to be walking

[2:42:51] down the street hearing the crossfit the music the whatever so it should be

[2:42:57] » you know it doesn't matter if the cashier doesn't find it the people

[2:43:00] walking down the street >> right I

[2:43:02] » I think I think it is objective standards for Kevin is the reason why

[2:43:05] it's in there for for officer to determine whether something is

[2:43:11] in fact a problem. >> Yeah, you did just

[2:43:15] » and are these noise standards are they ported over from

[2:43:19] » there's another provision and it's about industrial uses. It's the same noise

[2:43:22] standards for industrial uses. >> And so this is just applying them

[2:43:26] » to the uses. Okay. So the that table is already in our

[2:43:33] » in our code. >> Okay.

[2:43:37] » Yeah. So sounds like we're good. >> All right. But then the only other piece

[2:43:40] which we didn't we discussed before, but I just wanted to call that out just so

[2:43:43] everyone's aware was the um the restaurant small restaurant um gets

[2:43:48] matched up with the rest of retail for the the parking. So that just

[2:43:53] Okay. >> All right. So everyone's okay with this?

[2:43:56] » Yep. >> All right. Sounds like we're good.

[2:44:02] » Okay. So, we'll have this then uh so hearing no changes.

[2:44:07] » Uh [snorts] we will see this then before us for authorization to advertise at the

[2:44:11] September business meeting. >> Correct.

[2:44:13] » Okay. [clears throat]

[2:44:17] » Budget. >> All right. Um, so the budget discussion

[2:44:23] that I wanted to have with you tonight is uh more just to let you know about

[2:44:28] the process and timelines and how we're going to proceed with this. Um, I do not

[2:44:32] have a budget for you yet to look at. Um, I will soon. Um,

[2:44:36] » understand there's been some turnover in the office.

[2:44:39] » Yeah, I've been spending my week um entering in PICO bills into QuickBooks

[2:44:42] um instead of working on the budget. So um so what we're looking at moving

[2:44:47] forward is um that we began in August. So once the CIP was

[2:44:55] adopted, I did start pivoting to the to the budget. Um internally obviously

[2:44:59] we've had some uh kind of staff turnover has has limited some of that. Um, but I

[2:45:04] have started having some uh preliminary staff meetings to review some budget

[2:45:09] requests and I have sent out a request for departmental budgets to all of our

[2:45:15] internal departments and community partners um and all of our boards and

[2:45:20] commissions uh to get their budget requests in by um by September. So, in a

[2:45:28] couple weeks I'll have all of those and then we'll be able to look at those in

[2:45:31] earnest. Um, in October I plan to uh set up our small group meetings with council

[2:45:40] and mayor. Um, so by that point we'll have all of our budget requests. So

[2:45:44] we'll have our preliminary budget laid out, ready to go. Um, we'll get

[2:45:48] additional feedback uh from council. Those small group meetings, uh, they

[2:45:53] will not meet quorum requirements. Um, so we'll we'll break them up. We'll meet

[2:45:58] with you guys. This is your opportunity to ask questions, take deep dives,

[2:46:03] anything you want to know. Um, understand that's going to be the the

[2:46:07] primary kind of meet for council to really dive into some of those

[2:46:11] specifics. Um, happy to talk about those at public meetings, but this will help

[2:46:16] to kind of keep the process moving moving along. Um,

[2:46:21] the budget obviously once we have it uh open to the public, we can start taking

[2:46:25] some uh public feedback as well. And then the budget will just be

[2:46:30] continued uh to be refined throughout October. And then the intent is that I

[2:46:36] will have a final budget to present to you at the council work session.

[2:46:42] And then we will move to advertise the final budget um with the intent to

[2:46:48] actually adopt the final budget earlier than normal this year. So we want to

[2:46:52] adopt our final budget by November business meeting this year. So, that is

[2:46:57] the goal. That is the timeline. So, we're going to be diving right in. Um, I

[2:47:01] think we did a lot of really good work on the budget last year. Um, I think

[2:47:05] we're going to have um a a good go of it again this year. We're maintaining a lot

[2:47:11] of status quo things. So, really the main thing that I want to just call out

[2:47:16] is as we get into the budget season now, as we discussed in the CIP, we had those

[2:47:21] projects that we identified in the CIP. this is now where we actually put our

[2:47:25] money in where our mouth is. Um,

[2:47:31] so that's something that I want you all to um kind of review again the CIP, take

[2:47:37] a look at what you actually want to spend on those capital projects for next

[2:47:42] year. And that's going to be a really kind of key decision-m point that I will

[2:47:47] need council's feedback on. Otherwise, a lot of it is just administrative um

