 Okay, so Reverend McDowell, can you mind saying a little word of what we started with? On the special day of the year as we move about and have our being, the significant day today is a love day. Second Corinthians 5-1-8 sort of symbolizes that whole love position, that principle of love. We pray for this city of ours as we embrace the issues, as we posture ourselves undergirded by the principle of love, such as collectively and yet individually. Let us feel and sense the love of him who is able to do all things, and him we pray. At this time the city council discussions, discussion items begin with item one, the climate protection action committee update. Mr. Bob Petrullius, the chair of CPAC. Well good afternoon and happy Valentine's Day. I hope everybody's planning a good one this evening. And thank you for inviting us to update you on what CPAC has been up to. Today I want to give you a quick update in three main parts. The first is just to let you know who we are and what we do. The second is to give you some background on a council resolution that we hope you will be considering soon. And the third is just to talk about some of the significant funding that is becoming available through the inflation reduction act. So thank you. Somebody is reading my mind. It is great. I like that. Currently CPAC has seven voting positions, three of which are not filled at this moment. The four of us who are voting members of the committee include Gretchen Lambert, who's here. She's the vice president of an architecture firm, Studio 2LR, and is also a board member of the Columbia Empowerment Zone. Dr. Lori Zylkowski was not able to be here today. She is a climate scientist at the University of South Carolina and is also a member of the Clean Energy Procurement cohort, which you may be hearing more about later. Tamara Warren is currently the sustainability officer at the Samsung facility in Newbury. And she's also active in a number of environmentally focused organizations. And I am the chair. I'm an independent program evaluation consultant. I work mostly with education-related programs and also a member of the South Carolina Sierra Club Executive Committee and active in the Climate Reality Project's local group. There are eight appointed non-voting members and they represent a range of organizations and concerns. So just to let you have an idea of who you're talking to here. The main purposes for CPAC are to inform the city, including the council and city departments, about climate-related issues, do some public outreach, a little bit of public education, and build partnerships with the city and interested organizations. Current projects are addressing climate impacts on low and moderate income residents and the transition to clean energy. And we'll be talking a little bit more about some of those things later on. The next slide is just a quick look at CPAC's current home page. And Mary Pat Baldoff is the person who kind of shepherds our web presence. So let me talk a little bit about CPAC's background and the resolution that we've been working on for the last year. 17 years ago, the then mayor signed the U.S. Conference of Mayor's Climate Protection Agreement. That committed the city to... So that would have been cobalt then, rather than Benjamin. It was earlier than that. I know it wasn't in 206. Okay. Well, I will... Now we need to find the answer. Yeah. My notes said 2006, but I wasn't here at the time, so I guess I have to clean a little bit of ignorant. Right. Yes. This was the Conference of Mayor's Pledge, not the Ready for 100 pledge. So, in any case, whenever it was signed... I do need to know that. Yeah. Whenever it was signed, it committed the city to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions. And about a year later, CPAC was established in part to work on this particular issue. Now, let's go to... Yeah. We're good. Six years ago, the council adopted the Ready for 100 resolution, which had been advocated by the Sierra Club and some other organizations. It's a national effort, and several cities signed onto it, including Colombia. It established the goal of transitioning to 100% clean and renewable energy by 2036. So, I think it's clear to me anyway that it was a great first step in preparing the city to meet the challenges of climate change. However, there were a few things that it lacked. One was there are no progress benchmarks in the original proposal or in the original resolution, and there are no implementation plans. So, those are... If we want to move forward, those are kind of significant issues that need to be addressed. So, in the last year or so, CPAC members and city staff and other interested folks got together to develop the new resolution, which we hope will fill those gaps, without tying the city's hands too much. So, we've been calling it Resolution 2.0, and it's got a longer title than that, but for our purposes, it's handy to be able to call it that short name. So, it does three main things. First of all, it establishes progress benchmarks. It creates a roadmap for the transition of city properties and operations, and we maintain that it will also save money and improve capacity of the city. And finally, it sets a goal of 75 megawatts of new solar to meet the city's projected operational needs by 2036. So, one of the things I think we've got to talk about, too, is building a plan that we can step to achieve. Solar is just one piece of it, and the intermittence and the cost of batteries today. We need to make sure that we're looking at, we want to reconstitute the hydro plant, which could get us somewhere between five to 10 megawatts depending on how hard we run it. But also looking at alternatives, anaerobic digestion, and others. I'm on the Climate Mayors Committee, I'm also on the Energy Committee at the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and we're having a lot of discussions about trying to get projects that realistically can protect us and get us there, where we have to have a combination. Can't just be all solar, can't go to all electric vehicles, and based on talking to some of the mayors who had lived through a natural disaster, they couldn't charge their vehicles, they couldn't charge their bucket trucks, they couldn't, the equipment they needed that when they had advanced. So, how do we create a balance? I know that they're saying now that CNG is carbon negative, not carbon neutral. Now that you've heard that, I still think it's neutral, but somebody else said today. But how do we build a plan where we can put all those pieces in? Because the one thing we want to be able to do is not only achieve, get as close as we can to that goal, but not put our city at risk either. And I think a prime example is we learned during the holidays when we had that really cold weather during Christmas, you know, out of all the 1,100 megawatts of solar that was out there, none of it was usable at the time it was needed by the power company. So, we got to figure out how do we create those safety nets and to help with that, to protect that as we make those investments. So, I think we'd like to move faster. Now, well, I'll tell you that we hope to get some solar out at our wastewater treatment plan here sooner than later. And we did have the discussion with Dominion about moving that up in their list as part of as we're renegotiating our franchise agreement. And one of the things we talked about is what they could do to help us achieve some of these goals. So, I think timing is perfect for 2.0. Absolutely. Thank you for that. And I hope that what we've been able to do with the language in 2.0 is to leave enough flexibility for the city to be able to take advantage of improving technology and new ideas. You know, I'm sure like we know the wastewater treatment plant generates a certain amount of biogas that could be used for all sorts of things. So, it's currently being used to run the some of the boilers and things in the plant, but there's excess that's just being flared off at the moment. So, that might be able to be used for powering people. Redirecting that 250 CFM, absolutely, and maybe creating other opportunities where we could take advantage of food waste today with the daff waste. All the chicken farming that goes around us, all that material through the process has energy value. And if we harvest that and redirect the water and use that gray water for irrigation instead of just getting rid of it, I think there are a lot of things that we can do that aren't new ideas, but will work great in conjunction with a lot of these others. And we've been in some in-depth conversations with some other communities about what they've done and lessons they've learned, so I'm hoping that we can continue to move forward. I know that CPAC would love to have more conversations with you, particularly since you've been looking at these issues pretty carefully and just hear more of your ideas and thoughts about it. And yes, I mean, I think we do need to be, we need to keep our eyes on the goal rather than on necessarily the specific methods to get there. Absolutely. You know, so that we're being practical as well as moving forward. And we're in a position now to be able to apply for funding that we haven't had in the past, that if we leverage the correct way, we really can really see some improvement. We're seeing some other cities that have worked with HUD in conjunction with HUD funding and other to bring in when they start to build affordable housing and attainable housing that all of the housing already has