 It is Monday, August 2nd. I will call to order this meeting of the Manuski City Council. Please join us in the Pledge of Allegiance. Councilor Myers, would you like to lead us? Sure. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. So next up is agenda review. Are there any concerns about the order of the agenda this evening? All right. Public comment is next. This is a chance for members of the public to speak to items that are not on tonight's agenda. If you are here for an item included in the agenda, please wait for that time. If there is someone who does wish to make public comment at this time, please let us know. You can use the raise hand of the chat in Zoom or press star nine on your phone. Christine, we're going to start with Terry. OK, great. Terry, I believe it. I see you got it. Hi, Terry. Hi, I'm just here tonight. I'm not I can't see who's at the meeting because I wasn't able to get a a password to join through Zoom. So I'm on my phone, but I'm here tonight because a few months ago, I was inquiring with the mayor about the bike lane striping. It is completely worn away on Center Street, the one bike lane that we have that runs to the west part of the city. That I use every day. The bike lane is completely worn away. There's nothing there indicating that there's a bike lane. The bike lane on Malibu Avenue is very faded and not very visible also. And it is now August 2nd. And I am just wondering when the bike lanes are going to be tainted. Thanks, Terry. John, do you want to respond? Yeah, so we we're trying to get the line striping company back into town. They did some work on East Ample Street with last year's funds. So we do have some funding available for this season. So we are trying to get that done before the end of the season. So we can get them in this month. This month. Yes. OK, that would be great. Thank you. Thanks, Terry. That's all. Thank you. Is there any other public comment this evening? Again, raise hand or chat in Zoom, star nine on phone. OK, let's move to the consent agenda. We have the Board of Health and Council meeting minutes from our last meeting, July 19th and the accounts payable war of July 29th and payroll warrant for July 11 to 24. Are there any questions, concerns about the consent agenda? Do I have a motion to approve the consent agenda? Don't move. Second. Motion by Mike, second by Bryn. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Motion carries. Thank you. We will move on to Council reports. Bryn, would you like to start us off? Sure, I mentioned the Municipal Infrastructure Committee is meeting on this Wednesday. We will be going over the priorities. The meeting starts at six thirty. A remote option will be provided and look forward to having anybody that's interested to attend. Certainly, including topics related to bike lane striping as well as sidewalk prioritization, among other things. So if anyone wants to just drop in for a few minutes at the beginning of the meeting, that's welcomed or send comments ahead of time. If your schedule doesn't allow you to attend, certainly encouraged as much participation in that committee as we can get. So looking forward to that. Don't have anything else at the moment. Just looking forward to to getting some movement on on the priorities. Thanks, Bryn. Mike, Council updates are I have nothing to report. Thank you. Great. Jim, thanks. The Housing Commission met last week to review the policies and priorities that we agreed to in our last several meetings. Staff proposed a work plan that was largely accepted as a work plan for the Housing Commission, which has a significant amount of focus on the Housing Trust Fund and getting those in that program rolled out, getting applications and reviewing those applications and beginning to disperse funds from the Housing Trust Fund and then some related tasks around monitoring the success of the fund and how it's being used and how it's matching, achieving our goals and where we might need to make adjustments going forward for the Housing Trust Fund. So very exciting to see that the work plan is going to pull that important piece of work forward and kind of round out that work that's been ongoing for years may not be so related to our other policy priorities around housing. The Housing Commission also be looking at housing quality as it relates to life safety issues and looking at updating the public building registry ordinance and the and supporting the Planning Commission and updating parking recommendations and the commission's interested in looking at citywide, not just at the form-based code areas for the city for looking at how to support planning and zoning in considering housing as zoning changes come up. So those are the major items that the Housing Commission will be working on going forward and I'm excited that we'll have some appointments coming up here later in the meeting. Thanks, Jim. And August 12th at the Regular Planning Commission meeting members of housing will be attending that as sort of a joint meeting to bring forward some recommendations and have some discussion on that fact. Those meetings are always open to public as per usual. Since our last meeting, I spent much of my time on City Manager Canada interviews, which we will be discussing later in this agenda, so I have nothing else to report. And we'll move to city updates. I just have a couple of things. Hi, everyone. We got the good news that