 The public to dress the council on any topic that is otherwise not on our agenda for the evening. So what I'll do is I'll unmute everyone and then we have some members of the public here that they want to say something that will be the time that they can announce themselves. So I'm going to unmute everyone. If you're a member of the public and would like to say something, please let us know. This is Kevin O'Connell and I'm just here for the number seven of the agenda which is developing review board review. Okay, great. Thank you. I'm just curious. Can you see my image? Or is it just, or is there a feature within zoom that allows you to blank out some of the, which is fine. I'm just trying to understand the technology. So if you go to the top of your view you can change it to or walk you. Okay. I don't want to take up any more time. So just fine. Thank you. Thank you. Great. Anyone else. Yes, Donna. Yeah. Would we like to put the appointments early so that the individuals don't have to wait. I think that is the plan already. Right after the consent agenda. Great is but early is good I agree. Okay, good. Okay, great. I think it's probably important to note also before we dive into it that there had been a little bit of confusion about whether or not we'd be taking up anything related to the parking garage this evening and the answers we're not talk, we're not taking up anything. Related to the parking garage this evening so I just want to make sure that that's really clear. Any other comments or comments from the public. Okay. All right, so moving on to the consent agenda. Is there a motion regarding the consent agenda. I move the consent agenda. Second. For the discussion. All in favor please say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed. Okay, so the consent agenda passes. All right, so on to some appointments so we're to start with the development review board. So I know there's at least a couple folks here for that. So the I think the thing to do will be to invite folks who are on the line with us to introduce themselves. And then we will very likely go into executive session because I think there's a lot of people who are on the line. You lost and huh. Yep. Everyone get the executive conference line. Email as well. Yeah. Yeah. I'm not sure if I did. I'll have to check. Thanks. I'll send it to you. Hey, thank you. Looks like maybe she's trying to get back in. So I don't know. I don't know what that means. She's going to call in or what. So Donna, I think you're up. Well, I would entertain whether we want to go into executive session dealing with these appointments. Maybe we should have the people make their presentation to us first. There, there's some people present to our applicants. I agree with that. I've just got a text from Ann. Just. Yeah. So anyone here would like to speak I believe Kevin spoke up earlier. Would you like to start. Great. Sure. Can you hear me okay. Yes. Okay. And no image or do you see an image. No image. Okay, let me try. Your bottom left hand corner. We'll have an unmute and a camera button on zoom. There's a stop video or start video. That if you miss that should give you a screen. Sorry folks, I just lost. Okay, here we go. Hey. Hey. There you are. Well, I'm glad you can see me. I can't see myself. I just, I just wanted to be available. You have my application before you. I'm asking for a reappointment for another two years. And, you know, just any questions the council may have with mayor. I'm happy to, to entertain. Any questions anyone for Kevin. Not for me. I'll just ask, I'll ask a really simple. Hey, Kevin, how many years have you been on the DRB? A few, a few. I was, I was appointed to the DRB at its inception. 2002. Okay. I've been a member for that entire time. And then ZBA before that, right? Correct. I'm sorry, Jack. What was that abbreviation? Zoning board of adjustment. Thank you. Sorry. In 2002. The zoning board and the, what was then the planning commission. We're combined and that's where the DRB comes from. Okay. Anything else? No other questions. Thank you for your service. Thank you. Yes. Thank you, Kevin. I certainly enjoy it. And I think this is a time. That we're entering when we're all going to be a little bit more sober about how we approach our, our jobs in the city. It's. It's going to be a challenging time ahead. Thank you. Is there any other candidates. Online. RJ. And then I'm going to do a call for if Michael. Was or check and then G Leon. But RJ. Please. Hey folks. I introduced myself last time and I see a lot of familiar faces on here. So I'll make my introduction. Less. In depth as it was, but. I just moved to town. In. On February 29th. I made the really great decision to quit my job. Then. And I. My fiance lives in town and we've been doing a long distance thing. I've been living in Middlebury for about 10 years. And I've been doing a lot of work. I've been doing a career history that encompasses some common. Doing sales and marketing for them. And working in fundraising at the QA and foundation. Currently I am gainfully employed. Working with wheel pad, which is a home attachment. For folks with disabilities. That can transform a home into being a. University accessible space for folks that need to recover at home. That's part time. And then part of my time, I'm also. Working on trying to make ADUs more accessible here in Vermont. I very much recognize that. That line of work. I love to work in the middle. I have a lot of questions. I'm not familiar with what the DRB does, but I have an interest in being involved in my town. And I believe it was. Dan last time. Asked, you know, what I would do about conflict of interest type stuff. And I would step away. If there were a, you know, Conflict of Interest when it comes to. When it comes to my work. Other boards. I've been on six years on the Middlebury co-op board. committee. And then, you know, a few miscellaneous short term boards here and there as well. But, same one. Any questions for RJ? Okay, so Anne is back with us. Yes. Yes, few. So next person camera instead was available as Michael. I don't know if he's online yet. Thank you, RJ. Michael Lashak here. Okay. And I don't see Jean Leon. And the other person who had applied was David Weir. I don't see him either. I just want to pause there in case I'm wrong, but David's name is not on the agenda sheet. That's correct. We had gotten an email from Jasmine saying that he had applied late and we could choose to not accept that application if we don't want to because of that. But that's something we can potentially discuss in executive session. And since one of these seats is supposed to be an alternate seat, I think probably is a good reason to go into executive session to discuss that part of it. Who's getting one seat? So I don't think there's anyone else to introduce themselves at this point. So is there a motion to go into executive session? I'll make that motion to go into executive session to deliberate on the appointment for the Development Review Board positions with the applicants. I assume that means we should go? No. Actually. I was just going to ask Cameron to walk us through that. The way we set up executive session for tonight is that all of our council members are going to disconnect from this call. They have a separate Zoom meeting that they're going to do on their own. And they're going to have to go into executive session, which is executive sessions for like them leaving the room. And if you guys get to hang out with me. And so they all come back. So we can leave this line open. Okay. And so we'll be back on this call. Briefly. But we got to, we got to vote though. Yeah. So, okay. There was a motion in second. All in favor. Please say aye. Opposed. We will be right back. Cameron, do you want us, do you want us to leave this meeting? And then rejoin. Cameron, you're muted. That's what she said. I don't think you can be in meetings at the same time. So. Yeah, I didn't know if we could open that. We leave this meeting, log into the executive session meeting. When that's done, we come back to this meeting. The first thing here was. Okay. Great. See you soon. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And to come out of executive session. So moved. Second. All in favor, please say aye. Hi. Opposed. Okay. And is there a motion regarding the appointment? I move that we appoint Kevin O'Connell. Michael is or check. And RJ Adler to. Second. I don't think you want to call it permanent seats. But. Friendly amendment to the. As opposed to permanent full time. Full time seats. Yeah. Okay. Okay. So there's been a motion and. Jack, did you mention the alternate in that? Yes, I did. You did. Okay. So there's been a motion and a second. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed. Okay. Great. Congratulations. Thank you all for. Your past work and future work on the board. We're. Time council really appreciate it. Yeah. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. Thanks. So. Yeah. Okay. All right. So we have another appointment to. The homelessness task force. And so Carolyn Ridpath had applied to that. Now, in all honesty, I was actually a little bit unclear as to whether there was a vacancy. For this position. I assume there is one camera bill. Is there any. Clarity on that. Yeah. There is a vacancy. There is a vacancy. There is a vacancy. Okay. And all right. We had, um, I am a member step down. He had to move. Okay. Uh, and Lauren, did you have a question? Just in, I know we had talked about most task forces being on hold as the homelessness task force continuing to meet during this time or is this a. Future looking appointment for when. Committee work begins up again. Um, I think it has not been meeting and this would be. Like most of. Right now for when we start meeting again. We decided, um, and if the council would rather change this, let us know. We decided that as terms expire, things become vacant. That we probably still wanted to. Put people on these committees rather than suddenly have a big pile of them when committees, you know, when we finally come back to being active and suddenly you've got a lot of people on these committees. We at least keep filling the slots. And in case there was written correspondence that needed to go out, but they're just not actually meeting, but there. We're still taking care of their membership. If that makes any sense. Yep. Does. I'll make a move. Oh, sorry. Go ahead, Dan. Oh, unless there was a further discussion, I'm happy to make a motion. Uh, go for it. I'll make a motion that we appoint Carolyn red path to the meeting. Second. Second. Okay. Any further discussion on favor, please say aye. Opposed. Great. And congratulations to Carolyn. Thank you for your work. Um, and so just to clarify, we're going to address, um, later on this meeting, the, uh, future continuation of, um, whether or not committees and boards are meeting, that's correct. So, um, I'm going to revisit that topic, um, shortly. Um, All right. So chapter 13, uh, review. Uh, so hopefully everyone's got. That available. Um, so I think it probably just makes sense to take this one section of at a time just for context. We've been going through all of our ordinances and cleaning up some language. Um, so we had actually had chapter 13 on our agenda for review. Uh, back in like December, um, last year anyway. And it, I don't think it ever went to a second reading. And I know this is listed as a first reading, um, which is fine. Um, but, uh, just, just to, I want to acknowledge that we, I think we may have talked about this at least once, but that's okay. Um, So, uh, Any other context for this that you, that bill or Cameron, you want to provide? Uh, no, and in fact, thanks for the reminder as I'm looking through it again, I could see, I think you're right. This looks familiar. Um, no, I mean, this was worked on by the folks involved with these things. We have heard from the tree board and the parks commission that they would like to weigh in some more. And you know, we told them this is a first reading. There's going to be second reading. So there's time. So you may expect to hear more from those two boards before we're done. It's, and whether or not those boards actually even continue to meet me, the rec board may be, but I, the tree board may not. Um, so. Right. Want to at least flag that it may, we, we may be revisiting sections of this. Uh, to, if they know. Right. It comes to that. Okay. Uh, So onto the different sections. So, um, the first section being about trees. Uh, any comments on, uh, chapter 13 section. Uh, and the 300 bits. Uh, Jack. Um, while we discuss this, I think we all got a set of comments from John Snell. About this. And I thought that his, uh, Most of his comments were things that we should adopt. And so. I think what I'll go, what I'm likely to do is want to. Move. All the, uh, Comments or most of the comments that John proposed. And I don't know. If the way to do that is for, for us to do it now at this meeting or. Have that, those go back into the, uh, What's being worked on, but we have section 3, 3, 0, 1. Uh, John makes the comment that, uh, The tree board is. Consist of citizens and residents of the city. He says that he understands that non non residents can also serve. And, uh, that, uh, that seems like a valuable thing, at least as non voting members. Um, so I actually can't see the comments that John Snell made. How are you seeing that? I just pulled it up. We got any, got it in an email. Uh, the other day and I. I have it's on my screen side by side with the, uh, With the zoom. Uh, I'm not sure if this is something. Jasmine emailed it. I think it was earlier today or yesterday. With John's comments. So it was an email from Jasmine. Yeah, I wonder. I just, you forward, you forwarded it. Okay. Cause I, I had thought that I'd looked at that and I couldn't. Figure out how to see that. And John's comments. So maybe I'll, I'll, uh, keep digging here for a second. But, uh, Jack, what's your, what's your thought about, um, incorporating John's comments? I'm sorry. I was distracted by the fact that like I didn't have them. I think it's a good idea to incorporate pretty much all of them. Some of them are. Sorry, the editorial type comments. Some of them are more substantive, but. Yeah. He's, he might be the chair of the tree board and. Whenever he comes to the council, he has, uh, I think very valuable things to say. And I think he has good, uh, points about this. Yeah, go ahead. If I read through his comments. I'm sorry. Sorry. Say that again, Cameron. What if help if I read through his comments. How extensive are they? Well, they go through the whole tree section. Um, I think there are changes you could look to adopt or, or take into consideration. Another version. Another thing we could do is, uh, come back with a draft. That has John's comments. Yeah. I was, I was just going to suggest that because some of his comments are, it looked like he looked at a version that hadn't been, um, edited, uh, because some of his, some of his comments in the version that I received, uh, had been addressed as part of our packet, you know, had been addressed. So there was like a, a pronoun issue. And if you look at the original, it's because it was already struck through. Um, so it may be helpful to do it that way. He, it. It seemed like he had a couple of suggestions. The one Jack that were substantive, the one Jack pointed out about expanding the met, uh, the membership of the tree board beyond the residents and citizens of the city. And then he had a technical one. Um, you know, at the, towards the, towards the back end, but on, on the, um, On the question of membership, do we have any other boards, uh, that allow non-residents to be members of? Yeah, I think it's quite a few. Okay. So typically the council has, this is really a policy call. It's a policy call. It's a policy call of a city council. Uh, over the years, the council has been very strict about DRB, planning commission, DRC, you know, anything with a kind of regulatory authority feeling that. You know, our own residents should be. Taking those regulatory roles. Uh, I think a DRC actually. One time I can remember, I think we may have had someone from East Montpelier who was a landscape architect or something. Um, you know, you know, I think the council said for anything regulatory, we want residents for other boards. Um, you know, we've often had, you know, maybe an interested party or a business owner might be on the board or, uh, uh, you know, somebody who has a particular expertise. Um, but even I know when we, when you recently appointed the homelessist task force, um, there were several people who were very capable and the council chose the Montpelier residents, uh, so it's, it's, I think it's been, you get more points if you're a local resident, but it isn't necessarily been a blanket prohibition. This ordinance clearly states a prohibition. So, uh, obviously if you wanted to offer the opportunity to broaden it, then we would want to change that. So, um, what do we think about, uh, creating a draft that might incorporate John's comments. Uh, and for, for second reading. Works for me. Okay. Yeah, that makes sense. I went through his comments on a lot of them, like Dan said, were sort of typos and like just real simple things, but trying to point out a couple of the more substantive ones that we might want to discuss is, is where we want to be and based on the, the draft that he was working with. So that, that makes, that's more efficient use of time. Sounds good to me. Uh, Dan, I think the indication, um, they did indicate that, um, they were, they, and I think as you said, the parks commission, excuse me, yeah, parks commission may want to weigh in. Or John at least personally, my way and if it's not the full. Uh, Dan and Lauren. Sure. Sorry, Bill, did you have anything further? Well, I was, you know, I didn't mean to cut anybody off. I was going to say, if we get other comments, we'll try to figure out a way to set those up so that that's an easy read and compare. We'll incorporate John's now in a draft, but then we'll figure out a way. So here's what. Park said, here's John's additional comments. So it's because it's a hard to do it in this format. