 I'll call to order the July 18, 2018 meeting of the Chittin County Regional Planning Commission. I understand that we now are airing live on YouTube, so to start this era of live transmissions off. I'll say live from Manuski. It's Wednesday night. Somehow it just doesn't... Now I really want 24 hours to clarify my remarks. Good enough for the President. It's good enough for our board members. Nothing on the Consent Agenda, Deliberative Agenda that's been called to order. Are there any changes to the agenda? Hearing none. Are there any members of the public who would like to make a comment on items not appearing on our agenda? Hearing none. Next item is approval of the minutes of our June 20, 2018 annual meeting. Chair, I move approval with any edits. Next. Any comments, changes, questions? Hearing none. All in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Any abstentions? Yes. Mr. Chair, I noticed that the minutes did not reflect the comments made during the annual meeting that we were going to torture Andy Montrell to be the head of the Board Development Committee for the Perceivable Future. So, not that I want them, but I just want the world to know that we, we as a Board Development Committee have elected to torture Andy for another year. Thank you. I look forward to it. Next item on the agenda, which is an MPO matter, is the fiscal year 2019 through 2022 Transportation Improvement Program. First of all, is there a motion to open the public hearing? So moved. Second. Second. All in favor of the motion, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Ayes have it. And now for presentation, Kristine. Okay. Thank you. So, we're here to talk about, as Chris said, the Transmission Improvement Program for Federal Fiscal Year 2019 and 2022. This begins October 1st, 2018, and extends through September 30th, 2022. So I'm just going to give a little bit of background about what it is, and then we're going to talk about the specifics of this tip. Most of you have probably heard parts of this presentation before, but I just want to get us all on the same page and a refresher for everybody as to what we're doing. So just to put it in context of all the work that we do here, we kind of start with the broad view, the ECOS plan, the Metropolitan Transportation Plan, which is our 20-year vision for transportation in the county. And from there, where we look at issues, maybe, areas that we want to do some further development, we do planning studies, we do corridor studies, and then really from there, get into more location-specific projects, scoping studies, where we really start to develop projects to address issues that are identified in the MTP and also in the planning and corridor studies. And then from there is the funding, is trying to get projects queued up to be funding. And that's the tip, the STIP, the capital program. The STIP, there is a statewide transportation improvement program that is similar to what we do here. The TIP becomes part of the STIP, the capital program is the state budget and then construction. So everybody's aware that we are a metropolitan planning organization. We're the only MPO in the state of Vermont, and the TIP is a federal requirement. So we have to do this as an MPO. The tip is, it's a list of projects. So prioritized, physical constrained, multi-year list, federally funded transportation projects and operations in the MPO region. So just some points in that sentence, the tip must be physically constrained, and that means it has to be based on money that we actually expect to be available in Chittenden County. So the projects that are listed on the tip are things that we actually expect to be able to build. It must cover at least four years. That's in the federal regs. And it must be updated at least every four years. We typically update it every year. There's a lot of changes in projects every year. So we like to just refresh it every year. And the tip authorizes the obligation of federal funds. And this is kind of an obscure but important point is that the tip is not a budget document. It's a planning document. The obligation is the process of setting funds aside to fund phases of projects. So that is what we do in the tip is we obligate funds for projects that then are going to be spent at a later date. So I think the important thing to note with that is that the spending in the tip is a little bit earlier than when you will actually see construction happen. So because the obligation process happens before at the beginning part of each phase of the project, if that makes sense. So communities shouldn't count their chickens until they're obligated. They shouldn't count their chickens until they're awarded to a kind of keep the chicken thing going but I really can't. But yeah so obligation is what gets the ball rolling. The project rolling. So tip is based on a continuing comprehensive transportation planning process carried out cooperatively by the state, the NPO and transit operators. So the way that we do the tip is spelled out in federal law as is what's in the tip. We have to all work together. We have to work with VTrans. We have to work with Green Mountain Transit. And it's a collaborative process. Projects on the tip have to be ready to spend the money. So this is actual money that's coming to Chittin County. If a project's in the tip, it takes up obligational authority is how federal highway refers to it. And so if the project can't spend the money, it's wasting the space. So projects have to be ready to go. They have to have funding. We've covered that a couple of times. That's why we have tip amendments, right? And that's why we have tip amendments, yep. And then important also is that they have to be in the transportation capital program. So the capital program is the state's budget. All the projects that VTrans works on are in the capital program. So it has to be so for Chittin and County projects, they have to be in both. So you don't mind me asking clarifying question, Mr. Chair. If a project is in our tip, and it's approved by this body where VTrans has a boat, it becomes