 We are off to the races. I would like to call to order the South Burlington City Council meeting, special meeting, I guess this is, on Thursday, November 16th, 2023. And our first item is a pledge of allegiance. And Jesse, you want to start us? Pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Instructions on exiting building in case of emergency and review of technology options. So thank you for joining us in person tonight. For those in the room, you can go out either side, left or right of the rear of the auditorium and then turn left or right to get out if there's an emergency. For those participating online, also thank you for joining us. If you would like to make a comment during the public hearing or any other item on the agenda, please turn your camera on and the chair will call on you or you can indicate you would like to speak in the chat and I will have her call on you. Thanks very much. Other than that, we are not monitoring the chat for content. Thank you. Agenda review. Are there any additions, deletions or changes in order of the agenda? Not much to move around tonight, which is good. So seeing none, we'll move on to comments and questions from the public, not related to the agenda. Is there anyone in the audience? How about at home? Gary Silverstein, you have your light on. Does that mean you would like to speak? I guess not. All right. So we'll move on then to counselor's announcements and reports on committee assignments and the city manager's report. So Megan, you want to start? Yeah. The four housing committee met last night and it was a good meeting. And I just came from the legislative forum and that was also I thought very hopeful dialogue. There's a lot to be done and it looks like they are really tackling very difficult challenges. So. And you were at the beta opening. And I was at the beta opening. Yes. Yes. And I went through every exhibit to understand how those batteries whirl and keep those motors running so that they can take those aircraft up into the sky. And it is very cool. Oh, sorry, do you have any? I did attend the Reckon Parks Committee meeting Monday night as assigned. And it was great to be there because I think they share a lot of the same areas of interest that natural resources does. And so it was great to be there. And Mike Siminope is a great chair. Couple of items that were discussed had to do with pickleball at Samansky Park and noise issues. And then during the conversation, there's also seems to be some owl activity on the effecting runners along there. And owl, I think might be an owl nesting, which sweeps down and pecks on your head as you run by. Oh, wow, how scary. And so there's needs to be a sign posted about watching out for them. Or ask them not to swoop. Yeah, it might be a little more difficult. But it was very enjoyable to be there with them. Okay, Tim. Yes, thank you. I attended the SBBA meeting at the Alpine shop last week where Chief Burke and the Deputy Chief spoke. It was a good gathering and good food. Thank you very much. I also went away this weekend, but got back just in time to tune into the Economic Development Meeting on Monday night where three reps from UVM and their research hub gave and linked the description about all the work that UVM is doing to try and bring in grant dollars, investment dollars, research dollars. And so for transparency, I'm an employee of Global Foundries, but there have been two important developments at UVM recently. They opened a semiconductor characterization laboratory, probably mostly populated by donated meters and other equipment. And one of my best friends, Woody Bowe, at work was the lead on that. And I think he's provided a lot of leadership and guidance on how to structure that lab. He does a lot of failure analysis. And so this is the type of lab where you could take a chip from a wafer and perform basic measurements on it to see if something's wrong and why it's wrong. So that's really great. He was part of the ribbon cutting for that new research facility. And on top of that, UVM is seeking to become a research hub for gallium nitride process to make those wafers. And Global Foundries has received, I think, are hoping to receive money from the US government as part of the CHIPS Act to broaden our reach into that type of technology to help keep the business here thriving. So this is a really good presentation. Great. Okay. Andrew. Thank you. I also attended the SBBA meeting and second how wonderful our chief and our deputy chief both spoke very eloquently and I think we're very assured the community of our basic public safety. We have issues to address, obviously, but I think they were really good. So unfortunately, I was only able to attend the energy committee meeting because BytePed meets at the exact same time and I know we're working that through. So I have a report from the energy committee, which is working on a series of winter workshops following the energy festival. So talking about like a climate change, one-on-one workshop, monthly book club meetings. We talked previously about a film series and a bunch of films that they're considering and we're using them, this auditorium for that. So that's all kind of in the works and I think will happen and will be really nice. Great. Okay. I also attended the South Burlington Business Association meeting and would agree with Councillor Chelnick that I think we are blessed with our police chief and new deputy and they both spoke very well. It was a very nice, nice meeting. I went to the beta, it was supposed to be like a ribbon cutting but they never cut a ribbon, but they had great food and music and then wonderful displays all around the, I guess that's the assembly room for the plane and they were supposed to have a plane that was gonna fly back from Platsburg with sort of crummy weather, so they didn't. So I was disappointed because even where there were probably a couple hundred people there and the place looked empty. So it is just huge, just huge. One thing I learned that I thought was kind of fascinating I'm blanking on his first name but Mr. Wolf, who used to teach at the high school, Chad? Science. I think the middle school. The middle school. He left teaching and has been hired by beta and one of the things that he did once, apparently once he left teaching was he has quite a following on, oh God, I don't know, one of the YouTube or something and he takes his science experiments and kind of breaks them down and makes them very understandable for the non-scientific people. And I guess beta got wind of that and hired them. So he's in charge of doing the education and outreach to schools and different organizations in the state about what beta does. I thought that was kind of cool. Nice. And then I also this afternoon with the city leadership met with the school leadership and as we continue to discuss the sale or the rental or whatever we finally agreed to do with 577-575, our old city hall on Dorset Street. And they have a new lawyer now. So we kind of went back to square one. So Liam Murphy could get up to speed, but I think we hopefully will make some progress. I think when he meets with Paul and Colin next week, most of the questions he asked, we really had already discussed to have long lists of things that need to be addressed, but he was unaware of those. So I think once he sees the work that has already been done or things discussed, we might move along a little further with a little more rapidity. So that's was my life. Jesse. So I don't have a whole lot to share tonight. I'll provide a more comprehensive update at Monday night's regular council meeting just to say that thanks to the staff leadership team and Martha Menchar specifically, we are in the midst of finalizing our proposed FY25 budget for you. Our hope is to have those full documents to you. Thursday after Thanksgiving for our proposal, proposed budget presentation to you on the 4th. So lots of financial work being done behind the scenes. Thanks. Okay. So item six and why we're really here is to hold a public hearing. We're three minutes early, but we're probably okay. Regarding the city's draft municipal plan, also known as city plan 2024. We have Paul Connor here from Planning and Zoning Direction. We also have how many members? Just one member, I guess, of the Planning Commission, Michael Mittag. So I would entertain a motion to open a public hearing on the city plan. So moved. Second. All in favor? Aye. So we have opened the