 So the first thing is to review and approve the agenda, which seems not terribly long today. I don't want to jinx it, you know, but any adjustments to the agenda? So with that, we will consider the agenda approved. So on to general business and appearances, this is an opportunity for any member of the public to address the council on a topic otherwise not on our agenda. And if you would keep your comments to about two minutes, that'd be very helpful. Also say your name and where you live. And that applies to all the comments generally. Well, it's a pretty small crew here, but, you know, the general guidelines in there. Anyone want to address the council? Yes, go ahead. Lauren. Yeah, thanks. So I just wanted to, because I am running for re-election to represent district one, just wanted to take a moment to just acknowledge it's been such an honor and privilege to work with everyone. I hope to get another chance by getting reelected and we'd love to have people's votes. But just wanted to take a minute at the beginning. It's been really just incredible to see the dedication and hard work of the mayor of every city counselor. It's been such a pleasure working with everyone through, you know, these really incredibly hard times and the city staff, just seeing how dedicated everyone is to trying to make our community as good as possible and navigate through all of this. It's just been such an honor and, you know, hope to have the chance to keep building on the work we've been doing to help our community and build increased equity and address climate change and other important priorities. But just want to take a minute in case it is my last meeting to thank everyone and acknowledge what an honor it's been and what a pleasure and to thank you all. Thank you, Lauren. OK, anyone else? And Cameron, you're not seeing anybody? No, ma'am. OK. OK, so we will keep going then. All right, so on to the consent agenda. Is there a motion regarding the consent agenda? Yeah, go ahead, Jack. I move the consent agenda. John, did you sort of motion in a second? John, did you want to say anything about it? Let's see how you turn your camera on there. Oh, I'm dark. Just that, for whatever reason, no liquor license applications showed up in the last week, which is weird, but so you all know. OK. I don't have any objection to this item, but I do have a question about the COVID-19 update. So wondering, yeah, so Cameron, I saw as a part of the guidelines there, you know, there is no multifamily gathering indoors or outdoors. But I will say that I'm confused about that part in relation to recreation. I thought there was an exception for recreation with like one family, but I wanted to believe that is it is out. It is further in the state like the opening guidance where there is an exception for outdoor recreation for unvaccinated families who can gather. I'd have to look up the wording specifically for that. They're talking the main guidance that came out was about indoor gatherings. Right. You know, I was I was looking at the ACCD stuff and it was kind of confusing like what is, you know, governing the situation here. So, yeah, that might be useful to folks just to have clarity about that. That's all. I'll add some clarity of fine language in our weekly report. Thank you so much. Any further comments? OK, so there's a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All in favor, please say aye. And opposed. OK, so the consent agenda passes. So moving on to presentation on the dispatch console. So for this, I assume I'm turning things over to Chief Pete and also potentially Fred Cummings. Good evening, Madam Mayor, members of the City Council. Good evening. Thank you all very much again for the opportunity to be here with you. What we'd like to do is just provide a little bit of information, summarized information on the dispatch console systems that we were looking at, especially the previous questions that were revolving around it. With me is a dispatch supervisor, Fred Cummings. And so he and I are going to both be providing the presentation, though Fred is probably going to do most of the talking with some time to time input for myself. So if I may, I'm going to share our screen. OK, can everyone see that? Yes, we can. All right, great. I'll move that to. Looks like it's not allowing me to go to. Yep, there we go. OK. So again, my name is Brian Pete. I'm with the Montpelier Police Department as the Chief. And we're here today to talk to you about the dispatch consoles and these are going to be the points that we'll be talking about discussing what dispatch is, the purpose of the consoles, what our current consoles are, their capability, their operability and the challenges that we have with them. What our proposed dispatch console system is, how that new system will fit into our future anticipated needs to include the the upcoming study with the CDPSA. And then we'll again talk about those regional studies and compatibility and then we'll sum everything up. And with that, I'll turn it over to a dispatch supervisor Cummings. Good evening. So. Basically, the job of dispatch is to handle all of the incoming calls and all of the radio communications from Montpelier police, fire, DMS, Capital West, Capitol Police. And we also do the after hours emergency calls for DPW. Last year, dispatchers in Montpelier handled 13,181 calls. Capital West does contract with us for 24 hour, three hundred and sixty five day year coverage in the current contract is calling for three hundred and eighty nine thousand forty one dollars. So basically, if you look at this picture, the computer screen on the very right with the red on the top of it, that's actually what the dispatcher sees as far as the radio console. The other three screens that are in front of that run our Valkor are open Fox through the state system to run plates and stuff through the National Database and I can't see what is on the other other screen, but it's typically the active nine one screen that allows us to see where units are or it's the GPS screen so we can see where the cruisers and stuff like that are. So this this radio technology, what you're going to see some pictures of in a few minutes, what it actually looks like outside of dispatch. This is all the dispatcher sees is this console right here. And that's that's that's pretty much what what they use to make it work. So how did we get here? So you'll see a circle on the bottom here. I was fortunate enough to be able to talk to Dan the other day. Basically, what happened to start this conversation off was this unit that circled on the bottom of the of the screen actually controls our VSP state to and sheriff's department radio through the console. Basically, that unit failed and it's over 20 years old. Burlington Communications did their best to try to fix it. It wasn't fixable. The current unit that circled right there, they actually found at Milton PD up in Northern Vermont and it's on loan to us to make our radio system work. So that spawned a bigger discussion about continuity of operations and what happens, you know, when when our radio systems go down. So I started to look into the possibility of getting a laptop based console so that we could leave here in the event of an emergency and still have full radio capabilities. It was at that point that I realized that that wasn't something that we could do with the current radio consoles that we have. And I also found out that the current radio consoles that we have have just about lived out their useful life. They're no longer supported by Motorola. I'll talk a little bit about that in a future slide. But that's I want you to understand that's how we got to the console discussion was actually by having a unit upstairs fail. And so part of the part of the money that was requested through the budget process was actually these units have to be replaced upstairs. That's thirty eight thousand dollars. And then the rest of the money that that we had asked for is actually to replace and upgrade the consoles. So Brian can go to the next slide. So basically if you look to the left there's a red circle around three boxes. This is in the basement. These are actually the brains of the consoles for all three that we currently have. There's one of each dispatch console desk. This is what makes them run. It has cards in them that can pretty much fail at any time as we learned in 2019. We did have a failure. And then where it says Bramwick over here, there's actually a hard drive that sits behind this this under the desk that actually controls the computer screen that you saw earlier. So that's pretty much what the console system looks like. It's basically a three part piece of equipment. So in 2015, our current consoles, which are which I refer to as Motorola fifty five hundred, so that's their model number. They were purchased at a cost between two hundred and two hundred and ten thousand. That money came from a VCOM grant that Chief Fakos was able to get the City of Montpelier. So there was no cost in the City of Montpelier for those consoles. When I was hired, we purchased a third console which CVPSA was able through Paco to get another VCOM grant. So our current consoles, there was no cost in the City of Montpelier at all. For the equipment when these were purchased in 2015, they replaced Orbecom consoles that were that were many years old, which Chief Fakos told me the other day, actually were actually purchased on a grant as well. So for the last 20 something years, the consoles that have been used by MPD and and Capital West for that matter, there has been no cost to the city at all. They've all been purchased through grants. Unfortunately, there's no longer currently a grant available that will fund this equipment. So that's why we went through the budget process this year and explain the need of why we need to upgrade the consoles. So in 2019, one of these boards that circled went bad in one of the consoles. In 2019, Motorola discontinued the fifty five hundred console that we currently have now at the end of this year, twenty twenty one. They no longer support it. What that means is that as parts go bad or as we need parts, we have to scour the country to try to find somebody that has them. That's that's not a good position to be. And I this is actually a good time. I told Chief Pete, I was going to bring this up to try to make everybody understand what it means to lose a piece of equipment. Today was one of the busier busier days that our dispatch centers had. We had two huge building fires today, one in Middlesex and one in Watesfield. And we had a multitude of other calls. One of our computer workstations actually crashed today, not the radio console, just the computer workstation. What that means is that we had a dispatcher that couldn't do their job in the Valkor system and everything else. And I bring that up because if the radio console had failed, we would we would be faced with the same thing that the dispatcher doesn't have the ability to actually talk on the radio. That's why this this replacement system is very much needed because we we need to know that if it if it crashes, I mean, they're currently still working on the computer workstation. But but if it if it crashes, we need to know that we can get it back up and running really, really soon because these are vital vital operational needs of the department or talk about this and I can jump in. If Fred will probably come back on me to just make me sound smart. But basically, the new dispatch console system that we're looking at is the Motorola 7500 IP, the IP just pretty much stands for the internet servicing or internet protocol, which allows it, you know, just just allows it to operate over over the internet. Fred can talk more about that. What the highlights for this system are effective, secure communications. The primary CAD system is which is a next generation 911 call control. It helps and computer a dispatch with a CAD system, which allows the system to interface with our records and case management system to provide more information to the dispatchers and who are going to funnel that information to the officers that are out there in the field. It has a record suite for database management, which again is that records integration with our current system, as well as what the dispatchers are going to see, as well as a jail application. The moto mapping feature that that both is again, it's another one of those officer tracking things that it can superimpose a map of the of the area of our city, of any of the areas that we might have mutual aid agreements with and show you where the officers are at those particular locations. And then the API is short for an application programming interface, which pretty much gives it the the the programs, the ability to interact with other software systems or resources so that they can guide in so they can go into those back doors to bring out to find out information to fully integrate the dispatch console system itself with any of the other programs that we're operating with for dispatch. And Fred, if there's anything else that you'd like to to discuss about this? No, I think I think you pretty much it it. OK. I'm going to talk a little bit more about operations, but some of the things that as we're dealing with now. Again, we just have it have a systems crash of our computer system. One of. It's basically one of the dispatch computers we effectively were down to two and so when we're looking at things like what OSHA has been saying about shelter in place, some some things from CISA about nine one one sort of pandemic recommendations. What happens if we have an emergency, especially in light of the current climate that we're dealing with regarding government? Again, whether in the storm communications, looking at some of the things even now in Texas, what they're dealing with when their systems go out. And again, mentioning what our current climate and threat level is within the city. Again, that gives us a real concern for continuity of operation. Yeah, Fred can talk to this part here. OK, so this this new system. Would be the same three consoles that we have in dispatch. Obviously, the new ones. And it also includes a laptop console where if something happens in the dispatch center, we have the ability to take the laptop and go anywhere that we want to go and still be able to control our radios just like we were sitting at our desks. One of the other big features of this, Barry City is actually looking at the same console system, the three plus one. So we would be able to connect them a little bit differently than we connect them now on the bridge. And they would actually be fully functioning. Our dispatchers could literally sit down over there and do the same things that they could do here if if if that became a necessity. That might just have a little right now. That's a that's a that's a huge deal. The seventy five hundred is upgradeable, which our current console obviously is not. They discontinued it. And we expect them to last 10 to 15 years. You know, Motorola will handle all the design engineering installation of the new system. They actually send their people here to do it. And then it's maintained by Burlington Communications, who's the Motorola dealer in our area. And one thing to tap on about that, that there is the RFP process for something like this in the state of Vermont. There are only in general, there are only a handful of agencies that provide this type of communications equipment, Motorola being the top number one in the game. So it's not that it's something that we can send out like an RFP process because everything is going to go back to Burlington Communications for the most part because they're the only service provider in the area that can do this kind of work. So I know there have been some questions about. The compare, Fred. I'm sorry, Fred, just from the last slide before it goes too far. I had one quick question, but when you say potentially connect with Berry City, could you just explain how we're currently connected to Berry City? We currently have a bridge system between the two. So Berry City does not have the same type of console system we have. They have a Zetron system, which is which is slightly different and it's reaching its end of life. And so. Our only way to connect to them currently is through a is through a fiber bridge and and like anything else, I mean, if the fiber goes down, it doesn't work. And the other the other disadvantage I think for us is that I even probably couldn't go and sit down at their console and operate it as seamlessly as I do these consoles. Zetron is a completely different platform and it functions much differently than than Motorola does. You know, I have been over there to look at it. I still don't completely understand it. I could probably, you know, fight my way through it and figure it out. But, you know, there are there are huge benefits to both cities being looking at these at the same time, right? So I when it says potentially it's because of Berry City doesn't buy the consoles right now, we would still connect through the bridge that we have currently that's in place. The benefit if they go with this system, even in the future, is that we can connect a little bit differently so that it's it's more seamless than through the bridge that we currently have. But that's that's the only option that we have currently. And and so I'm hoping that they move the same way and get the same type of consoles. That's a huge thing for the continuity operations, as far as I'm concerned. Can I follow up with a question, Fred? Absolutely. I guess I'm just a little confused because I thought when the public safety authority bought consoles and did some work to try to make Berry and until you're redundant from one another, what you're telling me that's really only was a bridge more than really redundancy so that dispatchers couldn't move between the two stations, but one could take over for the other. Right. So I could I have the ability right now if Berry goes down, I can control their I can control their radios and vice versa, right? Through this bridge when when the CVPSA did a console upgrade, it was Paco getting a grant for the third console at Montpelier P. The only the only console that you could buy at that point was another fifty five hundred because the consoles have to be the same. It's unfortunate that they were discontinued as quick as they are or were. But the other thing that the authority helped with was was establishing the bridge between the two places, the Fiverr Bridge. Yes. So so I can sit at my desk and I can control Berry City's towers and vice versa. The difference is that the motorola platform is really easy to use. I I've used several different systems. I've never used a Zetron system. So I one of our dispatchers couldn't just go there and sit down at their console and be able to operate it seamlessly, right? So for continuity of operations, that's why I I really hope that Berry City goes to the same type of platform, which I think they're going to. I mean, I can't speak for them. But I think that's the direction that they're moving in. So it will be much more seamless. Then I could actually put one of our dispatchers in Berry City and they would have the same platform there to operate. And that's what we don't have right now. OK, the other thing is about the number. It says seventy five hundred. Does that relate to like a seven hundred megahertz? No, that's just a model number, Donna. But what is the megahertz? I was trying to find it here. I don't know the answer to that. I don't have the technical specifications in front of me. So and I wouldn't even want to broach that. So one of the things that came up with our recent vendors that we were interviewing to do the assessment study. Yeah, was that the fifty fives they feel was a very low megahertz and really doesn't have anything to do with megahertz. This is just a model number. OK, well, so so I guess I thought that was really an important factor to try to move to get closer to eight hundred megahertz in new systems. Oh, I know what you're talking about. You're talking about you're talking about radio frequencies. Eight hundred megahertz is a trunking system. Yeah, OK. Right. So so that's a completely different conversation than than the consoles. You the consoles will have the capability to to do multiple bands of of radios. Eight hundred megahertz refers to it's the easiest way to describe it is a digitally scrambled trunking system, meaning that you have multiple platforms of multiple channels that you can select from. Right. So so that's not something that as of right now, I don't see that we would potentially move that because the only the only system currently that could theoretically move to that would be police because they're on UHF and but they're but they're in the in