 Okay, it is 631 so we're going to get started so the first thing. So I'm going to call the order this meeting to order. So just some meeting logistics. If you're joining us remotely if you would make sure that your name as it appears as your first and last name. So I know how to address you properly. If you have something to say when if you would introduce yourself tells your name and where you live that would be really helpful. We recommend that you keep your comments at two minutes Donna over here is going to help us with timing on that she'll hold up signs to indicate when you're at one minute and then at two minutes. And make sure your comments are relevant to the agenda item that we are on if you have something to say that is not a part of not relevant to an agenda item than that could be during general business and appearances that's time for any, any comments, not related to our agenda to be made. And yeah so make sure that you that I that I'm calling on you before you speak and that's I think that's it. I do know we have one counselor who is joining us remotely Jennifer do you want to introduce yourself. Sure. Jennifer Morton district three. I don't feel well so I'm coming in via the zoom for everybody. Thank you. And I hope you feel better. All right, so the next thing is to review and approve the agenda. So the, I, the thing that we're going to do with that is I would actually like to move up the item about this item 11 the two or three country club road. If we could move that. I think just ahead of the project management approval. So just flip flop the order there I think that would be good. Great. And so all right so now it says anyone have any other information about agenda changes yes. I noticed in the, in the packet that there's a suggestion that we might want to hold off on the item number six C, the appointments to the conservation commission, because we have Phyllis Rubinstein who's on who's a member has been. I'm sorry, can you hold on a second. I'm sorry, there's some talking happening if you could hold off could you say that again Jack. Item 60 the conservation commission, I suggest that we put it off to our next meeting because Phyllis Rubinstein whose term is up has been away. I just tried calling her before our meeting and just got her voicemail. Okay. Without objection, will you, I don't think there's anything urgent on that one so we will. So, will page year on the conservation commission, am I correct. Go ahead page. You are muted though. Thank you. Phyllis is very heavily involved in a project that several of us are doing on the commission, and I'm quite sure that she will want to continue. And frankly we desperately need the three new members. So please don't delay because I'm, I'm, I'm positive that Phyllis will reapply because we've been involved in a project for the last six months and it's ongoing through this fall. So, I'm sure she will not, not, not, not reapply. And I'm surprised she doesn't. Okay, so just on the topic of whether or not we're moving this item. One question that I have about this. This is not one of the committees that has a prescribed number of seats. There are nine. There are nine. Okay. There are nine and we only have six people, six members. Counting Phyllis. Okay. All right, so if it's okay with you all let's keep that item then is that, is that all right, Jack. That's fine. Looking at it I see that there's plenty of room to add Phyllis. Even after even with the other people are okay. Okay, so now we are up to, so with that we'll consider the agenda approved. We're up to general business and appearances. So if you have something to say that is otherwise not on our agenda now is the time. If you had thoughts or comments now is welcome and we'll start with folks who are with us in person. I don't know. Governor street, been a resident for 2530 years. I sent this all to you. The email two months ago, I spoke to Mr Steve ribolini. I've hunted on the property at the Elks for the last 20 years. And again, I'm asking if I can continue to do that because he referred me to you. I'm not sure where people have already set up deer stands because help members have hunted there for a decade. And I just wanted to bring it up that I'd like to know if I'm allowed to hunt. And if it isn't you better get some signs up real quickly because October 1 is the beginning of hunting season. With archery. It's safe, sound less, and helps to mitigate the loss of the plants and such around the building. And that's why we've done that for years. So I just want to let you know that people are already there. So you better make a decision if you're going to allow them or not. Great. Thank you. Other comments from folks who are with us in person. And we will get back to you about that. Do you need a decision from this council or do you. Well, I think that is a policy decision. You're also going to be talking about the uses of that property later this week. And we can certainly add it to the next agenda the 14th of September and make sure it's a clear agenda and we can have some staff work prepared. Okay. All right, so we'll take it up at probably at the next. Next meeting. Great. Thank you. Okay. Okay, as usual, I have to take this thing off the stand. So my name is Aaron Clark. I am a resident Montpelier. So this, I have something that's not related to the city ordinance against prostitution, which I know is later, but this is specifically with the motion that was made by the city council to support consensual prostitution across the state. And I know that last time that there was some discussion, there's like starting a discussion of, Hey, maybe we should reconsider that because we didn't know it sounded like everybody was saying, Oh yeah, I don't even know the differences between the different approaches to decriminalizing prostitution like the Nordic model, the equality model, the Swiss model. It sounded like there was a lot of ignorance out of which that support came for that statewide decriminalization of consensual prostitution. So the first thing I wanted to say in the general public comments was to ask you guys to reconsider that putting a motion to either rescind that until you've had more time to actually hear from people about these different models to educate the different models that are out there, and to support that instead of consensual prostitution it's like out of all these models I just listed it's the most radical, well not the most radical but a second, or maybe third, there's a lot of models. It's a pretty radical measure. So I would just encourage you to do that. That's my, so my ask right now is, would you consider putting a motion to talking about that rescind it until you've talked more about the different models and educate yourself more. So that's my first thing, and I would like to hear an answer that because sometimes I don't get answers for you know that question like last time I asked a question which is the other thing I wanted to ask was. Last time, I asked a question about how, how we are not how we are able to not enforce a state ordinance. The state ordinance being that prostitution is still illegal in the state. And we had someone up here say I sell my body for sex literally confess that right here in front of the whole city council in front of the police chief who's sitting right here. My question was last time, how are we not prosecuting or investigating something like that where some where there's a state ordinance being defied so clearly in front of everybody. So that's my question, I would like an answer to that so there's my two. So the first one, kind of a, not really a question but I guess a motion. The second one is a question. Can I get answers to that right now or when can I get answers to that. Okay, you want to answer the second one. The second one. So crime committed at our meeting just because someone says they do something or have done something doesn't mean they were actually committing your crime so no action could be taken. There may or may not be investigations happening there and it may or may not be happening in my pillar. So because a person said I, you know, a person could say I take drugs. I don't know, but if they don't doing it in a place and we don't have the possession and nothing happened. So, that's the so just a follow question. So if I say, if you if you wouldn't mind, is there anything more. No, that's so I mean he would the inference was someone admitted to a crime here in front of us and the answer is they didn't commit any crime there was no witness there's no complaint and for all I know and I'm not probably to there could be an investigation. But we can't presume that there is or isn't just from what you know on that situation. And on the first question. I just want to follow up question that because that is, if I say I, if I say I murdered someone up here, and we don't have any kind of investigation I mean if I say I have drugs, I'm going to interrupt you. So on to the first question, we, I think we are going to be reconsidering all of the things that we take as a position on for state, like our legislative agenda. So we'll be retaking up all of that when we when we do our legislative agenda which I think is in November. So, yeah. So, we don't really, we don't really do back and forth. Just so you know, so that's kind of hard. Yeah, yeah, I have any kind of talk. We have a lot with that but we can't really afford to do that with so many people that are going to want to say things. I guess I've seen that happen here which is why I thought it was normal. It's not. Yes, right. And so I'm telling you and everyone that we don't really do back and forth starting now never do that again. Yes. Okay, thank you. Okay, thank you. Well, I didn't get an answer really to that question. So that's great. Thank you. So I would like to get an answer. Well, thank you. And that's why I'm putting that out there. So please don't. Yep, great. And you need to sit down. Thank you. Okay. So please keep in mind that you need my permission to say things. So if I'm asking you to stop if you would please stop that would be very helpful. That is the kind of thing that will get like a warning. So just people's just for people's. You know, understanding that there are actually the council has adopted rules of conduct for our meeting when they are posted on that, that they are I know they're small letters but anyone wants to read what the rules of conduct of the meeting are there right there for all to see. Okay. All right. So any other folks with us in person wish to make a comment. Yes. Hi, my name is Thomas Fallon I've been living on Berry Street for like three years now. Gosh, after what just happened with the back and forth thing is going to be really hard. But I think you'll understand that after last month's meeting it was kind of hard to stick around for four hours right. But an issue that I really cared about came on around the four hour mark. And I feel that I I've been fielding opinions from people all over town and talking to a lot of people. But really, I don't know how to do it besides ask certain questions to you guys about this decision and just sort of increase your knowledge and increase the public knowledge at the same time. So this has to do with the item discussing the property under 12 to 16 Main Street, which is this green lot at the end of town that everybody sees it's sort of off. It's right next to Shaw's. There's a garden box there. And there's a lot of different ideas and different levels of knowledge about what's going on there within the community I found that out through talking to people. And so I guess the issue I had was that I was uneducated so I looked up the master plan and everything. And I was sort of angry because it was zoned I guess as infill opportunities and other places in the master plan where you're considering a public surveys they're constantly going back to walkable spaces, green spaces, and safety measures and I think safety is a huge part of the So I'm going to talk about that intersection there and doing any building on that lot as something that's quite dangerous at such a busy intersection where visibility is a priority for both pedestrians and drivers. So I know you guys are installing a light there but I guess my main qualm with this is, I want you guys to be honest with us if you guys if any of you guys are involved with the, what you call stakeholders and the master plan that I might have missed that but if it was discussed for the decision about this space which is part of the study of the master plan. I think you guys should be open with us and say I am a stakeholder I do business with the stakeholders and be willing to say whether or not you will recuse yourself from the decision or not. So I just advocate for people who think I got a lot of people who don't know what's going on the decisions until it's reported in the news. So I had to tell them about it and and so I'm saying that this issue is not getting as much public comment as it is. And we all have different ideas about affordable housing, but if just taking that green space away from people overnight is sort of the solution, then I really have to ask you guys to be more open and honest about your positions financially with the project, and how you're going to integrate the green space infrastructure that you talked about in the master plan, and we would all appreciate and I'm finishing up right here we'd all just appreciate you guys, taking more stewardship of the green spaces especially in that area so that people who can't don't have access to or don't aren't able bodied or sick or elderly have more access to green space within the city I think that's a big factor too so I've been thinking about this all month I appreciate your patients and forbearance with this issue. But it really matters to me and I feel like the public is unaware of what's being decided on as it's being talked about on the agenda as a pertain to that issue so I don't want to stick around all meeting but if you could tell me you schedule something or address it I'm more than willing to Anyway, I'll get off the mic. Thank you. Thank you. You raise a good point. It was really late when we made that decision. I mean, you raise another point about just how people are informed about what we are talking about in general that feels like a separate topic necessarily that specifically what's happening with 1216 main, and we are always looking for ways to be better about that. So let's have a conversation at some point about that to, you know, if you have ideas as to how we can be better, getting the word out. I posted on front porch forum and we, and on Facebook and anybody we're trying to to get out as many ways as we can but that doesn't mean that it can't be better so totally open to that so that's one thing as to 12 to 16 main. I could take it up again but it is also a decision that we've that we've made you had some thoughts about our financial positions like if basically if there was a conflict of interest, right. And I will. So I'll just say I don't know of any of us that have conflicts of interest and just want to check in with folks again as anyone have a financial interest in the awarding of that. It's worth pointing out that the city does have an ethics policy that includes a requirement that any member of the council disclose any potential conflict of interest on any item that we're discussing, and to refuse him or herself if if a conflict of interest exists. And I would say that that's a policy that each one of us takes very seriously because we're not here to enrich ourselves we're here to serve the people of Montpelier. Yeah, and that's available on the city's web page. Any other thoughts on. I mean, so I guess I would say if, if folks are done is you have something. Yeah, go ahead. Just that that study was done I believe in 2019, which designated that space to be a building. So our decision recently just confirmed to stay with that. And that was a master plan study that had public hearing so Yeah, I just wanted to remind people that's also posted on the website. Okay, so I would also say that if folks are interested in having more input on that. Come to come to public, you know, this time this would be a great opportunity. Yeah, so I guess I'll leave it there for now but thank you. Okay, anyone else with us in person wish to make a comment on something that is not on our agenda. Anyone with us virtually wish to make a comment you can use the raise hand icon under reactions on zoom or you can just unmute yourself and say hello, or you can turn your camera on and wave. All right, so I'm not seeing anyone. So we are going to keep going then. All right, so we're going to move on to the consent agenda. And is there a motion regarding the consent agenda. The consent agenda. Okay, motion a second further discussion. Okay, not seeing any Jennifer. Oh, yes. You don't have anything. Okay. That's what I was just raising my hand to make sure I got unmuted. That's all. Okay. Okay, great. Okay. All right, so with any further discussion. Okay, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Okay, thank you and opposed. Okay, so the consent agenda passes. And we're on to committee appointments. So we have three committees to make appointments to the complete streets group public arts commission and conservation commission. So I would just check in to see if any of the folks for all three of these commission or all three of these groups are here. And if you are here if you would introduce yourself and tell us about your interest in this in serving on these committees that would be helpful. Just to check Caitlin Belcher Ron Merkin or Tori Rodin, are you here? Or online. I haven't actually gotten to check online to see if any of these folks are here. Okay, I am not seeing them. Okay. Thomas mo Holland. Are you here. Okay. Jennifer Lee Brown, Paul Mara, Marangelo and Randy hacker. Are you here? My goodness. Okay. All right. Well, so with that. Council, what would you like to do. Is there a motion. Yes, go ahead, Jack. I don't know what I was thinking. I don't really, I think the, the policy question that is before us is raised by the applications to the complete streets committee, because it's a question of whether we want to expand the membership. That's not really a question of the individual applicants. And so I'm, I'm thinking that we can have that in public session, but if someone disagrees, I'm happy with that too. It's fine with me. Yeah. Okay, seeing a lot of nods. That's good. Because otherwise there is either enough for more vacancies than we have people applying. Right. So that's, that's good. So, for the complete streets group. I don't think there's any reason why we couldn't make it bigger. Yes, Donna, you said they wanted it seven to nine people and I think you have nine. It's always just a matter of one form. And that that committee is very generous like most of my payers committees of welcoming people to come and participate. It's very much a very common discussion and isn't a matter if you're a member or not. So I really feel it's better if we stay with the nine and just invite people to come and participate than to increase it and then have quorum problems. So you'd rather go with the with one rather than appointing all three. If we end up having to talk about who then I might recommend that we go into executive session for that part of it. There are no vacancies right now. So these are three people seeking to. Oh, there's no. Oh, I thought there was one. Okay. The sheet says one. She says one, but then the action. So then above it says there's a question about. Sorry, voices what, because there's no clear date of appointment. Oh, no, maybe that's on the arts committee. I'm sorry. Sorry, that's on the arts committee, not the streets. Sorry, so under the action. Yeah, so I don't know, Cameron, do you know anything about this? It says that there are no vacancies and then down below it. One vacant despite there being no vacancies. Oh, that's interesting. Okay. Yeah, because there's nine people in three alternates there. So there. So that's just a mistake. Jack. I agree with Donna, especially. I think it's more than a question of getting a four quorum. It's also that how, how big and unwieldy do we want to make any, any given committee and the bigger it is, the more challenging it can sometimes be to have have an orderly discussion, particularly if the alternates come to the meetings and I don't know if they do. But so I agree that not adding members unless, unless the chair and co-chairs of the meeting of the committee were coming here saying, yeah, they want more people. I might think differently, but otherwise I'd be inclined to say we're not making any new appointments. Lauren. Oh, and then Donna. I agree with that. I mean, it also looks like in December, there's a spot coming up and then in six months, February, there's another five or so from doing math quickly. So it looks like there's opportunity for interested folks. It's great that people are eager to get on this but maybe people who are really interested could participate for now and then apply once spots start opening up, which is not too far in the future. Okay, Donna. And this group does have a lot of community projects so they love to have volunteers participate. But the other thing I noticed is, I thought we were trying to get the committees to have a more consistent date of appointment, and this one is sort of all over the map. So, when we get into the December appointments, maybe we could try to tidy that up. Does that make sense, Phil? Thank you. So do we have a motion about appointments? Make no appointments to the police streets committee. So I'm going to interrupt there because like an emotion to take no action is like, not really a thing. So, but we have these other two committees right there's the public arts commission and the conservation commission so to be open to changing your motion to be about those. So I need to point all the applicants to the other two committees. Second. Okay, further discussion. Okay, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. And opposed. Aye. Oh, thank you. All right, thank you and grateful to everyone who stepped forward to participate in those committees and to those folks who are interested in the complete streets committee. I would recommend that you still go to that committee because it is open to the public and you would still certainly be welcome to be there and to participate. Okay, so the next thing up is the second public reading of the prostitution ordinance update. And so for that I'm going to open the public hearing about that. So again, if you have thoughts or comments try to keep them to two minutes and Donna will help us with that if you'd say your name and again where you where you live. That is helpful for our, our minutes. And I think that's it. Do you do anything you want to say before just to remind people as we get ready to make comment that the item is simply repealing the existing ordinance that's on the city's books. It doesn't go any further than that. So any that's the conversation is about that issue and And that's that so it doesn't talk about state statute it doesn't talk about other policy or anything else it's it's simply discussing whether this ordinance as written should be repealed. And so we'd ask folks to keep their comments germane to that. Okay, any other thoughts. Okay, so we'll start with folks who are with us in person. Feel free to come on up and you can form a queue line and we'll start with again folks who are with us in person then we'll go to folks with us virtually. Okay, go ahead. I'm Diana Tierney and I live on Pinewood Road. I've lived here since 85 friend asked me to write my ideas about this. So it's very short paragraph. When an ordinance is taken off the books law enforcement has less opportunity and indeed less authority to inspect that area of activity. So I would like to tackle trafficking trafficking and abuse activity. If there is an opportunity to interact with prostitutes who are at the center of the abuse in that trade are unfortunately the prostitution itself is often the only identifiable sign in the network of other crimes that accompany it. This should not become another no go zone for law enforcement. