 Okay, we are recording. Okay. So first up on the agenda is to review the minutes from last time. I can share them just hold on one moment. That's weird. My minutes are. I don't know what's wrong with my minutes here. Sorry, I have them open and I could share. Yeah, could you share Steve? I opened something, but it's only like part of a document. It's not the whole thing. I'm not sure what happened. Oh, there they go. Can you see them yet? I've got them. Oh, I think I'm sharing them. Yeah, maybe you. I'm scrolling and it's not moving. So it's you. Sorry. I will scroll down a little bit. To the important parts. Hold on to your eyeballs. I'll scroll down a little bit more. I move that we approve the minutes. I can. Minor correction there that I just highlighted, but that's just a grammatical error. Yep. I'll get that Steve. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Sorry, I interrupted somebody's second thing. That was me, Darcy. All right, I'm making a note. Hold on. And then I'll do a roll call. Okay. Do you want. Yes. Drucker. Yes. Roof. Yes. Rose. Yes. Durr. Yes. Breger. Yes. Selman. Abstain. I mean, it's approved. I have one question. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I have a closing policy. When do we need to do that? Yeah, so I've sent a note to Mandy Joe to get. More information about. The timing of that. Okay. I want to stop sharing the minutes. So when we. Get to that. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. If folks could just. Remember that we were going to do that brief. Noting it down, but I don't know if I'll remember. So. Okay. Public comment. I know. Annalisa's here again. And at least if you want to. Make any public comment. Feel free to raise your hand. If not, we can move on to staff updates. Okay. So the only update that I have is. That I had a meeting with Linnean yesterday and. The drafts that you have, there is some information missing in the transportation section. I believe there's a few things that were. Start, you know, sort of drafted, but not completed. And they will get that information to you before Saturday. We'll have it before the retreat. On Saturday to review. Okay. But other than that. I've just been flat out with wetlands work. So. Haven't done a lot. Otherwise. All right. Thanks, Stephanie. Sure. So moving on to ecac member updates. Yeah, Steve. I with Chris Riddle and I met briefly with. Rob Moore more earlier this week, just to briefly mention to him that the RMI group. Is considering the idea of a rental property. Energy benchmarking and performance requirement, as well as potentially benchmarking requirements for other buildings. We wanted just to one alert him that we've been thinking about some of these things and to learn a little bit about how the rental bylaw was created in the town of Amherst. So we spoke with him for about 20 minutes. He basically said that, yeah, he helped shepherd the rental bylaw. Through there was a committee that was created to help formulate that that included a broad range of representation. From throughout the town, including landlords and real estate people. He would read some of the information that we presented. So I provided him some links to the RMI toolkit. And better rentals, better, better cities document that. We briefly shared and talked about it at our last meeting and are linked in the minutes. Great. So are there any. Next steps from that, Steve. The next steps are going to be back to the RMI group with Andra, myself, Chris. Ashlyn joined in last meeting we had. So we are going to continue to try to come up with something more specific. To. To work on that. And I think it will dovetail nicely in what's in the draft carp. Great. Darcy. I just wanted to add that the resolution that we endorsed. Did pass the town council. At its last meeting. Great. The electrification one. Carbonization. Yes. Great. I just learned that. RMI is one of the five finalists for a. I think federal grant to. Support municipalities to. Do. Retrofits of affordable housing. So they may be running another accelerator. And something that we're very interested in. I also heard today about a program. I don't think RMI is running it, but I know they had some data. Behind it. Called. Out of gas. I forget the name. It's. We act. For environmental justice out of New York. And it's basically a pilot program to see. To convert. To. They're, they're, they're fine. They're taking like. 10 stoves with. It's called the out of gas pilot. So they're converting gas stoves to electric stoves and like. 10 houses and 10 regions in New York. And. Quantifying the indoor air pollution. Measuring the indoor air pollution difference. As well as looking at the cost difference. You know, Right now because natural gas is so cheap by changing to an electric stove, you actually will likely see a cost increase unless you're going to do other retrofits along with that, which for affordable housing and rental housing is more challenging as we know. So anyway, that just seemed like a pretty. Neat. Project to keep our eye out on. Yeah. We're going to keep our eye out for the results of. Anybody else. You can't go updates. All right. Let's move along here. So, um, The carp review process. Where I'd like to do is just go over it quickly. Um, Talk about how we want to focus on the retreat. Um, And then I think, I guess we can kind of do a show of hands or, or whatever. Um, but my proposal would be that we. If this doesn't take long, which it shouldn't, we kind of end early today and give each other time back to spend the rest of the meeting hours. Um, starting the review. Um, I don't know if it's going to work, but we can, we can see where this conversation takes us. And I know just from looking at the spreadsheet. Uh, that. Steven Darcy have already started putting in comments, which is wonderful. Um, I know for myself personally, I haven't had a chance to digest the document yet and start adding comments. So I'm assuming we're in different stages of that process. Um, I'm not sure what is on this introduction sheet of the Google. Google sheet. Um, you know, we're. I've just put together this simple spreadsheet to help us organize comments. Um, you know, as, as noted, you know, only add comments and avoid responses and discussions in this document. Um, and then we'll start with the review section. Um, we'll start with the review section. Um, we'll start with the review section. Um, we'll start with the review section. Um, so if you're limited in time, you know, start with your own section and then, and then branch out. There's also the roadmap to 20, 25 section that I've caught out specifically. Um, that I think is, um, something we should all, all try to review. Um, I think what we're doing, the goal should be to make sure that. What we've done. Well, we've learned throughout our time in EECAC, both during this most recent task group process, but also in our previous outreach. Um, Is reflected. Um, And that this really provides the framework to support EECAC to move the town forward. And I think Steve just gave a good example of that, right? You know, talking about the. Um, Um, I'm just noting that it dovetails nicely with what's in, in the carp. So, you know, when we move forward with a project, like something related to rental housing, we can, you know, point back to where, how this fits within our sort of overarching. Climate action and resiliency plan. Um, and then finally, you know, just noting that this report is also serving other purposes and will be used by other groups and towns. Um, And Darcy, that maybe we can even make that more clear. Um, So, so yeah, so that's. And then I've created tabs for each section. As well as a tab for the roadmap. And the section and then just any other more general comments. We want to make. So in terms of process, we want to make sure that we have the same comment. If you. If your comment is the same as the comment that's already been made, no need to. To repeat it. You could add your name and under the commenter section as well. If you wanted to just note that you had the same comment. Um, the other thing I would ask, and this is starting to, to feed into the retreat planning a little bit is. If there's a comment that we can't have discussion in this discussion. We want to make sure that we can discuss them as a group. If there's a comment that you see that you want to discuss, make sure it's discussed at the retreat, maybe just put a check mark or an X in the discussion. Um, Column, you know, that could be because you maybe have us tightly different take, or it could be just because you think it's a really important comment and we want to make sure that. We, um, We talk about it as a group. Like how we can make sure that this is a process that is going to be a process for reviewing. The report. Yeah, Darcy. I guess I'm, I just would, I would like to know how, what we're thinking about. What would be the next step after this? Um, Like. How our comments will be integrated. I think is going to happen, which is that we'll go through this together, we'll make sure that all the comments are kind of agreed to by the group, and then we'll send them to Linnaean, and I think if there's comments that Linnaean doesn't feel comfortable in incorporating for whatever reason, whether they are, I can't think of a good reason why, but maybe there's some reason why a comment doesn't make sense to incorporate, then we would have that discussion with Linnaean. My