the Treasury is going to allow the ARPA funds that were set aside for counties in Vermont to be distributed to municipalities. So we still don't have, you know, an idea on amount, but that's very exciting. And we also got some community feedback on priorities today on the leadership briefing call. And the other thing that we're keeping an eye on at the city is the rise in COVID cases. I know that we did have some recommendations come out from the CDC, but we are keeping a close eye on how that's impacting us. And, you know, we will send out updated guidelines if we need to. But anyone is always welcome to reach out. They have any questions or concerns about the rise in cases and how that's going to impact us. And that's all I have. Everyone and only two quick things for me, both equipment related. So if you've been to City Hall, you probably notice there's the noise monitoring equipment that was installed recently. So that's in place. They are, I guess, optimizing the the sensors on it. So they do expect to have that operational by mid September. And at the same time, they'll have that public portal available to be able to review that data that's being collected. So keep an eye out for that. In September, the other item, last council meeting, we talked about the hybrid equipment. So town meeting TV did install that. And it's here in the council chambers. So potentially next council meeting, you know, if that's the way you all want to go, we could have that ready for if we do have the next August meeting. So we still have to do training and get up to speed on it, but it's it's available. That's all I have. Thank you, John. So that brings us to our regular items. First up is on for discussion or approval. This is a letter of support for the main and mansion project, which Heather will introduce. And I believe we have at least one guest to join us. Yeah. Well, Paul is bringing over Tom Gatz from Summit Properties. I'll just give you a brief overview. So staff received a request for a letter of support for a low income housing tax credit application from Summit Properties and Digest Company for their project at 101 and 109 Main Street. The project is proposed to be a true mixed income development. It will have 33 affordable units and 21 market rate units with eight of the affordable units providing service enriched housing for those who have been homeless or are at risk of homelessness. The project is currently fully permitted. So it has gone through the development review process. It has all its permits and it's ready to be constructed. The question before you is whether it meets our master plan goals for housing and whether we want to support them and getting additional funding for this through the low income housing tax credits. So based on my analysis, it does meet Winooski master plan goals specifically. It encourages the development of affordable housing options for a broad range of income levels. It supports sustainable growth density and creation of additional housing units. And it encourages something that we've talked about a lot, but isn't specifically in the goals, which is economically integrated neighborhoods. These are economically integrated buildings. So with that, staff recommends approval of the letter of support. And with that, I'm going to turn it over to Tom Gatz. What if Tom is here? Yep, I'm here. OK, OK, I wasn't seeing you, Tom. Hi, thank you for being with us, Tom, just so you can give a little bit of further information about the project. Sure, thank you. Well, that was a great introduction, Heather. I appreciate that. Yeah, that sort of summarizes the project. You know, we're here tonight to request the City Council's support. You know, as any affordable housing development in Vermont, it's really critical to the project that the city and local players get behind the project and feel like it's an important thing to bring to the city. There's lots of competitive applications out there every time new affordable developments are brought forward. So that's that's why we're here tonight. And this this project, you know, our company Summit Properties, we are developers of affordable housing with communities in Vermont, New Hampshire and upstate New York. You know, we currently manage about 1,400 apartments. And here in Winooski, our two most recent ones, Cassavan Overlook, which is 39 apartments and fully occupied mixed income and then Park Terrace, which is opening in September. And that's 45 units, similar mixed income. And and that's the same model that we are proposing here. This is 54 apartments. And it was a pretty unique opportunity for us in terms of this. You know, obviously, I think the council is pretty familiar with this project. It's been around for a long time before we were involved. But it was originally proposed as a market rate development and the the owner, it kind of became distressed. So this was an opportunity for us to acquire the fully permitted project and change it from a market rate into a mixed income development. So we're keeping the plans in place, some slight slight changes. But basically that fully permitted project in terms of the actual, you know, 54 units, the mix of studios, one bedrooms and twos will be kept, but what we'll be changing it to, it'll be 33 affordable apartments, 21 market rate apartments. And of those affordable units, 16 will serve the very low. So all of them will serve folks making less