 the additions or changes? None from staff. Josh, I doubted any changes, but I wanted to say a comment about something in the three and five. I guess I don't want to pull it up. I'll just wait until we get there, but I just wanted to know if I could comment on something. Of course. Okay, sure. Yeah. All right. All right, we've got no additions or changes. We've got a public to be heard. The portion of the meeting where the public can address the board. So no one in here. No one on the Zoom. If you want to make a few comments, raise your hand. Here's the reactions button and button resourcing. So no one on the phone. No one doing that. We'll move on to our first agenda item. We'll be playing with coming up on this. Yeah. So we talked about this last time. So this is just an opportunity to revisit and make sure we're all on the same page. There's I think approximately 11 appointed positions that are coming up that are expiring and the plan based on our conversation last time is to post all of those positions publicly and to accept applications from both new interested potential people as well as people who are currently serving and there would be just a little bit of a different request from those two different, from those two pockets of people. If it's new people, a letter of interest indicating a little bit about themselves, why they're interested in being appointed and what they hope to accomplish. And if they're current appointees, then submitting a letter indicating what they've enjoyed during their tenure, why they're seeking reappointment and what they hope to accomplish. And then you all could it sounds like you want to interview for those, but we can wait and see what comes in once we get those posted. Okay, I just adjusted the mic. Is that better? Yep. Were you able to catch all of what he said before? I'll set with what he said, thanks. All right, so there are no comments from board members. I'm comfortable with what's here. I guess we'll open it up to the public if anyone attending tonight's meeting is a comment about this agenda item that I've been trying to operate. Raj, can I just add one other piece? Sorry. Sure. One thing you all could either address now or wait is whether or not you will be accepting applications from non-residents. And I apologize. I don't have the list of the 11 positions that are currently open. I know there's been conversation in the past about non-residents in particular, I think on the housing commission. I'm not and I think there's been conversation about economic development, which is a town-based committee, but the one that I'm thinking of is that your current, your representative for CSWD, for Chittin Solid Waste District, your current appointee is a non-resident. And so I just want to open up the discussion for the trustees as to whether or not you want to specifically to say that these openings are for residents or not specifically say that and just see what happens. I mean, for the housing commission, we purposely had non-resident positions on there so that we could bring our experts to people with specific knowledge because it is so specialized or it can require it. I mean, for someone like the CSWD representative, my initial thought is that should probably be a village position, village resident. So I think it might depend, but I'm, I should have asked what other trustees felt before I started rattling off. So, George. Thanks, Raj. I was just going to go to the CSWD and I think we're, I think Alan Nye is representing us now and he's been representing us with the town as well jointly. And I agree in my first thought was, yeah, maybe it should come back and be an S. And we had to get used to not saying village anymore, by the way. So it should be a city position, but on the other hand, I'm thinking specifically that one, we don't have a drop-off center in the city. I'm not sure given that what the CSWD does, if there's anything that's really village specific, we might want to just think about it a little bit more. I mean, I would say for things like bike walk committee, treaty committee, things that are actually happening and going on in the village, then yeah, definitely. I mean, in the city, we definitely need to make those city appointments, but there might be a few of them where they're sort of these more regional appointments. It might be okay. Also, we have one for public telepathy. I want to say channel 17, but it's on channel 17 anymore. Yeah, and Green Mountain Transit and things like that. I don't know, I can sort of see pros and cons to opening up to getting the best representation we can, as opposed to saying, well, we just were, no, we want to restrict this to the city, even if someone doesn't step forward and want to do the job. Interesting to see what other people have to say. Yeah, Dan. Yeah, regarding that issue, this issue, I don't see an issue or a problem, I don't have a problem personally with retaining Alan and I as our rep during, you know, this period of ever, his assignment is that year by year, I forget how it is, so three years, but whatever, but when they come up for renewal, my suggestion would be that we look to someone, find somebody within the city limits to fill the position, my personal opinion. Amber. My thoughts are basically the same as what everybody else has suggested. I think the