 All right, so I'm going to call this meeting to order. The first thing is to review and approve the agenda. And I think one thing that may come up is just some changes to the consent agenda instead of having the January minutes be its own separate item. I think we're going to put that into the consent agenda unless folks are actually, unless we want to keep them separate. All the January are out of the consent agenda on what I downloaded. Yeah, and John had suggested that maybe they should be in the consent agenda, but. I think that was just an oversight. The other oversight was also that the liquor meeting as the liquor commission was not in the consent agenda. I want to talk about the January six minutes. So I just as Lee, they stay out this time. That's fine. That is okay. Just thought I was worth checking on. Maybe we can move all but the January six minutes into the consent agenda since there's other January minutes in there. Is that okay, Donna? Sure. Okay, other than that, I don't think there are any other changes to the agenda unless folks have any objections to that. Okay. All right. So without objection, we'll consider the agenda approved. So the next thing is general business and appearances. This is an opportunity for any member of the public or the council to address the group as on some topic that is otherwise not on our agenda this evening. If you have a comment on something that is on our agenda, then the time to do that would be just adjacent to or as a part of that agenda item. But if there's something not on the agenda that you'd like to address the council regarding then now's the time of Donna. Go ahead. Yes, I just wanted to mention the school board did make a decision on the SRO officer and they voted not to bring it back. They had already taken it out of its budget. There was a little bit of confusion because on their agenda it just said presentation but they went ahead and they made a decision. It was a very lively report and discussion. I feel that me, the takeaway was that the police, we really need to work on community relationships and working on, of course, all of our biases and racial issues. But also to build a relationship with people, we need to be proactive. And so I heard just a lot of fear and discomfort that use language on the national scene applying it to us. And so I feel if we want to stand out that we really have to work to stand out and to build our relationships in the community accordingly. That's all. Thank you. Anyone else? And Cameron, are you seeing anyone? Ma'am, if you would like to speak and you haven't unmuted yourself, you can raise your hand or throw up a reaction. OK, I'm not seeing anyone either. So we are going to move on. So the next item is the January 6th minutes. So I don't know that there's much. John, if you want to speak to them, but I know Donna has a comment about them. But I'll give you first first dibs, John, if you want to say anything about them. Well, I don't have them in front of me. Those are I think the ones for the one that I sort of receive notes for. But I looked over it. But I I don't know. Donna hasn't contacted me about what could be on there. So I have no idea. I was just trying to pull them down right now. Yeah, so good. Go ahead, Donna. This is no mistake on your part. I just when reading through them, I just felt that the mayor had made comments and opening statement to that meeting on January 6th about the capital event that happened that day. And I felt it was really important that we have maybe a clear statement if we could insert that into the minutes. And I did mention to the mayor that I was going to do this. I really feel that sometimes there are statements that I feel need to be in the minutes and not just in the recording. And I felt that way about the statement that the mayor had done at the beginning of the meeting. So I would add a motion to add her statement. Everyone heard it. Unfortunately, I don't have it in hand. So if you feel uncomfortable about voting on that, I can get it in hand for the next meeting. Second, your motion. And I do have it. So since Donna did let me know that she was interested in this, I did dig it up, though I did not get a chance to send it around to everyone. But theoretically, if anyone would like it, I'm happy to send it along. OK. So there is any further discussion on on this point? Dan, go ahead. Yeah, I mean, I'll just say I support this as well. I think it makes sense. And I don't think it needs to circulate because I mean, your statement is what it what it is. But I think it is one of those those moments and statements that's worthy of marking specifically in the minutes with the exact wordage. Yeah, fair enough. And yeah. Any other comments? OK. So all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Sure, just a quick point of order. Are we going to approve the consent agenda before we go into the appointments? Well, so the consent agenda is actually not until after the appointments. OK, that's fine. I just wanted to make sure. Yeah, fair, fair enough, fair question. All right, so just the first question I have is if anyone is here who is up for one of these appointments, Anif, John, Lin, Holly, Scott, Stephen, or for the Transportation Infrastructure Committee, Hanif, or Christian. And I don't actually see any of those folks to my knowledge on the call. I don't either. OK, if I'm wrong, we would love to hear from you. OK, so. All right, then. Seeing that as nobody is here, I guess we won't be taking testimony on that. But I imagine since we do need to make some choices that we probably should go into executive session, so is there a motion? I move pursuant to one VSA section 313 that we go into executive session for the purpose of considering a good appointment. Are we going to consider both committees? Yes, that was my. Yeah, yeah, OK, and there is a second. OK, any further discussion? OK, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. OK, and opposed. OK, so we are all going to duck out of this meeting, but this line will stay open for those who are interested in rejoining as seeing the rest of the meeting when we rejoin. All right, see you in a bit. Is there a motion to come out of executive session? So moved. Yeah, motion and a second for discussion. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. OK, and opposed. All right, is there a motion? There is. I will make a motion that we appoint the following individuals to the Complete Streets Committee, Stephen Page, Scott Richardson, Holly Fowler to seats on the Complete Seats Committee and John Snell. And then Holly Fowler and Hanif Nasralli as alternates to Complete Streets Committee and that we also appoint Hanif Nasralli and Christian Meyer as alternates to the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. I'd make a correction. I would second it. OK, good. Go ahead, Donna. Lynn Bottle is the alternate instead of Holly. Oh, my mistake. So Lynn Bottle as the alternate and Hanif Nasralli is the alternate to Complete Streets and Holly to the full seat. Yes, I second that. OK. Hold on. Sorry, was there a question? No, no, sorry. OK, all right. All right, so there's a motion and a second. Any further discussion? OK, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. OK, and opposed. OK, so motion passes. Thank you, everybody, for stepping up and your service in advance. All right, so now I think we are up to the consent agenda. So is there a motion regarding the consent agenda? Oh, which, by the way, also includes the liquor licenses that John circulated earlier. Yeah, I think that's it. I move the consent agenda. I'll second it. OK, there's a motion and a second. Any further discussion? I had one question on an item there. I don't know if we need to pull it off, but in Cameron's COVID report there, I see like indoor winter sports are back. And I didn't know if there had been any discussions on the school board, whether Montpelier was going to actually engage in the indoor winter sports yet. I think some school districts are, you know, are setting out that. But, you know, I certainly have some concerns, but. So I can tell you that the winter sports are moving forward. They're kids playing basketball. They have a game coming up, which they are very excited about. So. All right, take it for what it is. Yeah, right, exactly. I realize that may not be. I don't know if that sparks any further questions for you, Conor, but. Now, I mean, I don't think it's our call, but, you know, with the outbreak at the ice rink pretty recently, I'm a little nervous and haven't played like varsity basketball. It's pretty hands on sport. So a little concern, but not our call. Yeah, OK. Well, it's we'll keep following it. And if we need to make our own adjustments, I think that is within our purview. I think, right? As it pertains to safety. All right, so there's any, but you're not pulling the item off the agenda, right? OK, so any there's been a motion in a second. Any further discussion on the consent agenda? OK, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. And opposed. OK. All right, so the consent agenda passes. All right, so we have an upcoming art public art project. And I think there are some folks here who may be prepared to talk about that. So, yeah, I guess I'll turn it over to. To that crew, I see. Hi, I'm Sabrina Fadile. Hi, Sabrina. Yes, go ahead. Hi, so I'm here representing Montpelier Alive Design Committee. And Rob Hitzig is also here for that, representing the Montpelier Art Commission. I've been in classes all day online, so I'm bleary eyed at this point. So anyway, the Community Quilt Project, the Tumbling Blocks, I'm hoping you will have all seen flyers. And I'm wondering if you all have any questions that need answering. We've been approved that's fully funded via Montpelier Alive and a grant from AARP. And we have the Montpelier Art Commission approval and the site and everybody's on board. So we're hoping you all are too. That's great. Any questions, Donna? Go ahead. I'm sorry to say I haven't seen your flyer. So I was wondering what's the date range of the project as far as so decisions. We will be we're pretty much we are underway in this and the deadline for submissions is February 12. And then we will be installing around the equinox. The date isn't pinned down, but we're looking around March 22nd, 23rd as a one year remembrance of our close down of COVID and really that impact on life. And so to be able to have a virtual opening at a live open gallery space where community members can walk through the transit center or drive through and find their artwork. And I have to say, the submissions that have come in so far are stunningly beautiful, including the toddler scribble all over one template. You know, it's just this myriad of fabulous expression from everyone in the community. It's really it's it's exciting. So the timeline is that the panels will be installed for a year. And with the arrangement we have made with the Montpelier Arts Commission is that after a year, we will evaluate the condition. And if they're still in good condition and there's nothing there's no other artwork lined up to take its place, that it will stay up for another year. And so we'll just kind of keep rolling on that. That's the idea. But it is intended as a temporary thing. It sounds wonderful. Thank you. Thank you very much. Lauren. Yeah, I don't have a question. I just wanted to say I was so excited to see this idea. I love the like something people can safely do, but then it being able to come together in a communal way and reflect this just really bizarre time we've been living through. So I'm just really appreciative of the creativity and creating community out of out of my place. And so I got it. Thank you. Thank you so much. I mean, I had this random idea at the end of November, you know, sitting by the wood stove wrapped in a quilt. And I don't know, thinking of being quarantined and community and all of this stuff. And I just wanted to wrap a quilt around this community. And so here we go. Wrapping a quilt around the community. I'm thrilled with how excited everybody's been by the project. So I have a couple of questions just to make sure that we're clear. I think you said this in your memo, but who is responsible for the maintenance of the art? Montpelier alive. OK. And so they're also the ones that would make the call as to whether or not to leave it up another for additional time. That would be in consultation with the Montpelier Arts Commission, because they may have curated some other artwork to go up and will be in conversation of, does it look good enough to stay up another year? You know, that kind of thing. Right. So and Rob and I both serve on the Rob and I serve on the Montpelier alive design committee. And he is the liaison with the Montpelier Arts Commission. And so we have a good good communication back and forth between the two. Good. Good. Any other further questions? Jay, go ahead. Yeah, not a question, but Sabrina, I love this spirit and I love your work. And I'm so thankful for this. You know, I did see the template that went out in the bridge a while ago, and I feel like I appreciate that you're trying to engage the community as much as possible. And I have nothing but faith in what you will create in partnership with Rob and the Arts Commission. But thank you for bringing more art to our