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Hi again I'll spare you the handouts this time. What is your name and your way I'm Henry Jean pinks and the co founder and co director of an anti trafficking organization with emphasis on safer conditions for consensual sex workers in Vermont, called to the ishtar collective. I'm just here to make a couple remarks about the importance and the weight of language in the way that it endorses stigma and violence. Again, we are not here as you all generously reminded us to discuss the decriminalization of sex work in the state of Vermont. We're instead here to discuss archaic language that is has been used institutionally to prohibit acts of prostitution within the city. The problem with the, the ordinance is language is that it's sexist and dehumanizing bottom line. It's dated to the point where the paragraph speaking on houses of ill fame suggests that only men can own homes. The years 2022 Roe v Wade has been overturned and the fallout of that has already become dangerous. There is already a market for unapproved abortion abortion that is affecting people's health the 10 year old was denied access to safety termination after pregnancy that was a result of sexual assault. And this is all very much a matter of language and how we misuse our individual moral compasses. What we're down to is that the members of your community who engage in consensual sex work are asking to be recognized as human beings. We are not trying to evangelize our industry. We're not trying to bring people's daughters and sons and because sex work is across the gender spectrum. It's not just ladies. We're not trying to drag anybody into the dark underbelly of humanity and exploit them we're laborers like everybody else we're neighbors we're farmers parents we're people who walk in faith. We're family members, and we're friends. At the end of the day, we're asking you to strike down this language out of honor and respect for our humanity. We're not common prostitutes as we were told we were in Burlington. We're not simply women of the night. We're people with dreams and we want to seat at the table. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening council members. Thank you so much for this opportunity. My name is Savannah sly. I'm a sex worker. I've been a sex worker said I was 18. I grew up in Vermont around the White River Junction area I have lived and worked in Vermont for a long time I have worked in Montpelier. I don't flaunt it. But that has been something I have done and I'm here in support of repealing this language. The police review committee recommended it I'm in support of that recommendation. This language as Henry said is archaic and sexist but also I really want to point out the housing implication. This language would deny housing potentially to people who have been involved in the sex trade and if we can't differentiate at this point yet between victims of exploitation and sex workers and also that can be a continuum for many of us and it has been for me in my life. This is a result in people losing housing or being denied housing this is a very current reality this might be old language, but I'm the former board president of the sex workers outreach project USA and I have a national scope on what's happening with people in the sex trade and frequently sex workers and their families are denied housing or evicted because of their engagement in prostitution but also legal forms of sex work such as stripping or camming. And during the pandemic we saw a huge increase of people turning to online forms of sex work to make ends meet in May of 2020 alone there were between 5 and 7,000 people per day, signing up to a platform called only fans to sell erotic and sexual content online so there are tons of people engaging in the sex trade to make ends meet and those people are vulnerable to different forms of discrimination, and I'm deeply concerned about the housing clause and I really encourage you to repeal this language. Thank you very much. Thank you. Murray smart nose, goodness tree. I agree with her. It should be the language is this incorrect period. First of all, it's not just women. Men, transsexual children, non binary. I just got a few questions. Do they pay state and federal taxes like I have to, if they're running a business. Do they register with the Secretary of State. Do they have liability insurance, do they pay workman's caught. Do they have health insurance. Isn't it a considered a kind of a health risk right now to encourage this. Thank you pox coming. We've got the Omicron variants. Just think of what the language says, I agree. It's wrong. It shouldn't be just a female prostitute. It encompasses the whole population. And we're just opening the Pandora's box. If they want to register be a business, advertise, become a taxpayer. That's fine. But let me share what I had for an instance when I was in Las Vegas, when I'm walking with my wife of 35 years. And a person walked up to us handed me the leaflet wanted to know if I'd had a blow job lately. And then looked at my wife and said, Have you gotten laid good lately. I was flabbergasted. I don't know if I have the opportunity to have to handle that, or receive that in Vermont. I do have a question though. May I bring the woman that got arrested for prostitution and Brattle Burl up here and rent my house to her so I can move to New Hampshire. Because that's my goal. I rent my house in a residential area, legally, and run a business. That's fine. I'll add her to your tax coffers, but that doesn't happen. If it does, I'm all for it, but they better have health insurance and they better have a lot of protection for the community. I have nothing against it. They can all go to heaven. I have no problem with that we all can. But this is just not the way to run a business. And that's what it is. Because if they are using this to put supplement their income, more power to them. We know that people make money out of the table left and right. But is it a health risk. Is it a moral risk for a minor. Jesus, I might just well put up a job fair sign for her to put to meet in the parking lot of Montpellier High School. When it becomes legal. I can do that. Washington World wouldn't let me. I brought it to them as a spoof. They were shocked. But legally, I contacted the ACLU. I've got a right to sue them. Thank you. Anyone else who's here with us in person. Hi, I'm can everyone hear me. All right. Thank you. I'm Joseph page. I'm a resident of Montpellier and I just want to point out that there are generations that are coming after us that are being very negatively and disgustingly impacted in schools not only in Vermont but across the country. And I really think that we need to consider the impact of words. The minds of not only children but high schoolers, young college students, they're still developing they're still learning about how the world works and I'm sure that many of them are thinking, What do I want my future to look like? So we really need to consider the future generations and the future of this state. What are we opening the door to there's a lot that we need to consider. Thank you. Thank you. My name is Mariah Infinger and I am a New Hampshire resident. I'm a consensual sex worker who has also worked in Vermont. I am more than a sex worker. I'm a mother and advocate and a human being. I wish to be seen as such. Please change this language and recognize us as the human beings that we are. Thank you. Good evening. Thank you for not sure that's on. Okay. My name is Tom Kelly. I'm from Berry City and thank you for opening up to folks who aren't, you know, from Montpellier. I just want to take kind of a broader view of somebody who hasn't been following this debate so closely. And some of the things that were said at the first part of the meeting I wasn't aware of but I think we need to set the bar higher for us all knowing that we will fall short from time to time. I think this move without putting it in context if it's just as the mayor said it's just a matter of eliminating it. If the mayor sends a message. I think the elimination of the ordinance without explanation contributes to the debasement of our society adds to the court coarseness of our culture I think I would agree I'm from there with statutes and ordinances. I worked in the field of looking at statutes for 35 years. And I think the the language definitely needs to be modified. There's no question it's archaic. Just, I'm concerned as a Vermonter. And this is our capital city. It's an extraordinary step it seems to me to eliminate such an ordinance without putting it in context. As a prosecutor for 35 years. I don't recall a single prosecution for this for the crime of prostitution. Law is a teacher and it sends a message when you take action such as this. So amend the ordinance don't eliminate it. You send a message to the community and to the whole state by eliminating the prohibition without explanation. Prostitution as generally understood is demeaning exploitative dangerous immoral and just plain wrong. The sale of the human body demeans both the seller and the buyer. So I'm asking you to reconsider this action. Again, let's appeal to our better angels for goodness, beauty and truth. Um, don't condone or endorse prostitution. You could take that step eliminate the length of the ordinance. But say you don't condone or endorse prostitution and we rely on the statute to be enforced. Thank you. Thank you. Connor, go ahead. Sorry, Tom. Does a very city currently have an ordinance like this on the boat? I don't know. Okay. Good question, but I don't think that's really relevant to why I'm here. They don't. Yeah, I don't know. Thank you. But there is a statue. Hi, my name's Emma. I live in South Royalton Vermont. I was born in Vermont and I am a sex worker here. And I would encourage you to not only remove this as we've heard before, like just horrific language from your city ordinance, but also to consider the fact that even replacing it with something that does echo the state law would still be sending a message to. Everyone in Vermont and nationwide saying that Montpelier specifically. Montpelier residents have a particular issue with sex workers. It would be like going out of your way to be a little bit spiteful considering the fact that. Yeah, after we struck down the one in Burlington successively there's, I think, only when new ski I might be wrong about does anyone have any better information on that but I think only when new ski has a city ordinance in place regarding prostitution. Nowhere else, no other town in Vermont has that. And I feel like that kind of speaks for itself. So, thanks. Thank you. As you're coming up I actually have to step out really quick so I'm going to turn things over to Jack. I'll be right back. I'm Thomas Graham, still registered to vote in Montpelier. And I got a little statement. So, what percentage of residents in this town have ever in their lives watch porn 70 seems low to me. All of us who ever ever done that includes myself all myself were consumers of sex work. So, does that mean that we condone sex work when it's happening somewhere else. I've consumed porn was filmed in this town. That's sex work. So, are we going to arrest most of the people who live in this town. Because I don't think we can have a viable town for arresting everybody. The proponents of this criminalization really believe this lie that all sex work is evil slavery and inherently harmful to children. Then why are all these consumers allowed to walk free in this town. And if we actually care about opposing slavery and especially slavery that targets children. Why is city council legally allowing shots to sell Nestle chocolate because it's 100% certain that Nestle chocolate involves brutal child slavery in its supply chain. Why is that legal. Maybe it's because these laws these criminalizing laws against sex work are not really about protecting people from abuse they're about sexual bigotry. They're about people who can't handle other people having sex. That's all it is. And as a queer person. I know how dangerous that bigotry is. Alex Lover friend feather was murdered this year. And, you know, she was a queer person a trans person who was a founding member of the star collective. And, you know, her dying that way really shows that if you give these sexual bigots an inch, they will take more than a mile. So please repeal this language because we cannot be capitulating to these kinds of forces in a modern progressive society. Thank you. Hi, Michael shively I'm a Massachusetts resident and I've been coming up here for these meetings because what happens here is going to affect the whole region. In past meetings, we've talked about this, the language and if the only issue on the table is do we get rid of this language yes or no then sure get rid of it. The language is unacceptable the way it is. The issue has always been raised that should it be replaced with something else that's a prohibition allows you to regulate it or contain the industry, but it is not as offensive. And in those discussions, most of you spoke out in favor of decriminalization and the reason you don't want to put new language in there that is also a prohibition is because you support decriminalization, or most are undecided. Now, I can show you mountains of evidence that refutes the very small sliver of only supportive evidence that ended up in that police reform report. But you know, no one wants to hear a war of dueling research pinheads right. What we can do though is just look you know we got a lot of people who say they're sex workers and it works for them and they're happy with it and that's great we've got a lot of other people who say it was horrible for them and they're opposed to it and they they're trafficking victims. We can just cut right to the, the chase essentially which is what happens when prostitution ordinances and prostitution laws are not enforced because it's been done. And people can assert all kinds of things that they think would happen, but we can actually see what has happened. So, Baltimore about two and a half years ago they said we're going to stop prosecuting prostitution, and we're going to stop enforcing ordinances which is exactly what people have been saying they want. Shouldn't things have just been awesome, you know shouldn't have people have been not stigmatized and all of these good things are supposedly going to happen. It's a disaster and the prosecutor who adopted that policy and said she would no longer prosecute prostitution or enforce any ordinances just got voted out of office. San Francisco about the same timeframe exactly the same situation except didn't get voted out of office the prosecutor that adopted those policies that ended up working out disasterously and the crime rate skyrocketed. They just got recalled out of office similar things are going on Philadelphia and in Los Angeles you can look at other countries you can look around the suburbs of London they have tolerance zones again this is what they're saying they want which is don't prosecute us just leave us alone. Every single time it's the same story. crime goes through the roof, the problem gets out of control the market expands and trafficking increases. There were two studies where international studies said what happens under different legal frameworks. And what they found is that out of one study of 150 countries one study of 30 countries where prostitution is decriminalized or legalized, you get more sex trafficking, not less. New Zealand has had decriminalized prostitution for 20 years, and the argument is so many people are certain that, well it'll free police up to focus on the serious problem sex trafficking if they aren't harassing sex workers. Well, guess how many adult victims of sex trafficking have been investigated or I even identified by police in 20 years. Zero, not one in New Zealand, since that policy took place. It undermines police ability to investigate human trafficking when you have decriminalized and tolerated prostitution. Thank you. Thank you. Hello. My name is Eva Ambrose and I'm a New Hampshire resident and a consensual sex worker. The current language is sexist archaic and AIDS and housing discrimination. We are in the midst of a housing crisis and people don't need extra barriers and trying to keep a roof over their heads. I came here to say that I trust the experiences of the sex workers and Montpelier and support the recommendations regarding the prostitution ordinance. Thank you. Hi, my name is Kathy Tarrant and I live in Waterbury, which is right next door. I'm a mother and a professional musician. So I chose an alternative lifestyle in a way as a musician. And I have done it responsibly all of these years and I don't think it's hanging out everywhere. Speaking. I think this whole thing was like pushing sex, sex, everything sex in society right now is. It's belittling it. It's a beautiful thing consensually. It shouldn't have to involve an exchange, a monetary exchange. That's your choice. That's fine, but I don't want it next door to me. I don't want to look outside of my apartment and somebody's turning a trick in their car. I have children. It gets legalized. Then it's industrialized. Then it's proliferation and normalization. It's a beautiful thing that's being turned on its head. And it's ugly, unless it's kept in its own place. That's your consensual thing. I don't want to hear about it all the time. And I don't think a lot of Americans do. Thank you. If I may, we don't get a lot of folks with signs. This is kind of a new thing. Do you have signs if you would keep them at eye level or below so that you're not blocking people behind you? Does that make sense? Okay, thank you. I always wish you had a podium here because I always feel like I have too much stuff. My name is Maggie. I'm the Vermont chair for New Englanders against sexual exploitation and I'm very concerned about what's happening here. I'm as concerned as I was when it was happening in Burlington. I want to talk a little bit about ordinances. They're put in place by municipalities to handle things that come up in their own unique areas. I think it's really irresponsible to just delete what you're talking about deleting. I just want to tell you that I work with an organization that in Massachusetts and the report from her tells me that most trafficking and prostituted people that are harmed in Vermont, the majority that she sees because they're treated out of state because we don't have resources to treat them are from Montpelier and Burlington and so. So you need to know that the harm is coming from your communities. This ordinance would be in place and I agree rephrase it, restate it, but keep it in place because these women that are brutalized on a regular basis coming from your community. You know, for everyone sitting here, there are nine or 10 that are victimized by trafficking and forced prostitution. So I really want you to hear that that's really important. I wanted to speak to this gentleman, his comment at the last meeting that I was at he said, oh, you know, removing this will make it safer for women who are harmed. Well, you know what, I wish you were more fully informed again because we passed a law through legislation that's H 18 and in that legislation, which was child exploitation bill, they actually included apart from the prostitution immunity aspect of H 568 and then H 268 that incorporated the immunity aspect for people who are witness to or victim of a crime while they're in the act of prostitution. So those women have protection, if they are being harmed and anyone listening if you are being harmed out there, you have protection you can come forward. I have a copy of that for you. And then finally, I wanted to talk about what's happening in Vermont because maybe you don't know, I've been researching this for three years, I've been doing intense study for three years. And in the last few months I just started pulling history from Vermont, trafficking and prostitution forced prostitution for everyone, there are nine that are trapped in it and have no way out. And that's why they call it the choice of the choiceless. So I'm just going to go through a list and I'm going to leave these they have little mini scripts but you can look up the articles because I left the titles for you. In Brattleboro just a few weeks ago. Human trafficking investigation results and rate of local massage parlor. At the same time, another article police arrest alleged madam in Vermont spa prostitution probe. Those are battleboro then Bennington may of 2013 June of 2013 January of 2014 July 29 of 2021 in Burlington, more cases about forced prostitution harm to women and sex work. June 2013 August 2016 January 2019 may 2019 in Colchester July 2021 in Essex, June 2013 and high gate may 2015 and Heinsberg, August 2016 and Hyde Park may 2015 in Ludlow may 2015 and Morrisville August 2016. I'm sorry and playing I'll just do this last one playing field. 