 Call this meeting to order. First thing is to review and approve the agenda. And I actually want to make one small change to the agenda, which is switching the order of items six and seven. So we'll do the student appointment to the social and economic justice committee before the appointments to the energy. Actually, I guess those are just appointments. I suppose I guess that doesn't really matter. Maybe we can just keep it as it is. That's fine. Any other changes to the agenda? No, but I just went to the city's webpage and I'm seeing the agenda for February something. Let's see if I can bring it up again to get the right one. If you click on the big green button on the home page, that should take you to the correct thing. We're still having issues with the actual like the calendar itself linking to old events. We have not figured out that bug yet. We are aware of it. We are working on it. We apologize. The big green button should get you there though. And here we are. Thank you. Okay, great. Any other changes to the agenda? Okay, so without objection, we'll consider the agenda approved. Alright, so now is the time for general business and appearances. This is an opportunity for any member of the public to address the council on any topic that is otherwise not on our agenda. And if you do have something you want to say regarding one of the items on our agenda, you can bring that up closer to that item. You're just before or just after that item. But otherwise, if it's not on our agenda otherwise, now is a good time. And if you would say your name, where you live and try to keep your comments to about two minutes or less, that would be great. So anybody have a comment they'd like to make? Oh, and you can use the raise hand feature which is under reactions. Or you can turn your video on and physically wave or you can unmute yourself and just mention that you would like to say something. Steve Whitaker here. Go ahead, Stephen. Stephen Whitaker. I'd like to raise a couple of things to flag to the councils. One, I'll ask you to take the conduits off the consent agenda and address those separately. That was done at the last meeting, but I wasn't provided the public records in a timely manner, and therefore didn't have opportunity to address that issue then. Secondly, I'd ask that you pay closer attention to the TVPSA. I understand the mayor wrote a letter of support asking for hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars without any engineering having been completed. That engineering was to follow the televage study and it's grossly premature to be pretending we're ready to buy equipment when we haven't done an engineering plan. I don't think the council, for the most part, has been read in on that. Thirdly, the fact that the TVPSA, of which we are a half member, decided to skirt public open meeting law, scheduled a meeting which the public was invited to for a Tuesday, moved it to Monday with no notice and then held a meeting with more than a quorum. President's talking about business at a restaurant and while they may have not done any substantive business or taken a vote, it's really undermines the integrity of the process. Secondly, there's a approaching wave of homelessness. It's already increasing and at the end of June, both Hilltop and the Econolodge are going to be, for the most part, vacated and we have no plan to address that. Berlin is being asked to support an 80 room warehouse, which I will equate more to the Hilltop problem associated. I don't think that absolves Montpelier of its obligations and a responsibility to address this issue head on. Public bathrooms, some of the homeless wanted to speak tonight, but they have no place to go to a Zoom room, so to speak, and City Council was not open to final last request for that purpose. I encourage them to file an open meeting law violation because y'all just refuse to get it. One more, but the appeals to the head of the agency have still not been resolved on public records. I didn't get a notice from Bill's office of the police review committee meeting that was held on Monday. The agenda was supposed to have been said to me on Friday. It's just the fact that y'all rely on Bill to such degree and consider him to have resolved y'all as counselors from the responsibility of holding him to account is inappropriate and dysfunctional from a city government accountability point of view. Thank you. Thank you. Just to clarify, Cameron, we do have a Zoom room available, so to speak at City Hall. Is that right? Yes. In the plan that y'all approve for opening, we just said we would go to a hybrid model for our council meetings starting at this meeting. So council is, their building is open. People can call me. I'll let them in. They can sit in the council chambers. My number is posted on the doors. Great. Thank you. The meeting in question was the police review committee, and they were somebody called to try to get a person who has recently been a alleged victim of police harassment was not even an opportunity to provide that information to the police review committee, even after a police review committee member had called and asked to get into the city council chambers. Thank you for that, Stephen. Any other comments folks would like to make? I'd like to learn more about that. I was at the full police review committee meeting on Monday, and nobody mentioned it, raised any issues. No members of the committee spoke. So if there's information about someone who was denied access, we'd like to learn more about it. Anything else? Go ahead, Donna. Yeah, well, I'll say that I'll be forwarding you both the whole city council, the application that the Center for Public Safety Authority Board applied for Sanders earmark, as well as Leahy just this last Friday. And I hope that you'll be pleased by it. And then as far as the open meeting law, we had an out out of town consultant and we took him out to dinner and the board and some of the public safety staff went with us. And we tried to do due diligence as far as no business. I can't say the talk was 100% pure, but we did try. Anyway, that was what was happening that Steve is referring to. Thank you. Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the council? Okay, I'm not seeing anyone else. Just want to make sure that I'm not missing anybody. Okay. All right, so we're going to move on then to the consent agenda. Is there a motion? Jack, go ahead. I request that we take item D off the consent agenda. That's the conduit permit. And is there a other motion regarding the rest of it? Donna, go ahead. I would like to take article A because we didn't have the minutes attached to ask for approval, but the minutes weren't attached to approve. Otherwise, I'd make a motion to pass the consent agenda as it is with Jack's request to take off D. As well as A, right? Yes. A, D. Yep. And is there... Okay, so there's motion and a second. Further discussion on the remainder of the consent agenda here. Okay. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. And opposed. Okay. I think we should take those up right now if we could. So, let's... Oh, John, go ahead. Yeah, can I just ask this is two meetings in a row. If there's a concern about the minutes, I would love to know before the meeting because then I can take care of it. The report goes out Friday, so if something's not there, I'm happy to fix it. Or if something is misspelled or done inappropriately, I am so happy to fix it. Just, yeah, let me know. And then we don't have to keep bouncing. Okay. So, I'm assuming that we are not going to take up A again this evening. We'll look for the minutes at the next meeting. Is that... Are the people's sort of understanding as well? I'm not sure that we need a motion to that effect. Okay. Seeing some nods. Unless, Donna, you'd like to do anything else. Donna, is that okay with you? Okay. All right. And item D. Jack, do you want to talk about that? I move that we approve the permits listed in item D. Okay. Any discussion about that? And we should have a second, by the way. Again, sorry. Sorry. Yes, good call. Thank you. Now is there any discussion about item D? And this includes the public. I don't have anything to say in person. I just wanted to be sure that if there are members of the public who want to be heard on this topic, they get a chance. If you want to speak to that, I thought we'd come up later. It's all good. I have provided to the council members the statutory state policy on telecommunications and conduits and its shared infrastructure. And while Montpelier has not yet adopted an ordinance to regulate the construction and require permitting for builds like we've just suffered through, massive obstruction of traffic, unsafe police blockage, emergency vehicle blockage along the school street during pickup time by trucks, no scheduling despite consolidated having told the legislature that they had pre-warned and pre-negotiated all this stuff with the city, the conduits that are being put under the streets should be sized in agreement, conditioned upon allowing CD fiber as a competitor. Competitive choice and open access are statutory goals in 30VSA-202C. So permits should be conditioned upon making provision for a competitor to come through those same conduits or a separate channel in a shared conduit. We should not be allowing streets to be cut and allowing monopoly providers to maintain exclusive access to that. This was something that should have been taken up before that first round of permits was passed, but I was denied access to those in a timely manner before they were approved upon the consent agenda. No, it wasn't. Jack removed them from the, anyway, to get the point, I wish y'all would take this seriously because I shouldn't be having to pick up the slack and pull the heavy weight, you know, because you've been not dealing with these issues for as long as CD fiber has been a member or you've been a member of CD fiber. I'll entertain any questions. Go ahead, Jack. One question I do have well relates to the traffic control issue and I see we have representatives of police and public works here. Is what are the standards for dealing with a contractor who is doing street construction on traffic control? Is it, and Bill, you might know this too. I don't know. I'll defer that DPWR police. I don't know if Corey or... Yeah, the condition of their permit is that they meet MUTCD requirements. Can you elaborate on that for those of us not familiar with the acronym? It's manual on uniform traffic control devices covers both permanent and temporary traffic control. The requirement is any techniques or signage meet those standards. Mayor, I'd like to point out that I've taken photographs of this and there is absolutely no enforcement there. The traffic control is a subcontractor to use this cable, which is a contractor to consolidate it, and they would be totally blind, leaning, you know, conversing, blind behind a trailer or a truck absolutely unaware of the traffic coming off of East State Street. And yet the full traversed lane from East State to State is totally blocked with no guidance or flag or anything to show the traffic where to go. So what is the enforcement and whose responsibility is it to keep an eye on these contractors and implement enforcement measures when they violate this uniform standards, whatever it is. Thank you, Stephen. Also, if you want to speak again, just let me know that you want to speak so that we can get you in order because Kurt was about to jump in here. So Kurt, can I go back to you? Yeah, sure. Just say that, you know, as part of the MUTCD requirements, maintaining one alternating one-way traffic is a conviction of the permit. We don't have the staff to continually monitor all construction activities. So, you know, if there's a complaint, either by the police department or the public, then we would go out and investigate that and take corrective action. But like I said, we don't, we just don't have enough staff to continually monitor all construction activities that are permitted. And Kurt and or Corey, can you speak to the question about the size of the piping? Well, we don't, that is not part of the permit requirements to size conduits for alternative uses. It's just, it's not included in our purview of authorizing construction within the city limits for conduit specific projects, fiber projects. Okay. Thank you. Other comments or questions? Jack, go ahead. I think the last time this issue came up, we, we had a discussion about this conduit standard and, and we're going to, to look into it at the feasibility or the desirability of requiring a permit condition to that effect. I know people in public works have a lot going on right now, but, but I do think it's worth, worth pursuing. Other thoughts on that? Do folks agree? Hang on one, one second. Thank you, Steven. Hang on one second. Council, any other thoughts on the interest in taking this up as its own item at a later time? Go ahead, Lauren. Yeah, I was just going to say, I think, I think taking that and having a policy makes sense. If I'm remembering right from when consolidated communications was here, they said they generally, that's kind of the practice. And so if that's the case, it seems like it would be great to have that as policy and a requirement so that, you know, it's just understood that that's the expectation. Yep, Donna, go ahead. But they also said that they do it in areas where the density that they think they'll be future requests, they don't do it in all the areas. So it might need a little more technical investment to make any kind of decision or policy. Okay. And anyone else from the council want to speak to that? It does seem like, oh, Dan, go ahead. Sure. You know, part of this is that, you know, this is the equivalent to full attachments which are regulated by the PUC in fairly broad detail. My understanding from the consolidated conversation last time was that by laying these PVC piping under the road, it was not necessarily exclusive of other people, other companies using said PVC piping for running conduit. And that was the understanding and that it was something that they were obligated to do under the PUC standards. The one question that I have is that, you know, in looking at the statutory powers that we have as effectively as a select board under Chapter 71 of Title 30, I don't necessarily see the power that we have to start conditioning the consolidated or anyone who's seeking permission to put or lay in conduit in line to either make additional changes or to regulate how shared conduits are done. That strikes me as ultimately a PUC power. Interesting. Thank you. Any other comments from the council a little about this? Okay, Steven, I know you had another thing you wanted to say, so go ahead. Yeah, I mean, when you neglect to