difference is that in the past, those roles and those representations have been non-financial, I think is the easier way of saying that. So now there is a financial impact that is directly to the city from those roles. And so my thought would be, again, to support Dan's thoughts there is these committees come up that we look to have them filled by a city relevant. Yeah, a good point. That was what I was thinking when George was speaking was, you know, for where the city is gonna start paying dues on their own now. So for any of those, I think it is worth considering or when that representative's gonna have a vote on a budget that will be directly impacting the city, I think. And that isn't a comment on anybody's past representation at all. So that's the tricky part about this, you know, is we're asking for people to resubmit, you know, it's not about, we should say, it's not about anybody's past performance. Just wanna hope that's clear. I think we all agree about that. So I don't know, what do we think? Do we... I hadn't thought Amber's point is a good one. And I hadn't kept that in mind. I think that's a very good one. I mean, I would, you know, maybe as Dan said, right now, if we have a couple of appointments that are working out in our okay, it might be, you know, okay to sort of leave them as is. But when it comes time for a reappointment, we might wanna just rein it in and bring it into the city. Brad, I don't have a list in front of me and you probably don't either. Do you know, is anything coming up before July 1st? In terms of... Any of these positions for some of these other external boards that we're talking about. Not so much like the housing commission, for instance, that has vacancies now. And we have to, I guess, work out where those vacancies are from. But I'm thinking more like the CSWD and stuff like that. I have a list of highlighted positions that are expiring of the 11 that's on my desk. But I'm not in my office, so I can't tell you that. Sure. Okay. I think it's a mixture of, you know, bike walk and tree advisory and then some of these other regional ones. I can get that to you tomorrow. Yeah. I think CSWD is an annual appointment. Dan, is the Regional Planning Commission annual? That's an annual appointment. I think they're all annual appointments. Well, it sounds like the preference would be to have them filled by village residents. Is that right? So we should probably ask that they be advertised that way. I guess that was Brad's question. Sounds good. Okay. So, Raj, do you want me to say village residents only or village residents preferred? So you want a decision decision. You need a decision, Raj. Go ahead. It sounds like we're saying they need to be residents. They must be residents of the village. Is that what the board feels? I agree. Do we need a motion? I think you're fine if there's consensus. Okay, I'm good, Raj. Sorry, I interrupted though, if you wanted to go to the public. Yeah, no, that's fine. I appreciate it. So if any members of the public want to comment on this item, now's your time. We'll take a couple of minutes and see if anybody has anything to say. And I'm not seeing anything. So let's move on to 5B city manager job description. So this is just an opportunity for you all to revisit the job description, which also includes the salary range that will be posted. Edits were made to, we took some of the ones that you all looked at last time and made some edits. And this is your chance to offer feedback if you'd like to see any changes for the final one. Also, you don't have to adopt this tonight if you'd like us to go back and do some more work, we can bring it back next meeting if you'd prefer. All right, anybody have any? Amber. Brad, are you the one that's controlling the screen? Yes. Can you scroll down to the page where they're all of the qualifications? Yes, right there. So the one question that I had as I was reviewing this is whether we wanted to put some kind of like qualifier on that second bullet about substantial knowledge of municipal operations. Well, I think it's nice that the person would have that. I wouldn't disqualify somebody who had never worked in the municipal sector before. And that was my only concern as I was reading through this. So would you say, Amber, something like substantial knowledge of municipal operations or experience with similar sized organizations or something like that? Or it's equivalent. Yeah. And maybe the preamble could describe what the organization actually looks like. It's a municipal entity with 80 employees. It has a six different video. I think it does say that. I think it does. I couldn't remember. Yeah, I think so. I'm open to suggestions. I just don't want to cap that person and not being able to apply because they've never worked in the municipality. So I'm definitely open to suggestions and I don't write these on a regular basis. George? Well, Amber, I'm sorry. I'm kind of going the other way on that. How about, but one suggestion might be substantial knowledge of municipal operations is desirable. But I'm also concerned that I actually had an edit for that, including a clear understanding of the manager's role within those operations or something like that. I mean, we don't want to get someone, like I have always wanted to drive a snow plow. I have no qualifications to do