 Okay, so this is where we are right now with this to give you quick background. Mike threw together a draft for us. I first went through with with some light edits, because I didn't have a lot of time but then I went decide to revisit it later. Just because I felt like it was hard to read with the suggestions in there I went ahead and just did like a rewrite of the first few paragraphs anyway. That's pretty much it the I did not do that throughout I just I kept my smaller edits for the rest of it they edit there wasn't as much there. I had this one question about whether we even want to bring up the parking garage since it's a sore subject I guess you could say, and that's that's all I've got for thoughts right now. What do other people think about the chapter. Yeah. Why I Kirby I liked it I had a chance to look at your rewrites. I think the same kind of thing about the garage or the not the garage the the hotel question and I guess the other question I have is like how far down the road do we need to be knowing that we're going to have some community input and some other things like that need to be in our final draft what is it we're trying to get to just as a newer member. We at this stage I think we do want it to be in pretty good shape, because I don't know how much we're going to be. I don't like counting on us doing anything like spinning spinning. I don't like counting on on spinning a bunch extra time later I mean that might happen but it might not so I'm more comfortable when we pass these out for them to be at least like near the kind of final shape that we would like. And then they may or may not be changed later as we start to put them into the website but I try to make sure they're as polished as as we're comfortable with at least for now. So I guess I guess as it relates to I mean I like to you know the questions about the hotel. I imagine the back in the day there was there were studies done by the city right before bond, you know was proposed saying that we needed a convention center hotels that correct Mike. Yeah there were studies that were done there were a couple of studies that were done. One that we had commissioned and then another one that was done. The Becheris had their own that they did it's it's a pretty well known. The fact that the the city of Montpelier doesn't have enough hotel rooms. Based on it's you know it's a track it's attraction and all those other things. Maybe we could just cite the study and you know whatever it's aspirational goals you know suggestions or something like that. That's a little tricky to write on the fly like this. Oh Mike can you. We could give it a shot here if we plan to pass it out right now, or could we want to just Mike can you hit me. Like a girl and over here. Okay thanks. Okay, so. Yeah we could. Wait and do like a cursory vote next time and then polish it up before then does that sound good for people and I'll just throw in a placeholder for. Yeah I think Mike if you want if you could throw that in we can you know kind of words meant the language and stuff and I like that I don't know what other people starts were but otherwise I thought it was pretty well done. Do you have any other thoughts that people have thoughts about a need for me to do a similar thing on the rest of it, or are we fine with with these bottom paragraphs. A couple of comments but I'll maybe we should address that. Okay. I was just, well there were two things that I noticed. And this growth in the hospitality and tourism sector. I mean one thing I was just thinking of reading that is that I don't actually have a proposal for language to deal with this but you know we talked so much about housing and it's important for economic development and then we're talking here about outdoor recreation as important for tourism. And I don't know somehow I guess I guess partly because of the Northfield Street discussion I was thinking about it like these two goals can be in conflict at times outdoor areas and housing. Now I mean if we don't expand any of our outdoor areas are you know but I just to, because I feel like that's something that could be brought up. So we're, you know, talking about a new housing development later, like, oh well this we've, we're also talking about how important outdoor recreation is to our tourism sector so I'm just kind of a little bit worried about the conflict between those two although I don't, again, have a proposal right at the moment of how to address that. And I think that was that too actually when working on it. And because there is attention there. It's been brought up legally I'm not worried about it because as we talked about the last city council meeting, Mike and I both talked touched on this. The plan is a goal like housing. It's not like other parts of the plan can then counter that goal, like, so if we're trying to build housing, just because there might also be some trails put in somewhere doesn't mean the housing doesn't go in like that's not how the city plan works and the practical world, but even that said I would like to get ahead of this and I think I would like to throw something in. Also, I'm not sure how much authority really the chapter has either. It's more of the strategies and things. But, but even with those caveats I think we could put something like something in like something like to the extent that it doesn't unduly interfere