part of the tip. Yeah. But that does not guarantee that it makes it into the state capital program, correct? Correct. Eligible for the state. It's eligible for the thank you for the positive spin on that. So I mean, since we we work closely with VTrans, the tip is developed cooperatively with VTrans. So generally, they're aligned. Generally, they're aligned. But things can happen in the deliberative process. Sure. At the state level with the with VTrans's interaction with the with the legislature and the appropriators there, right? So I mean, there's there is still opportunity for things to be different between the tip, the STIP, and the state's capital program. Yes. Is, you know, projects originally get on the tip in preliminary engineering, as they move along, estimates go up. And when that happens, does what does it I know we oftentimes make amendments, but does that mean that the project gets lower ranked, or that funds might not be available, or don't be pretty typically add money as the project gets closer to construction Yes. So every year we refresh the the estimate. So, you know, at the planning phase, they're very, they're very conceptual, they're very general. But by the time we're getting to a point that we're programming construction funds, we should be getting pretty close. And if they've gone up considerably, what is the process that it don't we just make it do does a whole new application have to be made? No. And I we're getting better at it than we used to be. But I think it's just part of the planning process, the project development process is things, things change. So I don't, it doesn't, it doesn't give them a lower rank, necessarily. I mean, in theory, what you say is true. It affects cost benefit. But it's never knocked a project out that I know of one or just nuance. Just Jeff was kind of asking about the relationship between of those, the program document, that whole budget. The one key thing to know is that the state cannot spend federal transportation dollars without it being in our tip. So Okay, so the tip you have copying your place, it's very peach. Three sections, there's an introduction. That's just some background information. What the tip is, there's a section here that's new about performance measures, which is just a little general right now, because we're still developing those concepts. But we do have to weave the performance man performance measures throughout all our planning processes in one area will be in the tip. There's an adoption resolution. There's a glossary. And then there's a map. And I'll say a little bit more about the map in a minute. So section two is the list of actual the projects. And we'll talk about that again in a minute. Section three is some tables and charts and financial information, which we will also talk about in more detail. Page one of the tip just very quickly just to orient you. It's the projects are organized alphabetical by town. They have a CCRPC number that doesn't really have any significance other than for us. Project name. Sometimes there's location information under the name if that's relevant VTrans project number. If you had a question with VTrans, you would reference this number. Also, the VTrans project manager, if you wanted information from the trans public project. The important columns are these four columns, those are the federal funds and each of the four federal fiscal years. These are federal funds only, they don't include state and local match. And then there's phases for the project, generally PE, polymer engineering, ROW is right of way and C1 is construction. There are some just to be clear for all of our live audience viewers. When does the fiscal year start and end and what year goes with what? So fiscal year 19 begins October 1st, 2018, and end September 30th, 2019. So the federal fiscal year, not the state fiscal year, correct. And then in some on some other pages that aren't shown here, there might be a note here that says the most common note says funds to be obligated in FY 18. We're currently in FY 18. So that means if that were the note, there would be no dollar amounts here. That just means that the project is supposed to be finished this year. There's some circ alternative comments in the bottom in some places too. If you see any comments that you have questions about, then you can let me know. And then this double line just gives separate some other project information. There's the total cost information here that includes the state and local match federal funds obligate. So these are a little bit of an oddball these two columns, the federal funds obligated through FY 17 means that the that's the money that was spent through September 30 2017. So that's last year. And then this 18 is the current federal fiscal year. So if you added these two columns together, you would have the amount that was spent prior to FY 19. I know it's a little bit confusing. But if you have questions and ask me, please use category, we divide the projects into use categories. And I will also talk about that a little bit more in the minute. Funding source and funding shares and comments and I'm sorry remarks are just additional project information that may be relevant on the map. So this is the map. This is also in your document. Page four, I think four or five or something like that. If you want to see it more carefully, it's also on our website. So you can zoom in and look at all the projects and see where they are. It's color coded by year and then different symbols for different project types. Okay, so getting into the specifics of what is in this document. So 69.6, excuse me, million dollars worth of projects in 1966.9 and 20, 52.4 and 21, 53.1 and 22 total of 242.1 million. So that sounds like all a lot of money. So this chart kind of puts it in up in a historical perspective so that we can see how it relates to past years. I color coded the Burlington International Airport projects in green. And the reason that I did that mostly is because of this really large blip in 2017. So I wanted to make it clear that that it's not all money coming