it, but it looks like a cool job. Maybe I'll go for it. I just think this is, we definitely want someone who understands what a manager does in my mind anyway. Maybe I'm talking too much, but I think someone who's been a manager in private industry and isn't used to the regulatory environment and the public transparency piece and all the stuff that goes with being a municipal manager, they might not thrive here and they may not know about that and they may not thrive under these circumstances. So I don't know. I would tend to maybe find a compromise there because I would want to know that the person has some understanding. And I guess that would come out in the interview, but if they don't know what's going on, how municipal government works, it's pretty different than private industry or nonprofit or academia or something like that. Don't you think? Maybe we could do something like substantial knowledge municipal operations. I just lost my train of thought. Desirable. Desire, prefer desirable. I mean, that doesn't identify a previous, someone who's worked as a manager. I mean, this could be an experienced department head and another municipality that is looking for the next natural or what I might consider the next natural move. And that could have been a department head or a junior department head and a municipality that's much bigger than ours, for instance. And they do know the ins and outs of municipal budgeting and process and open meetings and all that, but they've, and they do have management capabilities. So that could be some of, just imagining that could be some of who we might attract. But... I'm fine with desirable. I don't disagree with you, George, that working in municipality is a very different type of environment. But I do envision where you could find somebody who's worked in the private sector who has, I mean, I necessarily, just as myself as an example, I've worked in the municipal sector, but I probably get all of these things, even though I don't have any thorough knowledge of municipal operations. I'm a strong believer in being able to train somebody to do something, but you can't train attitude. And if we can get somebody with a really good attitude who comes in here and wants to learn these things but has some basis of like, yeah, maybe they managed a municipal budget or maybe they managed the budget at some private sector company, then I wouldn't throw them out of the running. Okay, I understand what you're saying, I agree. I think I would add too, that we've, you know, in the village throughout, especially throughout the past bunch of years, we've really identified our village department heads as being highly effective, efficient, running very lean departments fairly autonomously. And I sort of imagined a manager myself who is a skilled manager, but is also equally skilled at community engagement and doing a lot of those things. And so if we're this confident about our department heads, and I think we are, then I think there can be some crossover there that we don't need to worry about and that we can filter out and interviewing and everything else, you know. Yeah, I mean, if I just to go up to bounce it back a little bit, I think, you know, this is an interesting thing, a little bit of an interesting thing to discuss. I mean, we think a manager for a nonprofit or private company has a board of trustees that might meet once a year and, you know, for drinks or something like that. And they read an annual report and then they go home and someone who a manager in that environment might have a very different understanding of the relationship with the board of trustees or a council than what they would encounter in this job where as Brad is finding out, the council is there as your close friend looking over your shoulder almost all the time and having all kinds of expectations. So again, and that doesn't necessarily, and again, it doesn't rule out what you're saying, Amber. I just, you know, I'm not, I don't think we're really disagreeing, but I'm trying to think someone, you know, you want someone to make sure that they understand what they're getting into that they're gonna have to put up with a city council and they're gonna have to be responsible and, you know, everything, they've got this high level of transparency and that would come out, I guess, in the interview process and the filtering process, but maybe doesn't necessarily have to go in here, but I would be, have heightened scrutiny for someone who hasn't worked in a municipal environment before. I mean, is the word substantial tripping us up? Yeah. You know, I, knowledge municipal operations seems sort of like, meh, if you know, but I'm just wondering if there's a, if there's a different way of putting this. I think knowledge municipal operations prefer. I think or experience, Raj, I think would be more than just knowledge because experience doing something is different than knowledge of doing it. You can know, you know this, but, you know, putting it into effect takes experience. You've experienced the show that, you know, like George said, you can read about something, doesn't mean you can just like can do it. I think experience shows that you're capable of doing something. I think we're, we're, we're wading into wordsmithing. Yeah. Which we like, everybody likes to do. So I'm gonna