the four hundred megahertz area, which is pretty common for the state of Vermont and a lot of other places. Right. So digital trunking in the eight hundred megahertz spectrum is actually pretty common in big cities where you need multiple, multiple platforms and multiple trunk channels for for a lot of different things. It's not something that is probably going to based on my knowledge. It's not something that's going to be brought into Vermont anytime soon. Thank you, because what you just shared with me clarified my question. I know it may not be interested in the trunking, although there's something being considered with lots of other stuff. I guess I was just wanting to make sure that the consoles could handle any kind of upgrade like absolutely, that's one of the reasons why we looked at the seventy five hundred was that it is and Brian can go to the next slide because this this probably will tie into what I'm going to say now. So I know there were questions about the CVPS a study and what the outcome is going to be, you know, the capital West proposal for what they want to do with voted simulcast. And then there's also the the Barry City, Montpelier, we call it the dual city proposal, which is which is creating a system just for Barry City and Montpelier. And so so all of these kind of operate in parallel to each other, right? And and the console system is an operational department need. It's going to have no impact because anything that comes out of the CVPS a study, for example, will will be able to be integrated into these consoles because these consoles are IP based. So if we decide later on that we want to integrate some LTE and broadband technology a few years down the road, these consoles have that capability, right? So so we were we were trying to be very forward thinking. And when we when we looked at these consoles, because I know that the CVPS a study is going to come out with some stuff that's probably going to try to take effect in the next five years, right? As far as broadband and LTE is that gets built out. So we wanted consoles that were that were compatible with that, right? We don't want to we don't want to get into a position again, where where we have consoles that aren't capable of doing that, right? Remember, I said in the beginning that that was that was the whole thing that sparked this was was that equipment upstairs and then the fact that we can't get laptops to do what we want to do, right? So so we were very aware of all of these proposals that are currently operating in parallel, you know, the study and and and the other two proposals. So so this isn't going to impact any of that. Anything anything that comes out of that study that the two cities or or capital fire choose to implement, these consoles will support that. Well, actually, it's going to help these studies because you're telling me it can support all these various possibilities. And that's good. Correct. Just one other question. And it's really more I wish the Motorola salesperson was here. You're saying they're saying 10 to 15 years. I thought the current system had like a 10 year life and we got six out of it. So how do you. Yeah, so so I understand that. These radios were purchased on a grant back in 2015. My guess is with not having the institution all just the grant was only for a certain amount of money. They were able to buy these consoles for the amount of money that they had, which was a huge upgrade from the Orbicon system. Typically, and I can speak to the 7500 because I know several departments and dispatch centers that use them. They are upgradeable. So if they upgrade, if they upgrade the the software or anything else or whatever the case may be, they're going to be upgradeable. We, Brian and I both talk to the Motorola app. They'll be upgradeable for the next 10 to 15 years. We don't see that this is going to be a problem. OK, so when you say 10 to 15 year life expectancy, that means you expect to have upgrades. I understand. Yeah, there will be upgrades during that period. But but the platform won't won't change. OK, we'll give a handle of them. OK, it'll handle them. Thank you. All right, so I think I just talk pretty much about this that that, you know, this is a this is a department operational need to to have the consoles and it's not going to impact any of these other parallel processes that are going on with other proposals and studies. So I don't know, Brian, do you want to talk about this or? Well, I can't go ahead and I can I can just go from there. So basically, in summary, dispatch is is is very critical because it's the first point of contact for the citizens and the emergency rescue personnel. You know, I was I was very grateful that I was able to spend some time with Dan the other day to actually show him some of the moving parts so that he could understand it. And and, you know, I would encourage, you know, any of the council members if they want to see that I, Brian or I can more than more than willing to show you. You know, that we did get word from Motorola, you know, it was sent to to Bill and, you know, these these consoles that we have now are no longer supported after 2021. And so it it behooves us to have reliable equipment and and upgrading to a platform that is upgradeable as time goes on and does allow the use of broadband and LTE and and other technology as we move forward and as those things evolve. So that's very important. Brian, give anything else? No, I appreciate it. And so basically it's and we appreciate the diligence and the questions regarding the systems itself. But our biggest looks were were for continuity of operations. And that's what sparked everything. It wasn't that we were it wasn't that we were trying to go against anything that was going on. It was that we recognize that we're closing in on a potential failure that will be catastrophic for us and that the system itself is an operational need. And it's not going to be something that's going to have competing interests with what the CVPS or what potentially Capital West are or even very, for that matter, maybe looking at. We were looking for something that's going to be robust, strong, and it's going to be upgradeable to all the potential variables that may come out in the potential future. So with that, I think that concludes what we'd have to say. And if there are any questions, we stand ready to answer anything. Well, thank you so much. I found this incredibly helpful. I feel like I have a much better understanding of our system and where it's at and, you know, the compatibility with the future, really, and as well as other cities. So just one thing I want to note, I could picture someone coming in cold from the public and looking at this presentation. And wondering what some of these things are. And it occurred to me that something that might be useful is like a glossary of terms of like what these acronyms are or how some of these things are linked with each other. So anyway, just something to consider. But I having said that, I feel like I have a much better understanding of what these things are. So thank you. Other questions. Yeah, Connor, go ahead. And then Jack. Yeah, awesome presentation guys, really appreciate it. You might have covered it as far as the upgrades. What kind of costs are associated with those or are those like built in on the initial price of the system there? So my understanding, talking to Motorola and I'll get the firm answer. But any software upgrades or things like that are pretty much included in their proposal for the system. You know, if we had a if we had a hardware breakdown or one of the hard drives went in the in the console itself, that would that would be covered under warranty for, I believe it's five years. Don't quote me on that either, because I don't have that in front of me, Connor. But the majority of the upgrades would be included in what we're paying for the consoles. That's my understanding of it. I I can actually get that from Motorola, Rep and forward it to the city council, if you want. And if I may, sir, part of that was we didn't the intent wasn't we weren't trying to buy the system. We had to do a quick get a quick dollar amount to help us factor into the potential budget. So we didn't take any deep dives with them because we had no promises that this was going to be something that we were going to purchase. So we just asked them for a number of amount that we could try to squeeze into the budget. That's great. Thanks so much. Jeff, go ahead. Thanks. I've got a couple of questions. One is that I agree. I thought this is a great presentation. It was I know more about this now than I did even reading the PowerPoint before the meeting was very helpful to to hear this. When when you say that Motorola after this year will not be supporting the fifty five hundred system any more. Does that mean that not only will parts no longer be available, but also the software will not be supported and upgraded? Yes, that's correct. So basically what it means, Motorola, Motorola has a pretty set timeline when they just continue something. They just continued selling and making these consoles in 2019. So they support it for two years after that. And what that means is that after they're done supporting it, we can't get parts from Motorola anymore. So we would then search the country and potentially try to find a used board or or whatever the case may be and potentially be down for weeks until we find that. Right. That's that's the biggest fear because Motorola doesn't make the parts for them anymore. Once they once they stop supporting it, you can't get the stuff from Motorola. You know, these these are not even upgradeable like the seventy five hundreds are, you know, software or anything like that. The this is, you know, when I when I talk to even even some of the reps that sold these consoles, you know, these consoles were the least expensive consoles that Motorola made. And then after that, they made the seventy five hundred, which they made upgradeable and and put a lot more features into. And yes, they are more expensive. You know, then then what what we bought these for in a grant. But the end result is we're going to get a longer lifespan out of them and and and they are going to be upgradeable. So that's important. I agree. That's important. And it's it's been suggested to the council that. If if anything broke down, it would be an easy matter to go out and find. Replacement cards or drives or whatever would need to be done to. To keep the system going. Why so so I would I would agree and disagree with that. I would say that right now, while they're supported till the end of this year, that's probably true. But but after they're not supported, you have you have thousands of these in the country that are being used. And the parts are going to become scarce. And then you're going to get into trying to find a used board that maybe has been has been repaired by by an outside vendor. And and who knows how long that's going to work. You know, that's that's something that from an operational standpoint, you know, not being able to talk to our units in the field or have them talk to us because our equipment's down because we can't find a part. You know, I use the equipment upstairs as a perfect example, Jack. We have what started this whole conversations. We have that that radio equipment upstairs. It's over 20 years old. We can't even find parts for that anymore, you know, on the on on the market anywhere, which is why we had to borrow one from another police department to make it work, right? That's not a position that we should be in with such a big operational piece of equipment. Another question. And I think you've answered it, but maybe not in the way that I grasp it. And so I want to be clear. I'm picturing, you know, we're we have a system, you have a plan for where your system is going, going to be going. CVPS is embarking on this study. And one of the concerns I have is that the outcome of that study might be that they're planning on going in a very different direction. In terms of how they're going to design their dispatch system. OK, so I guess I guess I guess what I would say is that my understanding of the CVPS a study and somebody can correct me if I'm wrong. The CVPS a study is doing a study to to figure out what the what the equipment and technology and everything else is needed moving forward and whether or not we try to, you know, combine dispatch centers or whatever the case may be. But my understanding of the study is not that that we're going to create this new dispatch center somewhere else, right? You know, that may be one of the recommendations, but that's still that's still up to both the city of Montpelier and the city of Barry to decide if that's a road that they want to go down. You know, these consoles, regardless of what direction we go in in the future, these consoles will be able to be moved to a potential new location, right? So so the study, the study aside, we need the equipment to be operational here and not worry about it because even even if that study turns around and says that, you know, we should merge, merge dispatch centers or we should create one big dispatch center for Washington County. That's that's still years down the road, right? If that's something that's going to have to be planned and and and vetted out and figure out what the best way to go about that is. So that's not something that's going to happen in the next six or eight months, which is when the support for these consoles runs out. And then and then the clock is ticking to see if we can actually find a part if we need a part, right? So so regardless of the outcome of the CVPS a study and what what that company that's doing the study says, there are still going to have to be some some decisions made by the city by you as the city council and by Barry City Council and everything else to decide if that's a road that you want to go down and and potentially give up your dispatch function, right? Or or or try to absorb absorb, you know, another dispatch center or whatever you want to do and put it in another location. That doesn't change the operational need that we currently have for these consoles. And if I may, it's just it's not going to affect the structural issues. CVPS a to my knowledge, the programs looking at more of this the structure, how all the communications are going to come into the system itself. The console will be able to to deal with anything, any potential upgrades that that that the study would recommend. OK, thanks. Go ahead, Dan. Thanks. Let me maybe pick up that last thread and just ask an additional clarification question, which is, you know, is there a potential outcome to the CVPS a study that would not in which these new consoles would either be a liability or potentially not called for in in what the CVPS a is is studying with the Tel Aviv. I mean, that's. Dan, I can't see one because these these consoles, like I said, they're they're 10 to a 15 year console and they're going to be movable. If we if we move into a new center and consolidate into a consolidated center, these consoles are able to be moved. So so I don't think there's any downside that actually puts us in a great position, operationally, to to to move forward with good equipment. And that's a good question, sir, because that was something that we thought about ourselves and that we were presenting it to to motor all itself when we were looking for the potential cost. OK, so there's really no other way to design a system of dispatch without these consoles at the at the center of them, even if, you know, that we were either to change the location or change the system around, as you say, these can be added with LTE or any of the other upgrades that are available. That's correct. Close those. Yeah. And and just so I can understand from a basic and this is maybe to make sure I understand from our observing these systems as well as your presentation is you have the transmitters that are in the second floor. And that's the one that actually gets the radio signal, right? And then the transmitter sends it to the console, which feeds it into the dispatch system. Basically, yeah, you so you have transmitters and antennas on sites off site here, right? So basically one of the greatest functionalities is the ability to make bring the system, you know, to another building, whatever the case may be, because everything connects by fiber and phone lines, right? So that, yeah, go ahead. So so the signal, the signal does come into a radio receiver, right, which we have upstairs, right, through a phone line. And then we control, we control the the voice and everything else through the console. So so there's actually no. Quote, unquote, transmitters on site, right? They're all they're all in different locations outside of this building. But essentially, yes, sir, that that's the gist of it. OK, but I mean, those decks that you showed us at the beginning of the slide that are on the second floor, maybe I'm getting the nomenclature wrong. But it's these are the receivers for the radio signals. They're radios, radios, radios. Yes. And those are the ones that we have that are going essentially at the end of their lifespan and starting in the one, for example, that you said is on loan from Milton. Those are the ones that have gone bad or started to reach the end of their life. And and stop me if I'm misremembering this, but is there could you upgrade or those receivers and not upgrade the console system? Well, yeah, but they're two completely separate things, Dan. So OK, the stuff upstairs has to be upgraded because it's well past its useful life. We can't find parts for it anymore. The the consoles are a different discussion. OK, the consoles are going to run out of support at the end of 2021. And that's what makes everything work. They're independent of each other, but they they need one another to sustain. Sure. No, I'm just trying to follow and I apologize. I didn't take notes when we talked. So no, it's good. We just don't want to be over technical with it. OK, and so and I want to go back to the question I have before, just to maybe drive this home for my own understanding, make sure I'm not misunderstanding as well. The advantage of the IP is that it allows you to take the console system off the the police station property if you needed to. Be a laptop or some other system, right? That's correct. And and right now, when you say a dedicated fiber, I'm visualizing an actual line that goes between our police station dispatch center and Barry. Is that accurate or is it just following on a cable? Yes, there is currently a line between the two. It's an E line, but yes. OK. So I mean, because we were talking before, I just want to make sure because I think it's an important point is that if anything happens to that E line, car crashes into a telephone pole or something that that that line is cut disrupted and so is the bridge, right? Yes, that's correct. We would lose all functionality. Whereas with the IP system, there are all the connections that a network can make. Correct. OK. And then sort of our last question is really about the secondary market that that is the only way if if we don't upgrade to the seventy five hundreds, you're saying that Motorola is not making any new parts. If something breaks, if a motherboard, for example, goes some some piece of equipment like that, the only way you can replace that is through the secondary market. And is there a in a sense as to, you know, how robust that secondary market is? Or, you know, the availability? Is this something that's already starting to get tight as far as availability for parts? If I could take a quick step at first, just from from my perspective on the job, so we show any spare equipment that we might have down there. I'm not giving it to anybody else. So if another if another organization calls and says, hey, we know you have Motorola fifty five hundreds, we need X amount of we need this piece and if we did buy up a spare or we did look out and try to scrounge as much as we could, I probably wouldn't give it to him because at that point I wouldn't know if our system would fail nor because they're they're so high dollar. I don't know if I'd be able to burden the city with an immediate request if something happened and I gave away the part. And Fred, if you want to add to that, you're on the thread. There's there's thousands of these in use around the country, right? So, you know, as with anything else, I'm more comfortable if something comes from the manufacturer that makes the stuff every day than I am getting something from a secondary manufacturer that may have fixed a board that was broke and may not work correctly. Right. So so you're kind of at the at the whim of of secondary vendors and what kind of quality you're getting from them. I know that if I call