to us. So the airport projects that's their grants there are the airport improvement program grants for planning and development, they go to the airport. They're not money that we are able to use for our purposes. So this flip was really some major runway reconstruction that happened in 2017. So other than that, if you look at the blue columns, we're kind of going a little bit up and we had some high years and 1718 and then the 1920, 2122 are a little bit more in line with where we've been in the past. So an important thing to note from this chart is that the projects in the tip, the tip is developed based on projects being ready to go. And that's why there's a lot of variation. We don't have a set dollar amount that we program to, but VTrans is working on a lot of different projects and bringing them forward. So rather than hold it to one level, we do this up and down funding to just consider the availability or the readiness of projects I should say. So I'm going to go through this table and it's going to flash names of projects. I'm just going to do this quickly if you had something that you wanted to ask about, but it'll just kind of lay it out by category. So I said before the projects, the tip is we look at projects by category. Aviation, we talked about that before 13.4% of the total in this tip, 32.5 million combination of air field projects, noise mitigation and terminal and air apron projects. This is based on the eligibility for that airport improvement program category that we talked about. Christine, do you know much about the actual project? I've been wiring it from afar, but I haven't actually asked the question about the I see a lot of the sewer vaults or whatever that are seemingly going to be embedded somewhere near the runway and then talks in here about like all treatment. Will that, you know, be done down that? I don't know a lot. I don't know a lot of details about that. It looks like they have sort of a self-contained recovery system. Yeah, that money goes through us, but it basically is a pass through. We don't have any say in it and we have to include whatever it is. Dr. Jean Richards. Bike pad, this is the largest number of projects on the tip in a category 18 projects, but it's only 2.5% of the total These are grant projects, mainly bike and pet grants and transportation alternative grants. We've noted before that the transportation alternative program is going to stormwater, I believe for one more year. So these are older projects. Sidewalk grants, that was a program that CCRPC used to have that we don't anymore. And then there's one circ alternative sidewalk project on the tip 6 million. Bridge preservation, 8 projects here, 14 million, 5.9% of the total, mainly state bridges. The bottom two are interstate bridges. And there's one town highway bridge, bridge 32 on Campbell's hump road. And the number in parentheses is the year that they're scheduled to go to construction right now. Intermodal, one project, Wilson Park and Ride, and that is supposed to be under construction next year. New facility, major roadway upgrade. This is category only six projects, but it is the largest dollar category on the tip 24.7, 24.7% of the total 59.9 million, Champlain Parkway as X 16, X 17, X 12, crossing connector and market street. And I'm going to say a little bit more about this category in a minute. And all of these do so Champlain Parkway is supposed to be under construction next year, exit 16 the year after. Crescent connector is supposed to start this year, market street next year. Paving six projects 20 million, 8% of the total seven from 117, from out 15, some 89 paving. The US two and Williston is just a resurfacing. It's not a major reconstruction like the other US two paving that happened last year. Roadway corridor improvements only one project in this category right now Suzy Wilson Road corridor and that is scoping. So we don't have a construction date for that project yet. Safety, traffic operations and ITS, large category of projects. These are interstate and signal projects, 15 projects at 17% of the total. And this is an important category because it keeps it helps us keep the intersections moving, which is important. Some of us look like circle turn and some of these are circle turnitives. And I think I have a list of that to come up. The circle turnitives are Blakely Road, Lake or Lane and Colchester, Prim Road, West Lakeshore Drive and Colchester sevens corners. 117. I believe that's not a circle turn. 15 Sandhill is US two Industrial Avenue, Mountain View and Vermont two agents. So transit 23.9%. This is a combination of formula funds that come to Green Mountain transit based on them being a transit operator. New services that are funded with congestion and mitigation and air quality funds. There's FTA grants that GMT has applied for and then elderly and disabled programs. And the last categories or modern environmental, the 15 projects here, they're generally smaller projects. So 1.7% of the total cost. These are to reach mainly to VTrans grant programs, the municipal highway and storm water mitigation program and transportation alternative grants. So this this pie shows the everything that I just said in a pie format. So the blue on the left side are all kind of a combination of the roadway projects. 