sense is that they would incorporate all the comments that we've given them, and if there's some that we need to talk about with them, that would be something we do in a meeting. Does that sound right to you, Stephanie? Yeah, I was just going to say basically they're going to incorporate your comments, and they're going to bring a draft to you, and if there is some kind of a problematic comment for, I think it's more that they will come back to you if they see something that they think, and it wouldn't be that it's a problematic issue. My guess is it would be more clarification, or they just want to maybe check in with you about the information. They're also going to be incorporating comments from staff as well, so they'll be sort of putting everything together and coming back to you, and if they have questions, they'll get back to you, I'm sure. And so in terms of the timeline, they're going to take our comments and any comments from the town staff and incorporate them to give us like the final draft version, and then that's the version that we will take pieces of, or however we want to collect feedback. So I know Darcy, you'd suggested like TAC, the Transportation Committee, reviewing the transportation section, you know, that could be something. If we have a lot of comments for the transportation section, I would suggest we wait until we get that final draft version to send to them. But yeah. I think that kind of coordination is where I would, you all tell me which committees you want to reach out to, and we would get that, I would send that to the committees. And I think part of the thing about getting it to staff is that some of the staff, mainly our department heads, right now we identified pretty much the core team that was involved in the MVP process. So they're all the people that are relevant to the sectors that you all have identified. They're people that have either been attending the, were able to attend some of the meetings for the task group sessions, or they were part of the MVP process. So those are the ones that we identified as reviewing. And those folks are usually the people that are staff. So for instance, Guilford or Amy would basically be able to speak to transportation issues because they're the liaison to the TAC, and they may reach out to the TAC to get feedback as well. So we can, I think start with this first, get to that later. I think you need to sort of have your review process first, let the department heads, the staff, town staff have their review. And then I think when you get that information, you can disseminate it to the other committees, but you'll, I think that is something where it would be my role to sort of get that out. Yeah, I would think that with a committee that is so directly on the issues that we're dealing with, they should see it now. Again, you are getting it to Amy and Guilford, who work with the TAC directly. So they're going to, you know, they, and they may very well bring it to the TAC as well. But I think you need to start with, with them first. I hear you, Andra, and I'm not saying don't, I'm just saying in terms of timing right now, I think you're at a point where you need to get some feedback initially. And then you can sort of bring it out for broader feedback. Okay, we're going to be real tight on time. And, you know, not many changes will be made at that point. Yeah, Steve. Yeah, I agree with Andra, and particularly, I think we want TAC and other committees in town to feel like we're welcoming their comments or their suggestions, their ideas, their, and the plans that they have perhaps already made. Now worry a little bit by handing them something that seems to be kind of comprehensive and already written. I'll look at that and I'll say, gosh, who's ECAC? We already have a transportation plan or recreation group. We already have a plan that addresses access to outdoor, and they might get a little miffed that they hadn't been contacted earlier. So I understand what Stephanie was saying, and they have to kind of have to roll this out in bits and pieces, but maybe there's a way as it gets transmitted to them, we can say this is early draft, and we really welcome and respect the plans, the ideas that you can bring to this. And hopefully they can contribute. We welcome their big contributions to these different sections, because they those those different groups that have put a lot of work into some of these issues. I'm hoping that they will feel ownership of what's in the carp, as well as, as well as us. I totally hear you, Steven, I don't disagree. Sorry. Okay. So is there any, I mean, so we know that the staff supporting TAC are going to are being asked to review it. Is there any problem with when we ask them to review it to also ask them to share it with TAC? I think that's what Stephanie suggested. And that yes, exactly. That's what I'm saying is let, you know, I mean, the staff that's the liaison to those committees are the ones that should sort of be bringing that to them, so that we can also coordinate getting feedback from them as well. Okay. So we've talked about TAC. Is there other committees that are like that? There's the, well, I mean, the folks that we're sending it to, there's the Planning Board, the Conservation Commission, Planning Conservation. Agriculture. There's the Agricultural Group. There's the AdCom. They can take a look at it too. Well, yeah, I don't think, yeah. They can weigh in as well. You know, and again, I don't think we necessarily need to spend the time at this meeting because I, you know, those committees, I can identify who they are and I can let you all know and we could talk about it on Saturday. So I think right now you should probably not worry about that detail at this point. I've added in some places in the comments sections where if I was aware of a committee or a town entity working on something similar, I often suggested that they get brought in or notified. So you can, you can't think of them, Stephanie, well, you probably can more than I can. I can. I can. I just right now, I don't have the whole list in front of me and I do know the staff, you know, I know who staff are liaisons to, but don't forget that if you're asking for comment, there has to be an organized way in which we get that feedback because that's going to make it more complicated for Linnean. So I think we're trying to be also given our timeline. We want feed, we want broad feedback, but we also want to be very strategic about how we collect that information and give it back to Linnean. Yeah. Darcy, did you have something else to say? I just wanted to remind people that I'm, I'm the liaison from this group to tech. I've been attending the tech. Well, you're the liaison from the council to tech. No, I'm liaison. At one point, we assigned people to go to different committees. And they, I was assigned to go to ECAC or to tech. Okay. But I'm also liaison from the council. So anyway, I attend the tech meetings and so, so I, yeah, so I, I do feel like we need to be cautious about sending folks a 140 page document and asking them for feedback. So I think we have to step back for a second and remember that we've gone through several types of processes to collect this information. And at this point, you know, this is really representing, like I'm trying to, I think we, I think it's super helpful, super important to, to build ownership of, of this. And at the same time, I think we would do ourselves a disservice if we were in a situation where someone was like, well, I disagree with all of that. Like, how would we, how would we approach that? So I think we have to, I think going the route of, you know, and TAC may be a special example where, you know, we're already engaged with them a lot. And we asked them to review or we threw the staff liaison, make sure the staff liaisons are aware that we are also wanting the committee to see that, see the draft. Some other committees may not be the same way. I know like ag com, I think when we talked about that before, they operate quite differently and maybe don't meet as much, right Stephanie? They only meet once a month and I'm the staff liaison. Yeah. So, so yeah, so I think we, we maybe don't need to do something that's there may be some groups where we want to go to them with just a short presentation on the key items. Like we don't want them to send them a 20 page section and ask them to read it, right? So, so maybe TAC is one situation. And then for some of the other groups, we approach it slightly differently. I mean, you have very specific sector groups and very specific town committees that are relevant and TAC is a perfect example that you would want them to very much focus on that transportation section without delving into, I mean, I think it's similar to what Mandy Jo and the housing policy, what they were doing with us, they only tasked us with looking at the sustainability section. You all chose yourselves to want to look at the whole thing, which is great and fine, but they really only tasked you with a segment of it. So I think it's a similar kind of approach. We're not necessarily like you said, Laura, looking for them to give feedback on the entire document, but what's relevant for them totally makes sense. And I get it. And I don't disagree. I just want to be, you know, really mindful of our timeline and how we get that feedback from them. Yeah, Dwayne. I would just add, it is sort of a fine line that I think we need to do at