 All right, everybody all set in the room here great then I will go ahead and call the City of Essex Junction City Council meeting for Wednesday August 31st 2022 to order thank you all for being here do we have any agenda additions or changes for tonight none from staff I had one from the consent agenda I'd like to just pull out that approving of the awarding of the backhoe bid to Milton Katz and put that into business item let's put that as 5b and then move the real estate purchase after that any other counselors great so then I would entertain a motion to amend the agenda I move that we amend the agenda as described second thank you Dan any further discussion hearing none all in favor please signify by saying aye aye those opposed say nay great so that pass unanimously thank you we can go into public to be heard so this is a portion of tonight's meeting where if there are any members of the public who wish to speak to the board about something that is not on the agenda now is the time to do so since there are no real members of the public that are here please using zoom go ahead raise your hand I'll make sure to give you some time to speak seeing no hands up from the public we'll go ahead and come back and jump right into business item 5a and to discuss the land development code updates yeah Andrew this is just an opportunity for you all you know you got them on short notice before the last meeting for you all to just have a preliminary discussion there's no action tonight but just an opportunity to get some ideas flowing figure out if there's questions or things you want staff to go back and look for I did have an email exchange with Raj today who was asking if somebody from the planning Commission was going to be here or Regina we did not ask them to which we should have in hindsight so that some of those questions could be answered so certainly if you want to continue the discussion on 914 we could invite other parties to be here who wrote the updates to answer some of your questions so I probably won't be able to answer many questions tonight but I can certainly make a list whatever you need but the rest is yours appreciate that thank you and yeah the intent of this really is just for us to have that initial conversation hopefully we've taken the time to read through it there is a lot to this so yeah no decisions just just a conversation and so is there anything that anybody had that they wanted to bring up I mean it's a lot to it but I mean right off the bat if I could I just this is not a comment on anybody's the work anybody's done on this whatsoever and I know we've only worn the cannabis portion for a public hearing but I don't know if it was the version that I got or if everybody else noticed that in terms of cross referencing other sections within the document and the enumerating of the sections and subsections and everything else in the document seemed very very I'll just say incorrect it wasn't I stopped keeping track basically so I don't know if it's it didn't seem ready to me to warn as an entire document because that for instance every time in certain sections where it said the process to appeal referred to 1707 or that didn't exist and in five or six maybe eight sex instances the section that referred to did not exist so the order of a lot of the statutes within it was incorrect in terms of you know AB sometimes it went right to D and things like that so that made it a little bit difficult to follow so that's just one observation but is that is that in the draft from today's packet or was that what was sent back on the so Brad I'm gonna ask you because what I ended up doing was asking Brad and Wendy if I get a printout because I just found it a lot easier to to go through so Brad did that printout come from the same version that was in the packet or was this is there a potential that what I got was different that is a great question if that I clicked on the link on the website on the planning commission page and print for you okay so that's probably what we all have done anybody notice this I went off of what we had from our previous meeting so I I didn't but I generally don't catch those things I will try to find one once you keep going I'll try to find one okay so was there another counselor who had anything that they wanted to bring up just while Raj is trying to find something I'm just curious the the fine the schedule finds here just trying to understand the logic behind the increase some are doubled some not so much it's just I wonder what the metrics was to determine the fines or is it just kind of haphazardly established I'm just somebody's got that answer I don't know I'm just curious yeah I think some of that in part came from one of our budget meetings to maybe three years ago where there was a request to increase the fees but I remember yeah specifically Amber actually brought that issue up I believe and I didn't disagree with her but just curious on how it was established it just like I something's going for logic yeah and some some some hundred to 200 but some went from a hundred to 125 or 150 I was looking through I put it off the list here but you can see you know just it's just kind of a curious if somebody that needs her but yep that's it okay so yeah Brad page 10 it's 304 B is one example duties and responsibilities of the Community Development Department list one two three is blank and then there's four yep MCMA and on the next page well two pages later on page 12 section 502 section a and then subsection 3 all of a sudden and then 4 and then 5 and then in the following page page 13 section C it goes from