put this back to Brad for this point and just say, you know, but what do you think? Do you get it? Do you, where are you at with this? I get it, but I think there's a lot of different things being said. I don't feel like there's consensus on what the message is. No. Yeah. I'll shut out. I'll shut out. I don't. Raj, looking at the second sentence, it says thorough knowledge of. So it's maybe redundant to say the knowledge piece twice, but I'm not sure as though I heard consensus on Dan's last take of experience, prior experience of municipal operations. Desirable is, is the consensus of the board. Experience is a different thing than knowledge. Someone, someone who's worked with municipal governments might have a lot of knowledge of municipal operations but not necessarily direct experience. So that's, that's an important distinction. Well, the thing is, George, what I'm trying to say is, when we're, you know, interviewing or analyzing, you know, the individuals that put in for this position, what are we basing our decisions on? What, you have to have some kind of experience, something to, to look back and say, can you show me how you've done this, you've done that and experience, what's your experience been? I have no experience, but like you said, I slept, I stayed, you know, I wanted to do this. I went to school and I learned something but I've never done it, just cause you have multiple degrees. If you've never applied that knowledge to a relevant field, it doesn't show you're capable of doing it. Okay, I wanna, I wanna bring everybody back to the fact that this is not the ad, it's the job description. Right. And in my head, I would presume that whoever, then we hire, we would deem to fill, to tick all these boxes. Does that make sense? Yeah. So, you know, I wonder if, you know, we're naturally nervous about who we're gonna find, but I wonder if we're, if we're worrying too much about this, I think knowledge of municipal operations, such as municipal finance, budget, personnel policies, practices and all of that preferred, well, not preferred because that's ad language, it's not job description language. So, again, this is not the ad. So are we, I guess the question is, are we comfortable employing someone with simply having knowledge or having substantial knowledge? Not to be facetious, but I mean, it's kind of what we're getting at here, I think. And this isn't the ad, it's the job description they're gonna be reading or signing or being graded upon. Yeah, stagial. I mean, that's ambiguous, very ambiguous. It's an ad on what? Yeah. And again, Dan, you're right. I see that word as more of a advertisement word for the position as opposed to the job description. You know, so after year one, we're gonna be, as a board, reviewing them new manager based on this job description. So are we gonna be able to quantify substantial knowledge versus knowledge that we then judge? Was it exemplary? Was it adequate? Was it below par versus how do we review them based on their substantial knowledge? So I guess I would almost advocate if this is the job description, take that word out. And maybe even that first short sentence and leave it at thorough knowledge of municipal finance budgets, personnel policies and practices collective, all that. Do you know what I'm getting at? Because it feels like this paragraph is sort of a morph between the ad and the job description. Yeah, that's an idea, you could do that. That's something. I'm okay with that. And then we can argue about what the ad says later. Okay. Problem solved. Does that make sense, Brad? Yep. Good. I had another edit, a very minor one. And I'd like to get, if you don't mind, I don't mind, sorry, Roger, I didn't mean to blur it out. Go for it, go for it. It's, and I don't sure if it's scroll up or down, Brad. It's weird about hiring the city attorney, the manager's responsibilities. Thanks a little further up. Yeah, right there. The initial recommend hire. I think I had a couple of pieces in here and maybe this, again, this is not the place to put this. Maybe this is perfectly fine. This is me just obsessing about it. But, and absolutely this does not apply to our current co-management team, but there has been a few, more than a few moments in the past where there's, it hasn't been clear that the city attorney represents the city council, not the manager. And the city attorney works for the council, not the manager. And in a contract negotiation where the manager and the city attorney are in a contract negotiation with a third party and there's any disagreement or any concern or anything like that, the manager does not get to say to the city attorney, here's what we're going to do. The manager's role is to say to the city attorney, we need to go to the council. And I think that somehow, maybe this isn't the place to make that clear, but on the other hand, it is kind of important because it has come up. And I would also add, shall hire special attorneys as needed, with again, with the approval of the council. So just to make it clear, the manager can't just hire a lawyer for a special reason, the manager would have to get the council's approval. And what I had recommended, that the manager shall recommend hiring of a city attorney with the council's approval and shall hire special attorneys as needed with the council's