least an iteration of review and redraft by Danean before we send it to these committees. I mean, we don't want to ask the committees to do our work in terms of sort of this initial review, but to have it pretty well reviewed and give them something that at least we're comfortable with for them to review to make sure they're comfortable with. So I think we need to, so it's sort of that fine line. And I'm blocking on what our, what the time frames were to get this all done. And it is the main time frame, sort of went how long we have with Danean available to us. That was in the minutes, March 24, I think, by sometime around March 24. Right. Really soon. Let's not give us much time. But so by March 24, or by March 26, we've been asked to deliver our feedback to Danean, as well as town staff review feedback to Danean. And then we have some time to, some time built in for them to make those updates and meet with us to address any questions. And then Danean incorporates our feedback. Yeah. So we need, we'll need to think about how, I tend to agree with Dane. I think we've got to do our own due diligence first and we're starting that and hopefully we'll get most of it done by Saturday. And then we can start to think through how we, how we work within this timeline to get, to get feedback. But I think for TAC, at least, I think we can recommend, Stephanie, that when you share the draft, or you may have already shared the draft, letting Amy and the person to his name, I'm blanking on. Yes. Know that, you know, fine if they want to also collect feedback from, from TAC members directly. And then Darcy, you can also, I guess, mention that when you go. But yeah, I think it'd be helpful for that to roll up into the feedback from the staff, as opposed to having, you know, seven more sets of feedback to look through. I think this might be something to discuss at the retreat. But I might as well say it in case we should decide now. What, what to, is there no discussion amongst the ECAC about the staff comments? Do they just automatically go in? So that's what this kind of time between the 26th and the 30th, I mean, there's, so there's a month in here where Linnaean will address any questions or updates that come up, and where TAC group members will also be providing feedback. So that's a good time when maybe other committees should also be providing input. I think to, to Stephanie's point earlier, you know, if there's a town comment that is saying take something out or, you know, I think that has to be discussed, that would be discussed, just like our comments that we have that we feel like Linnaean feels like they want to discuss with us. But remember that this is not only supporting ECAC, right? Like, so there may be comments, there might be parts of this where, you know, town staff want to add stuff because it would help with grant applications or other things related to the MVP process. Yeah. Anything else to add, Stephanie? I don't think so. I have a couple of questions just about our process. Or is that what we're talking about now? Yeah. So there were a few things that I saw that seemed to be brand new suggestions. And almost all of which I agreed with, but they did seem to be new, like something that we had never heard about before. And so, do we just leave those in? Or do we have ideas about that? Well, I think that, you know, if you want to make a comment about it, about it, I have, I did, but it doesn't necessarily mean I want it out. I just am wondering about you know, there are some, well, anyway, I just wondered about how that happened. And that looks like Stephanie is going to tell us. Yes. So if you recall a while ago, probably several months ago, you asked Linnaean to look at other plans and to also include things that were examples from other documents that you thought that they had as that they thought were either good actions that could be incorporated. So that's what they did. They, so it wasn't just everything that you did. It's also what they are bringing to the table as our consultants, as our paid consultants to look and research and bring additional actions that weren't specifically identified in this process, but something that they did more work in investigating and bringing. And you asked them to do that. I think even Darcy, I think it was you specifically who asked them to do that. So I think they're just doing what you want them to do, ultimately. The example of that was, you know, advocating for the PVTA to be free, which by the way, it was when I moved to Amherst. And so, you know, that's a great idea. Some of those might have come from the group process, too, though. There might have been notes that even though you didn't have them on your list during the task group, if it came up, they were taking lots of notes about a lot of things. That could be. Yeah. And my other question is in our comment sheet, if we have like Steve made a lot of comments already, I made a lot of comments already individual comments. How are we going to deal with those comments if I mean, I like Laura's idea that if like, if I agree with Steve, I could add my initials to the commenter column or but what do we do with the comments that are, you know, reasonably good ideas, but are, you know, like a new idea or something that is just a lone comment out there. I think Laura suggested that we put a check in the discussion section column meaning need to discuss this. So not to say we agree, but to say we need to discuss. Is that right? Yeah, I mean, I think that if you have a, if you, if there's a comment that you just don't think we should make, then I think we should discuss it. We should discuss it, right? If it's a comment that nobody feels the need to discuss, then in my mind, that means we submit that comment. Okay, so unless, so the default is if somebody makes a comment, we accept it unless people say, you know, that's not a good idea or that shouldn't be a priority or something along those lines. Yeah, because there's going to be a lot of, you know, with all of us commenting, there's going to be a lot of individual comments. And so I guess I'm just wondering how we're going to sort them out and deal with them. Yes, Steve. And then Dwayne. I guess I'm hoping that at our retreat, we can start with really big picture aspects of it. Avoid grammatical corrections and even avoid detailed questions or comments, but really look at the big picture. Do we have the right sections? Do we want to add sections? Do we want to delete sections? Is it too much or too little? So big picture ideas first. And we might kind of structurally rearrange things. And to do that. And then with the things that remain, then we could progressively get down into more and more detailed comments and discussions about those things. But personally, I feel like there's, there's some big things I would like to see changed about it before we get into detailed issues. Okay, Stephen, then did you put those big picture comments in the other and the other comment tab? They're not necessarily. I think I did for some and other cases, they're embedded into different tabs. Just flag them with a yes for discussion. Okay. So I think that that makes sense. I'm trying to figure out how to make sure, I mean, because we've got two hours on Saturday. And so we want to make sure that we're, we're starting with those high level questions. Um, so yeah, so I think folks should go through and write, you know, yes for discussion on some of these. And then if you want to try to articulate more overarching comments in the other comment section, we can sort of start there, move on to roadmap and then move on to individual sections. Does that sound good for the retreat? You repeat that, Laura. So I think, as I said before, the main thing for, you know, I think this is our opportunity to review this. So I know folks have different levels of time available. So, um, if you have these sort of larger, bigger picture comments about how it might be organized or, um, or other things, I would flag those and potentially put them in the other comments tab. So then on Saturday, we'll start there. We'll start with the other comments tab and start with the big picture things. Or if you flag big picture things in other sections, you know, we'll make sure we start with the big picture things and then we'll move into I think the roadmap section and then we'll move into the individual sectors where during the individual sectors, I'm going to ask one of the co-chairs to sort of take the lead on running through those comments. We're going to discuss the comments that we need to discuss and if they're grammatical comments or other minor comments that we don't need to discuss, we'll just move right past them. Yeah, it's Wayne. Um, general comment and then a specific maybe suggestion. So with the caveat that I haven't really read anything yet, but I'm just looking at the table of content and so forth, it seems like in my mind, one of the more important sections or it could be one of the more important sections is, which I'm no confused about, there's the roadmap to 2025, but then there's a section which is decently substantial, which is setting the stage for transformation, which I don't see a tab in the comment Excel spreadsheet for that. That strikes me as being sort of these cross-cutting issues that are sort of pervasive throughout, but also could be very important. So I'm just wondering practically should that, should those comments go