 We have to get to the agenda. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Monday, August 24th meeting of the molecular planning commission. First thing we have to do is approve the agenda. Everyone will take a look at what might sit around. Motion to approve. The second. Okay. Motion by Barbara second by Stephanie, all in favor of approving the agenda. Say aye. Aye. Aye. Next item on the agenda is the comments from the chair. I don't have anything, if not already on the agenda, because we have an item further down about the subcommittee interest. And I do have a tentative list here of assignments. I'll run by you guys. But what do we get to that? So no comments. General business. Do we have any members of the public? We would like to. Discuss anything. It's not on the agenda. Doesn't look like anyone else is here. Okay. The next item is to consider the minutes from our last meeting, August 10. Take a look at those. I just have one quick question. Under the presentation from Berlin town consultant. It says planning commission member Paulie McMurtry. I'm assuming that's the Berlin. Commission member. Yeah. Okay. Maybe that's implied. With Berlin in front of it. Okay. And her name is spelled correctly there, but is not correct in the also intended. So I'll make that change. I'll make that change. I'll make that change. I'll make it. Make McMurtry. Above. So is that our brandy? That was, yeah. Nice to see her again. Mike, can you add Berlin's about last sentence to under that section further one, the Berlin planning commission will be looking for letters of support. Just to make sure that's clear. Okay. We have a motion to approve with those changes. I'll motion to approve with those changes. Okay. Okay. Move a second. Okay. Motion by Stephanie second by Barb. All in favor of approving the minutes with the two changes noted. Say aye. Aye. You post. Okay. And then that's approved. Moving on. Okay. So. What we're planning to do is, is do some more planning for the city plan. To gear up. Okay. So the reason why we're doing that really is. It's not that we're just obsessed with planning. It's that we don't, we don't have a lot of. Chapters lined up right at this moment. All we do have is part of the transportation plan. Not the entire thing. So. When we get done, you know, talking about. The subcommittees and the, and. Outreach and, and in those things, then we can. You know, take our toes into the transportation plan a little bit. But the first thing we have is to summarize the interest in the subcommittees. So I just jotted down based on the answers we got from last time, putting three people on each subcommittee. Aaron and area on were flexible. So since you guys were flexible. So I just wanted to make sure that. Aaron's not here, but Aaron, let me know if you want. So any moving around. Okay. But what I have for people's strongest preferences were for the cotton for the continuity and structures of committee. I've Stephanie John and Marcella who ranked those the highest. And for national resources. I have Stephanie Marcella and Aaron. I put you on there, Aaron, because of. Your current employment. Your expertise. For economic development, I have Barb, John and Kirby. For housing, I have bar Kirby and, and area on and I put her on there because of her expertise. And for transportation, I have bar Aaron and area on. So anybody wants anything moved around. I mean, I think we probably have some flexibility to do that. But that sounds like a good foot with everyone. We can. Lock that in, I guess. Any comments. Okay. That's good to me. All right. Well, I'll send that around then as a follow up for this meeting. Which brings us to discuss the short term, long term. Public participation options. And whether we want to do a survey. I guess we can start talking about the survey because there are some big pros and cons of that. The pros of a survey is one that we can go ahead and try to get some feedback now. If, if everyone feels like, you know, we'd like to touch base with the residents of our city. Before diving farther into the plan. Then serve us. I think a survey is a decent option to do that if we want something that we're not aware of. I think it can be done in a way in which it's helpful. I think that we're all sophisticated enough to know the limitations of a survey, which is important. You know, we know that it's not scientific. You know, we know it's qualitative information. It's not quantitative and we shouldn't use it as possible. It's just to kind of inform. And maybe to let us know. About some things that some ideas might be out there that we're not aware of. The benefits are more about just kind of. Getting a feel, right? It's, it's not about telling us definitively what the, what the residents of the town that, you know, think or want. You know, the downsides to it. Like I was just hitting at our. That, you know, it's not scientific. It's. You know, it's not something we're going to be able to lean on heavily if, you know, it's a justify anything. It's not something we're going to be able to do. And it takes time. It's going to take some effort to put something together. So we have to decide that's worthwhile. So, so with that, you know, I'd like to know what everyone else thinks. And if you don't love a survey, if you have any other ideas for short term. Outreach. Let us know. Has what has happened so far in terms of the public knowing what is going to happen. I mean, I don't know. I mean, you know, you know, meeting of the subcommittees that we had at the pavilion. I mean, I assume the public knew about that. Yeah. That's the biggest. I mean, and also, I mean, actually that you raise one point there is there's different layers of public as far as I can see it. You know, there's, there's the public. That's. Part of the city government kind of like us, you know, as volunteers anyway. You know, you know, you know, you know, you know, maybe not at that level. And then there's like people who barely pay or barely, you know, don't pay a ton of attention to this stuff, which is not sentence criticism. So yeah, if you, so we've, we've done outreach within. You know, the subcommittees. I think Mike has been our. Representative. To those as well. I mean, and he's been the liaison. So I think. Like, you know, that's a form of outreach. I can't think of anything we've really done citywide in a big way. I mean, personally, I find it's, it's generally easier to go out and get. To a certain extent reaction to proposals. And it is to give people a blank piece of paper and try to try to get stuff. People have different opinions on that different. There, there's certainly, you know, the, the Paul Castellos of the world who will, you know, throw that blank sheet of paper. And once you've got it, they want, want the public just to brainstorm what their goals and thoughts and ideas are. And then you pick out of there. We did that in 2008, 2009. That's kind of how we've got the 2010 plan was a lot of that. Starting with starting with the community. And, you know, there's value to each way. And, you know, my preference has always been to, if we want to be strategic, then we really have to start with people who know what they're doing. And fortunately Montpelier is a community with a lot of people. A lot of collective brain trust with, you know, their transportation people in town, their housing people in town, their energy people in town. And we can work with those committees, come up with our plans and then go to the public and say, you know, this is, this is the direction, you know, the planning department didn't write the energy plan. The energy committee helped them write the energy plan. So. And see if the public and city council agrees with the direction that we want to head. But it's all about approach. I mean, the planning commission can disagree and want to go on a different direction and really take it, take it more to the people and start to building it out from there. But the thought has been all along that unfortunately taken longer than we've wanted, but to kind of take this, develop these strategic plans, start building the chapters, get them online and then really get that public outreach to get what to hear from people about the direction we're recommending for the various chapters. My only concern is that, that the public will perceive that we're way down the road. And so, and then they'll come back and say, why didn't you ask us? That's about messaging. We just have to be ready and willing to change course. You know, even if we've invested a year into developing it, you know, it's not much different than the zoning. We spent two years developing a zoning. The public wasn't in love with it. And we sat back down and we took another stab at it. And then the second one they weren't in love with. So we went back and we took a third stab at it until we got it right. I'm hoping we don't have three shots at our, at our city