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, the one question, I think John, it would be actually helpful if John could come. Um, because I had a couple of questions about like, for example, the street tree species to be planted. We have a very, uh, select list of those. And if there was anything that was, you know, animating those choices, like I noticed the flowering crab, it would be helpful if you could come off of the proposed, um, You know, change. Um, and the Bradford pair and the green ash, if that's driven by maintenance concerns, or if that's driven by, um, hardiness or any other, you know, invasive versus non native species kind of considerations, it would be helpful to understand that because it, you know, one thing that seems, if my understanding is correct, I'm not talking about street trees. We're not just talking about trees on streets on public streets, but this, the definition, the way it does is it overlaps into the public right of way. So this could technically affect some private landowners. If, if the street right of way carried over into the front yard, like I know some properties along, uh, some of it particularly a more narrow streets. Um, I know that there's been. A lot of, a lot of, a lot of, a lot of people have been talking about the tree, but at least I've, I, it seems like a potential area and it would be helpful for clarification as to those species. Yeah. Well, so let's make a point to invite him to the next time we take this step. Um, Lauren. Uh, kind of on that point. If I'm remembering right the last time we had looked at this, we were looking at, um, we were looking at, um, maintaining an updated appropriate list based on certain criteria or something instead of listing the trees. Um, and then having to update them as science evolves or whatever, but more. If we've wanted to leave that in the hands of the tree board with whatever criteria they use, if we felt like those were the right ones. So that was, that was one idea. So maybe John could provide us advice on. If, if that might work better and be more kind of adaptable to what we're looking for. Um, I think that would be a good idea. Um, I think that would be a good idea. Um, I think that gives them more clarity to just put in ordinance and have, have a list and he feels like this will be a long lived one. Um, so it's one thought. And then the other. I mean, it seems like the only other really substantive thing was, um, there's a license fee. Um, and he was said they've never enforced that. So either we should decide, we want to keep that fee and start enforcing it. I know that we've also moved a lot of the license fees into the license fee section and not put them. So if we want to keep it, I think for cleanliness consistency, putting it there instead. Um, but maybe, but just want to flag that as a more substantive question to us all. We want to, want to keep a fee. And if so enforce it or if it's never been enforced, do we really, do we want to keep it? Uh, Jack. Yeah. I had a couple of substantive thoughts and I don't know. Since Lauren just mentioned the licensing section, section 13. 319 I could talk about that now, but then I could talk about the other ones too, if you want, but as they're in a couple of different sections. Um, we, I spent a lot of time looking at the licensing section and I'm sure we'll get of the ordinances that I'm sure we'll get back to that chapter at some point. And I'm partly to hold up anyway, but, uh, I question with a lot of our municipal licenses, whether it's, um, whether there's a point to having the city. Issue, uh, licenses at all, especially if the people are regulated at some other level. And for the arborist license. It occurred to me that there is. Uh, it's not a government entity, but there's an international society of arborists that does. Certify arborists. And it occurred to me if someone is a certified arborist, maybe that's, that's probably going to be a higher standard than whatever licensing scheme the city comes up with. And so we might exempt someone who's. Certified arborist from, uh, from that licensure. And so I have language for that. Um, it is starts online three of section 13 dash three 19. And it says the license fee shall be $25 annually in advance. And my suggested additional languages. Um, unless that person is an arborist certified by the international society of arborists. And I should disclose that my son. Is an arborist certified by his international society of arborists. So. He would personally, if you were doing this, he would be personally affected. Although he's the city arborist right now, Alec Ellsworth is also a certified. Arborist certified by the international society of arborists. So I would suggest putting that language in. John Odom, do you have any comments on the licensing thing? Just to, you know, remind folks that the, uh, I think we have licenses so that we have some authority. Um, if there's a bad actor to have some option to act. Um, and not simply depend on the state or the state to get around to it or something like that. That's really the point of the ones we have as far as the, the license and the word. In particular, I got no comments. So on that point, Jack. Um, So you have some language around this that you would want to suggest. Yes. And if other people aren't. Don't find that compelling. I'm not married to it. I just. As I say, it's just a suggestion. Um, and it's the language that I read a few minutes ago. Unless that person is an arborist certified by the international society of arborists. Well, so, um, is your thought that that person would still have to get a license with the city, but the $25 fee would be waived. Or they don't have to get a license at all. Well, that's a good question. Um. I mean, you know, I think the way where I put it, it has to do with. It's in a sentence about the fee, but really it makes more sense to have it be. Not getting a license at all. So. It could go either way. And I get, I certainly see the justice of John's. Uh, come. Uh, Dan, go ahead. Well, I, I, I. In thinking about John's comment. I mean, I, I think it would be more potent or powerful if there was a requirement. Um, rather than a $25 licensing fee. Um, that. Uh, you know, so adopting Jack's language for that, but you know, you would still grant a license to the internet, the arborist, but the, the real key language would be requiring some sort of insurance or bond. To cover it because we're talking about street trees or park trees, which are both usually in close to right of ways, highly trafficked areas so that if some yahoo takes down a tree, you know, can. It can take out power. It can cause traffic snarls. It can cause damage to people. Um, you know, I think that's what we're concerned about with regulating these things. So I think it's, and looking at the language right now, it only seems like we have a requirement for. Um, to have a minimum of $25 license. Um, so if you're talking about insurance or bonding, if they're doing a contract with the city, um, is there a reason why we wouldn't have that language be broader such that if anybody was seeking to do work within the city, they'd have to show a minimum. Bonding or insurance level. So I hear a couple of different questions in that. Um, Dan, do you have it? So. So Dan, you're suggesting that perhaps. Um, I think that's what we're concerned about. Um, is there a license that they show that basically that they are insured. Right. Or be able to put up a bond to do work. In the city. Um, you know, especially if they're to, to work on. Cause language right now is they only have to have the license. In, if they're pruning, treating, or removing a street or a park tree within the city. Um, so if somebody has a back 40, that's fine. But if. If you're doing a street tree or park tree, you have to procure the slides and so I. And I agree when I thought it was a little bit muddled and perhaps has a several questions buried within it. But my main point is, isn't the key point here of what we want is to make sure that somebody has some sort of insurance or protection so that if. They should violate a certain standard, rather than trying to sort of get bad actors, get into the business of regulating bad actors, which I don't think we really want to do. We have some requirement that at least there would be an insurance policy or some bonding policy so that. Um, you know, it would in some way self-regulate, which is insurance companies won't ensure people who behave badly for very long. And if somebody does behave badly and they have an insurance policy, at least there's a pot of money to seek. Um, to repair the damage done. Um, Jack. I agree with that. I think that, um, we don't know exactly what the language is now, but some kind of a bonding requirement first, uh, working on street and park trees makes a lot of sense to me. And so maybe we should put a placeholder in figure on. Having something in there for, for their next reading. You know, I could also see that as a part of the requirements in order to obtain a license. Uh, but that. So, um, so maybe that's a question of like, do you put language about being able to perk your bond or that you're sufficiently insured to a certain level? Um, does that language go in the language of the ordinance, or is that somehow on the document that, uh, one would have to fill out in order to get a license. And I mean, this is a topic that I feel like has come up in the past, um, for a variety of other types of licenses that we issue. We have all sorts of thoughts as to like, you know, do, we would only want to license this kind of, um, enterprise. If they're meeting XYZ requirements, um, which could be, sort of a, um, could be a rabbit hole. It could be, uh, the kind of thing maybe we, uh, it could be, uh, uh, you know, regulating things that maybe we're not ready to regulate, but, uh, it's, but I think it's a worthwhile question. Do you have any thoughts on like whether you would want to have that language be a part of the ordinance or as a part of the, like the requirement to get the license? I would think it would be part of the ordinance because how, how else would the city clerk know what the requirements are to, uh, issue a license and how would, how else would someone, how would else with an applicant either comply with or challenge the requirement if it's not part of the ordinance? Okay. Yeah, that makes sense. Um, any other thoughts