in the roadmap to 2025 tab, or should we set up another tab for that? And because this is where, you know, for example, I, you know, one, I would suggest there's a section, for example, on um, town financing and recommendations on how the town re-thinks financing in this issue of capital cost and operating costs, which I thought might have been in this participatory budget, but then I read that just quickly and that's not quite that. So maybe it's somewhere else. But just where do we, maybe that's one of the big pictures Steve had in mind, or maybe it should go in this setting the stage, and there should be a tab for that specifically. There is a section at the very end that doesn't appear to be completed yet that's called capital planning for climate infrastructure. And that seems like it's a really important section that needs to be finished for us to look at on Saturday. Darcy, that's one of the things that I said would be completed, so you will get that before Saturday. Okay, well maybe that's addressed there. If it's at the very end, I mean, it's getting into Saturday, I would suggest that goes up closer to the earlier parts. But okay, so just whether there should be a tab for these other sections, I guess. And then also I was just thinking just in terms of the voluminousness of the comments that we might get if people just serially add their own comments, I'm wondering whether if somebody has a comment that is highly related to a comment somebody else already put in there, just instead of adding it down the list, just maybe add it to a column to the right to say great comment, but I'm looking at it this way a little bit differently along the route line, so we're a little bit more efficient to get through the full list of comments. Yeah, so I'm saying that you're not violating the open meeting law by doing that. Yeah, so on that point, I think if you have the same comment as someone else, either just don't add it or if you want to note that you also have that same comment, I would add your name. So if it's like a roof comment in the commenter tab, I would, or the commenter column, I would add too, right, like we both have the same comment. If you have, if you think if you had the same comment slightly differently, you know, you could add it or you could just write a yes next to the discussion and we'll discuss it. But yeah, we can't kind of have the debate or anything in here. The other reason I asked you to include the section or page is because before we talk about it, we can group them together. So if two people had a comment on page 101, you know, then we'll look at those at the same time. But to your question about whether we should make other tabs, so I could do that. I think it looks like Darcy has added like in the plan and Duane or excuse me, and Steve, sorry, have added some of those in just the other comment section. So I think for sake of ease, let's just add those there. And if we, yeah, let's just add those there. Yep. Jesse. Question is, do you know if what we receive from Linane is going to disrupt the page numbering at all? And can we ask that it be a separate word document so it doesn't? And it may behoove us to just cut, if we're at our computers, just cut and paste a little phrase from what, from which we are commenting so that if page numbers start to move around, which they could, we can quickly using the find function get to that phrase to where that came from. Yeah, that's a good suggestion. It does look like the only sections that are not complete are at the very end. So I think we'll be mostly okay. But yeah, that's a good, good suggestion. Do we think two hours is adequate to do all this? I think that we're going to have to do our best. I don't think to more than two hours in a Zoom meeting looking through comments is going to be productive. So my suggestion is we go through as much as we can on Saturday. And then we decide that we have to schedule another meeting if we need to schedule another meeting. Yeah, Andra. I had an idea that we could, since we're starting with the big, and then getting back to the sections, the task force sections, that we could take a half hour break from Zoom and talk on the phone with the section leader and, and talk through, you know, how we want to present it, what are the big things, you know, and that gives us a break, but it also will make our time together more efficient. It makes it longer though, the whole thing. Well, let's, let's start with the current, the current plan. Like, yeah, let's keep that as an idea, because I mean, it would be easy to just jump off and do that if we have the time. So let's start with the, with the plan of starting with the big picture items, see how far we get with that. And then if we have the time, we'll do that, or we'll say, okay, you know, between now and next meeting, task group co-chairs need to get together and do that for their, for their sections. I think we'll have to be, I'm sure that we could sit here and probably talk through some of these comments at length. So I think we'll have to try to be, and there'll be, there'll probably be some that we do need to sit and have a real in-depth conversation about, and there'll be somewhere we'll say it's, you know, good enough and let's move on, right? So I think we'll have to try to be a little, keep that in mind as we're going, as we're going through it to try to get through as much as we can. Because I think it's beneficial for all of us to sit and look at these comments together, and I don't want to split it up too much, because I think everything we've done has been split up given COVID and everything. But that's going to require us to kind of be, be a bit quicker. Yeah, Jesse. I apologize if I missed this. Do we have like a, aside from the sort of conceptual notion that occurred, is there an agenda for Saturday? Yeah. So that's the agenda. That's, or this is a kind of what we're discussing right now. So if you have ideas for other agenda items or other ways to organize, I'm, the, the way the agenda was posted, you can sort of come up with your own sort of internal agenda, but officially there's already been like a very general agenda posted just, just FYI, in case you look at it and see it and what I sent you, it was intentionally meant to be that general. So you all can fine tune it when you're there. You know, if Laura sort of comes to it like, these are the steps we're going to take, that's fine, but just, I don't, I wouldn't necessarily want to make it too official, if you will. Yeah, it's Wayne. I guess, I mean, I do have a fear that we're going to, two hours is not that long, even on Zoom. And I have this fear that we're going to be really getting into the high level issues and like it's going to be an hour and a half. We haven't even gotten to the specific comment. So we're going to have to be disciplined in some way. And I am wondering whether there should be sort of a time, timekeeper and, and sort of be pretty, pretty clear that, you know, we got this 15 minutes to do this and then we got to move on. So we make it through this in two hours. And I'm also, Laura, you might have said this already, but whether we reorganize this or not, you know, maybe each of the sectors are given, you know, their 20 minutes and it's up to the leaders to lead through that conversation, maybe ahead of time highlighting the comments that they think are the most important ones. Well, there'll be some suggestion, whether they're worthy of discussion or not, but just to prep a little bit in terms of what the discussion, how to hold those discussions again through that, all in, you know, whatever the allotted time is. Because it could go, the time will pass pretty quickly, I think. Yeah. So I think that two, two thoughts there. One thought is if you're making a comment, it has to have a solution. Like you can't just, there has to be an answer to what you want Linnean to do. Okay. And if there's not, then it'll be a noted comment, right? Like, you know, so I think make sure when you're making, this is how we used to run international standards commenting, like if somebody made a comment that had no proposed solution, it just got noted and that was it. So I think keep that in mind when you're making comments. And I think the challenge with the task groups, I think we need to give folks until Saturday to do their review. So I think it's going to be hard for task groups to like look at the comments in advance. So, but maybe what we do then is we focus the two, I think we would, I think we're going to use up the two hours on the big picture and the roadmap. And so maybe if everybody tries to get their feedback in by Saturday, we spend the two hours on those kind of other on basically everything but the sectors, then our meeting on the 24th, we could each spend 15 minutes going through our sectors, and then we'd be ready, and then we'd be done. Or, you know, always we see what happens on Saturday and if we have to schedule another one of these two hour sessions for the next weekend, then we'll have to do that too, right? So, yeah, Andra. Is it discussing for us to like organize the order of the, you know, group the comments ahead of time, maybe even put in a line that gives a heading for the type of comment. Are you suggesting that the sectors do that? Well, yeah, or maybe one person, you know, the hour before make the deadline be one o'clock, comments got to be in, and then different people take a different tab, it's