 This April 26th meeting of the Montpelier Planning Commission. First we have to approve the agenda. Approval of the agenda. I'll second. All right. All those in favor of approving the agenda? Say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay. Let's proceed. So comments from the chair. I have a few things. First I have an overshare. So if I seem bummed out today, it's because my dog passed away this morning. So. Yeah. So that's kind of. I might be distracted. I don't know. I did speak with Alec Ellsworth last week. Yeah. And told him what we would be interested, that we'd be interested in hearing from him and hearing his ideas for economic development as related, you know, between the parks and the city and the city plan. As I. As I think we all gathered before, I mean, the parks director works with the parks commission on the implementation strategies and the, and the chapter that we have so far. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. This wouldn't be Alex first time being involved in the process, but he did agree to come in and that, and he's going to put together some ideas like. Maybe things that aren't already there in the chapter for us to, to consider. I don't know when that would be. I have to wait just wait until he gets back to me. I tried sharing with him the. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. And Stephanie put together. But I don't know. Can you guys tell me if the permissions even work for that? If we try to share it outside the planning commission. Is it public? It's not public. But I don't know. Who's got the permissions for sharing that John may have been the one who created it. But I'm not. Yeah. It was John that created it. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know if we would be able to. Yeah. I think if, since we all have added access, I think we would be able to add. Yeah. Okay. I didn't. Add his. I didn't add him. So I guess we can assume that he hasn't seen that, but this is the only thing I share with them. And it's, it's not crucial because really in a lot of ways, it was just summarized to the part chapter that they already worked on. So. But that's good to know. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It's a good segue for the last thing that I'd like to mention. And that's that we're tonight, we're going to hear from the CNS working group. A little bit more about, you know, the approaches that we're going to take and as working groups and as the entire planning commission. And so after that, I think we're going to be able to figure out some work. So in the next, you know, several meetings. You know, I'll work with Mike to get. Implementation strategies. On the agenda for us to actually approve. For those chapters that we think we're ready for. And maybe we can discuss that tonight about, you know, which ones we think we're ready for. We're going to be able to, you know, We're going to be able to do some work. We're going to be able to do some working group work to, to keep. You know, tuning up before it comes to the planning commission. But the gist is let's start cranking out these chapters so that we don't fall behind. Cause, you know, it's a huge project. Does anybody have any. Comments or questions about that. Good. Yeah, just a quick one. So what we've seen so far from the CNS group. We're the aspirations and the goals, but not any of the strategies. Or were the strategies included as well. I didn't get going over some of that today. Okay. All right. That's fine. Thanks. Yeah, I think, I think it will be clear after that. But yeah, we are going to start voting soon. So in the future meetings, voting to approve some things. And for one thing, I don't want to create too much of a bottleneck for Mike, like if we, so we need to kind of, you know, incrementally approve things as we go. But if anyone's uncomfortable about that, just, you know, definitely speak up about it. That's really all I have to talk about. So the next item on the agenda would be general business. I think we have anyone from the public here. So we can move along. Yeah. Regarding. I don't have a problem like iteratively approving. Chapters. I'm just think. Can you just confirm that we'll have a chance at the end? Like if we. Realize later down the road that. Yeah, I think we would approve the chapters and they'd be good, but that does not preclude us from revisiting. Is that a question? And would you agree with that, Mike? Yeah, I think the hope is that we get some, some of the big pieces through. We don't want to. Kind of get to the end and then do. Huge amounts of rewriting, but certainly if we find pieces that need to get adjusted. We're certainly going to be able to do that. My hope is just to have the planning commission part of this. Plan done by. December. So that just means we've got to start putting some of these in the rear view mirror. You know, if we've got some that we're comfortable with, then we can get those put behind us. And that lets me kind of sketch out the remaining chapters. I have to write plus the remaining pieces. So. But yeah, we can always go back and change it right up through our public hearings, right up through city council hearings. There are going to be opportunities to make more edits and changes. Thanks, Mike. Does anyone else have any more questions about the, what to expect? Okay. So that brings us to the CNS working group. What we were just talking about. And it looks like. Yeah. So Marcella and Stephanie are the representatives here. So one of you two. Take it away. I can start or if Mike wants to. Jump in. We met this. We met. Yeah. Yeah. I can start or if Mike wants to. Jump in. We met this. We met. When did we meet last week? It's Monday. Sorry. Maybe Mike should go. I'm already struggling. It's only Monday. Mike can start, I think, and I'll fill in. Okay. So. I'll just share my screen real quick. Rather than have everybody. Yeah. On there. You guys can see that now. That's the webpage. Yeah. So if you go to go to our shared. Drive or Google drive that we have, you'll have all the tabs. When you go to the plan website. And so we're just going to open up. We're just going to open up. So. And the template. It's a little bit slow. Okay. So. This is the historic. So we went through really to kind of go through and have some discussion that the. The, the CNS subcommittee went through. And looked at, you know, the aspirations and goals we had that really helped to make that. Those decisions, but what we started to work on was to take a look at a slightly different way of doing the. The, the strategies. So. It was kind of a two part. Exercise. So one was to go through and collapse. Because we had talked about, you know, could we collapse some of And so what I started to do, these are ones I have not done yet. This is the old list. So what was in the documents prior had been plugged into this Excel table and it resulted in 23 different strategies. So what we started to do is to collapse these in. I had just drafted these up as a way of collapsing these guys down to see how many we'd get to. And then we talked as a subcommittee about what we thought about them. And we made a couple of notes, including I think if we look there is this one maybe didn't have as many others to collapse in. We'll go and take a look at parks where we found a couple that we could do some more additional collapsing. But the idea was that we would be able to collapse these down to from what was 20 something. And I'd already gotten down to eight. And then some of these are going to get collapsed down as well. So the idea was they would all plug into the table. And my bar is here. And then eventually you'd have over here the goal. So this would G1 meant this particular one happened to correspond to certified local government applies to G1, goal one, goal two and goal three. So we were able to start to collapse these things down. And then the second part of it was because we were collapsing them down or I was collapsing them down in this draft. It meant the text was going to kind of get written different. So the first thing I did was to actually put a header up. What is the name of the thing that we're talking about? What is the strategy? And it was in this case certified local government. It's continuing a program. And then there's a brief description of what it is. And sometimes if this is appearing in three different goals, it may have to have a couple of sentences to reflect the fact that this program allows, you know, this is historic. So it's about understanding historic resources, communicating that to the public, and how do we protect them? So certified local government helps all three of these goals. So we kind of want to have a description here that talks about the fact that the certified local government is the program that allows us to get grants to do those studying. Steps, those understanding pieces. It's also where we get money to do outreach programs. It's also where property owners get access to preservation. So we've kind of got these different opportunities. So it ends up a little bit more text under them. And the group thought that was a good idea. And so we had some questions. I actually should have grabbed my quick sheet. Mike, given that there's more text, could we expand cell C so that it wouldn't be quite so long? I mean, is there anything that says these cells have to be? What's that? Yeah, well, it probably won't matter in the end because these are going to be used. Remember, I don't know if John was able to show you guys one time he had a meeting where he went through. And there are different ways of displaying this information in cards. And I think how this is set up now is really going to be just used to generate cards that would then connect them, which is also why you've got these over here, the G1, G2, G3, because you can sort by those. So you could actually, if you wanted to, once the database is set up and you've got the cards, you could query the cards to go and say, show me all of the strategies that apply to goal three. And it would give you those cards. Or it would say, you could query it in different ways. It was a pretty interesting program that John was using. So I don't think people will necessarily be looking at this directly as much as they will be looking at the cards. And this is going to be kind of a database sitting in the background. And I think John would have to be here to show you how the cards worked. But it was pretty slick when he was showing that program off. So yeah, unfortunately, I don't have my notes from Friday's meeting directly in front of me. But we did talk a little bit about how to handle the policies. Some policies we felt we could probably get rid of. And some policies we felt were important to keep. We also make on the policies talked about whether or not the recommendation or the line in the plan was this is the policy or so-and-so should make the policy. Yeah, so that was a little bit of a structural question. Thanks for reminding me, Marcella. So the one question that we had was sometimes in plans, the plan itself establishes the policy. And we have had