51% of the total goes to these categories. So the highest amount goes to that new facility major roadway upgrade. And the next highest is transit. So at the TAC meeting, there was a conversation about that, excuse me, that new new facility major roadway upgrade and how high that is and how does that relate to our history. So I put this chart together, which I know is really very busy. But what I want you to notice is the bottom. So these are all the categories going from 2000 all the way up to 2017. And I think the one the first thing to note from this is how much everything changes year to year. The funding by category is very variable. But the bottom the bottom slice, whatever you call it, but the bottom piece that dark blue is the new capacity category. So what you'll see is that while it was a high percent in the current tip, it does not reflect the way that it's been in the past. And it's generally quite low, but it was high in that period of 03 04 or five three or four or five or six. And that was when we constructed Shoven Road, Kennedy Drive, the Winooski downtown project. There was funding for the Cirque Highway for Champlain Parkway. So that created that blip. But for the most part, it is a goal, it is a goal in our plan to maintain the existing system. And that is, in fact, what we do. So this Champlain Parkway, a big part of the new capacity that we got. Yes, like, it's probably more than half of the new capacity all by itself. In terms of total cost, it's like 10. Christine, on that graph, isn't it more that the total you're focusing on the darkest stack of the graph, where it seems like, if you look at the totality of the blue and the dark stack, they're equal to 2004 2005 in this year. I wouldn't split hairs between what's a major upgrade, what's a minor upgrade they're all going to add up. It seems like to the same level that we're doing something that we did in 2004 and 2005 right now, whether it's major enhancement or improvements to an exit, as might be driving up some of the costs here. Champlain Parkway is like 28 million, right? So it's almost half of any throw in exit 16. Yeah, so and we've been trying to do 16 and 17 for how many years? Well, and that the point I was going to make to us, you know, those of us who may have sort of looked out and noticed over the course of the last decade, there hasn't been much in the way of increased capacity in Chittenden County. Well, you can't do that forever. And it just happens given you can't do one tenth of a project over 10 years, you do one project there's only so many that he can bypasses out there. And you know, perhaps future thoughts with the color coding, what would be helpful to me would be to look at it from the perspective of the priorities and the performance measurements they're laying out here in the tip of the feds and saying, here's the six things you want to be working on. How are they prioritized? If you listen to Mr. Glitterstorf, when he was commenting on the M the transportation plan, you know, the roadway enhancements and quarter improvements are probably the wrong way to go. And yet they're getting a big dose this year. And maybe the other issues might need to be prioritized going forward. Right, and we will be doing that in the future. I think we only have one performance measure that has been approved so far. I just think it would be nice to know which measure is most important or which one we should be, you know, balancing them all out. Well, we have to that category. I think the category also the new facility major roadway upgrade also considers some when we're talking about exit 12, exit 17 and exit 16. There's also some significant just maintenance of the existing system that becomes part of those facilities as well. 17 requires a new reconstruction of the bridge over the interstate. So there's it's it's a combination of different factors. But yes, I agree with what I hear what you say. And and those will be something that will work in more. This kind of gets a related note. There are going to be and we'll talk about this more as we get in later into the fall performance measures that are being dictated by Federal Highway and Congress that we look at kind of whole system performance. The other aspect that I think this is more where you're getting to is also how we prioritize everything. And so and Christine's been doing a lot of work with VTrans on a new project selection and prioritization process. So I think that will be coming up to the board here in the fall to look at that. And I think that will actually move us further down the road to understanding, you know, prioritizing things and how they fit into no of these performance measures stand alone. They all have Yeah, and the performance measures are really system wide. Right. You know, so how are we doing as a county that doesn't necessarily help you prioritize a project. Safety impacts congestion impacts air emissions, etc. So you can get bang for your buck. I'm not totally agreeing that there's six measures you need to matter and you could probably cut it down to three. And you can't look at one year in isolation either. Before we get too far in the comments, I just want to check and see if there are any members of the public who would like to make a comment. If not, then why don't we entertain a motion for approval of the tip and then we'll continue with the discussion. Is there a motion? Move we prove the tip with according to staff recommendation. Have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion about that? Wasn't intended to cut off discussion. I just wanted to follow Robert's rules, but nearly done. All right, well, hearing nothing further. All in favor of the motion of approval, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? The eyes have it. The next item is the certification of the planning process, which involves authorizing me to certify something that Christine's got. Charlie's going to explain. Yeah, so the next. So the item in your packet, I don't have a slide for that. I was going to start with a slide for that. So we're required to self certify each year that we follow the federal requirements. And I think there's a lot of detail in your packet about about what is part of that requirement. Basically, it's that we follow the federal laws that we don't discriminate that we maintain competition and all of that. So so if you have any questions on it, please let me know. Mr. Chair, just prominent rank rate when we approve the tip that's supposed to be recorded vote. But since everybody voted, and it's a weighted vote in the affirmative, we don't have to take a roll, right? And I want to compliment the staff on the briefing materials on the planning certification. That's the first time I had somebody present to me in 19 18 19 years on this body. Why we do these types of things, you sit there and you don't know why you do that was very