an idea. And do, and do what with the time. And organize that according to topic or kind of level of comment or something that would help us move along. Yeah, I think that sectors could do that, you know, could try to just put the page numbers together, which would be the topics would be, you know, same. Yeah, I mean, I think folks should try to get comments on by noon, and then if people have time to start doing that, that's great. Yeah. Any other comments? So in terms of the agenda for the retreat, I think we have our plan for going through comments. Was there anything else, Jesse, or anyone that you think we need to, like part of me feels like we should give everybody one minute to give their overall thought, but then that's 10 minutes. So I'm, you know, I don't know if that's helpful or not. I'm more of a workhorse. I'm ready to just go through the comments, but that might not be the right approach. I think that's going to come out when we're talking about the big picture anyway. You know, that's, that's what people would probably say in their comments, right? They're big picture thoughts about the plan. Yeah. I am wondering who is going to be responsible for those other pieces of the plan, you know, the letter from ECAC, the letter, all those different things that have to fall into place. Do we need to start worrying about those parts now too? I think that we would only worry about the letter to ECAC and I, letter from ECAC, right? And I don't think we need to worry about that yet. I think we talked about, you know, a lot of what was in the annual report that Andra and Ashwin worked on would feed into that kind of letter, the big picture thinking. Yeah. I guess I feel, feel without that right now, I feel like there needs to be more of a and I'm just saying, I'm giving a big picture idea right now, but more of a sense of urgency, time urgency. Overall, throughout the whole thing I felt like, you know, and so that I, when I thought about where should that be, it probably should be in the ECAC letter and in the introduction. But yeah, in various parts, I felt a sense of the lack of that urgency piece. So that could be a comment to make, like, you know, particularly in the executive summary and the letter. I mean, we can just state that and assuming we all agree and that will be, be back. I, I think in terms of process, there, there needs to be a prioritizing process still. Um, we did our evaluation of things that we thought were going to be in it and are, um, to varying degrees. And now there might be some new things that we have to evaluate, but still we don't have that, the priorities. And that seems like a very difficult conversation to have as a part of this retreat where we're just starting to look at at the initial thing. You don't think that the roadmap section is the priorities? Um, well, no. Yeah, I think for this document or priorities for ECAC. Well, I think there's, there's two things, you know, what's priority to actually put in, um, at all. And then what's, um, what's actually the roadmap that we are going to recommend. At this point, it doesn't feel like, um, it's, it's exactly what we have said. Okay. So this is our opportunity to add comments and give specific things that we want to have put in this plan. We also need to remember that this is a 140 page plan. Anything that we do is going to need to be anything that ECAC, like we could maybe do two things this year. We've talked about it. The rental, I think, you know, the rental program idea, um, you know, maybe something with CCA and maybe something with transportation, like that, there we are. Those are our priorities. Like, we got it. Yeah, I guess, I didn't mean ECAC, um, priorities, but, but really roadmap, you know, town priorities. Because I think we can, I think we're going to always come up against this issue unless we can kind of like step back and say, this is, this is everything and we can prioritize it a little bit. But like when we're talking about actually things we're going to do right now, or even the town is going to do right now, that list is really small. Um, and I don't know, I guess I was sort of envisioning that we would always want to make sure that that maps back to this. And if it doesn't map back to that, to the, to the report, then that's a problem because we're doing something that doesn't map back to the report. Um, but the report itself is not going to be like, here's the priorities for you to do. Maybe that's in the executive, maybe we add that sound a little bit, but I think that that would age the report too much too quickly, I guess. Yeah, Stephanie, I just want to say too that there may be challenges for some of the priorities, maybe really important priorities, but at the same time, fiscally, it may not be possible, you know, financially, it may not be possible depending on what it is and when it comes up. So I do think there's also, you know, certainly identifying priorities, but at the same time understanding that there may be a priority that can't be addressed one year, but might have to wait a couple of years and then get addressed, or so the town can plan for it. You know, my feeling about this whole report and plan is that in some ways this is kind of our, at least for me in the work that I'm doing, the document that's always going to be the reference point. Every, every time that we have opportunity, every time that we have the budget cycles, these are the things we're gonna, we're gonna sort of open up this document and look and pull out what we need as we go along, and then at some point it'll be revised, it'll be updated, you know, it's always gonna be the blueprint. So I just don't know that it's even when you identify priorities, they may not always be possible. Yeah, Steve. I guess that then questions what we mean by priorities. And we want, we want to figure that out and make it clear. I can imagine there might be 10 or 15 priorities, but then there are things that we're working on this year starting next week. Those would be another kind of priority. So we need to distinguish between those things that we need to do, and that are priorities, and the things that we are going to do that are priorities. That's where I think the roadmap, it's just so big. It makes it hard to be a map. It's like a map of the entire country. It doesn't really give you anything specific to follow. You can go everywhere. So maybe it's in the implementation, which is at the end and not really well developed yet, that it focuses on those aspects. As you were saying, Laura, these are the things that we can do this year, the three to five things perhaps that we'll take initiative on. That may be in the implementation section, but somehow we have to distinguish between important priorities and can do priorities. Yeah, and I think we need to also keep, I think we need to think about the longevity of this report. And I actually don't think we should add into this report our priorities for this year. I think that's a separate document that says based on the report, this is what ECAC, or this is what we think the town needs to work on between 2021 and 2022. Because I think if we put that in the report, I guess it could go either way, right? But we want this to last. This has been a long process. It's cost a lot of money. I think we want this report to have a lot of stuff in it. So to Stephanie's point, we can continue to point back to this for at least a few more years before it needs to be updated again. So I guess I was always thinking that some of that prioritization would be happening separate from what's written in the final report. Could be your annual report, you know, that when you identify what you've done over the year and then you look to what your priorities are for the year ahead, that would be a good time to sort of pull from there, you know, and identify them. And maybe that process is what we need to clearly state in this report, like how we're going to do that in terms of implementation. Like every year ECAC is going to pull together their annual report and it's going to identify their priorities and it's going to be based on, you know, the roadmap. And when the roadmap, when we've done everything or we've realized that things have changed, you know, that's when we have to do a new version or something. But yeah, Darcy. I'm just wondering, I'm always thinking in terms of that this will first go through the staff and the town manager right before going to the town council. And then the town council will need to adopt it before it becomes the final plan, is that correct? I mean, I'm assuming that it is. And that each, it will probably get referred to the different committees for recommendations back to the council and then final adoption. I understood from when Ashwin and I presented that there was no vote to adopt. It was just particular recommendations. Each one would need to be adopted. I think that is true. I don't know whether they'll be assembled into, you know, like each added to the plan as they come in or something like that. But yeah, I am assuming that that a whole lot of them will come to the town services and outreach committee. And a bunch of them will go to the community resources committee. And so I guess when you're talking about how this document will live on, I'm not completely sure how that will work. But I hope that we'll end up with an actual plan, you know, that each one of these recommendations can be added to as they're