solar built in. And in some places, not really for the energy, but for hot water usage and other things for heat. And so I think, you know, using those creative methods to maybe bring those two funding sources together, we could, look, we need probably 16,000 units of housing over the next decades. It's a great place for us to focus as well. Absolutely. Yeah. I've actually come to the sort of the end of the introduction about the resolution. So if there are other questions or comments about it, I'd be interested to hear what you have to say. Mr. Mayor, thank you for this wonderful information, Dr. Patrullis. Other municipalities in the state, are there any organizations like CPAC, Greenville, Charleston, North Charleston? There are, I haven't been in direct contact with them, but there are advisory groups that work with the cities and the rest of the city. Right. So comparing those to see if their initiatives are on par with what we're trying to do, possibly for a stronger voice at the statehouse, right? Because we all know the statehouse could use some good lobbying from groups like you to consult with us. So anything you can do to compare notes with the surrounding municipalities, the stronger voice, the better. Thank you. Yes. That's actually a great idea. We did participate in the Climate Ready Columbia Conference last April that brought together people from all over the region. But we didn't have a direct or we didn't have a forum for the different cities to come together and talk. You're pretty well organized. So you're ahead of the game. So even counties, cities, that stronger voice would go a long way. So please lead on that. Yeah, and certainly climate issues are regional as well as municipal. Yeah. So being able to find people to work with would be great. And go get all the donut holes in the city as well. That might help, right? Did you bring a copy of the resolution today? I guess it wasn't in the packet? Or was it? Oh, it is. Oh, my apologies. Yes, sir. It was in the online. Let's see. The fifth slide. Resolution 2.0 looks specifically at city operations as opposed to the wider community. So what we're interested in is really reducing or eliminating greenhouse gas emissions from city operations, which would include buildings, other fixed assets, vehicles, that sort of thing. So in a lot of cases now, for example, we have boilers that are powered by natural gas. Eventually, those really are going to need to be replaced with probably heat pumps or other forms of electrified systems so that they're not burning fossil fuels. So it's that kind of stuff. What we really envision is for public works and other city departments to take a systematic approach to looking at all these different assets of the city and establishing a way of moving forward that makes financial sense as well as making sense for the climate. So for example, as new buildings are being built, we want to build them to the highest standards. Buying new equipment of different kinds, we want to make sure that it's as energy efficient as possible. So what we envision is to bring in energy audits in a phased way to begin to make those changes and then to do it in a way that makes sense financially. Anything else? Well, the last thing that I'd like to talk to you about is the resources that are becoming available through the infrastructure bill and the Inflation Reduction Act. These things are already becoming available and so we need to get on it in order to be able to get the resources that we need. So I wanted to tell you a little bit about what CPAC has been doing for the last couple of years on preparing for that eventuality. We are currently a sea leap city, a community's local energy action program city and what that involves is getting U.S. Department of Energy technical assistance to help us really think about how to implement some of the things that we need to do. In particular, for sea leap, we're looking at helping low and moderate income people retrofit their houses, improve energy efficiency, those kinds of things. And, of course, as we know, over 50% of the households in Colombia are rental. So that makes it a little more complicated because the people who inhabit the houses don't have control a lot of times over improving insulation or making those kinds of improvements. So that's one of the nuts we're trying to crack with sea leap. In addition, last summer Dr. Kirsten Dow along with CPAC and the Columbia Tree and Appearance Commission undertook a heat study in which we mapped the city's heat islands. So we now have a much better idea of where there are places in the city where people may be subject to increasing amounts of heat. And as we know, as the climate, as general temperatures increase, we're going to see many, many more days exceeding 95 degrees over the summer. So if it was three weeks, a few years ago, we're looking at maybe three months within the next five or ten years. So we really need to be ready to mitigate some of those high heat problems. And one of the ways to do that is to think about tree coverer, things like that, also maybe making more cooling stations available, those kinds of things. But we need to know what the problem is before we can really start to address it. But that heat mapping study is now complete and has been released. So we're able to now start responding to it. And finally, two years ago, with a grant from the Sierra Club, we were able to commission a report on the clean energy transition for the city of Columbia done by Anthony Artuso. And that report has been shared with city departments and others. And we think that it helps us, it gives us some ideas about methods for approaching this problem. So those are some resources that we have available to help us sort of justify requests for IRA funding. And some of that funding really belongs here in Columbia, hopefully a lot of it. So I've given you a little handout that has a list of many of the major programs under the IRA. And some of those programs you'll see are ones that probably can match the needs of the city and help us really justify these kind of requests. The big piece in there that's not shown here really is the fact that municipalities now and authorities can take advantage of the ITC, investment tax credit, and the reduction tax credit, which on the solar project is 24%. It's a massive amount of money where we weren't able to participate before, which kept a lot of municipalities from being able to do their own projects and having to wait on somebody else and bringing multiple partners. And that way we can actually do more. And I think that's one of the things that we're trying to figure out is how do we leverage that component too, because that's a big piece, especially when you start talking about 25, 50, and 75 megawatts worth of power from solar. Absolutely, Ms. Herbert. So with the IRA funding, how long would this be available? And I guess let me tell you why I'm asking, because I think we need to have some type of strategy so that we can know what we want to go after. And I'm just trying to figure out timeline-wise, do we have time to kind of put together a strategy so that we know what we want to go after? Well, I think we have some time. There is some of this money is already in the pipeline. So the faster we can get ready to request it, the better. The funding for the IRA is, what, five years? So there's some time in order to implement these plans, but if we can get the requests in quickly, that will help us to maximize the amounts that we have available. I don't know, that's a pretty vague answer, but I think it's going to take some time for them to get it out. And part of why we hire those third-party consultants is to help us go after this type of funding, but it's going to take them a little bit to get it back out to us too. So hopefully we'll continue to apply for everything that we can to take advantage. And some of it we may or may not get, but others we're going to go after for sure. So CPAC issues are part of what the group is going to work on? Well, all of these are part of the ongoing discussion that it's been going on with CPAC. And frankly, most communities for a long time, they just didn't have the funding available that is available now. And I think that's the big difference. So we kind of knew what we needed to go after. Now we have a place to go after it. And just for clarity, I was talking about the consultants. This is one of the areas that they're going to be working in. Everything and everything that's under a rock we're going to find. Back during the summer, I think, there was some work done. I rated somewhere where that was a heat indexing. Now is that one in the same as we look at what was done this summer as opposed to what CPAP is thinking about doing? Or is it one in the same? I think what you're talking about is the heat mapping project that was done. And that was actually based on a grant to one of the scientists at USC. But they brought us and the Tree and Appearance Commission into the process. And actually, I wrote around in a car and the sensors and all that business was kind of fun. But yeah, those are the same project. And essentially what we're trying to do is to figure out where the hot spots are and where the real places that need the most attention. On the heat mapping that my colleague was talking about, I think we missed a golden opportunity last summer when you did that project. But I'm sure it's going to be able to be repeated this summer to show the difference in the temperature on Main Street with all of