subsection 1 to 6 to 7 and just keeps going on like that throughout the document so I guess the question is is it still in need of reformatting which is totally fine or are we just all getting a link to a draft that's not quite ready for primetime I'm not seeing none I think Andrew you and it's the same the old LDC that came with the last packet so are you seeing it on yours but I'm not talking about I am not on mine yeah so it's so they are great so we can find out what the final idea I was told that the most current version of the website but I don't know for that for sure okay I mean I'm sure well I'm not sure I'm gonna guess that the content isn't different maybe it's just not the reformatted version my understanding is there was a process reformatting over a weekend I think the difference maybe if I can just interrupt real quick Raj so in 502 there's no changes from the previous version in numbers one or two and then there's a change in three so just as a thought I'm wondering if the only things that we are seeing are those sections where there are changes from the previous version I mean mine's got both changes in original I thought of that I mean I was wondering if it was just but I've got both in here so yes sir great Scott that would be greatly appreciated sorry I just tuned in because I was interested and it wasn't officially asked by the chair anybody else to attend but what you're reading on the website is the document that was changed from the 2016 DC those are changes only to the LDC from 2016 the one you need section a then three two or two in 2016 we had asked that we have a version that included all the changes track and changes from 2016 obviously that's not on the website yet the version that was submitted Commission in July I can't remember the exact date but it was the date of the training new commissioners was a full full text of the DC which included all the sections that are missing so just this from 2016 which you would have to do in this website and the 2016 version and you would have to innovate together great thank you for that Scott yeah thank you so where did you you guys got this from the packet two meetings ago yes so no I got I literally just put on the planning commission page and it said and development says that's extension agenda land development code updates I presumed that's that's what those were that's all right so why not I'll go back and look at a later date but let's um I guess let's get the is it appropriate then to put the correct version on the website it sounds like yes well I well I don't mean that as a stupid question as stupid as it sounds I guess I just meant there's sounded sounded like from Scott there was a reason right the things were done the way they were done so I guess that's my more what he's getting at like what's the correct version that we're assuming the more complete version is the one we want on the website it sounds like both have a purpose the the whole complete version is very beneficial to get the full context yeah whereas the the one that's on the website that that many of us may have would be great to see the changes but then you just lose the context as to what one and two are yeah yeah makes sense that's good to know though thank you again Scott appreciate that yeah thank you for the explanation Roger you have other questions this is the point it's all right well I guess you know not having not having it's hard I mean some of what I want to know for instance having read through some of this is just generally you know does the new change do the new changes you know to what end to what extent do they take into account thoughts on climate change prepare in the city for the next seven to ten years of climate change you know reading I read a lot about parking there was nothing in there and I'm not saying it has to be nothing in there about requiring any kind of charging facilities for electric cars electric bikes the there was clearly a lot of thought into into multimodal transportation and things like that which is great but generally speaking it didn't feel like there was and so I was curious from the planning commission you know to what extent if any was that brought into this that was a big one so I guess I'll keep I'll try to find the questions that are more thematic and as opposed to specific cuz I don't know what I was reading was so I'll just leave it there we can maybe go around the room and I'll try to make sense of this then because it George did you have the only thing that I wanted to bring up I addressed a little bit at our last meeting just around the residential one and residential two districts allowing for now duplex triplex and potentially quadplex in looking at the 2016 LDC the R1 and R2 zones so our residential zones were only zoned for single-family dwellings and not for duplex triplex or quadplexes so those three factors we brand new things for our community in those zones and those zones for reference are residential one is essentially the countryside the Fairview farms neighborhoods and looping on over into the uplands area within the residential two zones frankly being pretty much everything that's outside of the the old Village Center or what is known as the Village Center with some some distinction as well as in the agricultural designation so that pretty significant portion of the of the homes that we have or of the residences that we have in this community being zoned for potentially two three four family dwellings wondering why doing all of that now as compared to a phased in or tiered in approach such as for this portion maybe R1 would only allow