city. I love it. Thank you, Jay. And it's nice to see you again. You too. Great. Any further comments or questions? OK. All right. Well, thank you for all the work that you've put into this, you know, taking this from an idea to a reality. This is very exciting. And I think especially like what it means for the community right now is it's just it's really like it's very precious. It's really lovely. Thank you. Yeah. So let us know if you need anything further from us. I will do. Thank you very much. And thank you also, Rob, for for your support in this project and for for being here, too. So. All right. OK. So we are going to move on then to some potential zoning amendments. This is not a public hearing. This is just informational. And so for this, I am going to turn it over to city staff, whether that's Bill or Mike. Going to be me. OK. So this there may be people. This was warned in the paper as a public hearing. So there may be folks who may want to have a public comment. It wasn't put on the agenda as a public hearing, though. So that's fine. But we are only required to have one public hearing to adopt zoning amendments, but typically I what I do is usually come through and meet with you guys first to give a summary and kind of introduce you guys to what the zoning changes are. And then we usually follow that up two weeks later, three weeks later with the with the actual hearing. So you guys kind of have an opportunity to ask some preliminary questions if you have them, but we'll have another opportunity to kind of go through those in this presentation. I'm going to kind of keep it more general. Keep it, you know, the 50,000 foot and we'll go more line by line or whatever you guys would like to do next time. But again, it's it's always your your hearing. You're always willing to kind of be flexible with you guys. If there's anyone in the public who is interested in information on this, all the information is on the front page of the city website. On the bottom left, there's a gray bar, which has a number of links, including 2020 zoning amendments. So that is where if anyone is looking for these and there is a strikeout copy that is available on that page. That's usually the easiest. And I don't know if Cameron, you need to give me anything to share my screen. Nope, looks like you should be able to. All right. So the zoning amendments you guys have tonight really break down into three primary areas of change. We had a first set of changes that had come in because we've been talking for the better part of a year with folks in the savings pasture, the savings pasture development team, and a couple of barriers to their ideas came up. And so the planning commission, well, the city talked about these with the savings pasture folks and then we presented them to the planning commission, who reviewed them in light of savings pasture itself just generally because this isn't reviewing there any proposal that they have. And then also looked at the implications across, you know, what would be the impacts on other projects around the city if we made some of these changes? And I'll go through each of these in a bit. The second group is the housing related changes. So that was partly due to some statutory changes that were adopted by the legislature last year. And we also made a few other changes that were not statutorily required. But we had felt would make the administration of residential uses a little bit easier. And then as as usual, we have a set of miscellaneous changes that are mostly minor and technical that we come up as we discover little little things in the regulations that aren't quite accurate or aren't quite working right. So the three savings related pieces. The first one is in traffic in the conditional use. So the issue that came up there was how we regulate the the traffic requirements within the conditional use section and what, although there are some proposals that were made, the one the planning commission felt most comfortable about was removing the the level of service as a requirement. So the requirement for traffic is not to have undue impacts on traffic. And one of the guidelines was that it couldn't make the level of service of an intersection worse. And this could come up for a number of reasons in a number of places. But obviously a project in savings, pasture could have an impact on any number of intersections. And it was felt that it really wasn't the best metric. And it's a metric that across the country, people have been moving away from. So California has stopped using level of service as a requirement for traffic studies. We should just look at them in the subjective cost benefit of, you know, if if a level of service, say, were to decrease by 15 seconds at an intersection, but you could build 300 units of housing or 200 units of housing or 100 units of housing. Well, there's there's a balancing act that the Development Review Board could do. But with the level of service requirement in there, we would be unable to approve that project. And that's not just this project, but any. So that was one. And then we organized it also to clean up what is a requirement? What is a guideline? And so those are in section three, three, oh, three. The second area that was a problem is the new neighborhood PUD, which is a requirement as it was written. It was a requirement for any project in the riverfront district. And that became a problem because it was originally proposed because it was the original zoning had both the upper and the lower savings pastor in the same zoning district. And what happened is when it got split into two zoning districts, we ended up with the new neighborhood still being a requirement in the bottom of it, but they don't need any of the benefits of a PUD. So usually what it is is it's a tradeoff. If you do more, if you want more density, then you have to do more of these other things. But in this case, they don't need any density bonuses. So they can still do a new neighborhood PUD if they like, but it's no longer going to be required. And then the third change for savings pastor was there was the traffic requirements for subdivisions were different than the traffic requirements for conditional use and what we did was made them the same. So those were the three. These I'll go through a little bit quicker. These are the housing related ones that were required by state law. One is in nonconforming parcels, which just has to do with you now cannot. Any parcel with water and wastewater must be allowed to be developed, regardless of its size. And that's just a change of state law. The second is in the use table, the use tables figure two fifteen. So one unit to four unit buildings can no longer be denied for character of the area. That's the new state law. So we therefore adjusted any of our uses that were conditional uses and made them permitted uses. Character of the area is a requirement within conditional use review. So because we can't really regulate character of the area any longer, there's no other requirement in conditional use that really would trigger anything. You know, four unit buildings never going to have a traffic impact. It's never going to have impact on the facilities. So we recommended adjusting those from conditional uses to permitted uses to meet that requirement. And then there were some subtle changes to accessory dwelling units, such as under our previous rule, it was only studios in one bedrooms that could be 80 years and now under state law, any size. You could have a two bedroom accessory dwelling unit now. So we had to make some small adjustments. The housing related ones that are not required, that were not required by that, the residential uses that had been in our current zoning kind of had some gaps and inconsistencies. And you don't really find these to start getting in there. Like we had a specific use of rooming and boarding houses, but it wasn't in the use table. So you have these weird things that just needed to get cleaned up. And so what we did was reclassified all residential uses into three different groups. One, they're thinking of them as dwelling units. And this is what most of us think of your one unit, two unit, three unit, four unit or multi family housing. The second group are congregate living. These are ones that don't necessarily have all of the facilities of a dwelling unit. So they might, it might be a rooming and boarding house. It might be a dormitory where you are renting a room, but you share other facilities like bathrooms and kitchen facilities. And so those are considered congregate living facilities. And then the other ones are these state licensed facilities like group homes and residential care homes. And this led to some other changes throughout the document. So because we made those changes, we had to make adjustments to these tables and these figures and a couple other places. So I can go through these more specifically next time, but they're all in the strikeout copy. And then finally, we had to adjust some definitions as we went through those, including one policy policy change. There used to be in the dwelling unit a requirement that every dwelling unit had to be at least 250 square feet. That had an impact that you couldn't do tiny homes. So we've simply removed that requirement or that limitation, I should say, on dwelling units. And we had to add or amend a few definitions to reflect those changes. So real quick, our miscellaneous changes. We had to fix some minor changes on the riparian buffers and the natural resource map. These are really, really tiny, but every once in a while, they would pop up. And I can go into those details if you if you'd like at the next meeting. We also fixed the design review boundary at the last round of changes. We went through and moved the design review boundary. And we talked about shifting two properties on Terrace Street. And for whatever reason, five properties on Terrace Street got moved. So wasn't caught when we put the map in the warning. And therefore, because the map that was in the warning was wrong, we have to go through and fix it. So this is just to go and put things back to where they were supposed to be from the last meeting. We added some small changes to applicability. So this is going right to the start of the zoning regulations and what needs a permit and what we had is some. You can sometimes think of things in buckets or it's an if then. So we can't regulate something unless it is considered development. So in this case, somebody was removing vegetation out of a riparian buffer, but because that doesn't need a permit, even though it's against the zoning, it didn't need a permit and therefore we couldn't regulate it and therefore we couldn't give a notice of violation. So by putting it in as a trigger, as it in the definition of development, we then have the opportunity to look at something like development in a wetland or development in a riparian buffer or removal of vegetation, I should say, in those areas. So it's a legal technical thing, but it would clean things up. We also added some rules to make reasonable accommodations for ADA easier. We made a few technical fixes. We had to make a strike of in the sign requirements because it was regulating content, which is now unconstitutional by a federal Supreme Court decision. We made an adjustment to fences that used to be that you could have a an eight foot fence in on class one highways, which could allow someone to have an eight foot fence on route 12 or route 12 or route two and didn't seem like that was appropriate or what was intended. And a number of these were just cleaning up some other points, including adding river hazard areas to the natural resources requirement in the new for new subdivisions, which is just a requirement that FEMA has for the NFIP. If we do it, it's part of our community rating system or CRS. And if we do this, we get more points. And we missed out on those points last time, but it's an easy requirement. It just means if you're going to subdivide, you have to show us on the subdivision where the river hazards are. Kind of makes sense. And lastly, we made some other changes to definitions that were not related to housing, including definitions of accessory structures. And finally, there is one additional change to add in, which might need a motion from you guys, which after we had the hearing for the Planning Commission and it got sent to you guys, I was working on language for our revised, excuse me, E 911 regulations. And what we found out was that the state rules for what is a driveway and what is a private road is different. So under E 911 rules, one or two is a driveway, three or more is a private road or private street. And that would mean that we would have a difference in our zoning would say it's a driveway up until three and a private road for more. And because we can't change the state rules, it makes sense that we would just adjust our zoning such that instead of saying serves not more than three parcels, we would change it to say not more than two parcels. And if we make this change, it would just be included in the rest of all the other changes. So I will stop sharing and open that up to any questions that you guys have. I can go into whatever detail you want on this one. Connor, go ahead. Like you might just go over that character of the neighborhood state statute