on this topic? Yeah. I would, I would support that as well. Okay. So that's something we can, um, incorporate into, uh, this for next, for the next reading as well. Okay. Um, is. Yeah. We may contact you just to work through. Your thoughts on the language there. Sure. Okay. Any other thoughts on this, the trees section? Oh, let me see. Go ahead, Jack. Um, I'm, I'm looking at, uh, section, uh, 13 dash 305. Which sets forth. When the, uh, meetings of the tree board are held the first Wednesday of each month at seven 30 PM. And they're, they're actually at present held on the first Thursday at five 30 PM. And it also just makes me wonder, are there other boards that. Where the meeting dates are set forth in our ordinances and should, because. Should we really be hand toughing the, uh, the board to a particular schedule or should we have it say something like meeting shall be scheduled, uh, by the board or something like that. That seems like a great catch there. Right. We can scan through that. I will tell you, it may be a product of another day. Um, we used to actually be in the charter when the city councilman, the charter sent second and fourth Wednesdays. Wow. And we've since changed that. Um, we've continued to follow the tradition, but we can move it around. Uh, so I have a feeling that at one point, these were all very carefully prescribed and, uh, we've been trying to catch those and take them out. So this would be another good catch. Great. Um, I have a few comments. Um, I have a few comments that are sort of general comments about the relationship between, um, relationships of the, of the board to review tree, uh, related applications to the DRB. Um, and. Are you familiar with the comments I'm referring to? No. Okay. So, um, I just want to flag, um, some of the comments that John wanted to make an addition. Um, to the board to review tree related applications to the DRB. That was one thing. A second thing was, um, uh, he mentions that, uh, rather than focus solely on allowed trees that, uh, we also include a list of prohibited trees, which I think sort of gets like your comment, Lauren, about, uh, you know, is there just a list that we can reference here that the tree board just maintains. Um, the idea of prohibited trees, I think is interesting. I think we'd probably only prohibit them in the, you know, cities right of way, uh, potentially, but then, you know, what are the consequences of that? Um, and then, uh, the third thing was, um, just additional protections. Um, so anyway, I just want to flag that just so that people are aware of that for future discussions. Uh, yeah. Any other comments on the tree section? No. Okay. All right. Uh, and so moving on to the recreation. It was pretty short. Any comments here? No. Okay. Great. Uh, and parks. Jack, go ahead. I noticed that. In, in article five, we have, uh, we have provisions regarding two of our parks. And it just made me think, well, should we talk to the, uh, To the parks commission about, uh, adopting similar sets of policies for the other parks in the city. And I don't know what those should be, but I think those would first come from the parks commission. Uh, Donna. Yes. That's, I agree, Jack, even more so to be in line with their green print. They really are concerned that we only consider our parks to be Hubbard Park North branch. And I'm surprised summer street is here. So they would definitely like to see this enhanced. Great. So, um, are there, they're still meeting, right? They're one of the few groups that's still meeting during this year. Um, They're an elected body so they can. Right. Yeah. So, um, we just want to get in touch with them for. Comments on this. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Now that I'm looking at this again, I think we also wanted to get comments from them about the summer street park, about the, you know, the team sports and. You know, some of the restrictions there. But I think we're going to see. Yeah. I think we're going to see in hardball softball hockey. But the team sports by anyone over 10. Seemed. It has to do with the space and when the park was first done and the way it's right tucked in around the houses, but yes. Oh, I get it. But it like, if much more discussion, I wanted to play volleyball or, you know, ultimate frisbee or some. Yeah. Interesting. Um, okay. Any other comments on the park section for now. Connor. I bet like, uh, just municipal staff or city staff rather than, uh, you know, park staff in particular, as far as driving around in the parks there. I imagine there might be instances where other city employees would go up there. Nothing. Any comments on that? Yeah. I think that's a good point. Yeah. So you're, you're suggesting. Um, That we add language to allow that. Just instead of except parks and tree staff, I think it's a be there right off the bat. Like just make it city staff. It seems fair. Any, any objections to that? Well, the only thing is you need to talk to them because this is really about being driven on. The city. You know, I think they would be concerned. Maybe unless invited or less designated, I think they would want some restriction. Maybe you could say on city business. Yeah, but I think they have to be authorized through somebody. But maybe that's the way to do it. It's an interesting question. Um, Cameron or Bill, any thoughts on that? Um, I don't, I don't think that very often city staff goes on to unmarked trails in the, in the park, other than park staff, but I think it's a pretty good catch all to say, except city of Montpelier staff on city business. And then we don't have to worry about it. You never know. We use like our DPW folks, help other folks who help other people. So we don't want to back ourselves into a corner by any means. Lauren, did you have something you want to add to that? No. Okay. Okay. Other thoughts. Oh, Dan. Yeah, go ahead. Yeah. Sorry. I just had one question as the, uh, the firearm prohibition. If that's been reviewed. For sort of current cost. If that's current constitutionality. Um, I know we can restrict discharges, but I know that other park districts have been challenged as to whether they can carry. Uh, Firearm. Other thoughts. Oh, Dan. Yeah, go ahead. Yeah. Sorry. I just had one question as the, uh, the firearm prohibition. If that's been reviewed for sort of current costs. If that's current constitutionality. Um, I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know as to whether they can carry. Uh, firearms. And I'm just, I'd be concerned. I was setting it up for some. Challenge somewhere. Um, has that been vetted? Bill or Cameron by any, um, by the city lawyers. Not recently that I'm. Not recently that I'm aware. We can ask Tony. Well, we probably want to check with the attorney. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. The state's pretty clear that we can regulate discharge. Uh, but can we tell them they can't carry it. And the question is, you know, something's different about parks than, you know, like schools I know can prohibit those. You're certain places that you're allowed to, but. I'm sure. So we have to look. Yeah, it's a good question. Okay. Anything else for the parks? Okay. Uh, flood insurance rate maps. Gone. Nothing. Any, any comments on that one? Okay. Great. Moving on. Um, natural resources. Any thoughts on that section? Nope. Here and none. Um, okay. Last one, rivers and streams. Okay. Thoughts on this one. Okay. Pretty short section anyway. All right. So, um, is there a. Motion to pass. First reading as amendment and set the date for the next reading. I move that we pass the ordinance as amended for first reading and schedule. A second reading. I don't know what, what the best time would be. Because I don't know what the best time would be. I don't know what the best time would be. I don't know what the best time would be. I don't know what the best time would be, because we're asking for people to get us some feedback. So maybe. 27 May 27. Yeah. Second meeting in may up. Okay. There's been a motion. Is there a second? Second. Second. Okay. Further discussion. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed. Alright, so we'll take that up on the 27th. Thanks for all of your thoughts on that team. Okay. And so I think we're moving on to. The update for COVID-19. Turn it over to either Bill or Cameron. And watch the ball just not even slow down on its way to camera. Okay. So I sent y'all a memo earlier today. We go through that. And then I also have another memo that was sent out with the agenda about the rec center. I'll read that one second. You're okay with that. Mayor. Okay. So the state has given a few updates since we last spoke. Some of them were pretty substantial. But I think that's where we're going to go. I think that's where we're going to go. And then we'll go back to the main page. Governor Scott has announced an extension of the state of emergency in Vermont through May 15. He also gave a directive through the attorney general to law enforcement on how they should be enforcing that executive order, including voluntary compliance on social distancing. We can pursue civil and criminal. And we can also follow up on the spending of the state of emergency. And that's not something that's come up. People are being really great about confines with the governor's orders. That is just something that our police department was given through the attorney general. Our farmers market is aware and has been doing great job keeping direct orders from their vendors. But the agency of agriculture food and markets did