for duplexes whereas R2 may allow for duplexes and triplexes as a way to see how that then impacts the community before we just throw everything open to four families living in a section that had traditionally been single-family homes so again kind of going back to that that motivation just trying to understand the the rationale as I was kind of wondering the same thing and I wondered about quadplexes but I was thinking of it the other direction so when I think of what you said in those areas that you maybe said maybe we hold off and phase in I see of as having more room for some of that to occur and the other districts being more dense and less likely to absorb that you know that's smaller lots more dense much closer together whereas the are one that you described there's just more land there there's more space for it bigger lots bigger roads you know I think of my neighborhood with very very narrow no sidewalks houses close together almost none of them meet the setback side to side because they've all been waved or done somebody's done something you know things like that putting a quad in there so so I sort of wonder you know if it goes the other way if we even put a hold on quads but so that's yeah you know addressing what you were talking about it and I don't have I don't saying there's an answer to that right it's just what I was thinking about but I don't I like the idea we need to figure out a way to make the community more welcoming and more affordable the other overall thought I had was and I did reach out to the housing commission chairs in the village you know to what extent have they offered input in this I know that there was a I guess there was one meeting where they came and they talked about a lot of things they talked about potential including inclusionary zoning in this and decided not to but you know I saw a lot of mention of the tree advisory committee in this document but I didn't see any mention of like the housing commission or black it went in when things like that seem to address those areas so in my mind I'd almost want to hear from the housing commission on some of this before we hold a public hearing on it and and get some of that feedback and from bike walk it seems like tree advisory was very much on top of it so I just conflated two things they're sorry but yeah as far as the multi-family dwellings there's definitely been some interesting comments out there in the forums so I was really the only thing that that stuck out to me John Alden hi you are muted if you wanted to unmute yourself if you want to help provide any of that context we talked about it's right of you as it's appropriate for us to speak from the planning commission to respond to your comment at this point or I think that it is wholly appropriate so we met with our planning commission the housing committee a couple of times we also have the benefit of this entire process being managed by the wonderful consultant Regina Mahoney who is the city manager and so we feel pretty comfortable that we have a really good handle on the pulse of what housing opportunities are available to us to try and make it more welcoming and slightly easier to provide no housing capacity in the in the village and one option was to increase the density and and so we did in a number of districts but but what we did was we said you still have to meet all the other environment so if it doesn't fit it will not fit you know you still have to get parking in there you still think of the other aspects of what is required to provide for him to a lot so if a lot too small oh well it's not pop so however where it might be possible and somebody can figure it out and show it to the the GRB that that it works we wanted to allow for that opportunity so it's us the spirit and the way that we felt comfortable and to permit more higher density as an allowable use in certain districts and I don't think that means that everybody's going to be able to do it I think that means that some wants me able to take advantage of that opportunity and hopefully applications and the GRB will still have an opportunity to review all of the material all of the requirements all of the parking you know setbacks and so on and so forth so just because it's allowable doesn't mean it's all or permitted it just means that the village is saying okay it works we want to see what you're thinking thank you John set up a little bit with some of the questions yes Amber was there anything that you had that you wanted to bring up tonight okay so I think from here once we've concluded with cannabis we'll go back to the the land development code through the public hearing process and or maybe have another exploratory conversation though I all if you all don't mind I'll reach out to the planning Commission reach out to some others to have them invited make sure that we can get the context and see this process through John Scott thank you for for speaking from your previous experiences appreciate that so then if there is nothing sorry I didn't know if we wanted while they're here on in Scott wanted to speak to Dan's question about the fines rationale or if you want to with the next time John or Scott if either of you are comfortable responding to that if you if you have that off top of your head the question was around the rationale for some of the fee increases where some of them had been doubled some of them were increased by about a quarter so just trying to understand the the differences well from my point of view the fees are amazingly low compared to other communities I think you've been triple or quite truthful woman and they'd