deal with this, you're basically raising the rates to future when CVFiber eventually gets around to needing to build in areas that they could have gotten into the conduit. They having to both disrupt traffic and raise rates of increased costs. With regard to asking in asking the town to or shifting it to the PUC to regulate the city could petition the PUC for a dig once ordinance or a dig once rulemaking in order ideally this should be done statewide. And you're right, the PUC or the legislature would be in a place to do it. Many places have a dig once ordinance and they make provisions for competition. We have competitive choice and open access in our statutory goals. So the question is whose job is it to implement them. And here is where the rubber meets the road and we're not not implementing them. So I don't see the city having the where was all to petition the PUC on behalf of all other cities in the state. Thank you. Do you have any examples of dig once ordinances that have been adopted here in Vermont that you could share with us? I do not. Okay. Thanks. Okay. Maybe something that is worth talking about again potentially as its own item. But what council like to do presently? I'm ready to vote on the motion. Go right there. Sorry. Right. Because there's a motion and a second. Sorry. Thank you. Any further discussion on that motion? Okay. All in favor please say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Okay. And opposed. Okay. All right. So that motion passes. Thank you for good discussion there. And so I think we are ready to move on to the appointments which I think we can do probably all together. So two folks up for reappointment to the Energy Advisory Committee, Carl Johnson, Amy Gamble, and a student member seeking appointment to the Social and Economic Justice Committee, Alara Kohn. And I am wondering if any of them are here with us. If you are here, I don't see any of them, but necessarily. But if you, if Alara, Amy, or Carl, if you are here, feel free to unmute yourself and or turn your camera on or whatnot. And let us know you're here and tell us about your interest in these committees. Okay. So I don't see them here. And so Carl and Amy are seeking reappointment and Alara is seeking appointment as a student member. Is there a motion? Connor, go ahead. All right. I don't know if Jack's motion was going to be there. I think the Energy Advisory Committee has done great work in a large part because of these two individuals. So I'd like to move that we appoint Carl Johnson and Amy Gamble to three-year terms on the Montpelier Energy Advisory Committee. I can keep going. And Alara Kohn is a student representative to the Social and Economic Justice Committee. Okay. All right. So there's two seconds, multiple seconds. So any further discussion? Okay. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. And opposed. All right. So I know they may not be on here exactly, but thank you, Amy, Carl, and Alara. So glad that you are a part of our work with the city. All right. So we're going to move on, then, to the Energy Use Update from the Energy Advisory Committee. And Kate is here from that committee. So I'm going to turn it over to Kate. Hi. I'm Kate Stevenson. Nice to see you all again. I am hoping to just do a quick update that we do annually for the fiscal year 20 municipal energy use update. And then just kind of give you a quick update on where we are with the net zero 2030 action plan at the end here. So hoping I can share some slides. Cameron, can you give me that? You should be able to do that now. Yes. Okay. Great. So just run you through. You saw this in the packet, but I wanted to point out a few things. Just again, this is tracking only municipal building and operational energy use. So you and if you've been on the council before, you may have seen some of these slides previously, but we've added a year, right? So we now have a full 10 years of energy data that we have been tracking. So not surprisingly, 2020 or FY 20, which actually ended last June. So it included about one month of pandemic, showed a decrease in energy use. And so it was a funny year. We can't necessarily assume that those energy reductions will continue over time in the future. But just to jump right to the point, we had about a 15% drop overall in energy use in FY 20. And most of that was in the fleet. And then, you know, smaller reductions in both thermal and electric. So just kind of walk you through those pieces. So again, you know, about two thirds of our energy use is from thermal heating of our buildings. And about a, you know, about a third of electricity and then smaller chunk is the fleet. That hasn't really changed that much over time, but the fleet piece did shrink most in FY 20. And this is just another version of that graph that shows, you know, how these different sectors are changing over time. And then this breaks it out into the different departments. So you can see the orange bars are electric. The blue bars are thermal. The biggest overall energy uses are the schools, which we lump together into kind of one bucket, and then the wastewater resource recovery facility. And most of the fleet falls within DPW. When we look at kind of like all of that energy use as a total, we're about 39% renewable sources. So that's mixed between, you know, the basically the green shade. So solar, biogas, district heat, and the renewable portion of the grid that is like the portion of what we get from GMP that they are producing renewably. So again, where this past year was around 39%. It's pretty much similar to the previous year. And then you can see kind of how the breakdown of what's left of the fossil fuel component, mostly in fuel oil, and then a little bit of propane, a little bit of non-renewable grid, and then diesel and unleaded for the fleet. So when we look at the goal, the city's goal to reduce, you know, to eliminate all fossil fuel used by 2030, you know, these brown ones are the ones that we're trying to eliminate. So let's look at what those are more specifically. If we just, you know, take the fossil fuel chunk, how does that break out? The largest, well, high school is the largest, middle school also a big contender. And then the waste, the water resource recovery facility also a big chunk. And then you kind of follow that with district heat. And some of the other departments are lesser sections. So I said this last year, and I'll say it again, the exciting part about this pie chart is that the orange part and the green part are going away based on projects that are already in progress are basically complete at this point. So we will not be burning any fossil fuels at the waste, the water or resource recovery facility going forward after the completion of phase one, organic energy project, which you heard about two weeks ago. And we've also eliminated the oil from the summer loop of the district utility. So we're going to see a big shift when we look at next year's data as a result. And this just kind of breaks us again, like here, we can look at the breakdown over time. The green is our renewable energy use increasing. And the brown is the fossil fuel use decreasing. So the trend is going the right direction. And just for those of you who I thought might be curious, I was really, you know, interested and kind of aware that, you know, 15% drop in one year is interesting. How does that break down over the different departments? You know, we obviously had some buildings that were completely closed in April, May and June of FY 20. We had some departments that were, you know, continuing to operate because they had to more or less normal. So if you kind of want to see where the biggest reductions are, are in buildings that were mostly closed, places like, you know, the Senior Center, Rec Center saw some big reductions, Cemetery, although it's just like puts a tiny piece, City Hall, you know, down 23%. So, you know, those are some significant pieces. But when you also look at like the water, wastewater, that's obviously the biggest chunk of the total. And that has the smallest reduction because, you know, we still were processing the same amount of wastewater as we were before. Maybe more, probably you could ask Kurt about that. And yeah, some reduction in schools, but not as significant as some of the other departments. But that is also one of the larger chunks of the total. So that does give you a sense of where we saw reductions. This is kind of a synopsis, total reduction 15%, 12% in thermal, 12% in electric, 28% reduction in fleet. So that was kind of a surprise to me. You know, one of the pieces was a lot less fuel use in the DPW department last year. And obviously, you know, we had some buildings that were closed, some staff that were furloughed, we also had a really good solar year. So, FY20 was good for solar. So that number went up. So let's talk about the zero action plan. We, if you remember back in December, you all approved a contract with the Vermont Energy Investment Corporation as a consultant to work with the city and MEAC to create this action plan. And really, we just, we knew that as volunteers and with the limited city staff that we have, like we couldn't do this on our own, but we really needed a step-by-step plan that would look at the next nine years and figure out how we're going to get there, how we're going to get to this goal of reducing all of our fossil fuel use. So we're really trying to define that's past to zero for municipal buildings and operations. We're including a school district in that. And so we really kicked that off in February. We're working with a team there of four or five people. One that's really had a lot of expertise with the fleet and electrification of the fleet and fleet alternatives. One who's kind of focused on the buildings, one who's looking at the tracking overall, and one who's working on communications plans. And how are we going to share this with the community? And we, I think we just got the first two deliverables today via email. They've really been working on taking the data that MEAC has collected over the last 10 years and organizing the spreadsheet basically and like doing a great job of taking all that information and making it more usable. And you'll see some much better graphs when the next version of this that'll be part of the net zero plan. So they've really been focusing on defining the baseline and then defining what they call the business as usual scenario. So if we did nothing else and just continued business as usual, what would we look like in 2030? How many offsets would we need? One of the things I wanted to point out is because FY20 is such a funny year, we decided to actually take the average of the last three years as our baseline. So we're going to be averaging 18, 19, and 20. We're kind of using that as the starting point for the projections. And so the next step really is going to be we have some meeting set up with different city departments, the department heads, some more in depth meetings with folks in DPW to look at these alternatives. So can you take back a few slides to the pie chart of what the fossil fuel use is now, starting to really dig in building by building and say what are our options for the high school? What are our options for the water plant? And identifying both, you know, the ways to get those awful fossil fuel approximate payback, you know, and cost. And so that'll be part of the plan that we're going to be pulling together. And then MIAC will have more opportunity to review that and give feedback over the month of June as the draft comes together. And our goal right now is to present the final plan at the August 18th City Council meeting. That's where we are. Donna Barlow-Casey is the main point person from the city staff, and I'm the main point person from MIAC. And happy to take any questions that folks have about any of it. Now stop for share. Great. Thank you. I of course have lots of questions, but I'm going to hold back for now. Other thoughts or questions from the council? Connor, go ahead. Just like a really broad question case, probably unfair, but does the committee think we are on track to reach net zero by 2030? Or does the committee think we need to be passing some more aggressive policies to chip away at this? Like, are we on track? Or is this just, are we just chugging along? I mean, I'll say on the one hand, we've made a huge amount of progress in the last 10 years, right? We've gone from zero percent renewable to almost 40 percent renewable. And I think we're already, you know, the business as usual projection, you know, with the projects that are already underway are almost complete, you know, will be over 50 percent next year. So, I mean, that's huge. And I want to give credit for that. But if we don't do anything else, there are no other plans in place for reducing, for changing the other 50 percent, you know, and to be, you know, the, to be a little more pessimistic, I would say, you know, we do, we've done the easier stuff. Not that any of the stuff that we've done is like easy, but the other 50 percent is going to be harder. It's picking all of our fleet off of diesel and unleaded gas, which, you know, we don't have electric alternatives yet for all of those vehicles. So, I don't necessarily know that they're obvious. Like, that's the whole reason we're doing this plan is to kind of come up with the alternatives. They're not always necessarily policy alternatives, but they may be investment required, investment required from the city to, to do the projects. So, we're really trying to lay out the projects, put them on a timeline over the next eight years, identify what it would cost, identify potential funding options, you know, that might be out there in the world, and which ones, you know, do have, are the best investment for the city. Thanks so much, Faith. Great. Donna, go ahead. Well, it's not a technical question. I'd love to know why the high school, one of our younger school buildings is so bad on heat, but you're going to tell us that in your action plan that comes in August. And I really appreciate you taking the time to give us this preview, because it probably will line me up to be ready for your action plan that's going to have some real sharp demands in it. So, thank you. I appreciate this very much. Thank you. Yeah, I mean, I will say that the high school is just a larger building than most of the other buildings. So, there's another slide that I didn't put in this deck that shows, you know, energy use per square foot per building, you know, and high school is not particularly bad. It's just more square footage than a lot of the other ones. Lauren, go ahead. Just following that thread, I, is there anything to report on like conversations with the school? You know, we're in like a little