2018 and I have two more pages of it. This is victimization harm of women men and children. This is on your watch. This is a big responsible. I'm going to take the clips up these and bring them back. Thank you. Anyone else who's with us in person. Okay, again. So, I just want to start by saying just some of the things that have heard from people on the other side. Just want to kind of address that it seems like there's this idea that bigotry and hatred on the side of people who want to see this criminalized. I don't see that at all with the people that I talked to myself. In fact, it's because I see the human dignity the value of human lives and dignity of human lives human bodies that I think it is such an affront to people to give their bodies and sell it. And so it's actually for love of humanity that personally I do this and the people I talked to do it and and I know you guys don't believe this but even love for you guys to see you guys experience a wholesome life. I don't believe it but that's that's just reality that's what is in our heart. Now, the last thing I'll say is just kind of pointing out what I have seen in this community people that I have talked to, you know, not a huge sampling but you know the dozens of people that I've talked to personally. I've never met anybody just living here, who has said, Oh, that's a great idea. I've never heard anybody say that. Maybe some versions other models maybe that but never consensual prostitution. In fact, I know a couple of family that just moved in here as our neighbors and they had been playing they had a three year plan to move here to Montpelier and they've been planning for years I said this was our dream place. It reminds us of place we used to live we love it. And, and when we got into this conversation they said that that's coming here. I don't know if we want to raise our kid here. I don't know if we want to actually have a family like that kind of feels like it's about to ruin our plans. And it was just shocking to them that we were actually considering doing this here. And I think that there's a lot of people that there is a lot of people that I've talked to who feel the same way. So that this, I think that this is going to be seen as a sex industry a sex tourism destination spot. That's that's clearly what's going to happen not not specifically as a result of the state of the city ordinance being removed, but what this will lead to is signaling to the rest of the state that we want these other bills that have been attempted to pass the last two legislative sessions, two bills that were tempted to pass to bring about the criminalization of prostitution, and we're signaling and saying, yeah we want we want to bring that let's do that. And so it will definitely happen I mean Vermont's a beautiful place. You know why not go there and, you know, have a little fun while you're here right. So that's, that's what's going to happen so people aren't happy about that. I hope you'll consider that. Thank you. Anyone else who's with us in person wish to make a comment. Okay, I'm Thomas I was up here before I don't mean to step on anybody's toes here everybody here is really intensely for against the issue and I think reading between the lines we can see that if people are justifying their choice of career to say I needed I think that's a huge thing to say well where is that in my pillar. I benefited from shelters in various states including Vermont. Middle Bear is a particular place where it allowed me to rehabilitate my life and I was able to choose to be employed rather than do it in a state of living out of my car and this that and the other so I think that points to a huge issue here that people feel like they can't do anything else besides highly legal or risky acts to survive I think that speaks to the lack of resources within the city I'm sorry but we don't have a devoted home the shelter it's open during the winter you have whether or not you give police the permission or the instructions and how to enforce an ordinance. How do people on the street go and how do they make money at night during the summer, when there's nothing open nobody around they're just trying to find a hiding place place to sleep. You by not seeing the various things that this issue involves and making it just about an ordinance you're putting on the police's shoulders. And I as I understand as have been told they their their hands are tied legally and to do certain things to do other things so it's really important actually what you guys decide the police should or shouldn't do about people that they see vulnerable people especially involved in this sort of activity. So that's really what I have to say, but for me, I have to say, yeah, these are my peers here we have all sort of had to consider extremely scary means just to survive. And I'm saying my experience in middle bear allowed me to get out of that mindset and get out of that lifestyle. But here, I mean it's a front page issue when the city next. There's a homeless shelter. That tells you a lot that the people actually care. Okay, and we need to stop dancing around it. That's what to say. Thank you. Anyone else with us in person. I'm super nervous I'm going to read off my phone and I might mess up, whatever. Yes, my name is Ted. I'm from Randolph Vermont I recently moved to central Vermont. So, I have a sign back there that says someone I love is a sex worker and in fact it's not just one person it's many people. We are talking about the dangerous and like difficult situations that workers can face, but no one has talked about sex workers who were doing this contentually, who are brought out of difficult or dangerous situations through their work. I have a lot of friends who paid for life saving transitions, who got out of abusive situations with partners through their sex work friends who were disabled. It was the only line of work that they could do in order to survive. As they waited for disability as they tried to find work that they could actually handle. And that was the only thing that gave them those accessible options. And I want those folks to be spoken with dignity, and I want them to be respected. And that's what this is all about. Anyway, that's it. Thank you. Anyone else who's with us in person. I'm a senior from Randolph, and I didn't really plan on saying what I'm going to say here shortly, but it fits with the last few people that have said things. I've done things with the schools broadly, I've been 40 years in the classroom and various other capacities. I've seen children that are in our sex traffic. And my heart really, really cries for them. And things that are you're considering, please consider what the impact is going to be on our children. It is very important. But I also have done things for the past year and a half with the homeless community I built over 10 units, where they're a simple small little space, but it gives them a place that they can lock and call their own, and have a place to be that could be heated for the next month. I mean, that's the kind of thing that I was doing for the past year and a half. And it fits in with what some of the homeless considerations that have just been mentioned. So I, what our state has done putting people up in hotels, if we'd taken that money bought a place that could be an encampment put some of these units together, we'd have answered the problem. Instead of having something that we repeatedly have to come back with and say what are we going to do. So I want to encourage you, both in your consideration of this to also consider a consider the homeless concerns, Simon Dennis down in state, white river junction is somebody who has a ton of experience building these units very cheaply affordably, and fits with the plumbing kinds of considerations and so on. And I encourage you to consider it as well. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else. Okay. I've been in this field. In Vermont for eight years, family here. And I was here for the first meeting and our police chief gave an excellent presentation to you. Excellent. And I was floored that you didn't agree with him. Our police chief, please stand with him on that. That's law and order of our community. And what he said was, keep something in place to keep prostitution illegal. I have grandchildren here, you have sons daughters grandkids I'm sure. And the impact on them just to hear your, your decision that would go along with this would be enough to further their them from a good life. They need to hear you take a stand on truth. What's right and what's wrong. And so please go with our police chief. The committee person that spoke seemed to be against him. I don't know who chose the committee who appointed the committee. If that was your responsibility or someone else I don't know but people don't agree with them with a committee we agree with the police chief don't hinder him don't hamstring him, give him all the power he needs, we need law and order in Montpelier and in Vermont to have a thriving society. Society our society will crumble it's going down the tubes now. And so we really need to stand behind our policemen. The chief was dead on right he give such a good presentation on all the negative effects that would happen. And I'm just I was stunned that you didn't agree with him wholeheartedly and go with him. So I would beg you and implore you to not to hamstring him, and what his efforts are here and keep law and order here. And this is a society that desperately a societal crumble without and this on the outset it seems like oh just go ahead but no it brings in as we've heard many testimonies as the police she brought in the sex trafficking the drugs and all the syndicated crime. So please take a stand for the people of Vermont who families who want to stay here. They really want to stay they don't want to just leave because Vermont's going down the tubes. We want to stay here and have a thriving community. Thank you for your time. Anyone else with us in person, which to make a comment. Okay not seeing anyone. I don't want to cut anybody off but checking. Okay. We'll go to folks who are with us digitally so you're I'm going to call on you in the order that you appear on my screen anyway. So we'll start with Abbie German and then go to meet the Choudhury, and then Dr Stephanie Powell, go ahead. My name is Abbie German. I lived in Montpelier for 20 years and was the main author of this section of the police review committee report. During this conversation we must be careful to make the distinction between consensual adult sex work and the horrific crime of human trafficking. I'd like to define the two so that the distinction is abundantly clear before we proceed any further. Sex work is defined as the consensual transaction of erotic labor between adults. Sex work can take the form of full service performing webcam shows stripping or lap dancing performance and pornography escorting phone or internet sex or any other exchange of consensual sexual services for financial or material gain. Sex work should not be confused with sex trafficking when a person takes part in the sale of sex through threat, abduction or other means of coercion. All commercial sexual activity with a minor, even without force fraud or coercion is also considered trafficking. If those engaging in public comment tonight can adhere to these definitions, it would vastly help the conversation. So I think we can all agree that the current city ordinance regarding prostitution is sexist and created and discriminatory towards sex workers. The city and police department have proposed adopting the state ordinance, which is not only discriminatory towards sex workers, but from further criminalizes the act of sex work, safe housing for sex workers, and even transportation of sex workers. We need to repeal the current ordinance, we do not need to replace it with a further criminalizing ordinance. The repeal of the current ordinance ordinance is largely a symbolic gesture. It will not legalize prostitution. It will not change any of the state laws that outlaw sex work or human trafficking. In fact, Montpelier is one of the only cities in the state that has such an ordinance and in striking it, we will join the rest of the state in condemning violent sexist and antiquated language towards workers. This is the bare minimum that we can do to protect the sex workers in our community. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Meet the true jury. I'm sorry if I have mispronounced your name problem. Hi, everyone. My name is Mitha Chowdhury, and I would like everyone to carefully consider this ordinance update on the program coordinator for the empower center, which is a comprehensive health center that provides services to survivors of trafficking and people with experiences in the sex trade. We operate using this multidisciplinary model where experts representing a wide range of disciplines collaborate to enhance services and reduce barriers to services for our clients. And the empower center came about and was inspired by the equality model, which is a model that was pioneered in Sweden. So all of the policy positions that we support at the empower center. It's directly informed by the work that we do with us with survivors. So we understand and believe that those who have been commercially sexually exploited should never be criminalized for their exploitation. We also have trauma informed services as well as criminal record relief. And very quickly because I know we're not talking about the equality model but for those that don't know. This is also known as the Nordic model and it holistically addresses prostitution, whilst holding people. So it's a five pronged legal approach that decriminalizes people who are brought and sold in the sex trade, which is people in prostitution. It provides comprehensive trauma informed medical legal and social services to people in prostitution. So this is what the empower center successfully doing right now. It reduces the demand for prostitution by penalizing sex buyers, and this shrinks the sex trade and it prevents more vulnerable people from being pulled into harm's way. And it criminalizes pimping, trafficking, owning brothels, illicit massage parlors. And then very lastly it commits to an extensive community education campaign to raise awareness about the lifelong physical harm and psychological trauma that people in prostitution do experience at the hands of sex buyers and exploiters. So, although my work is based in New York City as an advocate for survivors nationally I feel strongly that any state especially one that's easily accessible to New York and other big cities. That's thinking about going in the direction of full decriminalization at a state level. They should be aware of those consequences. And some of those consequences are sex buyers will flock from neighboring states and sex trafficking will meet the demand. So full decrim effort. They ignore that most people, most people are pushed into prostitution by sex traffickers and sex buys who exploit their vulnerabilities. So, any legislative measures that fully decriminalize the sex trade, it will ultimately protect the exploiters and further harm survivors. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Stephanie Powell, and then I can't see your whole name. Jay Lee Oshiro Brantley. We'll be next. Go ahead. Hello, my name is Dr Stephanie Powell and I am the vice president and director of law enforcement outreach for the National Center on sexual exploitation. I'm from Los Angeles, and I would like to start off by saying that I do understand and know the difference between sex trafficking and sex work. I came out and I actually trained your police force on human trafficking. And we talked about issues in terms of having a more victim centered approach, as well as focusing on sex buyers. During that time, during that training, I was really moved and I mean this sincerely, I was moved by the expressions of compassion for your community by your police department, and that includes your chief. I can tell you that in order to identify human sex trafficking victims, you have to have the ability to investigate some things as harmful as prostitution. Victims of human trafficking don't self identify. I know this because I am a 30 year veteran of the Los Angeles Police Department. I know the trauma. I know the trauma not only as a police officer but I know the trauma as an executive director of nonprofit organization that assisted victims of human trafficking. I have seen and help pick up the pieces of individuals traumatized by prostitution. Remember some enter into prostitution when there are no choices when institutionalized systems have been broken. We need to look at fixing the sense that sent the systems. You have a police department that is up to the task by legal legalization, you're inviting more crime into your area. And you are also allowing the ability of sex workers to roam freely through your community being from LA. I'm telling you, you don't want that. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Carrie, yes. Yeah, I would just like to comment on the decorum in the room. I'm finding it very difficult to stay focused with all of the clapping and the shouting and everything and we do actually have rules against that and so I would I would ask that people please refrain from clapping and cheering and all of that. Okay, thank you. Thank you for that. I missed that we had a rule against clapping and cheering I know that has been the practice of prior mayors. So, let's let's try to do that collectively thank you. All right, and Jay Lee I apologize if I did not say your name correctly. Go ahead. That's okay. No problems. Jay Lee Oshiro Bradley. And I'm the other co founder and co director of the star collective. Long time sex worker survivor of exploitation as well. And also a client of sex workers. So I have experience on all sides of the sex industry, which I think is pretty unique for a lot of folks. Okay, I kind of had to re get myself together here because the last comment of, you don't want sex workers roaming free on the streets. I mean, just kind of want to sit with that for a second. We're already roaming. And I think that's a really good metaphor of roaming like cattle is really part of this dehumanizing language this is the stigma we're talking about like that right there is what we're talking about, talking about I've heard things like demeaning immoral just plain wrong. And that whole idea of like using I statements, I think would be really helpful for people who actually care about survivors of trafficking, which we do at this star collective we have literally help folks out of trafficking situations and put them in housing. So I need you all to listen to us. We would like to work with you. This doesn't have to be this situation. We respect you. Ask yourselves if you respect us because we are telling you, we want to stop exploitation in all industries, including ours and there is no one more positioned than us to spot signs of trafficking because we're in the industry. Anybody out there on the other side that's in the Nordic model kind of milieu who was actually interested in working with other sex workers and survivors, please reach out to us. We are not in this to be enemies we are in this to stop exploitation from the top to the bottom. The last thing I'm going to say is if we could bring this back to the reality of what this actual topic is about instead of fear mongering, taking talking about things like law and order, asking you to take a stand you are taking a stand you are taking the consideration and the time to pull out sexist language from your city. And it is true the only other place in Vermont that has this I believe as a Winooski as well as Montpelier so this is coming into alignment with the rest of the state. So I would ask them people to please focus on the issue. If we wanted to disagree about policy and all that kind of stuff we can do that but please stop trying to like be manipulative and confuse people on this issue. It's not an issue about this language. When we're ready to talk about decriminalization decriminalization we can do that we can have policy discussions but that's not what this is. It's definitely not like about that. That's I'd say thank you. Thank you. All right. So the next person up just as Trisha's iPhone if you could tell us your name and where you live. And then we'll go to Deanna Stephens. I'm in my car so it's a little bit dark here. My name is Trisha Grant I'm from Maine. I am the executive director of Just Love Worldwide which is an organization that works towards providing education and surviving. Sorry. Supporting survivors along their journey in multiple ways. I do a lot of mentoring with survivors. This is my fourth time I believe since December fourth or fifth time anyways testifying against bills to completely eliminate laws that are in place to currently help law enforcement engage to support survivors. I am passionate about this because I am a survivor I was trafficked in Maine and throughout England when I was 15 years old, I was brought to Vermont. And in Vermont. I never knew if I was going to be able to make it home or not to my son. So, yes I've seen the dark sides of this. I have journeyed alongside several other survivors who were also trafficked in and out of Vermont and in various areas. So this conversation tonight, yes we're trying to keep focus that we, a lot of people just want to eliminate this entirely but what we are proposing is just a language change. We don't disagree what that the language needs to be changed, but we do disagree with completely eliminating law enforcement's ability to engage to support survivors like myself. Had any law enforcement engaged me. If I was 15 and being trafficked, then I could have possibly received the help that I needed to receive. But that didn't happen. So I, I've been doing this for 10 years now it took me 16 years to even know that there was a name for what happened to me and that it wasn't my fault. It took me years of healing and meeting with other survivors I journey alongside at least 1000 other survivors