adopted by the council. Sort of like a master plan that keeps getting sections added to it after adoption. But I might not be, you know, I might not have it right. I'm not sure. I guess I didn't see this as being, yeah, I guess I wasn't, I was envisioning this as being the roadmap or the plan. And then each action that we decide to take is going to be brought to the council or referred to another committee to take to the council. I think that's a good point. I think we should, once this is finalized, maybe one of the ECAC things should be to go through this and make sure that all the groups that may be responsible for different parts know about it and you know, but like once we move forward, like if we move forward with a rental, I'm losing the words of it, but you know, something related to the or, you know, a plan to make sure that affordable housing is retrofitted or whatever, like that's just a standalone thing that we're doing, right? I don't think we would bring it back into this document or, you know, I don't know. There's going to be opportunities that will just sort of present themselves that aren't in this plan because you're not, you can't account for absolutely everything. I think the way I see what you're working on, and I think the intent when we applied for the funding to have this all happen too, the intent was to have something to sort of guide the work addressing climate change, but at the same time, and you know, there's also resiliency and adaptation that's part of this too. You know, we can't sort of forget those pieces and there's going to be opportunities that will come up and not everything will be in the plan. So, you know, to Laura's point, there may be times when a staff, I may say, there's this grant funding opportunity and there's something that we can do and what do you all think of that? Or you may just be inclined to sort of address an issue that isn't in the plan. The plan is not just for you all, you know, or even just the council to look at. It's also for town staff will be using it as well because I'll certainly, I mean, that's always going to be my reference document. When I had building assessments years ago, when we were sort of starting out, that was just the document that I went to and every time there was a green community's funding cycle, I would open up the document and it's like, what can we tackle this time? What, you know, what do we have the capacity to do? Let's apply for funding for those things. It's going to be the same thing for me at least with this document, you know, because there are things that won't necessarily be for the, you know, for the council to do that are just them, you know, minutiae that will be things that staff will do. And that's, that's what I'm not totally clear about. You know, when we bring it to the council, it will be in its totality, right? We'll bring it to the council. So that's the question is, you know, in my mind, aren't you all looking at the policy, like, you know, when I think about the council, I think of, you know, developing policy in this committee helping to develop and draft policy that gets to the council that sort of pertains to all of these things that you're doing, like the electrification being a perfect example. Yes, Steve. So I'm based on what you guys have just said in the last five minutes or so, I'm kind of recalibrating my view of what this report is. I was looking at it differently from what you described a few minutes ago, Laura. I was looking at it more as a detailed action plan for what we're going to do this year. And then we might revise the carp next year to update it and add maybe some new tasks and that sort of thing. But I think what you were saying, if I understand it right, is that this is sort of the big menu of all the possible things that we should do and can do. And then that serves as a reference book to which we then pick and choose projects or different town agencies or citizens committees can pick and choose projects and run with them and bring something to the council for adoption. If that's the vision, that is a little bit relieving to me. I'll look at the package a little bit differently and be a little bit less concerned about implementation steps and feasibility because that'll be determined later and a little bit less concerned about having two zillion things listed in there as priorities because we're not committing to working on them necessarily. I think that's our best option for a host of reasons for what Stephanie just said, meaning that this is meant for many groups, not just ECAC. Also, because I think we need to take each individual action to the council individually. And so I think we want them to just note, like to Darcy's point, we want to present them with this plan. This is the plan based on expertise from our group, expertise from Alanaean, other town plans, and most importantly, the input from our community members. This is all the things we need to do. We're not asking the town council to agree that we're going to do all these things. We're just presenting this information to them as a tool. And then ECAC will take pieces of it and say, okay, we're going to really push you on doing something around rental housing because it, this is an important priority. So yeah, so I think we should look at it like a menu. But I saw a couple of nodding heads, but Dwayne, yeah. Yeah, I just wanted to probably second that. What I sort of viewed now that after this conversation is viewing this document as really our roadmap with the shelf life, basically thinking of serving through our 2025 goal. With the idea, let's not think that we need to rewrite this before 2025. I do like the idea of a concerted effort on an annual basis then to write an annual action plan of here's the priorities. We can check it with this roadmap to make sure that we're making that our action plan is lined up with the roadmap and the progress that needs to be made. But that annual action plan has to be, to Steve's point, much more action oriented, specific and doable and measurable. I do, I haven't, again, I haven't looked at the the report in much length at this point. I do find that it'll be important as I read through it that there's sort of a match up that this roadmap does in fact get us to the 2025, at least the 2025 goals of whatever we said, 25% reduction. Some indication that even the longer term goals are sort of the road is fuzzy as it gets after 2025 still sets us off on the right path. I'm not sure. I know we've had back and forth with Linan about how quantitative they're going to get and it's not meant to be a bottom up sort of analysis of where all the greenhouse gas reductions are going to get. But there should be in my mind some sense that this roadmap is because we're set out the goal right at the beginning. And this is the roadmap. So there should be some sense, as I read this reportedly said, that this roadmap is driving to that destination. It may not have all the specifics and numbers, but that it's sufficient to get us there. Yeah, and there is a bit of that in the roadmap section. But I don't know, maybe we can we move looking at that think about how to present that in a way that and it's not, you know, or Lauren did mention, you know, obviously, there's going to be pictures and other, you know, other things put in this is not a design version. Stephanie and then Andra. So just a reminder that you specifically as a group did ask them to identify at least the roadmap to 2025. That was, they were very specifically tasked with doing that. So that's what that is. And yes, that is the actions that they're recommending to take to get there. So that is very specific. Beyond that, it's not, but that piece is so just keeping that in mind while you're reviewing this. And then I had another point, but I forgot what it is. So never mind. I wanted to comment on the quantitative just for for us as we're reading it. I think we're going to need to ask them to recalculate because they're including the universities and colleges in the total Amherst emissions. But we always agreed that we were focusing on the community, municipal and business, you know, residential, just not because we have no control over the emissions. And what that does is makes the percentages of all the effort we're going to put in look bigger because we're not including the university's emissions in the total. 