plan, but. Yeah, that's what I really liked. I think there's value in at least starting with putting something on there and finding with 12 chapters, maybe. Eight of them just. People go and say, yeah, whatever. You know, that's, that's fine. We like those directions, but we want you to be more aggressive or. Less aggressive on your energy plan or. You know, our priorities should be in the transportation. And we're, you know, they're the plan allows too many cars in the downtown. We should be doing, you know, you know, because that's with the transportation plan. Their goal in that one is to make it easy to live and work without a car, but it's not going so far as to say we don't want cars in the downtown. We just want to, you know, so it's, it's, it's a. What, what does the public think that's where the transportation committee landed. The public may land in a different place in which case we've got to go back and revisit that strategy. And the energy committee landed in a different place too. So do we try to. Yeah, a little bit for the, for the, for the planning commission to smooth out between the two. Okay. What, well, if we do kind of wait until we have more. Written down. For people to look at and give a feedback on what, what does public outreach look like then? Is it. Meetings and online. Engagement. What else. And this, this gets a little bit to letter C. The grant ideas. I mean, that's a little bit of what I was, you know, going to lean on a consultant. Kind of talk about, you know, we're still going to be in COVID. Into next year. I'm convinced, you know, I'm, I'm considering most of this fiscal year to still be. Under a certain COVID umbrella. I don't think even if, even if a vaccine comes out that it will be fully deployed before June 30th. So I think whatever public outreach we're doing is going to have to accommodate that. And I think we're going to need to have somebody who's experienced and knows how to, knows how to draw information out of people and get people to comment. And it's going to have to be very, very much multifaceted, you know, coordinating outreach at the senior center is going to get to one group and one demographic, but it's a key demographic. And then having other meetings that are going to get out, you know, we've got to have a conversation of how do we get to young people? How do we get, you know, high school, college age kids to give us their thoughts of what, you know, what do they see? What's their future? You know, extinction rebellion is a bigger topic for them than it would be for the baby boomers. And we want to make sure that the plan reflects, you know, as much as we can. Of course the decision makers are all us old people, but we do want to get the public input from, from as broad a range of people as we can. And I think that's, that's where the having somebody, the professional that really knows how to get those online. I can't do those online pieces. But other people have an act for doing it. Well, especially with COVID, you know, other people might have a better idea given that the strategies that we need to pursue with that. Yeah. And do we break it into chapters? We only talk about the biggest chapters, you know, do we, you know, have, you know, five presentations over five weeks where, you know, you know, I come in and do a presentation with the, with Kirby and the chair of the housing and we present the housing and we have a zoom forum and we take questions and comments and, you know, can we, do we think we can draw enough people? How can we draw more people to that type of thing? Is there, you know, and that's going to get a little bit to the survey too. Is it, is that going to be an effective way to get some of the questions? A city plan is a big document. It can sometimes be, I've seen some of these surveys back when I was doing this for regional planning commissions at these 15, 20 page surveys. That, you know, how many of them, and sometimes you could get a good chunk of people to turn them in and to spend the time. You know, you might only get, you know, 80 of them back out of a community of three or 4,000, but it's a pretty good return and try to summarize those. But I think we're, we're talking at a lot of different levels here about a lot of different types of feedback. But I think part of what might be helpful is thinking about what could we, what sort of feedback can we actually get now? We don't have a final plan yet. We're not asking for feedback on that. But it's something like we talked about our overall priorities last week. Can we just say, here's our list of overall priorities. What do you think you agree? What are we missing? And just to, it's also an opportunity. Any of this is an opportunity for providing some education on what this plan is, what we're doing. I'm sorry. I have a small human in the background that you can probably hear. So it's, I think there could be something sooner. That's a list of, it's a survey, but it's a here, here are the priorities. Are these the right priorities? What are we missing? Sort of thing. That's also an opportunity to say, Hey, we're doing this. This update. And we talk about it all of our meetings. So you can check in at any of those meetings. If you're interested in any specific topics. So giving some of that information would be helpful. And then another thought. Just initially, once we get all of the. Once we have all the chapters, I think it would be really helpful to start with. A higher level conversation on our end of each of the aspirations and make sure that we have one. If we have one really solid, clear statement for each chapter of what it is that we're trying to do. Then we could do the same thing with that. So here's the transportation chapter in transportation. Here's what we're trying to do. Here's the housing chapter in housing. Here's what we're trying to do. And then it's a simple. Statement that we can send out and get feedback on. So it doesn't have to be the whole plan. It doesn't have to be here. All of the little ways that we're going to do it. What is it that we're trying to do? Yeah. If everybody's on board with. What we want to do. Then we can deal with how we're going to get there. And I think that how often includes a lot of education on how we came up with that. How. But if we're in agreement that we're here. We're going to get there. We're going to get there. We're going to get there. We're going to get there. We're going to get there. We're going to get there. We're going to get there. We're going to get education on how we came up with that how, but if we're in agreement that we here's where we want to go, then we can figure out how to get there. And we can educate on the process. As the planning commission, as the people as the subject matter experts of. How best to get to that aspiration. I'm in favor of reaching out now. And starting to develop some way to do that. I think there's, there's a lot of benefits to it. I think it's a good idea. I think it's a good idea. I think it's a good idea. I think it's a good idea. I think it's a good idea. I think it's a good idea. I think it's a good idea for people so that. When we. I think, yeah, I think a few people have already iterated this, but when we come out with the full plan, we don't want that to be the first time people find out that we're working on it. So. It has that benefit as well as the information. Gathering. So it's kind of a notice and. Information gathering type thing. So I think it's a good idea. I think it's a good idea. I think it's a good idea. I think it's a good idea. But maybe that idea of keeping it simple and high level would be good because I think. There is a, I mean, I think the concern about creating a good survey that we can do anything with. With the capacity we have. Is a real one. So I like the idea of using. The aspiration. And so sort of the overall goal statements. Crafting a message around that. And then can we reach out to. The community like partners. Organizations to help with the outreach. Rather than just. Blasting it out randomly. I think that's. From a committee standpoint, we'll have to just. Subcommittee standpoint. Figure out how we want to roll those out. Because I think. I mean, we've got. Front porch forum. We've got. The Montpellier websites and. We've got. We've got. We've got. But certain community leaders, certain. People are going to be. More connected. I think, I think just depends on the topic that's out there and we would. Roll it out. As best the, the subcommittee things as best to roll it out. But. Yeah, I think, and I think, yeah, focusing on the aspirations. Takes the rest of that. The rest of it out and go and let people chew on. That's what we want for the future of our transportation system. It's going to look like this. We can strip away the goals and strategies. And just break it down to those, those aspirational statements. So are you talking about a survey that would have