and none of us ever wanted to be there, none of us. And people have said that they initially thought that they were there by choice until they realized the level of exploitation that was actually happening to these people. And I will just end on saying that as a 15 year old being traffic, nobody ever asked me how old I was if I wanted to be there. If I had a choice and being there or not. And I actually I'm going to end on this because I think it's really important to understand the the other side of this which is the buyers. I was able to last year run my first, my first curriculum for first time nonviolent sex offenders for eight men, so that they could understand the other side of this so that they could understand that the people that they're buying sex from might not have had a choice and being there and just really help them to understand where it was that they grew to believe that buying sex was an option that it was okay to do that. I'll leave it there and I'm willing to take any questions. Thank you. Deanna Stephens. Hi, my name is Deanna Stevens I live in St. Johnsbury Vermont. I want to start off by saying that I believe that every human being is valuable and should be valued and deserves a decent place to live. I want everyone to know that I consider and have heard that prostitution is the oldest profession in the world. And with that we should learn that with it comes increased crime, increased disease, increased abuse. It destroys marriages and families. And there are physical and spiritual implications with our health concerning these this activity, and I support updating our city ordinance language to match the state ordinance language against prostitution. We all have to deal in truth and reality, and not just what we want to do we all have something we want to do that may not be for the greater good of the greater population. And so we must consider history, and what has come from prostitution. And I know the one person had said that there's a difference between consensual consensual sexual activity and trafficking that's true, but unfortunately one leads to the other. There is some sort of connection. And so I just want us to consider doing what's right for the majority. And for our children. We have the power in our hands when you have the power in your hands to do what is right to do what is good. That's what should be done. Thank you for your time and I respect you all. Thank you. And Sheila below. Yes, I am from to some sick Vermont. My name is Sheila Belial. I'm here tonight to stand in the gap for our children and for our grandchildren. What is decided here is going to reflect all of Vermont, not just one place. And, and I want everyone to know that I do support the updating of our city ordinance language to match our state ordinance language against prostitution. This might be your one and only chance to do what is right. Please consider how this decision will affect our families and our children and our state. Thank you for your time. Thank you. I Gabrielle preto. Good evening my name is Gabrielle preto, and thank you for allowing me to speak today. I am a survivor of sex trafficking in the United States. I am a survivor of domestic labor trafficking, forced marriage, commercial sexual exportation. I'm an advocate for women and children and the LGBTQ plus communities. I work with myth off at the empower center, where I am the senior care navigator. I provide peer support case management and mentoring for victims of the sex trade. This has informed my understanding of what policies are best suited to address the social issue of sex trafficking. I'm here today to help you understand the potential harms Vermont will face. If you give a green light to sex trade to set up shop in your state. Whenever sex buying is decriminalized. There is an increase in sex trafficking, as demonstrated by a study of 150 countries led by the London School of Economics. As a state fully decriminalizes the sex trade, the sex trade explodes because of increased demand for paid sex. In Germany, for example, where prostitutions and brothels have been legal since 2002, an estimated 1 million men by sex each day. There are 500 brothels in Berlin alone. People do not buy sex when it is illegal become new clients when sex buying is decriminalized. A 2018 study of 8000 us men found that over 20% of respondents who never bought sex would consider buying sex. If it was to criminalize the sex trade in Germany increased by 30% after legalization. In the Netherlands where prostitution was legalized in 2000, 50 to 90% of women in legal brothels were trafficked. And the sex trade leads to increases in gender based violence. Rhode Island, the only US state to experiment with the full decriminalization ended the practice after 29 years in 2009, because of increased violence, organized crime, trafficking and child exploitation. The sex trade is inherently dangerous. The progressive approach is to reduce the number of people and shrink the market. Full decrim does the opposite. It expands the market. The morality rate of women and prostitution is 200 times the rate of general populations according to a Colorado medical study, examining two decades of evidence. 22.2% of women in the sex trade report being subjected to physical violence, such as being raped, shot, strangled, burned, beaten, stabbed, or punched. Thank you. All right. And anyone else with us virtually wish to make a comment. And you can use the raise hand icon under reactions or you can turn on your video and wave or just unmute yourself. Okay, I'm not seeing anyone. Hi, there's I'd like to say something but I can't go ahead. I'm on a tight band with here in St. Johnsbury. I'm sorry. This has been a real eye opener for me. I'm from Los Angeles originally. And I agree with one of the doctors who spoke and I agree with what Trisha said as well. You know, and I definitely want to just show my support that we could take the city ordinance and match the state ordinance language against prostitution. I also have a thought to, you know, every woman or man that's involved in sex. I don't know what to say not sex trafficking but sex workers. You know, the question I have for them is, do they really enjoy this work is that is a lot of this work a result of the way they were treated as a child. Can we do something as a community to provide other jobs and give other opportunities for these people. I don't know if they're hurting, they could be hurting, you know, maybe they like their work. But for the ones that perhaps don't like that work, but they feel like that's their only option. What can we do as a state to provide other opportunities for other jobs and give that and give people a something that would make me feel better. I don't know if this makes people feel good doing this kind of work, and this is a lot of this is new to me, but I feel like there's something that's missing it's not just about. Yes, let's legalize it or no let's not but how can we help people to heal from hurts that they might have. It's really important for them to find work that they could really enjoy and be proud of and get that housing that they need. So they can, you know, feel good about themselves and and not feel like they have to live off the street or they feel like gosh this is the only job I can have. So that's the only comment but I'm really glad I came tonight to learn a lot from both sides. And that's all I really have to say because a lot of this is new information for me. Thank you. Anyone else with us virtually wish to make a comment. Okay, yes. Yes, go ahead. So before the council starts, I'd like everyone in this room everyone watching to listen carefully. This is a fact. This is an opinion. Towns and cities in Vermont do not have the authority to make anything criminal. Only the state legislature can do that. So any discussion of whether something is being criminalized or decriminalized is not part of this conversation. I understand people's concerns and everyone made great points on both sides. City ordinances are civil violations that are tickets. This ordinance has not been employed by the city in any fashion for over 30 or 40 years. No, no citations have been given. The constitution or anything else regardless of how the council votes on this will still be subject to state statute will still be criminal via state statute. Should the council choose to enact an ordinance that matches the state statute. That's the prerogative. It will not be criminal. It would only be a civil act. So everyone I respect everybody's opinions on this. I think it's important to understand regardless of where you stand on this issue. I believe one or the other will not change the criminalization of this issue in the state of Vermont at all. So that's all I just want to set that before they have a discussion. Thank you. I also just want to thank everybody who came to speak on this issue tonight. I know they're really strong feelings on on both sides and I appreciate that that you all came to to share that with us. So thank you. Thank you for being here and thank you for participating. So, I'm going to turn to the council now I have some thoughts but I'm going to hold on to them. Oh yes okay so I'm going to close the public hearing thank you. And so thoughts from the council. Yeah, go ahead Connor. My opinion hasn't changed since the last public hearing I think we spent a lot of time talking about this. I appreciate people coming from opposing sides and there's a lot of competing data. But when there's competing data I always turn to sources I trust and in this case ACLU human rights watch has done extensive work on this. What's the practical effect of repealing this ordinance. Nothing we don't use it right now. Anyways, we don't use it right now anyways. What we have is giving people a bit of a human dignity, which if we doubted that people were stigmatized before tonight. I think there was evidence this evening when we talk about turning tricks and that type of talk that shows that people are not treated on the same human level as others. So if by repealing this ordinance it restores some of that dignity. It's so antiquated it doesn't belong in our codes it belongs in a bloody like Charles Dickens novel. So it's sexist and it's archaic and I absolutely think we should repeal it. Thank you. Other thoughts. Jack go ahead. It's clear that whatever action we take tonight. As Bill said will not change the legal status of sex work in Montpelier. We have state laws that govern prostitution, and we also have state laws that govern sexual exploitation and human trafficking. And we're going to those laws are going to continue to be in effect. And we, I served on the police review commission, and we discussed this at great length it's very clear the Montpelier police department is not out looking for opportunities to prostitute sex workers in the city of Vermont. And so I think that's my pillar if anything, I think the action we're taking tonight is a vote of confidence in our police department and how they are working to protect our city. They are not needlessly going out and, as I said, trying to round up sex workers in Montpelier. We have state law that if it's necessary can be used to, to protect our citizens and public order. And I think the right thing to do is to repeal this ordinance. I just want to check in chief did you want to say something. If not, okay, that's okay I just. Okay, no that's fine. That's fine. Thank you. Other thoughts carry, go ahead. Yeah, I think that this ordinance is intolerable it cannot stay. It's sexist and it's disrespectful and just absolutely cannot stay so we have to get rid of it. And I am, I just want to say that I'm, I'm disappointed and saddened that so much of this conversation has served to polarize people on the side of sort of making it into your against human trafficking or your for human trafficking if you're forgetting rid of this ordinance and I'm, I am just personally deeply opposed to human trafficking of any kind and sexual exploitation of any kind I recognize it's an enormous problem. There's no fair amount about this and, and I know that there are many, many, many people who are being exploited who are being coerced who are being harmed who are subject to violence, and it is a huge problem, and we absolutely are not doing enough to address that problem. Keeping this ordinance will do nothing to help victims of sex trafficking and victims of sexual exploitation. So I'd like to get rid of the ordinance, I would like also to get rid of sex trafficking. And that's a different question for a different time. Yeah. Other thoughts here team. Oh, Jennifer, go ahead. Yes, thank you. I'm sorry. I, I really just want to echo what Connor said. I mean, Connor you nailed it for me. I, I feel very saddened that there's been so much focus on your bad person. If you support this or you're a good person if you support that. This is just about changing language. We're not trying to legalize anything. We don't have that power. We're city council, small little, small little town, city council. I appreciate the interest from people from out of state. I think that's great. We're talking about language here and I've had about 20 years experience working with sex workers and I just my mind is blown at some of the things I've heard surrounding this topic and I just really hope people are hearing what what we're saying what city council is trying to say. And where our hearts are and our hearts are with protecting all of our citizens and that includes our sex workers that are our neighbors and yeah, I'm just, I'm just really disappointed in some of the things that I've heard over this so that's all. Okay, thank you. Other thoughts. Yeah, we're good. Thanks. Yeah, I mean I very much agree with what the other counselors have been saying you know appreciate all of the attention and input at the end of the day. I think we absolutely have to get rid of this horrific language that's dehumanizing stigmatizing and so I think that's absolutely the right thing to do and I'm glad that it sounds like that's the direction that we're likely headed. There are other issues. You know, there is there's a legislative process, the State House right down the road, where I think, you know, many of the issues that were brought up tonight should rightly be hashed out. And, you know, very much, you know, protecting victims of human trafficking and sexual exploitation, which all of us here in this council I've heard everyone speak to of course that we want to, you know, protect people in our community and in our state. I think that conversation, you know, should absolutely happen of what are the best ways that we can be doing that as a state per state policy. And here today, let's get rid of this archaic sexist and stigmatizing language in our own ordinances. Thanks. Thank you. So, I want to just appreciate that something what you said carry about, you know, absolutely a poor. I suppose that's my word of human trafficking like that is, I think we can all agree that it's terrible and wrong. And so one of the things that I would love to chat with folks about at some point probably not right now. But you know, for those who came out of that. You know, we've heard from a number of folks who shared their experiences and I'm so really grateful that people were willing to be vulnerable and and share that. And that's hard. But, you know, from from all all sides of the spectrum, you know, our, our, I guess this is maybe a conversation at the state level but do you feel like our laws are sufficient to address human trafficking. And if there are spaces where it could be better like that would be really good to know. And if it's sufficient then okay but if it's not let's have that conversation. You know what would have helped to get folks out of out of coercive situations. Faster, sooner, more effectively. You know that that's a conversation that I'm interested in having. While consensual sex work, you know, fair enough. And clearly we are taking this. I think it's going to be clear that we're going to repeal this language. But I'm interested in continuing the conversation about how we better address human trafficking in our community, and including all voices in that conversation. So, I guess I'll leave that there. If we're going to move forward with repealing which I think is the consensus probably. I think we need a motion, unless there's folks that have other thoughts that they would like to share. Yeah, Connor. Yeah, I'll move we repeal sections 11706 and 11707 of the code of ordinances. Okay, further discussion. Okay. All in favor please say aye. I saw you there Jennifer, I got you. I, and and opposed. Okay. All right, well thank you everyone who participated in this this was a hard but important conversation. And I think actually at this point, it's 816. I know we're a little bit early for break but I think we probably should. We're going to take a break right now 817 so we'll be back 827. Thank you. Okay. Hey team I'm we're going to jump back in and I actually just want to check to see if anybody is with in person or virtually for the first reading of the park lit ordinance, someone here for that. Okay, so let's move that till after the to a three country club road, a project manager recommendation. So, we'll we'll see if hopefully we have time for that but just in case we don't that's at the end. So we're going to move to the state street combined sewer water overflow public hearing so I'm going to officially open a public hearing but I assume that Kurt you would like to say something about this. So just just a quick overview of the project of this is the state street combined sewer separation project. The project limits are from 100 State Street to 120. This is down near the Department of Motor Vehicles. This project is funded through the state clean water state revolving loan fund. And as as part of that funding requirement. There's an environmental review. The state has posted a notice of intent for public comment that this project has a finding of no significant impact, and that relates to environmental impacts including air quality water quality wetlands. Wildlife and endangered species and historic preservation. The one category that is impacted is floodplains, because we're in the floodplain for the project. We will temporarily be impacting the floodplain, but once the project is complete, the grades will be restored so no long term impact. Environmental impacts through removing a dip in the sewer main to reduce surcharging. And also, it eliminates a large combined area of storm water behind the Vermont mutual building. So, really, this is just an opportunity for the public to comment on any concerns with issuing a letter of no significant impact. And to allow the project to go forward, we do hope to bid this project in the coming weeks and either construct it this fall or early next spring. And just a side note, we also were awarded $532,000 of ARPA state ARPA grant money for this project and we have a request and under the comment period to reallocate a small amount from East State Street to fully fund this project through grant money. So if the estimate is about 650,000 total. So we are hoping, expecting a full grant fund for this project. So from now up to any public comment. Okay. I want to clarify one thing which is. I know this is called a finding of no significant impact, but would it be fair to say that it is equally as well a finding of no. Negative significant impact or not negative significant negative impact or negative impact at all, because it seems like there's going to be an impact, but it's all good. Is that fair. Yes, I think that's an accurate statement. Just like this isn't going to change anything. We're doing it. Okay. Okay. Yes, my point I'm glad to see this project. It'll be great to have the CSO address but the whole bridge is just wonderful. I did. I did right. Yes, I think I did. Yeah. No, it's okay. No worries. No, it's fine. Any comments from folks who are with us in person. Okay, any comments from folks who are with us digitally. Okay, not seeing any, anything. I'm psyched for this project. Thank you for all of your work. Please pass on my thanks to everyone that's involved. Okay, we're going to close. Oh, I can close the public hearing and anyone else wanted to say anything as part of the public digitally in person. Okay, I'm going to close the public hearing, Lauren. One quick question. Don't worry, there's no people. This is really exciting. I guess my only question was just with this, the ARPA funds and the infrastructure funds. Are we like able to expedite our CSO projects or is this just kind of helping us get state really federal funding to cover what was planned anyway. Are we like getting our CSO problem solved any quicker due to federal funds. Yeah, so this was a plan project so that we have the city has a long term control plan that identifies, you know, the major projects that we plan for CSO elimination. What it will do is because we have our funding for this project will free up, you know, local money for other projects in the future so I, you know, I do think overall where we'll get there a little bit faster. Great. Jack. It's, what is the action that is expected of us tonight do we need to vote to approve this or does it just happen, unless we vote to disapprove it really just needed to conduct a public hearing for the record so you've done that. Okay, so you don't need a vote of any kind. Okay. Wow. Any further thoughts folks want to share more praise. We're going to work. Yes. Okay, well thank you so much. And I think we're going to move on. All right. All right, so we flipped the order of these so now we are up to talking about the will have a presentation from the hub group about the two or three country club road project and as I understand it I think there. The presentation is that correct. Okay. Recall that we made a presentation at the last council meeting. Today we're just going to make a very short presentation we have an update and some, some changes in what we're requesting from the city council. I'm going to interrupt you real quick. If you wouldn't mind introducing yourselves. That's fine. And then I think, yeah, we've, if you would. I mean I could hear you well but I couldn't tell if it was coming through the microphone so just be sure to speak to the microphone that's all. Thank you. My name is Ethan Atkin. I'm the board chair of the hub. And we made a presentation to the city council at the