approval, the manager may confer with the city attorney with the council's implicit approval. And maybe this is not the place to get into the weeds like that, maybe we put that somewhere else or maybe after we hire the manager, we discuss that, but that just caught my eye. It's a little vague there because that sentence sounds like, that doesn't tell me whether the city attorney is working for the manager or the council. And Amber, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on that. What I'm actually looking to do is, I thought this entire section was actually out of the charter. Yes, it is. Okay, so that's what I was trying to double check. I'm like scrolling, I'm trying to check. It is, this is exactly, this is all this is tasted from the charter. Yeah, this is right out of the charter. Yeah, so I'm gonna, I'd suggest we leave it, but I hear what you're saying and I totally understand. Say that, I mean, my suggestion would be to leave this, but also that's part of a conversation we have to have with that. Okay, all right, that's good. You know, when we were writing the city charter, if it occurred to me, I wanted to actually buff this up a little bit, but we were in a great rush and it wasn't like a crucial, crucial thing. So I just skipped over it, but it is something that has come up in the past a couple of times. So we need to be mental to discuss this with the club of the newly energy risk. I think it may be more than a discussion. I mean, it sounds to me more like, okay, this is in the charter, here's the policy and how it's carried out. Right, so we can, you know, once this city's formed and we're getting our details and all our ducks in order, we can create these policies with the new manager. All right, and then they're approved and agreed upon and those processes and SOPs are in place. And, you know. Yeah, okay, that's all I have. Anything for you, Dan, Amber? Oh, I'm good, thank you. This was comfortable for me too. Andrew couldn't make it tonight. I don't have any comments from him. Based on that, I don't feel like we need to wait necessarily. If we, Brad, you need a motion tonight, we can proceed. That's totally up to you, Raj. If you all feel comfortable that we're there, then I'd say go ahead and do it. You can always visit this, like it's not locked in stone, but it would at least give a piece. So that when we go to list this position, hopefully in less than two weeks that we could post the job description with it. Yeah, I think we should get this out the door. All right, I'll intend a motion for this. Anybody has it up? I'll recommend that the trustees adopt the city manager job description as edited tonight by the trustees. Second. Motion is seconded. Sorry, Raj. Do you want to take any public comment? Let's just handle that, actually. Well, we kind of have a motion on the table. I guess we've done this before. So sure, if any members of the public have any thoughts that they'd like to share with the board now is the time to do it. Take a couple of minutes and see if anybody wants to share. All right, am I seeing anyone raising their hand in Zoom or no one on the phone? So there's a motion on the table in a second. So I'll ask all those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Those opposed say nay. Motion passes four zero. And development review board and planning commission discussion five C. Yeah, so you could see some, there's the language that's here in the charter about the transitional provisions regarding transitioning to a development review board and a planning commission. For fair warning, this is just a very preliminary conversation tonight. We did not invite the planning commission or zoning board to attend. So it's just the opportunity for the trustees to have a first stab at kind of how you'd like to see this process unfold. But this is supposed to happen by July one. So we probably need to get moving on it. Emerson got her hand up already. It'd be proactive. Yeah. So I admit that I read the statute and I couldn't even understand it. Thank you. Pretty funny, but can, do we have the ability, I guess, let me phrase the point. I would like to see what the planning commission, the current planning commission and ZBA members feel because when I remember when I was sitting on the planning commission and this discussion first started, there was some discussion that we might have the ability to choose as planning commission members. Did I want to be on a planning commission or do I want to be on DRB? I mean, we do have, you know, 10 folks collectively who, you know, we can sit both those committees, but I would like to give those folks who are sitting on those committees first run at, what do you want to do? I don't want to just put somebody on a planning commission who has no desire to still stay on the planning commission that they really were waiting for this DRB to be created. So I guess my question that relates to the statute is can we do that or does it have to, do those people who sit on the ZBA just have to automatically go to the DRB? Is there any question for me or I'm happy to provide a response or you all can discuss? If you know the answer, sure. Well, I just have two quick comments. One is there are only four members on the planning commission currently and two members on the zoning board. So not 10, just to be