the trees going down Main Street and on Sumter Street where there are no trees and on Assembly Street where there are minimum amount of trees. So I hope that when the heat comes back around in July you might do a special PR program to get some publicity on what trees and shade can do for the temperature. That's a great idea. The other thing is I don't think the council has ever gotten that or two so clean energy transition report. And if y'all would make sure that we would get it forwarded to us, we might be able to push some of these department heads to clean up their act. Alright, absolutely. I would just note that the IRA goes until 2033. So we have time. Yeah, the tax credits have to be used by 2033. Still, you know, when when the city gave itself 20 years to transition to 100% clean and renewable energy, 20 years seemed like a long time. And we're down to like 14 years now, right? So time's a waste. And so I think even even though it just you know, it seems like we've got a lot of time to deal with some of this stuff, we really, we really need to get the wheels in motion as quickly as possible. And that was actually my next question. And I know you and I've had some conversations about the achievable goals. And there was at one point where we were potentially not going to meet the 2036 goal. With the framework 2.0 or the resolution 2.0, do you feel confident that that would be something that we could show as a as progress? Yeah, I think so. I mean, Clint may have other perspectives on it, but yeah. So resolution 2.0 is really about city operations in our energy footprint. We're ready for 100 pledges about every citizen in Colombia. So I do think that what Bob is laying out and what I think y'all need to study when this resolution 2.0 is does kind of lay out a pathway to get to the city's own operations. I think there's another resolution coming that will address the citizen portion of it. So I'm sorry, Bob. Yeah, no, thank you. Yes, we do envision following this up with a wider ranging community wide resolution. But for now, we wanted to focus on the city to try and try and get that ball rolling. And then think bigger after that. So moving forward, like it says on the on the slides, we really stand ready to provide whatever assistance we can to the city council and to the city to meet these these goals. And we hope to be able to continue the conversations and really kind of pushing us to move forward. So anything else? Thank you for your by having any other questions, comments, suggestions. I think one of the things we've talked about just kind of food for thought on one of our committee meetings is an interest to look at how we can reduce litter in our city. And there have been some very preliminary conversations around, you know, working with the state to potentially increase fines around littering. So would be interested to talk with you all about that environmental perspective and impact of looking at some of those pieces as well. That would be really interesting. And and there might be some things that shade into things like fossil fuel use and things like that. For example, if we could encourage restaurants that do take out to use biodegradable or compostable clam shells, things of that sort. There may be ways that we could do that that would that would also be beneficial to businesses, which is what we we want to see those kind of synergies. Mayor, I did have a question. Yes, ma'am. I'm trying to learn some of our new committee structures. I was trying to see if maybe this would be appropriate for our infrastructure and could be health environment and social care. It probably goes through, I mean, it could go in either either one. Depending on what the issue whatever depending on what the issue is because some of it's infrastructure, some of it's policy, some of it's it's a really a mix when you look at that because, you know, we got to get grid ready. We're not grid ready yet. We could not handle all the chargers and everything that, you know, if you tried to go fleet. So you got infrastructure needs and then you've got in the resolution going through it, there's a lot of policy stuff so that probably go under the the general health and wellness. And that's what I was speaking of the resolution for the appropriate committee. I won't say which one that is to go through it and bring it back to full any product. And so there's a recommendation that the 2.0 go to and we have a meeting next week so we could put that on with some of the other items too or two weeks from now we have a meeting. We'll have to make that referral later. Yeah, you'll have to make that next week. And of course we'll be happy to talk to whoever wants to consider this. What is the name of the committee? Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Our next discussion item is the amendment concerning the 1998 code of ordinances of the city of Columbia, South Carolina chapter five buildings and building regulations to add article nine short term rentals to Honorable Howard E. DeVall Jr. Thank you, city manager. This has been a topic that we've been studying for over a year now and I'm hoping that this afternoon we'll come up with a document that we can send to the folk to the voting city council meeting talking about voting. We have had a custom here of not voting at work sessions and I pulled out section 251, 251 of the SC code which not the SC code, the Columbia city ordinance that talks about committee meetings and think that there's nothing in here that prevents us from voting during a work session. Today we're going to go through some of the questions that several of us have about specific sections of the proposed ordinance and I think the only way that we're going to ever get this up to a public session and a and a council meeting is to be able to decide if there is four people on the council now that want this provision changed tonight. So I would hope that this afternoon if we can't come to a general consensus that an item needs to be included in this ordinance or needs to be changed that we will vote on it and see if we do have four. Mr. Mayor. May I? You threw Howard? I'm not through but I'll let him. I'll be glad to defer it. No, I don't want to defer it. I just want to ask TK a question. TK let me ask you this. Traditionally what we've done in work sessions of course has been a time of work. We've traditionally not voted on those matters rather they've been referred to council. What I hear Howard saying is that there's no place or nothing that we can do and what we can do in work session is perhaps take a vote. Would you clarify that? The practice has been even before this year that that council would not vote even in work session or subcommittees. Council recently decided to start voting in subcommittees not a final vote of the issue but to send a matter out of subcommittee back to council. I'm assuming that council and DeVall may be talking about voting the issue out of here in a certain way but not taking a vote on the final matter. Not taking a final vote and saying this is it but saying this is the consensus of the work session that this needs to be included in the ordinance. The ordinance will then go to the maybe the February 21st meeting for public hearing on the fees and a first reading of the ordinance and so certainly anybody would reserve the right to to make an amendment at the full council session but we've got to have some mechanism to be able to decide whether we the majority of us think something needs to be included or not included. What has been the what has been the disposition of the committee? The committee met several times and we had public at least three public hearings on it and we have put past it referred it back to the council the council had a work session on it a couple of weeks ago and came up with a list of one two three four five six seven eight nine suggested changes. We went through the suggested changes and have made them in the red line version that you had right here so there were substantial changes made after their first first council work session and what I want to do today is I know that that several of you and the mayor sent me a list of several questions he had that need to be decided and if we can't if there is no obvious consensus on there I think we need to take some sort of vote to say whether it is included or not included. We can't just keep bouncing the thing around we need to get this thing moving. Well can't you just request it to agenda as a council member? No actually not the legal law requires that it become before council and and what the meeting if you read our code of ordinance by the city actually anything on the agenda actually has to be voted on by us technically voted by us at a meeting before that meeting if you want to put it on an individual and if this council doesn't vote it doesn't go yeah that's what the law says. What does this say then? In our code and the ordinance. In our code. It's how that adds. I mean if we're pulling out codes then we're going to pull them all out. So I just want to make sure I think. Everyone listens to everyone making suggestions about what goes on the agenda. No we don't that's what I'm saying if we if we're going to change we've had an ongoing of not voting for something in this to move to come out of here and say hey we want to see if the majority feels comfortable moving it to the agenda that's one thing but I do want to be clear that that I'm not going to participate in any vote for something in this setting I think it should be done at the in