with housing development or something like that. So, so I think the crux of that issue though like we could just talk about the expansion of the space and in public parks right the issue on Northfield Street has to do with private property, which is, you know, not an issue that that's that's not a real that's illegal taking right if we try to grab somebody's property but we do want to see expansion of all these resources where it makes sense and I think acknowledge that, you know I think one of the conversations that we all heard there was that there's that for, you know, that part of the city, right that there needs to be some more public parks or public access to things right and I think we can say we need to expand that how do we do that, right but that's different than, you know, construction that's going to take place lawfully inside areas that are zone properly for housing. Yeah, well I think, I mean, I think this came up, although I wasn't deeply involved in the discussions about the expansion of Hubbard Park but you know there are potential housing lots there when when Hubbard Park was expanded so I think it can it can come up and yeah. Yeah, no I know so Gabe what are in talking about is like there are people in town who will bring up a need for parks or a need to prioritize open space or natural resources or however you want to put it whenever housing comes up it's it's something that they that they say there's an argument that's made so I think it is I think it's nice to to try to to try I don't know to try to have something in here that that. I like the language you just added I think I mean I don't know what area on things but I mean that. I think that's sufficient. Yeah, I think just acknowledge that that sounds good to me what you added there. Just to kind of, yeah, acknowledge it even just a little bit is what I was going for. And I think we're going to have multiple goals from time to time. Really the parks plan is what's called the green print and you know I think if we were looking at a project we would want to go through and make sure that you know either our zoning or our master plan or city plan. You know we want to implement that. Green print because that's our basically our outdoor recreation master plan so. I think that's really the benchmark from a project standpoint as we would look at a project and see how it matches with that with that plan and whether there's something and then it's a matter of tools and that's what we've talked tried to talk to the conservation commission and the parks commission about is what tools they want to take to accomplish their green print because we can't use zoning and that's where they keep running into logger heads is is wanting to use the zoning to accomplish the green print which they really can't do so. It's it's that it's going to be it's a tough balance it definitely is but I think we need to accomplish the green print making those parks on, you know, for example south of the south of the river. You know this this parcel may be on the green print and maybe identified as as a priority parcel to put in a park. But we can't use zoning to make that to build that park into reality that has to be done by working with the developers on a willing bell willing buyer willing seller basis to purchase the property and so that's that's a different process. And so I think people just have to recognize are going to be different tools and we may not fully build out the green print plan because we aren't timely enough about getting things in but I think that's that's something that just has to be addressed over over time and addressed project by project. And I think Alec is doing a little bit more of being proactive now and I think that'll be that'll benefit his is getting that network built out. So I think we'll have to just see and we'll have to educate people. And I think getting to Kirby's point the chapter is really about it's it's not the the regulatory it's not the strategies. It is it is trying this is the piece the public is going to read this is really about educating it's about telling the story. It's about letting the public know what is economic development why it's important and what we're doing that kind of storytelling that we can put in there because this is this is where the public is supposed to learn about what is economic development and what's our plan for it. What's our vision for it and what are we going to do about it. Thanks everyone. So are you set a couple things I want to make sure we don't move on if you have something else. Oh, the other thing was just further down the paragraph before the next section, our workforce profiles similar to our business profile. I just just a comment and again I don't, I apologize for not having my own language to suggest but I thought it was a little bit confusing in that I wasn't sure whether we were talking about whether Montpelier can live in Montpelier or people who are not affluent in Montpelier can have better job opportunities like maybe we're talking about both but I thought the paragraph was a little. I was a little confused by it so just that comment. Okay. Maybe before we vote next week I'll try to clarify this paragraph. I feel like I need to spend some time with it, but I understand what you're saying. And I mean I can take a stab at editing it too but you because you do so much work