21% emissions reductions is not worth the effort. But if the university is removed and the colleges removed from the total, then it will look more reasonable to take the actions. And I think that is really, I don't know if people disagree. I thought that was something that we were clear about at the beginning. I have a different recollection. I thought we were clear that we weren't going to include, I mean, they're in our inventory. So it's whether the pie's bigger or so there's pros and cons, right? Like if the pie's big, we have the inventory that we had to do based on the green communities approach that incorporates the colleges and universities, we could shrink that pie and not have those emissions that will make our actions look a bit bigger. It also means we won't get any benefit from the actions of the universities. So I think that I thought we had kind of agreed that we would stick with what the inventory is because that's what we have as our baseline. And Jesse. And my recollection was that we were not going to try to affect those arenas, but that we would count them in since they're in the numerator and the denominator. And we think they're going to do a good job. I think my sense was we were excited to have that math with us and potentially we'll lean heavily on that math at times. Yeah. It also allows us to be more of a collaborator with them, though. I mean, even though we can't control what they do, by having it and including it, it also there is some accountability there, you know. Yes, Steve. I think we can do both in that for certain initiatives that the town undertakes, we can make sure we have a large percentage reduction when we're talking about municipal emissions or community emissions in those categories. We then also calculate the total Amherst inventory emissions. That'll be a smaller percentage, but we can talk about them as per each sector. So we can kind of do it both ways. Like keeping. Yeah. So like the wishes. Much of a quantitative analysis in time are done for this version of the car. I'm kind of skeptical about that. So the CCA is being tasked with coming up with a lot of the emissions reductions. But if like it looks like the university is included or the colleges, they're not going to be in the CCA. So their electricity use is not going to be reflected in whatever, you know, additional renewable energy we're supplying. So we can't use that. The amount from the CCA is going to be much smaller. You talk about the contribution of the CCA to the community electric sector. It's the same amount of carbon either way, right? It's not a different number. It's just a different percentage. And so no, it's different. I mean, in terms of what the CCA will affect, it will only affect the community. There's, but as a rate, as a percentage of some other number, but I think it was calculated as if it was going to affect the university as well. Okay. Oh, I see. So there's a there's a clerical error, not just I think so. So when we go through and you add comments, I mean, those are the kind of comments that we need to make. And if we want to, I think to Steve's point, if we want to present the reductions in a different way, then we should ask for those to be presented. Okay, that's good. Yeah. Yeah, Darcy. Yeah, I guess I'm a little thrown by our previous discussion about how what it is that we're going to be presenting to the town council. Because our, I guess I've always just been assuming that we're going to be asking the town council to adopt the climate action plan. And our charge actually does require us to do that. So I don't, you know, I feel a little bit like we're sensing that this, because this is so, this plan is so huge and covers everything possible, that there's less likelihood of it being adopted by the town council. What does adopted by the town council mean? It means that they, they adopt our climate action plan as, as a goal of the town. So they would take the plan in, you know, they might take it in pieces, but the same way that they adopted our goals, you know, when we brought the goals first to the town council, they, they voted to adopt them as the town's goals. And so our charge also says that the town council has to adopt a plan, including road maps of steps to achieve our goals. So I guess I'm not, I just want to understand it. It may be that this would be a better way to go. I don't know, but I don't, I'm, I'm, I, I don't want us to go that route because, because we think our plan is not going to succeed in doing that. That, so I think the word adopt is pretty vague. So I have no problem with them adopting this plan. That doesn't mean that they're going to agree to do anything specific. Right? That's just that this is the plan for which we need to identify specific items to do. So I guess I'm, I don't know if it's the language. I don't want, I guess what I don't want to, what I don't think is going to be successful is we give them any plan, even if it's the roadmap to 2050, if we give it to them and say, okay, you guys do this. Right? That, I don't think that that is going to be successful. I think we're also leaving out the town manager's role in this. So I don't, I'm not sure that's the exact pathway, Darcy. I think, you know, and I, I think it's a little, you know, I think if you're, you know, the only piece of this that I see is being sort of the immediate roadmap is just the 2025 goal. The rest of it is kind of the baseline with which to work from as we go along to the next goal when we identify the 2030 goals and how we get there. And then the 2050 goals, like I think it's always kind of the baseline document with which things are sort of drawn from and can get added to, but it's, this is like the sort of basic template to work from. So the town manager can accept this plan, correct? Well, see, that's what that's my understanding and I didn't, I don't want to sort of second guess your understanding of how this would work, but my understanding what is, it was actually the town manager that it would accept the plan. Right, but I mean, if the town manager were willing to accept the plan, it's possible that that would be, and that would be, and we are in agreement that we'd like the plan, that might be the advantageous way to go, rather than having to then also go to the council. I don't know, I'm a little confused about it myself as you can see. My understanding about going to the council was that it was presenting to the council, not specifically for adoption, but to present what was done to the council. My understanding was that basically the town manager accepts it, but that sort of, as a courtesy, and as this is what has been worked on, and this is a, these are goals for the town, or this is what was developed based on the goals that the council adopted, that was the approach to how that was. I don't know that it was ever necessarily going to the council was for us an official action. That was always my understanding. Yeah, that was never my understanding. To make clear in the cover letter, what our intention is for all the ideas that are included and state that we are not expecting the council to approve everything that's in this plan down to the last detail that's potentially described in the plan, but rather these are strategies that are going to come that are that we're hopefully they're endorsing on a general level. And then we explain in our cover letter that groups will be coming back to town council with more fleshed out specific ideas when appropriate for their approval. The idea is in our cover letter, we can set that stage and let them know how closely they need to look at the details or be concerned about the details at this point in time. Yeah, I guess I would just say that, you know, the reason for the confusion is that we have two parallel processes. We have our, you know, like if we hadn't gone through the MVP process, we would have still had to do this for ECAC and would have had to just follow our charge and bring a climate action plan to the council. But we have the MVP process and that's separate and that's, you know, a town manager process. So as long as we all agree, you know, if we end up, you know, agreeing to the final plan, then I don't know whether it just I'm I'm concerned that this is just going to be, you know, something that we put on a shelf when we're all done with it and it has no teeth. Because if a town council doesn't adopt it, then I mean, there, what does the town council adopt? How does that give it more teeth? I guess I don't. They set the goals for the town manager. He will not, but I don't know if he's already, I don't know how it would work if he's already accepted something that the town council hasn't adopted. I don't know how that works. Okay, I don't, I mean, I see, I understand what's in the charge. Obviously, like that was, you know, I think we have to operate in a way that makes the most sense given what we've done so far. The town has agreed to the goals. This is at its simplest, all the different ways we can meet our, we can and should be meeting our goals. So I don't know why they wouldn't adopt it. But I, but I don't think it has teeth. I think we're always going to have to push through individual actions through whatever pathway they go. And that's always been the case. So I don't, I think, sure, have them adopt it. I think that's fine. I don't imagine they would say no, we're not adopting it to Steve's point. They're not agreeing to do every single thing in this plan. And, but we still have to come forward with specific thing, or, you know, we have to help ensure other groups are coming forward with specific items that are helping us meet our goals. Maybe this is something we, is the town council going to be reviewing it during the draft stage? Not right now. No, it's not meant to go to them at this point. Okay. And it's not meant to go, it's going to go to staff and the town manager before it goes to the council. Right. Well, maybe town manager can give us some suggestions on exactly how to, how to frame it to the council. Exactly. Yeah. And, and which I think he would. And I think the idea was always that there are pieces of this that will, will just by nature of what it is, it's maybe going to go to the planning staff, or it's going to go to the tech, or it's going to, you know, it's going to go to departments, it's going to go to committees, it's going to, you know, there's a pieces of it that are just going to be sort of going to various entities. It's not always just sitting with the council. It's, I