bit of this interesting with two different kind of jurisdictions over this. And I'm so glad that the plan is going to cover both. And I know that, you know, some conversations had been happening with some of the MEAC members. So, I don't know if there's anything shareable at this point of, you know, opportunities or just wait for the July plan? Yeah, I would say it's a little bit early to share much in terms of any results. What, you know, we did, Ken Jones and I met with some members of the school board with Libby Bonesteel, the superintendent, and Andrew LaRosa, who is the director of facilities for the school district. And that was back in January, February, when we were just kind of kicking off this process. And basically we got, you know, we got the school district to agree to participate with us in this plan. And basically delegate Andrew LaRosa to be to, you know, spend some time working with the DEIC team answering their questions. So far, I think they've mostly been talking with him about the fleet and trying to get information about the school busing. You know, they have a least school busing situation. So we don't have like quite as much data as we might like. If we were paying all the gas bills, but we got information about the length of the school bus routes. And so we are, you know, I think you will see part some information about that, about what would it take to electrify our school bus fleet. But I, and I think coming up the next phase, they're going to be looking more at the thermal and electric use in the, in the school building, particularly the middle school and the high school, because those are the two that are using fossil fuels right now. So, you know, I think some small progress. And I know that there have been some other conversations happening within the school board that I've been going to all their meetings. I've been too busy coming to all the city council meetings. So I can answer one small part of that for a conversation that I was a part of, which was including some of the students from the earth group, asked the school board to adopt a similar net zero 2030 goal. And though they, they didn't adopt one right then and there, they, they did vote to ask their policy committee to take that up, and then come back with the recommendation. And I don't know where they, where that group is beyond that. Any other questions or comments from the council? Hi Donna. I may have missed it. I mean, have we reached out to the school? I mean, anyway, we can encourage support their investment in this. It's an interesting question. Maybe we can draft up a letter that perhaps the council can sign on to to send to the school board. I'm making that up. Or something, give Kate support. I don't know. I mean, if there's a way, I just would like us to see that the two groups, the city council and the school board, see one other as partners in this. So if there's a way, a letter or something else could do that, please let that and or Kate, let us know. I'd be more willing to move that forward. Yeah. Thank you, Lauren. Just just a thought on that. I wonder if we could try to set up where the presentation of the net zero plan could be a joint meeting. I know we have it on a set on a council meeting agenda, but it'd be great to either invite them and see if at least some representatives could attend. And I mean, it'd be great to have more of a dialogue with that group. So it's more of a community project. Now that's an interesting idea. What do you think about that, Kate? Sure. Sounds great. You know, yeah, my sense is that the school board overall has seemed very receptive, at least the folks, the pieces, the folks that we talk to. And I think the administration is a little more just concerned about how to actually do it and what it's going to cost, you know, because they have to manage the budget. Well, perhaps between one of us, Kate, we can get in touch with Jim Murphy and see if they'd be willing to come to the presentation. Oh, Bill. Yeah, go ahead. Just interestingly enough, you know, the August 18th is one of the dates that we moved around for our summer calendar, and that is actually a third Wednesday that might be a school board night. Anyway, so we might be all teed up to meet together. Yeah. Okay. Yeah, that could work. Jack, go ahead. Just one thought I have, and I don't know how prickly members of the school board might be inclined to be, but I just want to mention that they're a separate government body with separate jurisdiction that I would not want to come across as saying, we're the city council and we're telling you what to do or even what we think you should do, especially since from what Kate's saying, they're willingly working with this process. Yeah, that's fair. Donna, go ahead. I just would hope an invitation would not have that attitude at all, Jack. I mean, I feel like, like with our legislators, we need to meet with them and talk to one another like we used to. We had different superintendents go through, but at various times when I've been on the city council, we've had a much closer relationship with the school board and I would like to see that happen, at least through the superintendent if no one else and the school board chair. So this could be an opportunity of an invite, you know. Yeah. Okay. Well, I'm also happy to reach out to Jim and to Libby, unless you want to do that, Kate, either way is fine. I think you should do it from the council, you know, or the mayor. That's fine. Dan, did I see you had a hand up? You did, and then you heard kids yelling in the background. No, I just, we were starting to go down a path of, I mean, I see a benefit to meeting with the school board on a number of different issues to have a conversation with them. But I think, you know, one of the things we have to be careful about is to be clear about the parameters of such a meeting and what they would be willing to talk about. And, you know, certainly the energy usage issue is an interesting one. And it may, it just, we were, I could see a meeting with the school board starting to spiral as we, as our conversation was starting to spiral into bigger issues. And if we're thinking about trying to bring the school board together, just being careful about how we approach them. Yeah, that's a good call. I could also, it's it's, we'd have to abide by both of our sets of rules. And we have slightly different rules, particularly around public comment. So I think we'd have to just be conscious of that. So, yeah, and keeping, keeping our conversation sort of focused. And I imagine we'd probably only stay together for, for just this piece of it, and then there are separate ways to our, to our different meetings. So we might have to have, well, like at least one of our bodies is going to have to have two meetings, two meeting links warned if we're still virtual by then. Which hopefully we won't be. But anyway, we'll see. Jack, go ahead. Don't want to step on your toes. And by getting into the data question, I know that's what you, what you eat up. But when what occurred to me as we're, as I was looking at the pie chart and you know, the division between space heating and, and vehicles and electricity, as we move to adopting electric vehicles, is there going to be a way to, to track what share of our electricity is going to, to the fleet as opposed to lighting and other building uses? That's a great question, Jack. And I think it really, you know, assuming that the city was moving forward with electrification of the fleet, there would need to be additional electric vehicle chargers installed, you know, probably at different locations. Right now, we just have the one at City Hall. It's on a separate meter, but it's mostly just for public use. It's not necessarily for city vehicles, because we don't have any electric vehicles right now. So, you know, that's, I think part of the plan, we'll talk about electrification of the fleet and how many chargers might be needed and where the ideal locations would be. And probably those chargers with each be on a separate meter. And so then going forward, we'd be able to say, okay, you know, pull these three meters and know that that much is for fleet use. But maybe something to think about whether, whether you just put a charger, you know, on the side of the DPW office building and have it connected into that building meter or whether you want to be able to meet it separately. But most of the chargers that I'm familiar with, even if they're on a whole building meter, if it's through Charge Point or something like that, you know, they have an interface where they're tracking all the data, how many kilowatt hours go out on each meter. So I think we'll be able to parse out that information going forward. DPW is obviously a very data heavy operation already. Okay, thanks. Lauren, go ahead. Do you have any sense, Kate, last meeting we had gotten the presentation about the water resource recovery facility and two paths and we were talking about the energy implications of that. I don't know if like we know enough already where that could be modeled as part of this report or if that's going to be a longer timeline. I know we've got a little more time to kind of do some information gathering and decision making around that than the timeline of this report. So just curious, any input you had on that? Yeah, so we did. I have talked to the VEIC team about that based on the last council meeting and said, you know, don't assume the original phase two, you know, cogeneration plan. We can, so the baseline is not going to include or not the baseline, but the business as usual projection is not going to necessarily include one or the other, the dryer or cogeneration. The end of the day when it comes to how we know that all of the thermal use at the wastewater plant is going to be covered by biogas. I mean, I think that's kind of the assumption we're going with it. We're not going to have to burn oil going forward and we will have excess biogas, but what that excess biogas is used for, it's basically for something that we're not going to replace any current use. So when it comes to these projections, it kind of doesn't matter. It's not going to make a big difference. And when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions, whether you're burning it, whether you're flaring it, whether you're burning it in this dryer, whether you're burning it in an engine, all still, you know, combustion of biogas has the same, pretty much the same emissions profile. So wouldn't change our greenhouse gas emissions regardless of which path we take. If we were producing electricity, we'd be selling that to the grid anyway. So it doesn't kind of outside of our whole net zero plan. We would not get any like, we would get money for it, but we wouldn't get credits for it towards the net theoretical. And I suppose if we're avoiding trucking costs by drying sludge being hauled off to Coventry, that might equally as well be replaced by theoretical trucking costs as we haul it to some purchaser of or recipient anyway of the Class A biosolids. And right now we don't include that trucking in our energy use. So you know, you can argue whether that should be in or out of sort of the boundary that we draw. But right now, you know, this truck leaves Montpelier, we're not including that in our overall tracking so far. Just a couple other questions for you. Obviously in the bar graphs that label the schools, the schools are included, are the schools included in the rest of the data that is sort of more general, you know, it's thermal and fleet use and okay. So there's all of those slides that I showed today all include schools. Okay. I just wanted to observe that I thought one of the pieces that was really interesting is in that breaking out of which departments saw electricity reductions. Just the fire I thought was really interesting because while it's only 2%, presumably they would they were not more closed than other departments and yet they had a 34% reduction. You know, one of the larger reductions which was curious to me. Yes. Well, you might also remember that last year we completed a project. We completed two projects using the revolving loan fund at the fire station. And one was to to fix the controls on the snow melt system. And the other was insulating some of the district heat pipes. So it could be that the reduction is all from those projects and we just that we're now seeing the results of that and it has nothing to do with the pandemic. Yeah, that yeah, so there there there are always other pieces here, you know, there are other factors there are other projects that we did, you know, City Hall, we saw that 34% reduction. Well, we also did some big projects we weatherized all the windows in City Hall. You know, we did we did some improvements using the revolving loan fund. So it's not can't point I could break it out by quarter probably but that's more trouble than I really want to. It may not all be pandemic related. Maybe not all pandemic. That's that's pretty interesting. And I'll be curious to I guess we'll we'll see potentially next year if it's a comparable winter. Right, we won't really see an FY 21 because FY 21 is going to be weird again. But maybe, you know, FY 22 will be interesting. Yeah, yeah, fair enough. Yep. Any other questions for Kate, including from the public? You can use the raise hand function or you can just let us know you want to ask a question or anything. Okay. All right. Thank you so much, Kate. One other party thought I would just say is I noticed on your agenda, there's six vehicles that you're looking to purchase, potentially with some federal funds. And we will have recommendations for the whole fleet in this plan. So if you can hold out till August, maybe we can have some ideas for how to how to get some EV police cruisers with that federal federal money. I just want to throw that out there before you go spending $200,000 on new vehicles. Thank you. Yeah, for sure. And also on my radar is the potential for electric light duty trucks. There's an option on the table. Anyway, future discussion. Thank you. Thanks again, Kate. Please pass on our gratitude to everybody involved in putting that together. Great. All right. So we are up to talking about the point to point road closure, permit application. And for this, I feel like it will actually I'll start with you, Bill. Do you want to speak to this? Yeah, especially since I gave you some slightly incorrect information on Monday. So we received an event and we have I think all the key players are here. I see the police chief, I think the fire chief maybe on them and Leah Murphy, excuse me, Leah Jones from the the SECU is here, who is the vet coordinator. So she can maybe explain the event itself, but the idea is that this the group, the point to point