with playing commission I feel badly but you also are already like sort of in it so. Yeah, I get what you're saying because because the paragraph touches on both the things you were saying but yeah I think I think we should be clear when we're talking about one and the other. Yeah, maybe we're talking about both and that's great, but I just wasn't I wasn't 100% sure reading it. We can. Are you on can you say what what's the two what are the two things that you're I'm reading the paragraph to and I'm realizing that it is kind of confusing but I'm what is. What are the two things you're getting confused. Oh, well one is people who work in Montpelier but live in like Barry, because they get forward to live in Montpelier and two is people who are not well off in Montpelier, getting better job opportunities. I think there was something in there about that. So I, it seemed like maybe we were talking about both of it, but I wasn't clear. Like creating job opportunities for less than pathways for less well off Montpelier residents. Right okay. So it touches on both of those things but I think we can. We can discuss them in ways in which it's like clearer. So we can do it. Just need some like segue type language going from one topic to the next. We can do that. Yeah, I like the idea of us just looking over it now and then giving ourselves a week to still tinker with it if we want and then vote next week. Do we have any other comments for now on it. Oh, just the one other comment was that Montpelier is Michelle sometimes so but I think we can do a search and word check is very weird on my computer I've never quite figured it out. It's on everything. It's amazing how many things my spell check just does not pick up on. I think Google where Google docs is particularly tricky. Yeah, mine does it on anything though even on word docs. Oh, yeah, I'll write up some memo and I'll send it to somebody and they'll go through and do all the spelling corrections on it. Because my computer my computer will say there's nothing wrong with it and then they'll go through and find all the words that are misspelled. Maybe here's a set to like a different language. I think I got them all. Unless unless Montes misspelled somewhere. But okay. Anything else. I just want to see does it, but doesn't really tell you something's misspelled in the text here. Anything else or should we move on for now and then we'll just plan to do a quick vote next week. So let's go and move on. Sounds good. I think I'll close all my tabs earlier. So that's fun. So the next next thing on the agenda was to discuss doing policy outreach for solar access. And then, and then, and Michael you'd put rather than amendment language I mean I was, my assumption was we would be doing both together. I mean we necessarily would do the outreach before doing amendment language, but maybe I'm not remembering something from our discussion next last time. Do we have thoughts about what order we should do that in or something about that process. Yeah, that was what I wanted to kind of talk a little bit about. What I was thinking was, you know, John and Jeff and everybody have has really put together some interesting educational points and rather than starting with a draft set of zoning changes and and arguing the case. Maybe it's just a matter of going out to public with what we know and what we've figured out and just start to have a conversation to go through and say before we write. Right regulations to implement a policy. And right now we don't really have a policy. So maybe the best thing to do is to go to the public and start having a conversation. We kind of know where we would go in certain. Well, we already voted where we really want to go. But if that doesn't work out then what's the public or the city council willing to kind of take as a policy step and maybe it's. You know, and this is a second while the second question on this, but you know, maybe it's a matter of just doing public input with the public going to city council having the same presentation and then. Following that up with, you know, asking city council to give us direction as to what the policy should be and then we'll draft something that reflects that policy. Because I think going in with the answer kind of puts city council and others in the position, the same position that they're in right now, which is they go in, they see it and they're like, that's not what we want. We're going to vote no and it gets kicked back. Whereas sitting down with them to go through and have the first conversation of what's our policy going to be. What is our policy to protect gardens in the middle of winter is our policy to protect, you know, no shade ever on any piece of housing or, you know, what are the costs and consequences of each of those. John's map showing how many buildings are non conforming, you know, kind of getting that information out there to go through and say this isn't taking into account topography this isn't taking into effect a lot of pieces. This is just the world we live in and, you know, I think there's there's a piece that goes in regarding education and and I think that would be an easier place to start. The second very related question is going to be about timing. How much of a priority is is having this conversation at this time? Because, you know, we all know, you know, we look on our agenda here, you