say that to stay at home order. And then the most substantial one in this past week, Governor Scott did announce Addendum 10 to his executive order, which outlines a phased reopening of businesses in Vermont. They announced it today as sort of a quarter turn of the ticket to open it back up. But that did come with mandatory health and safety guidances that have been required of all businesses, including our government that is currently in operation. So we did come up with some new policies to protect our staff and residents, including putting in that Addendum 10 health and safety guidelines into operation. A lot of that is about wearing masks when you're in public and we wanna make sure that our staff is within those guidelines. So we're trying to make sure everyone has a cloth mask with face covering and making sure they have guidelines on how to use those and to clean their space with correct therapy. We also have updated our webpage for situational updates pretty much constantly and those do have a growing list of resources for those who may need them. I do wanna say publicly as a reminder, there is a group called by the acronym WANOCROC that is open to receive calls for assistance if you need it between eight and 10, eight a.m. and 10 p.m., seven days a week. And their call line is 802-477-5160. I also wanna announce for Capital Area neighborhoods that they're still looking for volunteers. They will start, they are starting to hand out flyers. They're firing through the neighborhoods right now, letting people know what resources are available to them and that their neighborhoods have their backs. So we're excited about working with them. For business closures, cancellations or changes, know that City Hall is still currently closed. The senior center has canceled all their classes for spring but their Feast to Go program is still continuing on Tuesdays and Fridays. The new pickup time for meals is now noon to 1230. It was noon to one, but everyone was already coming up all their food by 1230. So our staff was just standing in the cold for a while. So we shortened that time. So everyone knows our recreation department has not made a determination on separate classes yet. They are taking registration and payments for summer camp and other programming but do not intend on cash and checks or depositing any of those payments until a determination has been made. Since we are furloughed a good quarter of our staff, this reduces a lot of our refunds needs. So either checks will either be processed if classes move forward, returned or dreaded depending on what the person would like to do. The mountaineers have not yet determined if their summer baseball camps or their summer game season will be canceled or not. In the memo, I provided a breakdown of the furloughed by department and division that was requested in our last meeting. I won't go through that necessarily but I do want to thank again our volunteers because they saved the city about an additional $170,000 and we really do appreciate that. Our city committees have all stopped meeting through today. I will have a recommendation in a second about that continuing but as an update to our city communications, we've been working very closely with Gwinnocbrok, the capital area neighborhood groups and Montpelier Mutual Aid. We have weekly calls with them and we are continuing to share their messages publicly. We've also been increasing our social media posts regarding COVID-19. We average around 860 interactions per post but our most successful one recently was about wearing masks which reached almost 2,000 people. So we're continuing to be committed to posting our recommendations and best practices for supporting local businesses, maintaining social distancing, wearing masks in public, et cetera as we get that information. So my recommendation and something I would like to have council vote on or feedback on a discussion around is the continued suspension of all city committee advisory boards and task force meetings that are not required by law. Our staff's capacity remains incredibly limited. A good quarter of our staff is currently voluntarily furloughed and we did not, we asked, we sent out a message to all committee chairs asking them what's going on with your committee? Is there anything that we can do to support you? Like, is there any timely things that you need to make decisions on? And we received two answers and both of them have since from, just so you know, the senior center advisory council and the recreation advisory board and both of them have now told me that they don't necessarily need to meet. So that concludes my current updates. I don't know if you want, go ahead. So just on the topic of continued closure of these committee meetings, board meetings, whatnot, do we, I guess I would be more comfortable with that suggestion if there was a date at which we could, we would be revisiting it, right? Like we're gonna plan on another set of, you know, a few weeks of not meeting until such and such date and we'll have revisited it again versus just saying, you know, indefinitely. I mean, unless we want to do indefinitely, but. Oh, sorry, Bill. I was gonna say the same thing you were about to say. Maybe. Go. Personally smarter. Well, I was gonna say our furloughed employees come back at the end of the fiscal year, the beginning of our next fiscal year. There is that deadline. Yeah, that was exactly what I was gonna say. Is that this process is driven by the staff availability. It's not necessarily keep the committee safe, it's as we can't, we don't have the ability to check all the things and take the minutes and post the agendas and arrange all the Zoom meetings and all that kind of thing. So that's what was driving our request. It wasn't, you know, that they couldn't meet virtually because they certainly could, but then it hasn't happened now. So the idea would be that it would potentially be through the rest of this fiscal year. I would say until June 30th, unless something changes. Obviously you could change it at any time. Thoughts on that particular topic team? Jack. That makes sense to me, but I'd be happy to make the motion right now to continue to suspend city committee advisory boards and task force meetings through June 30th. I'll second. For the discussion, I guess I'll just say for myself, I think it probably makes sense to do this. It is kind of a bummer though. Especially as we go into, you know, talking about our strategic plan next week, I mean, there may be things that pertain to committees. You know, I'm sure a lot of them would be pretty, you know, if they're excited about their work, they're gonna be pretty bummed that they're not gonna be able to continue through the end of June. But, you know, on the other hand, it'll be here before we know it. And, you know, that'll, we'll just move forward then. So I have mixed feelings about it, but it's probably the right call. At least for my perspective. Other thoughts? I'll just reinforce what Cameron said, which is we did reach out to all of them and say, you know, basically, can you make the case why you need to keep meeting or what you need from us? And we only heard from two boards. I would assume that if somebody wants to make their case between now and then, we could always bring it to the council, but the chance would be for general. Donna then Lauren. Well, I just wanted to say, I appreciate having sort of the date there, but we can revisit it as we get more information. It's always can be changed. And things like the DRB, those aren't canceled, those aren't impacted by the things that we need to do by law to get projects moving forward. So a lot of those things are not being canceled. The reason I talk about staff capacity is really you think that each of these committees has a staff representative and a lot of them are here right now. And so that work that they normally do is not or is being either reallocated to other staff or just is it possible to do right now? Fair enough. Lauren. Yeah, I think this makes sense. And thank you Cameron and Bill for doing that outreach to make sure that we weren't missing any opportunities. I guess this does, we'll still have the flexibility. I'm just thinking like, for example, a potential city grant opportunity around clean energy had come across my desk, which I'd sent to Ann, but I would hate to miss those kinds of opportunities, but I think we can still kind of keep our eyes on if there are deadlines and things like that, particularly if it could help our budget situation. So we'll still have that flexibility but I think this makes sense for today to just put everything on hold and then in special circumstances we could revisit as needed. So if there's, I could picture putting something out to committees or task forces that if there's a time-bound opportunity that maybe that they get in touch with you, I mean, maybe that's opening up too much of a door, but especially with an opportunity like a grant deadline or anything else that has some kind of deadline, how would you all feel about giving with a provision that like committees could get in touch if there was something urgent? Yeah. Okay. Okay, so there's a- Yeah. If it's worth, I've checked with managers and a bunch of other towns and cities and this is, we're not the only ones doing this. Fair enough. So there was a motion and a second to those who had the motion and second, so this provision for getting back in touch or revisiting it if there's an urgent matter or if they have anything else come up that they wanna revisit for any