 let me record recording in progress okay since this is your organizational meeting I am calling the meeting to order at 6 30 on May 10th and the first item of business is the election of the president so I will take any motions for president. I would like to after four years make a motion to nominate Raj Chowla as president of the city council. second uh any discussion all those in favor I I okay Raj the meeting is yours congratulations Raj did you want to switch yeah be sure we'll get your name here uh name tag appropriate all right so I guess now we need a motion for a vice president and I would nominate Amber Tebow I'll second a second if there are any other other submissions all right hearing none all those in favor say hi hi all right great Amber is vice president congratulations congrats Amber yeah um and clerk I think traditionally clerk has gone to the newest member of the board looking at one person that's technically you know I knew this tradition really that somehow she'd get out of it because you know experience yeah so it's not it's not a heavy lift it's not happy it could end up being one I'm happy great I'll nominate uh Marcus serve a clerk I'll second great Andrew seconds any discussion all those in favor say hi hi hi great we have our officers congratulations Marcus thank you everybody all right so are there any agenda additions or changes I do not have any the board no all right don't need to do that all right public to be heard this is the it's ready this is the portion of the meeting where we take comments questions from members of the public relating to items that are not going to be discussed later items that are not in the agenda so we'll start in the room since I've already seen a hand so if you could come on up if you want to say who you are you know good evening I'm Dorothy Bourbon Dahl and I've been in the village city since 2011 and was previously in the village from 1970 to 79 and I have some questions and comments about the memorandum of 417 2023 about the senior side now I'd say they're questions but they're not questions I expect an answer tonight but I would like you to be thinking about what I I'm concerned about okay um for those in the audience you don't know that there's going to be a change as of the first of the coming year and essentially there'll be two senior zones one down the road and then the one room over here um my concerns can take it contain um in the memorandum there's talk about sharing and uh as senior I go I'm not again sharing but the seniors at this point have the use of the room for six hours a day five days a week and I would hate to see that back off from because um there are a lot of rumors running around that the that powers that be want to turn the room over to the kids so I hope you will continue to try and make sure that sharing does not make the seniors feel like they're being deprived or sideline okay there's said since the budget has passed there's money in the budget to hire an adult program director I may not have the name right the title right who will start ostensibly on the 2nd of january because first is a holiday but there's no provision for any overlap of the job so that this person can learn what's going on and how the programs are being run and what organizations such as age well and the culinary school up at the high school are doing about meals for seniors in the senior center so I don't see how the program can continue on january 2nd as it is being done right now when there's no training there's no overlap and what is the interview process going to be and who's going to do the interviewing and things like that okay um the senior van will no longer be available to people who live in the city well I know of a few people I meet at the senior center or still not sure whether they're in the city of the town and since they've been using the senior van for years they know nothing about ssta and saying that their buses that go through the city doesn't solve the problem of getting them to the bus stop because the senior van picks them up at their home and brings them to the senior center if that's where they're going or the other places so there's a lot of training a lot of communication a lot of discussion needs to be done to find out how things will work after the first of the year over many years the membership of the seniors s6 area senior center have done fundraising to establish money that has been paid to upgrade the room and provide supplies there's no mention in this memorandum how that money is going to be divined up there's no mention at this point because they probably don't know what are the supplies going to which way are the supplies going to go you know on the last day of December are the people who work for the town going to take everything out of there some things out of there is the coffee park going to remain is the kettle going to be what's going to be left what's going to be gone who's in charge who's deciding this stuff okay as I said I don't expect answers tonight I just want you to be aware that I as a senior and a user of the facilities and talking with other people these are the questions that have come up great thank you good questions yep thank you thank you anyone else in the room I don't see anyone in the room I don't see anyone with a hand raised online agenda and we'll start with 6a discussion and consideration of the FY 24 wastewater budget amendment which I'll see you see injustice great all right well I will I'll kick it off I'll give a little background on this wastewater budget process since we have a couple new council members with us tonight so our enterprise fund budgets which are water wastewater and sanitation our budgets that are set not by the voters but by the council themselves because the revenue that is generated in these programs is done so through user fees and not property taxes so that is why this is coming just before the council not any other body so as you'll recall from the budgeting process this year Chelsea and I had gone through quite a bit of work especially with the wastewater budget knowing that there were some significant cost increases that we were expecting in FY 24 and you know we worked through this budget quite a bit to try to find savings in places to help cover some of those costs ultimately we came back and have found that given some new information we discovered or learned of in the last month or so the budget that was approved back in March needs to be amended further and for a couple different reasons so the the biggest primary driver being that we have a significant increase in biosolids land application costs but we also had some staffing changes that have happened since the budget was approved and some upcoming changes that we're aware of that will have a significant impact on some of the other costs within that budget for the positive in this case so as you'll see in the memo before you are in the packet I Chelsea and I have detailed the the kind of ins and outs of the additions and the changes that we've made to this budget essentially what this means is that there's about a $29,000 increase to the wastewater budget needed for FY 24 which is just about one percent more than the approved budget currently and what that means for rates importantly is that we were projecting an eight and a half percent overall increase to rates so this is a combined increase between water wastewater and sanitation so one of one of the really great things is that we're actually projecting a decrease in that original projection so we're expecting that our rates will increase just by six point nine percent now even adding this $30,000 to the budget the flows through the treatment facility have been higher than what we originally anticipated so the cost sharing has been greater and it's allowing us to not increase rates as much as we originally thought I don't know if anyone has questions or Chelsea if you wanted to talk a little bit more about I know the the next agenda item is actually kind of covering the detail of the solids land application but I didn't know if anyone had additional questions at this point sure Marcus so just with the change in the rate how will this impact then Williston and Essex the other communities that contribute to this and what happens if they don't approve adjustments out there so we actually have a tri-town meeting scheduled for next Monday we're presenting this budget to that committee as well they are aware that there is going to be I think we're originally we project we projected a 16.9 percent increase I want to say in the tri-town rate that's been increased now to just over 18 percent so they are aware that there's a significant rate increase projected for FY 24 tri-town does have funds set aside that are basically rainy day funds it's kind of funds that have built up over years that each town has a pot within that larger pot of money that is assigned to their town or city so if they so choose to offset some of the increased expense or rate in FY 24 they can use some of those reserves to help cover that so that suggests a solution but at the same time the question I think still remains in the fact that what if they choose not to how is that going to impact the city if they choose not to use those rainy day funds or not choose to accept increase so I I mean we'll have a discussion Monday and see where it goes the initial conversation that we had didn't indicate that anyone was not going to approve budgets but they're just now preparing their enterprise budgets to present to their boards so this won't be an immediate like we won't have an answer Monday have an idea yeah um but we will know more kind of as we move through May into June what their determination is we may have to come back and look at this budget again um it I guess that's probably the worst-case scenario next step the cost this is not a very padded budget like this just there's inflation really affected wastewater significantly in parts and chemicals and the biosolids management issue and so we're not the only community facing this it's it's across the state in the region yep thank you I don't have any questions under those pretty clear Amber's got her hand out I didn't see that okay Amber Josh's memo talks about analytical testing Chelsea and I wasn't entirely sure if that was testing that a couple of things testing that the city would have to do or testing that somebody else is doing and the second part of that is if the city if it sounds like the city's going to have to do analytical testing was that already taken into account in the budget that was approved yes we already are required to do analytical testing um so that's nothing new and it's already accounted for great thank you yeah zoom out of the way okay there is a motion anybody wants to make that motion that would be great I'll move it at the city council approve the amended FY 24 wastewater budget as presented we have a second I'll second any discussion discussion all those in favor say hi hi unanimous move on to 6b which is related um the reason why we had to amend the budget um but so um we have a contract with the chin cell waste district um and they have hired to sell it we've had this contract for definitely the past five years but I believe we have participated for longer the regional contract with other municipalities in chinan county um and that is how we manage our biosolids outside of our land application program so our land application program uh is not changing in cost this is really this is the other half so this is the majority of how we dispose of our biosolids um or recycle them and so that contract is about to expire um I think at the end of the month or June um so we're trying to get it renewed um as you saw in josh he's with uh the operations manager with the uh solid waste district he did a bunch of research on our behalf to see what would be the best option for um municipalities knowing that in the region we are seeing significant cost in disposal rates um for the biosolids and so through his research and he outlined that in the memo that I included as attachment he found that the best option um at this point time is to extend our contract for another five years um and that's really going to continue to shelter us from the increase uh disposal costs that other areas are seeing quick primer happy to answer any questions um so this is the 30 000 we just talked about after the wastewater budget that yep okay yep I had already tried to forecast what I thought it might be but um we were a little off on that so yeah um so I guess my only question is the highlighted on the second part of this from his letter I think it's from his letter yes the the addition to the contract about um non-conforming waste and I guess that gets to the 60 yeah around the PFAS conversation and we've talked about this before a little bit I guess I'm wondering this is asking you to sort of predict and guess and in some ways right I guess I'm wondering yep what this means for what we have to look forward to um because this seems like maybe the sixth or seventh time we've talked about this and it just seems more yeah every time um so this is what this refers to that ways that we haven't been able to treat that may contain something the state may may soon say you can't have like PFAS correct yep yeah um that is a that is a state going to be a statewide issue so yeah and I think it's only matter of time they're starting on the drinking water side and it will be a matter of time or it will be applied to wastewater um and there's everyone it's everyone has their attention on this and it's really going to have to be a regional effort we're not going to be able to do this alone um so yeah we're getting very slim I think part of it is educating people to know that we can't just stop making biosolids that's the end product besides cleaning the water that is then product of wastewater treatment so in order to waste water treatment you're going to have biosolids um and a lot of like places are already banning it for example Canada's no longer taking um biosolids from Vermont and several municipalities relied on that heavily um and um a good example is looking at the state of Maine they banned land application of biosolids period in 2020 and now communities there are seeing uh over 300 or excuse me 300 percent increase in uh biosolids disposal and they're they're trucking it down to Virginia now um which is not sustainable so I don't know the answer I I know it's something that we're all focusing on and I'm trying to stay engaged with um the various uh associations that are on top of this the trade associations so we can be part of the solution great any other questions from the board yeah um in regards to legislation because I know legislation is pending or has been discussed here and in New York because it's addressed in the memo if there are changes made what impact if any will it have on this contract um or will this five-year contract is this good regardless of legislative reforms um I think it depends on what those legislative reforms are um the good thing about this contract is it has both the ability to um recycle it through the grasslands facility in New York or landfill so at this point in time there's always the landfill and that's that's like the backup plan is it the best thing to do no it's better to recycle it back into the environment as fertilizer because um then we're not bringing other fertilizer into the state and more nutrients that we then have to clean and keep out of the lake and other water bodies so I think we still have we still have an option this leaves us options the way it's written and just the resources that Kasella has doesn't look like amber has anything right we're ready for motion yeah I would move city council authorize the city manager to extend the residuals management service agreement with cswd kasella for another five-year term second seconds discussion see any discussion all those in favor say aye all right all right it's before those opposed say no great assets yeah we'll move on to six c which is also related and yes more informational it is we just I'm we originally did have this in the I think it was reading file but I asked Regina just included because it was important uh background and further information on why the the first two agenda items are being brought to your attention um and this is a regional effort and education that is the trade organizations that I named in this memo um are the ones that I'm staying in tune with and being involved in and we're just trying to get the word out in a cohesive message so that's what's included after this is the graphic and the letter that um we're trying to send out I wonder what the cost would be to send this out with um once with bills um this information you know I wonder what yeah the postage if it would be worth just keeping people what our system is up against or we're facing in the future and so there have some awareness and understanding what we're talking about yeah yeah it's a good point because there is you know um at some point in here I think it's potentially both in the graphic or maybe it's in this memo that particularly from for PFAS you know it's ultimately a consumer product right like we're all buying things with this in it and so there does need to be a way upstream you know change that PFAS eventually needs to go away from products and that sometimes happen from regulation and sometimes happen from political will right or just consumer will I should say of people changing what they're purchasing so I was shocked to find out it was a dental floss yes it's everywhere it's even in the rainwater it's it's just we've used it so much it's and it doesn't break down that's the problem yeah that's if I if I may that's part of the broad concern here is what's going to happen when we get to the point in time of if we're not allowing it in our waste systems here in Vermont if it's not allowed in New York we're not allowed to bring it up to Canada at some point it's probably not going to be allowed in Virginia but we still use it in so many products that we even realize so what are we going to do about it I mean then you have to install technology that will remove it which is high heat and so that's why it's kind of like a regional so they might need to be a regional solution because not everyone's going to be able not every wastewater facility is going to be able to have whatever I don't know what the unit would be called but whatever the unit is to destroy PFAS it's good that's what the idea of a regional some sort of regional facility or something to process solids um yeah it's not an easy solution but yeah they're considering the regulations and laws around removing it and whether it has to be removed and also at the same time consider the same restrictions on producing it yep just just hitting the end point Amber does have her hand right it's a tiny screen ever Regina's got my back so I think it's