aware of. And then based on what's in front of us, I think that that reading of 108A shall become the planning commission and the development review board. I think the current membership will become that, but it doesn't mean that people can't resign and apply. You know, you can't open them up and you have openings on both of them right now anyways. So somebody else could resign from either of those groups and apply for the other opening. But I think if they choose not to resign, I think they do automatically become members of those respective boards. George? Yeah, this is, I'm glad you're racist, Amber, but I think if you scroll down, it's interesting here and I hadn't realized this. You can be on both, you can have someone appointed to both boards. You can be on the planning commission and the DRB. Did you see it? Did you read that, Amber? If you scroll further down and I know this is a really dense and kind of confusing, but my interpretation of this is that a planning commission member can also be on the DRB. You go down, Brad. Yeah, and it's sort of buried, yeah. Where is it? Go down, go down further. God, I mean, it's in here and I saw this. Yeah, it's kind of. Yeah, I got bored after paragraph A. I know, I mean, that's a thing, but I actually am a boring person, so I read the whole damn thing, but I read in here, if you guys read through it, I can't remember where it is, but I'm pretty sure it mentioned it not just once, but several times. It didn't be. Being? Up. Yep. I'm pretty sure that's the paragraph. Yeah. That's for a rural town or urban municipality. We're an urban municipality. Where's the definition? Where about as urban as you get, baby? I mean, I think he says what a definition. You live in the heart of the city, girl. Come on. My God. But I think B says you could be on both boards, which kind of maybe I'm reading it wrong, but again, I will defer to council here. But my interpretation is it's saying, you can sit on two boards at the same time. Yeah. Except for that, separate of three that's highlighted. Members of the commission, but that's the planning commission. All right. If you can't, if you can't, if you sit on the planning commission, you can't be on DRB. You can't be on the DRB. According to that. She says you can't. Okay. And what does B say? What did you, we just, we just- About our own charter says that you can't. Right. Which is highlighted. That's what's highlighted is- Is that, oh, that's from our charter. Yeah. Oh, wait. Wait. Also believe our ethics policy that I've been working on says that as well. Okay. I didn't even read art. Okay. Sorry. Sorry for the confusion. Yeah. I don't think, I don't think you really want them to be on both. So it sounds like we've got a couple of issues here that are much bigger than how to proceed. Well, equally as big as how to proceed is how to populate those planning commission in the DRB in time. And, and then, you know, I don't recall, forgive me, how many, if we laid out how many members of each in our charter, do we specify five for each in our charter? Okay. That is our charter. Okay. We, I think we were specifically, I think we specifically stayed away from that if I remember correctly. Yeah. So we didn't put a number on it? No. Okay. Because there's also statutory, there's also statutes about this below. So it looks like somewhere between three and nine for the DOB. Between three and nine. That's what statutes say. So we should think about that. We should think about it. I think I joined meeting with the remaining members of both planning commission and zoning board. Yeah. Come up with an agenda for what we want to cover and do, I can't remember who said it. I apologize, but, you know, get their thoughts, get their thoughts in the future of both where they see it's going, where they see it going. We do have, I think we're supposed to have updated zoning coming to us at some point as well. And we have to talk about some zoning around cannabis. So I'm not sure how much of that can be folded in. I don't know how much we can, we can discuss around some of that with them versus simply receive their work. And I, that's my lack of knowledge on the process. But I think for this purposes, we should get together sooner than later with both boards. Maybe even the next meeting, if they're available or find a time when they're available and become available. And then figure out how to recruit. I've been trying to raise my hand and I can't for some reason. I'm sure it's nothing to do with Brad, but... Brad locked you up. But I can't raise my hand. I can speak a little bit to this. I've been talking to the Genocount Regional Planning Commission. They tell me that about half of them are not Vermont. Municipalities have moved to the DRB structure with general satisfaction. Most of the ones that haven't are smaller tons, no cities, less than 2,000 people now that the Northeast Kingdom are Southern Vermont. You don't, the trustees do not have to put it to a city-wide vote to move to the DRB. It's already in the charter. It was not an issue, but I think it would be good to have the discussion, generally. Basically the way it would work is that the Planning Commission is the legislative board and it sets the rules for one of the better friends. And the DRB adjudicates the rules. They make a decision based on what the