last meeting. And the decision was tabled to this meeting. And we just wanted to update in this presentation update our request to the city council it's a little bit different from what we had asked for at the last meeting. This is. And I'm Dan Bosian of Elm Street in Montpelier and a board member of the hub. So what we're here to represent on is our request for engaging into a memorandum of understanding or allowing the administration to enter into such an agreement. We are seeking a short term lease of the vacant portions of the clubhouse at 203 203 country, but Blaine road river that is up there. And basically what about half of the building is currently vacant from tenants now. Sorry about that. So the whole portion of the adjacent grounds meeting the immediate exterior area. So things like a playground and that kind of things and lawn games or sorts of improvements could be made, not a significant area at the site. Under the short term. I would like to be involved in the planning process and I know, you know, as a, we could certainly participate as much as public can but we're hoping to have a little bit higher status of that process. And specifically for those uses that are proposed for recreation up at the, the property. And we would like to have a, understand a mutual hope in intent. And that's kind of a funny phrase, but a mutual hope and intent for a longer term lease for the future for the building site and outdoor and exterior areas to support outdoor programs. So I think something in the neighborhood of three to eight acres, the location and the size is to be determined, and would through the intended planned public planning process. So what this would allow is for us to enter into a soft opening of the facility. We know that there's a range of social and recreational activities that we could start up almost immediately. And I think it would be, I think it would be, it would be, it would be, it would be, it would be, it would be, it would be, it would be, it would be in the benefit of the project in general to have some more activity at the, at the property, while the planning process is, is initiated and proceeds. So we have a rental income to the city for currently vacant space. And this is a big one would allow for the hub to gain financing for the renovations having, having this agreement. Some of the, so we should have a little bit of a statement on some clarifications that following our last presentation to make sure that some of our intentions are known. And as I know you, we would just lease the currently vacant space, not the entire building there's, there's three existing tenants that are up there that was laced leases are privately held by the city currently. And we acknowledge that the results of the planning process would take precedent for any future development including the portions of the property that we would be occupying during the short term lease. And we also expect that the city will establish through its own planning process what services they intend to provide. And how those are structured for both costs or not are either under a fee structure or not under to users or taxpayers. You know, for for this, this board council and the planning process to establish. It's not on us to establish that. And the hub is this is something I think came up in some of the comments last time is that the hub is a component of a greater recreational focus of the property, meaning, you know, our activities aren't the only things to be developed at the site. We fully expect, you know, some of the other greater thoughts of recreational focus up there, be it balls, ball sports of any kind or be named that there's all sorts of these sliding hills I've heard of and these other things is are what we're proposing is strictly to be a compliment to that greater recreational focus for the property. That's actually the entire presentation so it's a pretty short gig. Okay. Yes, Jack go ahead. If it might be appropriate to also have the have a very brief exposition from the city of the other potential uses for the property that have identified as part of the decision. Bill would you want to talk at all about that potential city uses. I mean, you know, we put those together actually camera and assemble that would you mind going over that you think you're more familiar with it than I am but thank you. Yes, I'm sharing the screen that would be useful so I just know if there's folks wanting to speak. Yes, comment. That's a great question. Let's do comments. I mean we're we're holding on a second right now right. Since there's fewer of us we can be I think a little bit less formal if you would like to come speak now that would be okay. This is my first city council meeting ever and I gotta say it was so exciting. Yeah, so, so nothing you can say is going to be. So let me know if I'm not speaking well enough. My name is Darian McElwain. I'm actually a resident of callus but I have property in Montpelier my daughter started high school at you 32 but now she is transferring over to Montpelier and she's very, very excited. And I'm here to provide my very strong support for the hub and what they've been trying to do. Personally I'm going to tell you my experience. I'm a long term tennis player and I've been involved with coaching kids my daughter was number one for you 30 or for you 32 this year as a freshman and that was really exciting. And my experience with first and fitness there used to be four tennis courts there. And they were always full and you would see kids from five years old to literally people who were 95 and I think I actually played with this woman who was 100 years old and she was darn good you know she was she was very very good. Since first and fitness is no longer first and fitness, we are down to one tennis court that doesn't have there's not enough time for kids to play. And I, what I want to say is that they're locally, there are three high schools, three local high schools that we're using those tennis courts and have tennis teams. So that's six teams if you count the boys as one and the girls one that would be spaulding Montpelier and you 32 on those kids who play on those teams. Now, don't have access to playing during the winter there's like, there's one guy who teaches one clinic a week, so the kids who can afford it are now driving all the way up to so to go to the, I think I can't remember what's going on there the racket's edge, and then some of the other kids who have more funds and also can drive more are going to Burlington. So that leaves a lot of kids without a place to play. So and it and six sport teams. So I, I've been up there at the property. I'm really excited about what everybody's put together. I think that if we were able to get people into the existing buildings that would really prevent those buildings from falling apart. And I'm also supportive of many of the other suggestions I've heard during these different meetings. I'm really excited for the kids to play I believe that tennis in particular is an inexpensive sport and it's a lifelong sport. You know the kids start out young and they can play all the time. So it's a different kind of sport than say football or or skiing which is a little bit more expensive. So that that's all I want to say. I'm really, really excited about about this and I'm really excited about the recreation from up here it would really be a huge service to all of central Vermont and to the three local high schools here. So thank you very much. Thank you. And you did a good job. You know, if folks if members of the public have comments as we go along, just let us know. Okay, Cameron. Hi, hi, I'm Cameron Edermeier, I'm the assistant city manager. Thank you for letting me talk to you today. So I am going to start with some of the ideas that are recreation and parks. We've honed in on things that we could do immediately that have low impact to the land and don't lock the land into use for anything outside of our master planning process, which is our focus. We have ideas already to start youth soccer and other rec and park programming in the fields as they exist right now. There's multiple flat fields there that are perfect size for youth soccer. So we're looking forward to taking care of the grass cutting that down and lining that so that children can play soccer. There's new opportunities to put benches that we already own in those locations to really support bringing people immediately to those fields. Right now, our soccer season is just starting to register and get started soon. So, we would only be making minor investments to bring temporary activities in as well. So we're pricing that out now to see if that could fit within our current budget, and we're definitely going to have a sledding hill in the winter. So, the parks department has also noted their need for space to continue their outdoor summer camps, and have been using the indoor space for inclement weather shelter through the summer already. So that's already happened and we're looking forward to bringing more fall programming up there. We also know that there are some buildings in existence currently. There are garages up there which are great. We have a really small rec garage currently so we intend as soon as the previous owners are able to move some of their property off of those equipment barns we'll be moving into those. We've also already received multiple requests for renting the property, which we are happy to accommodate right now. It is a little limited. We are still pending on writing a policy for how rentals in that space should be handled. But we are currently sort of using our rec department rates to sort of get people up there and involved so there are going to be events up there already, getting folks into the land and really seeing what we have. So those are some of the non permanent ideas that we had for the space. When it comes to inside of the building. There's very, there's a few bits of the property there in pretty rough shape. It's not safe for use. However, they do have a kitchen that has a large freezer and our meals on wheels program would like to be able to access that freezer, because right now we're having a problem being able to stock our fresh veggies because all of the frozen food needs to stay in our freezers and so we're, we're running through fresh veggies faster than people can eat them. The jokes about zucchini overflow in Vermont is true, and we just have so much. So, a new fridge space would be great for that. There's other uses that we could use inside the building I know childcare is a huge and important priority of the councils. I will say right now as our funding stands we don't we couldn't do that on our own. And if like renovate that building to accommodate infant or childcare right now, if we're aiming for that now, and not if the lease is over with the current school, and that you know is up to negotiation and up to policy decisions from the council. If I can editorialize for a second, I think it's important to reserve as much space as possible from permanence and permanent decisions or things that could become permanent. As we have yet to go through a planning process, which is why the recreation and parks departments have really focused on short term uses that can be easily removed. Thank you. Yeah. Thanks Cameron. What I'm interested in is whether the, the realistically anticipated uses for the city would be compatible with the hubs proposed use of the building or whether you'd have to make a choice in the short term. I think, if you're asking for my opinion on that. They have some really interesting and useful ideas for the inside of the building that I think are great and well worth collaborating on. I think it would come down to discussing it with what y'all would want to see. Personally, I have reservations about changing anything externally, because I really want to see what is best use from a master plan. Thanks. And of course, yes, I am asking for your opinion. I value your opinion. Thank you. Yeah, cool. Other questions for any of these folks or comments. I'm going to dive into, unless, but do you have any thoughts that you would like to share? I mean, I'm not sure that there's many more members of the public that want to weigh in in person. Let me just check. Is there anybody online who would like to share thoughts. Peter Kelvin, go ahead. Can you hear me. Yes. Great. Peter Kalman Montpelier. So when the city first proposed a bond issue to purchase the Elbs Club property. It was first positioned as a potential recreational space if you remember, if I remember correctly. And I was among the first of a number of people to suggest that serious consideration be given to using the property for much needed housing, ranging from low income to workforce to missing middle to market rate. However, I'm also keenly aware that any and all housing development, as well as recreational use will require significant financial investment from both public and private entities, like the hub, like Habitat for Humanity, like private developers. And this is why I actually am strongly in favor of the hub proposal to negotiate a short term lease for space in the existing building, along with the three other tenants who are already in place. Alongside of the use some of the uses that Cameron went through. And also for them to participate in the public planning process to deliver a range of recreational options. That they could, you know, work with the city. This is what the city wants to do. This is what we'll do. Make a very, could make a very, very strong recreational offering there. We're going to need all the private and public investment we can to attract development of housing and recreation and recreation on the property. We know from years of barriers to housing. There's got to be incentives for people to come here, developers to come here and build when they can make more money building in Burlington, building in Chittenden County. This would attract those kind of developers. And again, the full range of development. The hub would bring rental income. They would make a significant investment in the property. They would provide recreation options if the city might not otherwise provide like tennis. And they were to create facilities that I believe would attract developers to build homes for people again, an arrangement comes that are near recreational options and natural beauty options. The woods and so forth. Despite my very, very strong hope that we will see lots of housing up there. I believe that the hubs, a request is a good one. And I urge the council to follow it. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else with us, either in person or virtually wish to make a comment. Yes, go ahead. Sorry, it's Brad Watson using his wife, Wendy Watson says zoom. I want to echo what Peter just said but also we had a former town meeting like zoom meeting about this whole hub and how to use the, the country club property. I have lived in Montpere since 1997. I echoed during that meeting that there's been one thing built in Montpere for our kids and young families. Since 1997 and that's the Civic Center the Center for Montmore at Memorial Civic Center, there's really been not a lot of other resources provided to young families and our kids. When it comes to having facilities that could bring families together. I think we are at a critical juncture in our beautiful small little town. And you see the gray hair on my head but if you sit on the main street of Montpere State Street and look at our demographic we are all gray. And if we want to continue to try to attract young families to our town vibrant and continue to the vibrancy that we've started and I'll mention my mountain bike group the Montpere mountain bike association with the new North Branch Park but North Branch Park is actually changing a little bit slowly the demographics of Montpere and I think the hub and what they want to do it. The old Elks Club will continue that will start to see young families the bikes on the car. Tennis rackets whatever but I really implore the city council to think forward be forward minded and proactive in trying to make our community more attractive to young families. Thank you. Anyone else with us virtually wish to make a comment there Watson. Oh yeah I just wanted to just respond one thing on. And I was Cameron had mentioned earlier just to clarify our intentions for the exterior space and this there's very little that would be a permanent unmovable fixture. I simply want access so we could put out yard games maybe a tent while if there's a catered event up there. If we have a restaurant tenant that's that moves in that they could host an event on the on the property under their lease agreement. A playground is a possibility but certainly something that would require you know some some thought of how that gets done and where it would go. But I also just you know in response to some of the grander visioning that discussions that have going on. I mean what we're really asking for is a very very small step towards that process. We know that that process is worth the beginning of a planning process. We are looking for the ability to negotiate an MOU. That's it. We're not looking for a commitment to build a racket sports barn at this point or any soccer fields or, I don't know biathlon range that be fun right yeah that would be cool. But that's, that's something for the future and that's, you know, we're really excited about hopefully being a part of that discussion. Don. So when fees was talking about using freezer space. Would you find that compatible. It's really. I think it could be. I mean, I know that the feast and the meals on wheels program. You know, they have certainly some needs. I mean, it could be a restaurant tenant. Depending on how they would use it. You know, it could be just for overflow or catering prep or, you know, a prep kitchen for their, for their downtown establishment. We don't really know. We expect that there would be service provided, you know, bar and food provided at the building. So there would be some need for, you know, continued use of the kitchen but who's to say what that looks like I get it's something that we would need to talk. Yeah, thank you. And I do want to mention to I mean I think it's perfectly fair to speak generally about these things but I want to recognize that we're probably we're not negotiating by committee here. And it's really the question is like, do we want to move forward with an MOU and let and authorize staff to do that negotiating. Or don't we, that's, I think that's the question. So, but but fair, nonetheless, because that is that's I think it's a good question about, you know, are there. Yes, yes. There could be a conflict or it could be a work. Right, right. And I think that's that's fair right like, yeah, are there other anticipated conflicts between these uses. And I guess maybe I'll put that to you all do you do you see any other spaces where there might be a conflict of use. The childcare issue is one that we have been very supportive of in fact we've received a grant to, to build a childcare facility in the space that we want to lease. So that's very compatible with that idea. But anything that the city might think of doing we're collaborators we're not, we're not dictating anything here. Other thoughts from Council. Connor, go ahead, and then Jack. Okay. I remain comfortable with a short term MOU that the city negotiate that for me, you know, like, it's, it's going to be a long process, three years, you know, I'd like to see revenue coming in. I'd like to make sure that space is full and not vacant for a period of time. And if it's not going to be vacant, I'd rather have a tenant like the hub who gets, you know, the community getting up to the space there, get sort of the creative juices flowing creates some opportunities for kids, you know, who I think have had a rough go of it during the pandemic, and gives the hub I think a chance to sort of prove their long term viability over these next few years. I definitely understand the public perception. I'd be adamant I want to see a public process just as much as everybody. And, you know, but I think these ideas can be compatible. And I think these folks do bring a lot to the table. So I'd be comfortable with the short term lease. Jack. Thank you. I've actually gotten a lot of input from constituents over the last day or two, and it's been pretty universally positive. You know, it's no secret that I've been kind of skeptical about this whole plan and my skepticism has largely been questioning whether this, the hub and the whole plan is, is really a feasible, feasible project. And you know one of the things that has been pointed out to me is that back in November, we said to the hub well you know, where's it, where's your business plan. I still don't think I still don't think we've seen a business plan. But I think where we are is that the city owns an asset that could be generating some income and doing a lease for a short term in the neighborhood of three years is an opportunity for the hub for the hub to make a proof of concept and show that this is something that will really work for the community of the three things that the hub is asking us to do. So one, lease the building on a short term basis to give them some kind of preferential status in the long term planning process and three, make something that's less than a commitment but some kind of intention to reserve the real estate for them. The only one that I would really support is, is the first one, lease the building for for a three year period, generates some income for the city possible hope potentially provide a resource that will that will be attractive to the to the city and and see how it goes but I think it's it would not short circuit or interfere with the planning process. Which I think is paramount, but but I would be in favor of having this having the manager enter into into negotiations for a contract to lease the building to the hub. I mean, I guess, just from the very beginning I was excited to think about something really happening in the building that we have some rentals, but we need more, and that would be activity. I've heard recently, actually I had two interns helping my electrician, who just graduated from the tech school last year, and they were talking about as 18 year olds, one was 18 was 19, they couldn't drink. They had no place to go socially, and they were interested, and asked me asked me, are what are