know, we're talking about the city plan, we really want to crank through the city plan this year and get that done. And sometimes holding these public hearings and getting these things there. It's going to that's going to take up a couple of public this can take up a couple of our meetings and how much time do we want to take away to work on the shading. I mean, this has been in effect for four years now and impacted almost impacted. It didn't impact but almost impacted games project. And that's it. So it's from a permit standpoint. It's not really a high priority. That said, we have five housing projects that are on the horizon and how many of those would be impacted. And that's that's an unknown until we run some run some analyses. But it's part of the reason because we just haven't had a neighbor or someone bring it up though, or or for the administrative approval aspect of it have we looked closely at that for every project. No, it just hasn't come up much we've worked. When this was proposed, you know, I could see a little bit of the writing on the wall and knew this was going to be a problem. And, you know, as I said, there was this, there's the architectural standards for the two that I thought were very problematic. So I very conveniently maneuvered them into the major site plan, which is used only in very limited cases, including doing large construction projects. So the architectural standards and and the shading only come up in very few cases of which Gabe's project was one of them. So you have to build a new project and it has to be bigger than a certain size to qualify as a major site plan. Most of our projects are additions, renovations, sheds, porches, gazebos, changes of use. Very few new buildings get built. If you were just to think around Montpelier, you know, the timber frame was built after the zoning went into effect, but that's out in the rural district. Not a big difference. Caledonia Spirits was before the zoning went into effect, so that was under the old zoning. Well, none of this stuff is in the building. Yeah. The solar or create a problem in the building, which is supposedly one of the most. Yeah. So it's really with the infill projects where this is going to come up. So yeah, it hasn't come up very often. So and that's, you know, that was a little bit by by design and by how we moved it. But if we were to build, you know, the either of the Northfield Street projects, they're they're going to both be major site plans. It's going to it's going to come up in other cases. The question is if it's going to be a problem in those other cases. If we're not thinking that it's going to be an immediate concern. What if we put it into the housing and the plan and then we kind of use that. We could kind of use that as like outreach time. And more education time we could make it like a strategy or that's too specific for is it too specific for a strategy. We could I mean if we had trying to think we can always combine some of it with another public input piece. So if we let's say we're working on the city plan and we're working our way through and by August or September, we're ready to do some public outreach on the city plan. We can always build in some public input on some zoning changes as well. Whether it's this issue or you know the next round of zoning changes is going to come up and maybe we just do some zoning outreach hearings that we put out that talk about a number of things that we want to change in the zoning and this just is one piece of it and we talk a little bit of policy. So I think the original conversation was that we need to get some policy input right and so we could kick it down to the latter one. It was just just a, you know, interesting fact I went searching around I was trying to find other cities or states that have anything like this. And I could see how it was how it compared, and I couldn't, I couldn't find one I mean I went to do it you know nobody does. I don't know who the consultant was the recommended this I understand it's based on solar panel design. But, you know, even even California who's the leader and in solar projects, they stop at a certain point they don't get to this. And in fact all the lawsuits are about like whether or not you can plant a tree. And anything to do with us. This is, this is, you know, really interesting so it's almost like it's such a total anomaly that we at some point maybe it isn't a priority right now. But when we're doing the next zoning like you almost have to ask the city council, what is it you're really trying to do because this was, I mean I don't know maybe it was a mistake. It's not benchmarked off of anything I could find anyway. Well, okay, so what do you guys think about this plan. I like the idea of striking while the irons hot mean. Yeah, like Mike said, Jeff and john recently did work on this. I know from my own experience when I work on something for my day job, like a, you know, tax law thing. And then someone asked me about a year later I gotta like, I gotta do it over again. So I like to try to have something, you know, in place while while I'm still like fresh on my mind. What if we with, we don't let anything that we're doing get in the way of any of the city plan work, like, we're going to do the city plan work as soon as it's ready. I mean, but, but, you know, sometimes we have some gaps to fill because