these set up to go through and say that the council is going to adopt the policy. And it's a little bit of a chicken and egg, how we want to handle it. My thought was that I was going to put these in here as I did to say that council will adopt the policy. And the reason for that was I didn't want the council or the public to have to debate every single one of these policies before they adopt the plan. And maybe that would take a long time to go through if we were just going to generically do it. But maybe there are some that, you know, I would think the next time we re-adopt this plan, any of them that have already been adopted, we would just have in there as statements rather than adopt the policy. It'll go and say, you know, continue the policy of protecting and enhancing the use of the city's architectural engineering landscape, blah, blah, blah. So I thought I was thinking that was my approach, but there are a couple of different ways we could do it. We could certainly have the document itself be the policy statement. And if people feel strongly one way or the other, we can certainly make a decision now. Otherwise it's something we could just keep in the back of our mind and know that at some point we'll have to answer that question as to whether or not we want the city plan to be establishing those policies or whether we want those policies to be established independently and separately. So again, there was a little bit of a change of format. There's a little bit more written text. And we were going to be probably getting rid of the, see if we actually have one here, the statement here. So the historic plan supports the implementation of the land use plan for its highlight of historic context. And the reason why we were gonna take these out of here, these support statements is because there is going to be a written chapter, which we'll get to in hopefully half an hour. So we'll come back when we're done with the implementation strategies, we'll go back and talk about the chapter structures. In the chapter structures, we talk about these pieces. And so we don't think they need to be in the implementation strategy themselves. So there's a chance we could in the same way that we've got these over here that talk about G1, G2, G3, we could in the goals go through and have a section over here where it says what other goals are supported. So it may be something, there may be a different code. We'd have to have a code for as you're switching from historic to energy. If you're supporting the energy plan, then it would have like an E. So this goal supports this, what goals might support goal E5 from the energy plan or T6 from the transportation plan. And that would be another option. I don't know if we have to do that. Again, it comes back down to those cards and is it useful? Is there value gained by doing it? I don't know. I wasn't gonna worry too much about it at this point. It is in the written text of the working documents. So I thought those are good pieces of information there that we can always go back to them if we want to add it in. But for now, I wanted to kind of keep it basic and talk about these. So I have a question. Yeah, I keep it on the goals page here. So the CNS working group, everyone was fine with phrasing the goals like this. I'm thinking of, we'll be using this as a template. So for the other chapters to have the goals that are, these goals to me don't seem like very measurable. I know we've had discussions of things like that. But everyone was good with things like improve the city's understanding of its historical. I don't believe that we've talked about that as a committee about the general form of the goals. I mean, I see what you mean. I just don't think we've considered it before outside of considering it when we considered this chapter as a group. Okay, I mean- So is it important that those goals be measurable? Yeah, I'd have to go back and see if other chapters have measurable goals. I mean, yeah, I mean- There's just a difference between the goals and the goals. And I think there are bench, you're supposed to have benchmarks to go with the goals. But taking a step back, the original intent is that we have the aspiration and we'll go back when we go to the parks, we'll have more of a discussion. This one's a really simple aspiration. So there's not much to pick apart. But the goals are supposed to be taking what is, a more visionary approach to the goals. So we're going to have a more visionary aspiration in breaking it into bite-sized pieces. So maybe it's easier to look at a different chapter, but in this case, we really want to break down that aspiration into some goals. So that way we've got some concrete pieces and an understanding of how we're doing. So this is to improve the city's understanding. And to that, we're not maintaining our understanding. We clearly have more that we need to do. And so they've got a lot of studies that in this case, the Historic Preservation Commission is looking to do because we've got a whole lot of the city that has never been surveyed for historic resources and increasing the community's appreciation and continuing and improving on the protection. Cause we've got pretty good protections of historic resources, but we have a few small areas that they wanted to improve upon. Now I think what would happen after that is to kind of go through and where appropriate, apply a benchmark to kind of go through and say, okay, what does that mean over the next eight years? How would we mean using the strategies as a benchmark or something separate? It would be something separate. The benchmarks in the plans themselves are where appropriate they've kind of appeared under it. So I think in housing, there's a goal of increasing the amount of housing. And there's a benchmark of adding 250 housing units over the next eight years or 240 units over the next eight years. So there's a specific benchmark that goes to, when we talk about increasing, what do we mean by increasing? We're talking about adding 240. So how are we doing towards getting to that goal? Okay, I seem to remember Stephanie and John having opinions on the measurability of things. Does anyone else have a view or what we're looking at, okay? I'm back, I apologize. I missed a piece of that, but in terms of the benchmark, Marks Kirby? Like stating the goals in kind of an unmeasurable way, like if that's the approach we plan to take or whether the planning commission has a preference for phrasing them, like building the benchmarks into the goal so that it's measurable. I think that's the route that I would advocate for. Yes, that it's something that we can track over time and see if we're making progress. I'm not remembering what the discussion was with John. So it would certainly be possible to do that with these goals, attach a benchmark to them without necessarily changing the wording of the goal as it stands, right? Yeah, because what we're trying to do with the implementation strategy is really start to lay out a deliberate clear set of goals and some deliberate actions to achieve goals. And the benchmarks are really measuring that success. I haven't had them here in the implementation strategies, but what we did have a little bit of a discussion of at the CNS committee, subcommittee was to kind of start talking about whether that makes sense to get those into the written chapters because I think that's where they're gonna be the most effective is if we have a chapter that is written up, let me back slowly. All right, so the draft chapters are talking about, and we'll get into this more in a little bit but there's an introduction how it relates to other chapters. So again, that section that we talked about removing those things where it's like, well, we, this chapter supports that chapter. Well, we're gonna talk about it in text. So we really don't have to have it as a strategy. And I think the same is true when we get in here to the maps and one thing that we're gonna add to this are probably gonna be maps and tables. And part of the tables is gonna probably be where we would have these benchmarks. So a piece of this that we talked a very short amount with that we'll probably get back to for the CNS subcommittee was this chapter is all meant to be part of the website and it's gonna have a written text even though this is kind of broken out as maps and tables there's not like a separate section on maps and tables they're kind of integrated into the discussion of where it's appropriate. So if we're talking about something, if we're talking about historic districts and it's probably going to be the map that's showing you where our historic district is or if we're talking about protecting the design review then we're probably gonna show them after the design review. So we've got these pieces that would be embedded and at the end because the plan has to be a fixed document and this is where we kind of had a really quick discussion of we'll have to talk to a lawyer and talk about how much flexibility we have or do we just do something because benchmarks are dynamic we may have to have like this whole plan that's fixed then align and then we can have a dynamic section that said this really isn't officially part of the plan but these are our benchmarks and it might come after we have a brief introduction to our aspirations and goals. So we have this little introduction then there's gonna be a line then there's gonna be something of benchmarks we can go through and say, hey, how are we doing on accomplishing our goals? Well, we have three benchmarks for this. We have a benchmark for developing two new historic districts in the city in the next eight years or whatever we're trying to do or we wanna be able to have two outreach efforts every single year and then you can have a thing how many outreach efforts were done, how many walking tours were done how much of these were done so that way we can kind of mark out the progress of how we're doing on each of our things and then but that would be a dynamic website that we could then go through and make updates over the eight year plan to keep it up to date but knowing that plans has to be fixed documents you can only change it by an amendment process I think we'd have to have some way of having a demarcation in the plan that would go through and say, beyond this point is our benchmarks above this is a static fixed document that can't change without- Can we just resolve this by, we've passed the plan with the set parts and just have a website where we say, where we have a benchmarks we have a dynamic thing that we can update and change as long as that website is clear that, this is the planning commissions of all or the planning staffs I don't know who you wanna control that Mike but this is a suggested way of viewing it from this other third party. Yeah, I mean, I think what is going to get adopted is going to be, people are gonna go through and review the website we're trying to not have a written text we may have to have some PDF hidden somewhere for legal reasons, but the idea is that we would, people would actually go through and adopt the