is normally a race, bike, race combination of things. And initially the whole events are going to be held here. But because of pandemic, they're all going to be held remotely or independently. But they want to still hold a post event reception. And I think there's going to be live music and various things. So the request is for a street closure for a portion of State Street. And it will be a full closure, but it's between Governor Aiken and Governor Taylor. So that just section in front of the State House. We have reviewed it. We had a meeting with Leah the other day with our staff and we are satisfied. I think everyone signed off with some appropriate conditions that there'd be a lane for emergency vehicles. I think our biggest concern and that they have appropriate police presence. We have our biggest concerns availability of officers for that day. For our perspective, they will have private security. And it looks like a nice event, but I'm going to let Leah describe it and then let our folks who may have something to offer say more. Go. There she is. Just like now. Hi, my name is Leah Jones, and I'm the event and project specialist for Vermont State Employee Credit Union. And we, this is point points 20th year. And we've actually officially raised over $2 million for the Vermont Food Bank. And our fundraising is at $8,000 currently, but our goal is $200,000 for this year. Because the need for food in Vermont is still very high. And normally we have held this event. It's actually been through quite a bit of changes. It's gone from Burlington down to Brownsville. And then it's been held just in Brownsville. And then when we took it over four years ago, we moved it to a Scutney. And we saw a great decline in donations as well as participation. And so last year, we were actually going to bring it to Montpelier. And then of course, everyone knows why that didn't happen. And so we wanted to figure out a way that we could still have an in person safe event this year. So we went with a hybrid approach. So as Bill said, we are doing the riding and running portion fully virtual, but we are inviting all of our participants as well as their friends, family and anyone who may be downtown Montpelier that day to join us for a celebratory event. And our marketing is very key to not invite everyone down. It's really just inviting participants, but the event itself is open to anyone who may walk by. And so like Bill said, we plan on having a beer garden, music. We're going to have some vendors, food vendors. And of course, the participants are going to be there to pick up their fundraising goods. So that's the event kind of in a nutshell. We'll also have some live announcements and a radio phone going along with the Point Radio. So it all kind of coincide. Yeah, any other questions that I may have missed or points that I may have missed? I've already reached out to the farmers market. She's super excited. And we're going to see if we can team up in any way. I have reached out since our meeting on Tuesday to the sheriff's department. The scheduler was on out today, so they're going to get back to me tomorrow. But they don't think it's going to be an issue. And then basically after tonight in hopes that this permit gets approved, I'll be doing a walkthrough with the security team, Sheriff Department and the DLC to make sure everything with the layout works in accordance with the licensing and things like that. Great. Thank you. And just to reiterate, this has been signed off on by all the requisite folks. So any questions Council has? Dan, go ahead. There are just a minor clarification. Bill, we're being asked to approve this with the conditions that have been agreed upon that were sought by the police department, Public Works and the fire department, correct? That's correct. Any applicants in total agreement with that, as I understand from presentation? Okay, that's the only question I had. Thank you. Any other questions or is there a motion? I'll go ahead. Go ahead. I'll be happy to move. Move for approval with conditions as agreed upon for the point-to-point event application for street closure. A second. Okay, good. Motion and a second. Any further discussion, including comments from the public? And unmute yourself or use the raise hand button. Okay. All right, no further discussion. All in favor, please say aye. And opposed. Okay, all right. So that passes. Thank you, Leah, for being here and talking about this event. Seems like it'll be a great event. Thanks so much. Hopefully we'll see you all there. All right, I hope so. All right. Okay, so we are up to talking about the mask mandate. And for this, Cameron, do you, or is it Cameron or Bill, would you like to kick us off on this? We'll start with the quick screen pass over to the running back. So, you know, just to remind everybody of where we were last a year ago or so when the pandemic first struck, there was a lot of concerns about what health role, what could the city do? And at that point, the governor had declared a state of emergency and had not yet declared a statewide mask mandate. But in the state of emergency, he gave the authority to cities and towns to enact restrictions, you know, to enact restrictions greater than the states. And so at that point, the city issued an order, and you've got a copy of that, pursuant to the authority in the governor's state of emergency order. Subsequent to that, the governor then issued, you know, his own statewide mask order, but the city, we've never taken ours off. And it exists until the city council rescinds it, amends it or the state of emergency, the underlying governor's order goes away. And after the last meeting and before this meeting, given some of the news around progress and relaxation and the CDC's announcement and those kinds of things, we at staff, again, and I think some council members are getting questions of, well, is the city's mask mandate still in effect? So I, you know, let you know, but put it on the agenda just to have a conversation. We've told people, yes, it's still in effect until either the council rescinds it or the underlying authority for it goes away. And we pulled, well, we didn't pull, but we added the forward of them all to you. It appeared to me that two thirds to three quarters favored continuing it, but it certainly wasn't unanimous. And so that's it. It's really your call, how you want to proceed. And obviously, you don't have to do anything with it if you don't want it. But I think it was an opportunity to consider it at least given public inquiry. My only additions to what Bill has to say about that is we did reach out to other localities that have put mandates in place. Most of them are still in place and will remain in place. They told me until the governor's state of emergency is rescinded, that's when all of them will be lifted. Like Bill said, it is the authority that allows us to do that. So once it's lifted, it's our mask mandate is sort of off the table, regardless. When I was in discussion with some of these folks, you know, that they said to me that that was the science that they were going to follow is it gave their business community consistency until the mask or the state of emergency is lifted, which was helping their businesses. So that was sort of the feedback that y'all were forwarded. And in the memo that I said today, I hope to break, I broke out sort of those who wanted to continue it, see it revoked or we're unsure. And we did have a majority of folks wanting to keep that in place. So the governor does intend on lifting the state of emergency, I think, or either July 4th or I think if we hit some benchmarks in our vaccination status as a state. So Yeah. So go ahead, Jack. Is it the state of emergency that he's lifting or the all the restrictions on gathering and being public and stuff like that? Because I think there are other things that are tied at the state of emergency. Yeah. There is in his conferences, he has made mention that he would like to see an end to the state of emergency. Okay, thanks. Donna, go ahead. I like it to stay in place until the governor does rescind the state of emergency. I feel more comfortable and more supportive of the businesses. Yeah, other thoughts. Lauren, go ahead. Yeah, I agree. I mean, at least for now, I thought it was compelling, you know, it seemed like quite a few businesses employ people that are in that age band that they haven't yet had time to become fully vaccinated. So especially in the retail sector, it seems like, you know, quite a few stores felt like their, their staff wasn't yet fully vaccinated. So, you know, having that kind of unknown and potential risk and the consistency of having it through the city instead of having to enforce it themselves. So I think, I think for now, although I would be willing to revisit it, I think, you know, a lot of them implied in like a couple of weeks, then the staffs in general would be fully vaccinated. So then I think you're starting to get to maybe a different calculus. Yeah, Connor, go ahead. I might differ a little bit, but I think like, you know, I'm not always following the state, right? The state, I thought was a bit too late to enact the mask mandate and we did it sooner. And I think that was the right call. I think most people would agree that's the right call. That said, I think, you know, if you follow the science one way, I think you have to follow the science the other. And to me, the question is like it's a timing as you like Lauren said, you know, has everybody had a reasonable opportunity to be vaccinated at this point? And maybe today the answer is no, but I don't know if you picked a date like June 15th. Is there anything we're going to learn between now and June 15th that is going to sway our opinion one way or the other? I don't really think so. So I would be comfortable like seven days and, you know, like just going around town. There was a business a couple days ago. I saw a big sign out there. Mask mandate rescinded by the state. If you're vaccinated, feel free to take off the mask, you know? So I think a lot of people, there's a lot of confusion. People are already under the impression that this has been lifted. I'm not confident that we won't have to enact another mask mandate with one of these strains at some point. And I think people need to be able to trust us that we're going to go, you know, one way if we go the other. So, you know, I'd be comfortable setting a date like June 15th and lifted it at that point. I don't know if revisiting this at any point is going to give us more information that we need to make an intelligent decision on it. That's interesting. I'll hold off more on my comment till after. Go ahead, Dan. Sure. You know, I did generally tend to favor Conner's position as well. I think, but I think the key thing here is an element of consistency. And that was the thinking that went behind enacting this mask mandate was that it took the burden off of individual businesses to enforce this issue where there was a general consensus that they should, that it was a protective measure, that it was an effective protective measure. And so, you know, in lifting it, I think we want to be careful about doing it in a way, you know, that's not too quick, but neither is it sort of dragging the heels, so it undermines the effectiveness of it. And so I think Conner's proposal strikes sort of a middle ground, which is, you know, to extend it, to announce that it's ending by a date certain but not an immediate date certain, that it's that we give the public and businesses time to adjust, because this is also consistent, I think, with a lot of the feedback that we received from businesses, which is most of them wanted to continue for a period of time. You know, we are, you know, if you have a child under age 16, you know, they are still in their first few weeks of getting their vaccine if they signed up right away. So, so putting it on the other side of that at least gives, I think, a little bit more protection on that end. It gives everyone a sort of consistent date to head for, and I think it's consistent with the governor's general trajectory, which is, you know, the 80% number when a lot of these things will be lifted, which should happen, you know, in the next two to three weeks. So I'm going to go ahead. I guess I read some of the science a little differently, because the kids under 12 aren't being vaccinated, and even those of us who are vaccinated can carry any of these things to somebody else. So I would feel better at the 90%, so or high enough for the governor to rescind it. I don't want to put a date out there too soon. Jack, go ahead. Well, I think there are probably people here in the crowd who want to be heard, and I'm interested to hear what they say. My thinking is that I thought we definitely did the right thing in adopting the mask requirement when we did. I've read all the emails that responded to Montpelier live and to the other people that who responded to me and probably other members of the council individually. And I think everyone who's who's written to us, whether in favor of keeping the requirement or in favor of lifting it has made has had very thoughtful comments and made good and defensive taken good and defensible positions based on on their knowledge of their business and their employees. And I'm leaning towards thinking that we may be to the point that we should allow the businesses to exercise their judgment, if not immediately, then really very soon. But I'm not married to any particular position right now. Yeah, thank you. Yeah, and I see, Phyllis, you've got your hand raised. That's great. If anyone else from the public would like to make a comment, you can either Stephen or you wanting to get in the line as well. Yes, please. Okay. And if you can raise your hand or just let us know that you'd like to speak. Okay, great. See a couple hands here. Phyllis, go ahead and then we'll go Stephen and then Leah. Thank you. So I did receive an email asking for comments and I did comment. I I don't know if you receive the comment. But what I think is critical at this point is that we are on the eve of a major travel event Memorial Day weekend. I would not recommend I have no say whatsoever. But I think that choosing a date like June 15 is not a good idea. I think it would be much better to see what happens after this major travel event people coming to Vermont, people leaving the state and returning. And if the infection rate continues to stay low, then at that point if we're at the 80% or whatever percent the city council thinks is appropriate, which may not be 80% because it's only 80% of those people who are eligible for vaccination, which is Donna said doesn't include children under the age of 12. So I think we should wait. I would ask the council to