a great idea to send this out to everyone I'm just wondering if maybe there might be some grant funding or or just money available through even rural water association that might be able to cover the cost of doing that it's probably minimal anyways but just throwing it out there yep yeah great we don't need to vote on that so we can move right on to 60 which is the end development code thanks jelsie thank you jelsie thank you so this is this is chris i'm gonna give a little intro um yeah so um just to let folks know um timing wise um we've got a schedule in here and this memo recommends setting a public hearing for june 14th just so you're aware you could take another two weeks delve deeper into this document if you want have more time to talk with chris and get some questions answered and we can warn the public hearing on may 24th and still follow the exact same schedule um the uh concept if we do that um we have in the schedule an opportunity for amendments so you warn the public hearing um we also have gotten the information out on the website today that survey is out there for folks um if come june 14th when you have your public hearing if you've got a lot of comments about things that want to change or things come up from you folks that you want to change we have time to make those changes on june 14th and warn the second public hearing um that would still put us in the window of a year from the planning commission's public hearing back in the last summer um because if we go past that uh time is out essentially and um that is also just so you know an option too you don't have to take action on this um the uh potential benefit of moving um or holding the action on setting the public hearing until may 24th does uh let us figure out or let the legislature figure out what they're doing on s 100 and then inform exactly if there's anything in here that should be tweaked based on that legislation um also one thing i always like to point out when talking about land development code zoning bylaw work is it's never perfect it is a frustrating tool um it is set in place within intended intention there are always unintended consequences and we can always circle back and try to adjust and fix things as we figure out whether it's working meeting our goals or not meeting our goals um i think that's was going to be all my intro stuff um so chris can go through the memo for you folks and then we'll go from there thank you magina so i was i should also mention that uh once this is warned for the public hearing uh once notices out once it ends up on the newspapers once it's posted officially uh staff we as staff as a planning department will have to uh evaluate all incoming applications on both the new and old regulations and we will be we'll have to temporarily hold them to the higher of the two standards until there's a resolution uh what city council said can i interrupt i just want to clarify just because you just said that we don't have to come back to it does that impact anything before the drb now or warrant for the drb coming up and i'm thinking of pearl street i think we talked about this but i want to make sure i understand right it's going to be the date received so one we've already received the the material for for i think that the uh applications you're talking about on pearl street there are a bunch of things happening there they will continue to be i anticipate they'll continue to be uh more applications along pearl street uh but we will what you decide today does not affect what we discuss at the drb meeting next week because that's we've already processed so in other words development review would not happen for the projects that are already on their agenda that's my main concern oh you mean to digress your design design right sorry no that would not be included okay so that should be so okay all right sorry yeah once the amendments are warned um then we look at it uh for any applications that come in after that date sorry for the interruption just want to be clear yeah uh so regarding public engagements we have been working on a public engagement campaign to get the word outs uh to uh start getting feedback on the proposed amendments uh this the public engagement campaign has launched today the material is up online but we have we have not produced uh we have not put up a news release yet or a press release that is scheduled for tomorrow because there was something else that went up today we didn't want conflicting messages um but uh yeah the survey uh is up there now we have not received any responses because it's still hidden basically but uh what you have in your packet is there's merely a sample of uh of the pages of the uh of what's included in the survey uh that was too long uh I there wasn't an easy way for me to include all the pages there but so now that it's up online you're welcome to uh to take a look um can I add one point on that um so this survey is great because I think it gives us an opportunity and another option for folks to participate as opposed to coming here or calling or emailing but it it's not a statistically sound sample survey by any stretch um it's definitely very intended to be very high level in terms of getting input on this stuff just because I'm making this up but there's probably 150 pages that have individual text edits and amendments on it throughout the document so um this is I think hopefully we'll um we'll get some good feedback we'll keep kind of promoting it as best we can um so that you folks have some direction come June 14th yes uh any questions about public engagements before I move them so you said it's up on the website right now that's right how would I find it because like I went to the home page and like it's not there and I you said that was hidden currently because we haven't really promoted it but I'm just curious like how would right now it's uh it's in the uh community development it's under the community development page you'll see the link to it there but as if uh once the news release goes out there will be an icon one of the four icons at the bottom uh will be that and we'll be pinning it there for duration of the survey is there a halfway point at which you'll take a look and see what kind of public receive feedback you've received and if it isn't enough is there a plan B is can you pivot to some other way to try to get feedback so that we're maximizing the opportunities for the public to respond I'm anticipating that you're probably not going to get a huge response so I think the amount of response we'll get might depend on what kind of media attention we get uh we're we are putting out a press release and we've talked to um the the sx sx reporter about this if if we if we don't get the the turnout uh the participation that's uh that we want uh we you know we will we will have to reach out again to uh uh to the press to see if there's there's more we do uh we're still uh throughout the month we will be uh on social media as well but you know in terms of uh we don't have a plan for an additional like a major additional changes probably through this uh if we are getting uh the results that's uh that we hope for I think we as a board can can also you know try to do what we normally do to engage front porch forum and other things to get people to go on and I also think as far as press goes I think this is a one one of the only communities going through this right is us with hundreds coming down I think that as we say today for interest I think that will it's a it's a perfect storm in terms of you know they need to localize ps100 story so we are there ready with some of us already built into the code and so I think I think we'll get some attention at least for the next few weeks so I'd say another thing to uh another avenue for getting the word out is uh is through community leaders like people organizations out there who have mailing lists um who who have you're basically a captive audience to to to share information with uh if you have any contacts in the in the world out there uh who have the ability to share uh I think getting them on board your help with getting them on board would be a really appreciated we are we will be reaching out with all the uh we have mailing lists uh within the city uh but of course those are the existing engaged citizens such that are on there uh we have a slightly some slightly broader mailing lists that are available through uh through uh the city engineer um as well uh related to road construction uh we'd be able to they might be able to help uh spread the word a little bit more but uh if you have additional connections uh like it would be very helpful for you to leverage them you might if I make one suggestion if you haven't already and I apologize if you've already done this um do a show on time meeting television get on the both of you get on time meeting television go through the plan and then share it on social so that folks can watch it because they're always looking for programming and this is a really important conversation and so even if folks can just get an additional opportunity to hear you talk about it that would be helpful awesome idea if I may though based on what you said Regina there's already seems to be an assumption that it's going to be scientifically insignificant that being the case what is then actionable from this particular survey like what will we glean from it if it's statistically insignificant and because I know that you only set the portion of that survey but as I was looking through it I was going if somebody answered in a particular way what actions then would I potentially take what what guidance do I learn from so I guess I'm curious what we hope to get from the survey if we have already put an assumption that it's not quite the way we're not going to get a full set of data you want to answer well I was going to mention that it is not going to be a scientific method but neither is when you depend on people showing up to a public meeting we will we'll definitely get a broader larger set of responses and there will be there's a demographics question at the bottom that depending on how many results we get you might be able to do some cross tapping with with the you know the caveat that it's not scientifically significant but it's really also you know up to your judgment as to you know what you get out of it but we're just providing the most we can out of right one tool in this process and I think that brings you know brings up something that would be great to talk about over the next year is you know there are tools out there that of course require subscriptions but there are there are ways to make sure that we are being able to push and pull with people we can verify are our residents and whether we want to use those tools in conjunction with you know maybe some of what we learned during the strategic planning process about how the community really wants to communicate you know we can we can figure out whether the next time or the time after that we have to do this that we are getting something that we can count on as you know one measure but I think your example is a good one you know you're two people that show up with the public hearing you know that's hard it's hard to wait that against why didn't someone else ship off so anyway yeah yeah and I want to make sure that I clarify by saying I'm not suggesting why bother right I'm just you know asking you know because again I I am the same concern if the same two people show up right then it's still a problem that we're trying to make judgment calls for the community without a lot of community input um one thing I want to add to to the comment I know we're not getting into the I don't think we're getting into the document discussion yet but I'm I'm wondering if there's a way to make this more digestible for the community in having reviewed all of it over the last week um I kind of felt there were three large chunks one there's all the language that needs to be adjusted religious I think that's it feels like to me as a given and really even kind of gloss over to a certain extent then there is language in there that is being changed for statutory requirements that again is another one of those items where if I didn't want to dive deep maybe that's something as a community member I could gloss over because again we're making adjustments based on statutory requirements and the last is that item or those items that we're actually adjusting for our own interests and best practices and I think that is the piece that probably the community needs to focus on versus 250 some on pages of red markings and trying to go through each one of those and each one of those notes trying to figure out what should I pay attention to so I'm wondering if there's a way to break this far or do this in a digestible fashion so that the community could be more engaged because it's adjusted I think sorry yeah so um so I think uh just trying to think that through so certainly what Chris has highlighted in the website now and what's in the survey really is all in that third category right it's really the more sort of policy stuff not really the other two so much although some of it overlaps a little bit but in terms of actually breaking down the land development code itself and kind of flagging of all of those text edits which are in the third category um maybe it's trying to think of a resource I mean it's not the shepherd that would take yeah but it seems like that's what this document is and and maybe it's I don't know that it's exactly what you're talking about it's one of the documents we got before that kind of runs through the highlights yeah woman it has some images and maybe just pass through again to make sure that that you know it is really trying to you know capture the third category but it feels to me when I read it and when I'm hearing you right that it sort of does and it gets to the big changes and what does this really mean for my neighborhood you know for example with some of what we'll probably talk about in a few minutes because a lot of this it feels to me like there's maybe a dozen things that people are going to talk about around this and I think this gets this starts to really get there which is I think the website actually that's right yeah and the other document that I'll point out is the planning commission's written report so whenever the planning commission does land development code amendment it comes with a written report which summarizes those changes and that document explains by chapter of the LDC what the actual changes are not to 300 pages specific you know it's still only like I don't know four or five page document but each of those bullets you can kind of quickly see oh that's state statute and I it might even say it like that's a state statute change that's a village or zoning board of adjustment to a DRB model change versus one of these other kinds of we're attempting to try to help solve the housing crisis and water quality and those kinds of things so we could take a look to see if that's a helpful piece too and try to bring that to the front a little bit and try to explain that to folks make that clear yeah I think for my own experience it was the summary is great and I did appreciate and I did review that as well as the planning commission report yeah it was a matter of going back into the document and then kind of looking at that specific language and then yeah going okay this summary is explained in this way does this language kind of line up I don't know if anybody else would do that or not but I kind of felt like it it was harder for me to go to the document and then find the specific language to kind of check whether or not they were in all I mean I felt by the way that I looked at it they were but again I didn't know if community member would do this I think there I just want us to remember it's important that there are other ways that the public can weigh in on this process somewhat indirectly um land development code is very dry and difficult to understand and over the years I've learned that folks generally don't interact with the land development code until there's a project on their street and then they come talk to us and sometimes it's too late sometimes it's not but what we can do as a city council is ensure that other community priorities are incorporated into the land development code like our heart and soul values and when we have our strategic planning process in in suing months whatever comes from that we can make sure is reflected in the LDC so at least it's not a specific artist participatory process that is related to the LDC but it's an overall vision and we can make sure that that's in so I would not be surprised if we had a fairly low community input like it'd be wonderful if we had a couple hundred people look at it um it'd be great if a couple thousand did but I think that's probably not going to happen but we could engage them in other ways so we kind of got in the middle of what you were doing we will do unfortunately for you um so I'm not sure where you were I was I was just trying to um answer all our remaining questions of public engagement okay that's that's what we were great so we have a view we prepare a few additional changes that we recommend these are fairly minor they are they are included in the memo first of which is reinstating conceptual plan review for plan building developments this this would just turn the clock back this would just undo the change that's uh that's posed uh with uh with a new staffing here when I went through the development's review process uh and talked with Regina and talked about how several issues that have come up uh you know over the last year have come to be uh we've uh we figured out that's uh it was necessary to uh to have a conceptual plan review to get uh you know to to provide inputs to for developers before they put in additional efforts and and design detail into something that's uh we wouldn't be able to accept later or we might be kind of coerced into into trying to accept so that's just uh something that's uh we just want to undo um so basically no change there okay um minor changes to uh the lighting section this uh this is related to uh also some lighting issues we've seen uh with uh with developments um and uh yeah this this is just to to kind of to close a uh a gap of what's uh the rules cover uh we're seeing situations where there's a there's a pedestrian pathway that's not directly related uh directly adjacent to parking lots our regulations right now deal with parking lots so just extended that right because there's a lot of in-field development right now and little ones and twos and threes going into in the single lots between existing homes and spill over lighting is an issue and there's it sounds like there's confusion over what pathways need to be lit and that lighting is getting that's it's impacting neighbors in a way that wasn't intended right okay and so this address will