public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience at home or here who would like to make a comment? Okay. Make a motion for those. Michael, did you want to say something? Why don't you go to the mic, please? Actually, Michael, would you mind making public comment from the table? That's the camera we have easily set up today. I'd appreciate it. Thank you. It's not about the content, but I'd like to sit down. No, there's no chair. It's okay. It's okay. Well, you're going to be cut off from the TV if you choose. Yeah. To be scared of it. Sorry. Right. It's not about the content of the plan, but I'd like to say how appreciative I am of my six colleagues on the commission and the three staff who did work beyond what I would have expected. They really did a Yeoman's work on this plan. So I'd like you to know that I appreciated working with them and it was a great experience. Thank you. So Bob Britt, would like to make a comment? Yes, can you hear me? Good evening. We can. Good. I was very impressed by the plan and so happy to read this latest draft. I'll be honest, I didn't get through it all, but I did look at some of the sections. I wasn't sure, am I allowed to make comments about the plan? Yes, please. This is a public hearing for that purpose. Okay, so some of these are probably knit and comments, but overall I'm extremely happy. I just, on page 46 of the transportation section, the last paragraph talks about Hinesburg Road and it's concentrated north of Tilly Drive. And I think that it would be great if there was a comment to say that the city will be looking at Hinesburg Road south of Tilly Drive to somewhere past the new Edgewood neighborhood at Nadeau Crest, I can't even say that name. Nadeau Crest and Drive. Yes, that one. So to look at that and hopefully, perhaps, it just, right now it just excludes anything south of Tilly. Okay, yeah. Seems like at least something should be said there since we're still trying to build a crosswalk at the bike and ped committee is from Du Bois over to Butler Drive, but we can't because of the speed. Right, and I would agree that Nadeau Crest and Drive has a bike path that dumps into Hinesburg Road at the moment where it's 50 miles an hour of speed. So I think we should be aware of it as a city to be thinking about it and not ignoring that as well as the crossing spots for the other developments. Okay, and the rest of my comments are about the maps that are attached are concerned the maps that are attached. And it was wondering that table of contents right now doesn't show a listing of maps. And I think that might be good for the reader. And then at least what I was looking at. In map one, I just have a general question. I see that map one is missing the Great Swamp Land. And I wasn't sure is the Great Swamp Land appears not to be city owned. So I was just curious who determines the access to conserved lands within the city. I mean, I used those paths through the Great Swamp all the time and they didn't realize it wasn't necessarily public land or is it? No, it's natural resource protection. It's just natural resources protected. So it's owned by a number of people. Okay. It's designation doesn't allow at this point in time development. Right. But it's not, I guess, conserved in perpetuity. I suppose, you know, I don't know. I guess that's always an argument, but it is designated as natural resources. Yeah. And some of our discussions in the bike and pad, we were wondering why, you know, there's no more trail signs in the city for some of these conserved areas. And I assume that's the reason why it's up to whoever's the owner of the conserved land. Is that right? Well, it's privately owned. It doesn't necessarily have paths through it. So I don't think that the owner necessarily is interested in labeling the paths that may or may not go through their private property. Okay. Just a clarification. I see that it's on a later map, but I just was curious. Let's see. Map four is missing a shared use path between Dorset and Hinesburg on Williston Road, the one that's being built by Alana, or the city, obviously, but it just doesn't have the red dotted line. I'm sorry, say that again, where? The Williston Road path between Dorset and Hinesburg, I guess, I don't know how exactly far it goes before it goes back into the road. But yeah, it just seems like it should have the dotted red lines. The map also doesn't show the exact existing path, paths on Kimball Avenue at Technology Park, some of the new paths there. Let's see. Technology park, are those paths, I mean, the ones that used to go around the Whales Tail, and now they're slightly different, but they cross private property. They're not really city paths, are they? Technology park, or are you talking about the sidewalk? I was just talking about the existing ones there, there's existing ones now from the bridge that goes over the Buddybrook. I don't know if they were there. Oh, yeah, the one that needs the new sign. Paul Conner has come up to the table, so maybe he can address some of those. Folks, I think one of the challenges here is this is a city-wide map, and paths and sidewalks are pretty narrow. So I'm gonna actually zoom way in, and to Bob's comment, it actually does show that path, that path, it's just the scale of an eight and a half by 11 map, it's hard to represent that. So we did capture that. Right, it's just, you know, that's the scale of the map. What I can say is that all of this information will be captured in a much more robust form in the bike ped master plan that is being developed this year in a much more visible, and of course, the data has all of this, it's just a little hard to show in an eight and a half by 11 map. But we will take a look at the other comments that Mr. Bred has provided. Yeah, thanks Paul. Do we have any more, Bob? There's a series of trails that I believe are supposed to be shown in South Village that when we agreed to move the path right along the fronts of the houses, I thought they were supposed to maintain a series of off trails. We traded them so that they would do more trails. So I don't know, that's just the comment to take a look at. Okay, Paul will comment. And I'll just say to that one, thank you, Bob. We're aware that there are some areas of the city that have trails, either public or public access that have not been put into GIS. We actually have an intern this fall who is going out and mapping some of those by hand. So it's a matter of just catching up to the data. So we're aware, we're getting the work so that when we do the bike pad master plan we have that all in great shape. Thank you and we're catching up. And this can be edited with those additional paths or is what we adopt, you can't change anything. You can amend the plan at any time. It still requires your public hearings. It is not a, it's a somewhat shortened process under the new state law that was passed a few years ago. It doesn't invite the entire plan but it is the process of public hearings of the planning commission, public hearings of the council level. I was just thinking of updating the paths that already exists that we are having the intern check. I mean, how, somewhere on the city website when those are discovered or mapped, we can go to that and it will be updated. Absolutely. It may not be the attached map to the city plan. Just as, you know, if next year, if in two years time we build the bike pad bridge or when we build the bike page over the interstate right now shown as proposed in a map in two years time or three years time, it'll show it as it's existing infrastructure is always evolving. So this is a little bit of a moment in time. I hear what you're saying just the trails had not been captured yet. And that's fine. I mean, it may not be that critical but I just noticed that they weren't there. And then on map six, I was wondering if we couldn't rename that to delete the name transportation and call it vehicle, either vehicle or maybe road, but vehicle sounds better. And it's referred that way, I think on page 44 in the transportation section seems to match up and because transportation includes bike and pad which is a separate map and so I'm just thinking that map should be renamed or at least suggesting that. And then, whoops, sorry. No, no, keep going. And then just also on that map, I don't know, this is more of a question. Should exit 13 have some purple lines as far as reserved for future, because the one at 12B I think is shown with some purple lines