mean, and it's part of what is the charge of the town manager, right, because we did do this through MVP, but even all of this, the town manager's goal was to work on, you know, one of the tasks was for him to sort of move the town towards sustainability. So this creating this plan and doing this whole process and creating this committee, which the town manager appointed you all, you know, the council, you know, sort of ratifies it basically, but really you're all appointed by the town manager. This task sits really in some ways with him. Okay, I haven't thought if I'm not speaking too much. We might then view the carp, the draft of the carp that we're looking at and look at it as a menu, a list, a long list of strategies, but be careful about having too much detail in those strategies, because the detail are the things that town council may pick out and object to or town, town citizens may object to particular elements. So some of the strategies that are presenting, perhaps they need to be a little more generalized and not too specific in the climate action plan, because they will be made more specific through a process that involves collaboration and negotiation and all that with different entities. So we might want to blur some of those details out a bit in this draft in the carp. I'm thinking specifically like one that struck me in my mind on the building benchmarking, they mentioned the 10,000 square foot threshold for that. And it's like, well, wait a minute, why 10,000? Why not eight? Why not 12? Perhaps we shouldn't mention the size, but just mentioned that in the process later of developing an energy benchmarking proposal, there may be a threshold agreed upon by that process. Yeah, that's great. That's a detail that doesn't need to be in the carp at this stage. Sounds like a good comment. Yeah. So I think that's, I think that is good. And I think we should be looking. So I think this, I know this conversation went on a lot longer than we were hoping or I was hoping maybe, but I think it was really important. And I think we have a better sense of what this document is and isn't and what, how to review it. So just last comment there is, you know, if you've made comments already and you want to switch them up, please feel free. Everybody try to get as many comments as they can in by noon on Saturday. We'll reconvene, we'll meet together at two. We'll start big picture and then we'll go from there. All right. So there's that. So we have for our next meeting agenda. So I think, I mean, a key thing will just be continuing to finish what we need to finish for this review. So other items that are on the queue include the housing committee stuff. So we'll note that whether we get to it next time or another time. Any other agenda items? I am curious about I don't know if next meeting is the right time to have us. I'm not quite sure what the timing is, but potentially a conversation about the library project. And if we might have a voice in how that's going, I think I've just seen so much flying around and I can imagine bringing a little science to that conversation and a little less opinion might make us look good or bad, who knows. But I could put together an agenda for that agenda, if that was helpful. I've been looking at that project fairly carefully coming from a couple different angles. Yeah, I mean, I listened into the session and climate was being used both for and against the project. And I feel like I know that individually we may have our own opinions on the project. But as the Climate Action Committee, I'm a little bit nervous, honestly, that we're going to get asked to weigh in and we're not going to be prepared. So I would agree that trying to have at least a conversation about what science can we bring to this project and how it does or does not support our climate action plan could be beneficial and probably worth our time. Last we get asked at the last minute to pull something together and we haven't had a chance to do it. Yeah, Darcy. I just feel like we have so much to do right now. And this is such an incredible political hot potato. I think this group is probably divided. And what do we do in a situation like that? I just feel like there's some situations, you know, there's also, you know, the zoning and planning issues that's a very divided issue too. So I can't, I kind of can't imagine us taking a position on it, although maybe Jesse could convince us who knows. I actually, so this, I've been thinking about this a fair bit and written some things down and can share it ahead of the next meeting. I don't imagine our group necessarily takes a pro or con position on the project. Rather, we could make a series of statements that says, if you did this, that if you did this, we think this would have a very positive effect. If this or if this project moved forward, we recommend that you look at these refinements in order to dramatically reduce emissions or this like this is an aspect or this is how it could fit into our climate action plan or, you know, sort of offering up because I don't think the library project is just about climate and therefore I don't think it's appropriate for us to say we're pro or against the project in general, but I think we could say intelligent things about the project that no matter what happens to it, it'll be the best version of whichever direction it goes from a climate perspective. I think similar to the zoning when we talked about it last time, we agreed that we wouldn't say we need to densify. I think the language we talked about was if we need to densify or if we need to build, this is what we should do, right? So I think we I think has anything in this town ever been not a political hot potato? Number one, number two, if we're so I think we have to be realistic about the fact that we are going to have to, you know, I think if the climate argument is being used for and against a project, I think we have to figure out what we want to say about about that and the densification is going to be another great example. People are going to say densification for climate and people are going to say new buildings are bad for the climate and we're going to be stuck in the same situation. So yeah, it's true. If we avoid every hot button topic, then we're done talking about anything. And I guess I admittedly am a little excited about the idea of modeling kind of an objective scientific, positive debate. I'm just not super happy about how polarizing things are. And I think we have a unique opportunity like we have a limited lens where we have a charge, we have a focus and if we stay in our lane, we I think we can bring value to the conversation without being polarizing, which I just I like that idea. I like setting that example even I don't know. I'm young and optimistic. What can I say? We'll fool. We'll just talk about it and it'll be fine. So I think I guess I would suggest then, Jesse, you do bring something, whether it's a write up that we can react to or something to let's see how the retreat goes. If not this next week, next meeting. 24th. Yeah, I mean, I think what I understand Darcy, correct me if I'm wrong, is that the earliest the council would vote on this would be the 12th of April. The library. Yeah. I think that's right. Yeah, I doubt if it would be that week, but yeah. Okay, so we still have the meeting our meeting on the 7th, which is after our comments for Carper due but before the 12th. So maybe we can focus on that date as a date to have this discussion. Yeah, it's Wayne. Can I just follow up with Jesse first? I'm sorry if I missed something, but isn't the library subject to the zero net emissions? No. It's not. Okay. And I'm sure why not. But in that case, I mean, if the library was built, it go ahead and was built with an oil boiler in its basement, we wouldn't be doing our job. And so I agree with Jesse. And it's not political. It's not, you know, it's just like, if you're going to build it here, it should be carbon neutral to meet our plan. And here's some options. We're not, we're not taking a stance. I don't know enough to take a stance on that it should or shouldn't be built. It's just if it is built, we should be looking at it this way. And that should have been, that should have been, you know, in, we weren't around maybe, but that should have been at the get go off, you know, for the designers of this building, the get going. But the truth is, if it's an oil boiler or even a gas boiler in the basement, we're not doing our job. And I'll just say this to I very honestly do not have an opinion. And I don't, I am not, I don't have an agenda and I am not pushing it one way or the other. And I would add to what Dwayne said, if you're going to do it, please do X, Y and Z. If you're not going to do it, please do X, Y and Z. You know, if you're not going to do this project, show us how you're going to get that building off of gas. If you are going to do it, show us how you're going to best do it. So I think, I think, I don't think we need to spend a lot of time on it. I think I can set it up. I think I can frame the conversation. I'll do the work in front to make it efficient and non-controversial. He said ignorantly. Okay. Any other agenda items for upcoming meetings or any last minute thoughts? Annalise, if you want to raise your hand and make any comment, please feel free. Okay. Well, with that, we will call it a day and I look forward to talking to you all on Saturday. Okay. Bye, all.