wait for at least 10 to 14 days after the Memorial Day weekend and to look at the infection rate throughout the state and to see if it really is the appropriate time to lift the mandate. Thank you. Stephen, go ahead. I have today spent a few hours in both Rutland and in Berlin and I have seen how the traveling public and some vehicle dealerships and fast food. And I think we're making a mistake to make ourselves so exceptional. The CDC and has admittedly confused the discussion, but to set Montpelier City Council up as, you know, the convenient fall guy for the merchants, I think is mistaken the confusion among the public on which town they're in and which set of rules apply is already rampant. And to basically, I just think we're being overly nanny-esque at the present. I don't think it's within our control and it's somewhat collusional to think it is. So if certain merchants want to that require people to have a mask to come in their store, I think that's appropriate. And I'm supportive of their decision to do that. But otherwise the confusion in Shaw's and on the street. And I'm watching people yell at people on the street thinking that your ordinance is their authority to do so. And it's just, it's a mess. So I would encourage you to not attempt to persist this with the confusion. I believe the primary threat has passed unless there's a flare up, but it's beyond our control at this point. Thank you, Steven. I love you. Again, I was just wondering, should businesses want to follow the state guidance? Is that okay if they're in Montpelier, even if this mask mandate continues through Montpelier? Right. So to clarify, if the business is located in Montpelier, the mask mandate, if we were to keep it, would be in effect. So it would still be required to wear masks within presence of others doing business as much as it did not impede the direct business of the work of the business. Bill, go ahead. There's one to make one quick clarification and something Steve said, made me think of that. And also, are the city council's order only refers to indoors? So it has never referred to sidewalks or anything like that. So it only involves going to inside spaces just to be clear. And while I'm talking, I also point out that so we do have meetings on the 9th and the 16th. But again, a reminder that we adopted all of this under the authority of the governor's order. And if he rescinds it, regardless of whether we think 80, 90, or whatever is the appropriate time, if he chooses to rescind it at whatever he believes is the appropriate time, our authority to have this. So when he rescinds his order, ours goes away automatically, whether we meet or not. Yeah, anyone else from the public that would like to address the council on this? Okay. All right. Well, I'll just speak for myself and say that I have personally felt very torn about this particular topic. I have actually changed my opinion about what we ought to do a couple of times now. And I think this idea of sitting a date out in the future is really interesting to me in hopes that maybe we will hit 80% and it'll all be going away anyway before then. But I also really appreciated what Phyllis had to say about that, you know, that we're right up against this travel weekend. So anyway, all that is to say, right now anyway, I'm leaning towards keeping it and just writing it out, just waiting until the authority to lift it goes away. But respect that there's, but this is difficult and there's lots of opinions. So other folks, yeah, Jay, go ahead. Yeah, I'll concur that I've been torn about this and trying to be able to ultimately it's about consistency for me and being able to empower business owners, all types of business owners to be able to protect their employees and give them enough time to go through the process to get vaccinated. The same time though, I'm very concerned that if we're, we don't want to be too out of step with what the governor's doing and what the state's doing. And just what I've read today is this morning is that the governor is hoping there's a chance that we'll get to 80% by Memorial Day as opposed to the 4th of July. So that's just coming Monday. We may not quite get there by then, but it could be. And so part of that is if, I don't know if the decision will, he has said that the restrictions will go away once we get to the 80%, but we don't necessarily know exactly what that means for the state of emergency, so that in terms of authority to what Bill was saying. So my sense is that we're meeting on the 9th that will at least, we can keep it in effect until that point and then be able to make a decision that is appropriate with what authority we have and that also allows consistency for business owners and kind of to what Jack said to folks who are coming and going, that we're making sure that we have a unified message and that's within our authority. So thanks. Yeah, so one possibility is that we could hold off on making any decision about rescinding it until at least June 9th possibility. Other thoughts? Lauren, go ahead. Yeah, I would be good with kind of putting this any decisions off to the 9th. I mean, it sounds like if there's some better information, we might be able to get a sense even if the emergency order maybe will have more clarity on what calculus the governor is using. If it's not tied to the 80% when we might expect that. Also just seeing it's been great to see the low case numbers, is that continuing and to fill us this point that will be at least a week and a half out from Memorial Day. So there might be some data that we could be looking at. I mean, if we're keeping case counts as low as they've been in the last couple of days, that's a really good sign and I feel pretty good about following Connor's recommendation. Is that the middle ground or the middle ground? I don't know. Other thoughts? Yeah, go ahead, Dan. Yeah, I guess, you know, I'm not particularly induced about kicking it down the road because, you know, I do think there's a real danger in keeping a mandate merely because we're feeling uncomfortable about it when both the CDC and the state have largely backed off of these mandates and, you know, where you have us, our statewide mandate, or the governor is saying, we hit 80%. And, you know, whether state of emergency, the technical state of emergency is repealed or not, that's going away. And so, you know, as I think about this, and I think we're all struggling to make sure we do the right thing from a health perspective that we're doing the right thing from a consistency point of view so that we don't leave either a business out to dry. But, you know, one of the comments I was struck by was the Capitol Pauses comment about people from out of state and the difficulty, or, you know, just in visitors coming through and the difficulty of enforcement from their perspective. And that's something I think we do have to consider, which is, you know, to the extent that the mandate isn't grounded in either the support of the specific science as represented by the CDC as well as the state, you know, and more of our sort of nervousness. The less authority it actually carries no matter what piece of paper it has. So I guess that's a long-winded way of saying I would be fine with us kicking it down to the next meeting. But I would urge that that conversation be a very strong one towards especially taking a look at if the numbers are not justifying it in terms of surges. And if the trend has continued as it is, then we really have no business continuing the mask mandate. Yeah, fair enough. Connor, go ahead. I'll make a motion to liven it up a bit there. I've lost a million motions. So I'll move. We rescind the mask mandate on June 15th, or when the governor declares an end to the COVID-19 state of emergency, whichever occurs first. I'll second it. Hey, I'm watching that in a second. Further discussion? Donna, go ahead. Because of having some travelers come and go, I've actually been watching Washington County, and we've been one of the high risks for a steady two months, Washington County of Vermont, because we've been averaging four new cases a day. I mean, so it's small, but in the scheme of Vermont, when you go online and hit the maps, Washington County comes up as a high risk. So I just put that out there in the scheme of things and understand why I'm going to vote no. Thank you. Jack, go ahead. And I think I'm going to vote no too, because I think that we will have hit the 80% point. We're already in Washington County, our vaccination rate right now for 12 and above is 78.1% as of today or yesterday. I think we're going to get to the 80% level that the governor said would result in his rescinding the or terminating the mask mandate before our next meeting. And so if we're there at our next meeting, I'm hoping that we at that point, we will terminate our order effective June 9th. Yeah, any other thoughts? Lauren, was that a hint? I'll go Lauren and Dan. Yeah, I was just going to say, I mean, I think for, I don't know, how much planning or signage or whatever, if people would want to be thinking about what they want for their own store to maintain one for whatever reason, if their staff isn't, I think the 15th, you know, I could see us wanting to act on this no later than the ninth. And so I think that still gives a reasonable cushion. And again, it might go into effect earlier if the governor lifts the state of emergency. So I'm comfortable with that. I think, you know, if there's anything we learn between now and then we have another meeting, if something earthshaking comes to attention, but I'm uncomfortable with that motion, so I'll be supporting it. Dan. Yeah, just to be clear, as I understood Connor's motion, it was it was the 15th, June 15th, or upon the rescinding of the emergency order, not the 80% number, because the emergency order, and that's a bit of a redundancy in the fact that once the emergency orders rescinded authority for the mandate goes away anyway. So it really is a June 15th mandate, you know, a marker for this. And just, I think it locks it in so that, you know, not lock in the sense that it just, you know, commits us to this date and to be closely watching it and giving businesses, I think that clear signal that, you know, this is on the horizon. So if in fact they feel like, you know, we really want this mask mandate to stay beyond the 15th, and they can come back on the 9th and give us a lot of reasons why the mask mandate should stay, because I think this would send a very clear signal in advance that this is the way we're leaning based on the general trends and what we're hearing from the state federal. So that's why I'm supporting the motion. Con. Mostly what Dan just said, but again, I just reiterate, I don't think we're going to learn anything between now and June 9th. That's really going to make a difference, as far as keeping people safe, 79% to 81%. You know, I'm not Dr. Fauci. I don't know. I think it's the Buddhist middle way approach to give people a heads up of when this is coming. Let them know we anticipate doing it, you know, but also signal to folks in town, like, if you didn't get the second jab, get in the next few days if you can, you know, and we'll get it sussed out. So especially since we don't have money for the lottery like Ohio. Any other comments, thoughts? Okay. All right, there's a motion and a second. All in favor, please say aye. Oh, interesting. Okay, all opposed. No. Okay. And done. I was saying no for opposite reasons, but because we're remote, and it's not unanimous, I think I'm, I'm going to go through the names. All right. So I'm going to go in the order in which you appear on my screen. Connor. Lauren. Hi. Donna. Ney. Jack. Ney. Jay. Hi. Dan. Hi. Okay. So the motion passes. Um, so we're setting a date for June 15th, um, to rescind the, our, our mask ordinance, our mask mandates, our emergency order, I suppose. Um, unless, unless it's the whole thing is lifted before then. Um, that's so interesting. I thought for sure I was going to have to vote, but here we are. All right. So, um, thank you, everybody. Um, thanks for that. That's a tough decision, but as Lauren said, if we do learn anything new, we do have another meeting in between, um, on the ninth, if we wanted to, um, revisit, um, that decision. So, okay. Thanks for that, everybody. And okay, so we're moving on to the point of order that just for just everyone thinks about it now that if you didn't want to revisit that decision, someone who voted on the prevailing side would need to move to reconsider at the next regular meeting. Okay. Thank you. And just to be clear, it's better if we can warn it, uh, on the agenda, but we don't, we wouldn't have to. Is that, that's accurate? Correct. Okay. Okay. All right. Um, thank you for that. And I, so now I think we are ready to move on to, um, the arc of funding, um, recommendations, several lists. So I'm going to turn this, I think either to Bill or to Kelly. I'll start and then Kelly will do the heavy lifting. Um, so, uh, basically the goal tonight, and I appreciated the, uh, comments from Kate Stevens, which are not actually voting to spend any money tonight. Um, we're not asking you to, uh, basically, you know, we've learned about the ARPA funding. We've gotten some clarity in the last couple weeks, although not crystal clear clarity, but definitely more direction about how it can be used, what its requirements are, what you can't use it for. Um, and so our goal tonight is to just walk you through that, the basic fundamentals of it at least, and then taking a look at funds that, that we have in projects. And we've given you the sort of, you know, the total list of everything that's on the table. And obviously we're not going to fund everything that we have going, um, with, with the money. Uh, the money will be coming at the end of this fiscal year and then half this year and then half next year. So, you know, we wouldn't be spending it all now anyway. And we have till I think 23 or four, which Kelly will talk about to actually spend the money. So there is some time to be more thoughtful about it. Just as a, as a, to tee off the meeting, have you thinking while you're listening to Kelly, what we're hoping to get away from this, get away, take away from tonight's conversation is your general philosophy toward the use of the money. We have a thought that we're going to lay out. And if you're in agreement with that, great. If you're not, we'd like to know so we can plan. And the idea would be at some future meeting, we'd actually vote to adopt your plan. And the cliff notes version of our plan is that, we, it looks to us that we've lost about 1.4, 1.5 million dollars in revenue for over the time, not in one fiscal year. And starting with March of 2020, for the last three months of, of that fiscal year, then