change there again. I just want to get my head around that a bit. OK, so under the state rules that change, a municipality can no longer deny a residential project of one to four units. So one, two, three or four unit buildings. You cannot deny it based on character of the area. So that's what the state law has said, which only appears in the conditional use requirements. And so conditional use has three requirements, traffic, character of the area and impact on community facilities. So because, you know, one to four unit building is so small, it's never going to have an impact on traffic. It's never going to have an impact on community facilities, not going to impact our schools or our fire or police. So it really, now that we can't do character of the area, it really could never be denied for anything there. So we just shifted that category. And there weren't too many. Most of our residential uses were already permitted, but in a few districts, we had to shift them to from conditional to permitted, which I think is probably a good thing. Got it. Thanks, Mike. Dan, go ahead. Yeah, just to maybe put a capstone on that. When you're saying that, Mike, it's now one to four units is either permitted or it's not permitted in a particular zoning district. Correct. So there's no conditional use that third category. Correct. OK. The other point I just wanted to make to the board, I'm going to recuse myself from voting on any of the savings pasture sections of the zoning because I've done some work in my private practice in regards to those and did provide some testimony at the Planning Commission, you know, so when I just wanted to simply put that out up front, I did not comment or do anything on the other sections of the zoning code. And so I feel I'm still able to vote on those, but we'll recuse myself from the savings and changes. So we'll plan on splitting that up then when we vote on it. OK, I'd ask that you do that when the time's appropriate. Actually, also on a procedural note, so, Mike, that last bit that you mentioned about the the driveways, the definition of driveways. So I guess can you just clarify again the process there because that was not change was approved or recommended by the Planning Commission that needs to be added separately? It would it could be added into the the slate. I mean, we've got enough attorneys who can chime in if I if I'm not perfectly correct. But the way the council hearings on these go is that the council can make whatever changes they like. And if they are substantial changes, you know, or will have a substantial impact on policy, then it goes back to the Planning Commission for them to make a determination. My professional opinion as a planner is shifting the definition of driveway from three to two. Probably it's not a substantial change and would probably not warrant sending it back to the Planning Commission for public comment and input. But that would be your call to make on that one. I do have a couple other questions, but I want to give others opportunity if you all have questions. Lauren and then Dan. Yeah, just I was glad to see the addition of the vegetation removal. That was like a great way to make sure that we're picking up those important changes in buffers and wetlands for the traffic changes that are being proposed. I was just curious, does that provision? Have you seen that historically ever trigger like redesign or anything that has been beneficial? Like, are we by excluding that or are you missing anything that historically has resulted in better projects for the community or avoiding impacts to traffic like through creative redesign or anything? We will still have the flexibility as this is written because the requirement is still, I'm just flipping to it really quick. So the overall standard is still that the applicant shall demonstrate that the proposed development will not have an undue adverse effect upon traffic in the area. And the board still has the right to minimize and mitigate the amount of traffic. So we still would have the ability to say require a turning lane. If it was, you know, that's a common one. You'll see an act 250. Somebody's putting in Home Depot and they've got to put in a turning lane in the state highway. Those requirements we could still do. We could still require mitigation. We could still require turning lanes. So I think the flexibility and, you know, we're still gonna get the public comment or the comment from DPW and the engineers as to the impact. We could require the project to be smaller if we felt that, you know, say a project was gonna have 100 housing units, but according to the traffic analysis, you know, 50 units would not have an undue effect. We could require the project to be smaller. But what the change we made was really to specifically try to remove those requirements that were getting into level of service because what ends up happening inevitably with the level of service is somebody has to be the last one. So somebody could come in and in a class A intersection that's operating really well. They could do a lot of, add a lot of traffic, make it just at the end of class C and then somebody else has a really small project that will trip it from class C to class D and that one will be denied. And so really you don't get the opportunity to look at, because it's tied to level of service, you can't require the first one to do more because it didn't break the rule, but you have to hit the last one who's making a small change. So it gives you a little bit more flexibility at the DRB level and also gives you the ability to weigh in, in some cases, what is a pre-existing condition. We know the Berry Street intersection is a problem and we know it has a proposed solution and that proposed solution is gonna make enough changes, but the question is what impact would a project in the savings area, just using that as the example, have on that intersection and how do you weigh that? If it's, if the new improved intersection will be going from an F to an E and we're gonna use some TIF funds to do F to an E, it's still worse than a C. We had all these things that just kept tripping ourselves because we couldn't get around this level of service requirement that kept coming in. So that's really where the Planning Commission came down on the issue, is that we have the flexibility, but we don't need the level of service and level of service causes problems. Okay, Dan, go ahead. Sure, turning to the housing, Mike, I had a question about the residential and congregate living sort of categories. To what extent are these going to, do they intend to, or do you think will functionally affect, say, people's use of their properties as Airbnb's where they may rent out a room and share facilities such as kitchens or bathrooms? So the more of the Airbnb as they share it in the shared living arrangements. Right, I mean, I think of Airbnb's in sort of two ways. I mean, the Airbnb's can be short-term rentals where you have an apartment and instead of renting it for a year, you rent it for days, but it's essentially functions as an apartment. But there's also a number of Airbnb's where people say, I have a spare bedroom, I'm going to rent it out. You share the kitchen and the bathroom with me. Yeah, I think there's a court decision that's kind of more in your area about how the state has been seeing those, the Airbnb's kind of as single family, as a use of a single family home. And whether it's Airbnb or not, it's still considered a single family home. I can see how there can be some gray in there. We would probably, we had some additional clarification in 3111, which, if I can find it really quick, which is, it's actually, it's on its own page on number two, that unless expressly stated otherwise in a specific provision of these regulations, occupancy type is not considered, is not a consideration in the approval of any dwelling unit or congregate living facility. So whether the facility is owner occupied, rental occupied, condominium, lease, timeshare or other occupancy or ownership type. So our intention is to stay out of the regulation of occupancies because it, we can, but it's just a much more complicated. It would become a change of use if you had a single family home timeshare as opposed to a single family home for a single family home. And I think I would probably be thinking of the Airbnb along that same line as it's just more of an occupancy than it is actually a congregate living arrangement. But I could look at the seeing if that needs clarification. I could talk about it with Meredith and see if we think that needs clarification. Yeah, I mean, I think that that was just my concern is that it might have that unintentional effect unless the trigger is fairly clear to either exclude because of the, I mean, because there's an argument, isn't there, that there's a, that's effectively a change of use if you have a single family home and you start advertising it as an Airbnb, you know, where it's effectively a congregate living that it might in. And I'm thinking along the lines of either, you know, a neighbor that has an issue because all of a sudden their quiet neighborhood street has three cars parked in front of it where there's a loud party one night or, you know, the normal issues that drive these kinds of things. Yeah. Yeah, the more I think about it, I might actually, it'll be interesting, we'll have to chew it over, but I could actually see it as a congregate living as well because we have, the dividing line that we had been talking about for congregate living was whether or not you shared facilities. So roomy, you know, are you renting a room in sharing the kitchen and bathroom facilities? You know, you have your own key to your own bedroom. You are clearly, you know, you have no say in who's living in the next room over from you because you're just renting by the room. That's going to be congregate living. So I think there may be some subtleties in there. You know, if they're renting a room, are they, you know, strictly, you know, having exclusive rights, I guess, is how I would think of it, you know, to that room. And I think, so I think there's an argument that could go either way and maybe it needs some clarification and I'll talk to Meredith about it. Thanks. Okay. Other comments or questions? I do want to also open it up to the public if there are other public comments or questions as it was advertised as a public hearing in paper. Jack, go ahead. Just a very quick comment, which is that I really appreciate these presentations we get from you, Mike. Whenever we have this massive block of text that you're proposing to change and we have all this stuff we need to work through your presentations, always make it much more comprehensible and it's a real help. And I can go through next time more line by line if people think that's easier using the strikeout copy because I can understand it can be tough, break them into three blocks and they're scattered throughout. Any other comments or questions? I guess I just want to thank Mike too. It's really very helpful. Thank you. Yeah. I agree. All right. And so I don't think we need to, do we need to, we don't need to vote to put it on the agenda for the, as a public hearing for the 24th, do we? Okay. All right. Well, thank you, Mike. And we'll see you back next time. Did we, did we want to motion or what's the board's feeling on the addition of the driveway? Did we want to just add that in? Did we want to motion to add the driveway change? I'll move Jack, go ahead. I'll move to add the driveway change to the package so that there's no question as to the propriety of taking it up next time. Seconded. Okay. We've got a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Okay. All in favor please say aye. Aye. All right. And a pose. Okay. All right. And so we're clear we'll have a formal public hearing on this at the next meeting. Great. Yeah. Sounds good. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. You too. All right. So we're up to the utility budgets. So for this, I assume I'm turning it over to Kelly. Yeah, go ahead, go ahead. Thank you. So I've got Kurt and Donna here too to field some questions around projects, but Kurt will take on that piece. And so I'm going to share my screen here and just go over the numbers with you and summary. And then we can get into the details if needed. So without further ado, let's share. Okay. Can you see my screen? Okay. Yes. Perfect. So just in summary, we're going to be reviewing the water, sewer and district heat budgets. And so starting off with water, it's down a little bit year over year, about 1.7% or $52,000 or so. And so this is due in large part to changes in the water benefit charge. The other thing I want to know is that this assumes a rate adjustment of 2.5% and reviewing these budgets, we also took a closer look at the actuals to see what was really happening and then grew the budgets accordingly from there. So if you're looking at the budget line items, you may not see 2.5% on the line for the rates per se, because it's based on actuals and not necessarily fiscal year 21 to 22. And then there was a little bit of an adjustment in terms of the master plan had called for 3.5%. And this is tied to the 1% infrastructure investment and the Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation and a little bit. So Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation is at about 1.4% right now and this factors in 1.5. And so just wanted to note those things for you. And then you'll notice that if you're looking at the line items, and I got ahead of myself just a little bit, I did send some revised lines this afternoon. So this is what this is based off of. So just going back to where I was, the positive adjustments, we have seen some positive adjustments in electric and propane electric about $10,000 or so within the water budget and about $7,000 for propane. We also did see some positive movement in terms of debt service. We made our payments and had more favorable interest rates. So that's working in our favor. And then going on to the heart of what we're doing to continue to study state are capital improvements. So we've got Cummings Street coming up and that's $30,000 that will be in-house. That's materials only, so just wanna stress that. And then in addition to that, we've got a Route 2 railroad crossing line and the Main Street waterline for about $200,000. And there are other items that might factor in depending on how much those projects end up coming in at. And then from there, the finished water pump rebuild is about $80,000. So that's at a high level, what's going on within the water fund. And I'll keep going and then take questions at the end unless if you have specific ones related to water right now. Okay, I'll keep going. Thanks. So the sewer fund, you'll see that we're up quite a bit but that is mostly due to the water resource recovery facility revenues that we're getting based off of our operational and performance contract with our upgrade. And so I've noted what is related directly to revenue. So we'll see an increase in revenue based on the high strength solid stuff waste that we'll be able to take in $255,000 or so. The total package for the revenue and energy operational savings is just over just about $460,000. So those items are adjusted within the lines for the expenditures. So you'll see those savings coming off on the expenditure lines. And then we did adjust rates again by the same 2.5%. You will notice that with the sewer rates in particular it's a 2.5% adjustment but it's grown off of the actuals because we were not actually seeing the increase year over year if we would have gone off of the 21 numbers we're just at a odd point. And so I wanna take a moment to stress that much like with the general fund budgets and the other details that we've been discussing this development really is kind of a hold the line approach. There probably will need to be future investments in our infrastructure, but this should work for now. It's not gonna be this way. We're hoping things will get better I guess is what I'm trying to get at. And so just moving on we see positive adjustments like you mentioned above in terms of some of the operational savings that we'll see coming through electric, propane, water, solids those things are gonna be to the good for us and the expense lines and the form of cost savings. And then I also wanna note debt service we've got payments that have been made and favorable interest rates. However, the resource recovery facility payment for debt service is coming due in fiscal year 22 for both semi-annual payments but then it actually starts in March of 21. And then I also wanna note that there is $15,000 in the lines for the plant for an upgrade to the bathrooms. And then in terms of capital improvements this includes funding for State Street. So there's a sewer line down by the capital complex for about $300,000. That is near where the Black Lives Matter sign is so we'll just need to account for that as we do the work, it needs to be done but we also don't wanna disrupt the sign either so I just wanted to mention that. And then the next slide gets into the upgrades at the plant and then we're also funding a screw pump rebuild. I've learned a lot in this process about what's in these budgets and current and kind of show the details if needed. So moving on to the treatment facility upgrade. Just in summary, what we've done to date the total project is about 16.75 million and we did end up securing our bond financing. So that's what we're actually gonna start to see our repayment on and we are also seeing our grants come in. We have nearly all of the pollution control money and we're now at the point where we can get in the USDA grant money. So that's really positive. So phase one is nearly complete and you can kind of see in summary what we're looking at for payments there. And then phase two is set to begin in April. And so initially this was built to be about $5 million, we're still under discussion with the contractor about what that will cost as they're really specking things out. So there's potential for it to be a little bit more. And we wanted to just kind of highlight that here as we're going through these budgets because it'll have an impact in the future on budgets or depending on whether or not we get additional grant funding. And then moving on to district heat. So what I do wanna notice, this is level fund year over year. We ended FY20, change year over year to the bad of about $115,000 or so. It's better than FY19. It's just not to the positive yet. In FY19, we were to the bad year over year, $218,000. So it's at least trending in the right direction. This is our sixth full season. There are 21 downtown buildings who receive heat. We are working on operationalizing the amendment that we just passed to turn the heat off in the summer months. And this is really an investment in the environment. We've got some work to do with the district heat to just bring it to be sustainable or have this conversation. But some of the highlights within the operational lines that we are seeing a reduction in fuel oil and we are investing in valve replacements and infrastructure upgrades to keep the system running efficiently. And so here this slide just gives you sort of a breakdown summary of where the rates are if we were to move them forward based on what's in this draft budget. And then you'll note for district heat that the proposed FY22 rates are to be determined. We wanna take a closer look at what we're getting in terms of buildings from the state just to make sure that we are giving sort of an accurate recommendation. And so that's why that's noted that way there. And you'll also see that we have not had an increase in rates for the last three years. So it's just something to consider as we carry on with these budgets. And then lastly, for the master plan we've got the replacement status. We're gonna be looking at this a little bit closer with Public Works to sort of recast the master plan to see where we're at today and to see where we're going moving forward to make sure that we can meet the plan so that we are sustainable based on what we're seeing currently. And so this is kind of a budget that holds the line within the utilities for now until things improve or there's a little bit more certainty. And so next steps and then take questions and I can stop the share or go back to any slides if you like. It's just to get guidance from you on any changes you'd like to see or if there's an additional analysis that you'd like us to do and we can bring that back for the meeting on the 24th. We'll work towards rate setting and locking in rates within the system as we began the fiscal year. And then we're gonna begin working on the master plan update based on some of the things that are presented here in FY22 and going forward. And so that is our presentation. We'll take questions. Okay, any questions? Dan, go ahead. There are a couple of questions. Let me start off with the first one you mentioned work on State Street by the Black Lives Matter sign. I presume that's the painted on the street. Is the work such that it would disrupt that sign? So for example, I'm anticipating given the fact that it's faded then we may receive an application to either repaint it or renew it. Would this work interfere with that where it's presently located? Yeah, if I can answer that. It is about half of the mural would need to be and its current location would be excavated as part of the sewer project. The sewer line actually runs underneath an abandoned steam pipe that the state no longer utilizes. So it's one of our most important projects for CSO reduction because we can't clean it right now and it's a lot of sharp bends in the mainline sewer pipe. So it's definitely going to disrupt it. We're looking at some time between July and August for the work just to give you a timeframe of when that would take place. But yeah, it's about half of the mural would be excavated. Okay, so just if we do receive one of those applications we'll obviously have to take in the timing of this into account because it's not something we can't move the location of this sewer pipe and this sounds like an important piece of infrastructure that has to be done. So my next question was, and this is probably one you've answered before to previous councils and I apologize, but the sewer around the corner of state and main where a lobbyist used to be located, is that scheduled, is there, because that seems to be a point there's a lot of effluent in the summer particularly, but it all seasons I've walked past it and smelled it. Is that on the agenda to be repaired? Cause that seems like a fairly high profile, high traffic area and it can be quite noxious and I noticed over past year it really seemed to be. Yeah, so East State Street is in our queue. 2023 is anticipated construction date. The reason they're odors there right at the bottom the storm system ties right into the sewer main and so you do get some venting of odors through the storm structure. That also is another big CSO contributor. So all of East State Street is essentially separated except for the bottom two catch basins, but then it all goes right back into the sewer. So the entire street is that storm water is contributing to our sewer overflow issue. So yeah, it is in the queue. We're gonna start design work this summer, survey and investigation, smoke testing, things like that, but we're anticipating funds will be available in 2023. Okay, and there really wouldn't be a way to bump that up, the chain, cause it sounds like you're just starting to factor in design issues and really solving the problem. Right, yeah, it is a tricky location. It's a very busy intersection with a lot of utilities. So it is gonna take some time to design and plan out. Okay, but at least it's in the queue. All right, thanks, I appreciate that. And I presume I'm not the first person to ask you about that. No. First, Anna, go ahead. I wanted to ask, is this not also tied into the bridge? I know I've seen it in the regional planning tack that this one comes up with the bridge and the bridge is in the queue, but it's slowly moving. Yeah, so we did a preliminary engineering study that evaluated the existing storm water outfalls in the area and their determination was that there was not enough capacity in the existing outfalls to take all the storm from East State Street. So we had planned to install a new outfall as part of the bridge, the Rialto Bridge Reconstruction. I think because that project is lagging so much, we're going to look at alternative methods for separating some of the storm. So we're gonna investigate potentially bringing some downhays in place and see if we can maybe redo the parking lot with some infiltration to divert a portion of the storm water so that we don't have to have that new outfall. Right, because the bridge is like 2025 or something, isn't it? I haven't seen it on the actual date associated, but maybe you know more about that than I do. It was creeping up. So this date to me was like more ahead than it was. So that's good. Yeah, there's a lot of demand for the regional money. Just a lot of demand, not enough. Fine. Thank you. Jack, go ahead. Thanks. Kurt, am I right that that area of the sewer line on State Street when we were hearing a presentation last year about, I think last year about CSO, there were also issues with the level of going up and down in there, which makes it hard to clear that. A couple of years ago, we did have a blockage or a collapse in the pipe itself and it ended up being sort of an all night project to repair that. So there's definitely issues with the sewer line. Also, we have a lot of water leaks on East State Street. Even in the part that was replaced in the 90s at the bottom, we're getting a lot of corrosion in the ductile iron pipe. So the street really needs a full utility replacement as well as stabilization for the roadway. I'll show you, I'll notice the heaves and the bumps on the road. So it's gonna be very similar to the Norfield Street project as essentially a complete reconstruction. So it's a big undertaking. And that's why we sort of have to wait till the funding is available, not in just the utility funds, but also in the capital improvements plan. Thanks. Also, I see we're seeing some increased revenues being generated by the Water Resource Recovery Facility upgrade and that's good to see. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, go ahead, Donna. I had just a question about the district heat, read in the paper that we have some unhappy customers. Is that true? They feel their heat has gone up and they have been disappointed. Do we need more members to spread the cost? It's a complicated issue. So, you know, the price of oil has dropped. So the price of district heat in relation to that is not favorable right now. And that was not the case when this went on and not what the projections were. So I don't think we have unhappy customers. In fact, I know we don't have unhappy customers with regard to the service that they're receiving, the heat that they're getting and that kind of thing. But I think there are those that wish this cost less. I mean, you know, we all made a calculated risk and I can't say that I blame them. The, you know, certainly more customers would be a good thing, but the challenge. So a couple of challenges with that. One is right, you know, we're limited to the loop that we have unless we have enough customers that for which a capital cost was worth it for the amount of revenue they'd bring in, we've looked at a couple of places, you know, extending the line and the finances just, you know, don't work for it. So it would have to be something that makes sense of works. Second thing is, I think even people that might be interested right now at the price of oil, it's not necessarily the optimal time to do that. We have at least one interested customer who would like to do it just because they think it's the right thing to do. And we're working with them, but I don't know when they're gonna have. And then the third dis-incentive for a customer is they also have to pay to convert their building. You know, they have, sometimes they have to do the initial hookup. So we're looking, I think Senator Parchlik with his day job at the Clean Energy Development Fund had indicated they might have some money to help people with that, you know, reduce the cost of the connection. So we've got to put that together but it's tricky right now. You know, it's just, you know, it's the biggest and most likely buildings to go on went on when we built. So now we've got smaller, smaller buildings, but we try to push it whenever we can. Well, I appreciate the information. I think it's important to sort of counter some of the things that have been printed. So thank you. I also just want to clarify something that comes up in conversation every now and then, which is about our water main breaks. So just to clarify, when we have water main breaks, the funds that go to repair that, does that come from the water fund or does that come from our capital improvement money? It does come from the water fund. We have a line item in the water fund for street repairs, which is directly related to leaks. And that also separately, and I'm again, like pretty sure I know the answer to this, but I just want to make sure that it's clear that funding to replace the lines also comes from the water fund and not from the capital improvement. Yes. Money, okay. And just to put a fine point on that, we also have capital improvements in the water and sewer funds that are funded with those funds, and it's not the general fund CIP that we're talking about. Yes. Yes, the general fund CIP. And I also wanted to follow up on Kelly's because the plan that the council adopted, the long-term plan, you may recall, called for the rates to be just 1% over CPI to help catch up not only at that point, not only were both funds in deficit, but to try to provide funding for these types of repairs. And this past year, the CPI was 1.4, so that's the basis of the 2.5% rate adjustment. So that is consistent. We are seeking rates that are consistent with the plan that the council adopted. Well, so this, I mean, this seems like a good plan to me. My only question beyond that, I suppose, is that enough? Like, are we catching up to what this effectively steady-state should be fast enough? And I know that that's balanced with, you know, what people can absorb right now. And which altogether tells me that probably, as proposed, it's fine, but I just want to acknowledge that we still have a ways to go. Yeah, I mean, so the last slide that Kelly had was on the replacement status. Up to last year, we were very close to our targets from the steady-state plan. And really, if you read the master plan, it was meant to really ramp up in fiscal year 38. So it was kind of a slow start and then ramping up a lot of funding later on. But we just took a straight proportionate split as our targets over the 50 years and we're just about meeting those. So I think we're in pretty good shape as far as meeting the intent of the plan right now. Now, I know that in the documents that we received, the recommended action is just review, but I actually wonder if we don't need to have a vote to approve this, the budget and the rates as presented. Certainly can approve the budgets, that would be great. I don't know if we need to set the rates yet or we usually set the rates a little later on, but I'll defer to Kelly on that. Yeah, that's right. Yeah, I mean, if you wanted to approve the budgets, that would be good. The one thing that I do want to know, just sort of a caveat is what the district heat rates, we want to just take a look at them and see what the recommendation might be at rate setting. And so the budget is level fund. We just want to make sure that we're doing right by rate payers. And so we will get into that a little bit more, much like we'll get into the master plan a little bit more and likely bring those items back to you, along with setting the rates before the fiscal year starts. Connor and then Dan and then Lauren. I was going to make a motion, but I guess I'll move to approve the budgets and discussion. I'll second. All right, so motion in second. Dan and then Lauren. Sure, I guess I had a question on the rates. Kelly, you were seeming to indicate that the rates had not changed for several years. In part, the question that I have is, well, I mean, obviously that's great for rate payers, but is this something where we are, that steady rate is essentially a decline and that there is going to be a need for additional revenue to fund these projects and plans. Yeah, so we want to take a closer look at that and just make sure that we're in good shape when it comes to district heat. But, you know, we've been working together over the past couple of weeks, finance and public works to really get our heads around where the other utilities, water and sewer are, and those seem to be pretty good in terms of where we need to be. And I will say that, you know, as I've said before, this is kind of a stay to hold the line until things improve. So I hope that answers your question. Yeah, I mean, you know, obviously when you're talking about these kind of annual rates, you know, in a particular service like this where the money goes directly to the infrastructure and services provided by the, to the rate payers, you know, there's always that concern of making sure that the rates, you're not creating a need for a sudden jump in the rates, that it's easier to raise a little bit at a time as opposed to, you know, stressing everybody's pocketbook by doing that big jump. And I'm just trying to get a sense if that's a situation here or if, you know, just as far as the rates are concerned, understanding we're not voting on them tonight. But that would be something I want more information about. So to jump in here, you know, we do, we have adopted that sort of steady, slight, incremental approach of water and sewer. And I think that's been successful in terms of, you know, I, way before, I think almost everyone's time on this council, so maybe, you know, Donna, those two funds have pretty significant deficits. And now they've, you know, they've turned that around. And also, you know, allowing us to do some of this infrastructure. With District T, there's a couple of factors. One, we're dependent on a rate that we get from the state and we haven't got that yet for next year. So they give us what they estimate the rate that they're gonna need to produce. And the second thing, as I mentioned, it's already sort of higher than oil. So, you know, I want, so we're in a hard spot there. You know, we really appreciate the customers that came on and took the chance with us over the long haul. And they are, you know, paying a premium for that right now. And so to push that up is, you know, I think it has to be pretty thoughtful to do that. On the other hand, we need the money for the system. So there's a balance there. Yeah. No, I understand. This is analogous to the situation the state was in back in the 80s with hydro when they were trying to, you know, they made contracts with hydro come back anticipating that the cost of energy generation was gonna go sharply up and then it didn't. And so we were stuck with expensive hydro contracts which stopped beating the market when the market went down. But so it understood and appreciated. Thanks. Lauren. Yeah, just two things. One just wanted to note again, I just continued to be concerned that we're not addressing the leachate. I know it's built into the line item. It's, we're, you know, bringing contamination into our community. So just flagging that and look forward to getting back to that conversation. But it is a significant part of kind of the numbers here. So, but the other piece just wanted to note. So the lobbying committee had met and just so people know there is a lot of thinking going on of how is the city of Montpelier positioning ourselves as well as possible to be ready, you know, if when federal stimulus dollars that could help, you know, if any of these opportunities could be funded, you know, district heat, the idea of the clean energy development fund. There's new money both that the state is putting in for one-time money due to some of the stimulus funds they've gotten. And then, you know, I know there's a big infrastructure bill under discussion who knows what will happen and what we might be eligible for. But just, you know, certainly I think there's, there's motivation. And I think, you know, that's keeping an eye on it too of like, are we in the queue and ready to go for whatever we need. So, but I know that the staff's been doing, thinking about that. And so I think we're in a good place and just, you know, hopeful that, that some opportunities might come up that could help, you know, support some of these projects. Great. Any other questions or comments? Okay, so there is a motion and a second about approving the budgets as presented. So any further discussion? Okay. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. And oppose. Okay. So those pass and we'll see you back with information about rates at some later time. Okay. Super. Thank you. Thanks for all of your work on this ongoing, I know. All right. Okay. So we are up to an item about amending the committee board policies, which mostly has to do with social media and Google Docs. And so I will turn this over to the staff. Hi. So thank you for letting me talk to you tonight. So it had come to our attention that some committees and boards may be using platforms such as Google Docs to share documents and edit them as a group while they're not in meetings. So we wanted to clarify that those technologies cannot be used through group edit documents. We're not saying that they cannot be used as a repository for documents. They can be used to save and therefore share documents with each other, but the editing out of a meeting of those documents is considered a violation of the public meeting law. So we just wanted to make that very clear in our policies since it wasn't addressed. And we do also want to acknowledge that a lot of folks use things like Google Docs to save documents so that can be accessible at all. And that is okay. But using those Google Documents as like an editing platform where folks can go and give feedback to documents is not okay. And any edits that happen to documents need to happen in a public meeting. So there's a lot of ways that I know committees do this work in a awful manner where a chair may or a member may distribute a document. Everyone does their own edits and then it gets combined and voted in a public meeting. That's okay too. We just wanted to make sure that our policies and y'all's policies for our committees and boards were as up to date as possible. So most of the wording comes from VLCT and their legal team. Okay, so I have a lot of thoughts on this. I think this makes sense to do but I would want to tweak some of the language in the policy to reflect what you just said because I think what you said makes sense but I think it could be misconstrued as it is in the document that we were given. So I'm looking at, gosh, what is this document called? This is the packet edits, I guess. And so the red section is what's been added or changed. Is that right? Okay, so under item nine, the second sentence says no city committee or board should use any online document repositories such as Google Docs for the purposes of sharing and editing documents. I don't know how you would feel about this but I would maybe change that. So I think there's two issues there. One is the definition of the word sharing because that could be as innocuous as like have access to this document, no editing necessary. So I think that could, because I think we do want to allow people to use it as repository if it is just a repository to share in the sense that, in the sense that like multiple people have access to it, not necessarily