than 60 percent of area median income. But 16 of those will be set aside for very low income folks making less than 30 percent. And that is partially possible due to a partnership with COTS, which we've utilized on the last two projects. Well, they'll provide supportive services on eight of those units for the homeless or formerly homeless and then working with Winooski Housing Authority. We'll be getting some project based vouchers that will also help support the project. So that is the overview. And this is a partnership between ourselves, some properties and Digest Company. Nate and Jackie Digest, we've also done a lot of work in the city. Couldn't be on tonight, but we will be teaming up on this one. Similar to the last two projects in terms of our development construction teams. So happy to answer any questions. But the real goal tonight would be that to hopefully get everyone's support in helping us go forward with our financing applications that are one we've just submitted and several more will be coming up in future application rounds. Thanks, Tom, and just a little bit more context for council. We submitted a similar letter of support when Cassifant Overlook was built and also this project, the Mansion Street Project, if you recall from a couple of years back, was quite controversial for the neighborhood. That is when it was, I believe, 75 unit development. The current 55 unit plan is, to my knowledge, something that neighbors through a lot of back and forth with the previous developer came to a bit more of an understanding on. And the new design also doesn't have the split zoning aspect that was another sort of controversy about the original design. So are there questions from council on this? Brynn. Hi, thanks for the presentations. Very exciting project, so happy to see there's ample opportunity to take advantage of the permits here. I had some just logistics questions. It looks like you're hoping to have construction start next summer. And I'm curious if the timing of that development, how that may coordinate or interfere with some of the Main Street revitalization timing. Yeah, we've talked that may be a better one for John to answer, but that's we have talked through this that we don't know exactly. You know, our goal is September, October next year to start. And I don't think that John maybe knows exactly when the city work will start. But from our perspective, for name that, you know, won't be a problem. And if anything, if it starts at the similar time, it could help some efficiencies. But John, maybe you can speak to the city side. Yeah, agreed. I think it should dovetail pretty well. The Main Street project and this project, because the original, the current design for this development shows sort of the road narrowing. And they used our Main Street design to kind of lay out that curb line. So, you know, in theory, we can we can perform the work that we were. We were going to have we were going to do and move the storm based storm catch basins and those utility pieces in conjunction with with the development. So it lines up way better than the previous schedule for the previous iteration of this project. Thank you, Tom, for being here to share this information. And it's exciting to see this project coming forward in this new phase. And I think one of the things that excited me as I was looking through it is the addition of two bedrooms to this mix. Whereas we've seen it be challenging for previous developments to achieve anything more than studios in one bedrooms. And I guess I'm just curious, as we've heard, more interested in our community for housing that can accommodate families, especially three bedrooms or more. If that's possible for it, like as you look forward, if you see projects like this being able to achieve that or if two bedroom feels like the max, it was kind of a mix of funding you've got together. Yeah, I think on this project, the three bedrooms probably won't be an option. And just in terms of where, you know, how far along the permitting and design it would take a pretty big redesign and there is demand. There's there's no doubt there is demand for three bedrooms. But even the way, you know, our projects that we have right now, Winnowski, we have a cast event, we have 22 two bedrooms and 19 one. And then Park Terrace, which is coming online. That one is, I think it's 17 two bedrooms. And then the rest of studios and ones. The demand for the studios and ones is still far outpacing. Even the two bedrooms and in our portfolio, we have a few three bedrooms. They rent up there. They're needed, but that just we are still seeing higher demand for those studios ones and twos. So I guess my answer would be in future projects, adding some threes will be. And we've been talking to Winnowski Housing about this as well, because they have a demand for some. But I wouldn't see us being able to do maybe, you know, 20 unit with all three bedrooms, but adding a few into future projects is probably what I would see as appropriate for us. OK, thank you. Like. Hey, how's it going today? Questions. I know this is how this is this project has some history, especially with the Manson Street residents. And have we, has there been a knowledge fully permitted? Have they been back around to circle the wagons on what their concerns were last time? I know it went from 75 to 54, but I think there's still a concern about parking and the traffic flow of