the aspirational statements from all of the chapters that are done to date. And getting. Somehow working those into a survey. Right. You've done in pieces. Yeah. Yeah. I don't think it needs to be that formal necessarily. So I think it'll help if in our subcommittees, the first thing we're looking at is the aspirations for me. That's a lot easier. That's the way my brain works to think about what are the aspirations? Okay. Then what are the goals? Then how do we meet those goals? And to keep it. Hierarchical like that makes more sense in my head anyway. But I think if the groups at the subcommittees, the first, their first thing that they do is to finalize. An aspiration or two, whatever it is that addresses the full. What the chat, what that chapter is going to do. Then we can just say, Hey, here's, we can just send something out on proper form. Hey, here's the housing chapter. Here's what we want to do. What is that? Does that make sense? Yeah. And if we've got a kickoff statement that can go with that and go and say, Hey, the, the, you know, the planning department and planning commissioner. You know, finally ready to start rolling out. And some of the chapters and this is going to be going on over the next. Year and a half probably. But. Here's, here's where we're at and. And start with, you know, a housing chapter and then kind of work from there out to. Energy and, and. You know, maybe, maybe what we end up with is, you know, Let's say we roll out housing in September. And we simply go and say that at the, the first meeting in October, we're going to have. Public input at our zoom planning commission meeting on housing chapter. And we can, you can send it to us in writing. You can. Go to the planning commission meeting. You know, there are various ways you can participate and then we can see if we get people to. Stop by. And give us comments and see what we hear on our, on our mission, or maybe people just show up and ask questions. Or maybe we don't hear anything, but at least we've provided an opportunity and then we can say. All right. The first meeting in November. We're going to have a meeting. We're going to have a meeting. We're going to have a meeting. We're going to have a meeting. We're going to have a meeting to provide an opportunity. And then we can say, all right, the first meeting in November. You know, or the second meeting in October is on transportation. The next one after that's on energy and we can just, you know, spend, you know, dedicate an hour. At the start of these meetings, just to go and hear from the public on what we've rolled out and what we presented. And how would you imagine presenting those. And how would you imagine putting that into. More than the website, but into publications, somehow getting the word out. Yeah, I think we'd have to talk it over through the subcommittee. I think that there's a little bit of that that I think we would just have to sit down and really chew on. How we want to, you know, physically put this together and roll this out and make a presentation for the public. You know, and I'm open to as many suggestions for how we get these out. I think different chapters are going to be different depending on the audience. I think that's something that the continuity group, I forget what we're calling it, could start with how do we, how do we make this accessible in an easy format that we can bring to the public. I'd like to have an online presence. I know that's been, you know, it'd be nice to get something going. Because some people take that as their, you know, I know John has ways of setting things up where people can stick pins into a map with a comment. And if that's where people feel the most comfortable sending us input, then great. We can take that as input. We can take an email. We can take any, any written format or they can just show up and ask us questions at our planning commission meeting where we've set aside time to talk about it. And then let me make sure everybody knows, you know, from the continuity, it's all about, you know, this is our first opportunity, but it won't be your last. We'll have another, you know, we're getting people's first thoughts and. There'll be plenty of opportunities over the next. Six months, nine months as we roll this thing out and as more gets developed, it's going to keep appearing on this website. I'm just trying to get things on that website. Having a little chunks like that feels manageable too. And maybe not overwhelming for somebody who wants to participate, but doesn't necessarily have strong feelings about. Housing, but they have strong feelings about energy or something like that. And so it feels like it's sort of ongoing participation and manageable. Wanted, like. Manageable size or way to participate. Yeah, there's, there's so much overlap that even somebody who shows up and says, I didn't know what we were talking about, but you know, we're talking about housing and they want to talk about insulating housing and that's really energy. Like, well, we'll take your comments. We're, we're here to, you know, these, these chapters all overlap. Okay. So I'm going to try to summarize. Make sure we're all together. The thinking, the thinking right now is that the continuity. And structure group. We'll brainstorm a means of doing outreach is just probably going to be multiple problems. It's like an online version and maybe other other approaches or multiple online versions. They'll get back to us. Well, we probably need to set a date for when we expect that to be done. The approach that we want to do though is a chapter by chapter approach. So the subcommittees. That's going to be set up. And then the subcommittees. And then the subcommittees. And then the subcommittees. We'll have the outreach of the major chapters that we have assigned. We'll then take the responsibility of conducting the outreach, figuring out the substance of it. And then following the means that the. That the continuity and structure something that you set out. Is that, is that right? I'm missing anything. So everyone, every chapter will have sort of the same outreach. But the main, the main thing that they'll do, but we'll split up the work. And maybe reach out to relevant organizations individually with the expertise in the group. Yeah. I think that's, that was my understanding what you were saying. Like, for instance, we do front porch foreign, which I think we all most likely will. That, you know, that'll be something that every group follows and it'll be, it'll be a. Yeah, that'll be the kind of thing that, um, and structures of committee will develop for us. They'll say, we're gonna reach out this way every single time. I think you're right, some of it might be specific to there might be some additional reaching out to a niche area as well for some of these chapters. So, yeah. And having a basic template of how we're gonna do the outreach for each chapter would be helpful. I think it would be good if we start, I think actually having small pieces of outreach will help us develop a relationship with residents over time where, you know, once they get two or three of these, they'll say, oh, okay. It's like, oh, the planning commission's reaching out about natural resources this time. Okay, that sounds good. And then, I mean, I don't think we need to know anything down long-term, right? Like, because once we go through these steps and once we have the thing kind of finalized, you know, there'll be some further outreach there, obviously, some of it's gonna be procedural and we have to follow, but does anyone feel a need to talk about that now or are we just gonna cross that bridge and come to it? Sorry, talk about which, Kirby? Like, once the plan's much closer to being final, so like after this, like next steps after the short-term stuff, does anybody feel like we need to discuss that too? Not right now. Okay. Yeah, it might look different after we go through this whole process. So my question was, do we wanna set up, and you know, will the structure group kind of set up a matter of priority, but at least a list to give us an idea of what we should be asking for outreach on first, because that will direct the subcommittees on what to work on first also. Do you know what I mean? Do you need like the talking about the aspirations first? No, just if we're gonna go out chapter by chapter, are we gonna do housing first or are we gonna do economic development first or are we gonna do transportation first? In which case, that means that those subcommittees have to really jump on that topic right now so that we can get this ball rolling. I think we can settle that now. Let's get some expectations down for when people can report back. So all of what we've been doing, follow the order we went in. Follow the housing first? Yeah, I don't, yeah, I think it's up to us like whether housing economic development, whichever one we wanna do first, we can do first. Like