version that's on the web and then we would just explain that here's where it is, maybe there's a change in some format or font or something that would clearly make a demarcation for leading us into the benchmarks in the progress of implementation. Yeah, I like progressive implementation. I think that that, you know, that I think that that communicates that this is not part of the plan and it's just a, you know, helpful addition. So it becomes a measure of how well we're reaching the goals. It's a, it's a target to shoot for, right? Yes. In each case. Yeah. So how would it have to change? I mean, if we set a target that says in eight years we're gonna have, you know, two more programs to identify the, identify historic, right? Resources, why would that have to change necessarily? I'm not sure I'm following you. You said that, that the any benchmarks would have to be interactive, that they would be changing over time. Not the benchmarks so much, Barb. It would be the, we would update progress. It'd be like, like someone would be able to see your benchmark and then where you were on your way to getting there. Well, yeah, okay. Cause we don't want to wait eight years to find out the results. Right, the benchmark itself wouldn't change. Right, okay. All right. That's what I was worried about is that somehow these benchmarks we're gonna be fluid items. It just seems like we could have some kind of a, some kind of a document that could track that. But I guess I'm trying to grapple with whether or not that means that it has to sit outside of the plan because it's, because it changes. And the plan has to be a static document. Is that what you're saying, Mike, that it has to be static? Yeah, the plan has to be static. And I think just the difference between the goals and the benchmarks is just, you know, there may be some other strategies that we are taking that may be either more generic, you know, being a part of the designated downtown or having certain policies. They're all meant to help us get to the goals. And if we get to our goals, we achieve our aspirations and our visions. And that's what it is. And so, you know, not every goal is gonna have a benchmark. You know, we don't wanna get, you know, certain things just don't lend themselves to benchmarks. You know, education and outreach can be tough. How are we gonna, you know, we want to increase the community's appreciation of historic resources. That's a really hard thing to measure. And, you know, we could tie ourselves into knots trying to figure out how we're gonna measure that. Or we can just go through and say, hey, we're gonna do so many outreach episodes. You know, and is that really a benchmark? I don't know if I would track it as a benchmark, but certain other things do very clearly lend themselves to benchmarks, whether it's increasing the amount of housing, whether it's the energy plan wanting to achieve 2030 net zero for the city. You know, this plan is gonna run through 2030. So we should be able to have a benchmark. You know, we have a goal and we have a clear benchmark. Now we could have a very dynamic graph that just grabs from whatever MEAC is producing and just links it into this final web page. So we'd have the plan explaining the energy chapter and then a benchmark afterwards that kind of goes through and says, okay, you know, tracking ourselves over time, how are we doing? And so it could be updated annually. And some of the other benchmarks might be updated annually as well. Yeah, if there's something that makes sense, it could be, you know, an economic development plan and then we have a very specific reference. You know, if we want to increase the amount of hospitality, you know, we want to increase the hospitality sector of our economy, I can go through and grab the UI number and stick it in there and that's unemployment insurance and just go through and track that over time. If we want to increase the number of jobs in that category, we currently have this many, that number we should be establishing and doing strategies that increase that number if that was our goal. But we'd have to just find out what the number is to plug in every year I go in and update the website. So, Mike, I'm a little concerned about having too many layers to it. I think that that could be confusing for especially the public who are trying to understand but any user really. You know, because we have goals, we have benchmarks, we have strategies, like all these different layers and people are like, well, what's what, what means what? Would it just be possible? I mean, we can have goals, some of which are unmeasurable and open-ended but the things that we would create as benchmarks, why not just make them strategies? And so the strategies are all of those things that are hopefully more measurable. And maybe make some exceptions. I mean, the goals you could make into benchmarks, it kind of changes the format on things but it wouldn't be a strategy. Your strategy are your action steps. So you can't have a strategy of being net zero by 2030 because that's not an action step. That's not doing something. That's just, that's a goal. So if we're gonna add benchmarks in, they would go in under the goals because your strategies are, okay, how are we gonna get to net zero? We're gonna have to do a bunch of stuff. We still run into that dynamic aspect that we'd like to have this updated on a regular basis so people know where they are, where we are in that goal. So it would change, hopefully annually. That's why it really wouldn't go into this. That's why I was trying to keep it out of the implementation strategy. I thought the implementation strategy, this piece that we're looking at here, does its job okay? Because we really, what we're talking about are the big picture of what's our aspiration? What are our goals? And then how are we gonna accomplish those goals? And so one thing we needed the planning commission to kind of approve is, are you okay with this structure for the strategies, this fact that, we're giving it a title? And maybe I'll, let me just jump over one here because it makes a little bit more of a difference when I look at, because we had talked about parks. So this is what they had shown last time and I went down and started to do my ideas using that same format. So what we did for the green print in collapsing things is we collapsed, remember there used to be a green print plan, a green print implementation and then a green print fund. Well, we collapsed those all into one green print implementation program, that the city has had the green print plan since 2014 to grab the purchase of lands, the parks are looking to formalize and expand that, these to better accomplish the city goals, a revised plan is needed to ensure the future of parks within 10, 15 minutes, add river access. And these are basically all pulling out of those other things, identify, add more details of parks, park access, identified possible connectors, ensure natural resources identified in high conservation areas are included. A funding component of the program requires formalization of the specific strategies to raise the funds for purchase. And finally, the purchase component will require a policy by city council to prioritize objectives and then strategically acquire parcels and rights. So that collapsed a whole bunch into one. Mike, do we need that much information? I mean, do we have to explain what the green print plan is? Wouldn't that be something that might be included in the written chapter? Just to say that, okay, for parks, we have a green print plan and this is what's tended to do. And so that the only thing that needs to go into this strategy, because this is strategy level, right, are your numbered pieces. Yeah, the ones that start, it starts with number one and goes on from there. You see what I'm saying? Yeah, and this is what we were talking about at the subcommittee level was, I can't go through and make all of these chapters, plug all these chapters into this format until we approve the format. So one of the questions that you guys are gonna have to decide is, is having this longer text, okay? As we collapsed what were 20-something strategies, I got it down to 11. And then while we were all sitting together, we decided that the 10-minute policy and the 15-minute walk policy really aren't policies at all. Those are really benchmarks. So we pulled them out. We also combined the park maintenance program with the parks management plan, I think. Because really the management plan is telling them what to do and the maintenance plan is basically implementation of that plan. So we combined those two. So we had a couple of these, you get the idea. We had a couple of these and I think the multi-use trail is also merged with the green print. So if we're gonna merge these together and still keep the spirit of what the parks commission wants to do, because the parks commission does wanna do this study, but we're gonna put that study in as part of the green print, we really would have to include some text up here so that way that idea is not lost. So that's why this does get a little worse. That's why I'm saying it could start with number one, ensure locations of future parks. But anyway, without all the explanation about the green print, but it's just- I think there's not a lot about the green print on the parks commission website, just the link to the document. I don't think it's a bad thing to have a little intro. I mean, we're gonna need it in things like certified local government. Anyways, the more complicated things. Shouldn't that be within the written chapter portion? No, because I don't think, I think people aren't gonna read the written chapter first. I think they're gonna read the strategies first and the goals first. And if they really wanna dive in, they'll go to the written chapter. Yeah, since we're setting it up for the, in this cards type format where people can maybe browse through it, they may not actually have the cross reference right in front of them. Yeah, I think they need to stand as independently as possible while being brief as possible. But this doesn't strike me as overly long. I would have a hard time reading through it. But- Well, it's not formatted. I mean, we'll format it later. This is just the next cell document. Yeah, that was a piece that I was struggling with a little bit is that some of these get a little lengthy. And I think this one in particular, there's a lot of this that we can really delve into in a more detailed way within the chapter, which is that's how I would envision it and not necessarily going into this level of detail here. But to explain that we're gonna update it and what the thought is, but not, but really I think the more detailed information could be in the chapter. That was how I was picturing it. We could probably also shorten this just by keeping all the same information but making it more succinct maybe. Yeah, and I didn't know somewhat how much flexibility I had. So some of these are numbered. So could I hit a carriage return? But of course in Excel, once you start hitting carriage returns, it boots