[2:47:52] keeping the lights on uh budget. So, that's kind of preset by what rates are,

[2:47:57] how much energy costs, increases to health insurance. So, we're going to see

[2:48:01] costs increase. Um we're seeing impacts from tariffs, from rising insurance

[2:48:07] costs. So, we kind of see some of those

[2:48:10] incremental rises. Those are expected and normal. Um maybe not the tariffs,

[2:48:15] but the other costs are expected and normal. And um so you'll you'll see

[2:48:20] you'll see those budget numbers. Uh but really where we're going to see a lot of

[2:48:24] flexibility and where we want to put those budget numbers is going to be in

[2:48:27] our capital plan. Um also just to kind of give a preview, we've talked about

[2:48:31] this already, but just to remind you, we did hear from Lower Merid earlier this

[2:48:36] year. They got a reassessment from the Philadelphia uh water department. Their

[2:48:41] rates increased, so our rates are going to increase. So, we will have to do an

[2:48:45] increase in our sewer rate again this year uh to accommodate the um increased

[2:48:50] cost that we're that we're getting from Laura Marion who's getting them from

[2:48:53] Philadelphia. So, um it's it's trickling down the line, pun intended.

[2:48:58] » Yeah. [laughter] >> Um

[2:49:02] otherwise, um we are entering into our final year of 2027 is going to be our

[2:49:08] final year for our trash contract. Um, so we do have a preset 4-year contract

[2:49:12] that expires at the end of 2027 with Muscog. So our budget for our solid

[2:49:17] waste fund is going to be what you expect based on what our contract

[2:49:22] numbers are. Um, but we have started uh those discussions and analysis

[2:49:28] to see what uh Laura Mary might be able to do for us as a trash hauler. And then

[2:49:33] uh we'll be looking at putting a bid together again next year uh for a trash

[2:49:38] hauler if if we're not able to work something out with Laura Marion or we

[2:49:42] decide to have some um additional comparisons. So in terms of kind of some

[2:49:45] long-term thinking um of staff work products, we're planning on applying for

[2:49:51] grants next year for the um playground. We're planning on doing a um RFP for a

[2:49:59] new trash contract. Um, so we got a couple big things coming on and those

[2:50:03] are going to be uh, you know, spring and early summer timelines for some of those

[2:50:08] big efforts next year. So that doesn't impact the budget necessarily uh, for a

[2:50:12] trash contract for for 2027, but just to give you a preview of things to come.

[2:50:18] Um, those are kind of the main things. So our sewer solid waste um, and our

[2:50:24] general fund and our capital fund are going to be kind of the big ones. Um,

[2:50:27] our highway aid, those that's our liquid fuels funding. we get money from the

[2:50:31] state for that. Um, so we will be looking ahead at the program that we

[2:50:34] want to do for next year for our road paving. We will actually likely need to

[2:50:39] seed some money into that fund from our general fund. Um, since the the money

[2:50:45] from the state only covers about half of the scope of work uh of what we

[2:50:49] typically plan to do. So, if we're going to be doing a half mile of road, which

[2:50:52] is what our game plan is, uh, we'll probably need to take a look at putting

[2:50:56] some extra money into our highway aid fund. Again, all of this will be in the

[2:50:59] budget documents that come to you, but just kind of little previews of things

[2:51:04] to come. >> This is what I think about as I'm

[2:51:08] brushing my teeth every day. [laughter] >> How are we going to put the HA fund

[2:51:12] together? >> Questions about the uh budget process.

[2:51:18] All right. So, it sounds like we'll have small group meetings coming up next.

[2:51:21] » Yes. Um, so we'll have, like I said, we're going to do um, uh, get our

[2:51:26] preliminary budget requests in. Um, so I hope to have a kind of loosely

[2:51:30] structured preliminary budget. Some of the funds that we know ahead of time

[2:51:35] that we can anticipate those costs. Um, I should actually have more or less

[2:51:39] final numbers for you by September. Those are already well underway. Um, the

[2:51:42] general fund and the capital fund are going to be the real malleable ones. So

[2:51:46] we'll have a loose kind of structure for that in September. And then we'll have

[2:51:50] our um small group meetings after the September meeting kind of leading into

[2:51:54] the October workshop. >> Um and then we'll continue to refine.

[2:51:58] » All right. >> Okay. Thanks, Maggie.

[2:52:00] » Thank you. >> Uh we do have one consideration item

[2:52:05] tonight, which is the revised bid award for the storm water bumpouts.

[2:52:10] » Move to approve the revised bid award for the storm water bump.