it could be up to those groups whether they feel ready. Is housing like enormous too? Do we wanna do that one second when people have heard from us once? Not to like toss the first one and do a crappy job on it but maybe something a little less enormous than that thing. There was a reason why we started in the planning department why we started with historic resources. That was actually the first one we did but because it was a small bite-sized piece that we could go through and kind of get through front to back and go through and work out bugs before we jump into energy and housing and these really broad historic resources is nice and narrow. It really is focused on a very limited area of interest. Well, that group is real organized too or at least real participatory. So that may might be good to start with. We don't have a subcommittee for that particular section, right? Yeah, we had only picked a set of. So that could be first, it could come first. I mean, I'm fine skipping it though, personally. Pardon? I'm fine skipping it. I'm fine not asking for outreach on every single chapter because I mean, I don't know, you get to a point of desensitizing people do it. True. Like we could do economic development first. I think you're gonna probably get, for some people, you'll probably get all the feedback you're gonna get once they kind of like unload the first time. So maybe economic development's and decent one for people to unload on. I don't know. I don't know, there's so much connected to that particular section that it almost, I mean, to me, it seems like we should talk about housing first because housing is certainly on a lot of people's minds right now. For so is economic development. So I suppose either either one, but we're gonna need a lead time for the subcommittee to do the work. Yeah, I'm fine if these aren't kicking off these input meetings aren't kicking off till August or till October, because I'm still not back at full staff. I don't get Kevin back till September 8th. We're still working a little short staff here, so. I'm thinking, yeah, the continuity instruction needs to get back about just the overall kind of plan, right? And even if, I mean, like giving them just a month is actually a little bit of a tight window. We could say the middle of October, I don't know, what do you, Stephanie, Marcella, John, so I'm here. No. Do you guys think you need the middle of October or is the beginning of October okay to report back on that? I'm just realizing at the end of August, which happened out of nowhere. So maybe a little bit more time. Okay, okay. Maybe mid-October, I mean, we can meet in the next couple of weeks and start patching things out, but. So it may mean we're not getting public input necessarily until starting October into November. We're not really scheduling things in, which isn't bad, as I said, if we've got the municipal plan grant going in, if we're trying to get a consultant lined up for January or February, we would kind of already have kicked off some of the input and they can jump in start to pick things up and carry things forward. Okay, so you guys want to say October 12th? So report back in our October 12th meeting. And then, well, I think we can plan to have a quick turnaround so that the, I mean, a bar post for doing housing first, which is, I mean, I really don't have much wrong with feeling about it. We can say that the housing group could then turnaround and have something by the 26th to run by the group. And then after that, after October 26th meeting is when we do our first outreach. So that, yeah, the housing subcommittee would be working between now and the 26th? I was thinking we would do it in that two week period between the 12th and the 26th. Do what? Meet and figure out like specifically, like subsequently what we want it to look like. But the community structure committee will have like a template ideas and they'll have some ideas about, you know, what avenues we should go down. So it shouldn't be that heavy as heavy of a lift as it might sound like once we hear back from them. Okay, but in terms of the basic work that the subcommittees are doing, that can be ongoing starting now. And then it's just the format for the public presentation that we have to have be worked out after October 12th. Is that right? Yeah, since we'll hear from them on October 12th, it might be more efficient to wait and meet after October 12th so that, you know, so that we're in unison with what they come back and say. But I mean, you know, if you want to meet, we can meet. I'm confused because I think what the subcommittees are doing is different kind of work than what the structure committee is going to present to us on October 12th. They're going to give us an idea of how to do a public outreach. Is that, and what it should look like? Right? So that's almost like a side issue to some extent to each one of the topics. If what we need to do on the topics is take a deep or die. Right? So I think... Yeah, yeah, we're talking to two different things in some ways. Yeah, exactly, yeah. Yeah, I'm just talking about the outreach part. Right, okay. In the meantime, that gives us time to do some work while the structure committee is working. Yeah, yeah, I think we can start working on housing that's not the outreach part. The structure committee we also talked before is going to be doing other work too. So just to make sure we're on the same page there. We were just talking about hearing back from them on October 12th about outreach. Marcella and Stephanie, do you think that you'll do any work on any of the other areas we had talked about by then, such as the... Yeah, remind me. Yeah. Right, so we talked about laying out a better format for what the goals and strategies look like and how all the chapters should look, like what the structure of each of those sections should be in a way that makes it easier for us to present it to the public. So it ties, they tie together, but it was, we were talking more last time about what that format looks like that makes the chapters make a little more sense and be a little more digestible. But you don't be able to work on that by October 12th. I mean, I think we'll meet and see. I think we'll need to meet. I don't want to speak for the three of us without John even here. Yeah, okay. But we'll keep you posted. Okay, okay. So we'll plan to hear back from you on the outreach part by the 12th. Anything else you want to bring on the 12th to, you know, feel free. So we'll set aside time, we should be set aside time of the meeting for that. And then, yeah, I'd like to go ahead and plan on the 26th for housing to have its outreach ready. And yeah, Barb, we can meet before the 12th if you want to, you can have a coordinate with Ari, honestly, when she's available, we can meet and, you know. Right, because yeah, I think there's basic work on the committees that's why we were originally saying two months for the subcommittees to do their work, right? So that would, you know, by mid-October pretty much get us close to that. Yeah, well, since we're adding some work by doing this outreach thing, I mean, maybe that timeline will get extended. I think realistically, might be the end of November, tentatively we can start thinking about hearing back on the substantive stuff from the four committees that are working on that. In fact, I don't know, transportation and that's where resources, well, no, we have enough resources done, right? No. Oh, okay. No, that one I have most of it done. I just have to get to meet with the conservation commission to wrap it up. Okay. So those might have taken even past November. I guess I'm confused, Kirby, to me it seems as if we should be doing this work in preparation, the subcommittee should be doing the work in preparation for the outreach, not just presenting the chapters as they exist now. I think just realistically, there's, we can do some work before the outreach and we'll be doing work after the outreach. Hopefully respond, yeah. Yeah, but I mean, I'm with you and if we can do some work beforehand that's beneficial. I'm with you on that. Okay. All right, that sounds good. A quick question about subcommitting meetings. So we're probably gonna be meeting by Zoom. Is that correct? Or would it soon so, yeah. And as long as the weather's still good we could be meeting outside. But how are we going to organize that with individual Zoom accounts or through your office, Mike? I would think that it would be through individual Zoom accounts. Okay. Yeah, everybody's here, so you all have Zoom accounts, so. No, I mean, yeah, but we have to have one to be able to host. So, and we need to host maybe for more than 40 minutes. Oh, actually, there are only three of us. There's just no, you know, at three still we'll trip us over. So, okay, I mean, that's fine. I've got a Zoom account I could do it on. Hopefully other people do too. Yeah, I think we'll tackle that. If it's an issue and we don't have anyone with a Zoom account, then we'll have to have the city try to come up with the logins and passwords. We'll have to work with Cameron and folks on that. Hopefully we'll be able to avoid that. We can figure it out, like subcommittee by subcommittee. As far as for housing economic development, I'm up for meeting on the state house lawn and yelling at each other. We might not even have to yell. Yeah. Yeah, weather permitting that seal may issue. Well, actually, if the weather's bad, we could go on. Can we go on the pavilion porch? Is that open? Oh, I have no idea. Yeah, anyway, it doesn't matter. But yeah, that's, I agree, Kirby. It works so much better to actually be in person. So the subcommittee should reach out to each other and figure out timing. Yeah. Send out those lists again. It's, well, it's probably economic development housing that can go ahead and, you know, they have enough stuff to go with at the moment. Do you want to know what the committee assignments are again? Yeah. Okay, sure. I mean, I'll say them all, but just start with you, Barb. Because you're asking. So it's you, John, and me for economic development. Okay. And housing? Is you and me and Arianne. Okay, that's all I need. And you're also on transportation with Aaron and Arianne. With Aaron and Arianne, right? Mm-hmm. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. I'll send that out to me, the whole thing. Okay, I think that's good. I think we're in a really good place with that. So with that, we can move on to the next kind of sub item here, which is the, the MPG grant ideas, which, you know, there's something that's led by Mike and his office is the one who has the grant. In the past, we've talked quite a bit about the expectation was that the consultants would help turn a final city plan into a really, you know, interesting web-based plan that's very interactive for people. At least that's the way I conceptualized it when Mike just explained it. What else are you thinking, Mike, or options or what are you looking for from us on this? So the three places where I thought we could spend the money, you know, one is for that design layout for the web, the ArcGIS hub, having somebody who's got experience in how to lay things out design-wise is gonna be a big help. A second one would be money for the maps. I've got to get a price estimate from the Regional Planning Commission. Whatever we do in the GIS hub, you know, we still have a whole set of required maps that we have to have included and maybe that consultant has the mapping experience and maybe they don't. And in the past, we've found most of the consultants don't. So I should at least have dollars for maps and whether the RPC does that work or whether the consultant says they'll do it themselves, we should include the cost of developing those maps and then dollars for public input, whatever that is, having them have that experience and that outreach to kind of help us with doing some of the lifting on those facilitating meetings, even if it's just facilitating meetings because as those of you who are with us for the zoning, it was certainly helpful when we're presenting it, you know, people are, you know, responding to us in some cases. You know, when I'm presenting things, people who have an axe to grind against me may go and say and try to push things just for that reason. But having an outside facilitator, they don't have anything. They got nothing in this fight. They just facilitate and say, no, we're here to get your input, your thoughts and we'll reflect that in the final document and just having a facilitator can sometimes make a big difference. But obviously if that person is also good at how to do these multiple public outreaches, they may also be able to bring a lot to the table to say, during COVID, it's tough to get people out. How are we gonna get senior input when seniors are the least likely and then the most vulnerable to this outbreak? How do we outreach to our senior community? They may or may not be strongly into the technology, although I think a lot of people are getting caught up on stuff, but we still need to outreach to them to get to let them know we're talking about it. And I think having somebody with the experience. So those were the three I looked at. The design, the maps and the public input would be the three I would think of, but I'm open to hear other suggestions because I have to write the plan and lay out what the work plan would look like. So I kind of have to get what we're applying for kind of squared away. So I've got the month of September to kind of write the grant. And all of those three items would come under one grant application? Yeah, I would look at that. It would be ending up being about a $22,000 grant. So I think the maps are probably 4,000, 3, 4,000. You know, and I think somebody who does the web design is gonna take a chunk of that. And the public outreach, you know, again, if that were five, six, seven, $8,000 of time because most of that's just time. I think, you know, the other $10,000 goes to actual product development. You know, but it's up to the consultant on how they want to split the time. And we usually just sign a contract for the finished amount. We don't have to, they don't have to itemize it. We can just go in 22,000 for the project. But here's our estimate. We would estimate this amount for maps and this amount for input and this amount for design. But- So we make sure that they have money in there for design? Or one- Yeah, what we care about probably when we're reviewing applications is to see what their experience is in each of these areas. And we would weigh, you know, and what I've seen sometimes is it's not one consultant. I mean, you guys saw that with the state, with the downtown master plan process. We ended up with, everybody came in and had one group that was transportation. You know, I've got a transportation partnership with this organization. I've got a landscape architect over here and I've got watershed people over here to put together the final product. So I bet you'd probably or possibly find a group that may come in with a partnership that says, you know, we're experts in design, layout and ArcGIS hub. And we've brought along this person over here who's an expert in public outreach. Maybe one person, one group has this all in one shop, but maybe they put together a team of people. Then I'm hoping it all comes in under $22,000. Yeah, that doesn't seem like a lot to me. We're not asking them to write the plan. Usually what we're doing these, we're asking them to write the plan, which is usually the bulk of the work. Is there a limit, Mike, that the 22,000 is that the largest grant we can ask for? Yeah, it's probably actually a little bit less than that there's a little bit of a match. They changed from year to year. So I haven't actually, max grant is 22,000. And the minimum match is 10% of the grant amount. So the project would be $24,200 would be, you know, if we applied for the maximum amount, which I think we probably will. Sounds good to me. Will we need to review that grant application, Mike, as you put it together? You don't have to. I can certainly put it together and let you guys review it. The only people that have to sign off on it is the city council has to sign a resolution, a group of resolution, applying for the grant. And when's it due? I'm checking. Usually the September 30th or October 1st. October 1st, 6 p.m. Okay, good. So we have to be on the city council agenda, that's all. Yeah, at some point in September. And it has to be warned in the whole thing, right? Well, it just has to be an agenda item. It's not a public hearing. Okay, good. For me, I actually need to leave at seven. It looks like we're working pretty well through our agenda here. Yeah, I think we'll probably do a real quick review of where transportation is at right now, the transportation chapter, but that's it. Yeah, we can wrap up MPG. If anyone thinks of anything else that they think would be helpful, just shoot me an email. Otherwise, I'll just look at designing an application around these topic areas. I think that, I think it's great, Mike. Yeah. Okay, well, thanks for letting us know what you have planned for that, Mike. I definitely don't feel a need to interject anything. Sounds like a weird plan. With that, though, all we have left is to take a look at the transportation aspiration and goals. I think we received that by email, so everyone should have that. Yeah, it was on there, the last email for Mike. So it was like a couple pages, a few pages. We're not gonna look at the strategies then, right? No, so the Transportation Committee, they worked on the aspirations and they really, they are a group of multi-interested group. So they don't all think on the same track. So unlike a number of committees where all the housing folks are all on the same bus going in the same direction and all the