you to the next cell. So you can't go through and make a numbered list. Is that something that can get worked around, using some format keys that I can go through and really clean this up? It might lengthen it in length but it may not have more words but it might organize it better if it was in a list. That would certainly help, yes. But before I got in too much, what I wanted to be able to do is to just show, you saw the historic and you saw the park. So again, while they had collapsed into five when we met last time two weeks ago, I collapsed it down to about maybe nine or eight in doing mine. So I think we can collapse these down. And I think it'll be helpful but when we collapse them down, they'll be text and I haven't written in anything here. I still have to add in all the written parts for these. There was a conversation about whether parks volunteer program and whether that would be a part of the parks maintenance program. I think we could do some other ones but I thought that was kind of a distinct piece that we would keep separate. But again, this will come down to how much, once we've got it here, we can all start working with it. Then it's more wordsmithing and making some tweaks. Can I ask a question about that? Where should we be focusing our energy right now? Like, is it in the wordsmithing and this is too long and the formatting is weird or is it like, can we just bypass that for now, get words on the document? And then once we have it all, worry about these, what I'm kind of considering those fairly minor but perhaps I am not focusing correctly right now. Yeah, you're focusing correctly. Thank you, Aaron. So I think my primary piece, when I worked with the committees to put these together, we always started with the same thing and that was to look at the aspirations and look at the goals. Those are the two big steps to start with. Is this what we are trying to do? If that's not what we're trying to do, if you don't want to start with the strategies and work your way back to the aspirations, you really want to start with the aspirations and say, is this what we're trying to do? Is this what we want to do? Is this our vision? Because sometimes that's the hardest question to answer. What is it? What is it we want to see? And the Transportation Committee was a good example. What do you guys want? Is it no cars in the downtown? Is it electric cars? Is it, what's the goal? Because we can't start plugging in strategies until we know that we're all talking about a common vision. And now we can come through here and tweak, we've talked about maybe we need to tweak this, maybe in Montpellier, our parks are a vibrant part of everyday life. And then maybe this is more a descriptor, maybe that's not really part of the aspiration, that 10 minute walk and that 15 minute walk. Maybe those really aren't part of the aspiration. And I know we talked a little bit about, maybe those get taken out because those really are more benchmarks to say, how are parks more a vibrant part of our everyday life? Well, they're a more vibrant part when we are within a 10 minute walk and we're within a 15 minute walk. So maybe those are benchmarks. And then, we're back to another part of the aspiration, the system of interconnected parks and greenways that enhances opportunities for all people of all ages and abilities and moves throughout the city and safe routes, connects to nature and ourselves. Residents and visitors understand our park resources and how to act responsibly. And lastly, our parks protect the natural integrity of future generations, the surrounding and maintaining certain irreplaceable features in natural communities. And that last piece reflects the fact that the parks connect to the conservation commission does not own any land. So when the conservation commission says, hey, we should buy this because it's really a rare habitat and the city should add it to the park system. Well, we need the parks plan to reflect that sometimes the parks are buying things not for recreational purposes, but for conservation and preservation purposes. Yeah, that's helpful and I would really like, I would like to focus on those. I feel like, I mean, part of it is that I'm not yet, I am not yet on a subcommittee that has kind of delved into one chapter specifically like transportation. But I kind of feel like that's not the conversation, the conversations we've been having together have not been this high level aspiration. Is this what we want to do kind of question? They've been much more around structure and the word Smith and that's at least from my perspective. So I would really like to have these conversations about the aspirations as a group. Oh, for one reason, we were doing this. The goals. Marcel, I mean, one thing about like in defense, in defense of the approach so far, it's so that our work, when we split up and we do work, we don't wanna go in opposite directions. Like, so we're trying to get all on the same page about the structure and stuff. And I do think the structure is important in that how people digest or take in the information is just as important as the information of whether or not this is gonna be a successful plan. But all along it's been this is the preliminary part to get this out of the way. And policy is going to be, we're gonna be going through the policy of it in every meeting as we start to approve the chapters. What were you gonna say, Mark? We already have, I mean, we've gone through the process several different times for transportation before we had the structure. So now having the structure certainly redirects everything that's been done. So that's why it's really helpful to start with deciding that this is the structure we want. And then going from there for the individual chapters. Because we've probably done maybe five different iterations of transportation so far. So, yeah, so from my standpoint as I'm trying to get to work on things, I would like to be able to start plugging these things in this way and filling in these documents. But again, if we think that the aspirations and goals are gonna change, then I really shouldn't put too much work into the strategies because if people don't agree that these are our goals, then some of these strategies may go away. I'm kind of hoping that we're gonna end up getting into the aspirations and goals and doing more wordsmithing, but things will kind of not change too much has kind of been my talk. As far as wordsmithing, by the way, I see wordsmithing as, we've made major decisions and the wordsmithing is just trying to polish it. I actually see that as the last thing we do. Like so far, I mean, maybe we've here and there done some like wordsmithing on things, but I feel like we've mostly been concerned with structure so far. And then we've touched on policy here and there. And the wordsmithing we've done so far, I feel like is not actually wordsmithing is actually like policy decisions. Like, do we want to include that thing? Not like, can we word it better? I don't feel like we've actually done any wordsmithing as a group. Some of us individually have like wordsmiths some things and send them around, but I feel like that should come last. And I feel like maybe we should though, I mean, and I haven't actually talked to Mike about this. It was a good thing to maybe you should mention briefly as I mean, I'm envisioning, Mike's going to write everything up according to what we talk about. So near the very end, that's when we might want to go in and if we want to phrase things differently. So I recall Mike admitting many times that he doesn't view himself as a master work writer. So I'm sure he'll invite some of the wordsmithing at the end. Yeah, and we certainly want to do that. And I think what we want at the start, again, I think we had gone through this with the initial set of plans was, the aspirations are meant to be just that kind of visionary. And these goals are really the pieces that kind of break that up. And I think there's some goals missing in here from the parts, but I have to go through and double check them and make sure they're all in here. But really the idea is how did that committee do? How did that committee do? This is the committee, they put things together to try to capture. And if you have to break this into sentences and take each sentence as its own piece and go and decide whether or not you agree with it, and then we can decide how to word it and reword it. But really the idea is, have we got the ideas down? Does the Parks Commission not have any idea what they're doing with parks? One would hope that the Parks Commission is gonna have a fairly good idea of what the parks, their vision for the parks is. Okay, so the next thing you're supposed to talk about is chapter structure. But before we move on to that, I just want to make sure that everyone's okay and clear about the approach that's being taken here, which as I understand is we're collapsing things, we're using the spreadsheet, that's the format that we're going to approach the implementation strategies with. And we want to use historic resources and the parks because they've had the most work so far as the templates when we do other work on this. Is everyone's in a general, just generally okay with all of that? Okay, so that's what we're doing. That's how we'll proceed with that. Yeah, I think that if the subcommittees as you meet, if you do have subcommittees and you are meeting to try to focus on that aspirations and goals, if you want to get into the strategies, that's fine, I haven't collapsed them and I will collapse them, don't spend your time collapsing them, I will do that. What's most important is to get through the aspirations and goals. And we will get to the strategies, either get to the strategies afterwards or if you're looking at the actual written text of you're going through the written part, you might be able to go through and say, I think they missed a strategy or I don't think that strategy is gonna be effective and that's fine, but I will take care of making the tab for strategies. Once we have as a planning commission said, yes, the aspirations and goals are good, then I can go in and make this Excel collapse everything down and then you guys can go back in and say, okay, now I see these things collapsed from 25 strategies into 10. So it seems like we're all good, we're all on the same page with that, it seems like we have gone over this a lot, so it seems like we know where we're going. Barb, did you have something? Yeah, Kirby, I realize this isn't exactly part of our agenda, but because it's been so difficult, is it possible before we end the meeting tonight to set up some subcommittee, excuse me, task force meetings because just establishing those meetings has been a challenge? Is that possible? If we have time at the end, if not. Yeah, just if we have time. Yeah, if not, we can all just commit to doing it by email afterwards. Okay, never mind, we'll just commit to doing it. Okay, so the next thing we're gonna do is we're gonna go over the chapter structure and it's a similar concept here, the CNS working group we've been