[2:52:14] » Second. Okay. And just briefly to explain why this has

[2:52:19] to happen. So after we um amended the bid scope at last month's meeting, it

[2:52:26] turns out that when we took that scope of work out of the bid awards, a

[2:52:29] different contractor became the lower bidder.

[2:52:32] » Um so we just >> so we just for uh crossing our tees um

[2:52:39] have to rebid this to now the lowest responsible bidder. Reward it.

[2:52:44] » Reward it. >> I'm sorry. Yeah.

[2:52:46] » Not rebid. Reward. Um and so the the contractor is actually going to be

[2:52:51] Calone who has done our um bumpouts in the past and is very familiar with the

[2:52:55] process. So they're a known entity as well, which is um a a plus.

[2:53:01] » Since we're taking action, should we see if anyone wants to

[2:53:03] » Yeah. I'll let any council members who want to speak? Anybody have something to

[2:53:07] say here? >> They also do our sidewalks, right?

[2:53:09] » Yeah, they've done a lot of work. >> Yeah, they've done a lot.

[2:53:13] Okay. So, this is an action item. So, if any if anybody in the audience wants to

[2:53:17] um make a comment about this stormwater bumpout revised bid.

[2:53:22] Anybody online wish to make a comment? Okay. We will have public comment

[2:53:27] shortly, but general public comment. Uh okay. So, let's vote on the revised bid

[2:53:34] award for the storm water bumpouts. All those in favor of awarding the bid to

[2:53:37] Caloney. Okay. All right. Thanks everyone. And uh

[2:53:44] committee reports FNAF FNA has not met since the last

[2:53:50] report. I anticipate we're going to um what are we going to talk? Are we going

[2:53:55] to we going to get to the budget by that point or

[2:53:58] » uh we yeah again the the smaller funds um I think we should have some of those

[2:54:03] yeah preliminary budget numbers ready to start taking a look at.

[2:54:06] » Okay. Okay. And we're also uh just reminding you our new um boards and

[2:54:11] commissions reporting structure calls for FNA to make contact with all the

[2:54:17] boards and commissions that don't regularly report to a committee. So

[2:54:21] » uh I got one from uh zoning hearing board this morning. I'm going to follow

[2:54:25] up with whatever it is the other four or five that do that.

[2:54:30] give my compliments to Naida for taking care of their deferred uh business.

[2:54:36] [snorts] Guess I'm not really one of our boards committ

[2:54:44] since you last met. >> Public health and safety meets next

[2:54:49] week. So we have not met since >> last council meeting.

[2:54:53] » Okay. >> All right. We will move on then to

[2:54:56] public comment. So, apologies for putting it at [snorts] the end of a long

[2:55:00] meeting, but it is what it is. So, public comments limited to 3 minutes.

[2:55:04] Please give your name and your address and then you can begin your public

[2:55:07] comment.

[2:55:10] Barbara Barbara Forner, 415 Conway. Um, hi

[2:55:16] everybody. I'm having deja vu. Um,

[2:55:21] I just wanted to make a couple comments on the 2011 sale property. I mean,

[2:55:25] that's near and dear to my heart. It was uh I was really thrilled to be one of

[2:55:30] the council members to have to vote to accept the school district saying, "We

[2:55:34] don't want responsibility or don't want any claim to this building. You guys can

[2:55:37] have not knowing."

[2:55:42] [laughter] So, yeah, and I spent a good bit of my

[2:55:46] time on council the second time dealing to myself.

[2:55:50] Um, I think it really is imperative to proceed with the RFP process. Now, it

[2:55:56] kicking this can down the road any further not going to get any better.

[2:55:59] It's just going to get worse. And I think it's vital to use a consultant for

[2:56:04] this work. To think that a municipality of our size would be so fortunate as to

[2:56:11] find a burough manager who could manage a process like this, write the RFP, do

[2:56:15] all the scoring, that's that's a unicorn. And you know, no shade on

[2:56:21] Maggie, she's great, but good Evans, you know, so we need to be sensible about

[2:56:25] that and say, "Yeah, we need help for this." Um,

[2:56:29] I'm concerned that you that the process that was laid

[2:56:34] out in December has not been followed in the sense that

[2:56:38] you allowed a presentation to be made outside that process. I don't feel like

[2:56:44] that's fair or transparent to the people who submitted letters of intent in

[2:56:48] December or somebody that might respond to the RFP down the road. So, I would

[2:56:52] just, you know, if you want to continue to allow that, I think you need to let

[2:56:57] those other people come and make presentations outside the RFP process,

[2:57:00] too. So, I just wanted to know that. Um, and I just don't think it makes sense to