reserved for future potential exit and I didn't know if 13 needed any or we have all the land there that we need. Well, they look like they're proposed. That's different than reserved but I don't know what the difference is. I think he's talking about there were two, in addition to exit 14, 12B and exit 13 were things that the CCRPC were keeping in tandem. So it would be turning the 189 into more of an extension of Kennedy Drive with a traffic light that would allow people to get onto the interstate of 89 and I would agree with Bob that that's important to have included. Okay. That's all. Okay, thank you very much. Yeah, you bet. Thank you. So anyone else either in the audience or at home who would like to make a comment? Oh. On the city plan. Yes. Good timing. We started actually two minutes early and which is unheard of. No, I'm saying you're, so would you like to, would you at the table please? Cause that's the better video. Greetings. Thank you very much for this opportunity. I'm Kathleen Easton, E-A-S-T-O-N. I live on Holmes Road in South Burlington and I apologize that I didn't have much time to work on my comments for tonight. Our neighborhood is currently dealing with the impacts of several, several things. It's the intersection of city plan 2024, the LDRs, the home act that was passed by the assembly, two major developments that are going in near us. And so right now we're wading through a lot of materials but I want to share something with you and I certainly don't need to offend anyone or suggest that I don't approve the way people work but it's probably the last time I can make these comments about city plan. I thank you for the opportunity to offer public comment regarding city plan 2024. And I truly appreciate the efforts of city staffers, members of the zoning commission, as well as members of our community who have offered their insights and input over these many months toward the creation of a city plan that will shape our municipality for years to come. In fact, my husband and I have actually been interacting with staffers, commissioners and city counselors over the past year or so in a successful collaborative effort to create regulatory language, permitting owners to maintain their small parcels of the property and we have appreciated that. I share this with you prior to making my comments so that you'll understand that my remarks are directed not at any person or board but rather represent a difference of opinion regarding the creation and use of municipal maps for planning purposes. My husband and I live in a small older neighborhood of 10 homes. Some of our property owners have ties to the community that date back 40 or more years. In our case, we've owned our property since 2007 and obtained permitting and constructed a home during a two-year period from 2009 to 2011. The residents located on the site, if you can call it that, at the time we purchased the property was built sometime around 1950 and the property was cited in deeds and on plots long before that time. Therefore, in short, the site on which our home sits has been developed and were indeed ownership for perhaps a century. I relate these facts to you with reference to action item number 161 on page 93 of city plan 2024 in the Southwest Quadrant section that states explore opportunities for community access to undeveloped shoreline along Lake Champlain. And on page 94 there are mentions of increased public access to the lake, perhaps by way of a shared use path along the lake. In fact, on map number four depicting bike and pedestrian infrastructure, a planned shared use path runs right across our private property at the rear of our house. And connects to a planned lane, which has been located on the one lane on the paved private road, which residents maintain. Keep in mind that we purchased our property with our money. We have faithfully paid taxes since 2007 through the present and we maintain the property and are responsible for carrying all the expenses. Now, the staff and the commissioners have been very responsive to this concern that I'm bringing to you. And they have introduced language to the city plan 2024 maps to indicate which actions are only planned or proposed. And we've been told repeatedly that the public facility features are only visions or aspirational. And I also understand municipalities have the responsibility of creating city plans and thinking ahead to the future. I understand that it's your responsibility. In fact, I think they have to do that, whatever, eight years. And there are lengthy documents to shape that process and state that nothing on the map says that we're going to do this. That's it. I must tell you that on both a philosophical and practical basis, I feel that these indications as depicted on the city map of any type or any level of officiality are not just aspirational. Rather, they carry a sense of being acquisitional. It is almost as if I left here tonight and I saw you in my shiny car in the parking lot. And I liked it. And I said, I want that someday. And I took a big sticker and stuck it across the back of your car. And you'd have to drive around with it. It said, someday I'm going to have this car. It's kind of like what I feel is on our property. And I thought about it. Hopefully I had to put up our house on the market and the potential buyer did his or her due diligence and looked up our property on city map 2024, number four, and saw what appeared to be an intentional, dedicated, cheered, ped bike trail running right up the rear patio. So what would the person think? Shall I give them the answer that I've been told many times? No, don't worry. That's just visionary. That's just aspirational. So I realized that for the city council to even consider this thought would potentially open up a can of worms regarding many features that appear all over city maps and during the language of the document. And I suspect what I say here tonight will not substantially change this process. However, property rights are enshrined and protected not only in the US constitution, but also in documents of the state of Vermont and for what it's worth. And as much as I appreciate the efforts that staffers commissioners to address my concerns, I just don't think it's right for any government or agency of the government to take a proprietary position over an individual's private property. So that's just my opinion. And I thank you for listening to my comments. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other comments? I'll ask you one more time. Are there any other comments? And this public hearing on the city plan. Okay, seeing none, I would entertain a motion to close this public hearing. So moved. Second. All in favor? Aye. Okay. Item seven is the council discussion of the city plan. So we, whoops. So just a question. Do we need to go through what we went through at our last discussion of the city plan or have those notes already been? But those notes are all captured. So we should speak for you, Paul, but those notes, I believe are all captured. And Kelsey and Paul are working on a next iteration of a draft for you to consider integrating what you've previously talked about. We chose not to give that back to you tonight because the public hearing you just heard was on the version as currently warned, but that will come back to you in a future conversation. Okay, is that right, Paul? Yes. Okay. So council, do you want to discuss what the public brought up? And if you agree with some of those and we can give them direction to make some changes? Larry? I have a point of information or just a question. I've heard a number of comments about. I'm sorry, council. I'm sorry. I don't think your mic is on. Okay. It's not close. I'm not close enough. Okay, I'll move a few things out of the way. I've heard a number of comments about speed on Heinsberg Road and speed on Shelburne Road with regard to public school safety. Is there any recourse the city has with regard to state involving ourselves in discussions with the state Department of Transportation? Well, we did apply to the state and went through the process of slowing down or changing the posted speed limits on Heinsberg Road in particular. They, the state did a survey and came back and they reduced a few spots but not nearly as low as we would like. They have their own process and it's, well, they use percentages of people what they're actually driving, even if it's above the speed limit and that kind of moderates