working with Mike and we have the historic and we have the energy chapters. So Mike, will you summarize the chapter structure that we're thinking of doing here? Yeah, so I tried to get some bite-sized pieces and again, just at this stage, I had wrote up a little stuff for an introduction. My goal was to make the entire chapter 1,000 to 1,500 words. We're trying to be a website, we're not trying to write a 500 page city plan. We really wanna be telling people what's important, what is interesting. If somebody wants to know what is, what our historic resource is, what's important, why is it important? That's really what we're trying to get at here. As a state capital Montpelier has a unique arrangement with the state government, capital complex, blah, blah, blah. So it really kind of touches on some of the basics. And then, and none of these chapters are necessarily meant to connect. We could go through and say, hey, this should be last and the other things should be moved up. We can rearrange them. I was just looking for a couple of topics. We would have a short chunk on introduction, a short chunk discussing how whatever it is, energy, historic resources relates to other chapters, a summary of information about Montpelier. So maybe we put in web links to all of these different things. That's a little bit left to be determined. I don't know how to keep this from getting too out of hand, but we can kind of figure that out as we go along. But there should be some section that kind of summarizes most of the information that we know. There's maybe not a section on maps and tables. As I had discussed earlier, I think the maps and tables would kind of get integrated into the chapter. But these were, I wanted to list out what were the map layers we would need in order to write a good historic resources chapter. We would wanna show somewhere in here where's the capital complex boundaries. Maybe where the location of historic markers, maybe the location of the design review overlay district. Well, probably definitely that and definitely the design designated downtown district, national registered district. And then there'd be a chapter because if people were reading the chapter rather than necessarily going into and trying to read and understand the cards, we would just give a brief, in this case, three paragraph introduction of what's our aspirations and goals. And then again, about three paragraphs on how we're gonna implement those goals. Maybe we don't do these, maybe we leave that for people to kind of mine in, but we kind of take that. We can talk about that a little bit. And then again, we just talked about maybe the benchmarks. And I'm just gonna run out really quick here and take care of my dog. So I'll be back in a second. So the committee thought that this like structure was decent, but Mike's questions to us were like, is there anything that shouldn't be there or anything that we're missing from this list or these sections? Well, and for me going over the energy chapter because that's the one I know, I did think that there are a couple of things that would be really helpful to me, particularly in the chapters I don't know, one of which being what work has been completed to date. For example, we have a green print plan is something that is work to date on the parks. And for the energy plan, it's we have already reduced our energy because we've done these various steps just so that because this is for the public and they don't know the topics as well as we do, that we really wanna go sort of start from the basics. Also, one of the things that I kind of came up against was what's the role of the city in some of this? For example, we might wanna have a parking section, but it really isn't up to the city to determine how many parking spaces we have or where they go. So some of this is outside the purview of the plan. And then finally, one of the things on the energy plan was that I think for the public, we're gonna get into trouble if we talk about a wait, having any section that says, well, we'll wait and see what happens. And so that's the kind of thing I think we need to make either clear statements or leave it out. What was the wait and see what happens? What do you mean by that? Had to do with residential becoming a net zero residentially by 2050. And so that is, the city does have a role there. They may not be able to legislate it, but there certainly are role aspects. It's down near the bottom. If you're scrolling through that section, I don't think I could, nope, I can't do that. I'm, it's actually even. Yeah, and some of these come down to what we're, what we are doing in the next range of time. So we're talking about an eight year plan and a majority of the effort that is going on. And again, this is here for edits and comments, but the reason that kind of came up was, let's take, for example, eliminating vehicle fossil fuels by 2050. Even the energy committee when we're talking to them is that we can do some small things. I mean, we can reduce things a little bit, but we're really waiting for technology. We're waiting for the federal government to really ramp up and get things going on on electric vehicles. We can't even encourage people to get electric vehicles to 20. And if we're putting most of our energy in, we've got an energy committee, we've got a 2030 sitting energy goal to get city government to be net zero. That's going to take a lot of effort, it's going to take a lot of money, it's going to take a lot of time and effort. So for us to then go and try to spend additional effort to get to net zero vehicles, it's kind of like, well, why don't we wait until electric vehicles are really gearing up and then we can start to go through. You know, there are things to do. We want to get more charging stations out there. We want to increase the ability to bike and walk so that way people are using less. But that's not getting us to net zero. Getting people to walk and bike is not going to get us to net zero. Getting people to use micro transit is not getting us to net zero. It's reducing the amount that we use, but it's not getting us to net zero. We're not getting to net zero until there's a technology shift and that technology shift is not happening in the lifespan of this plan. So let's de-emphasize this, knowing that it is a goal and emphasize these three goals, which are the things we can work on. And I think there was a little bit of, from the strategic point of a strategic plan of this is where we should put our muscle for the next eight years. Right now, but if we don't lay the groundwork for the 2050 goal, then we'll never get there. I thought part of this was to do the net zero implementation plan to hire a consultant in order to do that. Yeah, and the consultant is doing the 2030 goals. Only the 2030. Not the 2050 goals. But only the 2030 for the city, I'm sorry, from municipal or for anything related to the rest of the city. Nothing related to the rest of the city. Well, yeah, I think there's a hole there. Because we can't just wait. And the reason why is just because there's a whole set of things that need, whole set of questions that need to be answered. And this is a time window that, frankly is less than nine years away now. And getting there is gonna be, we still need to know, answers to, what does a net zero fire truck look like? What does a net zero snow plow look like? How much does that cost? How much does that cost differ from a standard diesel operating vehicle? What does that mean for other pieces of equipment or for electrical use? Or for heating buildings that are not on the district heat. You know, what do we, when we talk about the senior center, that's not on district heat. So how are we getting that net zero? There are a lot of, isn't it pellet? I don't know. Like I said, there are a number of buildings and maybe that one already is, but there are a number of ones that we've got a lot of questions to answer. And that's why the focus of that was on, and again, if you look at the strategies, the strategies for how we take care of ourselves as government, I'm saying me, the government are different than the public because we don't have to pass regulations to change our own behavior. We just have to have a policy that says we're gonna change our behavior. When we start dealing with the public, then it becomes really hard. It's something different. How do we, you know, how do we stop somebody from using a coal wood stove or, you know, to heat their building? You know, that's hard. That's a hard question to answer. How do we get them to stop doing that? So I'm hearing feedback from this meeting that, you know, folks wanna make sure that we're like moving along orderly. This is actually a policy discussion. I don't wanna like squash the policy discussion, but at the same time, we're looking at this right now to see if we're in agreement about the chapter structure because, and the reason why I wanna like squash this for a second is just we're gonna do the policy meeting on the energy chapter and have this discussion. But for now, let's focus on, is this the structure that we want for all of the chapters? And I think the question is, I mean, everything, like everything that we could possibly want to say, does it fit into the way that this is, you know, broken out? Well, I've already given my opinion on that, Kirby. So, yeah, well, so Barb, yeah, structure-wise, like. I think it would be really helpful if we had, I mean, I don't wanna be rigid about this, but if we had some idea of here are the headings that should be covered in each one of the chapters. Yeah, that's- And- And that's what I would really like to see, and that some of those in general would, it would sort of start with a, you know, more general statement about here, this is the scope of the chapter, and this is the work that's been done to date, those kinds of things, and sort of in that process, be in that, in a very determined structure. So, yeah, my understanding is this is like my, like these chapters are models for a determined structure. Is that correct, Mike? Not energy. So, again, just like we talked about with historic, we've got an introduction. We've got how does the energy plan relate to other chapters? We have a summary of information that still has to get populated, obviously. We would have a set of maps that would get integrated in, and this again, I think, especially for this, and tables, because I think there's gonna be, especially for the energy, a number of tables that would go in. And then we would discuss the aspirations and goals. Now, in an outline of the implementation approaches. Now, I think the question now is, do we want to talk about the outline of implementation? Do we want to, is there something else that's missing? Because if I have the headers, I can fill in other chapters. So, Barb. Maybe we can get into that today. Yeah, Barb. Is there some tracking in the lead headings? Pardon me? Barb suggested that one heading to add was work done to date, or sort of a snapshot of where we are already. So, that could be in the introduction, but if we wanted to make sure that was added