special circumstances they can, that's okay with you all. Yes, should we have some language for the clerk, like add at the end of it, provided that a committee, the chair of a committee can consult with the city manager to obtain permission to meet in the case of time-limited opportunity or need. That's okay with you Connor. Friendly enough. Yeah. Okay, Donna. Maybe it just seems strange to have that in a motion. I would assume they could. I would rather us to have the staff make the statement to chairs that please keep in mind that we still would love to hear from you if these opportunities happen or if you feel something urgent. It just seems strange to put it in a motion, that's all. Yeah. I'm fine either way. Yeah. In a certain sense, it's as long as it's concise enough it's sort of already there but if you're okay with it Donna but I mean, it doesn't. Okay. It's yeah, it's a little wordy, it's a little weird. Okay. Well, so on any other thoughts on this topic? Do you wanna direct them to Bill or to Cameron? Do you have a preference? City manager's office is fine. Okay. Okay, city manager's office. Okay, on favor please say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Oppose? Okay, great. All right, so June 30th then. Here's that piece of it. I also have this, I'm sorry I think I'm interrupting Dan. Oh, Dan, did you have something? He's frozen. Okay. I think he was raising his hand to vote and now he's frozen. Oh. It looks like a great poster though. Yeah. Yeah. Now we'll cover. Like a mystery. Yeah. Go ahead, Cameron. So I do have another option or another consideration for our vote and this one is, as you may know, pretty, it's something I've been working on since I got here, but my memo really is about needing to readjust and reexamine project timelines in response to coronavirus regarding the rec center renovation project timeline. As you know, the project did hit some snares earlier this year when it came to implementation due to a loss of one of our project management team. So we did hit a timeline snag there, but we have yet to put out the RFP because our schedule time to release the RFP was in early March. And that was really when the coronavirus started hitting and the stay at home order was put out there. And so we had a lot of concerns about putting out an RFP when people were closed and unable to respond to that. So right now to get the project ready and our RFP to create construction-ready documents, if we wanted that to happen before November and to get us bond ready in November, we would have needed to put that out earlier this month or March even. So for the goal of a November 2020 bond vote right now, that doesn't seem feasible because no one is open and able to respond to these RFPs to begin with. So my recommendation would be a policy decision from council to push the RFP process back and to have the bond vote in the March, 2021 election so that we ensure a fair process, make sure that people have time and energy and the capacity to respond to the RFP. And we have a community that is more fully rebounded from the impacts of coronavirus because I cannot imagine asking for that bond in November. Jack. I agree with this. I don't think it makes sense to try to proceed in November. The question that occurred to me is whether we can be sure of being ready by March and whether it should be whatever resolution we adopt should give us the flexibility to vice saying something like no earlier than the March, 2021 town meeting election. Kim, did you need a motion on this? Well, you had adopted formally that it was going to go to bonds in November. So yes. And I think actually we've also received some general inquiries about this including this is very preliminary with someone who may be interested in doing some sort of private project and maybe, so they were curious about whether what we were going to do. And I said, well, we'll have clarity after tonight. Other thoughts. Dan. I like what? Yeah, I'll. Sorry. That's okay. I was just going to say, I agree with pushing this back. It doesn't make sense at this time. And I support this just because I think it's for all the reasons that we've talked about with other issues. It's just the more time we can have to think about it. It makes more sense. Donna. I just agreed with Jack's language of saying, you know, would allow the earliest March. I don't remember your exact wording, Jack, but I'd like the intention of it. So again, leeway, no sooner than March. I agree. And so do we, it sounds like we need a motion to that effect. Go for it, Jack. Yeah, I move that we delay the RFP process and schedule the bond vote for the recreation center no sooner than town meeting day, 2021. I second for the discussion. Okay, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay, great. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, anything else from staff on that? Okay, Connor. Yeah, mayor, I just had a quick motion is kind of taking the temperature with council. And I learned that you had zeroed out your salary for the rest of the fiscal year, which is really appreciated. You only make 4,000 bucks, so it's like a showing or a hay penny an hour. But even so, I think it's important that, you know, everybody's sacrificed a bit. So I was going to make a motion that the council zero out our salary for the rest of the fiscal year. It doesn't come out to too much money, probably a little under 2K, but any bit helps. So yeah, just zero out the council salary for the rest of the fiscal year. That would be my motion. Second. Second. I think there were a couple of seconds there. Any other discussion about this? I think it's just the right thing to do when we have our city employees sacrificing that we share in that sacrifice. Yeah, I agree. And I want to make sure that no one feels like pressured to do it, because that could be really important income for any one of us at this point, but as long as it's something that is, that's okay, then great. But anyways, there was a motion to second any further discussion. Okay, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Great. Well, and thank you all for your willingness to pitch in what you can during this time. While we're talking about budget, just to give an update, we will have some budget update for you at the next meeting. We want to see what the April numbers end of April comes in and what we're looking at. We have found, we think, at least preliminarily about 60,000 more that we can adjust the budget. So dropping that 113 down is, we cut that in half. So, and we're still working. And again, these are projections. So we'll have more detail, but we haven't forgotten it continuing to look for replaces. I also remind people when we were talking about the regulations that people are under that there may be a loosening up of activity that at this point, the furloughs and the activity, the restricted activity of the city is as much a budget response as it is a safety response. So we may start getting pressure that says, hey, you're now allowed to do X. Why aren't you doing it? And we'll say, well, that person that does that is furloughed and they'll say, but they can come back now. And that's a policy decision that we could revisit, but it has financial implications. So our furlough and our budgeting plan is through June 30 for financial reasons as much of it, if not more than COVID safety reasons. Just want to say that loud and clear for all to hear because a picture scenario, particularly come June where things are starting to happen and the city's not, and it's a number crutching. Lauren. I was just wondering, Bill, if you might be able to speak for a minute about what your understanding is about the federal stimulus, what kind of, I feel like more and more guidance is coming to the state. I think it's still unclear what a city like Montpelier might be able to tap into with this, but just to kind of put out there what our current understanding is and then is there any, you know, advocacy, a letter or something from city council or that the mayor's coalition should be doing or anything to be working with our federal delegation on how the next stimulus can open up more resources for cities like Montpelier? Sure. I mean, I think so we're tracking it. The League of Cities and Towns is really doing the league work on that for us because we don't really have the capacity to do that. What are the interesting things that, the way federal funds through the CDBG system are allocated around the country is that there are certain, if you're above a city, above a certain size, you are what's called an entitlement community and you get direct allocations. So Boston, Cambridge, Montpelier used to work, we just got direct allocations. If for anybody below that, those go to the state. So as far as I understand, the only entitlement community in Vermont is Burlington. Everything else goes to the state, which is why our CDBG programs are Vermont, we have to apply for CDBG grants and we get them in large cities. They just get a bunch of money and they allocate it as long as they follow the program rules. And what I'm told is that at least for the government money, so to speak, it's being allocated out using the CDBG formula. So state of Vermont's basically getting all the money and they're gonna have to determine how to reallocate that to towns and cities, if they do, or if they use it for their own roads and highways and infrastructure, you know, whatever. That's often been the case, is sometimes that it doesn't get to the local governments. So anything we can do to articulate our needs, I know the league is always asking us. We're hoping that there's supposed to be a new infrastructure bill coming. Very possible. 