all of fiscal year 21 that we're in. And then preparing the budget for fiscal year 22, we've taken items out of our budget based on though that projected revenue loss. And so for at the very least for FY 20 and FY 21, we had items that were approved by the city council and by the voters that we did not go ahead and do. We held back. And so our suggestion is for the, the lost revenue portion of this that we restore, not the personnel, but the, the projects, equipment, the type of funding that would have been funded otherwise had we just gone about our business. And that we then look at that once we've hit that cap, there still will be some money left and then talk about that, but you may not agree with that philosophy. So, but just so that you're thinking of where staff is coming from where I'm coming from, Kelly's coming from as she's laying this out, you can be giving that some thought as you get more detail. So again, tonight is for you to get a little bit more informed, ask questions and give us whatever direction you feel like you can give us. And if you need to put this on another agenda, we've got lots of time to decide this. So that Kelly. Thank you. Really good summary. And it's pretty much what we'll lay out in the slides that I'm about to share. And so really the purpose of tonight is just to kind of share where we are and to kind of start the conversation and to make sure that the strategy that we're proposing is, is what is generally agreed upon or so that we can get consensus on what is. And so with that, I'm going to share my screen. Here we go. Just make sure everybody can see this. Everybody good? Looks like it. Excellent. Yes. Cool. So I'm just going to run through this. Let me know if you have questions as we go through. But you know, the good news is we're going to be getting some money. And, you know, we're going to need to determine how we're going to spend it. There's a little bit of a cause and effect here, which we'll get into as we go through the slides. But the preliminary estimate right now is 2.158 million. We're going to get it in two spots of money. And then the allocations will be coming from the agency of administration through the state. And it's based on our population. I did pull the data from the US Treasury for our estimated population, which this will be based on. So you can see it there on your screen. And so we anticipate that we'll be getting this mid-June-ish. And then, as Bill mentioned, we'll get the next installment 12 months after that payment. And so that's sort of the status of what we can anticipate for funding. And then I'll also mention that the first half is going to be just over about a million dollars. And we also sort of gauged our list that you received to that based on the recommendation. And so Bill had referenced the timeline in which we have to spend the funding. And so we have until 2024 to obligate, but we have until 2026 to spend. And so that's good news because we have some time to be thoughtful. I think that there are definitely some immediate needs that we can address that are one time in nature and will be impactful. But we also have time to think about how we want to roll this out. The city is prepared at this point to receive funding. You can see the items that we need to have prepped and ready to go for AOA once they open the portal for us to submit for funding. We have created a separate fund for the ARPA funding to date and will likely probably separate it with the bank just so that we can kind of keep some fences around this money so it's not co-mingled with any other funds. And then I also want to note that the baseline budget is the operating budget in effect as of January 27, 2020, which gives us a little bit of leeway in that they're trying to establish the period in which we leave lost funding as part of the start of the pandemic, but also trying it to that year. So that year for us is really looking at 19. So that would be the year prior to when the pandemic started, but then it would be on a calendar basis thereafter. And so we can get into that a little bit more once we are actually looking at lost revenue, but you'll see in the next slides I'll sort of give a picture of where we're at. And so these are eligible uses for the funding. So support of public health expenditures, addressing negative economic impacts caused by public health emergency, including economic harms to workers, households, small businesses, replacement of lost public sector revenue. And so we've got a pretty strong case for that. Fortunately or unfortunately, however, you want to look at it, we could also provide premium pay to essential workers. And then we could invest in water sewer and broadband infrastructure. So those are the categories this has taken pretty much almost word for word from the guidance. And so this is, you know, what we can do with the funding. What we can't do is use it to for a rainy day fund or to, you know, backfill pensions or property taxes directly. So if you look at this here, you know, our recommendation is that we would select the category used for the first year of funding for lost revenue. And so to date, and this is a little bit of a projection because we're not done with 21 yet. As Bill mentioned, it's about 1.5 ish million dollars. And so this captures lost revenue in the general fund parking and programming associated with recreation in the senior center. And so that sort of passes the threshold of that initial amount of funny money related to lost revenue. And so the list that we've prepared the first tier list is just over a million dollars, which is about half the funding, then there would be an additional 400,000 or so related to lost revenue that we would restore. And then the remaining balance would be what we would use for other items that would be categorically eligible. And so that's where the discussion comes in. Earlier tonight, I sent the capital improvement plan because that might be helpful to you as we kind of look through options. And then we may also, you know, opt to convene the capital committee to talk about some of the options. If you wanted to engage the public a little bit more, just some options to think about. And so this is that listing that I was referencing, you can kind of see what the projects are there. There's really, you know, in the strategy of cause and effect, you know, we lost revenue. So we took these projects and delayed them. And now that we're getting revenue, we're restoring them. And so we're thinking that that would be the best way to go to start and then work from there in future years. But again, open for discussion, but just kind of putting this initial list on the table for consideration is helpful. And you'll also notice that these are all one time in nature, but would really help us. And so the next steps will review the final allocation once it's available, which hopefully will be in short order. We'll submit the required information to the agency of administration. So we'll get the funding in the door. Hopefully between now and then we'll have some conversations about how to use the funding. And then, you know, if possible, as more guidance comes out, maybe there might be other federal or state dollars that we can leverage with this funding, which right now, you know, we're hearing things, but we don't have anything that's concrete at this point. And then, you know, lastly, just sort of the caveat around all this just to make sure that we're making good choices for a future state is one time in nature with lasting benefits so that we're not creating a hole in the future. So that's my presentation to kind of touch off the conversation. And I'll stop my share now and take questions. Any questions for Kelly? If I could just add one thing to that too. I mean, I think Kelly kind of hit it, but just, you know, one of the biggest concerns we had in delaying projects and equipment purchases was that we're just falling behind, right? That we were already felt we were behind. And so we, again, the basis of our proposal is that this gets us caught up to where we would have been anyway. And then taking a look. But again, you could move stuff around however you see fit. Thanks. Donna, go ahead. I just needed Kelly and Bill's help to understand you sent us four charts. And I'm trying to interface them with the one that you just gave us. Now, according to the labels that you gave us, the one you just gave us, you call it the Restoring List. But you have another one that also you use that term, but it adds up all the others and comes up to some $23 million. So could you help me understand how the three list, other list, interplay with the list that you presented tonight? Sure. So the list that, the first list that you mentioned for restoration is kind of a list that would, you know, sort of comport with the funding that we would be receiving. But the second list is the larger list. And so it's that first list extracted from the larger list to then give what is left on the table. And so, you know, the total amount that would be sort of lost revenue would be 1.4. The total list of, you know, delayed items associated with the pandemic comes to, like you mentioned, 2.48. And the total of the all lists combined for the delayed projects is 3.9. So it's more than what we're getting funding for. So that's the other piece here. I think that's something to highlight. I mean, this has been an extremely valuable exercise for us, because I think that it sort of sets us up to have a conversation about capital funding in the future. And so, you know, these things are things that are needed. We tried to categorize as best we could to have a direct nexus between lost revenue or things that we pulled off the table as part of the deficit mitigation plan. And then there are other items that are infrastructure related that may be eligible for future funding if, you know, infrastructure money comes down in another federal package, say. So we're trying to cover all of our bases and also capture the need. Okay. So the 1.4 is no longer in these other three lists. So, like particularly when I look at water and sewer, I was surprised not to see any on your final list. And that's okay. Yep, by design. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. Great information. Thank you. Thank you. So again, just to clarify, the big ticket list and the water sewer list are sort of separately considered. Yes. Potential infrastructure and, well, I guess both would be potential infrastructure. Yes. They might qualify for those ones. Okay. Yes. And part of the thinking there is that water and sewer is qualified on its own. So the only, that is something you can use this money for. Whereas the more general use, the only flexible use we have is for the revenue replacement. So to the extent that we can document lost revenue, then we have a much wider swath of what we put back. If it's not replacing lost revenue, then those other categories become where the only places where you can spend the money. So in our case, you know, we're getting 2.1 or 2.2 and we've got almost 1.5 in lost revenue. We can simply replace the projects. We still have that last six or $700,000 that have to fall within those categories. But one of those categories is water and sewer. So we could use that money there instead of in the revenue replacement. And we also didn't see a huge loss in water and sewer revenue, to be honest. And so if I can make sure that I also understand that basically the question that you want us to answer tonight is replacing lost, either equipment or projects, the priority. Things that we had to cut is the priority to put back things that we cut with this money. Is that accurate? That's correct. Yes. Or at least in general, is that the general philosophy? Or, you know, do you want to take a harder look at some of the other categories and what do you want to do? You know, I think this was really meant to introduce you to the funding uses, the way we see it and have a conversation. You know, if you don't, if you don't already take a vote or anything, that's fine. Like Kelly said, we have lots of time. So. Okay. So with that as the question, yeah, go ahead, Lauren. Yeah, I had a few thoughts. I mean, I think that overall that seems like a very reasonable place to start. I mean, that it's, you know, essentially what we had talked about all along and like the budgeting and the way we had approached it. So I think as a starting place that makes sense. The things I was thinking about, you know, so it's kind of like looking at what did we not do before we knew COVID was going to happen. And so I do hope that we could also be looking at some opportunities of, you know, how have people in our community who've been particularly hard hit, like, are there opportunities? Could there be, you know, some portion that's like a grant program that could like help offset, you know, property taxes for people that are really struggling? Could we look to our many active city committees and see, like, are there pressing needs that could qualify for this funding that, you know, it could there be like a set aside of a certain amount to look at, you know, maybe get people like really engaged and excited, like, what are the most important pressing projects that you could make a pitch to us? You know, I'm thinking of like housing trust funds, like housing such a huge issue homelessness task force, like, what do they have going on that are really urgent? We keep hearing about this, you know, ongoing and ratcheting up crisis with with July around the corner with the hotel shutting down, like, you know, again, knowing that there's limitations on this money, but I think some of that I hope like some portion of it could be looking at some of those kind of acute needs of the community that we're facing because of COVID. You know, I'd also love to consider is there, you know, I know our staff has been short staffed and, you know, people have been working incredibly hard, like I saw that, you know, a little kind of bonus or something is one of the opportunities that like looking at that as a one time thing to thank our staff. Had some other ideas, but I'll leave it there for now. Thanks. Other thoughts. Go ahead, Dan. Sure. You know, in general, I think we have an obligation to restore portions of the funding that were cut away because these were essential pieces of maintenance and service that, you know, have we've, we knew going in were things that we could hold our breath and hold off for a year, but I think there are things that, you know, we have to identify. But that said, what Lauren is proposing, I think is a good idea, because, you know, with these monies, there are these opportunities to address some of these unmet needs and some of these improvements and certainly one of the issues