to everything, that should be added as a new heading, I think. I think the summarized information about mobiliars where that would go. But it doesn't, but anyway. Would it be useful if- Oh yeah, it doesn't, currently? Because yeah, Mike was saying he has completed that section. Well, no, I don't mean that. It would be helpful if I took that energy chapter and just kind of using Mike's basis here and rearranged it so that it made more sense to me. Would that be helpful? And then you could take a look at it because the structure will be very clear. Okay, so a couple of things. Like, we, as a group right now, we're trying to decide what is the template gonna be. If you're talking about re-organizing this and creating new headings, then are you moving that for every chapter that we do that? Well, I'm just saying, let's, yeah, I mean, I'm gonna propose some headings. And maybe that's, you know, it doesn't mean that the chapter, you know, that I have to revise the chapter to fit all these parts in. But I just think it would be helpful to me and certainly to the public, if there was some more clear headings in this and then it's also makes it more possible for Mike to sort of insert the information at the appropriate place. Well, Barbara, are you prepared right now to just tell us what headings you'd like to replace and have new headings for? Okay. The first one is on the introduction. I think it would be if it could be shorter, but I think it would really be helpful to include the history of the committee or who's, you know, basically the committee is putting together these goals and aspirations. So a little bit more about, you know, who they are, where they're coming from. Because the city, I mean, the public certainly doesn't know that. Kind of an overall general statement of the scope of the chapter. And maybe within that, what the city's role is in this chapter, because within, even within the parks, there are certain parts that, you know, we might think are really good idea, like we should be able to, you know, have our walking trails on all connected. But the aspect of the fact that some of these are on private land doesn't lend itself to that. So I think, you know, so that people don't bring up comments after the fact about why didn't you include this when it's something that's way outside what the city can even accomplish. And then, as I said before, the work completed to date. I mean, just a bullet list, for example, in the energy committee of all of the things that have done already on the municipal standpoint. And then I think the, on the conclusion, and I think, you know, maybe this is what Mike's getting to is that what do we want to achieve in eight years? And ultimately, of course, that's what the benchmarks tell us, but it's not, you know, and this is basically just in a more verbal and maybe more vision related standpoint. So sort of anyway, those were the first things that came to mind when I was reading through the energy chapter. It seems like we could fit those things into what the headings, Mike's proposed, like to include that information just using these headings. But Mike, do you have anything to say? Yeah, I guess it, like I said, it depends whether we're talking about these as new headers or whether we're talking about these as making changes within the existing framework that we have, I think is. She's saying, like new, like, in replacing some of the existing ones, that's my understanding. My understanding is that, or tell me if this is wrong. My understanding is that just in the introduction, you would like to see a couple of things, specific things. And then in the summarized information about Montpelier, you wanna also see a list of work that's been done. And then in the introduction to implementation approaches, you wanna see a narrative of what do we wanna achieve in eight years? Actually, I would rather see the headings because then I know when I'm looking at what's been done to date for every chapter, after I read what's been done to date for every chapter, I'll have a pretty good idea where we are, where we're starting from. Yeah. Without having to read the whole thing. I could see that that one being its own new heading that makes sense to me. I have a couple of thoughts about the other, what the city's role is. I understand what you're saying and I think it's good to be clear with the public about what the city can do. But I also think that if there's something that the city can't do, it should not be in the plan. And if we need to be clear about this is gonna take partnership, we'll be clear, we're clear about this is gonna take partnership. I don't, I don't, I'm having a hard time understanding how a government would write a sentence of like, oh, but the city, we can't do that without sounding like jerks. Well, that's not our job. Like people aren't gonna be okay with that. But our intention, for example, our intention is to create a trail system. Recognizing, but we're recognizing the fact that many of these existing trails are on private property. And therefore we cannot call, you know, we cannot determine, we cannot make them part of our trail system. Yeah, I think we say much of Montpelier is public private property. This will require partnerships. They don't say the city can't do that. Like there's just some words, that's some wordsmithing stuff. But I get your point is that we need to be clear in the objectives and benchmarks, especially if we're gonna be updating those of like, is it gonna be, who's gonna do it? And is it gonna take partnerships? And that way, if we get to the end and we haven't connected, you know, the trails, we can just say, you know, well, there were no partnerships or it wasn't just like, oh, it's not our job. Right, people weren't willing to do it. Right, yes, so the partnerships didn't happen. I think there's ways we can be clear about that in the writing. And then in terms of who the committee is, I off the cuff feel that we can link to their page. I don't think we need major in detail. People don't care. I think we don't even introduce the committee. Have you looked at their pages? The pages are- That's their problem. That's the committee's problem. They can add stuff to there. No, no, no, that is city generated page. So it's not something- No, I know that. But they can ask to add stuff if they want. Like I don't think we need to be introducing everybody to these, you know, the telephone tree that created our plan. People are just one plan. We can say that this was well supported by the conservation commission linked to their page. And the city council approves it. So I mean, it's not untrue to say it's the city's plan and not the subcommittee's plan. Right, but they originally know that, you know, they're looking to the subcommittees or to the committees to come forward with what needs to happen. I love the shout out. I love that idea. That's great. You know, so, yeah, for example, on the planning commission, we have four, five planners and, you know, two attorneys, you know, basically just an idea of sort of the depth of knowledge because otherwise we're just a volunteer group of, of who knows, you know, we don't know anything. I'm okay with that. I mean, I mean, I'm serious, I'm serious. I mean, like less is more at some point. Less information is more. Yeah, it's, no one needs to know that we have attorneys on the, I mean, that just- I tell people that all the time, Erin. Incredibility across the board if you say that. Erin, I used to tell people it was six attorneys and me. Yes. And people said, I'm not going to read that document. No, they said, oh, well now I know it's very clear. It's clearly written. It's clearly worded. Mike, what are your reactions? I mean, just looking through real quick, I mean, in a lot of ways, I think it's the stuff that Bar points out is already here. I mean, it might just need a subheader or something, but I mean, an introduction to the MEAC, you know, who they are, what their charge was. And this was taken from there. The next paragraph talks about what the fact that they organized that are key goal for energy. This is directly out of their stuff. And then the very next paragraph is a number of significant projects have been completed, including this, this, this, and this. Now, I mean, we could word Smith and Admore and take things away, but, you know, the thought is, you know, as I'm putting things together, was I really far off the mark in how I was structuring a chapter? Because again, I don't expect any of the drafts I give you to be perfect. I'm putting words on a page and structuring things and I'm talking about the right things. You might not think I've mentioned everything or done everything right, but I'm talking about the right things. And that's what I, as the author need to know, am I way off base in how I word things and the things that I am talking about? Or, you know, because if I am way off base, then I need to come back and we need to make sure we're talking at the same wavelength because I don't wanna write, I don't wanna spend three days writing this and have each one of them thrown out. I wanna be able to say, all right, I understand we're gonna word Smith it, we're gonna maybe take out a paragraph or gonna expand, you know, we should talk more about this. And Mike, you talked way too much about that. We don't need to talk nearly as much about that as you did. We can break this down to two sentences. That's what I kind of expect as we get into these, but for me to be able to develop the chapters, I have to have everyone say, yeah, we should have a chapter that talks about this, but don't talk about this as much as you are, or that's fine. I think you did a pretty decent job in the amount in the detail of the things you're talking about. Obviously summarize of information. We've got a lot of stuff to fill in there. You know, shouldn't we, in a written text of our chapter, should we be talking about aspirations and goals? Or if we are, should we be talking about it more or less? And that's really kind of the thought set that I need knowing that we're gonna go in and work Smith this. If we're pretty close, again, somebody can come through and volunteer and say, I'm gonna put together, we've got the version. Somebody can come through and start to do some edits to say, hey, Barb wants to come through and put some wordsmith edits and then come back to the planning commission and said, I'd like you guys to approve these edits to the document. Great, that's what we're gonna need, but I can't have everything sitting on the side waiting because then I don't know, as I write transportation, whether I'm doing, you know, should I make transportation look like energy or is energy so far off the map that I need to start over? Because if I start over that, then I've got to start over energy. And if I'm already working on housing, then I'm starting to dig myself a big hole. Yeah, I think that's helpful, Mike. And I think the committee, when we talked about this last week, I think we thought it was good. If anything, I would say smaller amounts of text on the last part about the aspirations