editing. And then the second issue I think is the part about editing documents. I appreciated that the issue is that the editing cannot happen outside of committee time. And so I think we should just add that somewhere in there because theoretically if we were kind of like, almost as we're doing now, right? If we are all in a public meeting that's been warned and we are looking at a document and editing is happening to that document, we're all collectively a part of that conversation. And so you could edit documents in Google Doc as long as it's in the context of or in public meeting. So does that, I think that's still within the intent of what you are saying. Just wanted to make sure that was clear. How do you feel about that? That works for me. I'm trying to craft some language around that sort of to reflect what you said. Y'all can see that changes I'm making, correct? As I'm making the, Yep. Yep. Yep. Anne? Yes, go ahead, Donna. The question is if you're doing that one, does the language have to say it's on screen? But then what happens to people on the phone? That's a good question. I mean, I would argue that if you're discussing a document at a public meeting and it was, you know, it's available in a public place like, you know, with the agenda or something, people don't necessarily have to see the editing. I mean, think about the number of times we've had paper in front of us at a council meeting and someone's reading and saying, I want to change this and we do that. I mean, that's the old school way of doing that. I think the issue is that, the issue is that if this editing is being done collaboratively outside of the Warren public meeting so that, you know, the council has a discussion about a document, it gets sent out and then you all make your edits in the two weeks in between. That's a deliberation of sorts that isn't happening in the public eye. But if the committee has an ight meeting and it's gonna be to discuss the plan for X and they're there editing the plan for X in a public meeting, I think they're good because people can hear the discussion and they can see whatever. I mean, you're not gonna have a perfect scenario. I mean, how many times have we had, you know, paper documents and people sitting in the audience saying, what are you talking about? We can't see these, we can't read them. At least they can hear in the conversation. So, you know, you try the best that you can. Yeah, so there's a third thing that I wanna bring up that's not exactly related to this language. It's adjacent to it, I suppose, which is that I do think that it would, like I have visions of having a city drive, whether it's Google or some other drive that where you could like look in the drive and have each committee have their own folder. You can go into that folder for that committee and then look at the minutes for that committee or any documents that they are sharing. And they're, you know, maybe they're just PDF form so they're not editable. You know, it's just for our own ease of searching. We are, I'm sorry, Mia. No, go ahead, I just, well, I guess I'll just add that I know I have to keep my own, and I'm sure you all do too, right? Like we have to keep our own, both like personal computer and cloud drives organized so that we can find things. And I think that kind of organization system might make sense for the city. We totally agree with you. I will just say that we are, we know we're behind the curve on our website and it is something we are working on. Our new contract and our new partnership with VC3 is really going to bring us to sort of, I think where you want us to be when we migrate all of our work and everything that we do to the Microsoft 365 platform, it does come with SharePoint, which can be a publicly, like it can be a website, like a web-based document repository. So we will have that functionality. It just doesn't exist right now. We're the same thing. I think that most folks are is saving things on our work drives. And I do, I wanna acknowledge the folks that are using things like Google Docs to save committee work, our volunteers who are doing their best and they're doing the work for the city on their own time. And we're not trying to take away any functionality from them, just making sure that we're all following the open meeting law. So I have one more suggestion and then I know other people have their hands raised. Just up in this second sentence, where it says, no city committee or board should use any online document programs such as Google Docs, for the purposes of, and I would add, collaborative editing outside of worn meetings. Does that, I think that's still getting at the point. Okay. All right, Donna, I know you had your hand up, but I apologize if others- No, no, no. It was a question about what you were talking about, about the depository, Google Drive. But then how does the public have access to that? We now have a committee who puts everything there and they don't put it on the city website because they find the city website difficult. But how do they- I'm sorry. Do we have a big link then on the website that says for all committee, you go to this and then everybody can have access? Because you need- That would be the end goal. But right now, we don't have that. And so most folks will ask for documents the same way they ask us for documents, was it just a sort of a request for those documents? So, hi, you talked about this in a meeting, can you send that to me? That sort of thing. Because if you think about it right now, since there's so many chairs and a lot of those are the holders of a lot of information for these committees, that Google Drive might be theirs, right? It might be their private drive. So, right now, the situation we're in now is not ideal. I just wanna very clearly state that. It is not ideal. I think one, now that we have VC3 as a partner, we will get to that ideal space where yes, I can say I will have a link for each committee and they can save documents there and it will be on our website. It's just not current state. People have to ask for documents if they can't find them. Okay, Cameron, but one of the suggestions that came from Kate, I think you all got her big email, but her and I went back and forth and one of her suggestions, and she can't make it tonight or she'd be here part of this discussion. She really loves Google Drive. But one of her things was if they posted their Google Drive connection in their minutes and their minutes got to the city website, would that be enough to be able to use it? No, so first off. As a depository. That's fine. We're not saying they cannot save documents on Google Docs. That is not what we're saying. We're saying they cannot out of a meeting, edit things on Google Docs. Yeah, so that would be fine. Yes. Okay, thank you. All right, so I can't actually see everybody. Dan is raising his hand? Yeah. Yeah, go ahead. So in part of this, I think we're feeling around this problem. I mean, just to be clear and identify it, it's really the problem is public board members sitting around outside of a meeting using Google Docs to edit at the same time. Yes. Collaboratively. And so, you know, in some respects, isn't there, I mean, Google Docs has the function where you can have like time stamps on changes. So if somebody does- That to me seems very granular and we can't, it's not just Google Docs, it's all of the things. And the, you know, VLCTs very much says, just don't do it. Just don't- Right. It's not a majority. I mean, that goes to the larger problem, I think of what we're getting at. And we may be getting granular here is my concern, is that, you know, it's really a specific problem of people editing at the same time. And, but really it's the idea that if there's a public, it's both a public meeting and a public record issue, right? Because it's a public meeting if somebody's doing deliberative session outside of a public meeting. But it's also a public record, which is, you know, essentially in private, this public documents being modified. And the public record issue won't be resolved until we have the public drive issue resolved. But then, you know, I don't know if the idea of collaborative editing on Google Drive goes, might be too much for, and there's too many questions for volunteers, if we should have a brighter line for that. And just simply say, you know, as old fashioned as it may be, people would have to simply email drafts back and forth to each other, as opposed to doing something on a Google Drive for editing. So, right, yes, I agree with you. I think that's what we're getting at, is you cannot use Google Drive as an editing platform, only a place to save things. Right, but I mean, with the idea of the language and purposes of collaborative editing, does suggest that there might be solo editing on this or, you know, I guess the question is, is the collaborative editing, because it would even be the idea of editing, you know, for example, if I went on to a document now and then in next day and does it, that's still collaborative editing. Yeah, that's right. Even if it's not simultaneous, or I think we just have to be very clear, especially give volunteers these bright lines so they don't get flummoxed by it. So would you all like me to take out the word collaborative? What are y'all, the collective thoughts? Yeah, I think it's easier just to edit a period. That's fine. Well, while she's making those edits, I think it's just, you know, maybe we need to, you know, you mean a simple fire thinking, like we're all clear that we can't deliberate issues by email, right? That's one thing I think everyone's got now. Somebody brings up something and someone gives a counterpoint. So Google Docs or collaborative editing is sort of the next technological advance from that, but it's still the same principle. It just can't occur. Now, if one person is drafting something and sends it out for everyone else to look at and then be discussed at the next meeting, that happens all the time, I think, but it's just like when we send out an email, like you know, you all are really good at it and then counsels over the years have really gotten much better out of just saying, we can't deliberate this, you know, thanks for the info, we'll talk about it at the next meeting. And it's really just the same principle. Jack, go ahead. Yeah, I agree. My hand kind of shot up when Dan said exchanging drafts by email, because exchanging drafts by emails also something we're not supposed to be doing. And, you know, it's so weird because this is not normal life. This is not how people in the 21st century conduct business, but it's something, you know, as a government body, this is something that we're required to adhere to. And, you know, in the committee, one of the committees I'm on has a lot of new members who have not been part of a process like this before. And it's a struggle to make sure people can work, make us all, make us work the way we're supposed to work. Yeah, you know, so there's one other point that I feel like is worth making here, which is that I think part of the issue too is the quorum aspect of it. Just like I could talk with one of you or email one of you about your thoughts on something, that's fine. I just shouldn't do that with a quorum, right? So could you theoretically have a collaborative document or an email back and forth with the document with less than a quorum? I mean, my understanding is that you could do that. And maybe that's too fine a point, but I also just sort of worry that people will be like, I can't use Google Docs at all, you know? And I just wanna make sure that people are clear that it's not that we're saying you can't use Google Docs at all. So like what are the boundaries around that? It just couldn't be something that's shared with a quorum of the group. Am I wrong about that? Go ahead, go ahead. Yeah, I mean, it's just my sense that, you know, Google Docs is really a wonderful program for a particular purpose, which is somewhat at odds with what we're discussing here, which is it's great that we all use it at work where you have disparate groups of people. Everybody can go onto Google Docs, fix the same document and be working from a single copy, which is exactly what we're not can't do because of public meeting and public records law here. And so I'm just wondering if, you know, as much as we may like to have this Google Doc as a repository or depository of documents, it seems like it's fraught with a certain amount of peril because Google Docs is ultimately an editing platform and we have a distribution system, which is that has to go out to the public for meeting, you know, the idea that we would have a, and we're also also trying to discourage the idea that, you know, you have a seven member board, so you assign three people to edit a document outside of a meeting. That's kind of a close end run to avoiding a public meeting discussion, which is if you have a committee that's primarily an editor of documents, ultimately the editing process has to take place during the meeting. And that may be where Google Docs could be extremely helpful is if you used Google Docs during a live meeting, especially since we're all doing these on Zoom. As long as somebody was projecting their Google Docs onto the, you know, open meeting screen, but at least as far as, you know, what we don't want, and I think what the VLCT's