you going to do with that building are you going to let somebody come in. They didn't recognize your name. They knew there was some discussion and I thought you know, I know we're talking three penny, but maybe within that there can be a space up there within the building that or time of day or certain times of the month where youngsters, young adults can go and be social and have some music and gathering without the alcohol. And that's a good thing too, because there are probably many more people who would like to do that. So I'm, I really like the short term lease idea. And you know we have stakeholders that are from organizations, and I don't see having the hub there as any different if other people participating among the public. I'm hoping we'll get some other private developers who want to join and be there. And maybe they're there as residents but they'll also be talking for the organization they're from because we need private developers at the table or we're planning in order to do housing, and order to do more than our public dollars can do. And I'm not shy was saying my intention would be, if you do well with the lease, we're going to move forward with some land, and not committing where just somewhere up there, we want to give some additional space for some recreational opportunities that the city can afford to do. So I'm comfortable with moving forward definitely with the short term but even with the rest. Lauren, and then carry. Thanks. Yeah, I, I also like the idea of the short term lease I think getting some activity going you know all the reasons people have laid out I think the lessons learned even thinking back to the public hearing. So once they go people are asking about like transportation, for example like how are we going to set up a system that can help people get out there besides just driving out so I think those kinds of things we could be thinking through and using this time if there's activities there that's drawing people to kind of troubleshoot some of the other issues and you know hopefully get people used to going to that to that part of town. So I think one thing I, one way I was thinking about the longer term idea was something like an intent to have the hub as part of the recreation stakeholder process putting forward, you know, for like environmental impact same as often option A option B option C like that they would be, you know, part of the process putting forward proposals alongside the city for the community to consider so that, you know that we want that kind of robust conversation and consideration and that the community could look at kind of the package of options and, you know, being able to do that work collaboratively which is what I'm hearing that the folks from the hub are interested in that, you know, that could actually give us better information just kind of explicitly the intention and hope of us to be getting that kind of information throughout the process of what's the, what's the vision of the hub how does that complement what the city would offer and all that so I don't know if that meets, you know that idea would meet the hope of the hub or address the concern of Jack or other things but that was kind of how I was thinking the process could look. I have a couple questions for you about your use of the space. We heard some some suggestions from from Donna about things that might happen there but you haven't described tonight what would happen there. So my understanding is that you would want to sublet to three penny tap room for restaurant and bar, which I'm assuming would be open to the public is that correct. And then you want to have virtual golf which you've mentioned in the past. It's, it's more than virtual golf, but it's the other kind of thing that it's a virtual golf is it's really virtual sports. Okay, as it has different attributes and would that be open to the public for a use fee. Yeah, but it would be the structure for payment of the use of the space would be either through a membership or a use fee or if you wanted to rent that are get our social room, we were looking into our social lounge that we're intending to develop in one of the spaces that there would be a fee associated. And, and spend some time socializing in a place without alcohol in your social lounge, you would be an entry fee. There'd be classes there'd be other things provided dancing and you know dance classes or whatnot there so there would be similar in the space. You can imagine what what happens at the current wrecks the rec center on Berry Street like that places you pay to pay to participate and use that space it's not free to to anybody to go in and use. So even now it's there's a rental agreement with users going in there or you're paying a few bucks to play basketball at lunch. It's still of the same drop in fee kind of structure or you're paying a membership. It would be accessible to anyone who wanted to come in yes the answer is yes. Members would be paying a monthly fee and they can come in and participate in the activities and if they choose not to be a member, they can get a date. They come in for the day or if there's a particular event they want to participate in. They can come in and participate if there's a fee for that event, they may pay more than a member would but they would still be able to come in. So there's a possibility of working with the city about, you know, providing day passes for the city to use through the wreck department so there's certain events where the city wants to have residents who are not members have a day pass they can buy them from the city. Right. Yeah, go ahead. Okay, thank you. I appreciate the answers. I really share Cameron's view about trying to limit any kind of permanent changes or any kind of use to the space, the buildings or the property that would be permanent or hard to undo. And so I love the idea of soccer up there I love the idea of equipment storage and things like that that are really not committing us to anything. And so my concern about the short term lease is that even though it would technically be for three years and would technically be written without an assumption that there would be a renewal. The expectation certainly will and the hope will be that it would be renewed and this would be the first step of a much larger project and I think that's really clear from you all are the hub is intending to do that and I think that the counselors who have spoken sound like there, and I don't want to speak for you but my what I'm getting from you is that fear, you're, you're seeing this possible future and this being a step towards it. And I think so I'm really committed to the public process. And I did come into this a little bit later than the other people on the city council so I didn't hear your November presentation have been part of these discussions, and, and it feels early for me to be able to even have a express an intention that I want to see this happen. I think that having a short term lease would be a way for the city to be saying, we intend to work with you in the future and that is also part of what you're, you're asking for I recognize that so I am not feeling comfortable that this would not get in the way of the public planning process. The public perception would be that the city has entered into a long term agreement with the hub, and that I know is not necessarily that's not the case, but I think that would be the public perception and, and I think we have a lot of work to do before we are ready to make that long term commitment. And to be clear, we're, we're not asking for that long term commitment, and it's our duty and yours to help break that misconception. You know, you have heard us say, we're not looking for a long term lease, we're not looking for a long term commitment, but we do have an intent to be a stakeholder for the development of this property. And we're not going to change that is that is our intention. So I, you know, I guess I would put it back to you as as a public official. When you're talking with your constituents and hearing from them that those sorts of misconceptions you can tell them that is actually not true. You can. I think we need to be, I think it's a little disingenuous to say that it's not true that this would be a step towards a long term commitment and relationship with the hub. And, and, you know, that's, that's how it seems. I think that's why we're, we're talking about this and why we're not talking about directly leasing to three penny for instance, if what if what the city wants is a restaurant up there. We could lease to three penny ourselves or to some other restaurant. But the reason why we're talking about doing it with the hub is because there have been these previous conversations because there is this idea that we may work with them long term. And, and that may be the way that we want to go. I would just prefer to have that decision come out of this public planning process that we're going to embark on, even though I recognize that it would slow it down enormously and that there is great value to having activity happening up there and having something going on. Jennifer, I apologize. Oh, you're fine. I'm just over here in the corner, don't mind me. I am going to be the stick in the mud here and I'm with carry on this I just don't feel very. It just doesn't, it doesn't feel right to me. Because of the fact that there still isn't much of a plan it's the, I, I, I, it just feels like a small presentation for something that is potentially really huge. And I'm not so comfortable rushing into something and I feel like I'm being pushed into something and I've felt this way the entire time and I don't know if having virtual gaming up there right now is what everybody wants I think we need to really think about what the public wants and like Peter said earlier you know we housing is a huge thing I feel like housing is a bigger pressing issue in Montpelier than recreation. I'm going to be that person because we live in a beautiful state and there's plenty of places to go and don't have a yard and I find plenty of places to take my children for free. So, I just, I feel like I'm being pushed into something Russian to something and I just, I would rather take time and have business plans and financials and all those things in place. Before we commit to three years with an organization. Have we talked to other organizations that might want to, you know, develop or use those buildings I don't know we haven't gone there so I'm just, I'm not, I'm not. I'm not with it yet. So. Okay, thank you. Any other other thoughts and I think before we get to you even any other thoughts council would like to share. Yeah, I'm thinking about, I, I totally understand the perception issue. I do not feel like working any longer. And so, I don't agree with that. I think I'm kind of like, if anyone said that I'd be like, no, we're doing a short term lease and I think right now to me. If we decide to move forward, it would be authorizing company staff to see if there's something that is very clearly a short term lease that is not authorizing any kind of infrastructure or anything that's locking in, which is my understanding of what the proposal is that this is really getting some activity going. Okay. Wait, your second. Okay. Wow. That's that better. Okay. No, I wouldn't think this would be the most intense one of them. I mean, I, I guess I, I also don't necessarily think we're locking in anything tonight if we're talking about kind of authorizing a negotiation that we would be approving later right like we're not just saying go forth and do any kind of negotiation and just move forward without us seeing if it actually is meeting the intentions of, you know what council, and maybe that's a misunderstanding. Well, so that's an interesting question. Right. Well, if, so if we do go forward with some kind of negotiated agreement for a short term lease. I mean most city properties that get leased, we don't approve right like we don't. Oh, do we. Do we make short terms. Well, okay. All right, well, yeah, I was gonna say I feel like if someone rented space city, you know what I mean like there's right like those kinds of things like at least for a day you've approved the fees like for a day fee right or as part of the fee schedule at the senior center those kind of things but for us. We don't have that many cases where we've long term least the use of. I mean my, my general assumption would have been we've negotiated. We'll come back for you. Okay. But that's fair. Okay, vote. That's that's fair. Okay, I just wanted to clarify that. Donna. Are you coming to us. We inherited those rat those leases and what. So we, we said, we told them we would honor those leases we didn't think we should be booting people out and what as we were having a public process before we were really talking about this and it was bringing some to the council and we, we now have expenses. Yeah, you know that we didn't have before so it made sense to do that. Presumably, presumably when we came time to make decisions about either extending them or terminating them. We would come to the council just if nothing else so you know what's going on. Do you remember are they one year two year what they're different they're all have different we have we do have an inventory I just remember. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Here. What about, I mean I'm thinking of Jennifer's thought and kind of picking up a little of carries hesitation but, you know, putting out an RFP and seeing interest in renting it, the hub would apply, and then if there's other interest, and then it's a more community opportunity to see, you know, are there. I have nobody else has come forward that I've heard of that is interested so that's part of why it's like well if nobody else wants it and putting forward like a proposal. Great, let's use the faith but I know that that certainly slows the timeline down but just an idea. That is a very interesting idea. Yeah, I would I would love to consider that I think that that would think the reason why no one else has come forward is because it hasn't occurred to other people that it might be a reasonable a possible thing to do. If we put out an RFP then it would be communicating that we're interested in short term use of this space while we go through this public planning process. I was thinking the exact same thing Lauren was the same time I think that that's I, I think this is a potentially beneficial thing but I also don't want to be in the in the place of overriding. It's a very valid concerns that Jen and Kerry have. And so I think doing an RFP for that for the use of the of the building is, is a good way to proceed. Other thoughts. Any thoughts on that. I wanted to respond to just on. I wanted to respond to Terry's earlier question about what activities we're planning to have up there so in addition to the restaurant and bar which would be open to the public, but separated from the rest of the space so that young people would not be wandering in and out of the bar. We would be having a game rooms for for youth activities at game rooms for, you know, might have things like region night or chess night or card night or competitions, both inside and outside, but nothing that would be a permanent structure in there would also be meeting room and a lounge. So, the, that would be a whole range of regular recreational and social activities going on, on a fairly constant basis, particularly during times when families are sitting around trying to figure out what to do, because they, they each of their family members may have something different they want to do. They can go there and each of them can find the activity they're interested in. I can tell you that while they're in high school, one of my sons and his friends were regulars at the pool table at McGillicuddy's and whether they're supposed to be there or not because it's a bar. I don't know, but I know that they were there and so it was that's the kind of thing that draws people. All right, I'm going to make a motion. Okay. I move that we direct city staff to issue requests for proposals to be prepared or to come to us at our next meeting with draft RFP for a fairly short timeline because, you know, like 60 days. And see what, what other interest there is in use of the building before we make a decision. Just I'm clear on the motion, you want us draft RFP just to have you review and approve before it goes out. Okay. Okay. So I was thinking, yeah, so we wouldn't you wouldn't issue it before the next meeting and we would issue it at the next meeting. Yeah, do you, do you think that's reasonable bill or do they just want to know what you were saying. Yeah, do you think it would be because if you if you would as authorize us to issue when I was then going to ask, do you want us other specific activities that we could have higher preference for so some regards this might be, we can take a crack at it. You can weigh it as you see fit. So it seems like the way we usually work with RFPs is that we get a draft from you and then usually approve it without any changes but, but still. So I just want to check in with you all about this idea, the timeline, etc. This does not meet our timeline. Oh, is there a second second. Okay. I guess I mean part of, I'm very loud. Sorry. I mean, I guess I, I'm thinking I don't know how different responding to an RFP versus like the plan that you would be ideally putting to the city how different that would be and personally that would take a while to negotiate anyway but so I, but I get that it's Donna then carry. I do things I want to to an RFP you have to decide what you need, and we have wanted them to stay everybody to stay flexible. And yet we're part of the time we're asking for a business plan, but we want them to stay flexible. And so it's a chicken and the egg in that we want a partner who's going to work to supplement and increase what's available, both on the social and on the sports. And so it does take sitting down the negotiation and the city saying we feel strongly about this and and you work it out. I don't see anywhere that the city has rented a space and done an RFP. I feel like we've pushed this off and pushed this off. And I feel that a short term lease is not bypassing anything with public input for the long term planning. It'll be four years before we start digging folks, and three year lease to me is totally reasonable. I, I, I totally respect the public process, and it'll be there it'll be happening while we're meanwhile, we have, and I think one of the things of them mentioning three penny and getting them is a place that we feel that we've seen its behavior in town. We've seen its success like bar hill. And so to me that's like, Oh, that's a good source to have out there. And again, everything that's come back when they've made list of games here, but in their memos, lots of detail. So if you go back and read their memos that they've given us, there's lots of possibilities there, but they also want to stay fluid to what we want. So, I feel we're expecting too much concrete from them. Because on the other hand, we don't want anything concrete. So I will not support an RFP. Connor. I don't really like pose the RFP idea, but I'm also cognizant, you know we table this like a month ago when you were pretty clear with us that you're on a timeline. And it may be changing the rules of the game as we go along here. Could you talk a little bit more about your timeline and what if an RFP were issued like next week or something and we didn't have to approve it. The nice council meeting but we gave staff the discretion to sort of form that with some input from us. You might just like talking about the timeline office. Well, the timeline is we would like to have a three year lease. That's basically what we're asking for. And we want to be involved in the recreation part of it. We have been ready to go for quite some time, even before the city bought the property we were ready to go in December of last year. And so we have loans lined up we have a grant lined up. We have to use the grant this year if we don't for childcare if we don't use the grant this year. We lose it. It's a three year grant. We need to get three penny is not interested in waiting any longer they need to be in before Christmas. All of our fundraising with that we started we had to put on hold because this the situation has been put on a pause. It just, you know, and and the issues of the getting these virtual game equipment in there. All of these are removable things are not things that and even when three penny goes in there bringing their own equipment in this is not going to be something that is going to be permanent equipment if if at the end of the lease decisions made, you know, the hub isn't going to be in there anymore, they can move all their equipment out. They need to get in there by Christmas and they need a place that they need to go if they can't get in there by Christmas, we may not. They would have to make that decision but they've made it fairly clear to us very clear to us that they need to be in there by November 1. Carrie. I had a question for bill how what's the fastest turnaround from tonight that we could do the RFP process. We had some, you know, I'm going to count on Mike and or Cameron to interrupt me. If I get this wrong. I think the biggest struggle with the biggest challenge with any RFP, and I will answer your question, but I got is knowing what you're going to do. So we could ask for just highest bidder, you know, who wants to make proposals to use this space and how much will you pay for it we could say we want proposals that include a recreation component and childcare component. We could say make us a proposal that shares space with this, you know, so, so a lot of it depends on what we're asking for and that will change the market for who's interested is what what we put into it. So if there was clarity about what we want to ask for, we could probably get an RFP out pretty quickly. I think our RFP writers are all three of them are in the room. Josh, Mike and Cameron so, you know, again, but, you know, you want to give so good, but we also have three weeks till the next meeting not to. Maybe we could have responses maybe they come in right before the you know I maybe you I mean if you want to know the absolute quickest, but that would be that would not give people much time to respond. And it would not you know it would mean we have to lightning get