motor roller right now, I'm getting a good quality product. It's going to it's going to work. That has a warranty behind it as well. OK, thanks. That's the that's helpful. And I appreciate the the presentation. Echo some of the other counselors gratitude for that. Thanks. Lauren, go ahead and then Donna. Yeah, I just just had a quick question. And I know this was quite a while ago, but I was just curious, like if through the years it's been easy or you've been able to secure grant funding, is there any timing issue here? Are those just no longer available? Is it, you know, if we waited a year? I mean, I'm hearing the time sensitivity and the urgency from you all of making sure that we're we're doing this. But I was just curious if, you know, if this is if there's any opportunity for that kind of grant funding or if it's just totally dried up and there's nothing out there right now. So we're not we're not seeing any right now. Brian is very diligent about looking for grants, as am I. If we do come across a grant that we think this this will fit into, we are absolutely going to apply for it. And we I know Brian gets grant updates all the time as do I. So I'm not saying that it's not coming down the bike. I don't know if it if and when it's going to. But if it does, we are absolutely going to apply for it. But it's like I said, it's an operational need that we need to replace soon. Right. So we are going to continue to look for grant funding. But I'm not optimistic that we're going to find it very soon. And we have been and we're especially robust and diligent and looking for them. If the other opportunity that I'm looking at for this is it would be like a lease program. If we could find grant funding in the future that would that's specifically aimed towards something like this, I would definitely make sure that we put in for that. So if we pay for the first year and then we found grant funding that could help us pay for the remaining three or four years that we're going to push this out for if the council allows us to purchase the system, then we'll definitely get those grants so that we can minimize the cost to the city. Thank you. Donna, go ahead. Brian, you mentioned about getting grants. But also, I think if you get this when this arrives and it sounds like it's a much better system expanded. I have no conflicts with it. I don't think what the Public Safety Authority study will have any conflict. I mean, it's just one of another asset that we're going to be listing as our inventory. But I do wonder about, you know, why don't you keep those parts and sell them on eBay? Because a lot of us are good at using things used by them used. And so you may have some real gold there to help reduce the cost. But my other question was more of a contractual is whether or not any of the capital costs for this kind of upgrade going to be integrated into the contracts with Capital West? That's a good question. I'll definitely lean on Fred to answer that one. But to my knowledge, no, the only thing that the capital West is looking to make sure that we do is that we have is that we provide that communication service to them to dispatch. So it's nothing, it's just something that we need to do to make sure that we're responsive to our responsibilities here, as well as to maintain the communications for our partners going forward. So I hope I didn't miss the mark on that on your question. And Fred, if there's anything. No, so so taking Capital West out of it completely, right? The city still has a need to have console systems to even communicate with our police department, right? The city has been fortunate that there has been grant funding for radio consoles for the last probably two decades. And unfortunately, we just can't find the funding right now. I think some of the radio operational costs are and I don't know this 100 percent because I wasn't involved in the last contracts. But I think, as Brian said, part of what Capital West pays for is is us having operational equipment to do our job. And so I think there will be discussions moving forward as as far as you know, there will be contract discussions that will take place with Bill and and Brian, most likely with with Capital West. That's not something I typically get involved in. But I think that's one of the conversations that has to be had with them is that, you know, obviously, there are costs associated with it. And that has to be a negotiated thing. But because the financial aspect was one that bothers me. And I know Tom Blanca really bothered him. The whole financial outlay that Montague will do with just contracts versus the one role that we had hoped the Public Safety Authority could do would be that financial binding place to have people committed to the Capitol, as well as the service, because it is it can't happen without it. So just keep it in mind. That's all I agree 100 percent with that. But but even if the contract were to go away, I understand that you don't have to justify the expense, right? Right. I think you've got to jump to the other side and now be a salesperson for the people you're serving and say, hey, you've got to help me pay for the bucket that's bringing you the water. Donna, I was never a salesman. I'm sorry, if I may, the Commissioner Health Health Point, there is I have a meeting with the International Association of Emergency Managers. We're on a call for FEMA's upcoming grants. So if I'll ask that specific question and see if I can get some information to that, and if we can definitely do it through FEMA grant, we will. I'm just anticipating that some parts may become unavailable. Is there is it too late to pre-order parts that are likely to fail? We really don't know what would fail. That's the problem, right? So I mean, I guess we could, but we're still we still run into the same problem that we don't have any real continuity of operations. We don't have the ability to take a radio console off site. That's actually huge, especially with some of the stuff that's been going on in the country recently. I know Brian covered that in some of the slides tonight. That's a that's a huge concern for me. I always joke with people and I joke when we first brought this up about the laptop, I could literally sit in my living room and and and dispatch calls and you'd never know where I was. So not that I'm going to take it home and do it for my living room, but we would have that capability. You could if you had to. That's true. Yes, that's good. Any any further questions? Just for, oh, yeah, Jake, go ahead. Oh, just a quick question. And I'm really appreciative of the conversation and the presentation and certainly have a much better understanding of what's going on and echo what other folks are saying. It feels to me like because we haven't had the success with grand funding, grant funding now in this process that, you know, that we have some exposure and we we, you know, we need to spend the money and move forward. I don't think there's a lot of controversy around or. Yeah, discussion necessarily around whether or not we this is a necessity for the city, but I'm wondering if taking a long view if this is not something we need to be sort of create a line item in our budget that's putting away even a little bit of money at a time over the year. I mean, it's a technology. It works on works on cycles. Motorola says it's 10 to 15 years. You know, it'll probably be closer to 10. Thankfully, it's not an iPhone or Android cycle where it's every year or 18 months. But if we, you know, even if we put create a line, even put $5,000 a year when we're thinking about as technology evolves and this type of service evolves and changes, we're in a position where we're not having to, we're not in a corner and needing this significant outlay. We're in a place where at least we would have some options. So I don't know, Chief Pete, if you have thought on that or others, but just I'm just trying to take the long view on how this process could best, you know, to make sure we're just not in a position where we just have to, you know, where the decisions kind of been made for us. Yes, sir. And yet that is something that we've definitely done and sitting down with Fred, Captain Norton, sitting in the rest of the sergeants in the department. We've come up with a strategic list, a project list, if you will. And what we see within the immediate future and then long term goes. Things is even like radios or handheld radios, cars. How do we watch the normal life cycle of these things? And when do when can we anticipate probably looking at having to replace them and turn them over? So that's something that's definitely part of our strategic plan and go when we do have a list that we're working to finalize to meet that potential demand. We don't want to come back and say, hey, here's something we didn't plan for. And all of a sudden we have to demolish the budget for, you know, outside of the priorities of what the city council is looking at because we didn't plan correctly, looking into the future. Thank you. Jack, just a quick question. Because this is a radio based system, going to this does not fix the problem with the interference with the cab dispatch system up in Montreal, right? So that's a that's an interesting question. No, so so that's completely separate from the console, the the interference that we get from the Canadians is based on a frequency which Capital Fire is getting re-licensed for a different frequency to make that go away. That's completely separate from the consoles themselves. But the solution is in the works you're saying. So it's it is great. Thank you. Any other questions from council? OK. So at this point, I don't think that we are needing to take any action, but if there are any members of the public who would like to ask a question or speak, now would be the time. Yeah, Madam Mayor, Steve Whitaker. Go ahead. So I'm glad that the chief and Fred brought up or Mr. Cummings brought up the continuity of operations but spending a few hundred thousand dollars on the latest console does not a continuity of operations plan make. I have a year ago or so made a public records request for the continuity of operations plan and it's pretty much just a couple of cell numbers for folks and a couple of locations. There's no plan at all. So the that's a bigger issue that will require funding and planning and assignment of tasks, but it does point to the issue of radio continuity. It is an important part, but the parts, the radio modules, it's it's pretty easy Google research to find out what parts have failed on the MCC fifty five hundreds and there's a healthy market for them, ranging from a few hundred dollars for the modules to a full system exactly replicating what we have in Montpelier for twenty seven thousand. I have just forwarded to Dan and Donna, a memo from another public safety authority that heard of the discontinuance of the product motorola reps showed up at the council meeting and recommended the few parts they buy and they could get several more years, five more years life out of them. So for about a thirteen thousand dollar investment. So when we're talking about spending three hundred thousand and I don't dispute that there's new bells and whistles and features and interoperability and all those good things. But most of that's going to show its benefit when and if we are in a failover mode, interoperability mode with Barry. Barry is nowhere close to buying this sister set of consoles. So I think there's more planning to do. I think it's I don't think you are being asked to make a decision to release the funding to authorize entering this four hundred three four hundred thousand dollar commitment tonight. But I believe that there is significant more planning and documentation we could easily get several more years life out of these consoles with available spare parts. I've been in the computer trades for a long time and these are standard compact towers with regular power supplies. You can pick up on the very Montpelier Road. And it is true that the Motorola specialized boards cannot be easily found. And that's why the Motorola rep recommended having spares. At this point, we could probably still get spares from Motorola at a price at a higher price point. But my point is that you're being asked by folks that have yet to do the documentation. I did a public records request for documentation of the failures. I came back. They came back with nothing. I don't we don't have any documentation of the failures of these, you know. So I think we're we're a little bit cart before the horse. It is an informative presentation. It's good to know for all of us to know what we're relying on. And there are reliability questions, but there are much less expensive until we know how much federal money we're getting and what priority to put it in. I would say that you don't release the money for the new consoles and especially until the Televate report comes in. And Motorola, there's only one dealer in support to engineer firm in Vermont because of the way Motorola runs its very monopolistic practices. And most folks will agree with you. They make great stuff, but they're pretty brutal in their protecting territories and not letting people compete. And that's not good for business. That's not good for pricing. That's not good for, you know, a free market. So I'm not suggesting we're going to switch from oral, but I'm suggesting there's a lot more due diligence to do here from a policy point of view and a lot more planning on continuity of operations that should proceed this forward an article that describes what a continuity of operations plan looks like or a lot of points that Montclair has yet to address. Thank you. On one other item, the agenda tonight did not include call in for information. So if you're planning to take finding legal action, you may have a problem with having warned the meeting and allowed people opportunity to get in. I only got in because Dan was courteous enough to call me back and read me the information. So that's a gross mission to be conducting a virtual meeting with no it says it's happening in city council in city council chambers. None of the meeting information is on the agenda. So that's a heads up. Yep, thank you, Stephen. And Cameron, go ahead. Hi, I just want to clarify that point. The agenda is on the website does have the call in information. And so if anyone missed it, if anyone is watching at home, you can call in at nine to nine two zero five six zero nine nine. And the meeting ID is nine five seven eight eight three one seven five eight six. And that is on the agenda on the website. Thank you. Thank you. Madam, Madam Chair, being contradicted just now, I would ask that as of I downloaded the agenda packet, not 20 minutes or a half hour ago, and it does not include the information. And so unless that just got changed in that CYA mode, I would ask you to look into that. OK, thank you. All right. Anyone else want to offer a comment on or a question on the consoles? OK, so I'm not seeing anybody. All right. So well, thank you again, both Fred and Chief Pete. So it's very helpful. And let me look forward to just hearing the update when it's time. All right. Thank you. All right. So yeah, so we're going to move on then to. The zoning public zoning public hearing. So I'm going to officially open the public hearing on this. And just so that folks know what to expect, I'm going to let, excuse me, Mike Miller, our planning director, explain this. Then we'll have the time for questions from Council. Then we'll I'd love to hear from from the public. And then we might go back to to the Council for thoughts. So go ahead, Mike, take my good evening, Mayor and Council and everybody. So a couple options for kind of kicking things off. I don't know if you guys would like me to quickly go through the presentation I gave two weeks ago, or if you just want a quick summary of what was presented, kind of leave a little bit open as to what you'd like to do, because we do have the presentation. I did send out a memo to answer Dan's question on the Airbnb was a longer one. We can go into that and have some conversation about that. But I didn't know how much time you wanted me to spend giving re re going over the presentation again. Um, go ahead, Jack, I think it would be useful to go over it. There are people at home looking in. There are members of the public who are here specifically for this presentation. And so I think it'd be helpful to do that. Thanks. OK, I agree. Yeah, I agree. Thank you. So I will just need to have Cameron give me some share screen options. It'd be good to go. OK. So this can be a pretty quick summary, and then we can go through and answer questions of what some of the details are of all of the changes. There aren't a lot of changes in the document on the web. You'll find an abbreviated change, which really is the red line version that goes through and shows what specifically all the changes are. But I removed all the pages that don't have any changes. So it's a quicker way of kind of getting to all the changes. But they're organized as the documents. The zoning bylaws are actually organized, but there are three primary groups of changes. And I'll go through each one of these. There's a set of changes that started because of the Saban's pasture development project. We had a second set of housing related changes because of some state laws that were changed last year. And there's also a number of internal inconsistencies that Meredith Crandall, our zoning administrator, and I have found over the past two years. And so we wanted to go through and make some changes. If we were already addressing housing, we wanted to clean those up. And then we have some other miscellaneous changes, which are mostly minor and technical. And I'll go through each of those really quick. So the Saban's related changes, two of them are actually the first and the third are they both deal with traffic. And so what we did was we made some changes to 3303, which is in conditional use. And then all we did in 3504 was made that match what's in 3303. So we simply have a reference that says to use these rules because they were slightly different. And we didn't mean to have them different. So what we changed in traffic was to remove level of service as a requirement. And, you know, we organized and cleaned up the requirement. And I wanted to point out because it's a couple of people have contacted me and made notes that they were concerned that we would no longer be doing traffic impact studies. The traffic impact study is still required. If you're looking at the abbreviated zoning strikeout version, it's on the next page and that's why you don't see it. But it is the requirement for a traffic impact study does still exist. That was not changed. What was changed was the requirement that goes through and and looks at level of service for intersections and says that you can't make an intersection worse than, say, a level C or a level D intersection. And when you have an intersection like Barry and Maine, which is at a level F, even if they even if the project put money into a project to bring it from an F to a D, it's still less than the C. So we still end up in a situation where a project could actually make the intersection better and still not get approval because it it doesn't bring it up to a high enough level, even though they're not responsible for most of the traffic problems. So that was a little bit of a little bit of summary. So we removed the level of service as a requirement, but most of the other pieces are still there. The other piece was a really just we insert. We removed the exemption. In the applicability or excuse me, we added an exemption into the applicability for the Riverfront District. And so the new neighborhood development was required for any project in the Riverfront District over a certain size, which savings, pastures, the only parcel that that qualified for. And so the the rules were very confusing or not very confusing. They were they were very they were designed to help in a slightly different arrangement. The Planning Commission in 2017 had made a proposal for how to manage the Saban's Pasture Area. Council chose a different path. And then we had a few inconsistencies and one was the new neighborhood PUD. And what happened for this proposal is that they don't need any of the benefits of a PUD. So usually the tradeoff is will give you more density if you meet a higher standard. Well, they don't need any of the new additional density. So they're getting none of the benefits, but have to meet all of the requirements. And those additional requirements aren't really making the project necessarily better. And so the Planning Commission reviewed the request and narrowly made the decision because there was a number of options they had. The Planning Commission shows to kind