helpful explanations in the margin. So compliments to the staff on that. So is I would move that we authorize the chair to sign the certification of the planning process letter to the appropriate federal authority. Any further discussion? Not all favor say aye. Aye opposed. And also if I could entertain or I would entertain if I'm the one entertaining motion to close the public hearing, which was still open. I move second. All in favor say aye. I pose. Thank you very much. Next item on the agenda is the fiscal year 19, which starts July one for us, correct. Schedule of meetings and there is a proposed schedule of executive committee and full commission meetings as well as the regular meeting times of various committees. There was one change that was made by the executive committee and their recommendation to the full commission at the meeting that took place before this meeting. And that is to change the executive committee meeting scheduled for September 5, 2018 to August 29, 2018. And that is due to the some quorum issues on September 5. So the recommendation of the executive committee is for the proposed set of schedules with the one change of September 5 to August 29. Is there a motion to approve the schedule? So moved. There's second. Second. And is there any discussion? Hearing none, all in favor say aye. I oppose say nay. The ayes have it. The next item is solicitation and appointment of members to serve on fiscal year 19 committees and I'll hand that over to Charlie, I guess, right? Sure. So every year we kind of just do a review of committees and who's volunteered or been appointed. You can volunteer to be on a committee. So I think this is really your chance to change committees if you'd like. And there if you see a blank here, that just means that there is still we haven't maxed out the number of board members on that committee. We don't need to fill those blanks. So right now our committees and the members on the different committees are okay. But if you'd like to either get off or get on a committee, this is a great opportunity to let the chair know. Exactly. So this is jump in once. And certainly to the extent on the drive home, you suddenly have an epiphany and decide you want to serve. We will accept your interest after this. This is the squirrely process in our bylaws where the chair establishes and appoints committees and members with the concurrence of the full commission. So if there could be a motion of concurrence with the chair appointing the committee members as shown on the July 18 2018 additions or subtractions as indicated. So I'll do that for you. All right. We have a second. I moved to give the chair the authority to appoint members of the committee. I know that the vacuum doesn't have to I he needs to just concur. The reason is to concur. I'll second that the vacuum was making it hard to hear. I'll concur with you. Any further discussion? Hearing none. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Next item. Guidelines and standards for reviewing Act 250 and section 248 applications. Emily will help us out with this. Does everybody have a copy or would it be helpful for me to bring it up on the screen? We all have copies. All right. Great. Let's not turn this into. So what you have in front of you is largely the same as what you saw, I believe, at your May board meeting. So just to clear it just to bring everybody up to speed again. We have two processes outlined in here. One of them is our process to look at Act 250 review. And we're suggesting not really to change that based on changes that were made to our egos plan. We'll continue to be focusing that review on land use and transportation specifically. And then our section 248 review process is proposed to be changed in here. We discussed this at length again in the May board meeting. And what you got in your packets is, you know, all the track changes are the changes that have been made throughout this process. The highlights in yellow are specifically changes that have been made since that meeting. So either based on comments that we got from you or a couple clarifying questions that we got from our Planning Advisory Committee. So just going through those really quickly. On page four is the first change basically just clarifying substantial deference and our process for commenting with that. Also clarifying that we review both advance notices and petitions. And then clarifying that we'll continue to be working with municipal staff as we're going through this process and making sure that we're getting the town or the city's views on whatever on whatever we're viewing. And then we do have a couple changes that we're suggesting. And we had a chance to talk to the Executive Committee about this just now. Based on some comments we heard from Jeff. Thank you. They were very helpful on clarifying the difference between when the Executive Committee can essentially act on its own to participate in a section 248 process and when that needs to come before the full board. So previously the language in there basically said that the Executive Committee may decide to bring it to the board and there weren't any standards for when that would happen. And so we do have these standards outlined in our Act 250 section of this policy. And basically what it says there is that if we're saying something good we're saying that the project is in conformance with the regional plan and it's you know we don't have any concerns about transportation then the Executive Committee can go ahead and approve that letter and we'll send it in if we're saying that there's a problem with the project and we're trying to stop essentially stop or register negative comments about the project then that's when the full board would get involved. And so essentially what we are proposing to add here and this is what you have in front of you with the green highlights. This is page six and seven of what you got in your board packet originally is essentially to say the same thing for section 248. So what we're proposing here is that the decision to intervene can still be done by the Executive