Planning Commission has put together and the trustees have approved. It is recommended that if possible, perhaps one person on the Planning Commission should also be on the DRB for continuity. In this model, the Planning Commission are strictly forward thinking. It's really the municipal plan, more than anything else. Obviously also the code, but it's the DRB who review applications. The Planning Commission do not review applications anymore. I think it would be nice if we could get some kind of, and I'm sure CCRPC has this information. I mean, obviously just some of the distinctions and stuff, some kind of literature for the next meeting for when we meet with the ZBA and PC folks. So they have an idea as to what their roles might potentially be. I can get you that. Basically the pros of the PC is knowledgeable of regulations, while in judicial role at the minute, and more eyes on the application. But once you go, that would be the PC and it's very important for adjustment. You go to the DRB model, there's a clear separation of legislative and quasi-judicial powers. There's a workload distribution. It's easier to explain to others. The only con might be that there could be a disconnect between writing rules and using rules. That's why the suggestion is you have some that was on both groups. It's cleaner. I think it's cleaner. But it sounds like we can't have someone on both groups. It sounds like we wrote that into our charter. That would be a local role. It wouldn't be a state role or regional role. Correct, but it is written to the charter. It would require a charter change to do that. Or we could have a point, someone has an advisory and an advisory position. And not a voting member. I don't know. Was I portfolio role? What was that? With I portfolio role, could move from one group to the other. That was helpful Robin, thank you. So Raj, it sounds to me like at this point we invite the PC and ZBA to the 511 meeting and prepare some materials in that packet to very clearly lay out the roles of what the PC and DRB will look like and have a conversation with them as to what the next step should be. I'll get that to you Brad. I'll do a confirm contrast and then Todd all up with what the changes was made. Great, thank you. It's probably already kicking around because I'm pretty sure I saw it three years ago. Good well be. And I will add to that. Don't feel like you need to wait till the Friday before the next meeting. If you have all that and it's okay, send it out because if it's more than the average packet it'd be nice to have it in advance so we can read and think about it. At least for my purposes, if we didn't think about it. Maybe respond with questions to you Robin or something. Yeah, we'll do that. Thank you. Does that sound like a plan board? Sounds good. Yes. Great. All right, so. Raj Harlan has his hand up. Oh, I apologize. Harlan. Yeah, I was just curious. I was that line where anybody on the commissions or the boards may not hold a city office does, and I'm not sure how this works and not that I'm volunteering, but there's a voting number of the city who is also an employee of the city. Would they be allowed to apply for a position on either one of those boards? Would they be able to hold a position? Because I don't know if an employee is considered holding an office. Well, it seems like our charter said something about that. Yeah. I know we, I know elected, other elected officials can't be on the planning commission. I know elected officials on our board can't be employees. Yeah. I don't know. I don't know if employee residents can be on the planning commission or DRV. Wait, if I can jump in, Rick Hamlin was on the bike walk committee for a number of years and it didn't cause any problems. And we also have village staff and other members of committee on the capital committee. Is that correct? That's correct, right? So I don't know that there's a strict prohibition against it. We have staff that participate, but they are not on the committee. Okay. But I think that that goes to the conflict of interest ethics as well. So I think, you know, as long as it's not a conflict of interest, I don't think there's an issue. I don't think that, I agree. There might come to be a time where there is a conflict of interest. But, I agree with your saying Amber, if I can jump in and just my thing is, I don't see where there would be a financial benefit to any member or any employee other than, you know, when Rick Hamlin was on the bike walk committee and when a project was coming up where his firm may be hired to do the job, that's when it came into question about his role. And I don't see a member of our public works or I can't think of it, you know, where any of the other departments, fire department, the only thing would be if they, you know, would come in upon an issue that would call for a financial benefit. And it's not so much a financial benefit to the community, a financial benefit to them. If they sold, you know, rec equipment or they sold fire equipment, then, you know, that would be a bias or a impropriety could be assumed or no concern. Yeah, I will say that, you know, employee staff, staff committees, whether, you know, in the past for me, it was economic development commission or the energy committee or the housing committee, but we don't vote. We don't get