because Mike's very busy and can't always be working on that. So with our gap time in the next month or so month or two. We can work on some outreach about this where we put the stuff that's fresh in our minds together into some outreach. We don't necessarily needed to publish it right away. We can publish it closer to when we think we'll do the hearings. It's looking like the timing for the hearings is probably going to it's going to make sense that we have the plan finished maybe this summer early fall and then we'll do the hearings right after we're done with the plan work and that's been, you know, passed on to the consultant at that point so that's what I'm remembering the timeline was like. So I mean that's what that's what I'm thinking we could, and I like the idea of doing the outreach before we start working on doing the amendment so do some outreach stuff. Mike mentioned, maybe a presentation to city council which would mean like a PowerPoint or something that we put together. And then plus, I think, like an article or something. We can start with the article maybe and then turn the article into a PowerPoint thing or I'm assuming Mike would end up if there is a presentation to city council on this, then Mike would do in the presenting so maybe he can just take whatever we do for Mike and turn it into his own presentation. Totally defer you Mike on on what process you want to do there. The point is we maybe put some of this down in an outreach type format in the next month or two when we have the space for it. And then we can shelf it for a couple of months after that, and, and then publish it and work on it further when when it's time when it's closer to time to do a hearing on this and consider it. How does how does that plan sound for people. Do you have any concerns or thoughts about that Mike. I mean that that sounds sounds like a good idea I mean I would. You know I think what you want for outreach material is just to, you know, explain, you know, start out with the, you know, explaining the problem. What's the existing problem that we're trying to address and you know what we're trying to. We're hoping to achieve and then giving some some background information that kind of, you know, identifies why this is a problem and what are some of the options that people could consider and then we want to figure out what people's thoughts are. And I think there's a certain obviousness that comes out that most people will see when you start going at, you know, most most buildings today don't don't meet this requirement. You know, and we can go through and explain that and I think I think there's a number of ways that we can kind of present that problem that maybe invites an obvious answer. It won't make everybody happy and I can, you know, name three or four people that automatically won't like anything that we propose but I think it's important that we start to have that conversation before we draft the rules. It'll make that it'll make it smoother next time. I totally agree with that. And I think it just goes to some of the conversation conversations that we've been having around like the density thing to I like the approach of like talking about policy and talking about and inviting education and inviting conversation before we have like an actual rule thing to bring to to change, even if that's the end goal. To do that, it would probably be good to have john at the meeting when we actually talk about putting into outreach format. I'm fine doing it but I'll need all of the, all of the research that we have so far on it. You know, I'd like to have that my possession before trying to draft something. I would also open if anyone else wants to volunteer for that also, by the way, was not mentioning that because I want to hog it or anything. So, so maybe yeah, we'll, next time we have john at the meeting wall, gather all of the info we have together. Jeff, do you have like anything like notes or anything to share. I would be able to put something together that builds off the notes I provided to the council. Good. That reminds me I haven't gotten actually I haven't got to sit down and read your paper, but Jeff shared a paper that he that he wrote and published that on a similar topic on planning topic. Okay. Sounds good sounds like a plan. Do we have anything else on this before we move on to the next item. Okay. So the next thing is the draft outreach letter I'll share screen. So what we have so far for this is Marcella Mason changes. I said I wasn't going to touch it and just let other people have at it. It doesn't look like there's been any like significant additions or anything Marcella just wanted to like custom things. I'm not going to like Marcella stuff does anybody else want to drastically alter or change any parts of this. You're fine. I mean I'm definitely not married to the intro in the opening so we're comments about last week. If we wanted to modify that. Open the suggestions about that. Okay, so let's get into Marcella stuff I see okay cutting that out. Just general. Well and just just I think they kind of the priest is really just kind of pulling. I just did it in an effort to make it a little bit shorter. Maybe a little bit simpler. I think that, and I didn't look I didn't think about adding language to the top but I do think it might be good to add a sentence about the intent of the letter to