whether it ought to be reduced if the vast majority are driving faster, I guess. There's nothing in ordinance about that. Is that transportation policy versus? They trump us. But yeah, it's a state highway. So they will listen to us but they don't always take our advice. But tonight at the legislative forum, Kate Nugent, I believe stated that she was gonna be looking into this. A little louder, people can hear you. At the legislative forum, I believe was Kate Nugent. It was who stated that she was gonna be looking into this in order to see if municipalities could in fact override the minimums, the state imposed minimums. Yeah, great. So in terms of the city plan, I think some space involved an aspirational spot in the plan might include working with the state to lower speed limits where public have concerns. And I could offer that. I could write that to Paul and there's a suggestion because it seems to have come up a punch. Thank you. Okay. I'll say that I very much liked all of Bob Britt's comments and I certainly understand Kathleen Easton's comment. I don't quite know what this dotted line is on this map four. So before I kind of enshrine my opinion in a comment, I wanted to know exactly what that red dotted line was intended to represent. And just one moment. Sure. Okay, so map four, which is coming up on your screen is the plan bike pad improvements. So the dashed lines, the solid lines represent that which is and the dashed lines represent objectives for additional. What Ms. Easton is referring to specifically is a proposal along the lake essentially that would start at Queen Central Avenue and Queen City Park and make its way connecting to Holmes Road down to Bartlett Bay Road. So essentially continuing the path that goes north into the islands in some form. The Planning Commission did make two modifications as they were going through to try to clarify what role, I don't mean to do that, what role these maps play. One was to make sure that the language was all consistent of saying the word proposed because some maps said planned and some said proposed. The second one was to add this statement specifically to these maps to try to demonstrate that in this instance, for example, this is as far as the city has gone in terms of a study of this is to just draw a line on paper. In some cases, let's say the bike pad bridge over the interstate, there has been a full study of what are the obstacles, what are the easements, what are the wetlands, et cetera, et cetera, and the location gets more narrowed. A comprehensive plan can't really get to that granularity and so that's why this says conceptual in approximate locations. It's to signal an intent. And this is not the official city map. This is the comprehensive plan. So if it was gonna have any kind of regulatory role, it would need to be adopted separately, as you said, as the official map, which is a sort of a zoning tool, this is a plan. And that could in fact, I mean, the idea could be not a path through someone's backyard, but it could be along the road. Could be along a road, it's really too intended to signal an intent. I think one of the things that's important to note in here in this and the other maps, it's intentional the parcel lines are not shown on these maps because it's not intending to show that it's any individual properties issue. When it gets to the official map, that becomes very important because it's a regulatory role. This is really a concept. We measured this out and we were exploring at the staff and different ways that we could show this to try to show how conceptual it is. These dashed lines are about 80 feet wide in reality. That's way wider and to get any more balloon and more sort of less realistic runs into the problem that Bob Britt shared a few minutes ago of the map that the scale can't show anything. So it's sort of trying to thread this needle of showing a concept being specific enough that there is something that a group, the planning commission, the bike ped committee, the city council could say, hey, let's go explore this further but not be so specific as to say it's on this individual person's small property or in a large property, it probably does show that in some way but not where on that property. So the concept in a sense is people have always talked about how wonderful it would be to have a shared use path that goes around the lake. And this is a portion of that aspiration, I guess, in South Burlington in this particular neighborhood. Right, in this instance, that's exactly what that is. And in some other instances, such as down here off cheese factory road, it's to show that there is an intent to get access up to the city on Scott property. In some way, it doesn't say what way it just says that's a planning intent. I don't know if that brings any comfort to you, Kathleen, perhaps not, but I think that's a... I appreciate it. Somebody said I should set up a hot dog. In north of Williston Road too, there is a conceptual design for a path that goes through several properties that... So I support, I would like, I think Bob Britt made a great comment about the table of contents, not including the map. So I think that's important for people using the plan. And I thought it's use of vehicular money when we're looking at the bike and pedestrian map that makes sense too, vehicular transportation, if that's what you... And this comment about south of Tilly Drive on Hinesburg Road is coming about 189. They were all very good comments. The only note I would make to the 189 is before finalizing your decision on that, I'd love to take a look at the Envision 89 study to see if any of the conceptual alignments actually go outside of the existing right of way. That's the difference between what's shown at exit 12B, is those purple lines are potential outside of what is already owned by V-Trans. I know some of the designs are entirely within what's owned by V-Trans, in which case showing those isn't necessary. The purpose of this map is to show an intent of possibly going outside of onto private land. So if you would allow us to take a look at that and if it is, we'll show it. If it's not, we'll let you know. Do we articulate that anywhere? That that purple line, the chubby purple line is not necessarily land owned by V-Trans. That's a kind of a different understanding that the public may have. And I don't know if that gets to the ground. I guess that's a fair point. I guess we have a little bit of a redundancy of having both that little circle that shows and that there's something to be done and the purple lines that exit 12B show a version of that scheme. I guess that is a little bit of an inconsistency there. We don't say it specifically because a lot of these planned roads, some of this is in public right of way, some is in private right of way. I think part of the challenge with the exit 13 is that there are two radically different concepts that the council has not given an endorsement to one or the other. So I'm not sure I'd wanna show a conceptual one within the right of way that is implying one way or the other is your preference but if it goes outside of the right of way, maybe that should be shown as a being clear to folks. I just wanna say that I did take the car this morning through the new configured intersection of Wilson and Dorset and it was funny. Everybody was a little bit tentative but then the confidence, they went straight and that was, yeah. Yeah, that seems like it. Yeah, yeah. A hopeful tentative instead of a concerned tentative maybe. It was a hopeful tentative. It's been tentative for years but in a concerned way. Well, it was so weird for years, you know. It's like, I don't know which lane it's supposed to be in. Yeah, I really appreciate having only one left turn lane. I hated that too, especially with the other cars coming in. So, that looks great. Any other thoughts? How about council thoughts? Yeah. I agree, I thought Bob's comments were great. I agree with all of them. Should we go back to finish off where we left when we had the- Well, that's right. We had a few more, right? Yeah. Okay, that would make sense. It seems like we have the time. I should open up your email. I have your last comment as being on page 84 of the plan. What's on page 84? Was the last comment I haven't known about. Oh. The last change that was requested. Okay. Just to give you a mile post. Yep. Okay. Okay, did you have some more, Andrew? Actually, just on 83, goal 84, we talk about renewable energy