Committee and we're suggesting that that remains that way because the notice of intervention that we would put in doesn't have to say that we're having you know that we're doing it for negative comments. So sometimes we'll intervene to stay to stay as part of the process to give ourselves the option to submit comments later and depending on when the board is meeting it also can present a scheduling problem to get that notice in with the board. And so what this language is proposing is that the board has to take action if we're submitting something that again says something negative about the project. No problem. All kinds of noises tonight. So yeah. The other there's another dimension to this. And we empower the Executive Committee of our organization to do lots of things and in the interest of efficiency and dealing with routine matters that don't rise to the level of board consideration. But and I appreciate the edits that we made to make it conform with our Act 250 approach in terms of when it's appropriate for the Executive Committee and maybe contested cases to come to the full board. But I hope that both an Act 250 and 248 certificate of public good proceedings that our Executive Committee should feel empowered to come to the board to get feedback on projects even if they're not contested even if the Executive Committee believes that they're positive and the hypothetical that I threw out what if we had a 900 acre solar farm that went into three that were three of our member communities none of which were represented by a board member on the Executive Committee. And that even though we're we support renewable energy and maybe it's a fantastic project that doesn't violate any of our restricted areas isn't on steep slopes that we would think that the Executive Committee would at least come back to the board if the schedule allowed to solicit feedback and direction from the board not necessarily from the standpoint that we think it's consented but so that they don't have to take the responsibility particularly if it involves a project where none of the members of the Executive Committee are represented in the community member community that's impacted. So I appreciate the issue of being clear about when we intervene particularly in contested cases. But I would hope our Executive Committee will feel comfortable as they always seem to be coming to the board on issues that maybe are significant but not necessarily contested just to get feedback from the board in terms of how we're executing and serving our member communities. And so this was very to me very executive board centric and not that our Executive Committee would become a junta or something like that. We just wanted to make sure that there was a sense in our writings and even if they weren't formally in case and these this language that there would at least be some informal protocols where the chair might suggest to the Executive Committee that we should at least inform the board even if it's an informational item and solicit feedback. No and that's helpful. I mean the tension here of course is there are times when deadlines would necessitate quicker action by the Executive Committee but especially in the PUC context you get your pre filing 45 days ahead of time. And if there's a project of significance that implicates concerns which may or may not ultimately lead to intervention but is is of a scope and nature that it's worthwhile to take and have the entire Commission weigh in I agree 100%. And so this is an effort at encouraging them not saying you can only bring into the Commission under these circumstances but you absolutely do have to and in fact what we had discussed is the scenario where because of a deadline we get an appearance or intervention in but then bring it to the Commission with the ability then to withdraw it if ultimately the Commission decides otherwise. So we had that discussion. I was thinking of it more lines that we do support renewable development. So I mean you come across here and you read all this stuff there is a lot of red in the in this language and I realize we're going into an area we've never been any further discussion or questions. I guess just to clarify so to clarify that isn't an edit to the tax that you think needs to be made additionally to the no but I wanted to have in the record in the minutes a sense that those two were the only means by which the executive committee will come back to the board and with that understanding I'd move the staff recommendation. Second. Any further discussion. Hearing none all in favor say aye. Say nay. The ayes have it. Now we're going to move on to guidelines and standards for confirmation of municipal planning processes and approval of municipal plans. That is a catchy agenda item right there. This is the guideline meeting. So still me and it gets even longer the title is even longer in this revised document. So what we're doing here is looking at the process that municipalities will be able to go through now that we are fingers crossed going to have our own determination of energy compliance on the ECOS plan as of August hopefully we'll now be able to give the same determination to municipal plans that have followed the same energy planning standards. So this is really I think an example where there is quite there's been quite a lot of text added to this document but it doesn't it can be summed up pretty quickly. So in the memo that was included with this essentially what we're doing here is proposing that there are really four additional steps that a municipality can choose to take. So as a reminder enhanced energy planning is not required of municipalities they can still have a regional plan that's approved and confirmed by us. The having an enhanced energy plan is something that gives benefits to a municipality. So the biggest one as you'll see on page one here is getting this substantial deference for your municipal land use and land use policies and conservation measures. So this is as we've discussed at the regional level this is different than the due consideration that would be