2008, there was, you know, shovel ready projects where the big deal and, you know, who knows, perhaps we might have one or two shovel ready projects spending a lot of things still. So that's what we know now. It's not very specific, I'm sorry, but we are definitely tracking it and waiting to see what, you know, I think the state's probably sorting through this and everyone's trying to figure out how to get their hands on it. So. And I assume you'll let us know when there is clarity. But yeah, so, and just so you all are aware, the mayor's coalition is gonna be gathering to discuss some kind of a platform related to COVID-19. I'm happy to share with you some potential points of that, get your feedback on any of those topics. So I'll send that out when this meeting is over. Happy to get your feedback. So circling back to the capital area neighborhoods, we had a, I had a conversation with Dan earlier about just some questions that had been raised about that. Dan, can I pick on you to speak on that or do you want me to speak about that? Sure, no, I can talk about it. You know, I've had a couple of conversations with some constituents about the capital area neighborhoods and how that's developing. And, you know, one thing is that, you know, we as the city started the capital area neighborhoods, but I think it was always, I think it might help for us to have a discussion about what our vision as a city council is for that. You know, my understanding and what I've talked with others about is the idea that capital area neighborhoods would be sort of this decentralized opportunity for neighborhoods to develop groups as they saw their needs being existing at the time. And so, you know, if one neighborhood had a really strong desire for, you know, door-to-door service or, you know, communication with neighbors door-to-door, and another neighborhood said, no, we're inundated. We just, we're thinking more after this is all over, we want to have some potlucks. I think that's fine. And that's sort of the vision of the capital area neighborhoods. But I, you know, I think it's helpful for us to have this discussion so that when constituents do call us and say, hey, I don't know if I necessarily agree with what I'm being told by others of what this capital area neighborhood group should be doing or what I should be doing as a part of it. And whether we as a council, you know, see that that's something we should be directing more attention to or central control, my sense is that the more it can be decentralized and let each neighborhood develop their own needs and responses to their own needs or what they see as their own needs, the better and the more likely these groups are to succeed and to continue. I think that encapsulate what I've heard. I don't know if that meets everything you've heard as well, Leanne. Yeah, well, so I agree. I just want to reinforce the point too that there are certainly not obligatory and that if they, you know, if for any member of the public, if it feels like too much to try to have another thing to keep track of that it's really okay. You don't have to, this is often, it's been I think a useful vehicle for some members of the community already just in terms of having connection with their neighbors and feeling like there are people who have their back and knowing who they can reach out to, especially folks who may not be as connected digitally. But on the other side of it, if this is just adding to the noise of your life, then it's really okay to not opt in. So I just want to make sure that that's really clear. But also just reinforcing what you were saying, Dan, too, about this is meant to be organic and absolutely can look different in different places. If some neighborhood wants to have a Google group, great. If another neighborhood wants to have a Facebook group, great, whatever works for that community and for those organizers that live in that space. And then, yeah, and that it's an opportunity as another tool for us to communicate with each other and get the word out about opportunities or needs or whatnot. So, and that ultimately really probably the highest purpose of it is to build relationships and connections with our neighbors in whatever that looks like, either they're in terms of celebrating or meeting needs. So any other thoughts people folks have on that or things that questions or concerns you've heard from folks about that? Yeah, go ahead, Donna. Well, I think a lot will depend if you belong to one before they were very much local neighborhood and organic from those people who showed up, who opted in. The one thing the city did do was put that information on the website so people could find who was their coordinator or when the group was meeting. So I would hope it will continue in that vein as Anne stated, it's very much individualized to who says yes and shows up and does what they wanna do. I think it's a good information with us. We will make sure that gets pushed out. I don't think they're quite there yet. Right. Okay, well that's a good call though so that people have a place where they could just go look that up and it makes sense. Cool, anything else on that topic? No, couldn't agree more. Yeah, let's let it happen a bit organically. I don't think there's a cookie cutter approach for any of this stuff. Even the number of neighborhoods. I had a good chat with them. And what's been great is like some of the local organizers who I've never spoken to before have been reaching out, asking about city resources, asking for the best way to distribute them. So I think it's a beautiful thing, it's great. Cool, great, anything else? Okay, super. So coming back to our agenda here, I think that is the end of our regular business. So I guess we're on to council reports. I'm gonna, again, go in the order that I would if we were in the horseshoe, but it's only really because, Donna, you're always so ready for like right away. Tonight I'm ready to be glad that things are working better except for your experience, Ann, but... That's all good. But I just have to really spend my time thanking Bill and Cameron, the staff, Jasmine who's not here, and just make sure all the heads of departments, all the staff that's there working as well as furloughed, just shows the quality of people we have. So thank you very much for being there and just being who you are. That's all. Great, Connor. Yeah, I don't have much, I would echo that. Just people watching, as far as the city manager's office, there's been zero disruption, as far as getting in touch with people and everything going as far as planned. So yeah, no, I think Montpelier is doing a great job with the social distancing. I took my dog for a walk on the new bike path extension the other day, and it was great to see people like, you know, eight feet apart walking there, but getting their exercise and joining the outdoors. And I think we're up to the task. We're doing a great job in Montpelier. So thanks everybody. Great. Jane. Yeah, I'll just echo what Donna and Connor said about the efforts of the staff. Thanks so much. You're right, we're not, in some sense, things aren't missing a beat. I'll just add one little bit that as of yesterday, Montpelier Live has brought a person on in collaboration with the NDC and another organization to be a business consultant and navigator to work with local businesses. And there's still a lot of details to get worked out in terms of the arrangement and how it's all gonna play out. But some women who can sort of work with local business owners, help them navigate all of these, the opportunities that are there for them now and sort of these rough waters that they're facing ahead and connect them to a pretty extensive network of resources to be able to help them stay afloat. So more details on that to come, but I just wanna, I think it's part of acknowledging the grassroots efforts that's happening in the city to community-based to help everybody get through all this. Great. Jack. I don't really have anything to add. I think that our city workers, our professional city workers have done such a great job. I think they show great dedication to people in the city and I express my appreciation to all of them. Dan, I'm sorry, I forgot where people sit. That's okay. So I actually had two issues. One that I had received from onion rariver outdoors and I had circulated suggesting whether we wanted to address this or not and Montpelier Alive is on it and this deals with the payroll protection program. And I spoke with Dan Groberg at the Montpelier Alive and he felt that they were handling it. And the issue in a nutshell is that the payroll protection program right now doesn't give a lot of flexibility to small businesses that might wanna pay full time for a few employees or a little bit more for a few employees to fulfill their different business needs than keeping everybody on the payroll at a lower level. And so they were actually having trouble keeping up with the online orders and they needed more flexibility. We, Dan suggested that we as a council may want to consider or as a city, you know, basically writing to the federal knowing we don't have any control over it, writing to the federal delegation saying, you know, we support any additional flexibility for small businesses using the PPP and allowing them to have greater flexibility in how they apply it. And I think that may make sense whether we wanna do it now or after