one out the door right I mean, please tell me I'm wrong here I'm making. So you get to Friday right. So I mean that's but I mean those are all you know you got it, you got to post it, you get you get to find what you're asking for what the terms of submission are like what we're looking for. And then we've got to, you know, presumably some people would want to toward the space I mean that we could manage give a period of time for people to prepare I think these folks, you know what they want so they'd be able to prepare something for somebody who never thought of it before needs to at least think about what they want. And then, and then some process for evaluating whether it's just we hand them to the council and you all decide or we have a score sheet that we, you know, give them to you and whatever but. So, you know, a lot depends on the clarity going forward. I also wanted to sort of put on the table just another, an RFP is not the only option that you have. There's other processes that we could go through. There's a request for information, which is more of just give us your proposal, which I think would be more similar to what the hub has done is less formal gives folks the opportunity to say if I had this space this is what I would do with that space that it doesn't have to be as formal as an RFP process it could be a council is interested to hear what else is out there if people wanted to bring something to this space and RFI would be a much quicker and simpler process. Okay. Thank you. That was going to be my my next question. Because I agree that an RFP for a lease is an odd thing that I haven't seen before and but I would like some way to kind of communicate to the public that it's possible that we might be able to lease this space out for something. And tell us your ideas and come to us with your thoughts and so if an RFI would be the way to do that. It would be. Could we authorize the staff to do that tonight, keeping it really open. So we don't have we're not asking for certain kinds of uses we're just saying tell us what you what you have, and then come back in three weeks and bring to us what you've got. Yeah. Okay. I have a question about this. And how would doing this as a RFP or an RFI mitigate your concerns about offering a three year lease to anybody without the public process having taken place. I don't understand. It sounds more like you're just saying, I want to get somebody in there and get some money from them. But and the public process doesn't matter as much if it's, if it's done it with an RFI I don't that doesn't really add up for me. Jack, go ahead. I have a response to that and my response is that I don't think that that is really a fair criticism because what I'm hearing at least two members of the council say is that they don't want the perception that someone came to the council before we got took even step one of our public process and lined up this deal to rent the property, and nobody else even had the chance to, to come in and say they, they wanted to do it and maybe someone else would have had a better idea than you and maybe someone else would have offered more money than you are. And, and there's a perception. So that's what my thinking is that I don't understand that I don't think the term and I'm not married to the terminology RFP I'd be happy to go with Kerry's proposal to say well let's let's be in a position to put out whatever requests we need to put out so we were in a position to make a decision at our next meeting. So do we think it would be realistic to put out an RFI you have enough information you feel to put out an RFI and to get responses by the next meeting. We could structure it loosely and we could obviously ask you know, I mean, just, there might be a lot of interest but some may, you know, I think we could say, provide your estimate of, you know, would this be a revenue generating you know because it's probably people all I could have this that there and the city could let me have it free so I think, you know, we would be saying no the city is looking to lease with you know so for financial terms so what is it. Proposing and at least I don't think we need a business plan. And by the way just for the record we did get confidentially a look at their business but so they have provided one to staff we didn't keep it because we want to create a public record but they did show it to us so they have shared that with us just so you know, there was a business there was a document that I was meeting with them and they should offer to show it to me and I said well you know to give it to me it's a public record so do you want to do that and and they wisely decided not to give it to me. So we went over the things but we never got a copy of any records. So I just wanted that to be clear that to the extent that anyone says they haven't provided something they said they would they did and I'm not shilling for them or against them just that's a fact. So, I think we would ask for you know your idea how it would be used. How it would generate revenue for you, you know to pay the lease. And, you know, I think personally I would say it ought to be something it ought to be in the public's interest, or open to the public, I don't know what you all think about that not just, you know, we're going to create a private. I'm going to use it, you know, for a warehouse and pay you top dollar because it's a big space that I could, you know, I think because I guess as I'm thinking about this out loud one of the goals of what we're talking about is to get people going up there using the space. So I think a criteria would be something that will generate a public use, but also generate an income, and it wouldn't have to be, you know, long drawn out to just be here's kind of, you know, here's our overview of what we would propose to do and what it might look like and then you could pick the one that you thought was most attractive and be where we are authorize us to negotiate a lease with them. I mean, if that's what you wanted to do. Bill, would you want me to amend my motion or to say that or are you happy with that given the gloss? I think you ought to be clear RFP is a term of art. And I think it would be clear to just what you're doing in that you, because that you want to move this quickly. I mean obviously we have this conversation I've heard it, we've all heard it, but it's still for the record. Okay, so I moved to amend my motion to direct the city manager to issue an RFI for uses of the real estate for three year lease with the, as the manager said, the component of public activity on the property and with the responses to be ready to be acted on at our next meeting. Is there anything else you'd need? We'll make up the rest. Okay. Yeah. So that was a motion to amend my motion. Okay, further discussion about that. Yes Donna, would you make it do so there's going to be in the packet on the 10th. Yeah. Okay. I want to try. I, yeah, so that you, so you would have them to review in advance of the meeting. Yes. I'm glad you changed it to an RFI but I'm going to vote against it, because I don't think that leasing something for three years requires. Okay. Further discussion about this. Peter Kelvin go ahead. Yep, you're good now. I'm feeling free to speak a second time because this is a different motion than the discussion before. That's why I called on you. Thank you. I don't think this is a good idea this RFI. Let me just say very clearly, and by the way, all of you know that I am in favor of public engagement as much as anybody on the city council. I don't feel that having an RFI to have somebody else come forward is going to change the misperceptions that are possible in any way. I don't think it addresses the legitimate concern that Jennifer and Kerry have raised. But I think that the concern that Jennifer and Kerry have raised is one that we all, all of us need to be able to talk to people who have concerns about this. This is a unique group. They've been thinking about this for a long time. They have lots of plans. They've, they've demonstrated flexibility. They've come back with a proposal that was is much less grand than the first one. And to do to delay it further where they are probably in danger of losing their loan. All of these delays this kicking the can down the road. I don't think anything will be gained by it. And I think what would be more important would be to enter into a short term negotiation for short term arrangement. And I think that the bill now knows what the concerns are. And part of this is to announce this in a way that will be understandable by the public. Anyway, I, I, I, I, I'd be very disappointed if you kick this down the can down the road. Thank you. Thank you. Stan, go ahead. I stand breaker off from from district two. You know, when this, when this issue came up. When we all voted on it. I think there's a lot of discussion on front page forum and other places around, you know, what the plan was, I think for a lot of us. The hub was part of that plan, getting folks up there was part of the plan using it as a recreational space was part of the plan. I mean, in person been up there. I don't know if it's open to the public. I think it is, but having a group like the hub enter into that short term agreement I think I, I believe was pretty well understood I thought that was part of the deal. I thought that was you know what that use of that building was intended for until we had a larger plan for it, including things like housing. The hub can't make use of it and the timing doesn't work for them having a building sit for three years is, is not ideal. You know, for folks who represent me in district two I would, I would really appreciate a thought to help support what I believe we were voting for at the time. Thank you. Nat Winthrop, go ahead. Hi. I'm the chair of the hub I, I made part of the presentation at the last meeting. As I reported then. We've been in discussions with the Vermont community loan fund. The folks there are very excited about this project. They represent the biggest project that they've ever given a loan for in their history, and they're based in Montpelier. And as has already been said, we've been working on this for more than a year, just about a year ago. It was the city that proposed a public private partnership. We've been talking to the city regularly ever since for going on a full year going on 12 months. This is well thought out we have shared a business plan and a financial plan with Josh Jerome, who's our point person in the administration. So it's simply not accurate that we don't have a business plan or we haven't shared it. We just did not want to make it public because we keep having to tweak it. We keep having to shift it as circumstances change. The bond specifically referenced recreation. No one else has come forward since the bond was passed that's several months ago. And there is the possibility that we are plan may not turn out to be viable if we have to wait another month or two. And I think having three penny who have consistently said that they're enthusiastic. They said we could go public with their intentions to run a restaurant and bar up there. So, I think a bird in the hand, namely the hub for three years. Who is prepared to invest millions of dollars in the longer term should should a path be made clear through the panic planning process for us to participate after the first three years. And all of that is something that you shouldn't take lightly or casually, you know, we're ready to step up to the plate. We're ready to start construction in terms of renovating the space. October 1, mainly for three penny but also for this virtual sports equipment. There are already three tenants in there so we would be a fourth tenant. I just think to go, you know, you already tabled us at five weeks ago. Now it would be for at least another three weeks and probably for substantially longer than that and at a certain point, it's just not going to work for us so I'd really appeal to you folks to authorize the city to negotiate the short term lease I think it's very much in the public interest. I want to just be clear that the motion that we're voting on right now is about the language change to an RFI. I have thoughts that I want to share about that is about, you know, the this plan in general. But thoughts on any further thoughts on just changing the language from RFP to an RFI. Yes. I totally get the sentiment. I think just at the end of the day, you know, three more weeks isn't gonna, you know, I don't think anybody's coming up with a viable offer that's going to knock everybody socks out. So to me it feels sort of like the illusion of public input, you know, on such a short timeline. I agree with the idea of an RFP. I just think it would have had to have been done months ago to really get some, you know, serious bids in there. So I think I still am where I was. I think there's value to this. It brings in revenue. And I think it would be a service to the community. So I'll, I'll be voting against it as well. Okay, so. But to be clear, yes, Lauren, okay. So as the person who brought forward this idea, I mean, I've heard a couple of things since I had offered that thought as a way to move forward, including some details on the timeline before had just been more amorphous to me like of course you want to move as quickly as possible but some of these grants and things that are lined up and especially the childcare to me like getting that in it's part of our strategic plan. You know, that I didn't, you know, some of those details and apologies because I missed the last meeting so I'm sure some of that might have been talked about so my apologies that I'm I think catching up a little with some of the details. I mean to me also, you know, a fourth tenant in a building for a short term lease. You know, I'm more prepared to move forward now hearing this. And, you know, maybe as part of the announcement it's we're also talking about the public process for the long term and broader, you know, like everyone get your ideas like let's really, you know, get together as a community and think about what we want to use the space for and how many opportunities for recreation and housing and other things so you know I think hopefully we can be thoughtful and how that's put out and really clear this is a short term lease opportunity to use the space as we figure out the long term vision for the place so I will be voting against. Or I guess I would vote for the motion to make it an RFI, but I'm going to vote against doing an RFI. Okay. Any further thoughts just about RFP versus RFI. Okay, anything you would like to say about that. RP versus RFI. I don't think either the RFI or the RP would meet our timetable. Okay, okay. Fair enough. I have further comments on this amendment to the original motion. Okay. All in favor please say aye. Sorry, we are voting on the motion, but not ultimately the right so this is. Okay, so. Right we're voting on should we change the language to RFI versus the original language from RFP. Okay. Okay, all in favor please say aye. Aye. And opposed. And Jennifer, I'm not sure I heard you. Because I didn't vote. Okay, would you like to vote one way or the other. Nope. Okay. We, I think they have to do roll call. That's okay. Lauren. Jack. Connor. Okay. Okay. Okay. Here. Donna. And Jennifer. Not. You're seeing. I don't, I can't, I can't vote either way. Okay. You do. All right. So now we, oh gosh, math. Okay. So that motion passes. So now we're on to. I think we're clear on what the motion is. I think we're clear on what the motion is at this point. So I think we're clear on what the motion is. Should we issue an RFI for use of the space? Yeah. Probably. Should we just start with that? Yeah. Okay. I'm going to go, I'm going to go around. I'm going to end with Jennifer. Okay. Lauren. Jack. I. Connor. Harry. Donna. And Jennifer. Sorry, what was that? No, I. Oh, I, okay. Sorry. Thank you. Okay. So it's three, three. Okay. I am going to vote may. And so there we are. So the motion does not pass. Jack. Okay. I will authorize the city manager to enter into a three year lease with the hub. Nope. I feel like we should. Does that work for you? Cause I feel like it could be like to authorize to negotiate a three year lease. Okay. Cool. Okay. Okay. And there, and that's also your understanding. Okay. Remember that we're asking for a memorandum of understanding. It has three components, not just the three year lease. Okay. Okay. Further discussion on that. Part of it. Okay. Not seeing any. Which part I'm sorry. Mayor. Sorry. This is a motion about. Authorize the manager to negotiate a lease to come back to the council for review and approval or consideration. Okay. Any further comments from anybody. About that. Yes, Jack. Jennifer, if you're just. Not proposing to include the special. Status in the planning process or the anticipated. Commitment of land to the. To the hub in the future that would all be. They have absolutely the same right as anyone else to participate in the public process, but not. And to advocate for whatever land they think they should have, but not. A memorandum of understanding, giving them anything. At this point. Jennifer, I saw that you had a hand up. Do you. Have anything. Yeah, I just. I just wanted to be. About why I'm. You know, I think the reason I'm being resistant is because. I don't really understand. I mean, I've, I've, I've emailed with them. I've seen their presentations and I still don't really understand. What the hub. It's like, I've been thrown all these different ideas. Child care, this, that and the other. And it's like, how are you going to do all that. In a small space. And then also have a bar with child care. It just, it, it's just like, it's like, It's like, you know, you don't really want to be struggling with this. Because. You guys have a lot of ideas, which I think are brilliant ideas, but they just seem very scattered. And I just don't feel comfortable with that. And that's the reason why it's nothing personal. It just feels very scattered to me. Okay. Thank you. All right. Any further discussion. No, any of it. Okay. I'm going to go just do a roll call. I'm going to do the same order ending with Jennifer. All right. Lauren. Hi. Jack. Hi. Connor. Hi. Carrie. And Jennifer. Okay. So the motion passes. So we'll be doing that. Any further discussion about any of the rest of the proposal. Not seeing anything at this point. Okay. Sorry. Is anybody else hearing that really high pitch? That is very curious. I would like to share at this point. I would be. I would be curious. If one of the council members was willing to offer. A motion to consider the other two aspects that we're requesting be in a memorandum of understanding. Yeah. Any thoughts about that team? Okay. Anything more you could tell us about those other two aspects. Well, just to clarify, Jack earlier said that we were asking for a commitment for space. That is not what we're asking for. We're just asking for a statement that says. There's an intent to try to make a collaborative effort so that we can invest our three or $4 million in this project on that property. But we're not asking for a commitment. We're just asking that something, there'd be some understanding between us and the city so that we know how to plan our future. And second, that we do feel that we have. A legitimate request asking to have a stakeholder position in the discussions about the recreation, given that the history of. The whole process that's gone on, which most of the council members are familiar with, but just as a reminder, we were the ones that introduced the city to the idea that that property might be available. And we were about to sign a lease with the former owner to allow us to go ahead with our project. So I, I don't feel like we're just coming from out of nowhere asking for a slightly different position rather than just the person when there's a public notice put out, there's going to be discussion about it. So, you know, we feel that, that these are things that really we would like to have in writing so that we, we can plan our future. The lease is important and I'm really grateful that, that the, the council has considered it, but it doesn't put us in a very safe position. If you understand, we really need to feel like we have a little bit more security and an understanding, a written understanding that because one of the reasons we're in this position right now is because we have nothing in writing. And so we feel that it's really important that we have something in writing that gives us some sense of what we can do in the future. Yeah. Thank you. Donna. I've been in a lot of planning groups in my one on nine, nine years on the council. And no one at the table has ever had a more steak. I mean, they're your stakeholder, your stakeholder, you have people come to the meetings, they talk, they share their opinion. At some point, indeed, if the vision is, oh, we want to do this and you want to come and present something to the planning process, then you and others can do that. But that's the one that maybe I think is a little strange. I think you just need to get your members to the planning meetings and have them vocalize it just the way everyone else does. And the intent. On one hand, I totally understand you needing something. And I would propose a motion. I don't think it'll pass. But I'm not sure how we can have a flexible intent. I mean, we can say we have an intention to do that, but it's not a promise. But yet. Yet somehow it gives. How would you use it? So we give you this intent. How would you use that? Would you use it to go to the bank and say, this is a likelihood? Well, I think. We would use it in our plan in our, you know, hub planning processes of knowing that this is the intention that we're going to move forward that we don't need to be thinking about alternative places to put up our structure. We've got a three year lease. And we don't know what's going to happen next. We don't know what's going to happen next. We don't know what's going to happen next. We don't know. Even if we don't have a commitment, but we know that that's the intent. If both parties can agree on it. And that can be worded in a memorandum of understanding in a way that everyone is comfortable with. Well, then I suggest you work on language within the MOU. And then it comes back to the council and we'll see if you get the wording that people can accept. Yeah. I don't think you'll get a motion