[2:57:08] go with anything that kind of maintains the status quo. We really need to get

[2:57:13] out of the business of being a landlord. Every iteration of council since

[2:57:18] December of 2017, every bureau manager has said the same thing. We cannot

[2:57:23] continue to be a landlord. And if you can find a developer

[2:57:28] [clears throat] who wants to apply for all these grants,

[2:57:32] who wants to do the programming, I love some of the ideas that could be in in

[2:57:38] this space, you know, like the artist studios or maker spaces or whatever, but

[2:57:43] you need somebody who's running those programs. It's not going to be somebody

[2:57:47] who's the burrow employee. We don't have the bandwidth for that. So I think you

[2:57:52] really, you know, we really need to think about what can we take on and what

[2:57:56] can we do and I think we really have to say we can't do that. We need a

[2:58:01] developer or you know somebody who's willing to take that on. [clears throat]

[2:58:05] The last thing I want to say is I want to say none of this is a commentary on

[2:58:08] Refugeio. I love this company and I want them to be in Arbor forever. They remade

[2:58:13] my front yard and I [cough and clears throat] have my

[2:58:15] backyard. Anybody who wants to see how they can

[2:58:20] have more storm water retained on their property, have um sequester more carbon

[2:58:26] on their property and have wildlife habitats come by 415 Conway, take a look

[2:58:31] at my yard, knock on my door, ask me questions. I I it's like the best. So,

[2:58:39] » thank you. And uh just as to process, I will note that our current rules of

[2:58:43] council allow two council members [clears throat] to put an item on the

[2:58:46] agenda. So that's that was the process that was following you.

[2:58:49] » Just want you to know it doesn't seem fair to me to other folks.

[2:58:54] » Okay. >> Okay. Um uh I'm blessing at 243 North

[2:59:00] Lynwood Avenue. Um so I'm just here a war graduate narrative resident, a

[2:59:07] member of the MCO 30% project which advocates for housing for all across the

[2:59:12] county. And I'm just um here to hopefully speak to um the housing

[2:59:18] portion being a center portion, you know, not excluding any other ideas, but

[2:59:23] just being a a central portion of um for uh the property at 2011 say buying. And

[2:59:30] so just giving a different perspective, speaking um from the perspective of

[2:59:35] someone who has experienced homelessness and as someone who's grown up in this

[2:59:39] community, left to go to college, came back, Nworth is a bit cheaper than New

[2:59:44] York City. and I would love to stay and continue contributing to this place that

[2:59:50] I love, but like many fellow Gen Z people, this desire is becoming

[2:59:55] increasingly out of reach despite having IV degree and working full-time. Um, and

[3:00:01] so, um, I used to volunteer at the food bank, spend a lot of time on that

[3:00:07] property, which has a lot of potential as we've heard and seen today. And I

[3:00:12] think that Narborth has an incredible opportunity to turn this space into a

[3:00:16] thriving space um while providing safe, stable housing for members of our

[3:00:22] community, whether it's newly graduated students starting um out in career,

[3:00:27] young families seeking a safe environment, seniors wanting to stay in

[3:00:30] Narbor, and can be a model um that can be done in the midst of this countrywide

[3:00:37] affordability crisis um while maintaining the diversity of of our norm

[3:00:42] community where community uses uh other community uses can be complimentary to

[3:00:47] that. So um that's why >> nice thank you

[3:00:54] they're close to being neighbors it sounds like. So [laughter and snorts]

[3:00:58] I'll talk to you after the game. Uh okay that's it for folks in this room I'm

[3:01:02] assuming or Jeff did you want to make a public comment. Okay let's move to folks

[3:01:05] online. So if you'd like to make a public comment, please uh raise your

[3:01:10] hand and then we will call on you. Anybody remaining?

[3:01:18] Anybody online wish to make a public comment?

[3:01:24] Okay, seeing none, uh I'm going to close public comment at this time. And we do

[3:01:31] not have an executive session scheduled after this meeting. So I'll take a

[3:01:35] motion to adjourn. >> No, we do.

[3:01:37] » We do. >> Yeah.

[3:01:38] » Sorry. We do have a second session during which we will discuss [laughter]

[3:01:42] » personnel matters. >> Personel matters. I apologize.

[3:01:45] » We do have an executive session. Motion to adjourn. Okay. We will not be coming

[3:01:48] into session after meeting. There's a motion to a second.

[3:01:51] » Any discussion? All right. Voting to adjurnn. All those in favor of

[3:01:54] adjournment. Thanks everybody. My apologies. I did not remember

[3:01:59] [laughter] the meeting.

Borough Council Workshop Meeting, September 3, 2026

Transcript