the council chambers at the podium just to make sure but if we want to move this forward that's different we just want to make sure we're putting all the ground rules together but we have actually been I looked them up because a lot of things everybody takes their own interpretation and technically we are not abiding by our laws the way we're operating. Well I would like to have time to do my referral on that but do you suggest that we proceed and if there is not an agreement on something? I think we I think we what you're asking is really not a vote but a show therefore people comfortable moving to a council agenda is what you're asking for you're not really asking for a vote. I'm asking for that that but not on the whole bill but on individual changes to the bill that that some of us might not support and if we can do that by winking or pulling on the ear or whatever that's fine with me but we got to have some mechanism to be able to decide that this item needs to be changed or retained or yeah how are you going to make that decision though if you don't vote? Well maybe we should start by going through it before we get into the debate about what changes it might be helpful to get into the changes because maybe more of us agree than disagree. You let them fly the friendly skies so now you're in charge. Okay. What are you going to start Howard? Let me do it. That's what we plan on doing. We would like to hear from you. All right. You've got your red line version or you've got your non-red line version? Non-red line. We have though. I don't have a red line. We have the January. I think you have a red line version and a regular version. Well my friend it didn't come. All right so they don't have the red line. I thought we were supposed to have the January 11 2023 version. Yeah what we're looking at is 11.1.1.11.23 version. I think it would be helpful if they could see the red line version. Yeah we get copies of the red line. While they're doing that why don't we talk about a couple of the things that we know though. Mayor you sent me a list of things and we can talk about that because that doesn't necessarily need the red line. The first thing the mayor mentioned in his reply was that a moratorium established 120 days after patches to cap the market will allow very limited time for compliance with the strict list of demands. Well on thinking about it and talking with David Hatcher we might need to put a buffer period in there of say 30 days after the ordinance is passed to allow for the implementation of the hardware and software necessary to receive the permits and then start the 120 days. So you'd add another 30 days to 120 days. I think I think we can do that. You got to probably at least 30 or 45 days before this thing is going to get passed. But you have to wait for it to pass before you buy software. But you can start studying and I think we've already started studying. How about we determine we have software already that has you just unlock another layer. We do have the current software that we're using intergov where we do the current rental permits there. So we are capable of doing the STR through that same software. I think what would take some time is if you all decide we want to hire a third party to do the data collection and administer that may take a little more time. But for us if we're going to do it in-house 30 days would be enough for us to configure what we need to do to be able to start accepting applications in-house at code enforcement. All right Madam City Manager if we pass this thing in April and you have 30 plus 120 you have 150 days do you think you can if we're going to go for a 30 third party do you think that would give you enough time? So you're asking for the third party to do it. Well I think I think that needs to be decided about how much David and his staff can already do but I think we do need a third party to help us administer this. The third party can do a lot of things that we won't have the staff immediately to do including monitoring monitoring where the STRs are. We've already started discussing this in the context of a contract we already have because they have the capacity to do this potentially but we do need to talk with legal and procurement about about that. So yes I think we can figure that out if it comes down to a third party. Okay so is the council comfortable with adding a buffer period of 30 days after the passage of the of the ordinance before we start the 120-day clock ticking of or the ordinance? And the goal of putting this moratorium in is to be able to collect accurate data? You're talking about the moratorium or the buffer period? The moratorium. What is the purpose of us stopping? The purpose of the moratorium is that after you get your 120 days and everybody registered is registered that gives you from that date until July 1 of 2024 to collect the data see where they are and see if you want to continue with the moratorium. If the council does not act by July 1 of 24 then that restriction comes off and the non-unoccupied STRs are able to get so it forces the neighborhoods and the STR industry to work together with the council during between now and 2024 to come up with either something that they can live with or what then it becomes can you walk through the data what you're trying to what's being collected because I don't know that I saw that spilled out. That's a bigger conversation. What data do we collect to assess the effects of STRs on local housing? That would be up to the council but and a lot of that comes with you know David's team data that collected on code enforcement. And that's where the third party can really help us but in general the mayor talked last council meeting when we discussed this about how much data he had gotten from some software and it's out there and it tells you where they are how much revenue they've generated it gives you a lot of information. So this will give you until July 1 of 2024 to use that data that is being collected to determine whether we need to move forward or if you don't move forward it takes away any restriction on the non-unoccupied STRs. And you're asking for basically a one-year moratorium. Yes. And Mr. DeVall I'll just renew I think what I probably mentioned at the last meeting is that I could support a temporary moratorium that specifically says the reason for it because I don't think we're laying that out here. Right. So that specifically says why we're doing the moratorium which is to collect data to come up with a specific strategy or recommendation. It specifically says that if you don't do anything before July 1 or 2024 that whole moratorium goes away and all STRs can get permits to operate. But it but it doesn't get to the crust of why we're saying we're doing it. Which is just one explanation in the in the ordinance. I'm trying to be helpful. Just killing y'all around. You got it. Well I mean even if you added like permit moratorium for residential districts to collect data something to help people understand that we're just not anti STRs altogether. Didn't you have that text in there in previous version? We are going to be very careful about what you're willing to put in writing considering the atmosphere and the feedback that we've been getting from the General Assembly about this issue. Well I think my that we got to we got to press on with municipal law rather than worry about what they do when we're due in the General Assembly. I worry about funding. I worry tremendously about a lot of funding that the city's up for in conversations and things where there's bills being pushed or possibly moving these STRs if you put a restriction in from six percent to four percent and a whole host of other things that I think we've got to take into consideration as we move down the road. I believe we need to get all of these registered. I truly believe that. I think we need to be collecting our fees that are owed to us. I know that there's some other legal things going on with that but I think we need to tread lightly over a period of time to make sure that we don't alienate ourselves and get caught up in something that really affects a whole lot of other things that benefit this community. You know because what we're talking about is less than one percent out there is what we're talking about here. You're talking about one percent but that one percent is congregated in two zip codes. Two nine two oh one and two nine two oh five. But anyway this this ordinance as proposed is moderate. Most of those in two five are home owners not just single units. We have very few home owners. Not according to the data that I've seen. Well that's what you got a year to look at the data to see what the data is. But it gives you a year to do that and I would I would argue that we should not put any specific language in there. You know what you got to do between now and 2024 and the mayor might be right that the more language we put in there but people are going to interpret it the way they want to interpret it. Mr. Mayor I'm interpreting what I have been told and what I have discussed with folks and what language could be more amenable and really last and I think that's what I'm trying to aim for something that we can pass that will last and not be overturned by the legislation. Which section is it where the language currently reads in the red line version about the the one year five four or three five four or six. This is the red line version is the most current version of it. Yes. Okay. 406 talks about you put the moratorium on and then by July