 It is six o'clock on Monday, February 7th. I will call to order this regular meeting of the Wyniewski City Council. Please join us in the Pledge of Allegiance led by Counselor Mike Myers. Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, for liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Agenda review. Are there any questions, concerns about the order of tonight's agenda? Mayor? Sure. There is one correction, which is on the first executive session, the, it should say negotiation of real estate purchase or lease options related to lot nine, not lot 70. Thank you, Wendy. Hearing no other concerns, we'll move to public comment. Are there any members of the public and council chambers? There are not. All right. We will move on then to our consent agenda. We have our council minutes from January 24th. It counts payable warrant for February 3rd and pure warrant for January 1922 and subsequent payouts for October and November. Are there any questions or concerns about the consent agenda? Would someone like to make a move to approve the consent agenda? So moved. Second. Motion by Jim, second by Bryn. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Motion carries. Thank you. All right. Council reports. Jim, can we start with you? Sure. I have nothing to report at this time. Great. Bryn. Same. I don't have anything to report. And Mike. Sure. I'd like to give a shout out to Winnowsky's Public Works for the job they did for clearing our roads and sidewalks over the weekend. And I want to thank the residents for being patient due to the fact that our department was at 50% capacity, I believe. So just a shout out to those folks and getting the job done and cleaning up again today. Thank you. Thanks, Mike. Good point after this weekend storm. I have several updates. So Wendy and I presented the budget on Town Meeting TV last week. You can visit Town Meeting TV's website and YouTube channel or our own website to watch that recording. It's WinnowskyVT.gov slash FY23. I'll be presenting the budget again alongside the school in a hybrid event on February 17 and then on February 28, right before Town Meeting Day, and we'll push that information out on our regular channels. We're going to give an update on our city manager hiring process. Our recruiter, the due date for applications has come, although he will continue to accept those. He said we have a lot of strong applicants in our pool and we're preparing for on February 23, our search committee will review applicants with the intent to hold first round interviews the following week. So as a reminder, the first round interviews will be confidential. The goal of those will then to have the search committee advance finalists to the final round with council and a public opportunity to engage. So our timeline plans that final interviews would take place the week of March 7, including an informal meet and greet for members of the public to get to know those finalists. We'll share again more details as we get closer to that and when we have those candidates and can get those things scheduled. I just want to remind everyone that that process is still on track. You know, our hope is that we could get an offer out in late March, early April and get someone started permanently in that position. On that note, I do want to acknowledge that as we're approaching the beginning of a third year dealing with the pandemic, we have all been dealing with increased stress for a long period of time and I think coupling that with a year without a permanent manager position and additional staffing challenges that the city has faced even before the pandemic, but certainly are exacerbated now that our city staff are experiencing ongoing stress at work and will piggyback on what Mike was sharing there as mayor and just a resident. I'm really grateful to have strong and dedicated city staff providing critical services in our community and as a member of this council, I think sometimes we get into the weeds on city operations. So I just felt the need to express some gratitude and appreciation there and let everyone know that the services that are being provided by our municipal staff are really critical to the community and we appreciate them and I get notes from residents of appreciation as well. On Friday, we had our first, our belistening session. So that's the American Rescue Plan Act funding that was awarded to the city of Muruski. We had a handful of attendees at that virtual meeting that offered some great insights into other pandemic has impacted our community and how we might use those funds to fill gaps moving forward. Staff, I know, is going to look at facilitating some follow up sessions to make sure we hear from a broader section of our city, but it was a really good start to getting input in that process. Our finance commission is meeting tomorrow evening and is going to have a similar conversation and I think Safe Healthy Connected People Commission is as well. Finally, Planning Commission meets this week as well. On Thursday, they have been for the last two meetings reviewing recommendations from our housing commission on potential zoning updates that could incentivize development of three bedroom or larger housing in Muruski. At this meeting coming up on the 10th, I expect they'll be looking at like some draft language that our zoning administrators working on of how we, how we could actually put that into play in the regulations. I'm certain that discussion will carry over into their second meeting on the 24th as well, but members of the public are always open to, always invited to participate in those discussions. I think that's it for me. I will pass it to Wendy for city updates. Thank you, Mayor. And thank you for your statement about the staff and thank you, Councillor Myers. The first thing on my list was to thank staff for responding to the storm that would not end. I was supposed to end, I think, at noon on Friday and it just went on and on and on. And so, yes, we, on behalf of council, I appreciate staff. On behalf of staff, thank you for the, for the statement and do know that we are still working on the sidewalks. We know the sidewalks are not complete, but we are clearing them in priority order and many of the sidewalks and the streets need to be cleared multiple times, so we're still working on that. Unhappy staff note is that Heather Carrington is going to be resigning her position. She'll be here for another few weeks. She'll work very hard and diligently to get a good plan for a transition, so I'll work with her on that and she'll work with the other staff. So, of course, we wish her all the best, but we will miss her very much. We are addressing staff shortages. We've been talking about that a lot. We just hired a new police department dispatcher, so that's good news. And then we have interviews for the HR director scheduled for later this week. So we are addressing the staff shortages and we appreciate the council's support on that. Just a reminder, before the next meeting, so it's not this coming Sunday, it's the following Sunday, there is going to be an all resident voting outreach event on Sunday and I can get details for you. That's on the 13th and just a reminder that the next meeting of the council is not going to be on a Monday, it's going to be on a Tuesday, Tuesday the 22nd because of the holiday on the 21st, so thank you. Thank you, Wendy. So let's get into our regular items. We first up have for discussion a centennial committee update and joining us is Amy Lafayette, the centennial committee chair. Paul, do you want to add any additional introduction? Just say hello, welcome Amy. Thanks for joining us this evening. We are very excited about the progress we've made on this project. And I won't give any spoilers away, so I hope to do. Thank you, Amy. Thanks, Paul. Thank you all for having me, it's nice to see you all. So I'm here just to give you a really high level update on where we're at with the centennial committee, believe it or not. We are just four weeks out from when you see turning 100 years old. And I just wanted to stop by and give you a pretty high level update on where things stand. So not going to go over all the slides that were in your presentation, going to assume that folks had a chance to look over those. But I did want to just point out a couple of things. Number one, the majority of our events are still planned for the week of March 7th, when we turn 100 years old. But we did have to move our big birthday celebration, which was going to be at the end of that week and it was going to be indoors. We have to move that because of COVID to the summer. So we're now looking at a big birthday celebration happening at Rotary Park on June 4th. And we actually think this is going to be a big win for everybody involved, because we see a lot more public participation. And