development on open space and just, you know, in the climate action plan, we really tried to deprecate that and focused a lot on trying to balance keeping open space open and looking to our roofs and parking lots for solar. And I think we concluded that there's so much opportunity on the roofs and parking lots that if we were to make use of that available space and the available space that is also south facing, we would, you know, far overshoot our goal. So I don't know if we want to be saying here in the goal that, you know, this kind of implies you want to encourage it or, you know, I to be consistent with the climate action plan, I would personally want to remove those, the reference to renewable energy development on open space. Okay. And what page are you on? On page 83 in goal 84. Okay. Just a little bit of land over here. You all settled yet? I'll get there. Well, you don't have much of an audience tonight. So it's on that very, a lot of land. And what did you want to change that to? I would just delete the reference to renewable energy development. In goal 84. Yeah. What's on page 83, goal 84. So, so it would just read allow for landowner to make use of their land with conservation, agriculture. Should probably agriculture. Yeah. Agricultural. Agriculture. With conservation, agriculture or very limited residential use. Yes. That's my suggestion. And why? Because we spent a lot of time in the task force looking around the city for where the appropriate to site renewable energy facilities presumably solar. We did analysis of all of the impervious services in the city, the parking lots, the roofs. And you can see. Can you speak a little? Oh, I'm sorry, we did analysis of all the, the part in the impervious services, the parking lots and the roofs. And I attached those pages in my notes. So, you know, we said that the parking lots, the roofs could generate 161 megawatts of electricity, the parking lots 109. And we said, create a program to incentivize residents of businesses to install solar rays on their roofs and parking lots. And we said that we should identify roofs parking areas and other areas that do not currently provide carbon sequestration or storage, wildlife habitat, water filtration, et cetera. So the climate action task force thought that in South Brownton, at least we really shouldn't be incentivizing renewable energy on an open space that we had enough impervious services that we could replace that on. Yeah, but if they, if we're gonna allow agriculture and somebody wants to put some fixed solar panels at a height where they can still plant crops, I mean, who's to object to that? Right. True. Yeah. There would be success, but it's not yet. Can you, you probably, Michael, if you can't go there, you'll have to... Oh, we can go there. We just want to see you. I already messed it up. Councillor Barrett, there's been a lot of talk about combining agriculture with solar panels, but they would have to be quite a lot higher off the ground. None of them that I've seen have been successful. The only places where agriculture and renewable energy seem to work is wind energy because they weigh up and you can have, you can plant crops and you can run cattle or dairy, but not solar. Yeah, I wouldn't want to like prevent somebody because if a new technology comes along or a new methodology, I wouldn't want to preclude them from doing that on their land if they had the opportunity, especially if you can combine that with agriculture. So I wouldn't leave it out. I guess the question of emphasis, should it be a goal? I mean, not putting it as a goal, I mean, I just don't want to preclude it, it's just not our goal to do it. Not the most essential point, but I think this is a bit of consistent with the climate action plan. I guess I feel like we have to come at it from every angle we can too. I would see it as a goal. But I understand your point that it's good to reuse impervious surface, but I can't even think about where this could happen, but if there's a situation where someone could really make a positive difference, where there isn't already a developed surface that they could reuse, I'd say let them. I mean, I don't know. Yeah, I tend to fall on the side of Tim. What's the risk? The risk is that we're opening the gates to everybody, putting solar panels over, tearing down trees and... But my only point is that the task force considered this and the city adopted the climate action plan. The climate action plan really makes, strikes this balance in the pages I attached to not encourage or incentivize solar unopened space because we have enough non-opened space. But this could be wind too, right? Potentially, you can't really do wind in the South Burlington. Because we're limited to 40 feet by statute and you really need to get up to 100 feet. 100 feet per what? For wind. Oh yeah, not wind. You can't really do wind. But just, I mean, yeah, I mean, that's... There's very little wind around here. For developed wind. But this just leaves it open. Can I just jump in and add just two little points of clarification. First, this is for the principally conservation and open space future land use type. If you look at the map nine, it's actually very widespread in the city. And there are a lot of little pieces here and there. It's not just big chunks of currently open space. So there's a lot of small fingers, if you look in the map, in different places, in existing neighborhoods, in commercial areas around Meadowlands Business Park, where it's not necessarily as suitable for commercial agriculture or something, but it may be suitable for some amount of small renewable generation, whether solar or geothermal or something else. And the other thing is just to note that it's a little bit of semantics, but the goal is it states allow. And it doesn't say encourage, it says allow. So the intention being that we would maintain our LDRs for these areas to allow these uses, not necessarily that the city is taking affirmative actions towards setting up programs to support renewable in this area, but just leaving that open as an opportunity for landowners that own properties in all of these little fingers and bits and pieces of the city, especially when our other regulations restrict them from doing most other things, besides what was already otherwise listed, conservation, agriculture, and very low density residential. I apologize for my voice. I promise I feel fine. I just had a cold last weekend and it's still kind of making me sound funny. So if you can't hear me, just let me know. Just a couple more sentences to add to that because energy production is a little bit of a unique area in Vermont law where it is not, we can allow certain elements of it under our regulations, but generally if it's connected to the grid, it's regulated at this state level only. So our plan does play a regulatory role in this case. Later in the plan on page, or I guess earlier in the plan on page 32, it talks about where our priority areas are. So it talks about this plan recognizes that the land of South Braulence is valuable, important. City needs to focus on rooftop solar, solar over parking, creative opportunities for a solar over landfill integrated with transportation system. I think this would be a good area if you have some specific clarity about what you mean in these principally open space areas. The state regulatory bodies will look to your plan and say, what is the city looking to achieve? So sometimes it may be small scale in some of these fingers, it could also just for transparency be the scale of Claire solar off Heinsberg Road. That is a larger scale solar array. And so I don't know if there's anything you want to say to any of that, but I think here it talks about the priority areas. It does say allow if you want to be more clear and if you feel that there's a need for additional clarity, we're happy to help you with that. So question, when the regulatory agency looks at, someone wants to put in another array and they read this plan, is the language on 32, does that potentially convince them that the city's preference is the almost infill of solar or do you think the language in goal 84 gives them enough leeway to say, well, yeah, but they really want a solar arrays on open space as well. I think that realistically, what would take place is that an applicant who is striving to put a solar somewhere would look to the most advantageous language that they can find and make the case to the public utilities