of the narrowest option, which was just to go and say, well, Riverfront District does not projects in Riverfront District don't need to meet the new neighborhood PUD. So that's the change. The housing related ones. These had we have less comment on or less options on because they were state law changes. These are the required ones. So how we manage non-conforming parcels, which are parcels that are too small for the zoning district requirements. There's requirements in Figure 215, which is the use table. So what this change under state law said was one unit to four unit buildings can no longer be denied for character of the area. Therefore, these uses were changed from conditional uses to permitted uses. And the primary reason for that is there was no way we could legally deny any of these projects if they were conditional use. There are only three requirements. There's traffic. There's character of the area. And there's community facilities. And therefore it becomes we don't have any issues with the facilities. Duplex is not going to cause traffic issues. So therefore we really there's no way we could deny a project. So therefore we shifted all of those from conditional to permitted. And then there were some minor changes to accessory dwelling units that were now required. So some of the changes that were not required under state law, but we wanted to clean up. We again, we had some gaps and inconsistencies between these, such as rooming and boarding houses were discussed in the specific uses, but we're not in the use table. So, you know, we just needed to get these things cleaned up. So we reclassified everything into three groups. We have dwelling units, we have a congregate living, and then we have specific uses for group and residential homes. So your dwelling units are most of the housing in the city. These are residential units that contain, independently contain all of the requirements for dwelling units. So they've got a bathroom, they've got a kitchen, they've got living areas, they've got bedrooms. So there's a certain list of things that every dwelling unit must have. Congregate living shares one or more of those dwelling units. One or more of those requirements of a dwelling unit. So for example, you may live in a dormitory, but eat at a cafeteria. And in the dormitory, you share bathrooms and other facilities. So that would be a congregate living arrangement. And there's certain other ones that come up, certain group living arrangements, certain nursing home facility type uses, co-housing. There's none of these in Montpelier, as far as I know, but they're co-housing options. So again, it's a matter that you have exclusive rights to a piece of it, but you share other pieces, sharing a bathroom, sharing a kitchen. And then these are the state licensed ones. So we kind of gave them their own special category. Group homes and residential care homes are licensed by the state, and therefore kind of have their own set of requirements. And these, because we regroup things, this just led to a number of changes in other places where this appears throughout the document. So we had to rename uses. We had to adjust where the density is discussed in these sections here, 02 and 3111. We had to rename how housing is discussed in the parking table. So these kind of all make sense. You'd kind of expect that if you're going to change the names, then you kind of got to find out where the names are and fix them. And then the last of the housing-related ones were just to go through and make some changes to the definitions. One was to remove a minimum 250 square foot requirement. So dwelling units used to have all the list of requirements. And then at the end, and it said, and has to be at least 250 square feet in size. This started to lead to some problems for people who had been talking about doing tiny homes or other living arrangements that may be smaller. And it was felt that we could probably remove that 250 square foot requirement. If you can see where the piece is, it's very small. Then your health code, your building, from that point, we're not denying it. If the fee-insignation changes to make some changes to the trains on the per-map, per-and-buff on the map, we find review bounty for districts and neighborhoods that incorrectly mapped in September 2020. We made some changes, if you'll move back on tariff heat. We wanted to match up all the lines to the National Register Historic District Boundaries. So we were supposed to move two properties out of one district and move them to another. And we all talked about we're moving two parcels, we're only moving two parcels, but actually the map that was made and warned moved five parcels. So we're simply fixing and re-warning with the correct map just to make sure we technically dot the I across the T to say, no, no, no, even though the wrong map got in the warning, this is the correct map. There's some other changes about the applicability. So this is the global applicability. Who needs to apply for a permit? And what we had was a gap where people could actually go out and remove the vegetation in a wetland or in a riparian buffer because it isn't actually in the requirement for needing a permit. So we just added that in. It's a little bit of a subtle thing. I always try to tell people it's like buckets or it's an if, then statement. You can't go through and say, well, because it's a then then we've got to go back. We just go through and say, no, no, no, put it in the front and say, if you're going to remove vegetation from a wetland or riparian buffer, then you need to apply for a zoning permit, which then gives us the ability to deny it. In 1301, we added some rules regarding reasonable accommodations for ADA. So currently we don't have a process. People would have to go and appeal and apply and go to the DRB and it seemed like a much longer process and we should try to make reasonable accommodations something that we can do administratively. So that's what this is doing and providing us a better avenue to be able to manage these. 310, fix a technical error for some, I think on one side of the column, it says greater than or equal to. And then on the other side, it says only greater than. So we just had to match a couple of items up. Again, technical little things. We were striking this part of the sign regulations because it specifically says we're going to regulate content which is unconstitutional. Point, this is about fences on class one highways and this was just changed titles. 3205 was outdoor seating, was meant to apply just to patrons. It was kind of being forced to be applied overly broadly. So if you wanted to put out just a bench for people to enjoy and sit down, any member of the public, that you'd have to go through a full DRB, potentially a DRB hearing for something. This is just trying to apply it just to the patrons. If you're doing outdoor seating in order to provide service to patrons, then you need to go through these rules. So yeah, the last ones are relative again, pretty minor, relatively minor changes. Again, the definitions, we had to make some quick, some small changes. Again, these are really technical unless you get into their technically accessory structures are supposed to be detached, but we had attached ones like porches and decks that were considered accessory. So we just had to go and make some changes to the definition. And we did at the last meeting, vote to make the change on adjusting three to two parcels for a driveway. So a driveway can only be for two parcels. If it's three, then it goes to a private street. So that way it's consistent with E911 rules, which we will get to next month. So that's the quick summary of what this most recent set of changes are. And I don't know if you want me just to quickly summarize the memo that I included, which I can really say was about Airbnb's. About the Airbnb's. Sure, yeah, that'd be a quick summary of that. I think it would be good. Okay, so the question that Councillor Richardson had was really was about if somebody was doing an Airbnb and they were renting out a room, would that get, what would that do to that residential unit? Would it then make it a mixed unit? Because now you're gonna go from a dwelling unit to a congregate living because now you're sharing some of the facilities. Or is it still a residential use? And it was an interesting question. And we took a lot of time, Meredith and I, to kind of peel that onion back. And the memo is quite long and kind of gets into some of the details of how we tried to peel that onion. But ultimately we kind of came down to the conclusion that really anything that's Airbnb is really more about lodging than it is about residential uses. And our opinion is we really believe that things have changed substantially over the past five years. The playing field has changed. It used to be lodging was lodging and housing was housing. And that's not the way things are anymore. They've really, people will rent houses to go on vacation to. And at the same time, we have hotels and motels where people live in. And so we really kind of have much more of a blending. And I think we need to take a longer and more careful look at, rather than looking at them as two separate groups, we should really look at them as a single group. And that was our recommendation was to let's start thinking about lodging as almost a form of temporary housing, as opposed to thinking of lodging as a commercial use. We'll look at it as temporary or transient housing. And at a certain point we cross the line. So you can use permanent housing for transient housing because it has all of the requirements, but you can't use transient housing for permanent housing because it doesn't have all of the required facilities. So our recommendation was that we don't need to make any changes, I think, at this point to the draft, but that we would, with input, we'd love to have some of your thoughts if you thought we were going in the right direction with this, we could go back and work on a revision that maybe you'd be able to see this fall. Okay, well, that's certainly helpful. So just a heads up that I do wanna hear from the public, so at this point, I think if council has clarifying questions that let's just start there, what clarifications would be useful and then I'm gonna go to the public. Okay, Dan, go ahead. Sure, just one clarification on that memo. And let me say, Mike, I really appreciate your and Meredith's drafting and research that went into that. And I'll have a lot more thoughts, but for just limited clarification, my question was really about whether this sort of shared dwelling unit language would accidentally trigger in Airbnb's. So I just wanna be clear that your opinion is that it doesn't as it's currently drafted, is that right? Correct, I would say, and especially in the case of a single family home, I would say it doesn't. Right, I mean, the difference between the tour case and say like what we're imagining is the tour case, they're renting out their home, they leave and another family comes in and rents it as opposed to if I stay in the house but I let somebody use a spare bedroom who's not a family member, who's paying me and is essentially staying there on a short-term basis and sharing my facilities or even a medium-term basis. You know, I think that was just the question was to make sure that this language didn't accidentally get us into the Airbnb regulatory game when it wasn't necessarily intended to. Yeah, and I don't think it does because we've tried in 3111, 3111. We tried to go through and say, we don't regulate occupancy and that was one of the things. So whether somebody is there as a roommate or somebody is there on a short-term basis, you know, I think our determination would be that we don't regulate occupancy and I think the Supreme Court was kind of looking at it and examining things that way to go through and say, well, you know, if you can have guests stay, if you can have roommates and you can have, you know, guests come over and visit for Thanksgiving, you don't have to go through and go in and get a zoning permit change because you're gonna have your family sleep on your couch. It kind of all follows that same logic if, you know, it is a commercial venture to go and have somebody pay, but at the same time, if I were getting a roommate, my roommate, I might have my roommate pay half the rent. So I think there's, it's there. Yeah, I think we're fine with, because of 3111, the conversation that says we don't regulate occupancies, I think we have a good out on that, but I think we could do a better job of integrating those going forward. Thanks. Okay, Connor, go ahead. Yeah, just clarification, Mike, what's the difference between a group home and a residential facility there? I know as we added residential, but I don't see definitions for it. All right, so group homes and residential care homes are state licensed facilities. They have very specific definitions. And then on top of that, so really quick, your group homes are what you would expect a group home to be. Operating in a single family home under state law, if there are eight or less people, then it is by right a use of a single family dwelling. So it doesn't even need a zoning permit. If you have a state license to own, say, I'm trying to off the top of my head, come up with some of the ones I've had in the past. A dementia home where you have six folks that are living there and it's all, it would be a single family use and there would not even be a permit required. As long as it's eight or less, and as long as it meets the licensing requirements, it's automatically a single family use. If there's nine or more, that's why you have the group home major, because that's one, if you have a group home that doesn't meet the definition, it's still licensed, but it's just larger than that exemption, in which case we can require either permitted or conditional or not allowed at all. We can decide where those are allowed. Your residential care homes are your nursing facilities, and some of the similar ones to that. Again, it's a state licensed facility, heat and woods, those types of facilities. Great, thanks, Mike. Other clarifying questions? Okay, all right. I would love to open it up to the public. And yeah, if you have something you would like to say, question, comment, concern, if you could raise your hand or unmute yourself or just even physically wave with your camera on, that would be helpful. And okay, great. Thank you. And we will get an order here. So Phyllis, I saw you first there. You can also use the raise hand function in Zoom, but I don't see anybody else yet. So Phyllis, go ahead. Miss Mayer, council members, thank you for letting me speak tonight. I am Phyllis Rubinstein. I reside in the College Hill area. I'm also a member of the Montpelier Conservation Commission, although I'm not speaking tonight on behalf of the Conservation Commission. The commission was not aware of the zoning issues that were being brought to the city council until we read the article in the newspaper in the Times-Argus a couple of weeks ago after your last meeting. And Mike was at our last conservation commission meeting and did talk to us a bit about some of the zoning issues. I think a non-controversial issue that I just wanna bring up is that in terms of the natural resources inventory map where there are some minor fixes being made, I just wanted to report that Conservation Commission does have a subcommittee that's working on revising our natural resources inventory map. That map was developed prior to the existence of some of the advanced technology with LiDAR. And now with LiDAR, there are all sorts of layers that can be added to the map. I did have an email contact with Mike about it and he said that the map could be updated whenever we do complete that. But the issues that I actually wanna talk about and as I said, this is as a resident not as a member of the commission have to do with the changes to zoning. And honestly, I don't know a lot about zoning. And but what I do know is that Mike talked about the removal of some requirements for traffic and conditional use. And he talked about that Main and Berry Street is a class F street and there's nothing that could be done on Berry Street that would make it worse. But they're 3504 and 3304 not only refer to intersections that have signals, but they also refer to unsignaled intersections. And in both of those sections, the document that I'm looking at has some significant requirements deleted. And I think that we have to keep, we have to consider why these requirements were put in there in the first place. And that these were well thought out requirements. And I do not see that there's still, that there remains a requirement for a traffic impact study. As a matter of fact, in 3504, the provisions about traffic impact study have been deleted. Unless someone wants to tell me that the cross outlines don't mean deleted, but 3504 point B traffic impact study, that's all deleted. So my concern is that we have a street that's already very heavily used and that there needs to be these zoning requirements to make sure that any development does not further impact on the congestion on Berry Street. And so the other signaled streets are, well, I think there's only one other signaled street, which is then comes out at route two on the Pioneer Bridge. But we have a number of unsignaled intersections, whether it's Charles Street, Sibley Avenue, Monsignor Crosby, there are a number of unsignaled streets, intersections. And I think that this requires further scrutiny to see what would this, the deletion of these requirements, what would the impact be on any possible development? The other issue that I want to just briefly address is the change of removing, deleting the riverfront from the riverfront district from the new neighborhood plan unit development in section 3404B. I actually don't even understand the ramifications of the deletion. And so I would like some further clarification on that because I simply don't, as I said, I don't understand the ramifications. So, and I think that if a zoning requirement was put into place after probably years of discussion and scrutiny, that it shouldn't simply be changed because there's one development in mind. Thank you. Thank you. I lost, oh, Mike, would you like to address the clarification point there about impacts of removing the PUD requirement from the riverfront district? Well, there was actually a couple of points that Phyllis made. So if you want, let me just share my screen real quick. So this is what the final 3303 traffic would look like. So this is, again, we're talking about conditional use. This is what the requirement would be after the strikeout. And again, if you have the strikeout version, what happens is this is where there's a page break. So you don't have the benefit of seeing these two. And that was what I was trying to point out was that these two have not been removed. So a traffic impact study is still required. We can still require mitigation. And any project that happens, well, if a project in Saban's pasture happens and it generates more than 75 trips, which the preliminary discussions that had come up would require the traffic study. So there will be a traffic study and the standards would now be that the applicant is required to prove that their development will not have an undue adverse effect upon the traffic in the area, including that volume type timing traffic generated by the proposed development shall not be substantially greater than what would normally occur at the nearby uses or at other uses permitted in the area and that reasonable measures have been taken to minimize or mitigate the amount of vehicular traffic generated by the proposed development. So the DRB has a standard. It has the flexibility for the board to make a determination. They can certainly find that some proposal will have an undue adverse effect, a very legal term that matches what Act 250, the words they use. So there's a lot of legal, what does that mean? What does undue adverse effect mean? And there's a Quiche decision and it's a very, we have a legal process that we could go through to understand that. And we can require the traffic impact studies. These are all still going to be here. And then if I can scroll, I don't know, I'll be able to scroll really quickly down to three, five, I believe three, five, oh, four traffic. So yes, the entire section of traffic was removed, but what was inserted was that the traffic provision for subdivisions shall be the same as those that apply to conditionally used applications in section 3303, except that the word subdivisions shall be substituted for development where applicable. So yes, all those were deleted. The reason why we are doing it this way is because when we're talking about traffic, whether we're