it'll just be nice to have music and performers and everybody together in the Rotary outside celebrating. We also anticipate that businesses will be participating during that time in June instead of the week of March 7th, offering specials and producing special products in association with businesses. On that same day, we also will be holding, so again, June 4th. We also will be holding a tree planting ceremony in Avanaki's land acknowledgement. And this was a suggestion actually from Councillor Oakley, the last time I was here. She had pointed out that a lot of our events are looking at the past and had challenged us to think about a way to honor the future. So we're working with Councillor Duncan on that to replace the tree at Richards Park. And again, do the Avanaki's land acknowledgement. And those are the big updates that I have. I'm happy to answer any questions. Amy? All in all, most things on track from what we saw last time. But are there any questions from council? Go ahead, Brynn. Sure, just want to extend a thanks for the work that goes into this. It certainly is, then planning is no small feat. I guess I'm curious how the sales are going with the subtenual apparel and goods. Yeah, we saw quite a bit of activity in the merchandise, the sale of merchandise before the holidays season and have seen that dwindled off since. But there's going to be a lot of opportunities during the week of the centennial and all throughout the rest of the year to offer that merchandise. It is still up for sale on the website and people can purchase online and do a local pickup at the O'Brien Center. We will be selling merchandise for our in person event at the Heritage Mill Museum. So they're doing a mill to museum exhibit on March 6th. We'll be selling merchandise there. And we envision the big birthday celebration at River Park to also sell merchandise. Did you all decide where you're donating those profits to or is that happening after the fact? We have not, you know, it's going through downtown when we see as kind of a pass through organization. So I think we're, you know, we want to look to their board for input on who they think that should go to. Thanks, I had forgotten the previous process. Oh, yeah, no problem. Are there any other questions from Council? Any questions from members of the public? Actually, I do have a quick question. I know that there's a marketing and communications plan around this, but is there anything that we can do as help as Council to help draw attention leading up to the event? Thank you. That's a great question. I think, you know, one thing you can do is follow the city's need on promoting. So Paul is going to be posting a lot on social media, on front porch forum. He and I will probably be sharing the front porch forum postings. So whenever you see something on social media from the city, if you have your own channel, we would definitely encourage you to share to that. And, you know, I think beyond that, just word of mouth, letting folks in your circles know talking to them on the phone or email or whatever that these events are happening. It's definitely been, you know, a little bit more challenging in the COVID environment to be getting the word out. A lot of those avenues that we normally would use are closed. So whatever you can do to let your friends and family be appreciated. And any any progress on a Winooski Centennial average? We have been in talks with four quarters about that. They seem to be on board. So we're going to let them run with it and see what they come up with. All right, sounds good. All right. Well, Amy, thanks again for coming in to give us an update. It's nice to track progress and just be reminded about this exciting event that's coming up. All right. Thanks. See you later. Right. So we are on to item B. This is on for approval. Municipal Infrastructure Commissioner appointments. John, do you have an introduction? Yes. Good evening, everyone. So we have currently three seats available for the Municipal Infrastructure Commission, and we have two really strong applicants that we've chatted with Brian Bora and Emily Corley. So we we're excited to get them on board for one year terms. And we're also looking to make our current non-voting alternate Peter Wernster for a full time voting member. So that'll bring our commission up to full staff finally. It doesn't look like they are here tonight. But yeah, if there's any questions, you know, we're Councilor Oakley, if not, are looking really looking forward to getting the commission rolling again and getting the work plan moving forward. Thanks, John. Yeah, I mean, no, they're not here, so no questions for them. I don't have any questions for you. Either I would just that you all are making a good recommendation. Are there any? Do other Councilors have questions on these appointments? Any public comment? All right. Do I have a motion to approve the two Municipal Infrastructure Commission appointments? So moved. Second. Motion by Jim, second by Bryn. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. I may need to backtrack. I just said two, but you're trying to move up one of your commissioners from Alternate to Yeah, correct. Yeah, so let's include that in the in the motion. Are you all OK with that? Yes. OK, thank you. Sorry for that. All right, so we'll move on to item C. This is our mask mandate reconsideration. Wendy, any updates here? Yes, thank you, Mayor and Council. Staff is recommending that you extend the mandate another time you've extended it one time so far, January 10th. As you know, the legislation allows an extension for it requires an extension for every 30 days. This would be the second to the last extension, if you do, go through the whole period. Covid is still a threat. I provided some information in the packet. The fire chief is here and he can speak to that as the safety officer if you'd like him to. We are recommending one change to the resolution this time. And that is to specify that the rule is not intended to apply to licensed public schools. And that's in response to a question that we had. The legislation enabling this rule specifically excludes public schools because they're governed by school boards and also lots of other regulations. So we had a question from a private school principal asking if it applied to the school. And it's not it's not stated whether it does or not in the legislation, but we think it's appropriate to exclude private schools because they're also governed by lots of regulations and the city doesn't have the capacity or probably the expertise to start regulating schools. Thank you, Wendy. Councilors have any questions or concerns about the recommendation to extend this? I do. The nicer weather is going to be on the horizon through this and towards the end of this mass mandate. And as I stated previously on the first resolution, I think it's time to let the businesses in public space, the landowners make their own decisions on what they should enforce for their places of property or businesses. I don't think city council needs a mandate mask wear and when we should just leave it up to our residents to do the right thing. Thanks, Mike. Brynne, go ahead. Is there any additional feedback or comments from our local businesses about how they have experienced this that should be taken into consideration? We have received no complaints from the businesses since your last extension. I also haven't. No one's like reached out to me about it either. Okay. Any other questions, comments? Any public comment? All right. Does anyone want to make a motion to approve this reconsideration motion by Jim, second by Brynne. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Those opposed. Aye. I will vote aye. And so the motion carries. We'll extend it for 30 days. Thank you all. We will move on then to item D. This is on for discussion. Our, what is it? Unified land use, something regulations, Eric? Element regulations. Element regulations. Thank you. The amendments, we saw this back in October, maybe? Back in December. December. Yes. So thank you very much. So yeah, tonight we are here to have a more detailed discussion on amendments to the unified land use and development regulations, specifically related to the form-based code. Back in December, the planning commission, after many, many months of work called a public hearing to take comments on proposed amendments. Those amendments, there was no comments at that hearing. Those amendments were then forwarded on to you all as council on December 13th for discussion. That was really more just for a general overview of the regulations and the proposed changes with the expectation that we would come back at a future meeting to have a more detailed discussion and get into more specific questions and clarification on any of the proposed amendments. So included with your agenda was the report from the planning commission that outlines the changes that were being made, including a red line of those proposed amendments. Specifically, this impacts parts one through four and part nine of the form-based code. Some of the highlights are that there's clarification on the application process, including the submission requirements. There's updates and clarification to the common drive requirements. Additionally, there's updates to the bonus story provisions. The big update I think for this round of amendments that the planning commission spent a lot of time on relates to the siting standards. There's also additional definitions that are included and clarification just in general on the process. So as I mentioned, tonight we are, is the intent of tonight's meeting is to take specific questions and address specific concerns or specific issues from council. And then if you're all ready to potentially schedule a public hearing to take formal comments from the public on the amendments. Otherwise we can continue our discussions at a future meeting as well. Hey, Eric, thanks for that introduction. There's a lot of content here. I hope you all had some time to really dig in since we last saw this. And yeah, I know I'll just say again, the planning commission spent a lot of time on this. And so I think really did dig in and detail to some of these changes before they made it to our level. And so with that, I will open it up for questions for Eric. And I would just add that I did receive some comments and questions from both councilor Oakleaf and councilor Duncan, which I can respond to directly or if you all want to ask the questions so that everybody can hear. We can, however you all want to move forward. If you want to just like summarize what you heard and then respond, that would be fine. Sure, absolutely. So there's some consistency in the comments that were made. In particular, they relate to questions about some of the application requirements directly related to the traffic impact study requirement. And I may actually look to John Rauscher or Chief Audie to weigh in because some of the comments may overlap with their worlds as well. So specifically related to what we're looking for for an engineer with adequate traffic engineering experience and also the determination of the scope of the traffic impact study. So basically what we're looking at here is to in advance of the actual application submission, we would be expecting the applicant meets with staff to outline some of the requirements. So the applicant should have an understanding of what we'll be expecting from a traffic impact study before they even set out to do the work. And it's really gonna be based on the scope and scale of the project that's being proposed. So it may be that it just needs to be some turning movement counts, but we may also need to see specific information on pedestrian counts as well as vehicle trips for AM and PM peak hours. So there's gonna be a wide variety of different potential traffic impact studies that could be submitted as part of the application process, but the applicant will know in advance what we're expecting of them before any documents are submitted. In addition, the work that's done in that traffic impact study will have to be done under the seal of a Vermont licensed engineer, ideally one that has experience with doing traffic impact studies or some level thereof. I think a lot of that, Councillor Duncan, do your question about what's really gonna kind of determine that is, I would leave some of that up to the expertise of our public works staff and engineers that we have on staff to really evaluate and determine if what is presented makes sense while our staff are not professional traffic engineers, they do have some understanding of the transportation impacts and what that looks like. So we'd utilize their expertise to gauge if we can trust the submissions and what that actually ends up looking like. There's a question about soliciting review of the traffic impact study to a third party and whether or not the city would have to bear that expense. I think the intent there is that we would either look for the applicant to provide additional information that would help determine whether or not the information is accurate or correct, or we would look to some of our other partners like the Regional Planning Commission who does have professional traffic engineers on staff. And they've done that for us in the past, they've done evaluations of traffic impact studies as part of what we already pay to them as an organization. So the intent there would be no additional expense from the city to do any additional evaluation from the third party. Let's see, forgive me if I jump back and forth on some of these comments. There is a comment about the submission of application documents and being done electronically or basically the submission being electronic at the discretion of the zoning administrator. The reason why I included that language is ultimately I prefer the documents to come in electronically, however, depending on the project, the complexity of it may require that we need large format prints that can provide more detail that we would either give to Chief Audie and his department or to Public Works to evaluate the information more directly. So ultimately we would prefer the electronic submissions, but sometimes the complexity of what's being submitted, we just need to have the full paper copies of the prints that we don't have the capacity to do in-house. So that's where that caveat comes in to play to help provide that for staff's review. Okay, let's see, moving on. There were some comments about the bonus story related to noise insulation and what the provisions are in the bonus story. So let's see. We currently do not have any standards in our land use regulations that would speak to any type of noise mitigation. That's generally, as I view it, that's more of a building standard than a land use standard. So we're kind of crossing paths with this incentive to where it is both dabbling in the building code realm and in the land use realm. So we don't currently have any land use standards that talk about minimum interior noise for buildings or dwelling spaces. There's a comment again about the, if we're, let's see. Would we specify the reduction of indoor noise if we, sorry, if we, yes, if we specify the reduction of indoor noise below the 45 DNL threshold, if we go above and beyond from this, it would seem that it's possible for new construction in the 65 DNL could be built such that it would immediately qualify for the mitigation funds. I believe the program for the mitigation funds has a cutoff on the date of construction. So new construction would not qualify for the funds that are available. It's just for construction that was done prior to a certain date. And I apologize, I don't have that date on hand. I don't know, Mayor, if you remember that offhand or not, sorry, Mayor, we can't hear you. Sorry, I'm on phone now. I believe the cutoff is the date that the map was released, the latest map, the 2018 or whatever. If your property existed before that, you could get mitigation. If your property gets built after that map and you know, after you know that you're in the zone, then you cannot qualify. Thank you. So there's also a comment about requiring the standard for all new construction rather than as an option. I think if Council's interested in requiring the sound mitigation as a requirement instead of an incentive, I would recommend we do it across all the zoning districts and not just in our form-based code so that it applies for every type of new build. So that would be a change for a different component of the regulations, but definitely something that Council can pursue or ask us to pursue is the Planning Commission, if you so choose. Some comments about the offsets, the setbacks that are being incorporated. The intent of the setback is to utilize it as an extension of the street space. So anything that would be included in that setback area, such as benches or bike racks or other street furniture, the intent there is that that would be publicly accessible and really create an active space on the street that can be utilized rather than a section of the property that would be isolated from the street space. So the intent is that that would be available to the public. And it depends also on what that ground story use is going to be as to what would potentially occupy that space, whether that be, if it's a non-residential ground floor, then that could be utilized for seating, for restaurants or outdoor merchandise display. If it's residential uses that could be for benches or just gathering space in general, bike racks, things of that nature that could be utilized. It is not the intent that those offsets could