commission on that. And the public utilities commission would look at the totality and say, in totality, what is the city looking to do? The challenge with the regulatory body is that they have to make a decision on an individual application, not on a approach. So I don't know, you've got a little more experience in this field than I do. I'd also say that the enhanced energy plan section of this city plan speaks a lot more to this and part of it is identifying local and state known and possible constraints. So when it says like allow renewable energy in this green area, it doesn't mean the whole green area. If the state comes in and someone comes and applies to the state to be able to do a solar array, they will look at all of our other things, all of the article 12, all of the environmental protection or other maps that we have protected areas mapped in. So it's not that the whole green area will be that. It's wetlands, habitat blocks, floodplains, all of these things that we otherwise protect will be lifted out of sort of the prime areas as well. And it does speak a little bit to preferential sites as being on developed parcels. So can I maybe make a suggestion then given this conversation to add where we say allow rural energy, maybe a parenthetical, which says other than in areas and picking up the words of the climate action plan and what else we're saying that provide for wildlife habitat, water filtration, carbon sequestration or other natural resource values, something like that. So in goal 84, so you're qualified for the landowners. Too much verbiage, just leave it the way it is. I'm happy with the way it is. It says everything you need to see, it allows for these uses. Well, to avoid ambiguity, Tim, that's a good point too. Well, if somebody wants to have agriculture and they have some buildings or they have some pens and they want to put solar on top of those pens, I mean, that would be a good use. And that wouldn't be at first to the natural resource quality. If somebody has that pen and they want to put a couple of solar trackers, right? What's the problem with that? There wouldn't be. Okay, so then let's leave it in. So when we use the term to make use of their land with conservation uses, is that too broad in your mind or does that really cover your concern that the conservation use is a broader language and really incorporates that you would continue to conserve riparian areas? And I don't know. I think it would make sense to indicate some limit on where we think solar fails should go. And it would make sense to indicate that here to avoid confusion and ambiguity with other parts of the plan. So that would be my preference. Well, I guess I just look back at the language on 32 and that isn't very ambiguous to me. That's pretty specific. It is. So maybe the only four could reference that or something. Just something that, you know, because it's interesting this plan is almost like Jekyll and Hyde in some ways. I mean, it says something in one place that says something completely different in another place and there's not a lot of sinew that ties it together. And then, you know, just maybe a little bit of sinew would be helpful. I'm aware that UVM has a proposal now for a solar application on some of their land adjacent to the course barn. It's in permitting now. Isn't that Banturkovic's development? Yeah. It's near it. But I don't know if that's... Oh, it's not? Oh. This is along the... I know it said UVM, but... My point is that I never thought that a straight solar application on bare land was good use of land. Beyond that though, there are gonna be places where it's gonna be, in this particular spot, for example, nothing else is gonna happen there. It abuts the interstate, it abuts Swift Street. So I'm, oh, is it Swift Street? Swift Street. So I'm just saying, I think the flexibility is okay in this regard because there will be sites. But if we're talking about private ownership of some of the land that's in question in the Southeast quadrant, that lands too valuable for a solar application. It'll be much more to be thought of there. So I mean, I can accept this language right now. Because it's wide enough, it's broad enough for it to be included in the 50,000 foot view that we have here. It does seem to be a 50,000 point view. Just another point there. On page 28, action number 36 is in the energy section. It states support projects that are cited to avoid state and local known constraints and mitigate impacts to state and local possible constraints. That's consistent with the enhanced energy plan that's putting the enhanced energy plan into the city plan itself. I think that language also speaks to what I was saying before and it puts it into the city plan as an action of the city. That would be a place that if you wanted to strengthen that language, it would make, that could be a location where you could add and prioritize rooftops or develop sites or something like that. Yeah, could be just added to action number 36. No, that would help. There's also the one, 35 is the one before it. Support applications for renewable energy generation projects to the Vermont PUC located on existing impervious surface. Good. I don't know if those two read together are sufficient. I like your additional language in 30 prioritizing rooftops, which one? In 36? Pervious surfaces. Well, right, yes. Does that add to the language that's on 35? Existing impervious surface. So that's building rooftops, that's parking lots, that's existing heavily compacted soils even. There's a lot of things considered existing impervious. I think you were gonna add several words on 33. 36. 36. Yep. So I was saying we could add words to 36. Where's the constraints? Unless need stronger glasses. Action 36 says support projects that are cited to avoid state and local known constraints. That's fine, thank you. The state and local known and possible constraints is from state statute. It's how we have to sort of, some things are known constraints and effectively means it's prohibited to be doing things there. And other things are possible constraints and there has to be some mitigation. Those both occur at the state and at the local level. So I don't know if the council feels that reading 35 and 36 together sufficiently prioritizes impervious surface like rooftops or if you'd like to add prioritizing rooftops to number 36, it's up to the council. My personal view is that these actions are strong enough. What I think it needs is a cross-reference from goal 84, but if other folks don't think it needs it, that's fine, I just think there's not a sinew, like it's just kind of a schizophrenic plan. But I think just like Larry said, it's like a 50,000 foot view. And like Tim said, if you build a farming structure, you can put solar on it. I mean, there are ways for- There's nothing here prohibits that. Just to put goal 84 in context, I think a reference to some of this. It says allow for land owners to make use of their land with conservation, agriculture, just to say not agricultural, renewable energy development and or very limited residential use. So that leaves it open to whatever it is they think they need that they can put through the public utilities commission and any other local and state regulations. And then they get into the weeds. There you go for a minute. Yeah, yeah. Right. That's the problem. It's a problem for you. It's not a problem for me. No, okay. But you're gonna make it a problem for the land owner if you take out that piece because it's a national document and they should be allowed to do what they want for renewable energy development. Okay. So moving on, Action 130 at the top of the page, did you leave out the sea and city? Did you already catch that? Identifying the plan for areas of the itty? Did you already get that? Probably a little itty bitty city. Or a growing city. What's on the web is like the same document that we have that I printed out along. Thank you. You got that? Okay. Now do. Can I go on to page 84? Sure. So it's just a little bit of wordsmithing that the large paragraph at the top of the page because it says the city has allocated certain areas of the city to remain unbuilt with significant development. So I know what you're trying to say but can we just word a little bit better? It says you wanna remain without significant development or just remain unbuilt? Can I be unbuilt? Unbuilt with significant development, it's a little. Man, I know what you're trying to say. I just, there's probably a little better way to say it so it's not ambiguous at all. We talked about this last time and I think it may already be in Kelsey's draft. So you recommended adding unbuilt without significant development. Okay, I wasn't, I'm sure. That is actually my last note from the previous section. Okay, so that was it. Thank you. Okay, good. Is there any other? 