talking about it for subdivisions, whether we're talking about it for conditional use, we're trying to talk about the same thing. And unfortunately what happened in the last version that was adopted in 2018 was the wording in this section was slightly different than the wording in the 3303. We made some corrections in 3303 to say this is a better way of doing it, but we forgot to make those changes in 3504. So rather than restating 3303 here, we just reference it, we reference it instead. It's a better way of doing it. So as we make changes to traffic in 3303, it'll automatically change the requirements here. So that was the changes. The last one then was about the PUD. Oh, and getting to the point of these were talked about and considered and put in for a reason. And they were, these were a lot of these rules. We had hired a consultant that helped us put together the zoning that was adopted in 2018. And it did talk about a number of things including level of service. And at the time level of service was considered kind of the engineering standard that everybody follows. Since that time, especially as it pertains to housing, a number of places, including the entire state of California has started to reevaluate whether or not level of service is appropriate. And the reason why is because it's, as you make hard rules for level of service, you end up not having the flexibility to talk about, you know, say the example I think I used last time was, let's say the intersection at Barry and Maine has, I'll make up a number, a two minute and 30 second delay at the peak. And if we develop Saban's pasture, it'll be two minutes and 35 seconds. So it'll have a five second more of a delay. Is that worth denying, say 50 or 100 housing units? We have a goal of getting more housing units and maybe we should be able to balance that and make a determination that says, no, you know what, I don't think that's undo. It's only five seconds, it's already 230, but unfortunately the way it was worded, if it was below a level C or below a level D, depending on the intersection, it was going to have to be denied or it seemed like that's what the language was saying. And a number of states, including as I said, California, are starting to remove those because density is a good thing and using traffic as a reason to deny density is something that California is trying to say, no, we actually want the density. And if it happens to hurt the traffic a little bit, then that's going to be the cost. Again, that's a policy decision obviously for the council to consider, but the planning commission voted and was very supportive of eliminating the level of service as a threshold and instead leaving it to the development review board to review it as to whether or not it's an undue adverse effect. And so then the last change, what happened with, again, same thing, that same conversation goes for the new neighborhood development PUD. They provided the developers, again, they still have no project. They simply have been trying to consider whether or not they want to invest the time in the engineering and the design of a project and they look at the zoning rules and say, we can't do a reasonable project in their mind with the rules the way they were written because of a number of the requirements that were in there. They felt it would make a less than ideal project and the planning commission reviewed a number of options that they presented and we reviewed a number of other options that the planning commission themselves came up with. And the feeling was that the best solution was to not require PUDs, they could do a PUD but not require it. And again, how did this conversation get here? Again, the planning commission had gone through and had zoned all of Sabin's pasture, all 100 acres of Sabin's pasture into one zoning district, residential 6000 and the zoning was then worked to make that work. And what they wanted to do was to provide incentives and in some cases requirements for people to come in and put in an application and therefore cluster into the lower 15 acres. And in order to make this trade-off happen they put these requirements in there to require that clustering happen. But now what we have is, what ended up happening was the city council went through and adopted two separate districts. They said, no, we don't want to incentivize people to cluster, we want the development in the bottom and we want less development at the top. And so we're gonna change the zoning and put high density in the 15 acres and low density at the top. But this requirement remained. So just for one example, it requires 40% of the land to be conserved. So you're already in the 15 acres and you're in that lower area. So it's not talking about the upper 85 acres, it's only talking about the lower area and you're in this weird requirement. There are other requirements that would then go through and require you to orient to the street. So a street that's running north, south, while Barry's running east-west, you have to orient all the buildings east-west while the developers said, well, we'd like the option to be able to orient buildings towards the south, that would make for nicer design, but they wouldn't be allowed to do that because the PUD requires them to orient towards the street, access to parking. They wanna put underground parking under their buildings, but they can't put underground parking under their buildings because of the way the parking requirements are in the PUD. So we had an option to change all of the rules of the new neighborhood PUD, but new neighborhood PUD could be used anywhere in the city. And therefore the thought was, we liked the rules in the new neighborhood PUD. Let's leave those rules, let's just exempt this one parcel. So I hope that answers all the questions. Thank you. Yeah, that's helpful. Other thoughts, questions, comments? Yes. Can you hear me? Yes, but I am not sure who's- I'm Deborah, I'm messing. Oh, yes. Oh, okay, I see now. Okay, go ahead. I also wouldn't mind also telling us where you live. Sorry, I forgot to mention that earlier. Sure. I live on Charles Street, which is in the neighborhood of Saban's Pasteur, and my comment is relating to Saban's Pasteur. But before I get to that, as everyone was talking about traffic and congestion, I just feel that it's important to remember that our goal here is to reduce the use of automobiles. And so hopefully, hopefully the use of shuttles and parking along the edge of the town and walking. I walk from Charles Street all the time to the center town and down to the new bike path. So I just feel that one of the beauties of developing in Saban's Pasteur is that it is a walkable. It is walkable to the rest of the town. Okay, so my comment though is that recently I stumbled across an ad online for S.D. Ireland South Village Development in South Burlington. And I learned from doing little research into this that this is considered an agro hood. And it turns out there are thousands of agro hoods. Weird name. In the country and what they are are developments that are centered around an agricultural feature or a hub. And in the case of the South Village Development in South Burlington, this is centered around a 13 acre organic farm. They've partnered with this nonprofit, not for profit organization called Common Roots, which supports local agriculture. And this nonprofit basically operates this working farm with a full-time manager, a farm stand, greenhouses, chickens, beehives, residents can volunteer to work on this farm. There's some financing involved in this that is something 0.05% of the sale price of the housing unit goes towards this. So yeah, so residents can volunteer to work in the farm. And in this development, there's also more than 130 acres of meadow, woods, ponds and more held in conservation and perpetuity. So I started to imagine that this model could be adapted to Savin's pasture. I already had before this as I walked back and forth in front of it, I started to imagine it as a kind of, instead of having just the generic landscaping and a few raised beds, I started thinking of the possibility of having a real garden of Eden there with orchards and all kinds of growing things. And, but this was something different. To have an actual working organic farm started to seem like a great possibility. This development in South Burlington has these very large, expensive, maybe, I don't know if you would call them at mansions, but relatively speaking, they are, they're all, they all have three bathrooms. That's what really puzzled me. Okay, and they were all either side of $500,000. Okay, so I just decided, first of all, to call SD Ireland, just call them on the phone. And I ended up talking to Patrick Ireland, who was very interested in the idea of maybe using this model in Savin's pasture. And I gave him a big summary of all the benefits of Montpelier and how housing pressure and all these things. Also, one of the beauties of it is that it would return the property to its former use as a working farm. It was until 1972, it was a working farm. It's oriented towards the South. But I think it would be uniquely suited to this model because Montpelier, people in Montpelier have a great interest in local foods. So the pasture is very close to the co-op and the bike path and the train. And I think actually the setup is superior to that of South Village because those people have to use their car to get to a town center. Anyhow, all I wanna say, as far as zoning is that I would ask the zoning commission to, that the zoning ordinance be structured so as to allow this kind of development. Thank you. Thank you, Deborah. Like you just invented a new kind of, it's like a planned unit development, only it's an aggregate, it's pretty cool. Mike, anything you wanna say about that? I mean, is such a thing like that possible under current zoning? Yeah, I would say, I mean, everything always depends on the details of what gets proposed, but yeah, there's nothing in the zoning that would prohibit a developer who has that interest in going in that direction. And I just also want everyone to remember that we're looking at things, we're just looking at the zoning at this point. If and when an application comes up, we don't have an application, this is a precursor to them looking into putting together an application. So there's nothing that says that this would impact that, or approve, any approval to change the zoning isn't gonna be approving a project. It is simply amending the zoning to allow a project to move to its next step. Okay, others? Mayor Watson, I've got a brief comment on this topic. Go ahead. I just wanna, because it's coming up in the legislative process as well, the difficulty of navigating the compressed audio, the limited audibility, I could, Mike was fading in and out while I was trying to hear him. These are major issues that are gonna affect the city's development environment and attractiveness, et cetera, for years to come. And I would caution that whatever we do, we anticipate an opportunity to revisit it when things get back to a more participatory mode because this is not, zoom meetings are not for everybody and we're leaving out anyone who can't tolerate them in these major changes to the city's future. And I just wanted to get that point on the record and then ask for a minute of, oh, I've stayed corrected on the agenda, the system, the wonderful system that I've been complaining to the dog out of about downloaded, when I hit download tonight's agenda, it brought up last year's. Agenda from a couple of days different. So that's the agenda that didn't have to call in details, but that's what I got at 6.29 when I was in a hurry to dial in. So I stayed corrected on that, but I've been raising the problem with your website software. I would ask for an opportunity for public comment because I miss your general appearances, not do no fault of my own, but I'll wait your decision on that, thanks. Okay, thank you. Others, okay, I'm not, excuse me, I'm not seeing any further hands. Oh, before you go Phyllis, I see you there though. Is there anyone who hasn't spoken yet who would like to address the council? You can either unmute yourself or turn your video on and wave or use the raise hand function in Zoom. Any of those are options. Okay, I'm not seeing anyone else. Phyllis, go ahead. So I just wanted to respond to one thing that Mike said, Mike said that one of the requirements of the neighborhood development plan would have made it impossible to build houses facing the south. And he referred to having a road that goes north south. And so that presupposes that there's a road going north off of Berry Street because obviously if the development, if the buildings were all facing Berry Street, then you'd get the southern exposure. So I just wanted to point that out, that I think that there is a lot that does need to be considered here and thank you. And I would also add that I could not hear Mike during part of his presentation, but I think I caught the gist of it because of the internet connection issues. And I'll also just add since the last speaker talked about everybody, not everybody is comfortable on Zoom, although I've used the raise hand function on other Zoom sessions. I don't see that available on my computer for this session. So it could just be me. That is very interesting. I will say that, I'm sorry, Mayor, I just wanted to hear the introduction on that. So Zoom did update. It's the worst, I'm sorry y'all. To raise your hand at the bottom of your screen, there's a little button that says reactions. It used to just have emojis. Now it has where the raise hand function is. So I'm sorry about that. They change this often. And again, if you're calling in, feel free to unmute yourself. But I think it's star six. Thank you for that. I also had not seen that the raise hand function had gone under reactions. That's helpful. Did anyone else, I did not have a hard time hearing Mike, but did anyone else have a hard time hearing Mike? Oh, okay, okay. Wondering if we should revisit some of what you said, but I'm not sure which part that was. Who had a hard time hearing him? Do you recall which part that was, roughly? I don't. I thought it was mostly okay. There were just a few minutes where it seemed like it didn't have a strong enough connection or something. But I think it was able to track it. I was able to track it pretty well. Okay. Jay or Donna, go ahead, Jay. Yeah, well, Jack said, I don't think it was just the choppiness of the internet connection. And I don't think I missed anything substantive. So yeah, agree with you. And Donna, anything to add to that? Well, I missed it. And you know, Mike has every word counts because he really explains this stuff well. I just wanted to know if there's a way we can have a system versus just interrupting people, saying, hey, I can't hear you. Is there something we could use for emoji reaction that we all know that's what it means? Because maybe it's just my computer, but I don't know. But if we saw several of us with that up, then we'd know that there was more than one person having a problem. Maybe a cup to your emoji. Yeah. That's good. That would be useful. Thank you. And Phyllis, I'm glad that you brought up the Southern facing buildings again. I just, I realized that this is not a part of this set of zoning amendments, but it seems to me that I will just offer this for the Planning Commission's consideration, but it seems to me that for solar compatibility, you would always want to let a house be facing south. And so requiring a house to face a certain direction might limit compatibility with solar. And anyway, as such, I would be wary of any requirements in any, you know, PUDs that require an orientation. Yeah, go ahead and make it. So just let me, I'll give just one other quick example of what's in the new neighborhood PUD. That could be a problem. It's, you know, I'll just give it to you. I'll read it to you, but it's 3404E number two. And so I'll just read it. It's the development shall include a mix of housing types, including both single unit and multi-unit structures. And no more than 75% of the dwelling units may be of the same type. So what that, what, you know, as the developers were considering this project, what they were looking at were apartments. They wanted to be able to build in, I don't know, eight to 10 to 12 unit. That's what they're just chewing on. But let's say they built four units. Well, by the definition of that, they'll have to make 10 of them single family homes and put them on single family lots. And it's just, you know, you're just like, well, that's not what we're looking for. You know, they could if they wanted to, but by this zoning, by the way the new neighborhood development is required, they would have to do it that way. And that's the issue they were coming up with. Is there a number of these that are really, the rules were designed for somebody coming in with a very large project where you would, you know, we didn't want somebody to come in and build out an entire, and I think that was actually, when it was considered, it was actually thinking of the inverse. We'll put that rule in so somebody can't come in and build a hundred single family homes. They've got to make some of them multifamily. But the reality is what we have are people who want to build because we're trying to make affordable housing units. Single family homes are the least affordable to build. It's only when you start putting them into multifamily units that you start to bring down that affordability cost such that it becomes an affordable project. And I think requiring them to then build single family homes is probably not what we would want as a policy. And I think that's what the planning commission, when they look through these rules, there are a number of these to go through and say, yeah, we probably don't want to make everybody do that. But the new neighborhood is good. If you want the density bonuses of a new neighborhood, then you're gonna have to meet these rules. But this project doesn't need any density bonuses. They could build 300 units in that lower thing. They're not proposing that. Let me put that on top. That's not what they're talking about. But under the zoning, a fully built out lower 15 acres could have 300 units. They don't need a density bonus because they're not doing anything near that amount. So therefore, that's just as an example. So people kind of get a sense. Okay. So any further comments from council on the central zoning amendments? Dan, go ahead. And then Jack. Well, mine's more of a procedural one. So if Jack has a substantive one, I can let him go first. Well, it's not very big. It's just that I appreciate the memo about the temporary occupancy Airbnb, VRBO. But I do think from the perspective of housing advocates in Montpelier, there's a real concern that this kind of use is having an effect on the rental housing market. And we're not talking about doing anything here, but we may want to be looking at some type of regulation because of that impact on rental housing. Yeah, I'll look forward to seeing what you all come up with about that. And I agree, Jack. Dan, go ahead. Yeah, I guess Jack's actually reminded me of a substantive point. And I agree with Jack is that we, and I think Mike's memo is really helpful in plotting a direction towards that, which is, if we do start to get into any type of regulation of the Airbnb market, I think what I've always viewed it as is it's a continuum of different uses and having one set of regulatory rules or one set of, I mean, I think communities that have done that have had issues. And really what we're talking about are giving people the maximum amount of flexibility in how they use their property without creating issues that disturb the quiet enjoyment of other properties or have collateral impacts that are unanticipated on use of city services or similar. So I think, you know, I think that's a, certainly the memo is a good arrow for how we're gonna go forward. The procedural question that I had was just maybe a reminder that, you know, I am recusing myself from any of the zoning changes involving savings pasture because of conflict. So I had announced that last time and then I would just ask that if we do have a motion or a vote on these that we break them out, the savings pasture pieces separate from the remaining zoning changes. Yes, thank you for that reminder. Okay, just in terms of, again, procedure. So from here, one potential is that we could have a motion to approve the proposed changes or we don't need any further hearings on this, is that correct? Not required to have hearings, but you certainly always have the option to hold further hearings if you feel you want and need more hearings. Okay. All right, so since I think we did sort of run out of public comment earlier, actually I'll just check