be totally screened off. So if additional language needs to be included to clarify that, happy to add that, but that is definitely not the intent to have some sort of hedgerow or a formalized block, blockade of that space that really intended to be publicly accessible. All right, moving along. Oh, let's just pause for a second. I just wanna make sure Jim or Bryn, if there's, Eric has addressed your question or like feel free to jump in if you have extra or want more detail or whatever. You don't have to wait for him to get to them all. That was one thing. I figure I'd just let Eric go through and then go back to whatever was in your question. Thank you. Cool. Councilor Glief to your comment about modifications that would result in approval or result in needing to take a project back to the project review committee. This was done kind of again, more as a discretionary measure, really more because the variety of projects that we get and what the changes might look like. So it could be that it's just a change to the exterior materials that may not really facilitate or necessitate a full meeting of the project review committee. But for example, if the utilities are changed, that then requires some of the building configuration to change or access to change, we would want to go back to have the project review committee take a look at those plans again and make sure that there's no other issues related to either emergency services or public works or other departments specifically. So we left that as more of a discretionary threshold rather than something that's more concrete just because we might get a project like the one across the street here at 62 Weaver Street, which is only nine units or the one that recently came in on Upper Main Street, which is 72 units. So there's a lot of variety in projects that could come in under that component. So I just want to speak to this. I think generally speaking, the comments that I raised, we're in the realm of wanting to ensure consistency, predictability and to minimize the amount of back and forth that's needed because I just feel like there's, I want to ensure we have flexibility, but I also want there to be enough predictability between city staff. We've had two zoning administrators in the last decade and allowing for consistency between staff changes is just one of the components I'm thinking about. And anything that can honestly help mitigate the demand on staff time for back and forth it does add quite a bit of demand in staff and labor hours to that. So that was really the angle that I was coming at it from. Yeah, I think to address that point and thank you for that comment. I think it's one of the key advantages, at least in my opinion to the form-based code is that we spend a lot of time on the front end working with the applicant to talk about what the requirements are, to look at draft plans, to really kind of get everything more formalized so that when they do make a submission, the intent is that what they submit is what they intend to build, so that we don't spend a lot of additional staff time in committee talking through changes where we really, when the application comes in, it's pretty well 90 to 95% done and it may get tweaked a little bit based on comments from, for example, community services or other departments that aren't involved in the real detailed discussions, but generally speaking, we have most of those issues hammered out in advance and that's the way the process is set up so that the applicant really has that predictability on the front end dealing with the code and so that the project review committee is more just more just letting some of the, putting a more public eye on the project once it's formally submitted, but happy to look at some language that could address consistency to make sure that that is incorporated. Yeah, I think I'm also coming at it from my permitting experience, like managing permits and permit process from the state and there were a lot of really great improvements made with Act 150 for when public, when changes to an application would raise to a level of additional public comment or review. So I don't, you know, and that's why I was thinking the project review committee, obviously that's not the same process, but so that's just context for some of my questions. Sure, yeah, the other thing to keep in mind, I think to that point is that the whole process including project review committee is still ultimately an administrative process. So the approval or approval with conditions or denial is ultimately the decision of the zoning administrator. So there's, while it is a public process, it's not really in, the intent is not that it's a formal public hearing or public comment period. It's more a meeting that the public is invited to or at least the adjacent property owners are invited to have more information on the project. So it's, I understand your point, counselor, but I think it's, because this is still an administrative process, it may be a little more difficult to build in some of those components because it doesn't really go back through a hearing of any comment. Yeah, and that just reiterates my concerns about having too much flexibility and too much discretion to zoning administrator given that that role and that whoever holds that role changes over time. Sure, yeah, yeah, understood. And I think hopefully the way that the code is currently written is that the, and that the end these amendments as well will take away some of that uncertainty in the way that the code should be interpreted so that the interpretations will be consistent regardless of who's sitting in the seat. Okay, let's see. Just wanna make sure I'm not missing anything here. The question from counselor Duncan about the bonus story and whether or not any nearby communities are taking advantage that we can do any analysis. Unfortunately, we don't really have any analysis of it. I'm not aware of other communities that do a similar type bonus story. Hopefully the intent however though is to provide more benefit to the city through these changes to the, these amendments to the bonus story provisions with both the increased level of energy certification and also the sound mitigation as options. So hopefully that'll become more of a benefit to the city ultimately, but I think a lot of it's really gonna depend on the market and how those programs get utilized. So it's, I mean, while we can put in various incentives to help get more options that the city's looking for, if the market really isn't interested in bearing those out, I don't, we can only do so much to get that to happen. So, but unfortunately we don't really have any comparable programs or projects that we can look to in other communities to take advantage of, at least not that I'm aware of at this time. Again, question about minimum interior noise levels. Again, in our land use regulations, we don't have anything currently. I don't know, Chief Audie, if you have anything in any of the building code standards or... We do not. Yeah, I didn't think so, but just wanted to confirm that that was the case. Question about, so one of the changes to the bonus story was to require a lead silver, lead being the U.S. Green Building Council's leadership in energy and environmental design. Question was whether or not we, why we're not looking to lead gold and what some of the examples might be. So I looked at, there's 167 projects in the state that have some level of lead certification or at least are in process for some level of lead certification. Some, about 35% of those projects have at least started but have not completed it or are not certified specifically. There's two projects in the city of Winooski that have lead certification. One is the River House. And actually it doesn't, it's not certified. So they never completed their full lead certification. The other project is the CCD building and that has a lead gold certification. So those are the examples that we have currently. The silver, I think was chosen as kind of a middle ground where it's still a high enough bar, I think that the city will get some benefit and it is something that will be not, I don't wanna say not easily achievable but we'll take some work to achieve but at least I think it's still in the realm of what a developer might be willing to pursue for the additional bonus story. So we could definitely make that a lead gold requirement if that's what you all desire but I think as the planning commission we landed on kind of that more of a middle ground so that we would hopefully get someone to take advantage of that certification to really get the requirements that that lead process puts into place for the building construction. Which also leads me to another comment, I believe, Councillor Oakley, if you had about somewhat related to that. Yeah, I can speak to it. I