this provision of section five dash 406 of this or shall expire on July 1 2024. So that says that you got to get your data. You got to make a decision whether you want to continue to to ban non owner occupied SDRs and residential zones or whatever the council feels at that time but you got to take an action if you don't take an action the moratorium comes off and they're just permitting but it doesn't say any of that. That's my concern. It doesn't say any of what you just said. I'm sorry. I heard you say just a moment ago that there are quote unquote maybe I heard it. Maybe I heard it wrong. Maybe it's the right hearing. Did I hear you say that there perhaps has been some conversation with the general assembly referencing SDRs and and the consequences involved and if there are all consequences I want to say what are they and how do we best move that to I think that has that has to be critical in terms of our conversation. Several representatives have put up where there's going to be pending legislation that would be it would penalize in different ways. I know one of them was changing it from if you if you take that right away from an owner put all restrictions on it then it has to go to a four percent not a six percent. There's others that then will take us out of funding pools. There's three or four different which they're all coming together to have a conversation. I know it's moving up the ladder faster than we and then anybody thought. Now I had conversations with the municipal association lobbyists and other folks about is there any problem for us to go ahead and get things registered and start collecting fees and being able to do some things that gear us into the right direction waiting to see what happens that doesn't conflict with with what the general assembly feels is and the short term rental. So I think this we've got a balance here and and I think we've got to get things registered we got to know who who the ownership model is we got to know who we can contact if there's an issue. I think we got to start heading that path but at the same time you start using words of moratorium even for a period of time councils change and stuff the general assembly gets very upset with us and at the end of the day do we want a total restriction or do we want to start stepping there and see how things evolve as we go. I think the first step right now is is we don't have anything so we got to get things registered at least at the level that we do long term and there's a system there in the long term you know that we have a penal system there. I don't think anybody can argue with that because nobody argued with that before. So I there's a lot going on right now I can't tell you this going to happen tomorrow or Thursday or Friday but it's coming and and you know it's it's been told to us very clearly so but I think we got to keep trying to do get some of this moved forward because we can't continue it just to be wide open and nobody know who owns what that we're not collecting the fees the taxes that are owed us etc. So we've we've just got to find what that balance is and and I don't know what the appetite is there but it is definitely a hot topic. You can always simply it would seem to me no I was just going to make the point we can always go back and roll back that certain provision if need be as this goes forward but I agree with you Mr. Mayor we need to start the data collection process sooner rather than later and a part of that is it would seem to me that this is the priority now. That is the minimum we need to pass to do what the mayor says we need to do. That is a piece of legislation that has been molded for a year to split the baby into to make sure that we get there right. You're not familiar with Solomon. What do you mean split the baby? I'm familiar with Solomon this is not a split in the baby conversation. Okay well maybe that was a wrong there bro. We're trying to hit the sweet how might hit the sweet spot. Okay we want to hit the sweet spot. We want to regulate what we can regulate we want to go as far as we can without making the legislature mad. I can tell you from 22 years in that lobby representing municipal governments that the legislature is always trying to regulate municipal governments and county governments and we can't be afraid of that. If we have to come back and change this we can do it but let's don't cower in the face of two or three legislators that want to say that you gotta do what we are talking about or we're gonna take away your local government fund. So I what I am really resonating with is that we want more information to understand the scope of the problem and I am very supportive of us doing whatever we need to do to explicitly make the case for one treating our STRs like many other businesses where they have to get a business license all of that I think is fair even some of the conversations we've had about making our policies consistent with VRBO and Airbnb supportive of that but I think that the biggest piece I agree with councilman Herbert that we need to be very clear that our goal is to be able to have more information and data about where these rentals are positively or adversely affecting you know different communities or districts within Columbia and that's where I think we could be more explicit about that. What if we were explicit in the where as is? Now we have not put a section of where as is before this ordinance which we will do before can we can we do the explanation in the where as is for to make the council feel more comfortable that why we're doing this this is a language that councilman Herbert would suggest okay this is a this is yeah that well yeah I think I think that would be good language but I'm not sure it needs to be put in the ordinance but maybe other where as but we that's not a big issue let's don't get hung up on the explanation of the thing let's talk about some of the issues in the ordinance that have been brought out by the mayor and others and and see so so you're comfortable with adding the 30-day buffer before we start the 120 days the staff is comfortable that they can administer this thing and get the proper support for it we're we're we're putting the moratorium on after the gorilla be 150 days because you're getting the buffer and then that so that'll give the the people that are in sdr's plenty of time to get registered and then if it's if the council does not take the data that will be gathered by either the third party or by our our own resources before july 1 or 2024 that moratorium is relieved and the non-ownery occupied sdr's can get permits anywhere in the city that's kind of where we are is anybody in opposition to that I'm not in opposition but I have a question yes ma'am um how um notifying sdr owners is that something that's very simple to do is there like one place we go or are we going to have to blast this several places I think we're going to have to do all of the above I think I think we can use the platforms themselves to notify the owners that they needed to get up to get a permit I think that if we get a third party that notifies us that there are 750 addresses in your city that that are used for sdr's so we can send them notices but I bet you by time 150 days rolls around everybody that's got an sdr's thinking about an sdr will know they need a permit to operate I just want to make sure because I just want to make sure that we're allowing time to make sure we get the word out we will be proactive in making sure everybody that's in this business knows that there's a new sheriff in town did we quick question Howard go ahead business license required where did we land on owner occupied we're supposed to land and the the attorney's suggested we got them I get so it's both of them I hope we landed there saying this uniform for owner occupied in just to remind y'all we're in active litigation against airbnb and our main cause is for business license accommodations fees and business license because they're not remitting now as they should be collecting it from the owners but they're not paying us I mean that's that's that's what we're letting on our side so um councilman Brennan are you talking about on page five if we're gonna permit fees or just business license fee business license what did you see that owner occupied and non owner occupied all have the same rules that's yes kind of where I was that's what tk you see yeah so you'd have to change 406 a as well can't just say non owner occupied it has to say all no if it's an owner occupied house I think they have the right to rent their of house out under state law the state law allows them 72 days a year without losing their 4% tax classification so I think we can see if it's an investor on if it's a non owner occupied that's what that's the way the moratorium so all the problems created by a homeowner not be counted in a moratorium so they we could have 500 more in the in that neighborhood right I mean that's what you're saying is it's okay to have that because 72 days rental for somebody on that I mean to me if you're going to put a moratorium to collect data you got to have it all you can't just have one side of the story what's the what's the feeling of council you want to make everybody I mean that that's what you're asking for to make a decision based on it if it goes in a residential area but if the residents are the ones that are having the issues but they're not being they're not having to follow the same rules they're following the same rules as far as inspections and as far as according