help to address that yeah okay um there are some changes uh to the sewer regulation uh section as well these were uh all suggested by uh by chelsea and also uh looked at by by our city engineer um they're they're procedural and and they just they they just ensure that we have a mechanism for for enforcing certain things you know if it basically if uh developer asks for uh sewer allocation we want to make sure that's that they don't use it within certain expires they don't build that expires um and lastly there's a clarifications on bike parking requirements these are really clarifications uh at the uh uh suggestion of local motion they have some uh basic illustrations that that have been able to put into the ldc just to make it very clear what's allowed and what's uh what's not allowed so um we don't have uh the changes that might be required by the state housing bill if you wait another two weeks we're likely to be able to have them yeah and I would say right now just for folks who um don't know what s100 has in it has a whole lot in it um a significant amount of debate that's been happening is really whether there's going to be any act 250 stuff in it but there has always been zoning bylaw changes in it um and I would say what you've got in front of you now gets partially there depending on where it lands um so uh I think the intent of both that legislation and what we were doing here are on the same path and so it shouldn't be too terribly different but there might certainly be some differences that while we have the opportunity right now um we should just get in line with wherever they land I think the one comment I haven't there's there is a lot in that bill that's not so straightforward in terms of what neighborhoods can say they do and don't want and I'm not talking about residences but I'm not saying whether support those things or not but I think when you get that text it would be interesting to see um how that compares to the requirements for the multifamily renovations or changes we're making and so we can give people a little bit of a narrative on what they may expect one day and again I don't think any of us expects this to be like a light switch this is going to take many many years and to do some of this work you know the wait list for anybody and you know realistically we're not going to see much um I think most of what we'll see from the changes are some of the bigger projects that were coming online but um there are some interesting changes about what kind of activities and what kind of services would have to be allowed in residential neighborhoods so it would be interesting to see some kind of comparison to yes it says that you need to have like group homes for instance okay so how does that relate to someone's ability to then commingle that in the same law and you know just just sort of some kind of thinking when we come back and after you have that of like you know all right we sort of digest to these impacts and here's a couple paragraphs in plain English about what what we're looking at so that because we won't have a lot of time at that point we can really kind of get that out and again it's out so people know because likely if that's the case really isn't a choice but it's more of an informational how does it fit into the whole package yeah it's it's a good point and um you know I think in my mind I've been thinking we can incorporate the stuff that makes sense probably only in the realm of stuff that we've already kind of done in here if there is some other new things that we haven't really actually had the time to contemplate how we would incorporate it that we can't do in two weeks you know so that might be in the next in the next round and I meant to try to look at what the what the effective date for the bylaw changes were in that bill because I know there's so much in it there's different effective dates and I didn't get a chance to do that so but we'll know by next next meeting what that what our timeline is if there's some pieces in there that we are going to take need some more time to do sure so do we have any are there any more questions on the additional changes that we're recommending I don't have any right now is anybody else no no so that brings us to the issue of schedule what's when to do when to warn the public hearing we have in the memo that's uh that we're recommending that's uh you decide today to warn for uh June 14th but uh as we just mentioned uh there's actually another it is still possible to uh hold the public hearing on June 14th but decide next council meeting if you have any so that that allows us to incorporate potential changes necessary for S100 but also if you have any uh any specific changes that's uh that you you would like to consider that's uh you can you can decide on that today we can we can include that or if you just have questions and do you like a staff recommendation uh on specific issues we can update our the the uh the proposed the the the next version that's that you said so I question on that so you know one of the things that I didn't want to do tonight necessarily was to get into a line by line you know we've all had the opportunity to sort of try to meet with Chris you two just came on board I think it'd be great if we had a couple more weeks for the board to have an opportunity to pepper you with questions and get your responses um so if we did that and we waited until the 24th and we warned the June 14th meeting then and we have a conversation at the 24th for amendments and would those still will we still have time would that be what was warned the 14th or would we have to wait and do it in other words do you have to have those changes tonight in that scenario or can amendments and changes that we may want to make happened on May 24th so on May 24th if there are if you have if you want additional changes for the version that gets warned it would you would need to be very clear on what it is because that the moment the uh once you wouldn't need to decide once it's warned it's warned once it's changed yeah but also you well we could warn it and then at that public hearing propose those amendments to it but we'd have to have another public hearing after which we have right that's right okay I just want to make sure yeah okay does that make sense to everybody we could we can have time we can have two weeks to talk to Chris no I understand and then and then warn it next meeting and if there are amendments we want to make we can talk about those on June 14th have them incorporated and approved on June 14 but we would still have to have one more public hearing after that of which we have time which presumably would be the 28th of June whether your second public hearing and potential approval it would be in July okay in July yeah because I do have eight questions that I have oh I've got after going through these you know so I do have questions on this and I understand you don't want to go blind by line but it sounds like we're gonna kind of have to address some of these things tonight if we're gonna do if we're gonna keep on this time one for the next conversation um yes you know like I never want to be that guy who keeps us here until the night of course okay just wanted to click that was my role so we're gonna talk about this yeah welcome to the sea yeah so so um because I I just think that there are probably some things we should we should yeah and I'm not trying to start the conversation I'm just trying to yeah what sure I mean I'm I'm I don't what I again not trying to start a conversation but I this has the potential of um a conversation that will delve deeply into the weeds and um and in a way that may cause undue concern if there aren't answers provided back right now to those questions and so part of me is is leaning towards having an opportunity to meet with with chris have a conversation have him have the time to consider your questions and provide responses um so that when we get back together again we have all of that distributed to us prior to the meeting um as a document like all of our questions the answers and probably there's a lot of duplicates and then public has that as well and then what doesn't happen is that people aren't having conversations for two weeks with open-ended questions and no answers and and again nobody has to agree with me on this but that's a little bit of my concern is that we're going to ask questions that can't be answered and they're going to cause concern that may or may not be warranted um and again it's not trying to stay a full conversation and keep anything out of this is a very public document people are highly encouraged to read it have questions ask ask questions contact management but that's that's my field so I'll stop talking so in order to just give an example like this I think there are questions here that I think you definitely take offline ask Chris and then we can we can readdress later if if necessary if necessary changes but for instance one of my questions not to be answered the second was in the language there's language about there being a limit of four stories that conversation if we're keeping again on our time we might want to have tonight versus having on the 24 because if nothing else we could leave this and I'm not saying that we solved that tonight but that's a conversation we could have then leading into potential work that we come back to and finalize on the 24 because for me my simple question is pros and cons because we've put like there's language in there that this is our this is our um so I want to understand that before I say it's a good yeah I mean yeah please go yeah so um I think what's helpful to keep in mind is that the what you've got in front of you for the amendments uh was worked on by the planning commission for over a year it just happened to be also over a year ago so it's just a lot you know a lot of time has changed but for this type of document it's coming to you from one of your committees it's coming to you from the planning commission and in that scope of work that they had in front of them for this set of amendments this is um what they felt they could cover and what they really put a lot of time and energy in so that's just sort of one comment to make and I think it's confusing because we're talking about amendments mostly and that's because this document is yours it's the land development code is the council's document to adopt and so once it is handed over to you it's yours it's not the planning commissions but there is a lot of good reason for some I would categorize that as a as a rather large policy conversation that really should happen at their table before um not before this one as if like you guys shouldn't talk about it but in terms of it being an amendment in the document that would be the more proper avenue um some of the other amendments that we're talking about are sort of in the same vein of what the planning commission looked at the LDC for and what recommendations they're making to the council but we've got some things that should be should be tweaked within it um I'll also just add there's a whole lot of other pieces of this document that should be looked at um and uh I think there are other efforts in in making that happen and just because you brought up that one in particular example I'll just mention that we will be working on a transit oriented development project um that will do a little bit more of a charrette type of work that can really help give you the pros and the cons to answer that question of whether it go higher than four or not I'm assuming you're talking about higher potentially 23rd I don't I don't know yeah it's it's a discussion we're talking about how do we get more housing unfortunately we just don't have the land to spread out right so that is that is a concern of one and I did hear it from some people while talking on the campaign um but that that was just one example and I brought that up not to again debate it great the second just a matter of like what should we discuss tonight and what should we hold back for later discussion with chris and then bring back to the council in 24 I mean and Amber why don't you go ahead I saw you this time I'm not sure that I'm going to help the conversation I was just going to lay it out that I think you know like marcos just did I think there are three really big things looking back through this there are the typo-y kind of things that need to be changed there are the specific sections you know things like hey we need to add this into this section and because it wasn't counted for and then there's the large discussion items such as what we were just hitting upon should we increase the height and how do we feel about the duplex and triplexes and I know from my I mean I guess I would love to second Raj and that I'd like to see this moved to a discussion or wait until wait to call the public meeting award the public meeting until the 24th I'd like to spend a little bit more time digesting the LDC and potentially meeting with chris as well and as I haven't had an opportunity to do that yeah I think you know I mean we could you know looking at my list I sort of you know I chunked it by theme and then to go to to Regina's example you know I asked chris and I brought this up when we first met with the planning commission there's nothing in here about it's very light on climate change topics you know there's no asking here of developers around db charging stations for parking and understandably the response was you know that's a that's a that's something for the planning commission to then start with and I think very much like the parking very much like the the the height that's going to be a vastly deeper discussion around where and why where and it's sort of why you know in thinking about this pretty deeply I had a hard time figuring out how we could decide what to go to tonight so it's frustrating but I think until everybody's had a chance to really get their specific questions answered and we can get some themes back and everybody have that have that information in front of them I think that's going to be a much smoother experience on on the 24th for all of us and again that document in those answers I'm putting I'm putting work on you and I apologize for joining but if you do if you are able to call a question and answer and then feel free to this was similar to what it was asked we're just going to use this question then at least that is one more document to present to on the website for the public to kind of and I mean I would love an overview that set I would love an overview for a few minutes on on the big ticket items that are in here like the potential changes in duplex and truck boxes and you know and I you know there's little things right like there's little things but I think those are more on the tweak end and let's see what the background reason for that is so I don't know Andrew I think Lee when you're done I'm done I think they're holding off until the 24th makes a fair amount of sense the only thing I want to throw out is we were just talking before about how do we engage the community from our experiences we've seen that the community tends to get engaged when there is something controversial when there is something that hits at the heart strings in particular impacts their backyard I wonder if to somewhat utilize that motivation to our advantage if we were to agree on we pick one policy level conversation to try and have and incorporate within the slang development code as a way to potentially solve or change something at a policy level as well as to then possibly engage the community in that issue and I think that the height limit might actually be a fantastic one in the sense that I don't not to push back on this one to you Regina it might have been 2016 in the last rounds and correct me if I'm wrong Alain I know you were like the board of trustees at the time we had in front of us the changes to allow for four waivers or for four stories plus up to two stories for a waiver within the village center that we had a fair amount of people who came here and said no look at what just happened at at four parole how could you allow such a thing why would you allow such a thing and I might have some of that potentially incorrect in terms of the timeline but we at the village trustees at the time said we hear you community who came out and spoke to us on this issue so all right let's do away with the waiver up to six stories a lot has changed in that amount of time and I think that that might be the policy issue that one we could try and have here that has already gone through the the planning commission from years ago as well as possibly engage the community to come out and participate in this process yeah I I totally understand I'm worried that with this timeline we really don't have a an opportunity to in this particular document with this timeline unless we hold it to you know have a good community conversation with as Regina described with is it just in the trunk roads is it in the village center is it how far out of the village center if not which roads and where and only if post office square is redesigned with it in front and you know not and there are technical questions in there that go to that as well around buffers in the village center that you know or not right so yeah I I assumed myself that the duplex triplex in the residential districts which interestingly didn't include the plan agricultural area which is only residential you know I thought that would be the it is getting a lot of conversation but I'm just I'm just me Amber would you have to say that I was unrelated to that particular section I just forgot in my last speech to mention that I think it might be helpful and I know this is probably not going to get a positive input on but if we are going to move this to the next meeting I would love to see this be the only discussion topic that we have this is a really important discussion and I'd like to focus on it that's just my input can't guarantee that I did preface it but I knew this wasn't going to get like you know heavy heavy input but well let's let's put it back to Chris and Regina in terms of what there's clearly some desire to talk about this today and that's great I'm not trying to again not trying to staple it just trying to manage it a little bit what do you think we can reasonably get through in a thoughtful you too know this document better than anybody I mean my take is that if you have comments and you want to let us know what those are tonight and if there are any sort of fairly high-level ones that you do need some consensus or what would benefit from us is some level of consensus whether we know we're trying or attempting to incorporate that or not that would be helpful um and would just encourage on either of your lists that are if there are technical questions or things that we can just quickly and easily deal with offline then that's maybe the best way to go through both