the top, rather than, you know, like more so than just let you know what we're doing. Maybe say something like we could, I could help think of a sentence of like, you know, we're intent with your letter letters to make you aware of A, B and C. And then, because it's a letter that is intended I think to be more of the like just, we're here and you can engage with us. Rather than outlining very specific solutions or projects other than the city plan. I was thinking the shorter is better and you know maybe I think you outlined the housing problem well, but maybe we think about shortening that just a little bit to get to the point about how we can engage the community a little bit faster. That was that was where the edits were coming from. Okay. Okay, so the first things first, trying to flesh out the intro because you mentioned that. I would just say this. Yeah, you can expect and how you can engage maybe you can expect from us in the coming year and how and how you can participate. Well what specifically do we want to say about participation, what do we want to invite them to do come to meetings, send us emails. Yeah, I think you say all those things at the end right. And then if this is, I know it was intended to be in the bridge right so it would be printed but they do do they do an online person as well we could have like links to those things. I don't know I guess it was just planned for to be in print. Okay. So we should add a wrapped sentence and with like the link to the website and that should do it. What's the best website to put your mic. Well that would just be the, the Montpelier. I don't know you just probably want to go out to the city of Montpelier page and pull the homepage. That's probably it. Shortest URL. Yeah, www.montpelier-vt.org. Okay, people are likely to call me if they have to sign up from there. I shouldn't if there's one place that people usually can find it's the, the links to agendas and minutes. So I think we took out some of my. Thank you, Mike. Some of the stuff that was just trying to get people energized about the thing. I think I took out things that I felt like just weren't necessary. I tend to be a heavy editor that way so I would defer if other folks feel like it would be helpful to have some of that stuff still in there. I think it depends on the audience, but I think some people do respond to with to the cheerleader type approach. Just a little at the beginning, a little at the end, take it out of the middle. I have to go tend to a four year old you guys can discuss that for a second I'll bear back. I'm just pointing at one particular one or not, but I did kind of throughout take out some of the language that I felt like was editorial, maybe is the word. Like, you know, solving the problem takes some serious work with all. I think if we wanted to have that kind of language we could do it at the top just saying like, the plan will be better if we have more folks engaged. And so, you know, or heads are better than one that sort of thing and then we could at the end when we say we would love to hear from you, we can play that up a little bit but I think I just feel like it makes it longer than it should be to have and just feels a little bit like how to feel about paragraph when the paragraph is very clearly written to make sure people feel like this is a problem. Does that make sense? We don't need to tell them it's you know, we just, it's clearly a problem we don't have to also tell them it's problem. Yeah, I think your edits make sense. Okay, and I think short is better shorter is better too. And just thinking about some of the conversation we had last week about what the actual problem is and what we're trying to achieve and it has to do with that engagement. So, putting it up front that we want people to be involved and we want them to be involved because more ideas makes for better planning. Okay, I think I heard most of that. Remember here is to signal a change. People think that that's flows. Okay, and I guess that's fine. Okay, so it looks like the only thing left will be kind of lost my train of thought about what this the intent of this sentence was going to be I think it was on people where to look but that's at the end, I guess. Anything else to change or should I think there, I think there was this those couple bullets at the top and maybe you were going to go there and adding that in I thought there was like, these are the things we're going to go through I was going to add them in I got in there today and I'm like, I don't remember all stuff that working. So I couldn't add it, but I thought that was some of the intent was just to telegraph a little bit of like here's some of the big you know like, we certainly talked about the city plan but what are some of the other big things that we're looking at. But you know this density issue. And that's one. What are the other things we think we need to introduce at the beginning. But otherwise I thought it was good and I grew the edits. That's another one just so I can throw in three here. Yeah, soliciting intensity here because those are going to be two things we're going to be doing outreach on so it makes sense to name them specifically anyway. Maybe talk about the plan later but maybe we talk about the plan here, and then we can shorten it later, like update. Should I, should I call it the city master plan this time