one more time. Anyone else from the public wish to weigh in on this? Okay, so then with that, I'm gonna close the public hearing. Council, what would you like to do? Jack, go ahead. I feel ready to move forward with this. And so I would be happy to first move that we approve. I don't have the text in front of me, unfortunately, but I would approve the proposed changes that do not relate to savings pasture. And if the clerk thinks that's good enough to indicate in the minutes what we're approving, fine, if not, I can fix it a little bit. Donna. I can second it and add the words to the unified development regulations, is what it says in the agenda. Okay, Jack agrees. And John, that is sufficient as a motion? I'm not sure how to respond to that. It's your motion. If you want me to reference stuff that was in the packet or something, I can certainly do that. Yeah, I think that makes sense too. Well, the recommended action on the agenda says motion to approve the proposed changes to the unified development regulations. But we're trying to pull out the portions relevant to savings pasture. Savings pasture, sections, I got it. Yeah, sounds fine to me. I don't know that any, I mean, I don't know if some of you think about it, but it seems pretty straightforward. I think as long as it's clear, I think we're probably good. Dan, yes? Yeah, my understanding is that this motion covers everything but the savings pasture articles, and then the next motion would presumably take care of those articles and that the two motions together would approve everything. Or you seek to approve everything. Yeah. Okay, so there's a motion and a second. So this is about everything, the amendments that do not include parts relevant to savings pasture. Any further discussion? Okay, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. And opposed. Okay, so that is approved then. Anything further? Yes, Jack. I move that we approve the amendments to the unified zoning regulation related to savings pasture. Second. You got a motion and a second. I'm going to offer approval opposing and also abstaining just so you know. Any further discussion on this part? Yes, Lauren. Yeah, I just, I really appreciate Mike's presentation and the ability to put forward. I think some of the issues that came up last week about Phyllis was raising issues around traffic and design and I left last week feeling really confident that there is still going to be robust review and that there's going to be a lot of opportunity to ensure this any project that does move forward is done in the best possible way for the community with lots of considerations in mind. So I feel good about that and I'm really excited to move forward with potential opportunities for more affordable housing and caring. We all hear what a cry there is for that in our community. So just appreciation to planning department for all the work that went into this and we'll be waiting for it. Yeah, I agree. Thank you. All right, any further discussion? Okay, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. And opposed and abstaining. Aye. Okay, so we're going to, because it was not unanimous we're going to go through it on the roll and I'm going to call you in the order in which you show up on my screen so you don't ever know what that's going to be. So here we go, Dan. I abstain. Jack. Aye. Jay. Aye. Moran. Aye. Donna. Aye. Connor. Aye. Okay, so the motion passes and thank you very much again, Mike, for your complete pass along our thanks to the planning commission as well and all the work that they do. And yeah, knowing that the work is not done. So I appreciate that. All right, thank you. Yep, have a good night. Unless you're on the sill, I don't know. Maybe you are. So moving on to, oh, actually it's eight. It is 848. Do you need a break? Do you want to keep on? Donna says yes. I think a break is fine. Okay, let's take a break. So we're going to take, what, five minutes? It's five minutes, okay. All right, five minutes, which is not really long. That puts us back at 853. Okay, see you soon. A minute late, no. All right, well, let's bring it back here. So we are up to the temporary parklet ordinance. The temporary parklet ordinance. So for this, I assume it's Bill. Yeah, go ahead. So hopefully this is pretty simple. You may recall that last summer, when the pandemic was first hitting, or settling in, I guess, we were looking at ways to allow businesses to expand a little bit and get some more real estate downtown, whether it was outdoor seating, or we even envisioned perhaps outdoor, using parking spaces for sales. That didn't really happen. And so we put in a temporary ordinance that basically set aside our normal ordinance and replaced it for a set period of time. And that ordinance expired on October 25th, which was also the date by which all the parklets were supposed to come in. So we've since reverted back to our normal parklet ordinance, which is a little bit more cumbersome and requires a lot more detail. And I think the intent of that was well-intentioned. We all expected that this summer we would be looking at a more normal situation back to business as usual. And that not being the case, it's clear that the pandemic is gonna have its effect this summer. So our staff is, and we've gotten some feedback from the downtown folks, our staff is recommending that we simply put back the temporary ordinance again this summer to go from May 1st, October 25th, which is the normal parklet season, and it would have the more relaxed standards. So it's essentially identical to what we did last summer, which I think was pretty successful. There's one change that I did propose that doesn't really have a cross out or a strike also I wanted to call that out. Last year's temporary ordinance had a clause in it that said if we start charging for parking, people who are using parklets may be charged the cost of the foregone parking, the revenue of the city is losing from the parking spaces. And we did hear from a couple of folks that said that they were uncertain about doing it because of that uncertainty, that that was a cost they didn't really want to. So I've just proposed to take that out that if we're gonna do this, let's just make it available to our businesses. This isn't, we're not exactly rolling in the cash with our parking right now. And I imagine there, unless something drastically changes, we won't have, we'll still have available parking spaces. But that seemed to me given what we know now about the likely user hood of this, which is, I think we can probably expect the same folks as last year, maybe one or two more, but it's not gonna be all over town as much as we might want it to be. And so to me, that made sense. But if you'd like to put that clause back in, we will have a second reading on this on March 10 so we can amend that for that here reading. Otherwise, it's the identical regulation as last year. Jack and then Connor. Thanks. I think this is great. Two points. One, did we open the public hearing on this? No, not yet, but I'm gonna officially open the public hearing right now. Thank you. That was just the explanation for the public before we open the public hearing. Okay. The second thing, as I was going over this, one thing that occurred to me and I wonder if Bill, if you or anyone has an opinion on this, there's the provision that says that paragraph D, Parklets will be limited to parking spaces for business and must be proximate to the main business location. And there are a number of places that talk about businesses, but I was thinking, well, would a Parklet have to be related to a business? For instance, could somebody decide that this is an opportunity to apply for a Parklet and the purpose of the Parklet would be to provide parking spaces for bicycles? And I'm looking at it, I didn't see anything that would prohibit that. And I think it would might be an interesting use if some of the bicycle advocates in town wanted to try doing that. I wonder what you think of that? I mean, I think providing parking spaces for bicycles is a great idea. You know, this was, alright, so let me go back. When we first started talking about Parklets, we talked about public Parklets versus private Parklets. So the idea was that if the city wanted to provide a public Parklet, that would be a place where people could sit and gather, you may recall, we tried, we had the one on State Street for a season that it might include a bicycle parking, those kinds of things. Those would be for publicly used. And then there were the private Parklets, which were essentially extension of businesses. So, and as we've seen, they've primarily been for restaurants type places to have additional outdoor seating. Hasn't really, I think, gelled with people putting, like, out merchandise and those kinds of things. But it could. The reason for the temporary ordinance last summer to basically speed up the process, make it easier, have less hurdles to gather. And remember, the state put out new guidelines for this last year too, as well. So it was to, because I was relaxing some VTrans standards, was to help businesses in a pandemic. So I think while there would be nothing to prevent someone from doing that, I could picture other businesses feeling that taking up parking spaces for bicycle parking, there might be some debate about that, whether that was beneficial to the businesses or harmful. I think you could argue that either way, right? If you've got more bicycles, then more people can come downtown, park their bikes and shop. Others may feel like, hey, that's one parking space. You could put multiple bikes in one parking space, but you can't put one car. So I think you could, I don't personally have a strong feeling about it, but the reason we did this was to help businesses. And so the reason for the park proximate to the business was, didn't want one store taking up parking spaces around the corner in front of another store for their business. It's got to be, it's either related to your business or it's not, it's got to be some rational nexus there between the two. Connor, but before you go, I mean, just, it's an interesting question, Jack. And I feel multiple ways about it simultaneously, somehow. And I know I almost want to say, like let's let somebody propose it and then go through that. Cause I can't imagine there would be very many of those. It would require, I mean, essentially a bit, if a business wanted to say, we'd like to use the parking spot in front of our business to have bike parking. Why not? Yeah. Let a hundred flowers bloom, let a hundred schools of thought contend. Connor, go ahead. And then Donna. Yeah, no, thanks, thanks for all this bill. It looks really good. And I would definitely be in favor of leaving out the, charging them for parking line, as you recommended. Had a question on the first line, it says existing parklets as of the effective date. Does that mean parklets that had been in existence the previous year there? I just wanted to- So there were parklets that had been approved under the more formal process. And there were only a couple. Essentially it was the positive pie parklet and the formally the down home parklet, which has now been moved to J. Morgan's. So those two were both approved under sort of the more stringent process with the limited number of parking spaces. You know, we only allowed six in the whole downtown, six spaces and those took five up. And that there were certain structural standards and those kinds of things that had to be met. You know, VTrans has allowed less structural, you know, possibilities. So I think, so the idea was those people don't have to go, you know, it just basically, they were approved for I think three year periods. And so they had last summer on pause the idea that they would have this summer on pause too. So it wouldn't count against their three years. That makes sense. Yep, great, thanks. I wanna go ahead. Yes, I'm glad you brought that one up. I'm glad that you took away the fee and that you also have in there about, you still need a certain width and without that, then they can't have it. People need to have the sidewalks. That's great. That was the last summer. Yes, that's, I just noticed it more clearly. It's just really good. And my resume, I would say bike parkas would definitely have a lower priority than any business because we do have bike racks and we need more, we can do more. So I would not want them to be in the same level of pedestrian and sitting spaces. Sitting space are really looking for, I think, and people supporting the businesses and the stores downtown. Particularly now, so people can see a more vibrancy as people gather, even when we gather at a distance that I really wanna see the park that used for that primarily. Lauren and then Donna? Yeah, thanks. One downtown business owner had raised to me a question. So this was somebody who does not have a parklet, likes the idea of them, appreciated them and what they allowed for other downtown businesses. The question that was raised was the timing. And I don't know if you've got feedback from businesses, were they really using them all the way until October 25th? I'm sure in any given year, depending on whether it might or might not be very pleasant to be using them for outdoor seating at restaurants or whatever. But so I just wanted to raise that because somebody had asked if we're gonna start it potentially earlier and get them going on the other end for the businesses that it does and in some way make accessing some of them a little bit more challenging potentially if there's any thought on timeline. So I don't know if you've got any feedback on that timeline. The May 1 to 8, so the May 1st, October 25th timeline is what the full-time ordinance calls for. I think I've actually heard from some businesses that would like to get out there before May 1. I think we've always said May 1 just to, because there could be an April storms storm. You just don't know. October 25th was the date that had been set by the council. I think what it was initially said, it was actually November 1st or October 31st. And we got some pushback on that, but then people felt that it had to go through Columbus weekend or excuse me, Indigenous people's day weekend because that's a big tourist weekend. And the 25th seemed like the compromise between November 1st and that weekend. I will say that at least last year, there were a couple that, two that were out that actually went a little bit beyond the 25th. I mean, it wasn't, they weren't being horrible about it. They just didn't get them out, but they were a day or two late. So I would say that the 25th, they were still using them right up until October 25th last year. I mean, maybe in a normal year when there's plenty of inside seating and everything else, yeah, it's getting a little chilly. Let's pull them in early, but I think as long as these conditions exist, outside seating, people will be out as much as they can. In any day like today, maybe somebody might have been out with a heater, 45 degrees. Donna and then Dan and then Jay. Thank you. I just, I wanted to share with you that last year on Langdon Street, we had significant pushback when we took even half an additional space away from parking. So while I love the idea of having more bicycle parking downtown, I just wanted to let people know that when we couldn't, we actually pulled back and there were multiple conversations about whether that was appropriate to have more, slightly more space. So I think that there were certain areas in the downtown where businesses could get pretty prickly. No, that's good to know. Thank you. Dan and then Jay. Sure. I heard similar feedback to what Lauren heard as far as certain businesses wanting, if we're gonna start earlier to end earlier, but I think it really depends upon whether, and of course we don't know now businesses may invest in these heaters, these outdoor heaters so that they'll look to extend and push and I think, this is intended really as a creative solution to a difficult problem and to enable businesses, particularly restaurants, to have accessibility and to be able to see people outside safely. So I'm certainly in favor of a thoughtful approach that would allow people to take advantage of the systems when they were reasonable. I think the other concern that I would have is, if we do let it go to October 25th and we do get a cold winter coming earlier next year or fall, it almost seems like some of these, some of this should be seasonal determinant. When we talk about bringing them on earlier than May 1st, if it's a really warm April, that might be important, especially if it's a rainy June or if it's cold in October or if we get a warm streak in October all the way to the end, that would be, I don't want to necessarily rewrite this on the fly but it does strike me that some of these seasonal conditions may play into it. The other thing that I guess I'm concerned about is something that did occur on Langdon Street last year which is my recollection is that we approved these, both the Langdon Street Tavern or you approved the Langdon Street Tavern seating and also the Sweet Melissa's but then they didn't end up using it. And there was a period of time where there was a lot of empty barricades along Langdon Street taking up parking places that just weren't used. It was kind of, it looked like a rock concert that never happened or the lineup for one. I'm wondering, would you want the power or ability or do you feel that you lack it to step in if in fact someone does seek that type of a parklet but then either doesn't use it or uses it in a way that's inconsistent with what we're trying to create here? Can I just jump in and I want to own that one because we did work initially to look to close at least a portion of Langdon Street. Sweet Melissa's looked like it was possible to open back up again. So we did leave the spaces up there for probably two or three weeks, I want to say. But like a lot of businesses it just, the pieces weren't coming together for Sweet Melissa's and they weren't able to open. So I just want to take responsibility for that. Yeah, in your recall, we looked at a lot of, we talked about the possibility. We did spend a fair amount of time, a couple of meetings, I think talking about configurations on Langdon Street right until the attempt was to maybe block half of it and make it more pedestrian. And I think my view for this year would be if Langdon Street Tavern wants to have a parklet, it would have a parklet like these and we can work with them. And if we have to put the barricades up for them, great. But I don't think we need to take out a whole lot of more parking space. As you recall, we allowed them to go actually out into the street and then we took the parking way on the other side to allow the traffic. And I think that we probably, if that's the proposal again, I'd probably want to bring that one back to the council to have a hearing with the street owners again. I'm not sure, you know, they're fully successful. I mean, I felt that what eventually settled, and maybe this was just a trial and error, certainly what settled with the Langdon Street Tavern worked eventually with the barricades and- It worked with Langdon Street Tavern well because, you know, they had, in addition to the sort of parking space seating, they actually had seating out in half a lane of traffic. So they had plenty of seating. I'd be interested to hear, especially now that there's different retail across the street, how the loss of parking, you know, we had to take that left-hand lane of parking away in order to maintain the traffic through there. And so there was loss of parking on both sides of the street. And, you know, maybe that's fine, maybe it's not, but I think that would be a considered conversation to have before we just approved anything other than the parking space parklets that are in this ordinance. I would definitely feel like that expanded consideration would need to come back to you, folks. I wouldn't just approve that. Madam Mayor, should I help? Sorry, there's a kind of a line for me here. Jay and then Lauren and then Donna and then Stephen. All right. So I guess I would echo Lauren and Dan and other thoughts around how do we deal with sort of the arbitrary dates of May 1st and going into October, making sure, you know, arbitrary, but just seasonal dates and wanting to give businesses opportunities to have that extra space and be flexible based on what, if they think it will help them bring new customers. Now, if you're a restaurant and are seating people, you know, after the end of October or before May, that it may not work for your business, but if you had an opportunity to do a little pop-up shop or some sort of to-go type of opportunity on a really warm weekend to draw people, it could create a structure. And if you had something in place, you know, I do