of your lists or if anybody else has lists to go so I would add that side you know many many discussion items you have on this could they could turn out different weights right and they could be resolved different weights one thing that we might get out of this process is we might have a list of uh you might come up with a list of uh uh directives for the planning commission to uh to work on next uh we also there are also issues of trade-offs um policy trade-offs which this the proposed amendments are you know are are bringing to light and uh if you disagree with them or you think they they should be balanced in a different way and you think that other members of council might be swayed or or you know if it's if it's something that's that deserves discussion and will and is likely to uh result in a resolution I think that might be worth um uh discussing sooner rather than later later so that the the documents that we present uh in two weeks incorporates what your new consensus is but also then then there are the technical uh issues which of course we're happy to take offline or if there are if there are issues which you would like us to look more into and come up with a staff recommendation that is something that you uh it comes to us uh individually for so I guess I'd say to the board um take that as we go through this right now take that lens to your list and say you know like self-filter big themes um need further clarification on big issues on larger topics higher altitude um and it just goes where it goes I'm chopping at the bed to talk about this I understand my hesitation is like have self-control for their benefit um they both know I'm just sort of like what do you mean we're though so I don't know if anybody wants to go first I just want to make sure that we've got we we set ourselves up the proper direction without having it at all in a meeting where we're having a discussion we're making media changes and we're warning it's like the public doesn't have time to write and digest because I think I'm one of the lines of Andrew some of this stuff could get some blood going and hopefully if nothing else suggests some energy that's into our discussion why don't you start and we'll pick one or two and we'll go around the room let me pick a light sure the parking yeah like one yeah the parking the parking space minimum um I remember in the document and I'm sorry I'm looking for my specific note on this so I don't remember but there is a minimum or one space current at least that's what's being suggested yes in the LDC um it is also acknowledged that other communities around us have made changes to remove the minimum we are changing that we're reducing our our minimum requirement but I'm wondering why we're not just eliminating it like our sister communities are you know similar next door to us who removed it entirely I think it would go against it appears that developers in those communities are still putting in parking spaces but some of them like I think of the new development in Burlington um sorry I'm blanking at the moment but you know they ran a minimum number of parking spaces and developed a property that is really aligned with alternate forms of transportation so they provide hourly rentals of cars or they provide you know rentals of bikes and you know they have accessibility in the bike that things of that nature so it seems to be in line with I think where we want directionally to go but I'm wondering why we're stopping one versus two so from a staff perspective there's in terms of parking policy uh the the economics of parking is complicated because we offer parking for free on the streets and also people are quite used to free parking off street it is a seismic shift to to uh completely turn things around uh into turn parking into a free market solution and I think in the absence of uh having having developed policies on uh on street parking residential parking um you count the counselors you're as counselors you'll likely see uh you know impacts of that in the in the median term uh you know whenever people have new found troubles in finding parking uh you'll be the first to hear but that doesn't mean that that's uh I think that's it's what you what you mentioned is a very valid point and yes there are communities going not only eliminating minimum parking requirements they're putting on maximum parking requirements they're just some some community communities are taking what they had as minimums and just directly turning those into maximums um and yeah this is this is the policy trade off uh that's you know if if you're willing to uh to to uh weather the storm and and also you know figure things out uh figure out figure out issues with residential residential parking as we go uh there it it is possible to change it I mean so I have parking down but for a different I mean that was on my list so I'll end that and say one consequence in many of our neighborhoods that are older with single car driveways is that we see um we see that's not a reality anymore we see cars all over the property and that's disproportionately played out in the community and it can really have an impact on the neighborhood so that's one part part b to that is what would what we're looking at for the duplex triplex and if s100 goes through this it sounds like quadplexed and then we add some of the barrier or the buffer setback uh items in this document um you know I don't have specifics but you know there's like a if it's it's so big there's 20 feet between the next between that and the next but if that's now working then you have two or three cars right up against the property or building that was so some of those impacts I'm very curious about and and how we mitigate I'm not so much concerned about I am I'm a little concerned about not having enough parking though I don't disagree with what they're doing I think we need to start stop planning around the car but we also need to be able to address when people still have those vehicles and decide to just take it into their own hands to the park wherever they can and for a lot of people that's the reality there's not much they can do you know there's big families living in these homes so anyway I don't know what our ability to control that is or to have a you know how we mitigate that end of it um and again it gets to some of the the technical details in here where where you do have that potential for some of these family units that weren't before you know now the front is going to be largely vehicles or largely paved and if it's on the side the setback isn't suitable because now those are vehicles but if you put it in the back it's not so livable so it sort of gets to do we need to do we do we say something like you can develop this it would try plex but you still want to get the two spots and they have you know or one or whatever you know so I don't have those answers but those are definitely my some of my questions is you know these neighborhoods still need to and I hesitate to say it this way but they still need to have some sort of character that that makes them attractive to be in and to walk in and to bike in and to play in and to live in and so it becomes all about secondary storage for vehicles instead of having that nature scape or such as it is in some neighborhoods then that's a real concern I don't I'm still trying to digest what this means for that and and it goes to the it goes to how much parking we require and I've been in a planning commission meeting where I now regret we express concern that there wasn't enough because that's how I was thinking about solving this problem of people just parking wherever so if we don't have the ability to go in and clean that up in whatever way shape or form or to help residents address the issues there have around that and transportation is a huge issue you know I don't know we're having trouble getting green mountain transit to serve at seven you know and they only go out to another business area from here once every hour and 15 minutes until six so you know that's a that's a huge concern yeah and I think I'll I'll just say that again in terms of like where the planning commission felt good about landing in this is trying to prevent the zoning regulations from creating a barrier to additional housing and parking and really you know there's a lot around this topic for sure and certainly I think Chris alluded to you know there's a lot of other systems in other places that are doing some of this that we don't have prepared yet but really the intent of this step was to make sure we weren't prohibiting more housing units from being built because we were requiring requiring them to each have two plus parking spaces and really what we're trying to do is just eliminate that as a barrier as this starting place there is a ton of other places that we can go to on this and there's a lot of other management tools that we need to think about as a city if we're going to take a different approach like going as far as a maximum only you know only two people allowing two cars on a triplex like it's tough and it's tough because we're still in Vermont and still a lot of people drive need to drive in order to access their jobs so it's definitely a balancing in terms of how far we can go on some of these issues and still be effective can I add to your comment for clarity for clarity for me because what I read into it with that 30 maximum I did not necessarily I didn't have the space issue come up for me but I need to read it wrong to clarity what is that map does that parking contribute to that 30 maximum within the lot so there's there are two maximums there's there's maximums for the building and there's maximums including parking 30% the new 30% limit would be for the building but there's 40% limits including parking so I do actually anticipate that parking will you know space for parking will still be a limiting factor in what can feasibly be be added to existing single single family homes converting and converting converting them into a triplex even if we don't require more much more parking you know people are going to want more parking and we will be looking at their applications and their plans and if there isn't enough space to fit that within within the the lot coverage limits who would not be able to prove that um related to that there was there was another provision in here about how parking would for for say for the R1 in our two districts parking would not be allowed to take a more than 30% of the lot frontage or 20 feet whatever is less yes so that was the attempt at controlling the front part of the lot yeah anybody else want to go we'll just take turns or and so sorry I should also just respond to the minimum parking requirement discussion at the beginning the first thing you brought up if we were to remove minimum parking requirements all together in most cases there would be no change because one most developers want you to include one parking space per per unit and and Marcus you have a you have a very valid point that right now if one example I bring up sometimes in important there was a near where I live there was a development that was by a non-profit organization for visually impaired and previous regulations basically meant that they still had to include a fair bit of parking the rules were changed and and that's that's no longer required but having minimum parking requirements at all means that it's not necessarily as context specific specific as it could be but also this I think the planning planning commission's thoughts on this was to you know make changes incrementally so are we simply making a list at the moment I guess that kind of got into a discussion um yeah I participated sorry about that that's okay I just had two topics um one I think is specific to BLDC one is probably a larger conversation that might not be solved but this conversation this particular conversation but I'm interested in ADUs and whether or not tiny houses fall under that and whether the code can accommodate tiny houses that are not attached so that's one question I have the other is the intersection between the noise ordinance and public news the noise ordinance and the public nuisance ordinance and the noise and odor and get noise and odor provisions in the LBC just to make sure that they match and that they are consistent and that they apply a small scale residential as well as on large scale like for an example a large scale um odor issue would be when Whitcomb Farm does their manure I think everybody smells that but then the small neighborhood where there's an issue it's localized to small neighborhoods just want to make sure that that is consistent and whether we need to um if everything is consistent um that leads me to one last thing which is enforcing so we are going through a lot of changes pointing out a lot of restrictions loosening some restrictions I would like to understand the extent to which that belongs to be enforced so first issue tiny homes uh they would count as an accessory growing unit uh actually in our LBC we call them accessory apartments accessory apartments can actually be detached so a tiny a tiny house uh would uh be able to count as that set in many cases okay in your survey with the really nice graphic of all the different kinds of housing I looked for tiny homes and didn't see that unless you would include it in part of a cottage community that seems to be like something but it seems to be something that is taking root in Vermont people are interested in having them so I'd like to just make it clear that it's permissible that's instruction yeah and that just this always um is an interesting one to me because there's a tiny house can be a single family home I mean it can it is a residential structure that can be allowed in any in any way so an ADU is not the only regulatory mechanism to get to a tiny house okay you can have a subdivision of a bunch of lots and they can all be singly owned and they can just be tiny homes as opposed to a traditional 1200 to 2000 square foot home but in terms of having a backyard and you want to put another building in the backyard yep that would be a necessary yep accessory apartment and there's nothing prohibiting a certain size I think that would be a certain minimum size I should say you could do 300 square foot tiny house if you want if you want to okay tiny house isn't a definition really in and of itself is sort of just what I'm saying it's that this makes no I understand completely yeah I think what I'm getting at is that the public is interested in those yeah and but we don't call them that in the code and we don't refer to it in any way to let people know that it's a thing you can do yeah and I think perhaps we simply communicated that more clearly I can certainly do that and in fact I can change I think the the online uh the public engagement message uh pages a little bit to include mentioned where tiny house where where with the my tax about 80 years I'm just glad to hear that it's not a limitation but something we could encourage yep so your other uh issue was about nuisance um regulations on nuisance uh and your example was the farm when they spread manure uh so the ldc has provisions for uh for dealing with nuisances but it's it's fairly limited and also it's not retroactive and it doesn't anything that existed before rule was made is not bound by it if it is in the uh if it's in the zoning my law which I yeah that's our ldc um um and there are also uh gaps in that in terms of agriculture they're because agricultural uh state statute protects uh such uses uh but they the state also has other regulations that's a that control when you're allowed to spread manure uh what time of the year but uh nuisances can also be regulated by by uh city ordinance and that is not uh and that applies to everybody except for you know unless state statute uh states otherwise uh yeah even if you have previously been producing the odor or or uh the noise uh you could come under regulation Regina do you have anything to add to that um just uh for me there's three question marks on that broadly I think we need to circle back to this conversation there's another piece that I didn't mention which is waivers yeah which I kind of never understood why we have a noise ordinance and yet we grant waivers to it on the basis and rather than doing that perhaps we should just address the fact that there's certain activities in the city that occur and make a carve out for them and then not give waivers to anybody I just I never understood why we were always granting waivers to the expo for their concerts we have potentially the high school is a place that can hold loud events and maple street is a place that can hold loud events and maybe we should just address the fact that those loud events happen and understand the sound limitations for those locations rather than the individual events and then not issue waivers just wondering what the feasibility is in my time previously as a trustee the waiver time was always the time the neighbors came out and they were upset why are you granting waivers that we live right next door to the expo it's it has I haven't seen it to be such a big problem in recent years but it stuck with me that we have these rules and yet we consistently offer waivers to only one entity and so I'd rather be more consistent about addressing them and the fact that they can happen in other places in the city and we just acknowledge that they do and we're okay with it and put limitations around it that are already being met then there we are yeah um yeah this is there's a slew of ordinance and policies to review yeah forthcoming forthcoming yeah I don't think we've made any of I don't think this round of LDC amendments really address news and says like no no is older at all yeah I know it's just housing and such but since we were there yeah Amber do you have any sorry Amber do you have anything you want to add I guess not right this minute okay Andrew there's only three things that I wanted to mention one is I was actually kind of surprised that I was able to find the typo uh section 301 still refers to board of trustees and I know that I took a quick look through wondering if maybe there could be another effort to just make sure that villages always crossed out and in place with city that trustees always crossed out with city council um the one thing that I don't understand and I don't necessarily need to we don't even have the conversation now um law coverage why in some sections it's 30 percent other sections 40 percent uh and how are how we may be further hindering with the housing issues that we are experiencing statewide and beyond and if we were to change those to something say 60 for instance what that could mean in terms of trying to help be a part of the solution for housing and then the other one uh while I don't have many regrets in life the one I mentioned before about uh doing away with the waiver for the two stories in the