Mike since like so many people okay we want to get people off of that. Okay. Just give some people a background because you don't know. It was called the master plan for a really long time we made the conscious decision to change it to the city plan because that's the more accurate term for what it is. But people who've been around for a while and know, you know, in the planning area in the public they, they've used the term master plan and so that's the word that they use a lot. It's the same thing as the city plan. If you ever hear someone say master plan just so you're not confused. Could you say a major update of our city plan rather than a total rewrite. I think the total rewrite actually is important because some people are like, don't realize that we are totally rewriting it and they say things like we need a total rewrite. And they're not, they don't realize that's what we're doing. Mike, what do you think? A little loose cannon to me total rewrite of the city plan but you know it's like on schedule it's not like, it's not like we're just flying by the scene of our pants. I know it's way overdue. I know it I mean really like we've, we haven't had a major rewrite and a few iterations right so, or a couple iterations anyway. Do you have thoughts Mike call it a rewrite or call it a major update. I think it's more accurate to call it a total rewrite. Gabe did you think that we needed to make any more changes I should just accept ourselves. I agree with all the edits there is good. So I'll probably give it one more look at it just to make sure there's not any errors anywhere. Guys, I, I'll, I'm in the meeting. Sorry to that. Okay, so, so I'll send it off more or less like this after doing a review. Let's take a vote just I don't know if we let's just let's just vote on it for just the sake of being thorough. And it's going through the cans it's going to the bridge it's going to both. Cans and bridge. Yeah, that was what we had said before. And that's the extent of my plan right now. Yeah, no, I, I, I motion that we approve the letter going out. Okay. We have a second from Marcella. Do we have any further discussion on the letter. Anybody have anything else to say before we vote. Thanks Kirby. Yeah, no worries. Thanks everyone for actually going along with this, I think it's important. Okay, so I don't, I don't hear any other discussions so those in favor of approving this letter outreach letter for publications say hi. Hi. Any opposed. Any abstain. Okay. That is done. Mostly. Okay, I stopped sharing right. So we're going to, yeah, we're going to get in. We have an hour left in the meeting we have an update of the RFP for the plan consultant and we have to consider the minutes and then we have the executive session so we can get to the executive session and the next 15 minutes that would be super without going to pass it to Mike for the update on the RFP. This one shouldn't take too long. I was kind of hoping we'd have john here so we, we're still trying to figure out exactly what we're, we're doing. So we have our one proposal. We've got one, another, another team that's interested in sending in a proposal, knowing that we've got additional funds. So we're kind of a little bit betwixt in between. I'm going to reach out to the state to see what their procurement policy says. I would like to find at least one more if we're going to invite the other, the second group to apply. I'm trying to keep everything fair as I can. But it's a little bit, it's a little bit tricky. So I'm going to try to still work with John because he wants to put together some quick things so we can get a better proposal back to the consultants, but I also am trying to find one more. But also, as I said, also reach out to the state. If the state says we have to repost, then that'll be a big inconvenience. So we can always go with the one applicant that we got. There's nothing that says we have to repost just means we can't consider others. And I don't think that, you know, I won't get into reviewing and analyzing these right here right now. But, you know, it wouldn't be a bad thing if we ended up with the one proposal that we did. It's just nice to have a couple options to consider. And that's all I was trying to do is just to get us a couple of things in front of us so that way we've got opportunities to evaluate because this isn't, other than John, none of us are an expert in this field. So it's kind of nice to get to hear from a couple of different consultants so you get a couple of different viewpoints and perspectives and you can kind of get an opportunity to look at it and say, you know, I really like their approach. I really like their quality of their products. So that's all I was trying to do to get a few more folks for us to consider. But I'll contact the state because it is with the state grant. We do have to make sure we meet their procurement requirements. I'll follow up with them and then I'll follow up with John and, you know, I think the worst case is I don't want us to get behind. So I think if we get to a point, you know, if I follow up with them, I'll probably work with Kirby and make, we'll have to make a decision at some point that says we're going to put this out. I'll probably do it as short a window as I can. If I have to do a full RFP, then I'll probably give it a really short window and make sure we contact a few