think that opening that window, I think would be a positive thing, let the businesses decide what is gonna work best for them because Lord knows, you know, the way the weather and seasons change so quickly. If they can find something that worked and then I think that'd be great. The other thing is, and I kind of want to come back to paragraph D that Jack had brought up, but from a different perspective, sort of the idea of what proximate means. The last thing I want to do is sort of complicate the process and I want to promote this type of opportunity for every business possible, and I think it's great, but I did hear from a business owner this past summer who happened to be right next to a business that put their installed a parklet and it was installed in the appropriate spot given the drains and the angle of the road and all of that, and it would be considered proximate to their business, but it ended up right in front of the business next to them. And they didn't know about it until they showed up the next day and there it was or the work was starting and they felt that that really hindered their business. So I'm not trying to create tension between business owners but I want to be fair where I don't know if we can write into this that there's some level of communication. If proximate doesn't mean the two spots that are right in front of your business, then I feel like it's not just being a good neighbor, but I feel like we owe it to the other businesses to be able to have some sort of conversation about how the structure, the design, et cetera. Certain places it's easy, there's spots or it's right in front of the business and it's level and there you go, but others it's not as clean. So I don't want to cause, I don't want to get it make it more complicated, but I do think I want to make sure we're being fair to all the businesses. Thanks. That's a complication, you know, we had, I mean, the actual ordinance requires notice and hearing and they come to the council, they get approved and people have the opportunity to comment and this was specifically designed to sort of make it fast and easy for people to be able to respond. And just quickly, I know there's a bunch of people who are in comment, you know, as far as the date goes, there's no magic to it. If the council wants to move the date up or, you know, have us look at something for the next reading about how to word something we certainly can do that, that I just used the dates to head exit because last year we didn't approve it until like June. So we just said from now till October 25th. And so I figured we needed to start dates, I just tied it to the prior start date, but they're really, you know, April one is when we end the winter parking stuff. So I'm going to save my comment because there's a line. All right, so Lauren, go ahead. Yeah, one thought and one question. This is just making me think of like, is there an opportunity if we're having these parklets like saying this a little tongue in cheek but like put up some my ride at like some of the cars that are parking downtown are people like me who sometimes drive downtown to go shopping when I could be taking advantage of our great free, you know, door-to-door transit program. So, you know, as much as we can be promoting that, hopefully we can be easing some of this where it's not creating a lot of some of the tension that Jay was just talking about if we're opening up more spaces still, you know, people who are coming in from out of town and need to be driving for whatever reason. So just if there's ways to build in promotion of that but making sure that everybody far and wide in the community knows how to take advantage of that great new service. But my question, so last summer I know it was, you know, we had thought maybe some more retailers would be able to take advantage and it was challenging just wondering if you're hearing anything about, you know, now that people have had time to think about and plan longer, you know, we were obviously like shut down for part of that window. This is happening late in the season. So it might not have felt worth figuring out some way to, you know, truck inventory in and out and build a structure and all of that. And just curious if you're hearing from people or would anticipate, you know, more demand for this, knowing that there's more time to plan for it or are you thinking it's, you know, from what you're hearing from businesses and like those same challenges that are gonna be there. So we would, we're not anticipating a run on applications for this as far as you can tell at this moment. We're not hearing that, but, you know, it's early yet. So we could certainly talk to Dan Groberg and have him put feelers out. I think the biggest hurdle that we heard from businesses last summer and I suspect it would be the same was they felt that there would be a need to have a staff person outside with the inventory. And they couldn't really afford to have two, you know, two people on one in and one out if they can figure out a way to deal with that. And I, you know, and I know to some extent people put merchandise out on sidewalks and it's not staffed. So, but maybe that's different than having it all the way across the sidewalk into a parking space. So, you know, it might be possible that, you know, I could, I don't know, we'd have to, we'd have to look at some of the options. I mean, one hand someone could maybe expand their sidewalk space and people could walk around through the parking spots, but then we have to make sure that they're properly re-empt. I did, I did observe last summer, you know, once this took flight, I saw some temporary ramps that were used in a few different places. I think I shared them with Donna and, you know, we might be able to figure out how that could work. We haven't heard much, you know, about it yet. Okay. I mean, I just, part of why I'm asking is that it does, you know, it kind of continues the existing ones, but then puts the burden on you all to be making a case-by-case call. And if it becomes more complicated, like is that, is there more guidance or is there a cap or like more, anything more explicit we would want to put in so that it doesn't become like you're having to pick in some way that might feel arbitrary to businesses? I don't think it's any different than it was last summer. And we'll see, you know, my, you know, it's your policy, my view would be, we want to make this as open and as flexible as possible for people. This is still a business crisis period. And, you know, I do understand that there is sometimes other business concern about parking, loss of parking spaces. You know, last summer was brand new, but I would, you know, just looking at this right now, there certainly is no lack of parking downtown. I mean, it's steady, but you can find parking, the parking lots have extra spaces. It's not like it's full. And, you know, without knowing what the state's gonna do as far as bringing employees back, you know, that really drives the ban for parking downtown as much as anything. So, and, you know, I also think this is just, this is no science, this is my personal opinion, but if there is more seating for restaurants and things like that, then those are people that may also then be shopping in other shops if they've come downtown to do those things. Is there enough? Donna. Sometimes you need to add the last name. Maybe I'll have you call me bait from now on. Yeah, there you go. Sorry. So, I've had a question about staffing. I feel the dates are important because it gives staff a schedule. It gives businesses a schedule. The weather is the weather. And it's always gonna be fluky, but I think if we make it too flexible, we're back to doing what we did with the winter ban when we're trying to make all these last minute decisions. And I feel that so far these dates have worked pretty well and the weather has cooperated. And some people have chosen to stop using their parklet or earlier than the date set because it's cold. Someone like Julio's will use it until we kick him off the street because it's the life of his business. He has no indoor seating. So I feel it's important though that we think of our staff's time as well as the business staff needs also a schedule as to when they're gonna have more waitstaff, less waitstaff. And I do- Let me just answer that quickly. So from our perspective, as long as there is a date, it's not, you know, I wasn't necessarily saying we rig up something complicated. I'm just saying if the council wants to move the date till April 15 or April one or whatever, it's fine with us. Oh no, I've been around for all of this. Yeah. Yeah, yeah. And the city council has talked about this date from the day when we opened this, longer, shorter, I mean, it's never been perfect. But also Bill, maybe I need to, I missed, I don't remember all the discussion, but was Langdon Street have to have the cars moved away from the sitting because the structure of the parklet was not so substantial? I just don't understand. No, no, that was Langdon Street. We need more space from cars than all the others. No, we were to, you may recall, the council was trying to create some kind, you know, see this as a potential to look what Langdon Street might be able to do and it didn't really play out that way. And so what happened was we, the city allowed the Langdon Street Tavern and we were going to allow Superlisters to do the same thing. In addition to the parking spaces in front of their business, they were actually allowed to use the street. They had a wider area. So in order to do that, we barricaded them off, but that required taking parking away on the other side of the street to get cars by. Yeah, we're not proposing that this year is my point. So they would- No, and what I said is if that proposal comes back, I would ask the council to approve that. I don't feel that that is within my authority to approve. Okay, but if we treat it the way normally it would be done, the street and across from the parking spaces would still be there. So that would help people who feel like they're losing all their parking, not lose as much parking as they did last year. That's- They would just have the two parking spaces like anybody else. Yes, that's what I would propose for Langdon Street this year. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Steven, go ahead. Yeah, can you hear me? Yes, I can. So one of the key things you need to actually agree to and define your enforcement protocol, and I want to point to a number of trouble areas. Rappelrauser wasn't using the sidewalk for seating, and yet they put the steel planters out there at the maximum distance with no warning or protection. And I was watching people slam into these 100-pound steel planters full of dirt and their knees were bleeding, their shins. And I moved them against the wall several times after five o'clock, and it was unclear. The council hadn't defined it, the police didn't know what to do. It's like, the purpose of this is not to create hazards for the walking public. Secondly, down in front of Jay Morgan's, there wasn't five feet of clearance. They put, you know, attended stands and all kinds of, there's lamp posts and fire hydrants down there. It got down to like three feet of passageway. And so that's a problem. That's also not downhomes, that's not downhomes parklet anymore. So it's not grandfathered in as far as your three-year permit. It's a different business with a different, you know, licensing requirement. Even the council voted to change that approval. But secondly, the size limitation and the after-hours use, the after-hours use, I raised it the question of the, I think the official ordinance, the permanent ordinance or the experimental ordinance had that after the business was closed, that the public got to use the public space. The public parking places is public right away. And yet I watched saw a business, try to say, this is private property. You can't sit here. You can't, you know, loiter here, you're on camera, et cetera, et cetera. And I raised it with Bill and it was like, oh, the temporary ordinance doesn't address that issue. So the temporary ordinance does need to address that issue. You know, you don't go allowing taking a public property because, well, the business isn't using it. That's just not right. Secondly is the size of the three-penny. That's a huge deck. And it's in front of a neighboring business. I think that's the one that one of your council members was referring to. It wasn't moved over in front of the two-store front, so three-penny, it's over in front of the antique store where our former mayor has a booth. So that one, it took the only parking available for that business, which is crucial. And nobody seems to have any notice requirements or any warning or any obligation to move that one over, you know? But while we're talking about parking, I sure hope somebody's billing Jacobs for the spaces on Elm Street, where I have to walk out in the street to avoid the hazard he creates with his, you know, un-maintained roof, you know, freezing the entire sidewalk section. So these are all related issues, but you need to deal with the, after hours, you need to deal with the encroachment upon other businesses' essential parking and the policing of the, or enforcement of not maintaining the five feet of clearance and what happens after hours. Or I think the solution we finally arrived at with Rabbi Rouser was convincing Jackie, unlike her obstinate partner there, to put some barrels. So at least the barrels were visible and higher. And if you hit the barrel, it would move, you know, old whiskey barrels. The barrel wouldn't, it was rounded, it wasn't sharp, it wasn't as heavy, and it would move if you ran into it rather than break skin. So these are all issues. Those are public safety issues. Oh, and as far as the, you know, to hear Bill talk about the emergency, the urgency of this issue, as long as you all aren't making bathrooms available for people to crap, there's new human crap on the sidewalk today. And it stays much longer in this kind of weather. And no place to wash your hands. You're blowing in the wind. So I just, I got to point out your hypocrisy on those matters. Thanks. Thank you, Stephen. And it is an interesting point about the use of the sidewalk. Bill, what is the, how does, what governs that? No, Rouser's issue, Ral Rouser did not use the Parkwood Ordinance. I'm trying to, I'd have to go back and look at the record. I think, I think they thought that that stuff was approved as part of their zoning permit, but I'm going to have to take a look at that because they wanted landscaping out there. So I mean, Stephen's right. They shouldn't be in the walkway. And it has, you know, we have to maintain that distance, but we, the five foot distance that we use is not a city requirement. It's a guideline and, you know, it's a requirement in this ordinance, but we don't actually have any real teeth to say other than ADA violation to say, you can't have something here. So we've talked about that, but we've never actually put in that regulation. So they were not, that wasn't related to the Parkwood thing. That was something that happened there, you know, with regard to Jay Morgan's, you know, their Parkwood was in the parking spaces. So the sidewalk space was the sidewalk space. Three penny did, was complicated. I think that's the one that Connor was talking about. Or excuse me, Jay, not Connor. And there were some real complications with that, you know, that those are angle parking. All the others are parallel parking. So two parking spaces with angle parking is a, you know, a different geometry. And it is also in that particular area, there is a sloped, the roadway slopes. So there were issues with where there, you know, their initial place where they wanted was going to block trainage, which would flood, you know. So DPW worked with them to find the optimal place to put it, and that's where it was. I do appreciate that it had impact on the neighboring business. I mean, one of the, one of the conundrums with this ordinance in all of these is that no, you know, businesses tend to think of the parking spot in front of their businesses theirs, really, they're all public parking spaces. And often people park 10 spaces down before they walk to, you know, to go to different business. And so, and we've always sort of promoted, hey, that's not your parking space. And now we're kind of saying, well, you can have the couple in front of you for your parking spaces, at least for this summer. And so, you know, I think that's the reason we did this on a temporary basis. Before we institutionalized this in the long run, we probably wouldn't want to put more detail in. As Jay mentioned, you know, maybe a more stringent approval process and notice and all that. I mean, I think the question is, are we interested in having this be the quick process that we had, given that we're still in a pandemic versus are we, you know, are we looking at a more, maybe an, you know, instead of limiting us to six parking spaces, maybe it's 20 or whatever. And we go, you know, we haven't become a more formal process. And again, that's up to the council. Yeah, my hope with this is that we would increase the number of parklets. I think they're, I think it was Donna Bate who was saying, you know, that we want to see the vibrancy of people downtown. And I think having more parklets helps just raise the visibility that people are out and are taking in downtown. So just an answer to your question, Bill, I mean, my gut about this right now is that it's still okay to have this be sort of the expedited process. But it's, if it is sort of becoming clear that like, okay, no, we're going to need to deal with some things. You can't go on indefinitely. You know, in terms of the dates, I remember that debate about when the end date ought to be and remember what you were saying, Bill, about the compromise date of October 25th. So I don't feel like that needs to move necessarily. If anything, you know, my gut again for the sake of these restaurants that have really tough conditions right now, I would maybe want to extend it on the front end, if possible. And for that, I feel conflicting things, and which is to say that I mean, I judge, how like is the weather good enough for being outside by when are we playing ultimate in the spring? Like when can we go outside for ultimate? And that is pretty consistently like the last week in April. And so it is, you know, it is earlier than May 1st, not a ton earlier, but I agree that last snowstorm in April, I mean, that feels consistent. And what I think would be really bad is if we had a snowstorm and we needed to plow and there were these parklets out, that feels like a, so, and we know like the end of April can be pretty tumultuous. So I feel like it's probably good in terms of the dates as it is. Yeah, I might have further thoughts, but anyway, that's it for now, anyone else? Well, you've got to March 10 to think it over. If you want to change the dates, you can do it at second reading. That's right, because we can have a second reading for this. One possibility is I, you know, did hear Steven there about like the after hours use and wonder if it would be easy enough to just like grab the language from the original ordinance and put it in here just to clarify just the expectations around after hours use. I think that makes sense. And there's pretty good language already around that that we can, I don't anticipate that would be a encumbrance on. So it probably won't. I will point out that unlike, you know, the original parklets, the more permanent parklets were actually built, you know, with the seating built in for the most part and their, you know, permanent type structure. Some of the temporaries, you know, they just, they built a platform and put tables and things on them. So what was happening is people were binding up the chairs and things and tables at night, you know, locking them up. So they pull them all together and tie them up with a tie so that they wouldn't walk off. And so therefore you couldn't really sit in them because they were secured. So, you know, I also think that we wanna be, you know, require people to leave their tables and chairs out in a way that someone could just steal them easily is probably not also. So I think that was also some of the conflict. Right, okay. No, that's a good point, which I think, you know, we certainly don't want to require that, that movable objects are just left out. So, all right, well, anyway, that's something that we can consider for next time I suppose. Dan, did you have a question or coming? Yeah, go ahead. Yeah, I guess, you know, when we think about the dates, it might be helpful if any of the businesses that have used these structures, these parklets in the past, if they have a thought about it, just