village center is something that I don't enjoy having been a part of that process and having made that decision um given where we are and would love if we would be willing to go back to either putting in the waiver to allow for and or just expanding the height allowance general with the village center okay so if if I may respond uh to some of these these issues so yes we'll do another pass to check with the word trustees and village make sure that those are out in terms of law coverage uh law coverage I do anticipate that law coverage will be a limiting limiting factor for many uh for many properties uh for increasing density um I think I can't I can't always guess what the rationale for how some of the rules came about when they were written but law coverage uh helps with several things one of them is storm water management uh impervious surfaces uh you know increase runoff and uh and increases uh the the pollution that's uh that comes with that and the stress that that's uh that applies to our storm water systems um but also um greens trees the house I live in Burlington uh in an old Victorian converted house law coverage there is north of 70 percent and the back the the uh basically there's a little little grass and tree at the front but everything else is gravel parking lines and uh and uh there's a little parking structure um as a result there are five households we're in you know a very convenient central location but the tradeoff there is that it's there's no greenery in the back at all um so that is certainly you know I think we only we increased it uh the proposal increases the allowable lot a lot of coverage by five percent for R1 and R2 but it doesn't really change anything else so that could very much and I do anticipate it to be a hindrance to uh to increasing density in many cases um if you have a specific uh suggestion if there's there's consensus uh among among council we uh you know we can certainly uh propose a change sure just actually since you brought that portion up I would just say within the R2 district in general I would love to see that increased beyond the five percent I can completely understand the the concept in R1 but R2 I could see that being expanded upon to something closer to 50 or 60 percent so that way we could allow for those duplexes triplexes to actually be built um given the tight loss in the overwhelming majority of those districts as it stands now are you thinking uh this so so we have two limits we have the limit from building and then excluding uh are you thinking just to uh have one single limit but much higher um sure yeah see I would almost say the opposite because I'm looking at larger lot sizes over in R1 then I mean you know my for instance my neighborhood is in R2 and I can't imagine drawing much over what my yard is which is it's under it's legal I've been around about like 50 emails it's legal but um I think that's I think it's a conversation with having and and I'll just say and that by saying Chris and I talked about this and I asked for yards like is there a is there a waiver process where there could be a consultation with that you know for that project that says this particular project on this particular property will produce a stormwater issue therefore we can get it rented up to x provided it means everything else does parking well that's right but so if someone you know they want to put the adu and we desperately need it and they'd like to make it a two bedroom adu or a bedroom and a law you know and but they're eight percent over that um there's a process where they can go and say no but this yard you see it's in the back corner and it has all these other properties around you know there's an opportunity there for for some process where they can have and maybe that's a big you know or something they can have someone come out and say this isn't going to present a property actually we can correct it um and so you know um that's we don't have to go into it and that's just sort of like is that a possibility but I think that block cover just going to come up for people because it's going to you know people are going to look and say yes we're trying to do this but how right you know and I'm sure the planning commission did they're in the map and a lot of these lots I mean I think the again it's in the lens of just trying to remove barriers so it's going from single family to duplex or triplex because in some instances that means just a a rehab of an existing structure and not needing to go a whole lot larger in the structure itself um and as a barrier there's no reason to make that to hold to have that restriction in the zoning if you could do something like that um and I think it uh it does start to get to which is um hard to deal with and we shouldn't be dealing with it but it is character of the area and it's it's tricky to figure out what is the right percentage um but I do think that it will be and I think to Chris's question a little bit is it a total increase of the total lot coverage or is there a distinction between building lot coverage and parking lot coverage because you can also sort of use this as a policy to try to limit the additional on the parking side because you're just allowing more for buildings but not necessarily just on so it's it's not an easy answer to figure out where where you get to you did mention one quick thing that I don't understand so if somebody does have a single family home now and the law the rules allow for a triplex um but their home currently because that's what they moved into uh it is currently big it takes up more a lot than what our land development code allows for would they still be allowed to turn that from a single family home into a duplex or triplex so already the lot coverage is non-performing right well you just kind of made the non-conform the the non-conformance worse but like the element that is non-conforming so so in that case the element would be uh lot coverage you wouldn't be able to if you're not if you're just putting up new walls in there and adding an internal stair or something that would still be possible ramped in that you don't have to to increase uh you know pay uh payments uh parking area but but as we mentioned parking is it's really the combination of parking and and the structure that is that is going to present a limit uh here be be the limits for what people can do and um there there is I don't see any problem with come to with having a single number instead of having uh you know the house and um parking area separately uh especially if you were if you were looking at increasing that number um Raj what's what you mentioned whether or not there could be a waiver process uh I think there's always the possibility of designing a specific waiver process but anything that you know if if you're the intent is to allow allow more lot coverage if you know if certain conditions are met in terms of storm water it would take more it would it would be a little complicated in terms of uh you know administration of such a program uh to make sure that especially or for small you know small time landlords who might not really know what they're doing and also like for for us then we would have to evaluate if those conditions are met um it would I think it's possible to design a program like that but it would it would take more than okay what can do although if we if there was interest in just increasing the number um by any amount uh that is certainly a tweak that we we can implement if there's consensus or you know if there's majority I'm not opposed to the idea that's being suggested but I'll put I'll put the extreme question out there let's just say it's 50 percent just for you to say okay what is this yeah you know I happen my particular property has a space where I could put that that parking space in there but I know I have neighbors that do not have an additional spot for a car but they have enough lot size that I could see them putting me on their particular property which would potentially either do one of two things which would potentially add a vehicle to front lawn which I don't even love or put cars on the road you know parking on our on our streets which become a problem especially during winter um but so I don't think that the the city would ever transform that way to that extreme but it does make me start to ask that question how what is that percentage that keeps and retains the feel of our city trying to help this crisis but not not damage Amber you've had your hand raised for a little bit sorry it doesn't have to do with this topic it has to do with a separate topic so we can finish this okay so I don't know that we can come to a consensus on this tonight right it's out there for the right so we hope to hear from the community on really what they want the community to look for it sounds like so it sounds like the planning commission didn't pull this out of a hat I mean they put a lot of time and effort into coming up with this but this is the number they're working with we can always tweak it also the planning condition I mean the planning commission was also trying not to rock the boat too much so I think they were starting their starting point was the status quo and uh I think there's there's there's a lot of uh game theory and how and how they came up with this because I think they were also anticipating what council might might find acceptable so you know by all means if if there are things which you think are uh you should be should be adjusted like those those changes uh if they're doable uh you know we welcome those well I guess I'd ask the question back you know it'd be I'd be curious to hear what the planning commission shares so you know if if they were trying to if they were doing as you say and not sure how we'd react and try not to rock the boat what would their ask be because it's probably got some data behind it or some information behind it um and so without going too far down the road right now it'd be curious to get some feedback on what would have there what would have their recommendation that and they not and just maybe get that to us um and then we can see what that looks like and maybe there's maybe that's fine maybe it's something in the middle maybe we don't do anything um I think we can also come back to this too if we in a year's time two years time don't see you know we don't see anybody doing this because they're being limited and certainly our community development department with their conversations with residents can I do this no I can't um that's feedback they can come right back to us and we can we're planning commission they can say look this is the work we need to help it um because we're not people are coming to us and saying we can't do it this doesn't make sense so there's always that possibility sounds like so I can actually I can ask the planning commission at the next meeting uh to come to to come up with a a list of things they they might have been well I don't know if we want the whole list I mean it's just you know let's just start let's just start like quietly with three you know the the issue of uh lot density from the council and we're curious a lot has changed right in the conversation over the past year since this was first proposed which means really two years in their consideration so you know everybody's way more sensitive right now to providing as much housing as we can which I honestly don't think that's what we're thinking about two years ago so Amber why don't you go ahead one of the things that I'd like to see a another look at is the fee schedule um in particular as I was reading through some of the different sections that talk about like if your permit expires but then you can ask for a renewal of the permit that there are no fees associated with that um and I guess I'd ask you to take a take a second pass at that and think about it from a staff perspective because that still does take staff time to have to weigh in on that renewal um and so I lean kind of in the direction of we should have something that's in here that addresses that but I will I did know that there is a lot of changes in the fee schedule but a lot of the ones that didn't change are the things like the administrative um fees still stuck at $25 and I'm not sure um I'm not sure where that comes in and and line up to the current salaries and and whether that makes sense to leave it at $25 so I think there's a lot of theory that goes behind deciding how how to charge for developments in cities um and and there are different schools and the service that we provide as a planning department uh some could consider it as as a part of public service you know we're we're reviewing plans we're reviewing development plans and it's trying to try trying to shape development in a way that is that is beneficial for the public interest um also the another way to think about it is that we are we are doing something in service of development itself and some some people think that development should pay for its development should pay for development but we also know that the cost of development is quite high and you know it is a part of it is it is a barrier to to a development itself and the you know the long-term consequences about about making construction and and planning development difficult is that there'll be less of it um but we're certainly like I think it's a it's a it's a continuum of how we do this and uh maybe consistency is is uh is key here uh Amber you you mentioned that some things seem to have no cost you know perhaps it does make sense to have everything come with some some some cost some fees um but you know how high those those fees are uh should be uh you know I think it depends on what what your values are in terms of uh how you think development should be paid for yeah and Amber I think you've you've been um asking this quite a bit there is some increase like you said in there it probably could be more um the other thing I've just thought about a little bit is whether it makes any sense that this fee schedule is in the land development code or it is separate from it so that it just can be more annually looked at and thought through as opposed to a just you know something that's tied to this very difficult to change an update document um so that might be something that we could do in terms of just like being clear that it's not we just sort of separate it out from the ldc through this process officially so that it could be something we look at more regularly I think that makes sense Regina um and and I am a broken record on the revenue piece I am the first one to admit that it is everything that I hit on budget day so just so everybody knows for the new folks a broken record on revenue it's a good record to break to break on good point in the record to break all right I'm gonna rattle off some things we don't need to talk about that I just want the council to know I'm thinking about or I'm concerned about and we can talk about it I mean um uh housing changes were in r1 and r2 but not in the plant agricultural area which brings up for me why do we have a plant agricultural area um why isn't it just r3 or r2 um so I think that's an amendment we should make for this because it's leaving out a whole residential area I do think s100 would probably require that too yeah um I'd like to see this is for my bike walk days I'd like to see diagonal parking prohibited and removed from all of our public roads it's incredibly dangerous for cyclists it takes a lot of space and I don't actually think with the most recent parking study we did that we actually needed this version has drive-thru is permitted in the village center district I'm not sure how that would work and it seems antithetical to what we're trying to do in the village center district that's it yeah um 604 thank you I could be completely wrong in which case I'll be thrilled oh we'll check it out yeah please and I'd frankly like to see and here again probably unpopular on this I'd like to see takeout drive-thrus and future I think they're complicated with bike lanes they're complicated with traffic um I just don't I don't see that we need them but that's just it's just my opinion um but there is actually science behind the other diagonal lane in the use chart it's not in the use chart but I think there's some text um again I don't have to get into it um uh you know we talk about parking where we have an awful lot of single family or sorry single occupant or studio or one bedroom units coming online but we don't say anything about asking developers to provide any kind of motorcycle scooter or the parking just something to consider um I think we're going to see a lot of that that tends to be seasonal and then people have to find something off-site for it in the winter so it may not be a thing for us it just was putting it out there that's for actual feedback I got from someone electric vehicle stuff we're going to do a different time um but the stuff that is I think more interesting um I did talk to Chris a little bit about this was the idea that in the village center district um I just want to get this right no buffer is required between a multifamily and a single family home now and I'm thinking back to when the senior building went in off-park and the folks that live on I remember the name of the street whatever yeah with the two cross like going up past boxcar and then the perpendicular off yes yeah um that building looms very large even 20 feet away or 15 feet away and everyone knows um and the thought that in that district where we still have residential buildings that there'd be no buffer um I understand the streetscape we're trying to achieve I just I didn't like conversation with Chris you know I haven't walked I wanted to go with this in mind I wanted to go bite the walk neighborhoods again for half an hour just see where this would impact like who I can see I know of some properties um but maybe this is a change that's made on the boundary of that village center district so that the homes are I mean nobody's going to build within five feet I don't think but they could that could be granted and then you'd have this four potentially higher story building looming over a clean little you know three bedroom cave and there'd be nothing anybody could say about it so maybe it's revisiting that generally in that district or maybe it's being more specific around the border of that district to make sure that that can happen that around the border it would there would be a buffer and if there are no single family homes that are still acting as homes but businesses now like you know maybe these but you know there are some apartments in there and that's the other distinction when is it a single family home that we are buffering and when is it a multi multi-unit apartment building and retreating them different so if it's a tiny building with two apartments in it having a four-story building looming right up against it is still a much different experience