Manson Street. And I personally, we have not heard from any of the neighbors since we acquired site control on the project. I can tell you from the parking side of things that this property has more parking in the currently approved design than we anticipate needing. And that's from pretty specific data that we've got from our communities. You know, right now at Cassavan Overlook, there's 39 apartments and, like I said, majority two bedrooms, and we've only got 44 total spaces. And those are not all full. So that ratio, that sort of just around one to one in our mixed income of communities, especially is plenty of parking. And we haven't run into any problems with that. And we've got a lot of data to back that up. So here I don't see that being an issue in terms of the access to Main Street. It's not something I know was an issue at permitting and it is permitted. I haven't heard anything new on that. And we are not proposing any changes to the design. So I don't have any new info on that side of things. OK, because I'm not going to single any developer out. But as I walk the street, I see new new buildings go online with ample parking. And I've also seen some buildings come online without enough parking. And we've heard some concerns from the residents about this. And I know I just getting into this project, I didn't realize this was back online again. And now I see it's fully permitted. So there's been a lot of controversy. Because there's a new one going up on Bellevue Street. And I'm looking at that parking lot and the amount of permits are going in there. Then I look across the street to the almost same size residential building. And their parking lot is double the size of that one with parking still on the street. So I'm trying to figure out how we're going to do a letter of support right now without even seeing the design for this building. Or is that something that we should have done prior to this meeting? I don't have any issue given my recommendation to help you with the income ratio of it. But I've been hearing from the citizens of Wanooski when the new development going on and not enough parking. And people aren't interested in having the streets flooded with cars because the developers aren't providing enough parking for the buildings they're building. So, Mike, it's my understanding the project got approved a while ago with the current designs. Unfortunately, Eric's not here. But I know there was some back and forth with residents of that street through that process. And there was there was huge. I mean, this is why the original developer got distressed because the residents were saying, no, they don't want this development in their backyard. And, you know, we have good partners with our developers and I'm just trying to make sure that our phones aren't going to blow up. I mean, look at Mansory Street. They've had meeting after meeting after meeting because it's not enough parking down here. So the other piece was that the original design was going to leverage the Mansion Street lot, not Main Street for the parking to support the form based code Main Street lot with the 75 unit design. And this doesn't include that anymore. I know that was one of the. From my recollection of those conversations, that aspect of the project was the most concerning thing. So this has fewer fewer units, fewer cars, and it doesn't rely on that. You know, that lot that is into the neighborhood off of Main Street. Right. And and what you see, if what we have here, I mean, it's a fully permitted project that was permitted as a market rate development with the impacts on cars that you would have had as a market rate. What we're doing is taking that same permitted project and then applying our mixed income approach, which is going to have a less impact in terms of the number of cars that that we have on site with the same number of parking spots. So, you know, a market developer could take this and move forward. And with our proposal, you will see less impacts. And I do I understand the concerns on the Mansory Street. And we had a big meeting in the middle of the street there when we were starting the Park Terrace project. And I saw you there, Mike, and one of the things that, you know, it obviously stuck out to me was I just talked to almost everybody there that night and said, you've all seen Cassavent. Do you think Cassavent has enough parking? And every even the most ardent critics of the situation on Mansow Street said Park Terrace or Cassavent is not the problem. We know that there's enough parking at Cassavent. And this was, you know, that, yes, we did not see any increase in traffic. And that's because there's enough parking over at Cassavent. It's the exact same model we're using here. So I can very confidently say that this project both has enough parking and has significantly fewer impacts than the permanent project that was planned to go forward based on our model. Thank you, Bryn. Thanks, a couple other questions that weren't included in the in the larger description of the project. How are the units being divided by type? So I know there's studios, single bedroom, two bedroom, but how is that being distributed across the market grade versus affordable housing? So, yeah, so there's 17 studios, 22 one bedrooms and 15 two. And those are pretty evenly divided in terms of of the 33 affordable units. Those are proportionately divided between studio or between affordable