still be well in line of what's going on around you I don't think you should be shy about the cost of development the cost of not complying with the dollar the cost of any of these things it's it's one of the most expensive undertakings imaginable right now and your fees are amazingly low though from that perspective essentially what we believe is that you're you're attempting to catch up a little to what's reasonable and fair and we're in the marketplace I don't see them as as being too can I ask a follow-up to that no I just I hear what he's saying and I disagree that's the whole premise I believe Amber brought it up like I said before Amber if I'm wrong correct me but that the fees were low and that we should be changing them but I my question primarily was what was the rationale for only or for doubling some of them not doubling some some not even changing the fee and I just if we're gonna do it I guess we should have some metrics that we're using to say just I say we're gonna double all the fees boom they're all doubled or what what have you you know and deal with it that way I just find it kind of haphazard or random how they came up with this but obviously I don't I don't know if there's an answer maybe not there was there was discussion of each and every fee so so we didn't sort of in choose we actually focused on you know maybe what incentives out there where we thought you know not not doubling or not increasing the fee is still appropriate so it each item went through a separate review process it was may appear haphazard but but there was a rationale that includes you know who's really being asked to pay what and why and and and bears it appropriate to have those expenses increased to be in in in relationship to other costs that are there for certain development types so that was more the rationale than you know okay just make all of them higher you know that some of the permits you go out you know it's a somebody that's got a smaller parcel and it's an individual homeowner you know like why they're you know trying to put the you know big development fee to that where some comes in the subdivision and wants to you know increase a lot of things with the bigger project or different type of development being considered you know that starts the target that says you know what that's that's costing everyone in the village something let's put up to that that's so I guess my follow-up John is is so you're saying compared to the peer communities were low it you know is this something we should review every year and notch up with you know with the thoughtfulness that you you know is there is there a way we can identify a process to to catch up and mitigate some of that you know we're we're we're gonna want to start to do a little more code enforcement and ordinance enforcement we're gonna need to you know in some ways we capture that somehow that's gonna be expensive so I you know I don't I'm not saying one goes to the other necessarily but that's a fair statement my opinion is that the the feet of maybe not been scrutinized adequately for some years and I'm not sure why probably because the land development code itself doesn't get updated you know every five years or something so you know there is some where you know maybe you're not paying as much attention to the fees as you could be and you know in my business which is all about development and building things and construction you know we're seeing fees and costs for things go up incredibly over the five years and since the last time we did the land development code and I think it's good policy to speak and I on things make sure that the true cost of doing business and the true cop what the village is is going through is reflected in the fees that we charge it just like in their business and and yet where you're looking to incentivize some pipe development you might you might soften that a little bit and say you know this and that's important to the village and for those reasons we're trying to make it as affordable and as possible for people they know to achieve those thanks just curious John how we compare with the town with their fees which town the town of Essex I still think we're trailing them a bit on fees I know they're quite a bit more involved with management of you know infractions and other things they they're they've got more staff available to go out and make sure that things are being done exactly the way they should be in that everybody's toeing the land and that every possible thing that needs a permit gets one and I don't necessarily think we need to go quite to that level but but it's notable that we're really not there yet you know I think it's a place to do business in the junctions just because that that level of enforcement isn't quite there yet and you really want to work with your community and not feel like you're you know being cute of all time but I think we have some some ability to kind of become a little more sophisticated in our fee structure and our development practices I think primary personally my personal opinion on this would be I agree with you and pretty much in whole I just want to make sure that the enforcement aspect is done equally it's not disparaging one you know group or party over another I just like to see fairness you know so just my personal experience in my enforcement career and law enforcement doesn't matter who you or everyone's treated the same our whole the rewrite of the land development codes was was highly influenced by the notion that we want it to be more clear about the things that the bill is wants to promote in terms of