and there's still people living in there whether they're a single family or their two apartments so how do we make sure that we're we're getting the streetscape we want and the density we want without I mean these incredible juxtapositions and inconveniences are on people that are that are there already I don't have an answer it's just something that I think we need to we need to think about and get some feedback on um I guess that was really the big one that hasn't been talked about is that those that idea of how these buildings will go together and the last thing is probably not so much for the LDC but every um construction project and most recently Regina knows unfortunately with the with the with the construction project that was near my home um we didn't there wasn't a great method of ensuring that there wasn't massive inconvenience for pedestrians and cyclists um and I'm thinking of this building the boxcar is in now and I'm thinking of the community that's going up on Pearl Street constant um I I spent a lot of my life living in cities and a lot living in other places like this and whenever in a city there was a construction project that impacted the sidewalk there was a covered walkway that jutted out into the lane was protected and people could still walk on that side of the street and I think that if we're going to have the projects that are coming in that we really have to kind of have that expectation that people shouldn't have to walk a quarter mile to another crosswalk because they don't they walk out on the street or they bike out in the street and you know project managers don't take into account closing a sidewalk but it's the only side um and that can last for months and that building in particular has been on two or three years now in construction and so I want to make sure that we're doing due diligence and our expectations for these whoever's doing the building that they really have to preserve the accessibility that we already have and take that into account when they're carrying out the projects and we have that expectation because we are still a walking biking district school and we are promoting that as our as the whole point tool so if we're going to take out a whole sidewalk for a quarter mile two years um you know four seasons that I think we need to rethink and that's just my little dynamic um in the case of Perlstery it was the only sidewalk so I unfortunately made a lot of phone calls to Richie so sorry again that's really it that hasn't been mentioned so um I think there are either the last two items you talked about really uh especially the second last one it's really about trade-off set that's uh that I think are worth discussing and uh at least getting on the same page with the intention of uh not requiring a buffer uh between multifamily and single-family homes in the village center is that is the village center and you know we're trying to achieve uh greater density you know and knowing that that that there will be impacts you know it's whether you're you are putting more uh you're protecting the single-family home the existing residents there are more or the people who don't exist yet but you know the new homes that the additional home that might have been possible that if if you didn't have that requirement I do see the what you what you propose as uh as uh requiring the buffer on the the perimeter I do think that is uh that's middle ground that's uh that may be possible but certainly in every other district we have uh we have buffer requirements but in this case the the planning commission had uh had thought through the back of it because it's a village center and the the uh the priority is so severely in the in the direction of uh of wanting higher density uh they uh they recommended this but this is I think this is this is a classic case of a trade-off that's uh that you know if there's if the council if council agrees that there should be a change and perhaps the mid uh towards the middle ground that's a proposed we can come up with something um alternatively we could come up with sap recommendation uh in two weeks and you can go from there yeah I know what we could think um I just think it's it's interesting to me because you know we have the concept of you know grand uh pre-existing so you can't impact it backwards right and yet that's sort of what we're doing we have this pre-existing home that's been there for you know 50 to 200 years but we're saying we don't have to think about the present there we're just going to change this and your experience is not going to change in ways nobody anticipated um so I think it's worth a conversation and it's worth folks walking around on the board and when you're out and about just kind of look and see who where these are and and as we think about higher structures where those are and it even impacts in some ways you know where that higher structure you know if post office plaza was raised you know in 20 years or a newly approved seven-story six-story development there would that be right up against the street or would it be sent back a bit and how would that impact the those those homes are further away so that doesn't really matter it's that concept you know um you know the neighborhood next to the fairgrounds with the condos you know on this side of that um that's tucked in really nicely so it doesn't really impact the homes behind but that's not going to be the case down around here they're all and again we're being asked we're being asked to think about you know maybe even six or higher for stories that's just even bigger so I don't know so in the extreme case you see in cases places like New York there would be one house that yeah just wouldn't and then there was buildings right up to it because a decision was made uh to to to not require you know set the bar like that it's downtown and and and they they want you know to pick up but they're wants wants it said to be possible to build as much as possible uh but yeah it's it's certainly an impact on uh on the homes that are there I welcome direction on this I appreciate the position here I guess I guess there was one more thing and I wrote at the top from a from a future climate change perspective on and I lost the page we are holding age 66 it's around it has to do with redevelopment and post-development drainage calculations for two 10 and 25 year design stormwater flow and I think I brought this up the first time we talked to the finding mission wondering why and how all that statistic and best practice is because you know we've had two culverts watch out those weren't 25 year storms and they're only going to get more they're only going to get stronger and more severe and I think if we're not asking for the design to keep up we're going to end up paying for the community so I I know this isn't my thing but maybe you know engaging with I don't know you know so that's just a question is that this sets is that best practice now so you I brought that up with you we don't have to get into it too much it's just one that's the last thing I saw that for that that's our brain to uh Chelsea um and also our uh Hammond Engineering for a staff recommendation uh we'll include that uh in the the next round I'll also I'll mention though like you talked about construction impacts on the gas chains and cyclists this this is an issue that happens in a lot of cities with with the with a lot of new developments on arterial streets particularly we have it in the way that we can actually write write more specific instructions basically requirements in the LVC for traffic management plans and we we require that when applicants submit a a development proposal that they have a traffic management plan on there uh it is possible to to require uh not a you know accommodation for pedestrians and cyclists uh and to write that in more explicitly uh and it is possible to take that a step further and say that you know even if that impacts motor vehicle traffic you're willing to take that take that step I think right now there's there's a general assumption when we review these and when when the uh city engineer reviews these uh these these plans that's that if it's not a lot of pedestrians but there are a lot of cars we favor the cars I I don't think that is necessarily the uh the the best most equitable uh approach here it is possible we could write uh write in more specifics there to direct uh yeah I'm just one person and not your boss but I would love to see more thought being put into that because pedestrians are vastly more vulnerable you know but and some of these some of these impacts aren't the whole length of the project right they're only portions of the project instructions so it's not necessarily like we're asking to do it for the 18 months it takes to build the more periods of time where it'll impact specifically so maybe there's a time where there that wasn't necessarily in the case with the most recent building I think that you know there was a danger there almost for the entirety there's only to the end where they could actually remove that open the sidewalk but um and I'm not saying this like those impacts are not for them right and so certainly in in uh bigger cities in Burlington I see this happening they will the city will require that uh a lane be closed or you know car lanes be shifted over but you know like it's on Pearl Street there's two lanes going when you actually right now you could theoretically close one of those lanes um with barriers to make that safe but of course that's that that would have to be you know uh a trade-off that's uh that's that we're willing to accept yeah I agree is there anyone else anything else that we wanted to bring up because we still have a few more I'm not trying to cut everybody off but if we don't have anything else we still have a few more agenda items to get through well I brought up the faith during our my example earlier but I didn't bring it up during this list so let me throw that on list here for discussion sake again trying to better understand and maybe this falls back to a similar answer that we heard earlier concerning the planning commission come up with four stories because it was a great compromise or something they thought they get reverses is there a legitimate reason for limiting it before my understanding of what I the planning commission has definitely uh uh mentioned this a few times before that was a compromise um they the planning commission did not change height this time around right but like they they don't feel that they left it at four stories right they they didn't feel that that was that it was uh something that they would want to touch or suggest changing because of the history uh the political history behind it but there is uh idea on the table to put the waivers back in or just increase it or increase I mean you know for me it's where and what does that do to the what does that do to the space what does that do to I mean it's much more than saying just put in the six-story building it's how does that six-story building fit with what exists and what's coming and and and all the other impacts it has so I really don't think it's that simple a discussion I think it's definitely a worthwhile discussion and I haven't really made up my mind but I can think of areas where it's much more appropriate and I'd like to see what other communities have done with it and have that time the areas that I see building up and some of the comments I've seen those examples are different you know so while they may work down Pearl Street I don't necessarily think they work in this particular spot right here we haven't even seen we haven't explored what we might do with five corners yet making it four which is like in the plan in the plan to explore which makes that even more compact which brings the buildings up closer um on a couple of the corners which we can't even kind of get our heads around yet and envision if we go so if for me it's like we have to have that conversation I don't know that we necessarily have to have it it's sort of for me in the same place that we're pinning the conversations around any kind of climate mitigation strategies you know we should have that very very soon and we should have this other conversation I think very very soon but I don't know that we need to rush to get it done in the next four weeks or we can on the waiver thing I don't know what the you know that just get the whole debate about what are the category what are the what are the criteria for the waiver right um what are we giving up exchange right and I think it's sort of inevitable I just don't know where don't understand that and I agree with you from a timeline standpoint I will say that I knew it took me a while to get to playing the newbie card but I'm that's early hold on first meeting I figured I'd get it in the first five minutes is is the fact that you know something like tackling this land development code in general there are just pieces like that discussion that require more time that we don't have based on the timeline we need to make these changes if nothing else I'd probably feel better if I had a better handle around because the next opportunity to make this change is next year right now well not necessarily it could be a shorter cycle and it doesn't it doesn't take a whole year if if you keep the process moving yeah but it is it's a month's long process for sure um but yeah one thing you can do is is is direct the planning commission to start and focus on some topics and start coming up with the next version can you remind me what they're working on right now right now their biggest focus is the rental registry program and inspection program there's I think there's there are ways to shuffle things around in terms of who's responsible for what like housing commission technical there's there's nothing that that says that it should be a responsibility for the commission at this point because I think for me in understanding like what's upcoming understanding that timeline because I agree in thinking about like where I might talk about where height might adjust thinking about what's happening here at the press and connect there right because that that to me isn't here a possibility for discussion but I don't know what's in the pipeline that would be impacted or could be impacted by making a change to the rules and I think to that point I can't conceive of a way that we engage the community on this conversation at least for this particular iteration and we're going to spend an awful lot of time resources and energy doing that in the next six months with the strategic planning process that this definitely belongs in and then we'll be able to have conversations where we really engage but there I mean if we do it this way it's we will be decided and we'll probably have an opportunity to talk to five or ten people each if we do it the other way we will have been asking a whole number of different ways for people to come and share their thoughts after having information and time to think about it and it's not that I disagree with you I think it's we need to have the conversation I just think for me this feels rushed even though it's like two years old almost you know this feels rushed in the sense that we're now taking it up and we're now trying to get a deadline and some of that structural some of it's because we separated and we just got staffed up because we have a community development you know there's all kinds of reasons why we're here but we are not we'll never be able to engage on a topic that sensitive yes yes is it possible for us to take this list that we just created and focus on the things that are already being changed in the proposed changes that are given to us now separate out the really large discussions that include down very intentionally just so that I'm clear it's but looking at in the document there is it says maximum four stories but there isn't I don't see that that allowance for two more it's not it's not it's just for that was taken out in 2016 I think okay all right so it's not approved as an addition okay it those waivers existed in the bylaws before 2016 so some developments had that potential of two extra stories in some zoning districts and then that waiver was removed intentionally removed from the bylaws in 2016 and what you've got in the lbc's right in the amendments in front of you is just keeping that the same as the edit was in 2016 four stories max in some districts you can't go four stories everywhere yeah I see it was added in here in one area but it's added as a line is and maximum are you on a particular page right now um I can yeah sorry just because I can follow up and make sure it's page 77 of the lbc okay I'll take a look at that all right everyone's gone we've got the given we've given them a great deal to think about and to get back to us on and I think the suggestion to prioritize those things that are touched that we've brought up for now as priorities um for follow-up is a good one and we'll warn if everybody do we need to make them we don't need to make a motion if we're not warning it tonight do we consents us to follow up on May 24th about warning this after we hear back yeah great all right so if there's nothing else what we're doing is yeah I'm sorry I just want to clarify um so I think after hearing all of these things the very specific things we're looking at for possible changes by the 24th is what would the planning commission do at for lot coverage in the residential districts um I don't think I heard any consensus in any particular direction on anything higher up in the conversation than that take the fee schedule out we want to definitely look at that buffer in village center and the possibility of going around the district in its entirety but no consensus on exactly changing that yet we can definitely ask Chelsea about the 25-year design storms because if there is something more up to date that we can swap that out for that's we can do that and I sort of have in here a little bit we can try to have a conversation about this pedestrian rerouting if it makes sense to make that change in the LDC operationally it's one thing to make the change in the LDC operationally that is a little bit harder but I've got that potentially on the list too am I missing anything from that list that we are actually looking at for potential change in two weeks I would say there seems to be something in there that's not in the use chart about correct there's no oh yes in the village center district whether that's actually it does say it in the the village center district the very last section of that of that component does say drive-thrus are allowed as long as it conforms with something else but it doesn't but then in the the table use chart it's not allowed I don't know if there is consensus about moratorium on drive-thrus but there certainly was back in the day when it was removed from the use chart can it be dependent on the food we can you know