to this that can be more of them than of any other category and there's nothing we can say or do about it there's nothing they're not more than they're more of the investor on but I'm perfectly willing to make the moratorium apply to everybody until July 124 is that the consensus of council shake your heads or hold your ears or something I can't agree to that I got yours and then I would go back to the permit fees because we're charging owner occupied 100 and non-owner occupied 250 and that those are generally accepted permit for the cities that we have surveyed 250 dollars is half the initial price that we put on strs and we need that money to be able to operate this system I don't disagree I'm not thinking the same the same number yeah I guess my question is how would you enforce if it was owner occupied or not owner occupied they would have six percent four percent it's the six percent and four percent the owner occupied I'm going to be in a four percent house and there'd be one house and this is a consistent practice and other yeah to have a two different business license rates yes it's I think it's an entirely different thing if if an owner wants to rent out their house for 72 days according to the state all right why are we on fees are we settled I have been persuaded okay thank you all right um the mayor had on his thing a general million dollar general liability policy should not be a requirement I'm willing to give on that isn't that a requirement of air bnb the air bnb's do it themselves we don't make long-term rentals do that trying to what I mean is it's being covered anyway it's a requirement for whatever third party platform and air bnb actually provides their host with the million dollars of coverage are y'all taking that whole section out or changing the amount just taking a whole section we've taken the requirement for liability insurance out what number is that someone that'd be 402d so we're striking the whole thing or just striking the limit that we're now do we have these inspections with the the long-term rental yes David has the authority it is we did set it up similarly to how we do the long-term ones they have to um provide us a checklist that they're certifying everything these minimal code or um they can ask us to do inspections or in this case we'll um if it's a problem property we'll require an inspection if we know they're going to be problems there so this brings up a good question and overall so when somebody provides us that at their renewal future short term or whatever but yet we find out that they've lied what happens we start a case and we enforce that they get points charged against their permit technically um you know we could revoke if we need to based on that we need to have a deeper discussion about that especially on the long term because the laundry list of pictures and complaints that i'm getting and these folks are getting rental permits somehow we've got to figure out either a different way that we can fund more inspectors or have a way to go see but some of the pictures that have been shared with me of the conditions that residents are living in it's just unacceptable to me and i'm not trying to put pressure on you i'm trying to understand what what leverage do we have and i think our leverage is we've got to figure out how to be able to get in there and find out and much like we did with the business license we're going to trust you but if we find out your line we're going to find you pretty heavily so i think we've got to think about how we handle this i think a uh a better public reporting portal would help to you know it's got to be something yeah i mean our i mean i know for some people short term rentals is an issue data so far doesn't show that but for some people it is long term rentals in columbia is a huge issue and we've got people beating the system using tax shelters to hide and do this i'm using this moment to bitch about it because i'm gonna be honest with you the way some of these people are living in our community is not acceptable and we're spending a lot of time on something like this when we ought to be figuring out how to take care of that issue that's just my soapbox for this will this will allow us to get more code enforcement officers that can help with that problem as well as the short term okay the other thing that the mayor had on his list was the parking requirements would mean that some residents have to bill additional parking to comply how would the city enforces etc what's in their ordinance now says one parking space for every two bedrooms and a dwelling unit must be made available and designated for an str yes must be notified of the parking plan in the maximum number of vehicles allowed which shall not exceed six between sunset and sunrise so what do we do on a public street well we let's go on before we get to the public streets let's look at the private properties the city of columbia requires two parking spaces per residential house and you can't use but 40 of your front yard in order to park vehicles this this is essentially the same requirement we're having here no because I can name a house on watery that's got five bedrooms and only has two parking spots when that's 10 you got 10 of 10 10 people in that house I don't know how many people stay there I don't stay there but now that is different Howard the normal code says I guess the most it is requiring that you have is to but under Mayor's example then they would be required to have 10 parking spaces is that intent on his thing if he had 10 bedrooms I said five bedrooms oh five bedrooms up to be 10 people I don't know many 10 bedrooms in columbia there might be one or two and this is based on that'd be a boarding house though oh this is based on every two bedrooms so 10 one parking space for every two bedrooms so if it was that five bedroom house how many is that two two and a half parking spaces two and a half parking space depending on the lot size and so in Elmwood Park neighborhood or other folks they couldn't achieve that they don't they don't have and so those folks are allowed to park in the street because it's a public street so what so does that count if you're in that situation I'm just trying to understand how we're going to force it when you can't enforce it equally across the system how would you word it how I don't know I'm not a parking expert that's why that's why we have a parking division but I'm just trying to sit here to think about what restrictions or how do you work that out if there's public road let's say the residents live in that neighborhood and they use the street for their extra cars and whatever else why wouldn't this person be able to use that same parking as well well mr. mayor to your point an unintended consequences which which we are seeing now is but this is part of your permitting property owners taking half of their front yard and throwing down gravel and calling it a parking lot I do not want to see that as a trend as we move forward so let's keep that in mind when we're coming up with these parking parking paths and I'm asking that because it's one of those things that's involved in the permitting process so if you can't actually get permitted because you're in this how do you deal with that because they're in the system or they will be in the system now so they're in the beginning so they're not a news that's a little different how do you anticipate dealing with that let's think of some language that would maybe satisfy the majority what about if we said that you have to have a minimum of two car spots per unit per unit so your dwelling str for dwelling that's what we do for residential I just don't know if I would want to keep the max six language because of some of the concerns that we talked about last time as well very hard to enforce if I you know where if I'm owner-occupied it was overnight that we were concerned about so the military was an example military family the kid only gets two hours out family comes in they have a cookout there's 20 people there but they're not all spent I think I thought we had come up with something or talked about something around overnight is the issue yeah we used to the language between sunset and sunrise would have been helpful if I had this version the only one that kept coming out was and I don't know what the two cats is beside it but those are two cars not cats two cars you only can have two cats at the STL all right mayor would you be willing to accept two cars per dwelling two parking spaces two parking spaces I mean that's what we require for someone to build correct right that's international business code technical missus own properties what we require for residential two car spaces we do not we do not require that but existing I don't I don't I don't want front yard getting paved so be careful where we go here we don't require it so how do we require it I mean if they build a house and it's not required it is reported on you can try but most of what we're talking about is already built what is it what are the airbnb regulations why you couldn't get a permit airbnb has their own regulations when it comes to parking don't they or does it break down to her owner did they tell you where to park we circle that and move forward everyone has a pickleball court in the backyard howard okay there's one thing in section 408 I talked to david about this and it's in b oh eight b it's the way it reads now it says talk about section c subsection b yes second offense of each and each offense thereafter five points will be assessed