just, I'm not sure about the frequency of lead standards being updated and how that relates to building energy standards and the frequency of which those, I know at the state level, those are updated once every three years or at least they're intended to be. So I wasn't sure about the frequency of the lead as it relates to the state's building energy standards and basically wanting to ensure that it is a bonus and it's building above what the minimum building energy requirements are. Yeah, I think, so I can speak to that a little bit. So the last, so in the lead process there's multiple, there's multiple programs that you can go through. So there's lead building construction, there's lead interior design, there's lead site design. So looking at the lead building construction in my estimation, it's not really an easy apples to apples comparison with what the state requires, but in my evaluation of it, I think it goes beyond what the state requires because it looks at things like environmental impacts and transportation facilities and how rainwater is used or reused on the site. And it gets into a lot more of the material components as well of, and not just about energy efficiency, which is I think kind of the crux of what the state is requiring through their standards. Specifically the lead building construction standards, they were just updated in October of 2021. So they're fairly new and I think they do update those or at least they try to roll out new requirements or test out new requirements fairly regularly to keep up with new technologies and innovation and design and construction. So let's see, there was a comment from Councillor Oakleaf about in the curb cut section about the discretion or, sorry, yeah, as we're moving some language about when curb cuts are closed, that's to be determined by what's appropriate by the Department of Public Works or by the Director of Public Works and any applicable public works standards. I think really the intent there is not to have that as a discretionary option, but more to have the Director of Public Works basically certify that what was done meets the standards that are developed for curb, for a green belt, for sidewalk installation and all of those components that would go into closing the curb cut. So definitely we can clarify that if it's not, if there is too much ambiguity in that statement. Yeah, I think again, and mainly if we can put enough direction in here that just allows for predictability for the applicant, but as well as for anybody else that's trying to understand what actually goes into the requirements. So it's, you know, it's two full, it's one so the applicant knows what's going on but also for any interested residents, adjacent residents or anyone that might be impacted by those decisions. And then again, just trying to mitigate the need for another check in the process that might slow or delay things or add another to do item on our staff. Sure, absolutely, absolutely. Okay, question about the, again, with the bonus story about the certification of the housing affordability, we do have a requirement in section 804-H that does include ongoing certification. I believe there's a required that there's an audit every two years that's done to ensure that the affordability components are being met. So we do have standards that speaks to that. Let's see. The planning commission did not, so the comment about, did the planning commission discuss making the conditions in B, which is, I believe in that bonus story provision a requirement. I think this again, and Councillor Duncan can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this again goes back to the sound mitigation component. You answered that question. Yeah. So that was kind of a previous version of the question you responded to already. Right, okay. Yep, I thought so. Just wanted to make sure. Yep. And then Councillor Oakleaf had a question about references for, oh, for in the, again, in the setbacks, what methods would be suitable for to control runoff or erosion in the area that's designated as the setback? I think really what we would look to is our stormwater regulations to make sure that any runoff would not go off the site basically. So what that looks like, whether that be some sort of pervious paver or landscaping, I think that's really, we would want to leave it to at least to the extent possible to the discretion of the developer to put in what's gonna best suit their needs and the design of their building in the site. So we didn't wanna be too prescriptive with that, but at least acknowledge that they need to be able to control runoff and erosion from those areas if they're not otherwise included with some sort of seating area or something of that nature. And I believe that was all the comments. I think I covered everything that was submitted in advance. Not happy to address questions or comments that were not. So, Bryn? Just a unrelated question. Where, what document to refer to for conformity between building materials, used, signage, things like that, nature? So elements of, you mean, where do we regulate that? Or so that is, yes, that's a good question. So the regulations on the architectural standards, including signage and other components like that are included in part six of the regulations. So that's where you'll find all the primary and secondary materials for the facade of the building, materials for any building walls, that are required, specifics on signage, mechanical equipment, locations, things of that nature are all included in that section. Thank you. Thank you, Eric, for going through all those questions and providing some pretty detailed responses. It's really helpful. A couple of points I wanted to just come back to and ask us some follow-ups. One on the energy standards. Is it, I'm curious if you foresee those getting, or some additional funding coming into the state for, or the federal government for additional energy efficiency standards that might supplant this or render it useless soon. I'm not sure anticipated legislation or current legislation will actually provide incentives that would go beyond the bonus story incentive, right? And again, kind of render this incentive less effective. Do you anticipate that in the next couple of years? You know, that's a good question. I don't anticipate that. If anything, I think what might be happening would help support this and maybe make it easier or make it, maybe not easier, but more of an incentive for a developer to pursue some of the energy efficiency standards. If that gap in what they're required to put in for funding is supported by potentially some federal funding, it might actually encourage them to go that extra step, but not necessarily provide the full suite of funding to get there. And the reason I say that is because there's so many non-traditional energy efficiency aspects to the lead rating system that it may, where it is things like transportation impacts and location of transit facilities and things like that are incorporated into some of the standards. I don't foresee those being supported by any programs for the private development side at this time. Great, thank you. And then jump into kind of full incentives more broadly, have you had any conversations with developers, current or former that kind of support these as being interesting incentives? Is this seem palatable right now or would it have been before the supply chain issues and price increases? Yeah, that's a good question. I haven't had any specific conversations with anyone about these, I know we do have several developers that are definitely interested in the affordability component and wanting to develop affordable housing and looking for potentially other ways to help support the development of affordable housing, which as the mayor mentioned earlier, some things we're looking at based on input from the Housing Commission. But I haven't heard any comments from anyone about issues with supply chain or being able to meet any of these additional standards of these incentives based either on market conditions or similar components. Right, so I guess let me sharpen my question a little bit more. Do you think that developers will do these incentives? Will anyone be proposing a bonus story? Yeah, that's a good question. I think ultimately a lot of that's gonna depend on the market at the end of the day and what it's gonna cost them to incorporate these, to incorporate the provisions to get the bonus story and what other incentives we may be able to offer as a city that are not necessarily in these parts of the land use regulations or in other parts of the land use regulations in general. I have in fact had a conversation with one of the developers in the city that does affordable housing. And one of the comments he made was that while provisions for things like parking and