advice is, we don't want that to be an end run around the public process. Yeah, Jay and then Bill. Well, I'll just jump in here and say that my takeaway from Kate's email is not necessarily digging into the capacity and value of Google Docs, but making sure that committees have a place where they can sort of establish that institutional memory. So I think we're talking, to me like she was talking about two different things. Yeah, yes, this is a new time and we tend to, we're now collaborating more digitally as opposed to in person. So that creates a unique challenge, but ultimately what I felt was so important to her was that because there's so much turnover, because that the change happens so frequently with these committees across the board that if there's not a central repository for minutes to refer to an established policies and established documents, then there's a problem. So in terms of like, as new members come on, feeling this sense of like having to start over without really understanding exactly what's happening. So I don't know if this new platform provides an opportunity to, I don't know that we should be looking at Google Docs to be like a way to run committees, but more as the repository for established documents like minutes and policies and thinking about way that we can, that committees in the city can do their work online in a collaborative way that is still meeting, the standards of open meeting laws. And Cameron, if you wouldn't mind stopping to share your screen just so I can see everybody easier, awesome. Okay, Bill, go ahead. Yeah, I got a few thoughts here. Number one, a subcommittee of a committee is still subject to the public records law and the open meeting law. So a committee of seven that creates a subcommittee of three, that subcommittee is also required to follow the law. So that is not a legitimate way to get around, to get around that we want to get around. So that's number one. Number two, Google Docs has a lot, and as the mayor knows well, I'm not an expert at it, but it has a lot of things it can do. The only thing we're really concerned about is we've talked about a sort of people group editing, whether it's live or sequentially. I'll point out, so this isn't an anti-Google Docs thing, right? Microsoft Word, you can do the same thing. Multiple people can edit the same doc, you can do the red lines, you can go in and add your comments. I'm sure there are any number of other programs. It's not, this isn't software specific, this is activity specific. If you want to store your documents, I have no doubt, and of course it's not perfect. We have a lot of committees and a lot of volunteers. I'll just pick on a local good guy. I have no doubt there's a whole bunch of tree board documents on John Snell's computer, right? And it's not that he's doing anything wrong, but that's where they are. And if he wants to set those up so that people can see them as a resource, great. And yes, ideally all those should be hosted by the city, all those should be on the city's website. We're working on that technology. It's gonna take a huge amount of work to get all those things from all those cheers on those people, but it can be done. The only issue that we're talking about with regard to the Open Meeting Law and the Public Records Law is active editing outside of meetings. And that's what we're trying to create. And this isn't new. I mean, we've already been doing that with email. We've already been doing other things. I mean, I think this is what we're, but it's, we've seen it happening so we asked for an opinion. And again, I understand why. Nobody's trying to beat the system. It's just easy. And we have to work remotely. And it's all those reasons. I think what we're asking for is just a clear statement from the council that this is the law, this is our policy expectation that you cannot do this. We know it's, we know it's convenient. We have to follow the Open Meeting Law and so therefore you have to, you cannot do joint editing. That's what we're looking for. I think everything else is just overly complicating the issue. When you read Kate's email, she says, we don't edit live. We know we're not supposed to do that. We use it for storage and all these other things. All those things she said are fine. And she said, I don't edit. Kate, in theory, based on her email, we have no problem with what we're proposing. This is completely consistent with her use and that committee's use. And it should be consistent with every other committee's use. Connor, go ahead. Front porch forum is mentioned explicitly. I imagine that's because you could have the majority of us debating policy in that format, which wouldn't be a properly one. Okay, that's great. And that was an expert. I think we talked about that at one of our council retreats that that was something we wouldn't, maybe give her if it's pre-you or not. Okay. So I'm fine with this language as it exists as it's been amended now. Other thoughts? Donna, go ahead. Well, I'm being really dense. I don't understand how you can use this as a depository when I as a public system, citizen can't get to it unless I'm part of that committee and I have that link. Well, it's the same way that, so my computer at work has all of my work documents for all the committees that I help, right? Those are all public documents, but you can't get to them. I have to get to them. It's the same concept there where you just have to ask for it. You know, the committee wants to include it in their minutes, they can. It's just a link to a safe term. But they're not putting it on the website. I depend on the website to have minutes. I know, we're gonna get there one day. It's just not there yet. I guess you mean it. So committees aren't supposed to be posting their minutes and agenda to the website? No, the minutes and the agenda are on the website. I'm sorry, I thought you meant like a document. No, no, just the minutes and agenda because she talks about that too. Okay, it's just the extra documents. Right. And can those are all still subject to public records requests? Ideally in a perfect world, they'd be stored in a way that the public can look at them all the time and committee members and everything else. Kate and others do talk about their minutes and agenda being in this depository and not on the website. So that's all I'm just wanting to clarify. Those are still expected to be on the website. In fact, that's also required. I know, but it's not happening. I want to check on that because I suspect it may also be there. Anyway, we can check. Lauren, did you have something? Yeah, just really briefly. I mean, I'm starting to see more and more on my committees that people are putting links to like the Google Drive, like the police review committee has been doing this right into the minutes and the agenda. So if somebody went to that, it's actually becoming more accessible where, you know, if you can find the agenda, then you can get to the documents the same way we can get to city council documents. So I'm actually hopeful it will actually make documents more accessible to the public if we use it right and well. I don't, Cameron, like the version you have up, just two words, the second paragraph, you probably just will need to like look at it with fresh eyes. Like there were like a couple of extra words. And I think you had like the word Google Docs and related, which might mean like we're somehow referencing Google products, maybe like similar products to Google Docs or something, just so that we're not somehow. I have changed the word related to similar. So don't need to become vendors for Google. No, not at all. Not at all. And then there were two needed in the second paragraph that near the bottom in one sentence that I think one needs to go, but it looked good though. Oh, yes, thank you. You're right. Thank you. Those two things have been changed. Okay. All of your thoughts. Okay. Is there a motion regarding this language? Move that we adopt it as we've amended it tonight. Second. Okay. There's a motion and a second. Any further discussion about this? Okay. All right. All in favor please say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. And opposed. Okay. All right. Well, thank you. Thank you. This feels like such a modern problem, especially during COVID. But yeah, I know it's important that we follow the law. It's good. Thank you. All right. So with that, we are, we're gonna do our council reports and then we have a couple of executive sessions to do. So we're gonna jump to that first to council reports. Donna, are you okay with going first? Oh, you're muted though. I'm sorry. Yeah, I'm going to pass. I'm gonna take my break. I'll be back. Oh, okay. All right. Fair enough. Okay. Who is next? I guess it's Connor. Yeah, not much. I mentioned that Bill was contacted by a couple of restaurants, just wondering like what the deal is like, when they can open up and have like a parklet or something like that. So it sounds like we'll get that on a future agenda item. I was asking like, so what's the earliest you would open? They were like, yeah, the second the snow clouds get up where we're setting up tables and weekends. So I think that would be a good chat to have. Bill, did you say that maybe next meeting or? I was gonna bring that up in my manager's report. All right. Perfect. Okay, Jay. Yeah, thanks. Just a quick note of thanks. I know it's come up a little bit before the weeks past, but acknowledging the work that the Parks Department is doing around grooming and making ski trails accessible for the community. And I think one of the things that I'm learning from the work that Alec and others are doing is the incredible potential of collaborating with groups within the city and seeing what ORN, Onion River Nordic, Dan Votion and Brian Carlson and their work with Alec to be able to share resources and be able to create this amazing trail network that runs through all of our parks. The city of the hill up North Street and then all the way over to U32. It just, with that level of that energy and commitment to it, I just, I think it's just a great model that we could be looking at for other projects looking ahead. Yeah, great. Dan. Sure. As Lauren indicated earlier, the legislative or the lobbying committee met last week and we talked about a couple of different priorities, but I would put out to both our body and maybe to the city in general that with the increase of funding or potential for funding that's coming from the federal government, we would be well-served to start thinking about projects that we could apply for this potential. Some of these funds that were coming in part, it seems thoughtful, we should think about what our city is gonna look like post COVID and spend some time to prioritize those projects that could help us as a city survive and thrive in a post COVID world where we might not have a full array of state workers coming into town like we did before. Yeah. Jack. Passing tonight. Lauren. Yeah, only thing I wanted to mention the Social and Economic Justice Advisory Committee. We have had a couple of people needing to step off for various commitments and reasons. So I always would love if anyone's interested in applying for that. I think it's just rolling open, but we're doing some really interesting work right now starting outreach to specific groups of Montpelier residents to get input from people who often aren't heard from at our city council meetings or in city government processes. So I think there's a lot of really interesting work that we've all been working on for a while. So it would be a fun time to get involved. So I hope people will consider applying for it. That's it, thanks. Connor, yeah, go ahead. Sorry, I forgot one thing. And John might talk about this in his report, but I was watching House government operations today and I saw the non-U.S. Citizens Voting Bill was introduced. It's H177, introduced by Warren Kitzmiller there. He did a good job presenting today, but we should really lean on House government operations to get that out and get that over the finish line. If we remember, it's spelled in the Senate last year. So I think we really have an obligation to the voters to hit it and would recommend anybody who's listening to contact legislators. Let's get it done, thanks. Yeah, thank you for that. Okay, so I have a few things on my list here. You may be aware that all the mayors of the state get together and talk about their own legislative agendas in order for anything to make it onto the mayor's coalition legislative agenda. Six out of the eight mayors have to agree to it. So in case you're interested, I'm happy to pass that around so you know what we were chatting about. Second thing is I think it's probably worth mentioning that Burlington is considering a responsible contractors ordinance similar, very similar to the one that we approved. And so I just want to, and so Connor and I both spoke to a committee about that the other day. And I think it's, anyway, just patting you all in the back. Yay for going first, yay for leading in that way. And sort of similarly, just a heads up, I know I've been talking about this Home Energy Information Ordinance for a while now and I think we're aiming to have it on a council agenda for March 10th, I think is, which it will be the first agenda after, tell me again, I think. Anyway, so that's