given to these policies without the determination of energy compliance. So it's a higher standard of review which can be beneficial. We think not that there's no case law about it. So hopefully it'll be be beneficial. At this point this we aren't looking for any action by the Commission. This is the first time you've seen this. This is an opportunity to raise any questions or comments. And then over the summertime if there are comments that come to mind providing them to Emily or Regina. Are there any questions or comments at this time? Yes Jeff. Two things. Number one thank you because I was the one that answered about that how we're evaluating municipal plans. So appreciate the clarity on that. And secondly my question is directed more at the executive director between this and the previous agenda item. This is a low to work for us as an organization. And normally you know I like to ask the question when I see an expansion of what we're going to do put into writing. A. We have the source of funding to support it. And B. Is this new amount of activity between both of these agenda items going to replace anything in what it was we were doing prior to accepting and taking on these responsibilities that are I mean clearly if they're replacing lower priority items it's the right thing to do. But is it in any way going to affect the way we support our municipalities or anything like that because I'm assuming that this is all going to be coming out of the ACCD planning grant that we get. And I know that we've been ramping up. But this just seems like a lot and I just want to make sure that it's not making it difficult on you for staff resources and also financial resources to execute on these responsibilities. Thanks for bringing up that question. And it is definitely a shift and yeah for better or worse and both the two forty eight and energy planning work we've obviously been doing a lot more of that work the last couple of years. The state did provide the public service department funding for some of this energy planning work and for assisting municipalities over the last couple of years and they've committed to one more year of assistance for FY 19 to assist municipalities in doing the energy planning work. Assuming that all gets done within that. And the other thing I think that has happened in your right is that we are budgeting more of our ACCD contract for this kind of work for the permit and and CPG review for two forty eight and realizing that we're going to need to spend more time with municipalities on their energy plans. So that's that's what I was called that's a shift in work. You know it didn't specifically knock something else out because we're really working with municipalities that are interested in doing this work right now. In the long term it does mean we have less time to maybe help with some other kinds of bylaw issues or plan issues because we're spending time on this. So some municipal assistance type work that we do and and I mean. Yeah. And I mean realistically I mean we do try to address every demand we get you know. And if it doesn't fit right now you know we're often in a situation saying well come back to us in a few months and see maybe we might be able to help you once we get over this little peak so please let let me know if you feel like your town is not getting something they asked for but by and large I think we've been able to accommodate all the requests we've been getting. The broader issue was going to be as this happens and then the next issue does your comes or something like that pretty soon we're going to be cutting into our services and so if we can just keep our eye on the ball on that and if we need to bring it to our attention and then we need to take it to the proper people at ACCD or somewhere else we should do that and we should do that with our other sister organizations. I mean I think over the course of the last few years the energy component and the water quality component has been expanded significantly and as the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission we're kept deep in all of that and once sort of that transition is made I would expect that this RPC and the others are then going to evaluate how that's affected and will affect going forward their administration and operation and and see if there are long-term changes that need to be made to recognize that you know we've gone from doing this to doing this. Yeah and I will say you know both the legislature and and whatever administration has been in place I think has acknowledged the issues you know and you know as I mentioned they've been providing this is a third year of energy funding and the same thing for the water quality you know the basin planning work is more than it ever used to be and they've been providing funding for that. I'm not going to say it's totally adequate funding but they have been trying to address the resource issue and you know I think that's we'll keep working on that. Jeff for sure and I think the question will be you know once we get through this kind of cycle of municipal plan updates you know how do they how does that get followed up with on energy and is there more to do and how does that get funded. These evolved and then there'll be another issue that'll come up that'll be a multi-planning effort and pretty soon our staff is all tied up doing all that stuff and we forget we don't have enough energy and staff to support our communities when they ask. And we will adjust you know I think that's uh since I've been here that's the one thing I know is that we'll evolve and shift you know it's definitely different than it was when I got here it'll be different a few years from now. So stay tuned participate in the work program committee we'll get into that next spring I'm sure. That's what I really want to do. That was a general offer. Of course you're always going to hold your breath. So any further discussion with respect to that matter if not we'll move on to the chair slash executive directors updates. So there is after all of that municipal plan content there's a page I put in