development types and locations and really give applicants a chance to hear what we want other than just be told you know what the what we don't want or or something want them to get a strong message about what what we do want and we wanted to put them in place to allow that and that should be reflected all the way down through the entire structure the land development code and the enforcement but the enforcement really should be across the board they have a rule in place that's the deal you know applies to everyone and you know if people know that your land development is is well-written and that's what you want and they give it to you and everybody knows what the story is then then that's fair and that is the best way to do business you know you don't want people feeling like they're you know somebody else got something they didn't get or something whatever you you want it to be as fair you can make it across the board and it's clear as you can make it for the developers and the applicants who you know there's quite a bit of risk in this kind of thing and and the more we can be clear and and and help help them find what we are looking for that's the best thing thank you thank you again John sorry can I circle back one more to Raj's comment about climate change I don't think John was on then Raj do you want to read that yeah John I don't know if you're here for part of the discussion where it looks like I had an incomplete I kind of poured through an incomplete version of the of the changes so I don't think I have seen everything but I just wanted to ask from here from the planning Commission as to you know to what extent was were issues around climate change and preparing for climate change and setting the village up that way you know taken into account through this process and it was a very long deliberative process a lot of work I just I guess I was trying to get an idea of that so climate change is something that's affecting all of us in various ways my business as an architect is responding drastically to these things we find mostly complying and with the fish to Vermont and the development of the Vermont residential and commercial building energy codes is a key factor and how the state is moving forward with a plan that has a huge energy plan that addresses all sectors including housing and you know built environment it's it's you know I think still the best the best information available for people is that insulation and air sealing is the number one thing you can be doing to a building to improve its energy efficiency and aside from that it's just you know efficient systems and there's quite a bit of movement toward electrical we try to promote those same ideals in the in the land development code although most of that comes down through state mandates so there's a lot of language in there that got updated really at the solar power and really to other you know large energy grid kind of things that aren't really the normal for most of the people around but we are you know the villages is work it's got a high a high number of residential properties it would be great to see more and more properties become sort of locally efficient which which in a lot of cases is solar power and then going through the then different vendors and different programs they get more solar to those locations it's not exactly something we feel like we can mandate in the code for example but all of the things that we had to do for the state requirements were done and we have several presentations by folks on on what those were and how that would impact the village I know from two rounds of land development code there's some pretty interesting things about what our town what our village comprehensive plan has to say and how it fits into the regional plan that is you know on a pretty high level about you know why Wiccum Farms gets put in giant solar array and you know that's allowed for it's great it's a different kind of farming we all have to get used to it but for the average person it's not quite the kind of thing you're going to see regulated in the land development code for the average person it's you know there's all there's just a tremendous amount of information out there about how you can become more efficient their programs through efficiency Vermont that that we encourage everybody to take advantage of but the land development code itself doesn't necessarily go promote how to deal with climate change it's not a straight shot yet there is a task force of on climate change at the state level they issued their their first report which kind of sets out a roadmap it's not necessarily all the answers yet but it's it's providing guidance for how we go about the next number of years there are targets out there there's 20 30 targets at 25 targets you decide which ones you guys want to try and aim at and we'll be happy to help you with ways to get there but they're pretty aggressive and some of the things they're pretty outrageous like for all in this experiment and with no fossil fuel burning so what does that mean tell everybody they throw out the wood stoves and and get off oil you know that that's a pretty tough call and five years of wood lined up in the backyard so we've got a lot of work to do to sort out climate change and our impact on climate change in Vermont there are I like said they're national and state level programs and studies being done to figure that out and hopefully we'll get great guidance from our our own state and it'll trickle down to efficiency Vermont and programs that are funded to allow the basic homeowner and other village residents to achieve