that I think would be good to address would be public restrooms that we've talked about and sort of kicked around, but now would be the time to move forward on that and use some of these funds potentially for it. So I think it's important that we think about, and I think what I'm not prepared to say at this time is how much of that fund would we would split between the two, but I think those have to be the twin pillars of what we're looking at. You know, we've got to restore the key pieces that we cut and they were hard cuts, but and so we have an obligation to do that, but I think the other pieces that we can look at, whether they be, you know, pieces of staff bonuses or bigger projects or addressing future needs, I think are really important. Connor than Jack? Yeah, no, definitely agree where Lauren and Dan are going here. You know, the homelessness task force met this morning and, you know, the latest numbers, we have 350 people in Washington County, but, you know, when the hotel vouchers dry up there, we can expect another 50 to 75. So that's not insignificant. And, you know, we did ask the homelessness task force, I'm honest, but I think we're going to put together a list of just as we're saying, very short term goals, maybe medium ones and then like long term ones like a tiny house village or something for a report to the city. But it might make sense to expedite the immediate ones to get to the council before we have this next discussion. The other thing to be aware of is, you know, when folks were living in hotels, there was a meal program backed by the feds there that's gonna end on July 1st. So we're looking at food as well as rooms could be a bit of an issue. So there might be some things, you know, just in the emergency in turn we could pop in there that would really take a lot off people's backs. No, thank you. Jack. I agree with just about everything that's been said. I think that I think this is we're on the right track with the proposal we're seeing. It's important to note that it's we need to make these expenditures in the lost revenue category, not only because we promised the voters that we would do it and the voters voted in favor of it, but also because we're talking about doing things like replacing 10 or 12 year old trucks and equipment like that, that we absolutely are going to have to replace. We thought we needed to replace them when we put them in the budget. And those vehicles and other equipment have not gotten any newer since we didn't replace them last time. So I think same thing with the, you know, paving and culvert and sidewalk, all of those things were we wouldn't have put them in the budget in the first place unless they were needed. And beyond that, I do like the idea of I think it's important to figure what we can address, particularly with the need for homeless people. We have, we do not have the capacity in the City of Montpellier budget and I don't think we ever will to end homelessness in Montpellier because we have so many demands on our revenues, but there are things that we can do and I think we should be working on identifying what we can reasonably do with some of this money to alleviate the suffering we can address. So I have a question. So Kelly, you mentioned that we're going to be getting one chunk of money in the short term and then the second sort of installment in about a year. Is that right? Yes. And we'll also have a better sense than when we will, what the rules around infrastructure, if there's money available for specifically for infrastructure, is that? Yeah, yeah, that's accurate. Yeah, so I'll just chime in here and then Lauren, I see your hand as well. You know, I think these other kinds of ideas about like what else could we do, I think are really interesting. And I appreciate that, I forget who said it, maybe it was Connor who said, you know, I'm not going to say like how much we should be spending on each of these things if it's not just replacing equipment. And I wonder if we could, I guess if it were up to me, I would say it would make sense to me to spend the first chunk of money on replacing equipment and then look at these other sort of creative ideas as potentials for use in the second chunk of money. Once we know like what is on the table, particularly for infrastructure, especially since, you know, we're, I feel that, you know, that thing that Dan mentioned about like, you know, we are obligated, I think to fulfill what the voters voted for in terms of, especially in terms of what was in the FY20 and the FY21 budget. So those are the things that are highest on my radar. And then after that, I think, you know, looking at, you know, potentially like public restrooms or other interesting creative things I think could be really good. Lauren, go ahead. Yeah, I guess just one other consideration. I mean, I know we don't need to make these decisions right away. So there's like the unknown of the federal infrastructure package that might or might not move and what the implications of that might be. There's also, you know, the state ARPA dollars and, you know, they just allocated, for example, like 225 million for water and sewer projects around the state. So how does that impact Montpelier and how much of that could we access? So some of this, you know, I think like, you know, it's so great to see these really helpful lists from Kelly and the team. So, you know, I think we've got like a lot of that mapped out and like are ready to be in the queue. But to some degree, you know, obviously, we want to be beating those bushes early and often as well, which I know that we will. But some of this seems like, you know, waiting to make some decisions on some projects like that, that we know that the state has specifically set aside chunks of money for. So just that factoring that in as well. And I know it keeps like a lot of unknowns and moving pieces. So we'll want to get some out and get these projects going as well. But leaving some flexibility seems to make sense, since we do have a few years to spend it. Again, that's why we left. We did not include water and sewer projects in part because they're not funded through the revenues that support that we had the loss revenues anyway. But we specifically left them out of that. So 1.4 1.5 million dollar list, because a, the remaining funds can be used for sort and be we knew that the state was going to have water and sewer money available. And there's maybe even future infrastructure money coming and not that we don't have huge pressing needs and water and sewer because we do. But there's also like 250 million for like community well being like there's so much like that's so amorphous that I feel like we need to like, what does that look like? Because maybe that maybe there's going to be really creative things done with homelessness, for example, that, you know, you know, as we've talked about, we can't solve that here, but we could be doing some, you know, some things for our community. So just to help you thinking and again, I'm not trying to prejudge your answer, but if, for example, we said, all right, we're going to take the 1.4 1.5 million and allocate that to projects and equipment that we didn't do, you know, we can still phase that, but we don't have to do it all this year. So, you know, we're looking at a total of two year funding so we could open more up to do, you know, because we refer to it as well the first 1.5 and then the last 700, you know, the order in which we do that could still be changed. So if we had immediate needs with homelessness and those kind of things, so we could split those, you know, 5050 or something like that. And you know, maybe it is a good idea to solicit, you know, say, hey, we're going to have this much money this year. We'd like to solicit proposals from our various committees and those kinds of things for these kinds of uses, as long as they're eligible. You know, I think we want to look at some of the ideas and make sure they fall squarely within the eligible funding. So before we go on, Jack and Donna, I saw your hands. Do you think you can hang on to your comment because it is 837 and I would like to take, I know that we're in the middle of a topic, but I would like to take a break. Do you think you can remember your comments? That was my comment. So yes. Okay. Donna, will you be able to remember your comments? Okay. All right. So we are going to take what's that, Stephen? I want to get in line for a comment. Okay. Great. All right. Well, we're going to take a 10, well, I'm thinking about reconvening at 845, which is not quite 10 minutes. Is that okay, team? Donna doesn't like it. 845 will be okay. All right. We'll see. All right. And six. Great. Okay. So Jack's comment had been, we needed to take a break. Donna, you are up. Thank you. Going back to Bill's point about maybe staggering, I was looking at the restore list, the one million some, and I was seeing 55 vehicles here and wondering if you go back to what Kate was talking about, not only staggering, but maybe exploring if there are any there that could be electric. And thinking bathrooms, folks, we have been hammered for the last two, three years about public bathrooms. And this is not just a homeless issue. It's an issue for families downtown, local people, visiting people. And I would really like to see us to make a commitment that we do that. And there's any way to start it before the money arrives. That would be really, really good. But I really feel I would like to see us make a true commitment to start acting on the public restrooms. And that we initiate some acts so we can start researching what it'll cost us, researching locations that we start something around that issue. Okay. Well, thanks. Stephen, I think you wanted to say something. You get to go ahead next year. I'm unmuted. Oh, okay. Go ahead. Go ahead. Okay. So I've got some comments and a question. Is the police simulcast radio system? Is that been included in the televate study? Because it really it seems overlap. It seems integrally related. Because if this if the region wide simulcast system is put in place, there's no reason that the police couldn't be using that same system. But as I think we've demonstrated and learned that the vetting and the diligence on planning for these large capital items, at the same time, we may be downsizing our police. So while the police review committee is going on, while the televate study is going on, while that moves to the engineering phase, I don't think it's time to be spending hundreds of thousand dollars, hundreds of thousands of dollars on police radio systems, especially if it potentially duplicative and might have might have been included in the lehi or Sanders proposal that was just put in for earmarks. I just find that this is we've learned to be more watchful of this in the time that we've had the delay of the pandemic. So I don't think we should just knee jerk you know, let it out the gate because we didn't notice it before. We've had some of this discussion around the dispatch consoles. I've also remember recommending several meetings back that the public be more engaged, especially the discretionary parts, maybe not so much the restoral parts, but the discretionary parts, the public should be more involved in this discussion of how many how to spend, you know, a windfall of several million dollars, you know, possibly a survey type instrument where they could rank, you know, sidewalk repairs against, you know, public bathrooms or, you know, you could have sidewalks that are used as public bathrooms as we do today. So those are some comments. I just think we're a little out of sync with our planning and the, especially with technology, we stand to waste money if we're not careful. And there's too many questions in the air regarding the future role and size of our police force to be throwing hundreds of thousands of dollars at new technology for them. Thank you. Thank you. Other thoughts about the direction generally that we're going? Okay. So just to check in, Kelly and Bill, do you feel like you've heard clear enough answer from the council or could it be clearer or do we need to come to work at Census? What do you think? Well, let me articulate what I believe I'm interpreting and I hope I'm not projecting what I think it is that we want to do. So please correct. I'm hearing that generally the 1.405 million in lost revenue you'd like to replace with items that were in the budget, we have time to determine what those might be, whether those are electric vehicles or non electric vehicles or whether they include radio equipment or not. But that's generally that would be the plan is to restore those and we would like obviously like to look at what our opportunities are for water and sewer funding through the remaining money and that we would like to carve out some significant portion of the non lost revenue money for community, some sort of community service process to be determined and doesn't need to be determined tonight or next week or whatever. But soon some of it we might want to do soon because of urgency. And with regard to at least one person mentioned bathrooms, we'd have to take a look and see because we had those on our list too, whether where those might fall. So, you know, if they qualify for the external funds great, if they don't, then it would probably have to go into the lost revenue, which means then something would have to come out that that we had planned for. So and that that's okay too. But it's is that generally we're, you know, we can, we will be as we learn more and as we, you know, we'll be bringing this back and we'll but I think at some point we may come to you at least for some small portion of the first part, even if it's only the like the first 500,000 or something because you know we may want to get projects out the door for the summer so especially road paving and things like that that are backed up that really need to be done. So, but if that's the general approach, then I think we can work with that and plan for that and continue having this discussion on the next every agenda or every other agenda or, you know, you know, the foreseeable future and figure out a public process for the more, you know, the you know, open-ended funding. Before. Is that so that was my take of what you said. Is that is that sort of okay I'm seeing some thumbs up on that but before we sort of close the book on on that topic, I certainly want to make sure that if any other members of the public want to comment on this. Now it was okay time to do that any thoughts or comments from the public you can either raise your hand using the raise hand function or just unmute yourself so you want to speak or turn your camera on and wave on any of that is fine. Okay, I'm not seeing anybody at this point. So fair enough. Thank