the packet that is says uh recommendations for improving the permitting system dated November 19th 2014 just just right now. So I put this in here really in connection to letter B here. Just to remind you that this board had considered recommendations for improving the permitting system. A couple things to note about that. One is the well the first why am I bringing this up? The legislature has formed this commission on the future of Act 250. They are having public forums around the state and big correction here it is not September 10th. It is on September 12th at the Alks Club in Burlington. They'll be having the forum in this area. I don't know if they're having 10 or 12 around the state. Oh no six or so whatever. This is the only one that's in the northwestern part of the state. So including it's the only one in Addison, Chittenden or Franklin or Grand Island. Right now. So um but there's a lot of legislators involved in this. This is a legislative commission. I know from Chittenden County, Chris Senator Pearson is on this and there's a number of other legislators. So there is at least a positioning that they are hoping to come up with some recommendations to improve and they've been focused on Act 250. I want to make one point to you all is that when you read the language of that bill that authorized that commission it's not just Act 250 and if you look at our position here on these two pages you'll notice it's not just Act 250 that we're talking about and it was very purposeful that we talked about improving the permitting system because a major issue in Vermont's permitting system around Act 250 is the lack of integration of state and municipal permitting and so I think that's one of the big themes that at least I'll be trying to work on. We have a few bullets in here about that that would really help. It's where a lot of the frustration comes in the current process which is a developer talking to the state. They hear one thing and then they talk to the town. They get you know pulled this way and then they have to kind of bounce back and forth between state and municipal. There are other suggestions in here some some big or some smaller but this is our guidance right now for participating in that. I invite you to kind of look at this familiarize yourself with these points and odds are pretty good that we may want to form you know a little working group or something to see and evaluate and react to what comes out of that commission and what is happening in the legislature next spring. So I guess that's a heads up we may be asking for some volunteers to participate in this and there's a chance to participate September 12th and I'll definitely plan on participating that night and offering a lot of these points to that group. Sorry that was a little more commentary than usual on one topic but yeah if I could jump into because typically Act 250 is the sort of a third rail with the legislature. Nobody wants to open that indoors box because they don't know where it's going to go but this commission was formed on the 50th anniversary of Act 250 and there are sub committees with a legislature side to each that have been looking into various aspects of Act 250 reform. They're conducting these public forums and then there is going to be proposed legislation that's going to be coming out of this process. So we can anticipate this next legislative session there being some real and earnest discussion about changes to Act 250 both in the areas of reforming it. I'm sure there will be suggestions to narrow it and there will be suggestions to expand it and we as a commission will want to start thinking about again as you're cogitating over the summertime what given the fact again as is always a case we have a number of different communities that invariably have different views about those various issues. Is there common ground such as the November 2014 paper that we can agree in and advocate for as a commission? Are there other areas that we should be advocating for and what role should we try to take early in the process because as we all know as a practical matter the earlier you get in the better chance you have of your views holding forth later on in the process as opposed to trying to jump in in the 11th hour so those are all things for people to think about because it does look like there are going to be some serious consideration of changes to Act 250. Our November for 2014 document was effective in one respect. We now have six new TIF districts that can be approved and one of them has so that was one of our items on there. A couple items have actually been formed. I want to also note free certainly feel free to touch base with with me if you have some thoughts or about improving our position as a body and also Regina has been participating in a lot of working groups on this work so there's a lot of stuff you have other thoughts or issues that are coming up particularly from your municipality that should be addressed and then the second major thing I want to mention is that we were just talking about the energy planning work and Emily kind of mentioned the the determination of energy compliance there. There's actually a hearing here August 6th with the public service department to review what we've done and listen here from the public about our energy planning work so if you're interested please come on down. Catherine you're going to be there as a chair of our energy committee I think Chris will be there as a chair of the commission so others are more than welcome hopefully it's a nice quiet evening but all comments are welcome 75 degrees yeah we now all know all the beautiful days for the rest of the year at the minimum in our meeting calendar August 6th so yeah I don't have anything else unless everybody has any questions for me and we know the snow days for the winter meetings there are various well there's actually one committee set of minutes in the packet is there any other business I move we adjourn second All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. All opposed. The ayes have it. We are adjourned. Thank you.