to vote. I think that's a big difference. Staff do not get to vote. I think it'd be good to get a firm answer on where that line is. You know, I can see a resident trying to argue it may not be a financial concern for that employee slash planning commissioner or DRB member, but they may have been pressured into thinking their employment, their employment relied on a decision they made. That's just off the top of my head is some wacko, you know, scenario that I have no idea about, but if it's not strictly prohibited, I don't see a problem. So we should find out whether we should get an answer to that, that's firm. Yep, I will do. Thank you. Annie. Yeah, I think I'm just gonna probably say the same thing someone else already said. I really would hate to think that there would be a restriction on a resident who also happened to be staff to be able to participate in community, but conflict of interest can be a murky space and power and decision making can be challenging. So I agree that it should be looked at, but really sincerely a resident wanting to participate in that way I admire and applaud. So I feel like I hope that it's possible and plausible and that it's really clear how that can happen. Thanks for letting me talk. Disagree. You say you disagree? I said I don't disagree. Oh, thanks. All right. Anybody have anything else on this topic? Nope, all right. So I get back to the agenda. Looks like all of our business items are on the consent agenda. Motion to consent agenda. Second. And a motion and a second. Yeah. George, you wanted to say something about this, right? Well, no, it's something about the reading file. I can't remember, but I'm not seeing it. Where are the minutes? Yeah, I think the April, there needs to be a correction in the April 26th minute in the April 6th minutes. Because it has George Tyler as vice president at the beginning of the minutes. And it's some other guy named Raj Chala, I believe who's the vice president. Oh no, man, you could have been running this whole meeting. Yeah. So I just wanted to make that, yeah, right there. Okay, so that needs to be corrected for posterity. We don't want anyone to get the wrong idea from that. I didn't even notice that. Yeah, sorry about that. All right, I tried to slip that in there, but you call me. All right, with that change, does anybody, we already motioned that, didn't we? All those in favor of accepting, approving the consent agenda, say aye. Aye. Aye. Nay, those opposed, say nay. Consent agenda passes, four zero. And on to the reading file and board member comments. Now you're up torch. Okay, Mike, I had requested we get an update from the main street on the main street project. And we did get an update, but since it's been a year now, since we, it will be almost a year since we approved this back last May. And it didn't go forward. And I don't blame anybody for that. We were all up to our next in separation and negotiations and certainly Evan had his hands full and couldn't follow up. And so I'm not trying to hold anybody responsible, but on the other hand, it has been a year, this was unanimous decision to move that project forward. And it didn't move forward in a timely way. And so I would like to ask if this is implying that there's going to be action taking place on this within the next week or two. So I would like to make a request that we have this, have another update on our next meeting agenda about this, just to make sure that it did get out the door and there aren't any final stags. I know I'm being a pain on this, but it really is a project that's been hanging out there. And I'd like to get it off our plate ASAP after a year instead of I have a problem with the board making decisions that just go nowhere. So I'd like to see this get out the door and I'd like some kind of confirmation on our next trustee agenda that at least some kind of an update about where it is if I can make that humble request. Is Robin still with us or doesn't look like it? I don't know. I don't understand. Yeah, you brought that up and I remembered I did wonder with this last sentence in the memo, once the CCRPC and the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation or whatever, give their approval, I was curious on the timeline of that. The final drawing is I have to go to bed but only after those two agencies give their approval. So I was curious on the timeline myself. So yeah, let's see if he can update us next in two weeks like you said. Thank you. If he doesn't have any new info, at least get us maybe a timeline on what approvals like that typically take. And then if it's two months, so we pass the construction season, when is sort of the point of no return for this year on construction? That'd be nice to know. Yep. Thank you. Your hand is up. Annie, is that a hand to hold over? You want to, do you have more to add? I'm sorry, it's a hold over. Okay, no problem. All right, anything else from the reading file? If not, I will entertain a motion to adjourn. So moved. I'll second. All right, Dan made the motion and George seconded. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. As opposed, nay. Aye's had it. Four or zero, meeting is adjourned. Excellent. Good job, Rob. Good job. That was an hour. Less than an hour. Job rush. Andrew, to be quite efficient, but Raj, wow. Yeah, it's a speed demon.