93, hold on, let me just keep checking here. Hold on. Just a second. So when we talked about Willa Park, we referenced the desire to have- Kendra, what cage are you on? 93. 93, when we talk about Willa Park, we referenced the intent to have a conservation easement. I'd like to have a parallel sentence for Hubbard Park and I had drafted that. I said something like, but for limited development, the city intends to maintain Hubbard as a natural area and similar to Willa was committed to permanent conservation of Hubbard Park and we'll be pursuing that conservation in the near future. Yeah. All right, we should put that in. Yeah, include Hubbard Natural Area and Park. You need to go back to 92 after this. So can you show me where this, because obviously- I would agree with that. This wheeler, Hubbard, the city improvement, we're going back to page 92 now. Oh, we're going back to- Let's finish 93. Oh, I'm sorry. Where is it on this? It's under city recreation. It's sort of like right in the middle of city recreation. Okay. Oh, the permanent conservation of the city on Wheeler Nature Park. Okay. And you want to add in Hubbard. Are we good with that? Yeah. What do you want to add exactly? Are we reading again? Yeah, read it again. Where else? Please. Sure. So it's the fifth lineup where it says Hubbard, blah, blah is planned for accessible passive recreation. I'd like to add, but for that limited development, the city intends to maintain Hubbard as a natural area and similar to Wheeler is committed to permanent conservation of Hubbard Park and we'll be pursuing that conservation in the near future. Couldn't we just make it simple? The city is committed right there. One, two, three, four, five, six, 10 lines up in the bottom. The city is committed to permanent conservation of the city owned Wheeler Nature Park and Hubbard Nature Park properties for preservation of the national of the natural communities, recreational opportunities. Yeah, we could and we'll be pursuing conservation of both of those parcels in the near future. Yeah, I mean, yeah, just added it. I don't think, I think you just say we're committed to permanent conservation of both of them. It says, oh, and it says, and we will be pursuing this in the near future, sure. As long as it doesn't preclude a nice paved bike path across Hubbard. Well, it won't, we've already decided that. We've already decided that. We still might be negotiating about the lights, but. The only point of clarity for just for me would be to move that sentence below the descriptive sentence of Hubbard Park. So describe Wheeler, describe Hubbard and then have the thing about both of these. That makes sense too. Right, thank you. I just didn't want to make a change that you didn't know about. That sounds really good. Okay, so then do we need to go back to 92 for something? Yeah, the top of 92, you say are poorly integrated and can we just come up with a different way to say that? Poorly integrated? Yeah, so the neighborhood and commercial strip are poorly integrated and disconnect, but I know what you mean. Where are you to? It happened earlier in the document where we had to change that wording too. Well, what, I don't know. That seems pretty clear to me. What do you think they intend in that need to be better integrated? I always like making things positive. Need to be better integrated and connected. You're just trying to say that the poorly connected. Is that what you're trying to say? There's sort of two pieces to it. It's both actual connection and also more transitional in between so that they feel like they're part of each other. So you're not feeling like you're walking sort of through a force field to get from one to the other. It's more that there's a commercial space that's one block in this way and then there's a residential home that's one block the other way. It's a little bit more of a fluid boundary. Some of the feedback that we've gotten over the years is that for those folks who live in the neighborhoods near Shelburne Road, they don't necessarily feel that Shelburne Road is their neighborhood. It is the road by which people are driving a long distance and they can get to if they want to but it doesn't feel like a portion of the neighborhood as opposed to let's say, further at the north end of the corridor, there's a little more of that feeling of the commercial is more connected to their neighborhood. So it's about sort of are there big wide driveways between there is the scale of the building sort of that site design kind of like, how do you take the commercial part who is largely historically been oriented towards the traveling public and make sure it's also serving the needs of immediate neighborhoods. That's kind of what that's trying to say, but if you'd like to use some different words that's perfect. Something like feel isolated from each other is a similar kind of thought. Well, I mean, I would think that the orchards would want to feel isolated from the automobile dealerships on Shelburne Road, right? But there are some- But not necessarily from like, Gillespie. Or the bagel place. Right, no, so there are some businesses that they would like to walk to, you know, or if you look at the O'Dell Eastwood Commons complex area on there, that's very mixed use, right? People can go to restaurants or the shopping center or they can go over from Eastwood's and that's pretty, there's a distinct transition there, but it's very mixed, it has a feeling of mixed use, right? The orchards is pretty distinctly different from the edges of Shelburne Road. Well, is there a way to say that they're, you know, maybe not everywhere, but in appropriate places, there needs to be better integration and connection? It says it in the next sentence. What do you recommend, Tim? I just was trying to get rid of the word integrated, that's all. That's all. Why? Are they just poor and disconnected? Is that what you're saying? No, we'd gone through this before with this earlier section and I just thought it was, I caught it again, that's all. I can't remember the earlier section. You don't, okay. What did we do? They changed the wording, but you know, it's okay if everybody else is fine with it, it's okay, I can accept it. Okay. We could simply change it to something along the lines. The neighborhood and the commercial strip are both physically and something feel disconnected. Okay. I mean, if you don't, if the word integrated is the one that you're trying to get out of, we don't have to say both. We can just say they have the feeling of and the physical reality of being disconnected from one another. Okay. Is that, with that? And the point is we want to change that. Feeling and appearance, certainly. Well, feeling, function and appearance, I guess I would say, being disconnected. Well, again, can't you just say it in the positive way then? Well, I guess it's stating what needs to be fixed. And then the next sentence says future investment supports vitality by connecting. So that's the positive. Okay. All right. What's next? Page 103. 