simply because, you know, they may be fine with May 1st because it strikes me that, you know, even at May 1st, the only way you can sit outside as opposed to running around on the ultimate field in all that aerobic activity, which is easier to do in cold weather because you're sweating and you're as opposed to just sitting there and in colder weather is to see if any of these businesses want that earlier start or if they're planning on it or if that opportunity, because I mean, if we were to mess with the dates and I think Bill's sort of default provision from the old parklet is probably as good as any unless businesses said, no, no, we really want to get a jump on this. We'd like to get the parklet at least set up pre, you know, pre May 1st, but that may also involve heaters or they may just not be interested in it because they know the weather's not gonna really support it and people aren't gonna sit there till, you know, later in May. Same thing on the backside as well. I mean, it'd just be helpful to see what the businesses want before we start tinkering with the dates. I agree. And I think, you know, the biggest issue, you know, there's what the business needs are, but then I think the snow plow snow removal issue, I mean, I would think that certainly we'd have to have a provision that any, you know, we're not responsible for the damage in case a plow hits one of them and or the business would have to clear all the snow from around its parklet. I don't know where they're gonna put it if, you know, throw it into another snow bank. So, you know, I think we'd have to think about that. On the other hand, I've certainly been hearing from at least one business who wants to know when they can get theirs back out. I mean, it sounds like they're pretty anxious to do so. I will say we went over to Stowe today. My kids were skating at the outdoor skating rink and my wife and I went and there's a couple of restaurants at Pumsier and they all had outside seating today. And people were sitting at them. And they had those big heaters going. Wow, that's something. I wonder if we had allowed, if we didn't have an end date if people would have left them out. No, no, no. Interesting question. I mean, those weren't, you know, that was an enclosed area, an area where there's no plowing or anything, but it was in that village at Spruce, you know, the kind of manufacturer. But nonetheless, they were definitely outdoor seating everywhere. They're being used. It's interesting. All right. So where are we at here? We could, yeah, Jack, go ahead. So close the public hearing. Do you need a motion to set a new public hearing or just do it? Yes. And if you want to give us directions on any changes to prepare, that would be the time to do so. Connor, go ahead. Yeah. No, I just asked that we maybe meet with the Langdon Street Tavern owners before the next meeting to suss out that situation. Anyone else? Jack, go ahead. Yeah. And I would encourage contact with Montpelier live to just see what the level of interest is among business owners. I may be coming in with a proposed amendment regarding public or non-business parklets. Okay. Fair enough. And yeah, just thinking about how do we phrase guidance around after-hours use, I think could be useful if possible. Be great. All right. Donna, go ahead. Maybe if you'd discussed some bit about how much of a structure that parklet had, if indeed their seating is secure within the parklet and is available, then that could be used for public use, but then it would make a difference between parklets, which might lead to trouble. But something like positive pie is a very firm parklet versus Julio's has loose seats. They need to anchor them down at night. So the structure may make the difference. Yeah, yeah, that makes sense. And that was, I mean, that was basically the difference between our regular ordinance and then the regular, you know, the ordinance we had required pretty substantial structures. And that was based on lots of things, including guidance from V-Trans. Last summer, ACCD and V-Trans relaxed those standards because of the pandemic and allowed basically just a platform with something around it and tables and chairs out, you know. And so, you know, the construction standards changed. So one of the questions going forward is going to be what's the state gonna allow for construction standards? What are we gonna allow even if we want to continue? So I think there's, as we go to the future, we're gonna have a lot more questions, but I think for this summer, we're still under the same rules. So just to check any other members of the public want to weigh in on this, okay? So I'm gonna close the public hearing and is there a motion about setting second reading Oh, second. Sure, I'll make a motion for a second reading to be scheduled for our next regularly scheduled city council meeting, which I believe is March 10th. March 10th. Okay, well, we've got a motion and a second from Lauren and is there any further discussion? Okay, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Okay, and a post. Okay, so that passes and so we will take that up again on March 10th. Awesome. I think that is the end of our regular business for the evening. So we are on to council reports and I'm gonna go in our normal order. So as long as Donna, you're okay with going first. I always feel- You're trying to be brief. I'm so disappointed in us. We failed the whole evening, folks. We've gotta stop talking so much. But I would think it'd be neat would go with Lauren's suggestion of getting people with parklets to pull in their advertising with my ride and we can help them do that. I think that's a great idea, Lauren. And I just wish all the people running for election on town meeting day, the best luck and particularly my fellow council members. I hope you're all here, March 10th meeting. I really salute all of you and wish you the best. Thank you. Connor. Well, I second Donna on everything especially the fact that everybody's a big chatterbox tonight. But now I wanted to take a moment. I'm not very athletic, but I decided to throw on some cross country skis this weekend and go over by North Branch. And, you know, I like to talk to people as you're on the trail there. And I probably spoke to five different people who said, my God, like look at these trails that we're skiing on here. We're so fortunate to have a parks department that takes care of this. This is part of like the reason I moved to Montpelier. So at a time when we're all shut in and like 40% of us are like, you know, renters in Montpelier living in apartments that might not have a backyard. The parks department is always there for us. I was up at the old shelter with my little dog who's one of my only friends during the pandemic. And there it is, a big bundle of wood already chopped up, ready to throw in the fireplace. So I think, you know, times are hard, but the parks department makes it a little more bearable and deserves a lot of credit on this. So just wanted to take a moment and thank them. So thanks very much. Everybody go ahead and vote on Tuesday. Yeah, Jay. I'll echo Donna and Connor for sure on all those points. And I'll throw in some more kudos and thanks to our department of public works. It's been a rough, I don't know about full winter, but it's been a rough few weeks in terms of the amount of water that has made it from underground above ground. And I've had the unfortunate, not opportunity, but happenstance to come across two leaks right within about two blocks of my house over the last month or so. And I painfully email Donna Barlow Casey saying, hey, I hate to tell you this, but this is what I'm seeing. But in both cases, and I know it's happening all over the city, that she and the whole crew there have been incredibly responsive and hardworking and really doing their best to manage a number of these issues all at once and communicate well with the folks that are affected and the folks on the block in that neighborhood. And so I know it's been a pretty rough stretch, but I just wanted to thank them for all their hard work and dedication with trying to keep up with our aged infrastructure. Yeah, thank you. Dan. Sure, a couple of points. One is, I talked with Bill this week, but I think we should, as a council, consider at the end of the winter, maybe having a conversation with Public Works about what's been successful this winter and what's not been successful and talking about some of the goals. And because if we think about Public Works, they worked all year round, but winter is its most intense and it's always a struggle. If it's not blowing the streets, it's removing the snow banks. And my understanding is that the snow banks downtown are gonna be removed in the next couple of days on their cycle, but even those present a challenge because of the meters. And so I think we can always be looking to improve that as well. I think every winter, it always seems like this is the worst winter for potholes, but I know we've all received comments from people that this winter there have been some really, some doozies. And I think we need to just continue that conversation because techniques change and improve, materials change and improve. And I think it would be good to check in with them at the end of the season before we forget all these. I think as soon as winter's over, we're in a rush to put it out of our minds until the next winter, but it would be really good if in April, once they're no longer working 24 seven as they are, it seems in winter to have that conversation. Beyond that, I'm up for reelection this year and I certainly hope to be here on March 10th and I appreciate the support everyone has given to me, but in the off chance that I'm not, I wanna thank everyone for this opportunity. I've spent a lot of years in meetings as an attorney, at town meetings, in advising municipal governments, but this has been a fantastic experience and I couldn't ask to work with a better group of counselors and mayor and permanent staff that we really have an incredible city here with wonderful resources, with hardworking dedicated professionals and volunteers. And I can't imagine any community where there's a better confluence of both talent and knowledge and enthusiasm. So thank you. Thank you. Jack. I'll keep it short. I think I certainly remember back in the days when there were two members of the city council who were often referred to in debate as Sherman and Wasserman, because they have the same first name. I, like Dan and Lauren, I'm up for reelection on Tuesday. I hope that the three of us are all returned to our offices. I think I'm very pleased with the work of this council. I also do though want to thank everyone who has gone out and put their name on the ballot for any office in the city. It's a healthy thing when we have contested elections. And so good luck to everybody. Hope we have a nice weather for Tuesday and see you all later. Thank you. Lauren. Yeah, thanks. Wanted to note that there are a couple of public input opportunities coming up for both the process that we've had ongoing for the social and economic justice committee and the Montpelier police review committee. And they are holding, there's gonna be a number of sessions focused on some groups of residents such as LGBTQ plus, BIPOC, people experiencing financial stress, people with disabilities and young people are some of the first groups. So if anyone's, you know, identifies with any of those groups and is interested, please, you know, look out, we're gonna be putting information as far and wide as we can, looking to get as many perspectives on both policing and just equity issues for our city, you know, as part of our mission to be an inclusive, welcoming and equitable city. So look out for those opportunities and then there's gonna be also just broad public participation opportunities. And I've been really grateful to see more and more people are coming to the police review committee and sharing perspectives. It's been great to see a lot of engagement from the public in that process. So hopefully that keeps up as that work kind of ramps up. One other thing, I know, you know, we all got a note and we all see the road condition. I know the issue was raised about, you know, what are we doing and how challenging it's been. And we know that part of our budget, you know, we had to make hard decisions about priorities. So just, you know, reiterating, I know that we've talked about, you know, obviously looking for any opportunities for federal funding or state funding that might come through to ramp up infrastructure investments or if, you know, we need to get back on track with bonding or other opportunities in the future. Just, you know, I know that it's top of mind for all of us. There's one to reassure that we see it and, you know, having sustainable infrastructure that's safe and in great condition as a priority, I think of everyone here. And yeah, just wrap up, you know, again, hope to have people's votes so I can be back. But thank you all again. It's been, I love working with all of you, just the, you know, everyone's passion for making our community as wonderful as possible comes through both from mayor counselors and city staff. And I'm so grateful to have been here. Hope to be back. But if not, it's really just been wonderful and so appreciate it. Thanks. Yeah, thank you. So, you know, this being sort of in a sense, technically speaking the last council meeting of this session, so to speak, I do want to just like take the opportunity to reflect and say like I've been very thankful to work with each of you. And, you know, we don't know what's necessarily gonna happen on March 2nd. So I do want to also just make sure that I express, you know, Dan and Lauren and Jack, you know, very thankful to have worked with you over the past in case you are not here. I want to make sure to say that. And also just, you know, looking back on the past year or so, like I feel like we have done, you know, a lot of good work, you know, it's been a tough year. And I think it's been really helpful to have such a group that disagrees well, that is very thoughtful. And anyway, very, very thankful for all of you. And also just want to echo the gratefulness for city staff right now, and particularly DPW. I'm just thankful for all the work that they do. Taking on a lot, particularly this time of year. I had a question. I just wanted to verify something with John. So maybe this is a part of his update, but I'm curious about it. Is it too late to mail in your ballot at this point? So should people be, like what are people's options? Maybe this is jumping the gun a little bit. So I apologize, but it feels important. So go ahead, John, how can people either get their ballots in or should they show up on Tuesday? Well, I mean, literally speaking, it's never too late. You can mail the ballot whenever you want. It's just, you know, you want to be sure it gets there because it's not about the postmark. It's about when I get it in my little hands. So, you know, I would say if you drop something in the mail tomorrow, pretty good odds we'll get it in time. If it were my ballot, which reminds me, I need to vote. I would take it to the drop box behind City Hall because we clear that out multiple times a day. I'll be coming in over the weekend and clearing it out. And that's just a safer bet. You know, I have had a couple of people who really wanted to give it directly to me and, you know, you could call and we can see about, you know, making an appointment to meet you at the door. But, you know, I still really want to encourage people to, you know, to use that drop box. Right now, the turnout is surprisingly low. It's actually pretty low. I think it's not enough to say it's a generality. It's been an axiom that these mail-in elections bring the lower turnout elections up to the level of the highest. So we're completely breaking the laws of nature with such a low response, which is more consistent with our regular city meeting turnout, not even on the high side of that. So either that means it's just gonna be a low turnout election, or it means we're gonna get a lot of people on town meeting day. So I think folks should be aware of that. We still got COVID protocols in place. So that means, you know, distancing, that means only letting so many people in at a time. There are gonna be lines. And if a lot of people show up, then they could be time-consuming lines. So I just hope folks will bear that in mind. You know, one of the things that I was hearing from some folks was that they were waiting to vote so that they could gather more information and be able to incorporate, you know, new information as it came up. And I thought that was incredibly thoughtful and wise. Just as long as, you know, folks do get their ballots in in time, that's great. And would certainly encourage everybody to do their research on all of the candidates and all of the items for sure. So thank you again. And I think that was it for me, John. Is there anything else further you would like to say as to your turn? Nothing very interesting, so that's fine. Okay, Bill, go ahead. Just to follow up on that, as we did in November, the rest of city hall will be closed on Tuesday just because there's gonna be so many people coming in and out of the building. John has got a great system of getting people, one stair down, the other in the front, and the people in the back. But just out of safety's sake for our employees, we won't have the rest of our offices opened so people will come wandering in just because of the large humanity. There may be a couple of us there. We'll be working, but we'll be with locked doors or whatever. So just so you know that, otherwise I think we are not gonna do, in November we then close for two more days for cleaning and all that. And we realize that wasn't that necessary because really the clerk staff had done such a good job of managing access to the building. So assuming they're gonna do their usual bang up job, we will simply be closed on Tuesday for that purpose. Also allows some of our staff that don't live here to attend somehow, however their time meetings are being held. I don't know what they're doing that day, but whether it's virtual or not, I guess most of them are just voting. And like the mayor said, we really have three years, three separate years in municipal government, right? We have the fiscal year that goes July 1 to June 30 with the calendar year. And then there is sort of the council year and that really goes from town meeting to town meeting. That's the 12 months that a particular group is together. Sometimes they have a second, 12 months together or a third, but every year where the council is a unique experience with the dynamics of that, those seven people and our staff and everything else. So I certainly thank all of you, but certainly the three of you that are for election for serving. It's a thankless job. And you get to get complained at all the time and not really, and basically volunteer for that. And certainly appreciate anyone who runs for election, local government requires people to participate. And if people don't step up to run like you all did, then we don't have a local government. So we'll start again in March with the new year. Unlike any other, unlike other forms of government, right? Where someone gets elected and there's a period of time before they actually start, while they get up, we elect our legislators and everybody in governors in November and they don't start till January. So they have time for transition, trying to learn, it's, you get elected on Tuesday and you're the council member that night. Remember telling one council member years ago, they said, well, when do I take office? So let me put it this way. If you have a flood tonight, I'm calling you. So. And so, March 10, we'll be up and running and we'll start all of our cycle all over again with thinking about strategic planning and priority setting and organizational meetings and committee assignments and then going through with laying out those, finishing up the agenda items from this last year and then starting with the wishes and desires of the new group. So it's always exciting and thank you all for this. This year has been particularly exciting in not so many fun ways but you all have really made it work great and have been supportive of staff and of each other and of a very difficult situation. So we appreciate that very much. And also just want to congratulate Montpelier alum, city staff alum, Jesse Baker for being appointed city manager in South Burlington. So that woman is a rocket ship. Super exciting for her. That's right. It's very cool. All right. Well, I think that is the end of our business for this evening. So it's 10 o'clock. You may have an excellent evening, everyone. We'll see you later. Okay, night off. Good night. Thanks.