for a second occurrence and each occurrence thereafter of the same citation violation or offense within the last 12 months that's that's not what we need to say in both the long term or the short term and david says had not been enforcement this way so it can be a different offense it they could be targeted once for parking in the front yard and targeted the next time for another violation and that's a targeted we we wouldn't be targeting well I have a feeling all right david resident reporting portal david explained the language that we need I'm thinking we take out the intent of the ordinance is that if they have an offense no matter what it is they're violating any city ordinance that's first offense the next time we go out there for another another violation of whatever city ordinance and it's not necessarily the same thing that's second offense I think that was the intent behind it the way it's worded doesn't necessarily reflect that I think is what councilman correct that word so just so I understand because one of the concerns I have with our long-term rental is is that we we find the owner if there's an incident even if we didn't find or or ticket the person who hadn't and I'm gonna give a party as an example all right and so they have a party the police come they don't ticket anybody the owner gets notified four months later that he has points what I want to understand is is if you got somebody breaking our nor's ordinance or whatever that person should get a ticket I mean they shouldn't not to be allowed if the property has never had anything then we ought to have some warning instead of going from five to ten or whatever it is in the beginning right off the bat because if we don't notify them and we wait four months to notify them how do we solve the problem because that's not I mean there's nothing the landlord can do then I don't think the four months is typical um I mean it just doesn't happen it could but I don't think it's typical um and it's out of discretion of the police officer when he's on site if there's any chargeable tickets he can write or she and I think that they do when they can um I can assure you though when whenever we deal with other issues that are not parties grass and um debris and care of permits type things we do notice the tenant and the owner and we do write summons to the tenants often for things like that so we do hold both accountable whenever we can so that is probably the only exception to the rule um and that's just something we probably need to change our process procedures internally on our policy yes sir because I mean you know the system itself I mean you get tagged quickly in this thing if if an owner of a unit says you're a bad tenant you can't rent I mean it happens pretty quickly in this vacation rental rule I mean we've we've suddenly have revoked anybody's permits for this so generally what happens if you have a couple offenses then the landlord takes action and if they evict those tenants and the points are based on the sentence then they have an opportunity to have those points reversed so we have systems in place for um for to give landlords opportunities to address problem tenants before it becomes a problem so some air bnb leaves their trash can out is that a first offense or is that a warning it's first offense if we I would suggest that we I just I'm trying to levelize the playing field here because we're creating an atmosphere to target individuals so what happens do you cite a homeowner the same way the first time and actually let me back check a little bit when you say roll card the roll card specifically we have a way we handle that internally we actually don't we don't charge a point till we to the third time we've taken the roll card so that was the exception but for probably our parking first time we go there and see it it's it's first offense or overgrown grass it's first offense but the roll card is probably the only thing that we actually we do give everybody three warnings on because we have the little green stickers the third time we put a sticker on her we just saw your trash can and back of the truck and you have to pay solid ways to get it back and we assess the point at that point just which reminds me thank you for for that David just right remind me how do we have anything in here on the parking around handicap so what for handicapped people or in handicapped spots let's say somebody has an ADA accessible house that they rent which is apparently in need some of the military families that I've talked to have talked about that and you know do we allow them to have a temporary set up in the front yard if that's the case you know because we don't really have it built up yeah that's what I'm just asking questions I know that have popped up from folks we do not currently currently something you think about I don't I would suggest that on that we say the second offense and each offense thereafter five points will be assessed for a second occurrence and each occurrence thereafter within the last 12 months whatever defense is wink or blink or I accept that that's an affirmative answer those are the list of questions that I had do you want to go through the ordinance again do you have any particular questions the only question we haven't solved according to the list of questions that I had is parking if I may give everyone a quick example for our current residential permitted neighborhoods if you are a homeowner resident you may receive two homeowner permits and three visitor permits if you are the homeowner non-resident you only get one visitor permit i.e. then the tenant would be permitted and they may have two slightly varies dependent on the residential area but that will give you an example that we may be challenged moving forward about the visitor permits because they're not assigned to a specific license plate versus a block so if I'm visiting at your home at a specific location and you're a residentially permitted area you would give me a visitor permit it's not tied to my license plate when I'm done visiting I would return it to you and you could use it with the next guest so something we may want to consider is that non-resident homeowner who wants to lease their home they would only be entitled to one visitor permit so how would we account for their parking you know if it's that military family they're only going to get one visitor that would be only if it was in a residential neighborhood that has the parking if it isn't permitted yes parking yeah for neighborhoods well I mean you have to have some parameters of it but I don't know that you're going to solve that right now because there's too many differences in different parts of town I just don't know how you tell somebody they can't use a public street to park if other people can use the public street I mean it's a public road so for the residential neighborhoods that's correct but if you're a residentially permitted neighborhood these are the parameters for most of the neighborhoods and I think we were just speaking how we would move forward if you were one of those short-term rentals and you excessively abuse parking how we would communicate with one another and someone potentially could be penalized on how they communicate to that individual leasing short-term lease the parking regulations how many permitted neighborhoods are there that we're talking about or but I mean how do you patrol I mean if a homeowner who has a driveway besides put all five of his cars in the street oh in the street I mean you're not you're not regulating that either so how do you give that house only one point taken this was established prior to my arrival or anybody who audit right to audit those off street properties that have parking versus the properties that have no parking available there would be a difference we've not audited that in a number of years that's a large undertaking to walk each block but we in parking would treat two individuals no differently knowing that you have a driveway or a garage and could park your vehicles there versus someone two doors down with no off-street parking you're eligible for the same permits I don't think we're gonna solve that in the next 10 minutes so what why don't we agree to send this up to the full council four o'clock session and have a public hearing on the fees and potentially first reading on the ordinance and we will bring to you maybe the mayor could help us with some mention of parking that we can put in here I'm still I mean I'll be honest I'm struggling with this whole moratorium and how it would work and to me it seems like a backdoor way to cap because I just don't see the path here the language does not I'd like we got a noodle on this um and you know I'm be honest I'm not interested in put well next Tuesday is not going to be possible because Dr. Bustles is not going to be here for that meeting that's correct right you are oh you're not going now okay yeah I thought you were out of town I know we were shifted stuff around I got some angst with the general assembly I really do well we can't we can't shirk our duty because the general assembly is thinking about doing something well we can also start the process by the core acquiring registration and everything I'm I'm I'm not here yet and I need I need to spend some time with I wish James was still here because I know he was working on it with TK and others around this moratorium who was working on James James is no longer with us didn't I just say that what I just said that I just said James is no long wish he was