again getting back to the stuff to the items that are touched in here that is not one of them but it was an inconsistency which is why I brought we can certainly look at the inconsistent part of it and yeah I think the consensus is if it's inconsistent that it's not appropriate the only I'm not mistaken the only thing I want to mention with drive-thrus during COVID and having drive-thru pharmacies that was very helpful it's true but I'm trying to yeah it's hard to plan for things have never happened before or haven't happened in a hundred years yeah I mean again doesn't have it's not part of this right so if we're going by that script so we don't have to we don't have to figure it out now thank you thanks great all right uh that is then uh 6e council orientation presentation which I think is Regina you don't want to hang around appreciate it's okay all right uh anybody want to break sure good never you need a break over there I was gonna make another comment but I will not I will refrain oh please don't hold back nobody's watching no they they just generally know that like this is my time to go to sleep so I'm ready for my nap but I get that yeah sorry but I think with the revised packet it's not working in the bookmark so I'm almost there pose while Regina is getting that going up uh when you see this uh this was put together before the leadership change so sorry for the current typo rush all right I'm gonna I'm sharing this from the packet and I probably should be sharing it from some from the presentation itself so it's gonna be a little we're looking but hopefully that works okay all right yep there's our typo from page there um all right and this is what we are going to be going through and uh lots of credit to um some of our other friends in south Burlington and Winooski for um pulling some of this presentation from them so appreciate the assistance um okay so as an extension in who we are um just a couple of quick demographics about the community um I think these uh lists always just inspire a ton of more questions about some more detail about this about this data and potentially how we compare to other communities but uh these this is just a snapshot um and I think um Andrew has a potential idea of putting a data fact sheet together um see if you want to stick with that but um just some good info to understand um who you are serving um so kind of the base of of what we focus on and what we work on it really comes from the comprehensive plan so the comprehensive plan was done in 2019 at that time there was still um you can see here one of the um one of the pieces that was pulled out in terms of thoughtful growth was create a governance structure and shared vision for the village and the town that enhances the unique characteristics of each um so there was definitely still uh movement towards um merger at that time and so there are certainly some things in this document that are are out of date um but there's also a ton of things that were relevant policies to the village that are still perfectly relevant to us now and we are um we're uh working through those um uh just want to point out that this will sort of this document will kind of be the basis for the strategic planning effort that we'll focus on next so now that we're a city um trying to figure out what really are our um priorities going forward for the let's say five-ish time frame um this document is a more long-term document and it will be done again um it takes eight years it's an eight-year long plan it takes about a year or two to put these together and so we will be back at the table on this before too long um and uh this introduction just sort of explains uh these pieces are pulled from the executive session of a executive summary of the comprehensive plan and it is organized based on the heart and soul values um again i think those are still perfectly relevant to the village um yeah okay um then uh just a few slides here on the other pieces of um in the executive summary so certainly pieces about the local economy education health and recreation and community connections so certainly under the community connections frame of mind i think we still have a whole lot to figure out and do on the equity and inclusion front so um we are a council manager form of government so essentially uh you folks the council you set the policy you are elected to take that on the manager is the chief administrative officer and run all the day to day operations um so um you set the direction um and the manager gets the work done um this is a pretty helpful image that explains um on the left side here is the council side on the right side here is the manager's role and really this sort of diagram in the middle is to show that this isn't a hundred percent clean cut like you do all of the mission and policy work and i carry it out there's definitely a lots of um um a collaborative work between uh the two of us and everybody has a little bit of the role on both um council authority so our as a city council our authority is given to us within our charter as well as within state statute if it is not in the state if it's not within state statute and is not within state charter or within our charter then we shouldn't be doing it we exist largely because the state allows us to exist and we are there we are their child they are our parent and so we have to ask for their permission for us to do things uh that we don't have permission to do yet hence why we have a charter and why in our charter we we specify certain things to make sure that we can do those things um and i highly recommend if you have not taken a look at the city charter please do so sooner rather than later so you can be sure what we are allowed to do the council rules of procedure this was so when i was a president of the board it was largely whatever i wanted um within um within some confines uh the process it was not well defined um and uh roge will take that up in the next agenda item when that comes up um and so uh the important thing uh the yeah the important stuff is already in there so hopefully you read that yeah and that i'll just point out on this slide the um there are a couple of policies that you do have in place right now 2014 communication policy and the 2009 trustees policy regarding trustees meetings that documents explains a little bit about what goes where on the on the agenda but really it seems like those need to be re looked at and so that's your next agenda item on the in the pack okay so boards and committees uh everything in the top right a top left corner here these are particularly spelled out in charter and those are regulatory the bottom left are the regional organizations that we have city representation on um so also at the next meeting we'll be talking about taking a look at that list looking at who are the municipal reps on those committees um and if we want to um change those from what they are right now um the top right in terms of these are more your policy based committees the housing commission currently right now they are still joint the intention is for them to separate um and so also soon in your future agendas you'll have a charter for the individual city housing commission um then possible future committees down here on the right these are committees that we've sort of talked about that have been on the parking lot list um and will be sort of thought through in through the strategic planning process to see what the priorities are and where to focus efforts um moving forward and some of those we have money in the budget for some of those we have in the budget we have money for we have money for stipends for three additional committees with five people on each committee right and assuming one meeting month yeah okay transparency I think this is you yeah uh with transparency one of the biggest things to keep in mind is to avoid the instances where three or more of us are present and discussing current or future items uh that can also be uh sort of the triangulating of talking with one person about an issue then talking with another person about an issue that is then three people talking about an issue that either is or could be up on a future agenda that should be avoided there are some helpful resources on VLCT's website as well as the Secretary of State's website in relation to transparency but specifically around open meeting law around what we can and cannot talk about within executive session there are times where it might be nice and beneficial to talk about some things in executive session but they're not allowed to and so sometimes we are just going to have to have we are just going to have to have difficult conversations because if it's not allowed by state statute to happen in executive session then we can't talk about an executive session and so it's I highly recommend to check out that resource on VLCT and the Secretary of State's website if you haven't already oh the other thing make sure to use if you're going to use a device for email or for city business that device can be for you it can be taken if necessary so if you are going to communicate in some manner into conduct city business I highly recommend using your city device here okay ethics and conflict of interest so there is a policy that was done by the city in May 2022 and thanks for amber for pointing out this most recent policy and so essentially the the purpose of this policy is to maintain the public trust in terms of the operations of the municipality and there's five principles in that document that are listed there um what is a conflict of interest um a conflict of interest is uh a real or seeming incompatibility incompatibility between a public officers or um private interests and their public or fiduciary interests to the municipality they serve um essentially uh it's not a conflict of interest if your interest is no greater than that of any other persons affected by the by the policy or the decision there is also in the policy uh five specific situations that are listed so it's helpful to sort of take a look at those and read through those if you have not already and then basically always if there is a real or um perceived conflict of interest best thing to do is to just disclose it disclose it in the um open public meeting um and uh either recuse yourself um or if you feel that you are able to act fairly objectively objectively and in the public interest um then statewide you believe that and then the other members can ask questions just to sort that out um if you are recused uh you cannot sit up here um and participate in the discussion as a public officer but you can participate as a member of the public uh any questions okay sorry okay manager authority um oh no i'm sorry did i go too far one more back one more back okay um so this was a little bit on the earlier slides as well nothing too much uh to point out here um that we didn't talk about before um and essentially my i served as the counselor's primary support um one thing to point out uh on the bottom on this slide here is that as a member of the um city management association i am also subject to the code of ethics within that organization um as well and so i think we'll share some resources at some point in time and i'll include that on there as well so you know what that is um and the other thing that uh to point out on this slide which we sort of just just witnessed is uh individual counselors cannot give staff direction um and if there's a opinion or a thought from one of you either out of meeting or outside of a meeting um i i'm not going to take action on that unless there's a full vote and consensus of the board to take action on that communicating with staff um so uh questions from you folks should be directed to the manager to the extent that questions or history is requested on a particular policy matter we can bring those that information and those answers forward so the whole council can have that um and um certainly when you see something on the agenda uh definitely reach out to staff beforehand and get whatever questions you've got um out there because we can try to get those answered and then brought forward through the meeting um and uh here we are totally fine with counselors reaching out to department heads so long as i'm cc'd on that um so i know that communication is happening and vice vice versa from department heads to council members um certainly uh feel free on anything about an operational issue of any questions that you folks get from the public um please feel free to direct those are my way and so i can get those questions answered um and then just a note about emergency situations um we i will do my best to get you folks informed as much as i can um and so that we're all on the same page and know what's going on just know that they're hopefully we won't have many of these but if there is really something going on that that step could take some time we have a phone tree or a process by which communication happens for those situations specifically because i can see in the emergency situation being very overwhelmed but i can see you reaching out to Raj Raj reaching out to you know i can see that kind of process it's a great idea for a clerk it's a five person phone tree yeah the practice thus far is if something's going on i have alerted andrew and then he has taken the communication from there for the rest of you folks um but certainly i think again next agenda item in terms of thinking through some of these policies and how this stuff can work we're really you know we're at a time in the city where lots of things can work differently than how it's been set up so um but that certainly has been workable from my perspective thus far um okay uh just so you know these uh four particular um uh folks are um required and directed by state statute in their own way um so a direction or a policy from the council can't send these folks in a different direction that is not in line with um the state statute um okay organizational chart this is probably a little there or slash very hard to read um but essentially we have about 50 to 55 full-time employees um we've got public works uh water quality superintendent this is chelsea for the wastewater treatment facility uh director of human resources the library the police is under the town um and we contract with them for those services uh finance director uh recreation parks uh we also contract with the assessor that is through the reappraisal um that contract is through the reappraisal the police contract is 10-year contract um uh communications and strategic initiatives director um fire chief our fire are all um uh paid on-call volunteers we have no full-time fire department members um and then we've got the clerk then also we have other contracts we have uh the city engineer contract with hamlin engineering our city attorney is moinehan safar um and then also right now as you know we've got the it managed service provider with open approach that will start in july um these appointments will also be on near term future agendas coming your way um for the ones that have uh uh council input on that um facilities uh these are the facilities that we've got um in the city uh the sx dog park has an asterisk on it only because that is not city-owned property that's state-owned property um that we use for that dog park um and the budget just a couple of slides in here but i think we're all fairly familiar with this at this point um this is the um 20 f y 24 budget um is 11.4 million um revenues of that the biggest chunk of this is from residential properties the gray is from um um commercial properties global foundries is here in blue and the yellow is miscellaneous revenues um and then this is how the expenditure expenditures play out um streets is this uh large one in green that's 14 percent the largest chunk is the health and human services for us that's where we put the police department sx rescue and a number of other services under there purchasing policy we've got a purchasing policy that was done in 2018 um essentially this helps guide us and lets us know who has the authority to make purchases based on a certain price point um for uh the most part if it's over 40 000 it comes to the city council um also for grants if there's any um financial obligation of the city in a match that those will always come to um the council instead of me um a tiny selection of a very very long list of um projects that are on the list um and separation is in caps at the top just to really let you know that this uh as a project and an effort is not anywhere done in terms of operational perspective there is a lot that's still on our plate from a day-to-day basis on on doing that and so um it certainly has uh limits our capacity for other things that we can be doing right now um but we will get through it um then uh we've got the two link in renovation um so the strategic planning initiative so that's really um you'll you folks will have soon on your a future agenda what that full rfp will look like so you can take a look at that and guide us on any changes that you want with that before we put that rfp out to get a facilitator to help us with that strategic planning effort um we've got the construction projects um hopefully you have all seen that information already but we've got it on the uh next coming up on the agenda as well um and then of course we've got a number of different things happening from the housing perspective um I think really thinking through ordinance enforcement and how that should happen and um what are what things are already in place now and how to address that properly um as we figure out how to develop and set up that um that job description going forward uh we've got project uh for the amtrak station uh one main street park there's uh the revenue structure idea for setting up a stormwater utility um we have a 10-year assessment at the wastewater treatment facility to figure out what the big um needs and focus should be going forward you've got a governance committee that is required in the charter to look at so for the most part the charter was set up somewhat to mimic what the village was set up as and so um we'll need to be looking at that uh we have an association and the uh city it is not a union it's an association um and that contract um we will start negotiating that contract in the fall so we have an rfp out right now for a salary study that's uh in place to help us prepare for that negotiation um future facility needs um you guys will soon see this if you haven't so far when we we will set up some tours um public works is in real need um of a new facility really um and then fire and recreation have some real needs too but public works is um uh really really necessary to figure out um and of course small topic um just focus on uh being more equitable and inclusive um and everything that we're that we're doing um so this is a short list of everything that is sort of going on and in the works right now there