just a heads up about that. And yeah, I guess that is it for me. So, right, so John, do you have anything? Yeah, hopefully you all, or at least most of you who's seen your ballots today, they should be, I got mine. They seem to be hitting mailboxes today for a town meeting day, which is great. We're actually, I hope they'd be out about a week earlier, but it is what it is. We're actually at the beginning or ahead of the game for most of the other communities. So I feel okay about that. Reminder that the whole idea is to try to limit in-person voting. We do, obviously we will be open for in-person voting, usual hours, usual place, but you've got the return mailers, we've got the drop box, get them back if you can, ideally that way, but just make sure you vote one way or the other. The turnaround this time, we've only got about two and a half weeks to the election, so that's really, really different, but there they are. Let's see what else should I mention? I should mention that property tax payments are due on the 15th normally, but that's a holiday, so the 16th is gonna be acceptable. In regards to the clerk's lawsuit that you all thankfully made a supportive statement on, I was actually subpoenaed in that because the plaintiffs thought I was being mean to them. I was sworn in and my relevance was deemed irrelevant by the judge, so I didn't get to say anything, but halfway through the day, the plaintiffs just withdrew it. It wasn't going anywhere, so that's all done. So, and thank you for your own help, your all's help. Legislatively, yeah, first of all, in terms of what Connor was saying about the non-citizen voting comes back around to the Senate. I hope it does. That was a very supportive Senate Government Operations Committee. They tried to get ahead of the game last time with positive hearings on it. The only reason it didn't get any farther was that it was a decision made by leadership by Senator Ash really to bottle it up in the rules committee. We have new leadership over there now, so hopefully it's a whole new ball game and we'll see how it goes. Finally, I have once again been in, I've spent a lot of my time in Zoom and Senate Government Operations the last couple of weeks, and they're just moving, trucking along on this sort of omnibus, gigantic election bill, but it looked like we were gonna get our ability to have a mail-in election looking like it was going to be curtailed because the schools wouldn't have the authority to do it themselves. So either we split up our ballot for the first time and mail out our own, which is just not something that's gonna happen. It's not what folks are looking for. But I think I planted the seed today that when it comes around, and it's final wording next, the end of next week, we might have the wiggle room back in. So anyways, I'm hopeful that the bill doesn't have the effect of keeping us from doing a mail-in election when the idea is to empower towns to do it if they choose. So cross your fingers on that. And I think that's all I've got. Thank you. Bill. Yeah, just as was mentioned, we do have a holiday on the 15th. So those of us with Monday gatherings, we can either reschedule or pass. So Connor mentioned earlier the Parkland Ordinance. You may recall that last year we did a substitute ordinance. We did a temporary ordinance that overrode our existing ordinance until October 25th and then went away and the existing ordinance went back into place. And I have also had a couple of requests from restaurants. And I think when we did this last year, we assumed that this would be the only summer that we need to do this. That's obviously not gonna be the case. And I think it worked pretty well last summer. So I would suggest that we consider reenacting the same temporary ordinance for this season. And I think we can set whatever start date we want. I would think it would be, you know, I know they wanna do it immediately, but I think it would maybe be after the winter parking regulations end or you know, they alternate those kinds of things into, you know, the old ordinance was May 1st to October 25th. I don't know if, you know, but anyway, I'll put, if people are interested in this, I'll put this on the agenda for the next meeting and we can have a hearing and either approve it then or do two hearings. But it would just be putting back what we had before that automatically expired. And I think that's it. I did get my ballots in the mail today. That's all I've got. Okay. All right. So I believe that is the end of our regular business. So we have two executive sessions, one about the discussion of the potential land acquisition. And then I don't know if we need to, we probably do need to come out of executive session after that and then go back into executive session for the city manager's review. And we may come out of that executive session as well to have a vote, but that is all, yeah, that's also a good question. Yeah, that's also, it's all a possibility. So, yeah, I think that's where we're headed unless you think we don't need to come out of executive session in between those times. I think we'd probably do though. Well, I mean, I defer to the lawyers here, it seemed to me that as long as you say that's what you're going into executive session for for both purposes. Then we can do both. And that you're inviting, you know, Alec Ellsworth in for the first, and then we can take note of when Alex departs, which would essentially signify when the second one started. That sounds good to me. All right, so- Unless there's action to be taken after the first one, then you may wanna come out and clean that up and then go back in and do it. I don't know if there will be, but just if that's the case. Yeah, Jack, go ahead. Nope, you're on mute. Can I move pursuant to one VSA section 330 that we go into, 313, sorry, that we go into executive session for two reasons. One, to discuss negotiating or securing a real estate purchase or lease options. And two, to consider the evaluation of a public employee. Second. Okay, and your understanding is that we're inviting Alec into that first section? Yes. Oh, okay. All right, so we have a motion and a second. And we may, oh, Donna, go ahead. I was just questioning, I took my little break. Is there gonna be a break? I think that's a- Before executive session or after we go into executive session. Other thoughts? What, what do you think? Okay, so, five minutes, all right. Can I ask a quick question too, before we go? Yes, go ahead, Alec. I'd love to invite our Parks AmeriCorps member and who's been helping me with the project. And also the Parks Commission rep to the discussion if that needs to go in the motion or if that's just okay with you. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think the next item is the rep to the discussion if that needs to go in the motion or if that's just okay and I can send the link. I think that's like- Who are they? They need names. Parks AmeriCorps member is Benjamin Grasse and Stephanie Hunt is the rep for both commissions. I'm happy with amending my motion to include those two names. Okay. Same with the second. I also just wanna be thoughtful about the time here, because because I want to make sure that we have enough time to have healthy conversations about both of these items. So anyway, just just to making a mental note about that. So there's a bit of motion and a second. And just also noting that we may come out at the end with a vote. So all right. So all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. And opposed. Okay, so we are going to duck out of this call and further discussion. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. And opposed. Okay. And is there another motion? So I'll move. Oh, sorry. I'll move that we authorize the city staff to negotiate for an option agreement concerning the Heaney parcel in conformance with the discussion that we had an executive session. And I will also move that the that this city manager begin to draft a letter of support from the count to be reviewed and approved by the council to assist in the grant process that the parks commission parks director is currently undergoing with the US Forest Service. Second, and just to be clear, that is one motion, right? Okay. Any further discussion? Okay. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. And opposed. Okay, awesome. Thank you for all your work on this and getting us all that information. And yeah, look forward to hearing about how it goes. Yeah, thanks all. Good night. Have a good night. Um, all right. And so for the rest of us, um, I just want to recognize that it is 10 o'clock. Are you, are we, we're still game to, to have this conversation? Or I mean, we do have the option. I suppose if we had to, we could, um, wait until the next meeting, but then that's our, that's our last meeting of this particular session. Um, thoughts, I'm down if you are, but also I feel like, um, yeah. I have a question. Did you email us a summary of what was said? Oh, I do. I did not. I did not email you a summary. I do have that though. And I can send it to you. Okay. That would be helpful whenever we're going to talk about it. Okay. Um, Bill, what, what do you think? I feel like you've got some, like if, if, uh, if you're, you know, if it's too late and we're topping out, then, you know, we can do it later, but what, what do you think? Yeah, we can either do it at the next meeting or we could set up a, you know, a time just for this. Sometimes we've done that. Um, Or we can go now. I mean, I'm, I'm gay, but I also want to make sure you're all up for it. Yeah. Yeah. I'm fine to do, to do that, to put it off, either to a separate specific time or to put it with the next meeting. Um, I think it's, I guess I would just, I would just hate to, you know, feel like we're up against people going to sleep. You know, like that's, that's never good. Um, Jack. Yeah. The first time this has happened. I think it would be useful to the discussion. To not hold it until we get the summary of. Of what people have done. So that, that millitates in favor of doing it next time. I don't know what the agenda for our next. Meeting looks like, except that I know that we already put some things onto it that. That may or may not take a long time like the zoning thing. Um, So we'd have the zoning public hearing. And the Parkland ordinance. Hopefully those wouldn't take too long. You're going to be getting a briefing on all the dispatch issues. Including the console, but also all the other projects that are going on. Um, we talked about having a legislative update, possibly inviting our legislators. I don't know if the committee members, if that's what you're thinking or just us going over what was pending for bills. May or may not have a proposal on mobility development corporation. We've had one conversation. I don't know if we'll have a recommendation by that or not. I'm just looking at my, and that's, that's the list right now. That's not too bad. I don't think. I mean, we always fill our time and we run late even on the slimmest of agendas. We're just terrible. I'm going to give Bill a specific time and come in and do it. Yeah. I mean, I don't know. I, I think that's, that's fair. I feel like it's somehow easier to schedule. Extra times if they're executive sessions. Um, somehow just, uh, Makes it easier, but we can also try to attack it on to the next. Meeting and then if it doesn't, um, if, if, for whatever reason, we, we don't have time, then we can schedule a specific outside meeting. Unless people have a preference and would prefer to just have a separate meeting. Um, just to be clear, you really, I mean. You know, if, if for some reason it doesn't work on the 24th. You know, we really have to the following Tuesday. Yeah. Do it. Um, technically it's supposed to be done in the month of February, but even if you. Love for March 1st, you know, that would be. You know, you'd be with a weekend in there. Yeah, that's true. All right. Well, maybe. Well, what's people, what are your preference? What's your preference team to do a separate time or try to fit it into the 24th. How about this? How about bill or Cameron or Mary do, uh, do a doodle. If there's a time to do it before the 24th, if not, we do it on the 24th. So just quickly, what about next Wednesday? Works for me. Yeah. Yeah. Uh, at six 30. Oh, you know, whatever. We could do it earlier or later if it's more convenient for people. That's fine with me. Yeah. Tentatively that should work for me. So. It's 30 next Wednesday. Six 30 next Wednesday. We just do the whole. Comes up from everybody. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Perfect. That was easy. Okay. And I'll, um, I'll send out the, I'll send out the, uh, Those cumulative results to everybody's, everybody's got those comments. Remember, don't work on them separate, you know, as collaborative. That's right. Yeah. Okay. All right. Well, um, in that case, I think we are done. Right. That's the end of our, our business. And so I don't think there's anything else we need to do. I don't know. I'm not leaving the zoom room again. All right. So without objection, I'm going to consider this meeting adjourned. 10. All right. Awesome. All right. We'll have a good night, everybody. You too. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Awesome. All right. We'll have a good night, everybody. You too. Bye. Bye.