103, it's at a table. So I'm just, similar to the prior discussion about solar, I'm just confused by this age and Paul, maybe just a matter of figuring out how this, what's required for energy plan relates to the, what the task force concluded, because it talks about the land available, excluding roofs, not excluding other impervious. And it kind of flips on its head, what the task force looked to is the land available for solar. So these appendices and the data from them are taken directly from the CCRPC. They're the data sets that we need to use to qualify as an enhanced energy plan under state statute. So while it is framed in a different way from the climate action plan, it's the state level data that we need to be using that we got from our regional planning commission directly in this form. CCRPC and Melanie needed what we're at the table, when we did the climate action plan and we talked about this very thing. Yep. And we came back to our early, we came back to her early in our city plan process and said, what do we need to do to be able to make our city plan and enhanced energy plan? Can we just take the climate action plan and put it in the city plan? And she said, no. We had to change it. Yes. Okay. We don't have to change our ultimate policies, but the analysis of potential is a requirement under Act 174. And that is what you're asking about, about the acres available too. Yeah, and you're saying Act 174 requires you to look at different acres. It requires you to look at under the state definition of a prime potential and a base potential, how much land is available. It's essentially a process that the state is requiring each town to analyze what's available, in order to determine what its plan is, which in our case is prioritizing rooftop. In many communities, there is nowhere near enough rooftop to meet their goals. And so it is sort of pushing towns to look at their land in order to get the benefit of ultimately having, what's the right word, under the PUC review. Substantial deference. Yeah. So we're not required to do an enhanced energy plan at all, but if this is, the carrot is, this plan gets substantial weight, substantial deference if it's adopted. So the analysis is required. I mean, it starts by saying this guide reports how much solar generation potential is just in the municipality. Someone reading this and reading the climate action plan would be like, whoa, how did these two things are completely different? Yep. Should we say in accordance with the Act 174 rules? Like something which, you know, so we're gonna do this. I mean, the title of this section is Act 174, Enhanced Energy Plan. Title of this section, okay. And it cites the models that it includes. It's, and those are different models and some other things. So I think the data as well, cited. It is, if you just sort of, if you look at it and the numbers are different, that can be, you know, it's not obvious as to why, but it is include an explanation of why that this is compliant with Act 174 or the state level to get that substantial difference is included in this section. Okay. Moving on, what else? Page 104, we say that we generate 32 megawatts of energy from renewable technology. And the, again, the climate action plan, I think I had number like 22. Climate action plan, it's a 22-544. Sorry, what page was that, Andrew? It's the next page. The next page. That's the top. That's half the box. A new little electricity generation targets. Well, it says right in the italics that as of 13123, we generate 32,000 megawatts of renewable energy and the climate action plan said we generate 22,000. So I'm just 32 versus 22,000. So those are numbers that, again, we got directly from the CCRPC and we can follow up with Melanie about. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Next. I have a question about map six. And I don't know if this is the appropriate. Well, let's talk about map six. So there's just two areas. There's the one on, let me call it the former long property that's showing a road. And I'm not sure it's appropriate to continue to show that road. Can we strike that? Map six. So that was to connect those two neighborhoods on either side of long. Is that 15? 15, yeah, 15. Was it actually a real road? No, it just says. No, it just, okay. Map says proposed road. Proposed roadway because this was. May I suggest you hold that comment until after next week's executive session? Sure. Thanks. Sure. And then just a question about number 20 on that same map. I know there's some bypass there that connects the neighborhoods. I guess I had not understood that there was a potential plan for roads or maybe that's not what the gray line is. I just had a question about that. What are we looking at? Where is, oh, here's 20, right down here. Oh. You have to make your map. Oh, those tiny little numbers. Yes. Yeah, they're hard to find. Okay. So what was the comment again? What's the question? When it says reserve for future use. So right now I think that's a bike path. Currently there's nothing there. That. It's the, it's sider mill drive that doesn't connect. There is a bike path that's sort of, that is very proximate to that, that heads up into Butler Farms. Yes, that's the one. But this, that's actually just a hair. It's sort of where the blue line is that's outlining this whole thing. Oh, okay, that's what. This is a reserve for future roadway and amenities. And where exactly is that? So that's from, if you were to be on. Oh, oh, okay. And then head immediately east and then down. And so that's the purple of reserve for future use. And then the yellow would connect then Siklin Road to a sider mill drive. Then Siklin, oh, you know, we're that little houses right now. So again, that the gray reserve means that is that different than a proposed roadway? Like what is that? I'm not sure I'm seeing a gray. Do you mean the purple? Purple. Is that purple? Yeah. So the difference between those two would be. Oh, mine's gray. Okay. The difference between the purple and the yellow is that the idea at the time was that the purple would mean that we do not have the intent of building a road in the near future. However, if there is to be development on the property and similarly with the I-89 that that land should be reserved for a future generation to maybe want to make that decision as opposed to the yellow, which would be saying if there was a development project on this property, it is our expectation that you were connect that you were building the roadway from in this case, Van Siklin to Sider Mill. So that's the difference of reserving the space for it versus actually building it. Okay. I'm okay with that. So that's where that little dead end in Sider Mill goes. Yeah. Yeah, exactly. So they can develop all those fields. You know, because there's a bunch of solar panels in it. Eventually. And also there's a trade-off that was done on Rayburn, right? To remove houses from the habitat quarter. Yeah. While that quarter and move them on the either end. Right. That was a deal that was done with- Right, but that road goes right through that habitat. It does. It does, but- I mean, if it were to go- There are no homes. It ends and there's nothing there. Okay. Next. Any other questions, thoughts? Good. Okay. Well, that was easy. So the next steps here are, I believe that your next scheduled discussion would be December 4th meeting. Our expectation at- Or what our plan is to give to you updated text maps as where you've concluded those. If there was some homework items for us to tell you what the homework is. And if there are any items where you had said, we want to come back to this for further discussion, we will flag those for you for your discussion. Our hope would be that at the end of the- On that December 4th meeting that you are comfortable in, if you want to make any changes, formally voting to warn a public hearing on the updated plan with those, with the target date of January 2nd. So after the holidays for that. That would give you the opportunity to have your second public hearing on the updates that you talked about. On December 2nd. No, on January 2nd. Excuse me, January 2nd. Yes, that's what I meant. That would serve as your second public hearing. You could adopt the plan at that time, or if for whatever reason at that time, you feel that there are additional changes needed, you still have time in your schedule to either make changes that night or hold a special meeting the following week, warn a public hearing and hold that hearing before the plan expires. So we're giving you a couple of opportunities to make sure that this is ultimately the plan you want. Okay, that sounds good. Yeah, great. Great. So that's what we'll do. We'll see you December 2nd, or no, 4th. Well, you'll get to see me on Monday, but no way. I'm not going to. Okay, Thanksgiving. Yeah, I'll see. All right. Just a reminder on that night, on December 4th, you'll receive the proposed budget presentation, TIF bond document discussion and the city plan. Right, so at that point, this city plan should be, because we will have seen those additional edits. So if we read through it, we shouldn't have any more edits. And we will make sure it's clear what has changed so that you're not putting away as well, though. Hopefully. Lots of turkey, so you're kind of like, yeah, that's original, okay. All right, thank you very much. You could serve us turkey sandwiches. So is there any other business? Okay, seeing none, I would entertain a motion to adjourn. So moved. Second. All in favor? Aye. Okay, good meeting. Amen.