is a lot more on this list and then there's an excessively long list in terms of uh future ideas and things that we want to be working on and i think in the strategic planning process we'll very much be bringing all of that to the forefront and really hoping to try to help prioritize and figure out where the city wants to go um with some of that work can i ask a question in regards to destruction projects i know i know it's in down the agenda above those three projects yeah but if the public is interested in what else public works is working on i know there's a discussion recently concerning sidewalks for instance they want to see where that work is being done is our place that they can see that yeah that's a great question so really a lot of that is dealt with through the capital um the capital plan and we do have a capital um review plan committee that we are going to be pulling together in june for the first time in a long time um and amber is on that committee um and uh it's a really great effort where we can bring all of these west street sidewalks certainly will be brought to the table um and uh it's helpful to see all of these items together because this committee can then help prioritize those and then it helps inform your next year's budget in terms of what kind of starts rising to the top um the other thing that we do have that's a little bit harder to find because it's not really as well defined um is we do have a strategy for prioritizing the individual paving projects um and this year we also are getting some support from cc r p c to do an inventory of the sidewalks so then we can also get the sidewalks in a plan in terms of figuring out how to do that um because what will get it what will make its way into the capital plan is really the what's at the top of those more specific individualized plans so yeah okay hiring we like others have vacant positions that we would love uh people to come for so uh this is pulled off of the website last week um this changes quite a bit um and so maybe not the most up-to-date list but uh and then we will also be advertising for um two new positions the assistant clerk and the administrative assistant um uh any day night if not posted already um so please spread the word um yeah so if i were sitting at home and watching this right now and i thought to myself hey i'm interested in being a shelver in s-extinction how would i become that you would go to city of s-extinction dot apply to job dot com slash apply that's awesome okay some upcoming events just to let folks know about the memorial day parade saturday may 27th 9 30 pre-program and 10 a.m parade begins that's the route um i don't know that mind also the library is hosting a community fair on saturday june 17th from one to four so they really um have invited a number of different organizations and we'll be highlighting folks of um so if anybody wants to been looking to get involved in stuff or thinking about different things um uh great think go check it out uh we have offered um sent that invitation to them um and so if folks want to go they can uh we were also originally thinking that we would have sort of an overall table to highlight them because we would maybe still have open positions but i'm hoping as the timeline works out we won't actually have any open positions by the time this um this event happens um then uh juneteenth uh will uh voices for inclusion in sx and westford is hosting an event on saturday june sunday june 18th from one to three at the sx experience and then we've got the fourth of july event okay so we've got some resources hyperlinked in here there are other good ones that are not in here yet um like the uh vlct and secretary of states um open meeting law sections of their website and the code of ethics that i am uh subject to so we'll add to that list and get it out to you folks um any questions thoughts thank you for doing this together all right thank you very much will this be available on our website anywhere yeah i think we should probably so um what when you ski does which andrew found is they keep this on the city council's website so it's always right there as a helpful resource and then some of these links that you see here are kind of also put there as well um so i think we can definitely do that so it can just be um a quick frame of reference um for everybody so yeah we can do that and as the segue to the next but um agenda item um they and a couple other towns i've seen also put what will be our result from the strategic planning process on the city council site and in winterski's case it's a pdf of a spreadsheet with how it relates to their maybe comprehensive plan and diversity goals and other things and i think it's it's a great goal for us to kind of emulate and improve on yeah and i think i had it in the slide but i didn't really touch on it but i think the hope and the goal is that we do this strategic planning effort that looks a few years out and then we use that as the sort of starting place for an annual process where we really are taking a look at that um and reporting back on where we are um what any other you know pressing needs might be um and taking some time to get council input on that list and let's say the springish time and then that every year we do this and that helps uh guide the development of the budget for the following year in the fall and helps us report out when we're proposing the budget you know how do we do last year what are we thinking about doing this year yeah yeah great okay i think that's it on this agenda item the ethics policy is in here just for your knowledge all right so the next um next agenda item just talking about city council policy updates um many of these are really old you want to introduce this for me too uh yeah so i mentioned these in the presentation so you've got a communication policy from 2019 um there's a policy regarding trustees meetings from 2009 um other communities also have a rules of procedure for the council um that could be probably pretty helpful to put together and not necessarily a policy that requires that you know it can be a little bit more nimble with it if you want to change some things along the way um and you know we i think it would be good and logical for folks to sort of just take a look at those documents see um what we could do in the rules of procedure and um just get those updated and and refreshed um so the thinking was that if there's two council members who sort of want to take a stab at this and then bring some concepts back to the full council that would be great yeah the only other thing i'd add to that is it'd be um it'd be great for those two i love that idea for those two to reach out to individual counselors the other three and do this for themselves you know what thoughts do you have are there any resources or any examples that you have so a you're not doing this in a vacuum and be when it does come back to the whole board that input has already been sought and kind of with the process along i don't think that that necessarily violates anything we talked about half an hour ago um it's no decisions are being made it's more of a consultative kind of process where it's like an interview um and i really encourage especially with the meeting procedures to really you know push the envelope a little bit um and an example of that is are some of the things we have to decide able to be decided in the background enabling what will eventually become more time to communicate with the community in these meetings or more workshopping and it's like pie in the sky stuff but i really do want to like think about over the next couple years how do we engage more and have people more better informed being of of that connection with the community so are there ways that we can still follow statute but we imagine how our meetings flow and um it's kind of a cool opportunity to just to see how it works are there are there times periodically where we hold the meetings at different times you know to to reach other people and take different pressure off staff so anyway those kind of those kind of things and really thinking outside the box and seeing what other what other communities have managed to do is we don't necessarily have to do this from scratch ourselves but with that in mind are there any council members that want to take this on before that goes too far down that path when Virginia and I were putting or talking about presentation and and we were talking about this in particular uh with the meeting policy personally that is something that's as a person who would be running the the meetings i would highly recommend if you would like to and have the time that you be one of the committee members or one of the council members to be a part of this process since you ultimately need to be comfortable in the way the meetings run since that's your defined role so if you have the time and the interest i think it would be good for you too um how many of these are we doing he's hesitant he's hesitant yet he completely appreciates the same um this is a new role um yeah i'd be happy to work on that we can't do three um i'd be happy to work on that as well just like we just talked about these two at the moment yeah yeah oh you want to do that together okay great let's decide unless anybody else amber marcus okay great all right so we're looking at just to make sure i understand meetings and because it's late and i'm starting yeah communication policy and and meeting policy to start with yeah great yeah thank you um and a nice handy dandy guide for the community so that they know what to expect and i'm not on this committee so i got ideas that used to be on our website we used to have a thing about like what to do when you came to the city and the middle of trustee to the capitol to the city of trustee and used to be on loves well hopefully that we can do something like like a companion or um yes yeah the building do you do we need a motion for this i don't think so i don't think so great awesome all right oh i included these old policies in here i think um just wanted to make this the longest packet of all packets um okay uh so construction projects uh so we have put out a press release um on the three construction projects the pressing connector the main street waterline and the culvert replacement on brickyard um this is just some uh information generally in terms of the timelines of those three projects um and uh really want to make sure folks are aware that if you do want to get on the um list for the daily emails um uh the information here is how you uh who you reach out to in order to get that sorry i'm just trying to zoom in on that um so the daily emails so folks know our will happen for the crescent connector project and the main street waterline project we're not intending to do that for the brickyard culvert because that project is basically the road is closed once the road is closed and there are many updates to be had until the project is done um so uh that is it on that agenda item there's uh no business to do but just wanted to try to elevate that information um question in relation to it yeah um when the railroad work was getting done i did talk to a number of business owners along that route expressed a lot of concern because of the lack of signage and lack of awareness for for drivers and they're still concerned with this new upcoming connector project that these businesses are going to suffer because people are not going to be driving up the road swear i just got it scratching it through um so i'm i'm curious to hear what is going on to make sure that there's ample signage and access for cars because the last time there was a sign that the businesses are open but it was put up in such a way that it really kind of blocked the roadway and wasn't inviting at all so i'm i would like to hear what what the plans are yeah so um the specific plan i think is a little bit different in terms of where we are in each in each section um but um we have heard that question from um Karen's closet already um and rick hamlin is the resident engineer on this project and is going out there and talking with everybody along the the stretches for each of those um and we will um you know have a specific answer for you right now other than we'll try to just do as best as we can to make sure that it's clear and apparent that who's open and how you get to those to those folks yeah and for those at home listed on here are other ways you can find out which is looking for updates on the city website um reports forum and social let's see participates at which is currently facebook yep all right that's it that's it for the agenda for the evening um scent agenda do i have a motion to approve the consent agenda so moved second great all those in favor of approving the consent agenda let's say hi hi hi i'm supposed to be sent to gentle passes um reading file board member comments any question from the reading file sure um reading the uh note from the Howard center i'm curious as to what the primary drivers are for sx junction to have such a high percentage of contacts in comparison to communities like holchester and south burlington have higher populations than we do which seem to have half as many i think those numbers are both sx town and junction so it is the full 22 000 okay i just want to be clear i mean i'm not the police too famous but obviously but it is the full 22 000 person community then in in still in that regard south burlington is i i'm not looking at the at right now i'm just trying to get to that page but i believe it's still half of ours and they're even with the town that's less or what is it you know it's close it's it's it's 70 for south burlington in 86 i'm unable and it does fluctuate i have and you can see you know services by town at the very bottom of that graphic you know it does fluctuate among the towns um that said there is a interesting conversation to be had around funding for this program and what communities do and don't pay for it and get used it um and so that's just something that chief hogan management of the community is very aware of and it does come up um 56 hours i think it was a police interaction saved which means um police spent 56 hours doing actual police work and there were 56 hours and i don't know how many fewer encounters that weren't escalated because it's incredible program and i worry that um those employees are now going to get pilfered as burlington creates its own program with burlington city benefits and pay and are is very likely that a lot of these employees will probably leave an agency that is already struggling to keep them so it's a fantastic program and um it's a little worrisome to see how this is going to stay up for the next six months here especially given the documentation requirements that these uh workers are required to do from department of mental health right then with uh city of burlington they would not need to do right because i'm out of da yep nope um but it's it's interesting to know too um to the police department's credit um they're huge fans of this program um and big supporters and that's worth noting yeah and i'll just add that they also i was able to participate in a training that they did for the library um where they just came in and really helped talk through how to deescalate and they're really it's an amazing resource because you can everybody even business owners can contact them directly for assistance it doesn't need to be through the police department so it's really pretty awesome i am not tonight but i'd be curious to hear and this is the only thing i have to be curious to hear later on what the status is if the conversation started maybe a year ago around traffic calming i think there was like folks from pleasant street neighborhood and rick hamlin and some others that were going to get together and and talk about novel approaches to um the traffic calming i'll just be curious to see if anything came of that um since then i have a comment sure um given the the comments recently about the sidewalks and hearing today about the uh the study that's going to be done with cc rpc to help do an inventory of our sidewalks in the conditions would the timing be would the timing uh align well where could the capital committee possibly talk about ways to utilize some local option tax funding to create a sidewalk replacement program similar to our paving program where there's a portion of funds that go directly to sidewalks uh to help whether it be 10 feet 100 feet a thousand feet in a year to continuously replace and update our sidewalks so that that way what's currently on west street as an example does not continue and or be repeated on others yeah um and that's just that's another one of those another one of those um scoring mechanisms and processes that would really i think benefit from some re-evaluation over the next period of time and that's on the for giant list that virginia has been she keeps telling me mailing me back out of the list it's gulk off one more thing in the list but it does beg the question now because some of those calculations are rather odd you know if a lot of people show up at a particular meeting it can speed the score for no other reason and um so how do we i'm not familiar with it as it should be amber i mean definitely you and andrew spend time on that committee but um it's another one of those things that could use a another look um all right well without uh anything else i have some updates sorry i can get through it quick no it's um so uh ejrp just took 76 eighth graders to washington dc it had a really great time um walked over 25 miles had great weather a busy schedule and got to meet with representative ballant which was really cool i understand she took a good amount of time with the kids and that's great um they also at home here provided vacation camp for 120 kids um from 730 to 530 um at maple street and adl which was great this week uh finance and public works have uh worked together at the next step of the water utility billing process and they've got shut off notices and door hangers out and distributed this week um today all staff had a respectful workforce training um with karen stockwell which is stockwell which is really really great um we have i mentioned this already i think at some point in the agenda today that uh we have the committee appointment advertisements going out um so yeah that's why we won't have any open positions for the um community fair day um cv e is going to be hosting champlain college's graduation on saturday so expect heavy traffic on pearl street from 8 to 10 a.m and then again when they leave around 12 to 12 30 later on they have the graduates which will be less impact their thinking um and yeah that's it sorry about that no bro it's a new it's a new section of the agenda i know i've been here before anything else then we turn second all second all those in favor say aye hi hi amber thanks for staying up good night amber