something better than they have now I guess you know part of what I was thinking was you know we'd read a lot of sections on parking and parking lots and I didn't know if there was any thought given to incentivizing in one way or another for developers to add charging stations or other things there's a lot in there about bicycle storage and everything which is great and there was one reference there's one charging stations are also regulated in the energy code do you get points for doing things in certain cases there's incentives for doing that this fascinating information out there about how many electric cars are possible what it means to the grid to have charging of all these cars that you want to have charged how fast this is going to happen how fast this can happen and the land development code is probably consistent with what's required in the state energy code and it probably doesn't push a lot harder than that looks like Scott wants to say something yeah sorry if I could just add a couple of things here other than what Diane Clements is also on on this thing called she's also a commissioner just you know that but secondly one of the things that I said when I interviewed the Atlanta commissioner was I was interested in how the comprehensive code or comprehensive plan to be implemented there's an amount of ambitious activities outlining the comprehensive code or comprehensive plan sorry my interest in him is trying to figure out what the priorities are so things like Roger you're talking about like charging stations what other things in the the annex which is the energy the energy portion of the code of the plan and be implemented what are the priorities for the city as we look forward right now I think it's it's open to discussion is where we go with the comprehensive plan now the deep of these because basically in its final stages what is the next activity that the city wants to undergo the climate just something I'm very interested in being reasonable and flexible in terms of adaptation I think mitigation is possibly a smaller portion of it and wind farm obviously or the solar farm is obviously part of that but what we do for adaptation and I think this is something that could be a discussioners I think that'd be great thank you Scott that does bring up a great point that as a board we've never talked about what our priorities would be what we would like to see in terms of a climate goal it was mentioned before about there's goals from 2030 there's goals for 2050 there's goals that we could come up with ourselves is a conversation we haven't had so one that we will need to sooner than later I think I think it'd be a great conversation you know there's one line in here I read I think it was out of context because of my version in terms of prepping some stormwater for a 25-year storm and that just seems so low to me as a number but you know it's out of context for me and I'm not that's not my specialty and I think just generally we were hoping to hear from from Chelsea anyway in this process probably hear from her on cannabis and some other things but it just occurs to me you know because we're getting so much denser in the village there's so much more impervious space the storms are getting bigger we're getting more people in here with fewer space with less space I just yeah it's curious to what extent I think John answered a lot of that but I think a conversation damn we see a conversation walks the board like that around the comprehensive plan and climate goals be great go ahead Diane John and Scott and right on as to where the planning commission was discussing things the land development code as it's currently sitting in front of you we'll comply with state regulations as they are and the incentives that they have provided the planning commission spent a lot of time to make sure that bicycle availability and things that does bicycle storage and transportation and whatnot were reinforced in the code the fee schedule is such that as John said they won't play behind a planning commission over the last few years has asked Robin why the fees weren't being adjusted on a yearly basis and I believe in the last six months you actually did that and then in this review we looked at them again and encouraged him to raise them given what our neighbors are doing there's a lot of regulations with the land development code is actually imposed by the state so we have to go by what the state requires and if you will please read the introductory paragraphs of things like three or four pages of why things were done that may answer a lot of questions you have it had been part of the conversation along the way given actually the planning image is supposed to mean I guess not tomorrow but meeting has not been warned so since it's the first Thursday of the month so I would leave it to the the city council as to and the managers is such as to when the next meeting of the planning commission will be because I guess due to circumstances we were or we'll need some administrative support yep to move that forward so and do remember that if you send out a note to the planning commissioners as a whole it gets forwarded through Terry she's she's not in the office we won't get until she gets back in just to remind you of the last occasion so I think it's a really good report a lot of what you're talking about should be discussed in the new comprehensive plan and as Scott has referred you know it that's up and coming I think we're in good stead to start that process and get some of the things that you're talking about in the new comprehensive plan for the city so I'm