the meeting. And the second issue is I received a letter from a constituent about landlord tenant issues, which is there's a number of properties that are advertising for, you know, vacancies or people seeking apartments. And they were confused as to where they might receive guidance as to like how to safely show an apartment or visit an apartment if they're transitioning. And obviously we don't have that but we may want to add or connect on our COVID-19 website as to any site that would give advice to people that are either renting or seeking to rent vacant spaces, how to do that, how to transition an apartment safely. We can take a look at that, Dan, but I will tell you I was talking to a realtor just yesterday and they've set pretty set standards for how to show a house. Like the one person in at a time, you know, gotta stand, have to have masks, gloves. It's all right, but I can't imagine it to be any different to show an apartment than it is to show, you know, real estate. So... Yeah, I can't imagine that that's much different either but I think what this one, this person particularly who, you know, they're, you know, we have a lot of people that are not necessarily professional landlords that, you know. No, we can try to find it. Yeah, but I think a lot of things I think there's very specific guidance on how it's supposed to be done. It's already been issued. Right, right. Good, yeah. I'm not looking to reinvent the wheel. So if it's there, that would be a great thing to link but I think we should also think about the PPP and supporting the small businesses if they need, if they want more flexibility on that as well. Do you think that Dan together with either the MBA or potentially in collaboration with this new hire, do you think they may be interested in like drafting something up for us? I'll, I can certainly reach out to Dan and just say if we take the temperature at the board, I mean the council and we all support this idea but yeah, I think they're already handling it. And certainly I think they could say, you know the city council supports it. I just think, you know, last time around when this was started, when we sent a letter to the state basically saying, you know hold off on evictions and foreclosures during this crisis are we, you know not that we have any power to say one way or the other. I think this is just one of those instances as well where the more we can support these local businesses, you know, the decisions could be made at the federal level but, you know, advocating it just certainly shows the support that we give to them. Yeah. Great. I think it can really, you know in terms of expediting the process if you just want to direct city manager to send a letter on your behalf then you don't have to wait till March, May 13th to see a draft, we'll get to just that would make me happy. Do we have any motion to that effect? Probably. Yeah, then I can say as directed, you know on behalf of the mobility city council we urge you to make these funds more flexible for small businesses than to send more money to local governments. So, so moved. I'll second that. Yeah. Okay, we got multiple seconds. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay, great. Thanks for raising that. Yep, thanks. That's all. Yeah. Lauren. Yeah, thanks. Just a couple of things that have kind of come up from some constituents. Really glad to hear about all the great work Montpelier alive. It's definitely been hearing some concerns from our local businesses. So glad to know that that resource is getting up and going. Also heard from some people being challenged with our unemployment insurance which of course isn't being handled by the city but you know, whatever help and facilitation we can provide to folks and hopefully a lot of that backlog has been cleared but certainly if we can be helpful and helping make calls or, you know just keeping feeding the drums of what needs to be done there. I know it's been really challenging for a lot of folks. One other issue that have heard on various formats about is related to CSOs are combined to our overflows and just wanted to know in our consent agenda we did approve money for a new flow monitoring system and I would urge anyone who's very interested in that issue. One of the things that a federal stimulus could do would be putting money into the CSO program and put people to work doing construction projects and things to build and improve our infrastructure including CSO. So I know in my day job we put in a letter to the federal delegation that's been in conversations and that was one of the things we asked for but that's a place where, you know if people want to see us doing more work sooner of what they like CSOs I would urge people to advocate for that federal stimulus funding when people get to that. I just wanted to note that opportunity. And Dan Jones on behalf of the Sustainable Montpelier Coalition had sent around a note. It is Earth Day, the 50th anniversary of Earth Day today and they're launching a writing contest to imagine the best possible future for Montpelier 30 years from now. So look out for information about that. They're offering $500 prizes in five categories. It's running through June 23rd and they're gonna be having writers kind of narrow it down and then have community members vote on their favorites. So it sounds like a fun way when we're all socially isolating to check that out, think about what kind of vision and a brighter future. So look out for information about that from the Sustainable Montpelier Coalition. And just wanted to echo the appreciation for all the hard work from city staff and everyone who is just amazed by how smoothly you all are making it look from the outside and from our operations, knowing what a challenging time and we're a third of the staff furloughed right now. So thank you all. And is that Jamie Carroll on? Just saying hi. Hi Jamie. Hi Jamie. Jamie, miss you. She must want to do it with a thumbs up. That's pretty cool. That's all for me. Okay. All right, so gosh, how do you do that? Oh please. Waving now. Reactions. Oh, there we go. Oh, I got it. Okay. Now I can't undo it. It'll go away. Oh, okay, good. Oh, goodness. All right, so. How do you kick it now? Well, it just goes away, I guess. It goes away. I see, okay. Goodness. I also, what's that? So Jamie and Spard is to get more familiar with our gizmos. I also want to thank city staff for your continued professionalism through all of this. And, you know, even with finding so much money for, you know, to save through the shortfall. And that we've also just found another $60,000. Like that's amazing. And, you know, still shaking the trees there. It's very impressive and so grateful for all of your work, both financially as well as just, you know, keeping the lights on and, you know, continuing to follow through with the essential services. So, so grateful for everyone's work and city staff. And then I just want to make a note about the railroad. I got some questions about what's happening on savings pasture and along old country club road. And maybe Bill, maybe I should let you speak to this, but they're, you know, continuing to do work on the tracks there. They were there in relation to say they started to do work on the tracks there through right away that the railroad has there. And so there are going to be some closures sort of intermittently going forward. Anything else you want to add about that, Bill or Cameron? I don't have anything specific. I think for council members or members of the public last Friday's city managers, a weekly report had a pretty extensive write-up from DPW about this. And that's probably the best place to explain it. This is the new rail siding that we've been talking about. We thought there was going to be discussion of the legislature about appropriating money for this this year, but for some power, some way they've decided to just go ahead. And no one here really knew that was going to happen until it started happening. So not the best effort of communication from either the railroad or future rail division, but it's happening. All right, well, and that is it for me for now. And just, well, I guess I'll add one more thing, which is just great. I'm just very grateful for folks who are continuing the social distancing and wearing masks and for those who are supporting local businesses, considering taking out food or shopping online, et cetera, to help our businesses through this tough time. That's it for me. John. Nothing to say except that it's so knownly in this giant office all by myself. That's it. Fair enough. Bill. Bill, do you have anything to add? I know nothing really specific, I guess I would like to also thank all of our staff people. People are really working hard, appreciate all the kind words from you folks. And then through this process of following tales from around the country and in many communities, this situation is causing big rifts between elected officials and city staffs. You know, I'm already blaming everybody else for something which is really out of everyone's control. And I think we've all been working together and I know everyone in city hall and around city hall feels it, you know. So thank you. And I really thank Cameron. She's taking our lead on this COVID stuff. And as you know, I'm home. So she's really the, where the road is the road there in city hall these days. So I appreciate her keeping things moving. Cool. All right, well, I think that is everything for the evening. So with that, we will consider this meeting adjourned. Thanks everyone.