historic preservation people are, transportation is a little bit different. You've got some people that are bike people, got some people that are ped people, got some people that are still interested in saying, hey, you can't throw the cars out, we gotta make sure we've got cars and some people want no cars in the downtown and everybody parking in satellite parking lots. So there's this mix of views. So hashing out these aspirations actually is a process that took a bit of time. They actually met twice, even I think maybe even took a third time just to get the aspirations ironed out before we could break them into goals and then when we went round and round couple times with the goals before we finally got to the strategies and the strategies that are in here are ones that they settled on and said, these are what we want for the strategies but they don't meet your framework. So Mike, take these and turn them into the framework. So that's why I'm saying, don't bother looking at the strategies because you'll go and say, well, these aren't the right format. Well, we know that. I've got to adjust them. So to summarize the three aspirations and this again, very iterative process, went from three to five, back down to three changing how they're oriented but the primary one which is aspiration A this is their top one was it is easy to live and work in Montpelier without a car. There is an integrated multimodal system that prioritizes active mobility and meets the mobility needs of all users. So the compromise that came out of that was that they wanted the, their target was to make sure it was easy to live in Montpelier. You should be able to live in Montpelier without owning a car. It shouldn't be a necessity. It shouldn't be a requirement but at the same time, we're not taking the step to go and say we don't want cars or there shouldn't be cars. We just wanna go and say A, we want, you shouldn't need to have a car. It shouldn't be a necessity. It shouldn't be a requirement to live in this town that you have to have a car in order to live here. So it's easy to live and work without a car. We've got this integrated system, walking, biking, shared mobility and public transit. Those are the four ways that you can live and work in Montpelier without a car. And we have shortcomings currently but the plan is how would we get all of four of those pieces to work together? And they have to be integrated. So we can't just have good bike paths if you don't have, if you're gonna take a bike to ride to the bus stop and your bus doesn't have bike racks, you've got a failure of the system. The system has to integrate. You either have to have bike racks there or you've got to have bike racks on the bus because otherwise the system isn't gonna work in an integrated way. So that's what they were working on was this priority of being able to have an integrated system and it meets the mobility needs of everyone. And again, the idea wasn't to exclude cars that was the universal opinion. That was where they settled on. But they also wanted to prioritize active mobility. That was the other piece. So in giving up the one, they did wanna prioritize and say, for the past century, cars have been the priority. And now we want the active mobility to be the priority. So in certain instances, the car is gonna have to take a secondary role if it's gonna interfere with the biking and the walking and these other systems. So that was a little bit of the background on that one. Do you have questions? Do you want me to go through all three first? That seems pretty clear, Mike. The other ones, it gets a little bit more murky in the other aspirations, I think. Okay, so the second one was Montpelier will have a transportation system that's safe, attractive and conducive to a vital and lively community. So this was a summary of the built environment. So we have a number of goals that come into safety and attractive and how it connects to these other pieces. So a lot of times we do, while the first one kinda looked at a bit of a functionality, it's an outcome. We wanna be able to live without having a car, it's not a requirement. The second one is really starting to look at those transportation pieces to start to go and talk about what do the sidewalks look like? What do the bike paths look like? Revitalizing downtowns, revitalizing streetscapes. You can have a functional system that's not attractive. So I think this second one was looking at items like a goal, moving Montpelier will be safe for people using any mode of transportation. It'll be attractive place to move around for all users. So the goals may seem similar to that first goal, but the strategies that would be under that are gonna be different. There's a proposed strategy we'll get to strategies later, but to have a downtown pedestrian zone to reduce speed limits to 15 miles an hour in that zone. So can we have the designated downtown drop those speed limits to 15 miles an hour? That's a safety thing. That's not necessarily a requirement to make it easy to live and work in Montpelier without a car. So we've got one, yeah. Sorry going, did these goals seem specific enough to you Mike under this section? I mean, they sort of seem like many aspirations to me. They were, and so they tackled goals a little bit differently and one of the things, we may need to make some tweaks to them. They made their goals more implicit rather than explicit. So what do I mean by that? We went through like a housing goal and would say we need to increase the amount of affordable housing. It's pretty straightforward. They didn't go through and say, necessarily, I don't wanna look at the other one. Rather than saying we wanna increase the safety of the pedestrian network, they said walking in Montpelier will be safer, easier and more attractive. That was one of their goals. I think some of their goals that are over in A might be a little bit more B-like but they have what they want in a global sense. So I think there may be some moving around but they were definitely more implicit rather than just being explicitly saying increase this. They were like, moving around Montpelier will be safe for people using any mode of transportation. I would have been more direct but they were not interested in that direct straight to the point of we want a transportation system that's safe, attractive and vital to the community. Then the first goal is to make Montpelier transportation system safe. Would have been what I would have gone with but they kind of went a little bit the other way. So we may have to do some adjusting and some tweaking to how they laid it out but considering how much work they put into it it was, I was happy when they finally said they were happy with it. They would agree. Yeah, I mean, they realized that at some point the strategies that come out of these goals have to be something that can be implemented, right? Okay, so the goals don't necessarily have to be explicitly implementable but the strategies do. The strategies do, yeah. Although usually we try to have a little bit in there so it helps to tell us that. Remember the goals are supposed to tell us whether we are trying to maintain, evolve or transform. What are we trying, are we happy with where we're at? Which is why I tried to get them. It doesn't show up here in Aspiration B but it does show up in Aspiration A where I got them to get in there and say walking in Montpelier will be safer, easier and more attractive. So it's implied that we're not doing well enough and that we have to be doing better. So rather than simply saying we need to improve it, they're just saying it's gotta be safer. So I don't think, like I said in goal B we necessarily have that it will be safe. That does sound more aspirational. It really should say it'll be safer then at least we know, okay, our existing condition is we're not safe enough or we should continue to be safe or we should maintain the safety of our streets so that way we can kind of get a sense of things are good but we don't want to have things go downhill from here. And the third aspiration is Montpelier's transportation system will be sustainable and environmentally responsible. And this really came down to the impacts of our transportation system no matter what aspect it is. So stormwater runoff, our carbon footprint really ties in and you're gonna obviously see a strong link for the global and climate change pieces are gonna overlap or hopefully tie in well with the energy plan. And I had the conversation with them about the fact that there are things that we count on other people to do we aren't going to be working, when I'm talking to transportation committee we aren't gonna be making our cars net zero. That's gonna probably be effort of the energy committee. The transportation committee is gonna probably be working on making sure we have bicycle and pedestrian networks that are safe and that they work and that we're putting in