and goals, just because there's a whole page with those on them and they'll have plenty of words there. So kind of an overview I would be fine with. Yeah, I would agree with that. And I mean, less is more is definitely the case where you could have just bulleted items so that people can sort of glance through them because they're gonna see more explanation in other locations. I think the part I had the most trouble with in energy, and maybe this isn't one that's going to show up anywhere else, is the idea that that wait and see section because I just, you know, I don't think that's the intention of the energy plan. So that may not come up in any of the other plans. So maybe it's just an aberration of this one, the way that the goals are split. Yeah, and that's gonna be a word spitting thing. I mean, again, if it comes down to one sentence that we want to talk about editing, I mean, I think the one you're referring to is this last sentence that's here that says our ability to influence residents and businesses to convert to electrical vehicles is probably something we will not be able to do for some time into the future, but we should be able to ensure that charging stations are available and that all alternates to single occupant vehicles are encouraged. And again, I'm trying to pull out of what is actually in the implementation strategy to kind of go through in the layout. You know, somebody doesn't have to look at that 10 page, you know, nine goal thing. I'm gonna kind of digest that down. It did come out a little bit long, but I think this chapter actually was long. It's like 2,300 words. So it actually is almost 800 words too long, but rather than start to chew it down, I wanted to get it to you guys. And if, you know, if you guys find places that are like, this is the place to make it smaller because it is long. Okay, so I'm hearing that people are generally happy with the headings like Barb definitely pointed out some things for us to think about. So are we okay with proceeding with the expectation that these will be the headings for each chapter and we'll fit the information we want to include within those headings? Is that acceptable to everyone? Yes. Some nods are good. Like, okay. All right. All right. So that's what we'll plan to do. We'll adapt what we want to say. Like all the information that Barb says she wants to include like, yeah, let's do that. But I think we can do it within the headings. So the next question in my mind is taking the chapters and the implementation, you know, the implementation section of the chapters one by one and how to, we have, we have working groups for some of them, but we don't have working groups for other ones. Obviously we all like Mike needs to distribute these ahead of time for us to look at going into the meeting. And we all need to read them for the meeting and know what our thoughts are about how to improve the substance, right? The substance is the main thing. So are we going to have people who are interested in like wordsmithing ahead of meetings? Or is that something we want to say as a policy, you know, as an orderly policy, like that we, we wait and do wordsmithing after the meetings, but then I can see people having a hard time wanting to vote something out if we haven't done that. So, so, I mean, what, what approach is going to work for everyone. And, and tackling these. Well, I think. It's a timing. There's a bit of a timing consideration, right? If, if somebody's going to wordsmith beforehand, we would need to be shopped around with enough time to vote on it. Or is it just, or do we do two meetings per? I mean, like, how we front load them. Sorry. Yeah. Well, and I'm trying to, you know, in some ways I'm trying to, to walk myself through it too. I mean, in the past we, like the planning commission has, you know, talk things over with Mike, we haven't had anything written ahead of time and we kind of tell him what we want. He takes his notes and then he comes back with the draft. But I've heard from people numerous times that like they'd be interested in getting in there themselves. And I think, you know, I think it's, you know, if, if we are going to have like, you know, planning commissioners do that, then we're after. Is, is that something that happens within this subcommittees? The task, the task forces. We're talking about the non subcommittee ones. Mostly talking about that. Yeah. Okay. All right. So you're not saying that we're going to create more subcommittees. So for example, anything we got, we should start wrapping this up. Yeah. But yeah, for the, for the ones, for the ones that we're just tackling as the planning commission itself, I mean, I mean, what are, what are people comfortable with? I mean, I don't have a preference. Should we just try one where we all read it beforehand. If you have words missing, bring it to the thing. If it's massive words missing, we can try to figure it out as a group. If it's small stuff, that'll be easy to figure out as a group and then see where we get. And if, if it's so happens that it's like a lot of, a lot of people have a lot of things to say about it and we just can't do it in one, then well, we'll try a different approach next time. I think that's a, I think that's a fine idea. And the only thing I would add to that is maybe if, if. I'd be okay if someone was to do non substantive, you know, actual words missing it, like, you know, concentrate on the writing and not substance. After we've approved it, like I'd be comfortable. And then we'd look at it again. Everyone okay with like the way that Marcelo laid it out, which is we read it, we talk substance, we get micro notes and proceed from there as we tackle these. Okay. So we, these would be the perceived as simpler chapters. Such as, yeah, like what, what might come next to give, give us a sense of what it. Yeah. We do want to learn that from, from Mike, like, like, what's, what's lined up for you to go, Mike. So the historic would be the first. And again, if we've got a subcommittee or if there's. I mean, if there isn't a subcommittee, then we'll have to have some, some decision, but I can go up and finish historic. And I'm going to put all these on the Google drive because I think that's the best place for us to get them. And then I think the key is just, if you're going to go through and do a bunch of wordsmithing to kind of maybe save it as a separate document, download it and save it as a separate document. Yeah. Please do. We're going to, we're going to hold off on that. So everybody understands we're not for like, at least for now we're going to tackle it as a group. And deal with Mike's version when we talk about it. So I'll put them in. And again, then, so for historic, I think we're close enough. I don't think the goals are going to change. I don't think the aspiration is going to change. So I can populate the strategies and then we'll have. All the pieces of historic are done in in your plate for you guys to approve. There is a written chapter. It may not be fully fleshed out for, for everything and how it's going to go. But there it is all there. And then there is the implementation strategy that's in that Excel table. And I'll go through and finish populating that last set of strategies. And then you guys can go through and, you know, I think, you know, my, my recommendation would be to first approve them and maybe somebody is relatively quick to approve the, the more general straightforward pieces, you know, Hey, we agree with the aspiration. We agree with the goals. We agree with the strategies. You know, now word smithing wise, I think I would change this and I would change that word. I think this is too long and we could collapse, you know, this is too wordy and we can, you know, make this one shorter and I've got some recommended things over here that I'll have you guys, you know, somebody can come in and say, I can, I can write the CLG description much better than Mike did. And I'm fine with that. But I think what's important is to start out with the structure to go through there. I like the big stuff. And then we can put it all in the document and when everything is done in November and December, when we've got 10 or 12 plans all on, on draft web pages, we can always go through and make more edits there to go through and say, I want to tweak this and tweak that. But I can get historic done. And then if somebody's got a subcommittee. That tells me that aspirations and goals are good. I can start populating some of these other ones. Are there any others, Mike, that maybe I'm being too hopeful, but I'm thinking we've actually worked on historic quite a bit. I'm hoping that we actually get through that without needing a full meeting. And parks may. We were going to talk about parks before we do a final vote. If he doesn't get back to me in like a month or so, then maybe, you know, maybe we could crap that idea. What about, what about energy? Having like, it doesn't have to be the chapter and the implementation strategy. Just one or the other, maybe it's something to shoot for for next time too. Yeah, I think I would have to go through and put the energy implementation strategy into the correct format. Yeah, that chapter isn't in the spreadsheets, right? So do we, do we need to do any adjusting of any of the aspirations or goals for you to be able to put those in, Mike? Yeah, we would have to probably at the next meeting. So if we did historic and then approve the aspirations and goals at the next meeting, then between. Sorry, I mean, on the energy one. Would you be able to take the energy plan and put that into aspirations and goals in the. Yeah, I could put the aspirations and goals in. I just wouldn't have the strategies in. Well, maybe we could take a look at that before the next meeting. It doesn't have to be that one, Mike, just whatever, whatever's like ready just to. That's something to go to. Yeah, I mean, for implementation strategies, we've, there is housing, but I think you guys were going to have a housing subcommittee. Hopefully, you know, yeah, we're going to. There's in the next day or two, we're going to meet plan a meeting. Yeah, there's natural resources, but I think there's a subcommittee on that and there's transportation. Mike on natural resources, would you put it in the Google? Because I cannot find it in my email. And I was going to ask, I think it's Marcella and I, and is there a third person on that? Yeah. So we should probably talk about meeting too. I just, I just cannot find it. Yeah, I'll go through and try to populate as much as I can. Any of the, because we've got a number of implementation strategies. I think there's actually six or seven of them that are done. Not all of them are, are saved on the page. So I'll just do this. So I'll go ahead and restress if we're going to. For the, for the working groups. Mike was saying that we don't need to spend time collapsing the. The. Strategies. Right. Yeah, don't worry about the strategies. Okay. So I'll go ahead and do that. Okay. I'll go ahead and do that. Unless there's like a policy reason or something, unless you like what big changes or something, and there's a reason to. Kirby, I have a question. Go ahead, Barb. After the last meeting, I think I had volunteered to collapse the transportation. Aspirations and goals. So I just sent that to the CNS committee today. Okay. Okay. I'm going to go ahead and do that first. Or should we look that at that? In the transportation subcommittee. I would say transportation. I think CNS has like done wonderful work for us so far, but they don't need to review. Right. I'm just trying to figure out if this is what the kind of thing that would fit into their format, but I guess we can decide that ourselves. Yeah, I'm not sure from the committee's point of view, but I think that's a good point. Yeah. I'm just going to go ahead and do a quick recap. Saying if you guys feel that they go together. Then they go together. Yeah. That was, that was the point of, of us going over parks earlier and looking at how it was done. In fact, that's supposed to give us all an idea of. How to do it. Okay. So we'll do it in the transportation committee. Yeah. Unless you don't want to do the collapsing because Mike said. He's fine doing that. No, I already did a version. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I sent it out to CNS. So I just, now I just. So CNS, you can ignore it. And we'll talk about it in the transportation subcommittee first. Yeah. So for anyone, once you get to the, the site, all of these are in. So you go to historic resources. You'll probably find. The written. Implementation strategy. You might find actually two versions. Looks like they're actually two versions in here. Figure out what's up with that. And then you'll see that implementation strategy and then there's the template. So. If you're looking for a chapter to try to figure out your natural resources, we don't have anything near yet. Energy. It looks like we have the one of our comments. We've got the original energy plan chapter and we've got an implementation strategy. So, but we don't have that. In the other format yet. So. That's where you find them. So if you're looking for them, this is where I'm going to be plugging them in. It's onto this page here. Into their appropriate chapters. Mike, just for like clarity and convenience. So, um, will you, will you send a link to that landing page? Like right now. I think Stephanie did at the last meeting, but. Um, and it was actually in the email for today's agenda as well. Okay. So it's in the email for today's agenda, everybody. Okay. Can we, um, confirm next, next meeting, we want to look at. Historic. And energy. So we just said. We didn't, we didn't land on that. Mike. It sounded to me like Mike wasn't sure if he would have the implementation strategy done. Okay. So definitely a story. I think we'll have the historic chapter and the historic chapter. I think that's. That's pretty good. Um, and then we would probably have to have a discussion on the energy. Aspirations and goals. And I think that's fine. That's because that, then, if we get approval of the, of the aspirations and goals, then I can populate the implementation strategies. After that's all done. And if we have time to talk about the chapter energy chapter, which is the separate piece, we can do that. Well, thank you. Okay. Well, this is, I mean, it's exciting for us to, to finally. Have the foundation under us to start getting through these. I think that's great. The last thing on our agenda, we have 10 minutes left is to, um, talk about plans for resuming in person meetings. Uh, I guess I, I, I could start my, my plan to start. Um, do you have ideas about this or you just, or is this an open question? Uh, it's a little bit of an open question. So city council is going to be talking on Wednesday about restarting in person meetings. Um, planning staff is kind of hoping that this, that we'll be holding off until July, uh, we can, I could certainly start in June if we wanted to start having in person meetings in June. Um, but, uh, because what we're trying to do is to make sure everybody, like I said, I just got my second shot. So in two weeks I'll be fully vaccinated. So, um, you know, I'll be set to go by the time our next meeting comes up. Um, but that's not true of all my staff. Um, they won't be through all their vaccinations until June. So we're kind of waiting city hall. Uh, there's a, there's also a discussion at council is city hall. It's going to be opening up. Um, July 5th. Um, after the fourth of July weekend, um, city hall, we think we'll probably be opening back up. Um, so we're kind of expecting the next question is, okay. Um, what happens with all of our committees that have been meeting remotely? Do we start meeting in person again? Um, do some of those, we know council is probably possibly going to be starting to meet. In person before July 5th. But that vote is yet to come up. That's going to be discussed in council on Wednesday, but we just wanted to start. You know, letting people know, putting it out there that. Um, we're going to be meeting in person until July 5th. Um, we're going to be meeting in person until July 5th. This conversation is going on. Um, these nice remote meetings where I can sit in my. Office at home is coming to an end. Um, and. Where is everybody else at what's the comfort level of the committee, uh, the commission. On starting to meet. When you guys want everybody was chomping at the bit and said, no, as soon as possible, we should start meeting in person. If everybody's. Well, as much as I miss sitting around that round table with everybody. Uh, I'm in no real hurry. I mean, I'm happy to meet whenever I'll be fully vaccinated. Three weeks. So, um, but obviously. If there are those of you that are not vaccinated or hesitant, I am happy to continue this way until everybody feels comfortable. Um, I think that's a good point. Is there an expectation that every, like, is the baseline that we're going back? What's going to probably happen is, um, There will all, there will almost certainly be a, um, A format change to life. So if you guys said, you know, We're still not comfortable and we want to continue to meet remotely. I'll probably have to review this with city managers to what we do. Um, and I think the, um, The main thing that's going to happen is we continue to meet to meet remotely. But I am hosting from the city council chambers where the public is welcome to attend. And that would probably we would have this all looks the same, except there's going to be another box down here for, for city council chambers where. I mean, if it's like any, most of our meetings, there's probably not going to be anybody there. But if somebody didn't want to come, there's going to be a lot of people. Um, And in the city council chambers and, um, speak and participate. Um, and you guys would all be still remote. Or if some of you wanted to show up, you could, you know, Sit, sit at the DS and we would kind of have a little bit of the same stuff. Or sit at the table because you guys usually just sat at the table. But I think, I think there's some hybrid opportunities where we're not exclusively one or the other, but I think what would almost certainly happen in July. Is that we're going to have public access to our meeting. Just no longer be here. I would be in city hall posting the meeting there. Anyone else have. Feelings. I feel no rush. I feel like we have better participation. From ourselves. On the safety of our, of our respective. Yeah. I don't know if that's just because most of my time with this committee has been during the pandemic, but I feel like we see people. I, if I'm being honest, I feel like attendance is better, but I feel like participation is easier to like blend in the background. I feel like people. More people talk more probably in person, but that doesn't have a strong bearing on my feelings. It's about rushing back. I think it sounds like we will go. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So for now, let's just decide on no earlier than July 5th. And then decide then. How to proceed. Is that acceptable. To you, Mike, for now. Yes, that's what you guys want. I can certainly bring that back to, to bill and let him know. I think you're going to, we're going to probably find a lot of other committees are following suit that there's not a big rush. But there are occasionally some groups that are just. You know, you know, They're probably going to have the next election. And then want to start meeting. So we'll see where they. You know, there's probably going to be a couple that are going to be in person. But I think like you said, I think the interesting thing is going to be what do we do once we hit July 5th. And is hybrid meeting. The thing of the future where we continue to have these remote meetings. You know, I actually think this format gives a lot more flexibility for a member of the public. Because they could be sitting at home right now and you know just click and watch the entire meeting from their, you know, from their living room if they wanted to, and participate if they wanted to. And so I think there's more more flexibility to getting public input here, even though it's just not what people do so I think, but I think the opportunity there's more opportunity in this format, in my opinion. Yeah, I agree with you. If you're going to pass some feedback along I think yeah it seems like we would all like the hybrid to at least be an option going forward. Because sometimes I mean sometimes people just can't attend because they're away for something but that they could if the hybrids an option so that would just probably help our attendance in the long run anyway. I think if it's city halls open on July 6 then you know as we get into that first meeting in July. Like I said I think I don't think it's that big of a deal for me to be in, in city hall host the meeting and, you know, we can have any member of the public who wants to show up and speak to something whether whether it's we get to the housing whether we get to community services maybe somebody hears about it and wants to come in and talk about the homelessness issue and they don't have access to the technology that's necessary to participate. Well, they could show up at the meeting. I will pass that alone. Okay, thanks Mike. So it looks like we know what to expect next time is anybody have anything else they want to mention before we adjourn. Okay. Oh, do we need to pass the minutes do we do that. Nice get that good catch. Thanks. I'll second. All right, well we have a motion to approve the minutes who is the second. Okay, second by Stephanie. Discussion is anybody uncomfortable with voting on the minutes right now. Okay, those in favor of approval. Sorry, sorry. Was that that you're uncomfortable or the Sorry, somebody's moving the mouse over here. That's not me. Shouting I alarmed Aaron's dog. I see. Okay, so those in favor of approving the miss a I I need a post. Okay. Okay, do we have a motion to adjourn. You do. Okay, motion by Aaron. We have a second. I'll second. Second by bar those in favor of adjournment say I I Okay, everybody have a great night. Thank you. Thank you everybody.