other reductions are helpful where they really find would be have a greater impact would be things like reducing permit fees or relief on some of the permit fees or things like that. So I think it's gonna take a combination of things to really make these incentives, these bonus story advantageous to the development community. But I think at the end of the day, providing them with a variety of options that they may be able to figure out a way to pencil them out may be the most advantageous for us as a city. But again, at the end of the day, I think the market's really gonna be the deciding factor on how these incentives get utilized either as they're proposed or what we currently have in place. Okay. So I'm sorry, that's not a really good answer, I don't think, but it's, I think for a lot of it, that's the reality of what we're facing. And then a final follow up to the question, the responses you provided was on the required building line and the input setback and the intended use of that space and how that will be kind of supported and maintained as publicly viewable, not publicly accessible. I do think it's important to make it clear that that's not an area to be screened off for the sole use of the building, whether it's commercial or residential. I think if that's, if we're trading some of that, that we're giving some leniency in that standard to accommodate the need for pedestrians and for people to feel that street scale development, but then it's being sectioned off of the wall or a hedgerow that would be kind of defeating the purpose. Yep, absolutely. Yeah, I've already, based on your comments, I've already looked at some potential language to include to help clarify what that space is intended for and how it's to be utilized for, if developers are interested in taking advantage of that. Great, thanks. I look forward to seeing that. Are there any questions from members of the public or comments? Any additional questions from council? So process wise, Eric. Sorry, I'm sorry. There was actually one more comment from Council Oakley that I did not address and that was on the definition section related to incorporation of the residential building energy standards and the commercial building energy standards. I think council Oakley, if I think that's, that is actually something that I've been looking at for regulations in general. And I think those references are gonna be better suited in not in the form-based code, but to address the, to apply to the entire land development regulations. Yeah, that makes sense to me too. Thank you. Yes, thank you. So it sounds like we have some like parking lot items for future review in a broader context of our regulations. And then I think, you mentioned drafting some language updates for us. You just talked about the setback space, for example. Would it be appropriate, if we wanted to call a public hearing, could we do that as a next step with some, those updates being included the next round or should we do a two-parter here? You know, that's a good question. I think what might make the most sense is to bring back some changes at a future meeting on just those sections and then look at scheduling a public hearing. That way if there's any concerns or changes that need to be made that may be more substantive, that maybe if I miss the mark and just don't capture exactly what you're interested in changes to that there is another opportunity to review the document before we do schedule a public hearing formally. I think we could potentially bring something back to you at your meeting on the 22nd of February and then still be able to schedule public hearing towards the end of March. I believe the 21st would be the next available time we could schedule that hearing. So that's, I think that might be a more appropriate approach to go forward with rather than try to schedule a hearing now. All right, does that sound good to tell first? Yeah. Last call for questions or comments? Okay. Well, thank you for digging into that, Eric and counselors for your thorough review. Absolutely, thank you very much. This is for discussion. So we'll move on to item E. This is on for approval. This is a reserve request related to one of our fire apparatus. Steve Audie, will you be introducing? I think I will be. Good evening, mayor and council. This is a request to use up to $10,000 of some fire equipment money ahead of the scheduled CIP replacement of our oldest SUV. We're experiencing several problems with the vehicle. It's actually parked at this point. This is a vehicle that's typically assigned to, in this case, the fire marshal. This is an old police cruiser that we purchased. As the police got ready to trade it in, we purchased it and outfitted it for our needs. Something a lot of communities do and it's the first time fire has kind of gone down that road. And it's proven to be really, really challenging for us. These vehicles come to us with just literally hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of wires, extra wires in them to support radios and lights and as a police cruiser. And somewhere in our transition to what we needed to do, we continue to experience some electrical issues with the vehicle where we're having to jump the vehicle several times a week. The maintenance costs are way up. I was a huge proponent of trying this, right? I mean, we're one square mile. The PD runs those for five years. How bad could it possibly be? They're pretty tired when they're done. Those are vehicles that, they don't go far, but they get run hard. They're hard, it's hard use running all the time and just, so while I'm glad we tried it, it's again proven to be pretty difficult and we find ourselves in a situation where it's so unreliable, we've parked the vehicle at this point. So again, this is asking to use up to $10,000 out of the existing fire department equipment funds. That money will be repaid either through the sale and this vehicle would go to auction or at the end of the financing, which Angela can speak to. Angela, did you wanna share anything on the financing or just if we have questions? I mean, I can clarify if you have questions, but basically we would continue to budget the fire truck replacement as it is currently built into the capital plan. And in that last year, instead of making a payment, we would replenish the reserves that we used. However much was not covered by the sale of the existing vehicle. Thank you. And I do wanna acknowledge that I believe John Rauscher brought this to our attention during the CIP review late last year. Brynn? I was wondering if we would end up buying another used vehicle or if we're seeking a new vehicle? So currently our thought is this obviously will go to bid to vendors and we'd be requesting a new model either 2021 or 22 and see if it comes within budget. And what we have done is we feel we can do this with a standard Explorer type package. This won't be a police interceptor type vehicle. We don't need that on the fire department, man side. There's just several pieces of that type of vehicle that we don't need to fulfill our needs. And with the backlog of so many vehicles, what would be the anticipated timeline for having this bid filled? So in talking to a couple of vendors, I believe this because it's not a specialized police type package that we'd be ordering or seeking. I believe that we will find a vendor that can supply us this vehicle. And to be clear, tonight's request is to actually do repairs on the current car, right? And then replace it later. No. No, the request is to use reserves for the initial payment that would come from replacing this. So basically shifting the cycle up, but we'll replenish this later. Thank you. I totally misunderstood that. We didn't want to continue to throw good money at a vehicle that is not going to be reliable any longer. It is an emergency services vehicle that is needed to respond to fire calls. Okay, thank you for that. There are other questions from council. Brynn. And just because there's a number of incentives available, wondering if the big could include consideration for an electric vehicle? So for us, the way we use the vehicles, certainly willing to obviously investigate looking at a hybrid type model for an Explorer. I don't know of an all electric Explorer. For these vehicles, when we use them for command, the back of the cars become important for us and how we build those out for operating at emergency scenes and some of the equipment that we carry on a day-to-day basis for inspections and that sort of thing. So we can't go much smaller than a, if any smaller than a Explorer. This isn't just an admin car. I did look at Burlington, for instance, they're replacing a car with an all electric vehicle, but it's an admin car. It doesn't serve as part of their main structure. Again, the cross functionality for us is super