the flashing beacons to make sure that our crosswalks are safe. That's what the transportation committee is gonna be working on. And at the same time, the energy committee is gonna be counting on a walkable downtown but the energy committee isn't gonna be the one making sure that our sidewalks are part of a connected complete street. So there's gonna probably be references in here to that but we can't talk about our aspirations for transportation without recognizing that it's the leading contributor to global warming. So we kind of have to tie those two chapters together in here. And it's also gonna tie in with stormwater runoff and a number of other environmental pieces. One of the things that strikes me about this is it's very specific to Montpelier it's almost as if transportation stops at the city limits. There's no discussion of intercity transportation which to me would be a pretty critical element for them to connect to that. And then maybe one that gets a little more attention either in aspiration C or aspiration A when we talk about public transit. Okay. There may be pieces that we've gotta put in there that ties to the fact that our GMT providing transit and or microtransit for the Montpelier and the region that's one of the strategies that they have that needs to be still fleshed out but I think there's pieces that can end up in there as well. Yeah. Was there any discussion about under their sort of land use type goals about transit or you should design? Did they talk about that? We talked about it and it didn't make its way in as much as if we're doing transit-oriented design it kind of infers we're doing some kind of rail or other system like that. So I think as much as it's one of my favorite little projects I think would be neat. It didn't get a lot of support. We do have to talk about rail in the plan somewhere. It may not be in our strategic plan but we do have to talk about rail and airports and all those other pieces. So we will have to have a conversation about but if there's a goal that we wanna add that even if they're not interested as I said they each there are a number of camps that are in there. There certainly is not a rail sub-click. Nobody's interested in rail. Nobody's interested in rail. There's the white people. There's the pedestrian people. There's nobody who wants street guys. Wasn't there but that's not to say as we look at things including the land use plan it's a tough nut. I went to the regional planning commission had a presentation with their transportation advisory group and even they were not entirely on board although I did get an opportunity to talk to the state because they were there with the rail plan. So that was a nice opportunity to kind of lay out why we thought this was a valuable project. And I think they heard what I said. I don't, at least they've got something in the back of their mind that our ideas are not David Bulleter's Dorf's ideas. Our ideas are, we think are actually quite reasonable and rational and especially, I told them the TAC and the state that you know you've got to think outside your silo. You know, you can think that it would be a boondoggle to invest money in the rail line to put this commuter rail in but the question is where are the next 1,000? Where are the next 1,500 homes gonna be? How's this going to be? And you can say no to a rail and say that's a silly idea. I don't think it'll work but transitory in a design in a railroad gives a bunch of people who can't afford cars an opportunity to live in central Vermont and be able to take shuttles that would extend from Berry City to Montpelier and hopefully someday to other places but at least that gets you there and then you can take car shares or other mobility options once you get there to get to your destination and you can live without a car in the region and that would be great and it's an option but if you don't, then you're building 1,000 to 1,500 more homes in East Montpelier and Warren and Watesfield and all these other places and everybody gets to commute in and those are really your two options so you're gonna get the same, you can look at it as it's not gonna make money but you're not counting on that house in the countryside also costs money to provide services as the incremental costs of 1,000 new homes in the countryside adds more traffic to your roadways and so I think they got it, they got that point which was, that was my objective I didn't think I was gonna win everybody over but at least they got to hear the big picture of why I think it just provides another opportunity another option for people to move around but no, it's not in the strategies Not yet Not yet Kind of along those lines, Mike I'm not seeing, I see all types of transportation written a few times but nothing specifically talking about To me, when I read all users, it's like but drivers, bikes and pedestrians and there's nothing from an equity lens of mobility needs I don't really have any expertise in that and I don't know where we would add it I just don't like the fact that it doesn't mention it at all You may be talking about able-bodied people Yeah, able-bodied people This is a plan written for able-bodied people and I don't... I agree and I actually told them that at the last meeting I said, you know we're gonna go through, you know at my level and with the planning commission we're gonna go level and we're gonna identify things words that jump out at you You know, right on the first page Aspiration A, goal number one walking in Montpelier will be safer, easier and more attractive You know, that jumped right out at me I'm like, we've got to find a different word than walking because those sidewalks aren't just for people who can walk We've got to, you know, what's the word? I was like, I can't come up with the word off the top of my head but we've got to find the word that's, you know, that really is getting at that mobility that mobility that we're talking about I think that helps to get it that mobility needs of all users Yeah, I don't think we have to make that word up out of thin air either and there's gotta be, like I said this is out of my willhouse but with a little bit of research I think this has been thought of If we have an equity and justice committee that should be able to help us with that or I can talk to BCIL Center for Independent Living they've got folks who work on these type of policy documents and I don't think it's impossible I think it's relatively easy we just come up with that but I think we need to reflect those all users in these other shared mobility options and the public transit options I think we can reflect some of those needs of all users in the strategies in there And what is safe and attractive for somebody with mobility challenges or needs, specific mobility needs versus somebody who's able-bodied And I also, along the equity lines like the idea of, I don't know how it would go into here either at the moment but thinking about downtown, if there's no affordable housing in the downtown area then we're and we make all of our efforts to the downtown area transportation may be great for the people that can walk to it but those are the most expensive communities in Montpelier That is one that we may end up stealing back from one of their earlier versions on so on their last version they had six goals coming out of A and the last goal in A talked about the compact development so it really kind of helped to go and talk about the land use and that, you know, it's like if we're gonna be having Montpelier be easy to live and work without a car then it's not just about our transportation network we have to have a land use plan that has the density in the downtown and allows, you know, a mix of uses if we can have, you know, high density of residential over here and a high density of commercial over here and a high density of residential or retail over there and that's great except that it doesn't really it's not really gonna work to be easy to live work without a car because you have to figure out how I'm gonna get to work over there and how I'm gonna shop over there and how I'm gonna get back over here whereas if we have a land use that has a mix of uses of a high density and, you know, again, you're talking equity that wasn't one they talked about but it's certainly another element of it to go through and say, you know, the affordable housing options have to be included in within this sphere because the land use, if the land use isn't there there's the goal, the aspiration will never be achieved if we don't have this mix of uses where you can live above retail and many of these things may simply say, hey, we support the land use goals. Yeah, we gotta start having, you know, how are we gonna get the easy transportation out into, you know, pedestrian bridges over the Winniski River like up and down route two or like whatever. We're making our job a lot harder if we're gonna split our uses