people directly and do a few list serves and try to make that go, make it a go. But we'll probably have to make that decision quickly. So I may have to email you guys and have you guys make a decision or just, if you guys want to give me the executive power to make that decision, I can also do that too. Based on what I find out. So personally, make plenty of feedback. You mean your second. Yeah, so my thoughts are you're going to be working with this consultant, you know, quite a bit. So you're, you're, you have way more skin in the game than us. So, so I'm comfortable deferring and like what other people think comfortable to Do you, do you want us to like to, to vote on crunching that mic or just is it good enough to know that we're, we're fine with it. It's probably good enough to know that you guys are okay with that. I'll let you guys know whatever. I mean, it's like I said, I'm not picking who gets the contract. I'm just picking on whether or not we're doing a full RFP or whether we're doing a narrow RFP. And, you know, that's really just going to be based on what legally is required by the state. And if it's, you know, if they say, no, you can choose three to, you know, choosing three special folks, then I'll find, I'll work with John to find a third firm, because he knows who the top GIS firms are. So we'll, we'll get three of them at least and then we'll give a two week window and let them submit based on the targeted RFP. If the state says no, you either take the applicant that came in or you repost in which case I just turn around and repost it to everybody and just keep it on a shorter window and kind of take that route. So I think most of it's going to depend on what the state's up to but I'm not I'm not picking or hiring anybody so I think it's perfectly fine. Okay, does anybody have anything else asked Mike about the process. Did it did it work out okay working with was it it was Aaron and john right. I go okay. We didn't actually end up get to work getting to work on anything that was a little bit of the problem. So john got hung up and Aaron I guess there were some folks that were sick in his family and so that just turned into a big mess so we're still trying to get through that step, but we'll try to get, as I said we'll try to work out and get john and Aaron back to make a quick decision. Okay. I saw the emails back and forth but I didn't realize that you guys didn't get to meet at all. Okay. Do we have anything else on this before we want to move on to the minutes we can do that in a few minutes and then move on to the executive session. Nothing else on this. Okay. So, if folks can take a look at we have a couple of sets of minutes. April 11 and April 25. And we'll just take those together when people are ready. After reviewing them. First, let us know if there's any edits to be done to the minutes and then then we can approve them when when people are ready. I was good with them I wasn't in one meeting so I can't the first meeting I can't comment on. Fine with the one I was in. Anybody need more time. If not, I'll take a motion to prove the minutes to make changes. And I move approval of minutes where I wasn't attending. I forget if that's. Yeah, sure. We have approval of the April 11 and April 25 minutes. Okay. Do we have a second. I second. Do we need any further discussions you will need more time. Okay. Those in favor of approving the minutes. Hi. Hi. Okay. And it's approved and then we can move on to executive session. So walk us through how this is going to go down, Mike. Do we just tell Orca to go away or you're muted. So we'll have to do a motion in a second to get the to go into executive session. So, and then pass that so that's the first piece. And I was just trying to look up really quick to get the specific language one. So what we'll need is a motion to enter executive session per one VSA 3313 a one F. Which is a confidential attorney client communications made for the purposes of providing professional legal services to the body. So that is one of the reasons under state law that we are allowed to go into executive session and that is what we will be talking about. So if somebody wants to make that motion and then what will happen is when it's approved, we will end this section. And then everybody should stay by your emails. And in about a minute, I'll send out another email link so you guys can open that link and be in the executive session. So that way it's in a separate separate room. So if everybody's okay with that. Yeah, I can, I can help you up. The session based on that. The statute cited by Mike. I was going to say, do we have a motion to begin executive session under one VSA 313 sub a one F. Just to be totally above board. Do we have that motion. Yes, that's my motion. So move by gay to a second. Okay, it was like it from Ariane. So we're going to close this session then. And we will start executive session after that. I do have to vote and I'm glad I didn't leave me. So those in favor of entering executive session, according to Gabe's motion. Do we have, do we have any discussion first. Those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed. Okay, so the motion wins. And we will enter executive session and in this session. Should we also adjourn. No, because that would not work. Okay, so with that, we're going to enter executive session under a different call.