you. And I think so it sounds like you'll we all have clarity about what we're saying. And it's a pretty general direction right now and we'll get more specificity and and when you when it comes time for you all to be spending this money you'll be coming back to us for approval right so okay fair enough great. All right so we are going to keep going then that is actually the end of our regular business so we are up to council reports and so we're going to go in the same order as long as Donna you don't mind going first. No no it's fine I would just restate that the Central Vermont Public Safety Authority did put in two applications for Senate Earmark and very hopeful about that and if nothing else it certainly brought everybody together sharing information data a lot of people came to the table to visit with the consultant it was just really good I think it was a positive effort and if not now we'll do it next time and the next time and we'll eventually get the money. The Montpelier would definitely benefit as would all of Central Vermont with this equipment and the expertise that was in the earmark for real good implementation writing really good RFPs and oversight of the whole project because you realize we don't have that expertise in outpost and so that was definitely part of the earmark is getting the consultant work that great thank you Connor. Oh right it was referenced earlier but I said I would just tell folks that Rick D'Angeles is in front of the Berlin Select Board tonight at 6 30 with the proposal to open up itself the hub at the Twin City Motel in Berlin and if approved this would be 18 additional rooms for people experiencing homelessness so not insignificant and Rick did want to say he really appreciates the city staff who he's worked with on this so far particularly the the two chiefs there so they said I would pass it along from that's it for me thanks. Jay. Yep yeah one quick thing I just wanted to make sure if you all remember it's been a while since it's come up but Montpelier Live is working on a grant program to help bring businesses downtown and it's supported from some of the funds from the MVC and I just wanted folks to know that that process is ongoing they're engaged with about 30 potential businesses which is great and they've had a number of applications and they have a review board that is going to start looking at those applications just the day after our next meeting so on June 10 so just so folks know that that process is ongoing and I think it's a positive note to acknowledge the the number of folks who are interested in in being in our downtown so that's thanks. Dan. Thanks just a brief note and then I take this moment to suggest that at our next board meeting we take up the issue of public bathroom out of all the larger projects that we talked about I think the time may be right for us to inform a committee because you know three things that occur to me that are are issues one is one is funding but as Donna suggested I think there's a lot of pre-funding work that we have to think about which is you know what what is where should this restaurant be located what kind of services should it provide you know what are the other options and how does it fit in with those who does it serve is it open 24 hours that all strikes me as committee work and that it seems like now would be a good time to start thinking about that and maybe put together a committee on that kind of issue especially as we see City Hall reopening and other buildings reopening and some of these facilities becoming available not necessarily falling into the slumber that that will solve the problem but starting to think about how we provide that necessary public service that's all yeah right um um so are you proposing that we put that on the agenda right I propose that we put that on the agenda for next next meeting to have a committee to discuss forming committee um and that way be warned if people were interested that wanted to be a part of that discussion they could be um with the idea that maybe next meeting we could we could actually create that committee to look into those um you know because I think and and I'll just add sort of as a final point I mean I think this is a really wonderful opportunity um to create something that would be um you know like the transit center um you know a piece of architecture in the city um that we could be proud of and uh that would be an attractant um and so you know having starting to talk with those people I think is an important piece as well so starting that type of committee I think I I propose that we do it next meeting so just a quick poll of folks or other folks interested in having that on the agenda for next time yep yep okay all right um great so um we'll plan on having that on the agenda for the next meeting I think that makes sense um and uh Jack just one thing and we're we've spent a lot of time talking about the coronavirus um just want to remind people who have not been vaccinated yet that cvh at the has at their vaccine hub in the uh Berlin mall is doing vaccine walk-ins all day uh tomorrow and uh Friday that is uh eight o'clock to noon and one o'clock to three p.m tomorrow and Friday and so I urge anyone who hasn't yet gotten their vaccination to get up there and do it it's uh it's painless and you could be saving your own life for someone else's it's all right yeah just one thing um last week the social and economic justice advisory committee host um hosted a meeting of the heads of um a whole slew of city committees so I don't know if anybody else heard about this um but it was a really great conversation so we were talking about how all these city committees that we've established you know there's equity implications to all kinds of work and we were talking about what that group's work is and um thinking through together and had a really good conversation about kind of the various work that committees have underway and different ways we could support each other and I think both the you know getting the wheel turning on equity was great and also just getting that group of people together was great and it was really like wow like it's not often enough like we get the benefit of seeing all these uh reports from these amazing volunteers um all over you know we're doing such amazing and invaluable work for the community and often they don't know what each other are doing and I was like like we were talking um at our cjack meeting earlier today about you know how do we foster some of that it was a really energetic and positive experience for people just hearing about the work going on from other committees and seemed people seemed really energized so we'll be continuing to think about ways we can kind of foster that so it was a it was a great kind of first first step and we'll keep you posted on uh where we go from there but we had really great attendance and was really grateful to um everyone who showed up and was really active um and participating thanks yeah um so I just have one thing which is uh this coming Friday night uh the racial justice alliance which is a club at the high school will be um showing I have a public showing of the movie minari it starts at 7 30 so you can bring your picnic blankets or a chair and stay socially distance and watch a free movie on state house lawn uh should be pretty great so I just want to remind folks of that event um and uh john you're up I'll pass thanks okay and bill I just a couple minor things um reminder we mentioned this already but Monday is the morally holiday so um enjoy your long weekend everybody and those of you that usually talk to me on Monday um you know maybe I won't be around so we'll figure that out um and then speaking of goofing off we at the last meeting we were talking about maybe dropping a summer meeting but it was so late that we said let's wait and talk about it this week so if anyone has any thoughts uh we can do that or not we can do it at the next meeting too um and I'm gonna have thoughts on which meeting to drop in the summer uh Dan uh Dan go ahead yeah and this is a totally selfish is that the uh June 16th meeting is the one I'm gonna have the most trouble attending um but otherwise I'm I'm certainly flexible if somebody wants a later summer or later July call off um we already moved that one I thought we moved June 16th to the 23rd oh the other way around oh okay maybe the 23rd's no better for me either um fine so what we decided so June 9 is our normal meeting we then went to June 16 and then July 7 instead of July 14 and then July 21 instead of what would normally be July 28 and then we have August 18 and 25 if I'm correct yep that's what I have well so or we can just keep them all um other opinions about possibly dropping the June 16th meeting or any other meeting that would be better yeah Dan go ahead I'm biased about July it's the hotter more summer month so I prefer to take off the 21st sorry Dan and anyone anyone else I have no preference oh Lauren go ahead I'll probably be out of town July 7th I don't know if the July meetings are equally open to you Donna for um that would be my preference like I could probably zoom in but I'll be on vacation if nobody else cares I don't care just sometime in July one less meeting any other opinions Jay go ahead yeah if uh I'm fine if the 7th was if that went away that'd be okay with that um the July that is also just um a quick note that and Lauren I don't know where you're at on this but the next meeting on June 9th um uh is also the same night as the uh uh the graduation for the elementary school so I would be um and potentially Lauren I don't know but uh would be an hour late to that one so um anyways so that would you know I wouldn't be able to be there till you know that's gonna end at 7 30 so at that the high school so be a little bit after that that I that I would be there so anyways hmm I don't know what that plays into like dropping a meeting or trying to reschedule things and Lauren I'm not sure where you're at with that but just that's just a conflict so yeah yeah fair enough we could start later on the night I know that leads to ending later but and the yeah I will be attending that as well like forgetting to mention so thank you for bringing it up Jay that night is right now is particularly all DPW that's actually interesting because it's so it's supposed to be the water sewer master plan do this in memory so if somebody remembers more specifically the water sewer master plan um maybe the water and sewer rates that could be wrong about that um storm water master plan utility rates utility rates yeah that's water and sewer rates um getting those most mostly DPW stuff although we just added bathrooms that yeah so theoretically we could start later that it's kind of like well we could um Cameron if you're looking at the list I don't have it in front of me do you have what's you know I'm sorting what we had for the 16th morning of all the stuff on the 7th or the 9th could move to the 16th and or just keep it relatively light on the 9th and start at late or something just do bathrooms and something run and find out and it's notting I'm gonna go do that now yeah great I figure you know so I'd rather be figuring this out now than like 10 10 o'clock some other meeting well even if we started like 7 15 and do all the the boring business and then they come it's shortly after 7 30 it wouldn't be too bad of an ending time then we could maybe move some stuff so we can all come memories that June 16 isn't that full so we could move some of the heavy you know keep the 9th lighter but just in case just in case you have to reconsider your mask mandate um really my internet is unstable um well also I want to respect that mine too yeah so I heard that maybe we can move some of the heavier stuff to the 16th but I also want to respect that like if Dan if you can't be there on the 16th you might want to be there for the for the conversation as well for now though I think it makes sense that maybe we should plan on starting them the June 9th meeting later um how do you how do you all feel about um Lauren and Jay how do you feel about if we started at 7 15 and then just jump in when when right um so we'll plan on that change that's not the same thing as canceling a meeting but uh so I'm just gonna make sure I make that change which changing that to 7 15 okay and um just in terms of um canceling another meeting so far Bill there's nothing or Cameron there's no I feel like my internet is unstable again um there's is there anything that's planned as far out as as July 7th we had I think the cjack presentation maybe was scheduled for then cjack is to is July 21st according to the report from last week and I just got word I think today they're planning to do that on the 7th but maybe I'm wrong they're they're still working out their schedule okay so um so I will communicate that as soon as I can as soon as we need okay for the 16th you you had a few things um our fund reserve this year 23 budget process recording stopped recording progress development that's weird and then um an update on uh 16 main street and approving the local hazard mitigation plan sorry that's all on June 16th yes some of those some of those sounded big but um some they're not as big as they sound so okay let me I think they'll be in some way so that's good reminder well I think if we start a little bit later on the 7th on the 9th excuse me and then have that on the 16th and then I think if you make a decision now about one of your July meetings I have a quorum I heard July 7 July 7 sounds fine to me I would just like to make a decision yeah uh Lauren you're okay with July 7 that works great for me uh Jay how do you feel about it audio issues Jay I can't hear you Jay it's muted oh no Connor might be here or no is a different date we got we got thumbs up okay oh it's one two three four I'm voting so that is a yes we're gonna cancel the oh there's Jay great okay so that's a that's a yes we're canceling July 7 can I just text to meet you and he's probably gonna try to log in recording stop can you hear me you have four votes anyway but I can hear that yes yes okay oh Donna we can hear you great can you hear me I can't I can't see anything so I have like I have no idea like yes you see you in your box just find everything look you look normal do it quick you might want to have a legal adjournment as soon as you can here I can't see a thing so I think we had clarity that we're canceling July 7th if that is not everybody else's understanding let me know um and I will put that in to confirm it next meeting okay that sounds good uh okay so uh I think that is the end of oh no uh right we that bill uh did his report so without objection we're going to um adjourn the meeting 919 and if God's wanted us to end early night everybody