hoping that once we do get started that there's a lot of discussion between the council and the planning commission perhaps even the DRV and and all the residents of the city so thank you for listening to my comments thank you Diane anything else counselors good sorry I just want to speak to two points from Diane that email situation has been updated so when emails go to the planning commission they do go to the members also my understanding and then we can catch up offline was that since the LBC updates were approved by the PC and sent and forwarded on to city council at the planning commission to be a meeting we can arrange that absolutely no problem thank you Brad so then we can go on to our next agenda item sorry Andrew could could you just clarify for me next steps you'd like to see with this just so I have it accurate yeah I think what would be ideal actually is if we could just have a conversation offline about the next steps in particular to make sure we're in on track with a timeline we don't confuse things with cannabis I think that would be more beneficial great sounds good thank you Brad so we had moved what was the consent agenda 6g to the now 5b of approving the awarding of the the backhoe bid to Milton Kat and my question and rationale for pulling this out of the consent was just that the amount that was budgeted for this was a hundred and fourteen thousand the requested bid is a hundred and twenty four thousand so there's an extra ten thousand that need to come from somewhere and just that the bid that's being requested from staff is the highest bid so just curious as to why yeah thanks for bringing that up Andrew and I spoke with Ricky I I caught up with him today and told him he did not need to attend tonight and got as much information as I could from him so your reports that the equipment from Milton Kat is higher quality and better equipment that lasts longer and has a higher trading value of the conclusion of its life cycle they also currently a public works of three other pieces of equipment that are from Milton Kat and so there's one factor of convenience that when those pieces need to be serviced new parts need to be ordered they all go through the same vendor but the other is that they have had experience very high quality service with Milton Kat they when machines are down and parts are broken their response time is very good they the prices are good and they feel confident in in their ability to service the equipment throughout its life so you know if we're not just looking at initial purchase price I think he's he's looking at the long-term picture and longevity of the piece and thinking that the village the city will be better served with a higher initial price point but over time will be better served okay so just to for an analogy this is not the same thing as going out and getting a Honda a Ford or a Chevy you can't just get these serviced necessarily anywhere and that's the products that are being offered from these three companies are not the same product which appreciate just hearing that in addition to what's in the memo so so thank you in terms of the additional ten thousand that would be there I assume just seeing that what's in that projected year end of FY 23 water capital fund budget of over five hundred thousand dollars that would be the source for the extra ten thousand and clearly five hundred thousand can support paying for ten thousand that's correct yeah the funds are there Ricky and Jess looked at it it doesn't require any further funds funding from our transfer to capital or from our general fund this is you know part of the water funds given that the back of services not only just regular public works but also our utilities great and no other I assume again it's only air quotes for only ten thousand from that fund isn't going to impact something next year in a negative way not from their projections they looked at what's what's coming up and they did not see any negative impact by spending this extra just shy of ten thousand great there any other questions from counselors nope and on this one I would go ahead and I'll go ahead and make the motion that the City Council award the bid for the back-o to Milton Kai and the net amount of one hundred twenty four thousand dollars I'll second thank you George any further discussion hearing none all in favor please signify by saying aye those opposed say nay great thank you our next agenda would be our next item would be in executive session so we can jump into the consent agenda I won't be approved the consent agenda thank you Dan second thank you George any further discussion hearing none all in favor please signify by saying aye aye those opposed say nay great going into the the reading file and board member comments is there anything anybody wanted to ask or bring up no I'm good for now Brad Wendy I think we're good yeah I'm good great then we will I will find that motion for the executive session unless somebody else happens to have that ready I was on the screen now then I'll go ahead and move to the City Council go into executive session to discuss negotiating or securing real estate purchase or lease options under the provisions of title one section 313 a2 of the Mont statutes and include the interim co-managers well second thank you George any further discussion hearing none all in favor please signify by saying aye aye those opposed please say nay great so that passed unanimously thank you all give us a few minutes so that we can get ready and we'll do anything thank you everybody for coming out Scott's got a break down should we go back over to