up and not have it there so I was disappointed when they removed that goal six I thought they were onto something when they had it there in the first place and then at the last second they pulled it out and they combined it in aspiration B with the transportation system will contribute to a vital and lively community. So that's where you see a little bit of this promote infill housing and commercial developments in the downtown and revitalize the downtown. Not that these are good strategies, these are just how they got there. And then their goal for more housing and commercial development in the downtown will make it easier to complete trips without the use of an automobile. You know, that goal used to be in A and I think it probably still belongs in A but I'm gonna let them finish up their work and then I think we can go through and I think if all of their, they have ideas and I think as long as we shuffle them around a little bit and tweak them a little bit as long as the spirit of what they're trying to do remains they will be happy with that. Yeah, I don't think any of the equity concerns take away from should just add to it and put that for everyone. So I'll be working over the next week because they're meeting next where the meeting on the first was at Tuesday. So by this Friday I'm gonna go through and take all their strategies and adjust them into new, you know, our strategies that meet our system trying to be very specific. Jack McCullough and Donna Bate are both on that committee and they both, most of their comments to the subcommittee that wrote these was that, you know, there's a lot of this support, encourage. They're like, we're not, that's not, you know so it's nice to see that the city council is already getting our system because they're like, hey, you can't be doing that. You can't support things. You can encourage things. That's not how this works. And I was like, don't worry, we've already, you know, the subcommittee just reached a point where they were at loggerheads and decided we're gonna give you our vision or our spirit of where we would like the strategies to go and I'll come up with the actual, you know, how we get there. So for example, if you were in the third group and we're talking about stormwater, you know, I'll see stormwater as the private development. So we need to have our regulations, our zoning regulations have to regulate stormwater runoff and impervious surfaces and limit the amount of impervious cover and all those requirements that we have in our zoning. But then we also have the general permit which is for our streets. And that's a different thing and we're gonna implement these, like Taylor Street has pervious pavers and the trees, they're supposed to be rain gardens but we end up with just the tree wells that are gonna allow infiltration of stormwater that lands on the street. So instead of funneling into catch basins, it funnels into the street wells, drains down through that and then gets collected under the tree wells and that goes into the stormwater system. So it's more of a 21st century approach but that, that'll all get implemented through a capital improvement plan. So you kind of have this second layer and then you've got a third layer of these other pieces. What do you do about all the existing development? Well, stormwater, the utility plan is talking about having a stormwater utility. And so they're gonna get caught, you know, and improved through, you know, how do we improve the stormwater runoff of the Capital Plaza parking lot or the Shaw's parking lot? Well, those are gonna get caught through a stormwater utility where we start going and putting a financial cost to having untreated stormwater. And so you've kind of got, you're gonna kind of have these three strategies whereas they just have this one strategy. You know, we gotta take care of the stormwater runoff that's associated with parking lots and streets and we'll convert that into three different strategies. One that addresses, you know, using regulations. One that's gonna use a program like a stormwater utility and another one that's gonna use a capital improvement program for the city streets. So that's just an example of what I will be doing over the next week to this plan is kind of taking what they're talking about and turning it into a very direct, you know, we can't support ride share. We've gotta have, you know, we've gotta actually say how we're gonna support ride share. You know, that might be taking city, laying in the city streets and dedicating it to drop off and pick up locations. It might be reserving spaces in a parking lot for the car share. That's how we would support the ride share business and industries. But we can't just say we're gonna support it. We've gotta kind of go through and give actual steps of, you know, what types of things we should look at or we need to look at to make ride share possible or public transit. How do we make it? You know, in some cases, financial support is the support. GMT, we cut them at check every year. So, continuing to support GMT is actually continuing to support them because we provide a check to them. It sounds good to me, Mike. I'm sorry, I have to duck out here. Is there any, you'll still have a quorum if I leave, right, Kirby? Yes. Yeah, okay. Yeah, we're not going to do anything anyway. What about? We can't adjourn. You're like... You're like... You're trapped. Yeah. Oh no, oh no. Well, I'm leaving before you can't adjourn, so. All right, see you next time. Thank you. Thanks, Barb. See you. Okay, that's great. Will anybody else have anything for the transportation plan? We'll be seeing it again soon, right, Mike? Yeah, I would expect that our next meeting, it'll be, you'll have the full version. That's great. Yeah, although, I mean, I'm not going to make any changes to the aspirations and goals, even though we just talked about it. You know, I've got to kind of let it go as it is right now, it'll go to them. I'll adjust the strategies. When it comes back to you, then we can talk about, you know, adjusting for these other pieces that I kind of have to let them finish their process and then we will kind of take it up and make our edits at the next meeting, although I have your notes. Yeah, that was great. I apologize, I should do this because you read them twice. Do we have a transportation group? I only paid attention to the ones I was on. Yeah, we do. You're going to have to wait for that. Okay, that's what I thought. Okay, thank you. So there will be a group that takes a deeper dive also. It's Barb, Aaron, and Arianne. Okay, thank you, sorry. No problem. Okay, so before we adjourn though, I did want to mention to everyone, probably should have done this in the comments earlier, but I let everyone know that I attended the city council meeting last time that they had one couple of weeks ago because that Pioneer Street, well, our development review stuff was there which is like a big thing. We were coming for a long time and that seemed to sell through pretty well, I thought. And Mike, you can give any comments if you have any on that. But then the Pioneer Street issue came up as well and that was more controversial was just to be expected because it was something that we were really uneasy about. And I actually chimed in and let them know that we weren't happy with the options that were available. And so there wasn't a lot of enthusiasm from the planning commission as far as what we offered for a solution. And I think that was important because we don't want to send a signal that we're gonna be affected in any way if they want to go a different direction with it. I think they probably will. I'm bringing all of that up now because you've got all that in my email but I wanted to add to that that they have their hearing on it this Wednesday. So if anyone wants to tune in for that, you can see where it goes. I don't know if I'll end up doing it, but like I said, I am kind of curious though because I think they might end up going a different direction and maybe doing nothing at all, which is something we talked about. I think the mayor in particular seemed interested in keeping, leaving the zoning alone. Thanks for doing that, Kirby. Yeah, yeah, it was interesting. And you know- The council meeting is at 6.30? The council meeting begins at 6.30. We didn't end up first on the agenda, so you may sit there for a little bit before they get to it. Yeah, so you can tune in late or you can just like learn random things like I did last time, like they, you know, they do, they do a lot of work. There's a lot of stuff happening, so. Yeah, I thought everyone would want to know about that. And with that, do we have a motion to adjourn? I'll make a motion. I can't. Motion by Stephanie, second by Marcella. All in favor of adjourning, say, hi. Hi. Hi. Hi, hi. Okay, we got her to four. Okay, very adjourned. Oh, we can go. Okay, great. Thanks, everyone. Have a good night.