important. In addition, there may need to be some capital improvements at the fire station before you switch to something that's all electric because they currently do not have the ability to do fast charging at that location. We only have fast charging stations here at City Hall. I think including a plug-in hybrid is should be part of the bid consideration. I'm gonna say that because you did issue that Angela just raised, I would leave that to the discretion of staff for whatever vehicle they want. They think that fulfills the needs. I think asking for a bid doesn't mean committing to it. Are you asking that people include a price for a plug-in hybrid and then the lowest cost price, or you only want to see prices in the bids for a plug-in hybrid? I think it's acceptable to consider both. Okay. I mean, I think would that then really be up to the discretion of staff then which one to choose? I mean, I would weigh it at the time that it's presented if it comes back to vote, but I think having some information is better than having no information. I just want to be clear that the council doesn't decide make decisions on vehicle purchases of this nature. Like we can offer some guidance now. I think it's fine for them to collect, to look at hybrid vehicles, but we can't tell them that they have to purchase one. I didn't say that they did. I'm not trying to be offensive here. I'm trying to just make the process clear to everyone. Yeah. It's pretty simple for us to put in a bid that requirement. So we have that information. Yeah. Can that be an option? Yeah. And I think my intent again is there is state and federal funding that's available. So it's a matter of saying does the cost, yes, while there may need to be some capital improvements, does do the incentives lower the cost of the electric vehicle enough to bring it down to be equivalent to what a full fossil fuel vehicle would be? And then there can be consideration around what, if any capital improvements would be needed and staff can make a determination on their needs. So again, I'm just looking at the best use of taxpayer money and the fact that we are looking time to change down the barrel. Thanks for it, Mike. Yeah, I would like to find out first of all, if at all, are we talking all electric vehicle, friend or a hybrid with a gas motor and a battery backup? Hybrid. Okay. Because I want to know if there's any emergency vehicles that are made for that use since our emergency vehicles when called upon are running 24, they're not, they don't shut them off. They run constantly when they're on call. So I'd want to make sure that a hybrid model is a standard use in emergency vehicles because we have to think of the safety of our residents first over trying to do the right thing by climate change. That that's further and foremost in my mind. And if it's a, if there isn't a standard model or emergency vehicles for a hybrid model, then I don't think we waste time on trying to find that information out then. In my opinion, my opinion is safety comes first and whatever vehicle does the job that keeps our residents safe, that's the formal thing on my mind. Secondly, the $10,000 request, is this for a down payment for a brand new, it's down payment, correct? It's for a year one of the financing costs, which would likely be down payment, yes. Okay, thank you. I would just add some clarity here for staff. It sounds like you can solicit what hybrid options there are. However, you will make the choice on the vehicle that meets the needs that you have for this service vehicle. Did I already open? See if there's public comment on this item. I can't recall. I'll just say it one more time. If there is comment from members of the public, feel free to use your raise hand feature in Zoom. Any other questions or comments from council? Did somebody want to, it sounds like someone might want to make a motion to approve this reserve request. So I'll move. Second. Motion by Mike. Second by Jim. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Motion carries. Thank you, chief. Thank you. So next up is item F, the part time battalion chief and captain job description. Hello again. Yeah, so these are two positions that have existed in our structure. What changed is we hired a full-time fire marshal who essentially is now part of my leadership team and to build depth on the bench, if you will, now supervises those folks. And it allows us to, well, it forced us to look at what those tasks are that the part time battalion chief and the part time captain do and allowed us to align them better to the tasks that they're currently being asked to do. It's a good sign that we're having to review these. That's some growth, some reorganization. Again, I always say it, the efficiencies and the effectiveness of the department, especially where we're coming from allows, demands us to look at these from time to time and the time came when we hired a full-time fire marshal. And this is these, the part time battalion chief is currently filled. The part time captain position has been vacant for probably four years now. These are looked at from our part time staff as a professional development. Although some of those folks do it as a part time job. This is, they're super dedicated and this is kind of, again, it's professional growth for them and some of them have been in the service a long time and this is how you build depth in your command structure. Thanks for that context, chief. Are there any questions from council about these job description update? Any public comment? I think a little bit kind of clear what the changes were in the memo, which is appreciated along with your description, chief Audie. Hearing no concerns, would someone like to make a motion to approve the job description update? Don't move. Second. Motion by Mike, second by Jim. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Motion carries, thanks again. Thank you very much. So item G, this is also on for approval community services department position descriptions, not updates, new for the Myers pool director and lifeguard, welcome Ray. Thank you. So as we discussed on the 13th when I presented my budget, these are position descriptions for the pool director roles and the lifeguard roles for this summer, because as we discussed there, we're not gonna be able to contract out those services for this coming summer. Position descriptions have been reviewed and scored by the HR director, former HR director and by Angela and we're developed with our REC director before she departed as well. So lots of eyes on here and feel good about getting this in front of you and are excited to start recruiting soon. We've had a lot of intersect in these positions informally coming in already. So that's brand I know to a concern you had raised early on, really good news for us from a starting point. Very exciting, thanks Ray. Any questions from council on these position descriptions? Any public comment? All right, hearing no concern. Would someone like to make a motion to approve the Myers pool director and lifeguard job description? I have a question. I'm sorry, I couldn't find my raise hand, that's enough. Sorry, go ahead. The description Ray, is this, or what are these positions gonna be certified to teach lifeguarding? So we don't have any requirement for these positions to be instructors for lifeguard but we are working. I just met last week with Jess from the Y. We're gonna work with her through the spring and even into the early summer to offer some lifeguard certification courses for the community. Obviously not outside for a little while but we'll start at the Y and do some over there. And then once we get the pool up and running in the spring, hopefully get at least one more round in outdoors before our public season opens in June. But yeah, that'll be a different, that instructor would be a different person. We're not requiring that as part of these roles. Okay, so okay, thank you. You wanna make a motion? So move. Second. Motion by Mike, second by Jim. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Motion carries, thanks Ray. Awesome, thank you. All right, and so next up item H on for approval, renewal of our annual memorandum of understanding with the school district. Okay, Mayor and Council. This is the annual renewal. This agreement is the same agreement that you approved last year, that only the dates have been changed. The dollar amounts are still the same. The school district is going to consider it this week and it expires at the end of this month. I think that's, those are the highlights. It basically describes how the school and the city work together. And it's a very solid agreement in my opinion. It includes goals and sets the stage for the cooperation. Thanks Wendy. And we had talked about this when the school resource officer conversations began. You know, we'll need to show that position, situation change, we'll need to update this. But in the meantime, school leadership and city were okay with continuing with this MOU that we've had for some years until that point. So are there any questions or concerns from council? Any public comment here? Hearing no concerns, would someone like to approve the renewal of our annual MOU with the Wenduski school district? Thank you. Motion by Bryn, second by Jim. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Motion carries, thank you. So we are moving on to item I. This is on for discussion or approval. A reserve request for public work staffing compensation. Donna, Angela, who will start? I can go ahead. So this is something we've been talking about for a little bit, especially given our current staffing levels. And so the idea is really two goals. So one is for new hiring. We are looking at what incentives we can do for new hires to bring them on board. And this would be similar to what other municipalities around us are doing. So things like hiring bonuses for a time period. Obviously like we would put stipulations that say, you have to be here for a certain amount of time to get that sort of hiring bonus. And we would look, we're also looking at things like referral bonuses for our existing employees if they do bring forward a candidate that we hire. So that's one piece of this is we're trying to get more competitive with other municipalities around us who are, we're all looking for the same staff right now, unfortunately, and there's not a lot of folks out there for CDLs. And then the second part, the second goal would be to reward the staff who really stepped up and took on more load than what they signed on for. And this is specific to the folks who are doing more, doing the plowing work this winter. So the thought here would be to look at increasing the on-call pay that we have. So in normal times, we have four to five on-call staff who are qualified to be on-call during the week. And then as things come up during the week, mainly plowing this time of year, they come in and run the plow truck, do whatever they have to do. So typically each staff person gets a week per month. And unfortunately, we're down to really two qualified staff members. So now those two staff are having to fill in, basically rotate every other week. And it's a big load. It's a lot for these guys. So we're looking to temporarily increase that rate to say basically like, thank you for stepping up and taking care of the city. So that's the other piece. And the thought would be that this is temporary. We would have to put limits. We're looking at it for just this winter season or until we get up to staffing levels, which would be amazing. So those are the items we're looking at. And this all hinges on, we would have to do an MOU at the AFSCME union. So that's why I, you know, we're not super specific on the details because we have to negotiate them with the union to work it out. So 10,000 is modeling that we looked at with Angela is, you know, adequate to do some of those items that we discussed. So that's what the request is for tonight. Yeah, so essentially we would need to authorize you up to that amount to go forward with those negotiations and figure out how it would actually be used. Mike, I see you. Yep. Oh, sorry. Go ahead, John. You good? I'm just going to say there is a chance, you know, we can come to an agreement, you know, that would be unfortunate, but you know, that is always possible too. So it's not a foreshore that we're going to, you know, come to an MOU agreement on this, but you know, that's our hope. John, are some of these funds going to be used to cross-strain current staff in your department? So the, unfortunately, the only current staff that would be eligible is we actually have two water resources staff that are filling in some of the holes in our plowing. So one of them is, one of our water resources operators is on on-call and then actually both of them are on-call. So the only other two folks are the treatment plan operators and we wouldn't bring them on is on-call folks. They have enough to handle. And we're always trying to train up our EO-1s, the folks that don't have CDLs, we're trying to promote them to work on getting their CDLs. That takes time, but that's something we're continuing to work on. One thing to know is that the two staff that work out at the wastewater plant have their own on-call rotation that they fulfill separately. So to have to pull them into the other on-call rotation would put a lot of extra time on their books. Yeah, and I was wondering that because of your comment or last meeting that your department's at 50%, I mean, in case of an emergency though, isn't it all hands on deck, no matter what? I mean, we got kind of lucky in this storm, but just for an example, if the storm from two weeks ago would have hit us and we would have got two to three feet of snow, isn't it all hands on deck, no matter what? I mean, are we gonna cross? And that's what the kind of thing I'm talking about. Yeah, and it pretty much is all hands on deck at this point. I mean, we have with the two water resources folks, we have nine staff that are doing snow, snow and ice operations, and then the two treatment plant operators. So all nine staff were doing plowing this last storm. So yep, we're there. Okay, and then- But of that nine staff, four people are currently out on leave and there is one vacancy, so. Correct, and you're saying that this release of the money will go through that whole staff, correct? Not just certain individuals? We would look to provide it to all the staff that are doing additional work. It would not be specific individuals, but only those whose workload has changed due to the staffing shortage. Perfect, thank you very much. Is there other questions? Any public comment here? All right, so this is on for discussion or approval. Someone could make a motion to approve it or we could revisit it at our next meeting. I'll move to approve it. Got a motion by Mike, second by Jim. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Motion carries. Thank you, John and Angela. Good luck in negotiations. All right, we are on to item J. This is also on for approval, the annual TIF certification. Yes, this is something that you see every year as part of the TIF rule and state statute. The city of Winooski files a report with Pepsi reporting on the prior fiscal year TIF activity. We filed our report on January 10th and received word from Pepsi that the report had been accepted on January 24th. We are now bringing that report to you with Ted Nelson certification of the tax increment financing district value for acceptance, review and acceptance. This is required to be accepted and presented by council before the February 15th deadline in statute and returned to Pepsi with the signature of the authorizing official, which in this case would be Wendy Harrison. Thanks, Angela. Annual administrative requirement, but there is some really interesting information in this report. Open it up to council for questions or public comment. If anyone's watching, you should check it out because it talks about like businesses that have opened an employment in our downtown grand list and tax value there. So I just find it an interesting reading. Hearing no questions or concerns, would someone like to make a motion to approve the TIF certification? I'll move. Second. Motion by Mike, second by Bryn. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Motion carries. Thank you, Angela. Thank you. So this brings us to the end of the evening's regular items. We do have three executive sessions worn. For each executive session, we'll need to move into that session. We're gonna use a different zoom line. We will come back to this main line solely to warn, not warn, but to close out one session and then vote to move into the next. Within each executive session, we will not discuss any content outside of the one item per. And then at the end, we'll come back to this line solely to adjourn. So there won't be any more general discussion happening on this zoom line. So with that, I am looking for a motion to find that Pervermont State statute, section 3132, the negotiation of real estate purchase or lease option related to lot nine being done in a public forum would put the city at a disadvantage. So looking for a motion to find that. So. Second. Motion by Mike, second by Bryn. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Motion carries. So then I am looking for a motion to move into executive session, inviting Wendy Harrison, John Rauscher, Angela Aldieri, I think. I think that's it. All right. Second. Motion by Jim, second by Bryn. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All right, motion carries. I will see you all on the other zoom line. Thank you.