here yeah he was here because he'd been working on it um I would I would like to get the council to move it up to the next available council meeting for the public hearing on the fees that are included is there are the four of you that want to do that but are you okay with moving it up generalities talking about yeah I'm more in favor of sort of when I say moving it up not looking at the 21st that's what I hear you say no I'm telling I'm saying let's move this to the four o'clock council session so we can have a public hearing on the fees and possibly give it a first reading and other items yeah and and clarify some of these items that we we've got a clean copy back out to you I'm not ready I'm okay the so the legislative stuff is a little bit new to me and going to the legislative briefing at MASC it's clear that there's going to be some friction and I do fear the funding piece and I'd prefer that we would be at a place where this could be passed in a way that is very focused on us wanting to have fair policies for short-term and long-term rentals and our desire to collect accurate data and as it's currently written you know I think we need a little bit more time but it's three to three I will say it is important to make sure that we have been the the next draft well enough ahead of time we can draft this thing girl my question is Councilman Duvall could we do a public hearing and and not do the first reading yeah I'd love to get some public input but because I still have some questions that we talked about additional language and I do think we have there have been a lot of other reasons why we have been strategic in our policymaking because of the state legislature so we can't just say that oh let's ignore that right because there's so many great projects that we were asking for funding for including even the assembly street project that we learned about today where there's 13 million dollars pending and in the grand scheme of things I think we have to keep that in mind because that's very much been a key priority for us as you know place making and beautification and so I think we all agree that we want to get registered we want to have agents correct you want to have a way to to collect to track data I mean I think that's the biggest pieces because at the end of the day I think we're all in agreement how we get there I don't think we're all there yet but having a public hearing and then from there I think I would be in favor of us getting public input if you'd like can we have a public hearing and call that the public hearing on the fees just a public hearing we have to have a draft or an ordinance attached to it so we don't have to have something to present to put on the agenda to have the public hearing on so you want these changes you talked about today to be drafted up and that's the draft that's going out next week we can't just put the fees up there we have to have it in the ordinance we need 15 days Erica these 15 days notice to do the public hearing she said you can't because you got to have 15 days notice so that would not be until the end so with the fees it's required for the 15 days yeah for fees but if you I'm hearing there's some you want other feet back on some of the other things you've talked about today is that correct correct that for me yeah for this issue I don't think two two is I think that's probably about right to be honest for this issue but we should have a we should have an ordinance a draft ordinance but you have to give the public 15 days notice that we're going to talk about raising fees so that will be some time around the end of March or when's our next work session yeah the 28th one to one to five but I mean just right yeah there's a there's a lot of stuff on your agenda that I really need to get in front of you on budgetary items but if you're wanting to wait and meet your incorporate the fees and this version of it then certainly you've got more you're gonna more have more than enough time if you push it to the first meeting in March but if you I don't want to have two public hearings it doesn't matter to me what you want to I just feel like there's a lot of other questions outside of the fees discussion sounds like but if you want to wait I mean we're just giving you options I gave it to councilman DeVall and he is giving it back to me I just said something similar to temporary moratorium to allow city and council that we're creating to establish registration system gather data to determine the impact of strs on housing stock neighborhoods etc city council shall make a final recommendation or changes to such ordinance no later than July 1 2024 my critique of that particular one is that you're you're seeing that the council has got to act before July 1 of 24 and the way it's set up now it the moratorium automatically comes off if unless the council act I got you saying I see the difference all right we'll we'll clean it up get it as as close to what I think that the majority of opinion is here and get it back to you to read before you come to the next meeting and maybe the first meeting in March we can have the public hearing March the Sabbath there's an did you mention okay okay can we advertise without the ordinance we just have to have the ordinance for the agenda Erica what how do you typically advertise it for the 15 days do you just put it out or do you post it in a but you have to publish the the whole ordinance in the paper absolutely whenever you raise fees so Erica how much how much before the 15 days would you have to have it ready to get it posted so that's 20 days before can y'all work on a timeline and kind of let us know or do we do we need to figure it out looks like it'll be the end of March I mean we can work on the timeline I'm just I don't hear consensus on the language so are you all going to get that done in time for us to do while there's no mechanism to do that but we're not we don't have another meeting that we can sit around the table and do it again you're just putting this thing off and the neighborhoods are suffering for it so that's fine I think you also have to make sure that once you put it out there the name the community will not your community response will have been such that everyone understands what you're doing so I'm just I'm just cautioning for things like this in the past and the first time people see it in the newspaper like an advertisement and you haven't sat and discussed it enough what you're trying to do you may not end up accomplishing it anyway so I was just suggesting even if we put it on not that we have a whole lot of extra space and time at any of our upcoming meetings the 21st the 28th did you want to talk about it again so that whatever is advertised which I'm not sure it have to probably be the 21st you're trying to accomplish when we're identifying things before we advertise it when is when is the next opportunity that the council can have a workstation on this well you know mr. ball we we just meet when y'all ask this to meet so if y'all want to come up with a day that's outside of your normal meeting times that's fine too you meet again on February 21st I would like to add to from the public hearing perspective the committee the ad hoc committee has had several sessions and I don't know and I could be totally wrong I mean I think that we've heard from the core people who are really interested in the issue more people may become I don't know if they'll come out but I will say we've had so did we have three three yeah yeah we've had a lot um of public input okay and I think that it'll it may be we kind of see the same group of folks okay well wait you all let us know what you want to do so if you tried to go to a march first public hearing I mean March 7th 20 days so that you'd have to have a final draft okay so final draft that can be advertised after that public hearing or that reading you could make adjustments if necessary correct when would you need the language we'd have to be in the paper before by Friday really realistically because Monday's a holiday so would it be smarter when the next opportunity would be what date better to just make that the date for the public hearing in the first reading and get it done get all this work finished up in the package so it could be sent out to the public do it all I mean do the whole shebang because that way the 15 days would be covered fee structure the ordinance everything that way it gives staff time to take incorporate all the things we talked about today clarifying some of the parking issues more toward make sure the language is correct the software all of that then that gives them the ability to post it and that gives them plenty of time to get it in the paper we get it we could have the public hearing in the first reading on that date instead of trying to do to and rush and something have to be switched and that's a good idea I move that we do that March 21st does that make sense whatever you all want to do will make it happen March the 21st is that right we need to share your language TK and we need to go through it and then L and whoever else we need to figure out what the parameters around the parking is and how you put something that can be universally enforced yeah I don't know I don't know the answer to it I hate not to have something in there and maybe it's depending on where it is maybe there's some where as is and there is is thank y'all for your input this afternoon and I think we have moved the ball a little bit and get this thing going happy valentine's everybody motion to adjourn