specifically on it, but you could. The lease. The lease, the lease agreement. Well, keep in mind that what we're asking for is an MOU. And one of the components of the MOU is that we would negotiate a lease, which would be a separate document. The lease document is not the same as the MOU. They're two different documents. So the MOU would contain. The MOU. The MOU. The MOU. The MOU. The MOU. The MOU. Things that would give us more confidence that we know how to move forward, that we have an expectation that. It is everyone's intent to try to make this work. It doesn't mean we know that it will work, but it's everyone's intent that it's going to work. I can see that possibly happening at the end of our first year of planning. As things get more. But I'm, I'm, I can't. This year. I can't, but we could put that in the MOU. That after the first year of the lease, we would have a discussion about what the long-term. Plans are. But something that would give us some idea of, you know, where we're going to stand in three years. Okay. Problem with that. I recognize why you want that. The problem with that is that speaking as one council person. I don't know. I don't have any idea where we're going to stand in three years. And. And I can't make a commitment that our intention. Is anything at this point. Other than to. Get a lot of public input and get a lot of, but a lot of resources into planning. And then move forward on what. Looks like the. We're going to move forward on what we're going to do. After we have all of that. And that's really the only commitment. That I can. That I can make. Yeah. I mean, I. To me, this. Really gets at the crux of the concern. Carrie expressed of like feels like you're getting ahead of public process to say, we have a predetermined outcome. We're going to go through motions, we're going to go through motions. We're going to go through motions. And I think this actually accomplishes what you're looking for. Cause I, you know, like, Jack, I totally get why you want this. And, you know, it's something like it's. The hubs intention to demonstrate. As part of this three year lease that we are a. Viable and vibrant part of the community and drawing people in. You know, so somehow maybe there's like some way to measure. This is proving to be a successful, you know. So, but I think it's a good idea to see what you're looking for. And I think that's what it's giving you that. Information you can bring to the public process of look at, you know, it's kind of, this is the proof of concept and let's see how it's working. And so. There might be a way to word it that way that I would be more comfortable with. I think. Any other thoughts. So it sounds like there's not necessarily support for this. I mean, correct. So, but let's. Let's keep talking. So thank you. And I look forward to. What you all come up with to potentially be approved at the next meeting. Any, any further thoughts that folks have on. Yeah. I just like to say thank you to all of you for taking the time to really think about this seriously, because it. It's a tough balance that you're trying to achieve here. And, you know, obviously we have our needs and we're going to advocate for them, but I wouldn't want to be in your situation. Figure out how to balance it, but I appreciate your support. Well, thank you. And look forward to. Yeah. Well, we come up with that at the next meeting. So thank you so much. Thank you. All right. Cheers. Okay. So now we're going to move to the. Yes. To the project manager recommendation. And for this, I assume I'm turning things over to, oh, to Cameron. Oh, Jennifer. Yes. Go ahead. And then it'll be like. I'm sorry. I need to, I need to go. My medicine is kicked in. So I got to go. Good. Good. Good night. Good night. Yes, Jack. We only have a couple of items left on the agenda, but we've been going for kind of a long time without a break. Like. Not quite two hours, but it might be a good time for a break. For a short break. Other thoughts. Break. Yeah. Okay. I'm seeing some nods. I'm sorry. 10 minutes, five minutes. Community five. Okay. Five minutes. Well, we can be in 10, 15. And then. And so we're going to bring it back together here. All right. I'm going to turn it directly over to you all. Go ahead. All right. I'm Mike Miller, planning director for the city. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Josh. Community and economic development specialist for the city. All right. So really quickly, what we're here to talk about is the. Two or three country club lane, the Elks club property. Project manager recommendation approval. So we did put out an RFP. For project manager. To continue our planning process. We received four applications. We narrowed it to two had interviews and we have come up with. A recommendation to council. The firm. It's going to be led. The recommendation was led by white and Burke. Who's a real estate. Brokering firm in Burlington. And they'll be working with. VHB. And black river design. To try to go and do the planning process. So what really stood out to, to us about theirs was first of all, their timeline. It's a very rapid timeline. And so we're going to be working on that. We're going to be working on that. We're going to be working on that. Nine, about nine to 12 months for the planning process. They're hoping for about nine. To try to get through that initial planning so they can start working then on the preparation. We did ask them about. The potential of groundbreaking with that happen in 2024. And in the spring, that would be 18 months from now. They said that might be a little aggressive. Because we would need the funding and such, but they're looking at it. We're looking at it two years from now. In the fall. So. Just. Something to keep in mind. That's what their timeline is when they're working with us is they're looking at a two year timeline. To, to be able to start working on. Implementing what gets approved by council. Hopefully sometime in the middle of the summer next year. So the funding has, I believe it's in the report is. I think it's in the report. I think it's in the report. I think it's in the report. Additional costs that come up. We'll be working with bill and finance to. To see either. Because it's ending so close to a fiscal year, maybe something that gets rolled into a following fiscal year that we'll talk about during budgets, but. It's in, in what we had approved. For a budget of 150,000. Okay. Questions. Nope. Okay. Comments from. No one. Public here. Okay. Peter Kelman. Go ahead. Maybe Peter's hand was left over from the previous discussion. No, no. Okay. Okay. Okay. I read, I read all the proposals and I can certainly understand why you would have selected this one. I think I probably would have also. I do have one question. This is the same group that is representing VCFA in their. Selling their property plans. Now, probably a different department and different group of people. But. I hope that in talking to them. You'll make clear that you hope there's not any conflict of interest. With that, that's going to be another large property. It could be have multiple uses just like this one. It might be synergies perhaps, but we want, but you need to make sure there's not going to be a conflict of interest. That's my, that's my only concern. Otherwise. I thought it was clearly the best proposal. Thank you. Thank you. Any other, yes. Carrie, go ahead. Yeah, I also like this proposal. A lot out of all the ones that I read, and I'm a little bit familiar with the organization. I know that they do really good work. So I have a lot of confidence in them. So my, my only input would be about the public engagement part. And I know that that is a, that is a sticky tricky thing for people to do. And it looks like they have it kind of blocked out as one element. They're going to do for three weeks and then they're going to move on to, to other things. So I would be so much more comfortable seeing it more integrated throughout to the whole, the whole thing. So if you could encourage them to do that or talk with them about that. I would also ask you to consider encouraging them to. Think really creatively and seek out some different, some alternative sources for how to engage the public. Because I think we're pretty good at putting things on front porch form and putting things on our meeting agendas and posting something on the city website. And there's a whole ton of people that that doesn't hit. People who will never come to a public meeting, people who aren't going to come to a zoom meeting. And there are ways to get in touch with those folks. There are ways and I, I'm not an expert in it, but I know that there are a lot of people who have done a lot of really good work on public engagement processes, processes that are really citizen driven, that really meet people where they are and not. Just asking them to come to us. So all that stuff is great. We got to do all of that. But we have to do a lot more than that. And I guess I would say our observations, your observations were the same as ours all, all four of us. And so when we contacted them after we decided. That we wanted to select them are one concern was we wanted them to enhance their public input process. And so they gave us a number of things they're going to be bringing on a specialist from their organization who's going to be able to do that. And so we wanted them to then go and help to. Expand the public input process beyond what you see in the application. It was the same thing we saw. Any comments that you have about Peter. Comments suggestion or thoughts around the. Yeah, go ahead. Actually, you know, they have the experience working in the city. They were our partner on the parking garage project. They've been advising us on Tiff. They've been teaching us. They've been teaching us. They're familiar with the city. We saw that as a plus. I mean, obviously they're different projects, but the fact that they were. Doing market studies of what was flying in the city, but they were understanding what the needs were. You know, we wouldn't want to duplicate or be competing. And so the fact that we had, you know, that there's a single. That's the same firm. I think we'll bring informed both processes. I mean, we have. I talked to them about it actually before they even submitted. They want to know what I thought about it. And that was my take, but. You know, we, it's a good point that he made. Yeah. Thank you. Lauren. I agree. This proposal looks great. Totally support it. Just. Yeah. One note on Carrie's suggestion this morning, the social and economic social and economic justice advisory committee was talking about this project and that we could potentially bring some ideas because working with creative discourse, there had been a whole process of affinity groups and something. So would love to just. If there's a way for us to kind of interface with this person who's going to be running the public process, I think it would be a great way for us to work together. I think it would be a great way for us to have equity work on some ways to engage the community. Great. On our city's own communications person will be working on this as well. We'll be all just them. Great. Okay. Jack. I move that we approve the contract to awarding the contract to Whitenberg. Further discussion. Not seeing any. Okay. And opposed. Okay. So. That is unanimous. So we do not need to do roll call. Jennifer's not on, right? So. Thank you so much. Yeah. Forward to see how it goes. All right. I would also suggest that. We not take up the. Where did it go? The park that ordinance. First reading. I think it's late. And there's. Nothing really. I mean, I feel like if we want to give people a real chance to, to weigh in, I think we probably should. Put it off for now. Yeah. So I would say if we're going to put it off, which is fine because it's not urgent, although. It's not urgent. It's not urgent. So. Again, the sooner, the sooner we can do it, the sooner we can give people advanced notice to be prepared. But I did note in the memo and, you know, Mike's here that planning a DPW really took a good look and kind of redrafted it from the earlier draft that you saw. I personally feel it's a much. Better version. But if anyone has any concerns about that, you know, if you can let us know in advance, so we can be ready to address it at the first hearing instead of the next meeting. I don't know if that's a good idea. I really appreciated the work they did, but. You know, it is, it is different than what you saw, although I don't think the content is that different. But just. That would help. Okay. Okay. Great. Any further. Conversation about anything. Okay. All right. So with that. And my gosh, my. Prepared. You can change the agenda. I could. I would. So I, it's been a little while since I had. At least advertised that I'm doing office hours. If folks would like to have office hours with me, I would like to have a chat with you. So just email me and I will get you a link to. To have a time to chat. And that would be Sunday at 2pm. So Sunday 2pm. Folks are interested in having conversation. I would love to do that. And that is going to be it for me for right now. Connor. Yeah. I just want to say, you know, I just want to thank you for being here. Thank you so much. Thank you so much. Thank you so much. Thank you. My mother passed away. The same day. So it was kind of a whip last day. I just want to thank everybody for reaching out. It was pretty, pretty difficult week, but I really appreciate all of you. Thanks very much. Yeah. Jack. Yes. I wanted to comment on something that I've noticed on. Facebook lately. They've been doing a lot of different things. They've been doing a lot of different things. They've been doing a lot of different things. They've been doing a lot of different things. And that has been. Much more active. Posting on Facebook posting on different law enforcement activities. They've been doing. And. Other neighboring police departments have been doing the same thing. And I. Want to say that I really appreciate and support the decision that Montpelier police department is made. And I think that they've, they've done something and they've made an arrest that they have not been. Publishing the name of the person who has been arrested. And I think this is a really good thing. For a couple of reasons. One. When the person's arrested, they're still innocent. You're innocent until proven guilty. And so. So why should we be putting someone's name out there and. Making the whole world think they're a criminal when they're. Innocent. To why. I think it's definitely in the public interest to. Have the public know what the police is doing or doing, but why. Publicize the worst moment. Well, maybe the worst moment of someone's life. If we don't need to. The choice not to publicize the people's name is really. Yeah. Part of our public policy of restorative justice. And so I think. Good job doing that. Yeah. Lord. Just wanted to remind people that we had several appointments tonight and lots of committee appointments that we do have our stipend that are now available for participation in city committee work. So please. Look at that. Apply get involved. And would also just wanted to note that, you know, I mentioned that the social and economic justice advisory committee was talking about the, the Elks project as a place where we could look at public engagement and we're also doing kind of prioritization right now. So I think that's a good idea. I think that's a good idea. I think that's a good idea. And so if there are projects that you all as counselors being on many of these committees or, you know, anyone who is serving on those think could be a good place for, you know, where the expertise of that group could be helpful or we're, you know, weighing in looking at the equity implications of different actions, the cities taking, we're definitely interested in trying to kind of collect ideas and set some priorities for the upcoming year. So I think that's a good idea. I think that's a good idea. And I think that's another thing that I've gotten a couple of communications from, from various folks about the, some of them are now outdated, but about the parking. Band, like the winter parking band. And I feel like normally we talk about that post spring and. I feel like we didn't really do a debrief. Yeah, we didn't do a debrief and like, I feel like sadly winter is going to be here before we know school starts tomorrow. So I don't think we're going to be at this point and do the debrief all together, but it just was on my mind that we never kind of looked at the lessons learned and definitely got a good amount of input during the winter about it. Yeah. I'm going to take a little prerogative and add to mine. Which is to say that I am very grateful for the support of the voters of Montpelier. Having one. I've gotten the highest number of votes for support for states and democratic primary. From Montpelier was significant. That was very helpful and I'm very grateful. For everybody's support and. Yeah, thank you. Congratulations to you and Connor. Yeah, yeah, thank you. Right. John. I just might as well mention that I have already updated the ordinance on the, on the website. Isn't there a certain number of days before it's well, no, the days are indicated in there, but the document is up there. And I just wanted to say it's up there after all that. It's it's now. I actually have a list. So I'll try to get through them pretty quickly, but there are quite a bit. So number one, I did send you out this information earlier. I think today or yesterday, but we. I'm sorry. Is that bad? I'm not. It's an error. I'm meeting it. I'm not vibrating. Okay. So, uh, I'm not. I'm sorry. We unfortunately did not get the. Grant for district heat. So that is a shame. We put hats off to Cameron and our staff or really putting a ton of work into that grant. I think, you know, at least in the letter we got, they really emphasize that they were looking for economic development projects. That was their real key priority. So. The closing class for us is looking hard at sheltering options for the winter. And they, you know, you have the grant at the last, actually tonight you approve the contract them to move forward with their, their plan that's going to be a big step. But right now, you know, there was no plan to shelter at Christchurch again because there's not a little bit. So we are looking at that and looking at the costs. So more to come on that. Speaking of sheltering the comment was made earlier tonight and I didn't want to get into it because we were talking about something else about sheltering. Just a reminder that the city put $100,000 into that new shelter in Berlin. So it was not a neighboring town simply taking care of affection partnership and we're one of the major contributors. In response to that general comments of that individual we do follow up to the general business every Friday. So we don't get to back and forth here but people have questions or raise issues or comments in the weekly menu. If you're going to respond to that. I know you all know it. If there's somebody still watching I want to make sure they knew that that we don't just ignore it. Let's see. What I mean post. Could you somehow make it a public statement there. Sure. Or maybe at the end of public comment because I wouldn't mind you mentioned that but I don't think it's really live. Well, it's fine. Let's see, just main street paving is going to be a big job that's going to start next Monday when they hear about this is right after school starts. We made all efforts to have this done prior to school starting due to some programming con you know conflicts with the contractor, they're going to start Monday. They have agreed to not start work until 9am. So all the morning commute will happen. It's going to happen on Monday next Monday. They're going to start at the roundabout. Go past the middle school and go up. Main Street toward town hall and do that side of the road. They're going to stop when they finish. Then we're going to fix like something on Tuesday. So, these days they will be starting after the morning commute and by the afternoon. It's not going to be perfect, but they should be up to no one out of the school zones. Mechanical. But that is the plan. And they've been really good to work with. And when the final building is going to actually occur on a Saturday. To avoid school conflicts. So, and that's by September 10 so that project will be completely done by September 10 that's going to be a long stretch of road. And then we'll be moving along. And then again, all the work is on our website and on the McLean memo that DPW has been really active and our staff has been really active at getting the word out of what's happening, but a lot of projects happening. Unfortunately, we've got a couple of hiring processes on your way. And the building inspector assistant city manager. So if you know anybody that would be good at either one of them. Let us know. And then lastly, I don't want to mention talking about hiring, because and I, this is big. You know, you really are getting to a point of really emergency crisis shortages in police and pretty close to that in DPW. They're really reflecting the the nationwide situation, you know, police police, I think you're just having struggles anyway. In DPW, you know, if you have a CDL and experience running heavy equipment right now contractors are scooping up left and right at top dollar. So it's becoming it's becoming a crisis as far as getting work done. So we're conversations with departments about how to address that. And one of the ways to do that is to revisit their contractual wage agreements. You may hear more about this. I wanted to make sure I said that and said it in public that we, we have longer term agreements with both these unions. And we are looking at perhaps having to open them obviously you would be involved in that. And, you know, what that costs where the money comes from, all of that, but it's going to be that or a choice between not delivering our essential services because we don't have anybody to do it. So I don't know if it's going to impact the next year's budget. But it's probably the biggest, most stressful thing that's on our offices desk right now. So, so have a good evening everybody. Gosh, well thank you. Yeah, keep us posted. All right, so I think that is the end of our business so without objection, we will adjourn 1037. Thank you everybody.