and market. So I can pull up the numbers. But basically, you know, it's about half of the units that are affordable are one bedrooms and a quarter are studios and a quarter are two bedrooms. So kind of it matches the overall unit breakdown in terms of what's affordable and what's market. OK, and I was also curious. I had a similar question as Mike. I live on Side Street that that also has a lot of through traffic. And I'm curious about any traffic impact or traffic mitigation of traffic impact for using the east side of Manchin as a throughway to access the building rather than the main arteries. Yeah, we don't have any additional traffic mitigation proposed on this in terms of that. You know, we've got the underground parking, which is accessed off of Main Street and then the surface parking, which is accessed around back. And I don't have any traffic studies that are new or I haven't done any new work on that front. But certainly don't feel like again, I just like I can really point to on that as it'll be fewer cars than under the originally permitted plan. But I don't have any new info in terms of the traffic impacts. Thanks. And then I just had a couple of questions because the project has been permitted and gone through active review already. There's mention in the project scope that we have in the agenda about energy efficiency. And, you know, I'm curious, like for the hitting the pedestrian friendly component and any efficiency opportunities, will there be indoor protected bike storage? Will there be will the parking have EV chargers installed? So just those were my last two questions. Yeah, there will be indoor bikes storage. There will be EV chargers right now. We don't know when we're actually we're having these discussions right now, whether it will be every single indoor space has a charger right now. Like the way we designed Park Terrace was that we stubbed it in so that EV charging stations could be added to every single indoor space. But we have not added them yet. We basically, you know, at Cassavan across the street, we don't have any electric vehicles yet, but we've got that set up so that we can add those stations. My sense is that by the time this comes online, that the percentage of those spaces that are actually have the stations is going to be fairly high. The design already is going to incorporate having the capability to easily add them. But I think that, you know, I'm hopeful that that's where we're going, that the demand and it's going to be there, that we'll just add them right away as part of this development rather than sort of stubbing in and waiting. And then in other energy efficiency in all the all the heating is energy efficient, electric mini splits. So the building is highly, highly efficient, runs on electric, you know, there's a very only natural gas for the water. And any of that, we're looking at potentially going all electric, even for the domestic hot water. Great, glad to hear it. Thanks, Tom. Thank you. Mike. Yeah, a quick follow up. Is this completely residential or is there any commercial front? There's a small, about 1500 square foot commercial space in the corner. For OK, with the Main Street project, the parking always sticks to my mind, because that's what people mostly want to know about. So with the commercial space in front, are there going to be side parking on street parking on Main Street for that? And are those going to be part time parking spots? How's that all working into? Is that a John question or a Tom question? Yeah, that's more of that's on the right away realm. So that's more on my end. So that that speaks more to the Main Street design. So there are some on street parking spaces. You know, we will have to have the discussion with the, you know, upcoming parking study that that comes out. How we want to handle those in the future. Do we look at metering those? So but there will be on street spaces on that side of the street. There any other questions from Council? So if there is support for approving this tonight, someone can make a motion to approve this letter of support. There's also a discussion item we could revisit it next meeting. I mean, I feel that this is there are other issues. The other aspects of this project that are causing pause don't have to deal with whether or not low income housing tax credits are appropriate for this. I think that by all means, we should try and make this mix of housing incentives and funding work. So I would like to make a motion that we approve this letter of support for low income housing tax credits. Also, I can that I support the the need and basis for it. Hopefully we'll have some of the other issues and concerns addressed that that we've raised tonight. But I do support the concept. So I've got a motion by Jim, second by Brynn. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. The motion carries. Thank you. Thank you, Tom, for coming in. Thank you very much. Appreciate the support. All right, so we are going to move on to item B. These are for approval. These are commission appointments. I don't know, Phoebe, you want to give a quick rundown? Sure. So these are new commissioners. We do have let's see. We do have one reappointment on here as well. So that person does not have an application. But the council should have everybody else's applications. And we've got we got a really good mix this year of people who wanted to continue serving and new faces. We are just asking that you approve these appointments. Thanks, Phoebe. And I would just say we've all had a chance to look at the applications in the packet. If anyone does have questions about a candidate, whatever counselor was a part of that interview or staff can answer. Mike, I see your hand. Quick question for. Is it Mr. I don't want to mispronounce his name. Um, Siki, Siki. Oh, Siki, yeah, Siki. I was when I was reading his application, I realized that he put an address in Winooski, but then he said he doesn't live in Winooski anymore. So what's the story with that? He said he recently moved, but he has an address in Winooski. So he he's actually someone that I encourage to apply. He's a recent Winooski high school grad that I have, I don't know, just had a number of interactions with that community events and organizing. I think he just moved. He's got a job somewhere else but still has family here and is still pretty involved in the community. I don't know if well, how's not here? He was probably in on the interview. We don't specifically require residency to be on these commissions. It is certainly a consideration. I put my my personal thought in encouraging him was that he does bring an important youth voice that we don't have a lot of. And while he is recently moved, I think he's still pretty connected. You know, the longer he's out of Winooski, maybe that will change. But I think for now, at least for the two year appointment, he can bring, you know, to our safe, healthy, connected people commission of a voice that is lacking there right now. We do and I'll say we also have a business owner being recommended for finance who is a non resident but does own commercial property here. Are there other questions about any of these appointments? Oh, and I should I've been ignoring the audience. If if there is a public comment, please feel free to use the chat or raise hand feature if you have questions. So hearing no other concerns, does someone want to make a motion to approve the commission appointments as presented? So moved. Second. Motion by Jim, second by Mike. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. And thank you, staff and counselors for taking the time to run these interviews. We are on to item C. This is on for approval and discussion as well. The Vermont library's ARPA grant to public libraries. Maybe we'll be telling us a little bit about it. Sure. And I see that Nate Eddy is on as well. So this is a we're asking the council to authorize our staff to accept grant for public libraries. That's part of the ARPA funds and it's 10,726 dollars and 22 cents. And it will go to a number of needed items for the library, including various upgrades, a replacement of the book return and additions to the library's collections. So we are just asking that the council authorize us to accept these grant funds. And I'm not sure if Nate, if you want to add anything or if anyone has any specific questions, it may also be able to help answer those. Thanks, Phoebe. I think you summed it up. Thank you, Nate and Phoebe. Bryn. Yeah, I just want to say I was really jazzed to see this on the agenda. I've seen the State Department of Libraries advertise the available funding. And I think I've been sending this to the library social media accounts. So hopefully that was was partially an influence, but really, really excited to see this funding opportunity and to take advantage of that. And then I would just encourage working with jazz and some of our community members. I know we have a committee meeting on Thursday this week, I think. So just seeing how we can continue to incorporate diversity, equity, inclusion in our library resources. So again, just really excited to see this come up. Any other questions? Any questions from the public? All right, does someone want to make a motion to approve the Vermont Libraries ARPA grant to public libraries? So moved. Second. Motion by Bryn, second by Jim. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. And thank you, Nate for joining. So we are on to item D. This is on for discussion. I have here attached a memo outlining the city manager hiring process as an update for the public. This includes high level description of the process and then what our next steps are going to be. So. For the sake of the public meeting, we City Council is charged through our city charter with hiring the city manager. You know, we are the elected officials that are directly accountable to voters and hiring as well as one of the important tests that we do. We engaged a search committee with staff, council, business owner, residents, partner organizations, representation to help bring some other perspectives to the process. So our HR manager, screened applicants. I think there were 20. Just jump in and crack me if I'm wrong about any of this. Twenty one. OK. And then I think 10 met the criteria that the search committee had set up for evaluation. Of those 10, we selected six to interview. One withdrew. So we conducted five interviews. And then last week had a conversation about those candidates and put forward a slate of three candidates to move to City Council interviews. So. You know, her Vermont State Statue section three, one, three, the employment and employment or or evaluation of a public officer or employee, we are going to discuss those recommendations in an executive session. The goal being to. So for those of us for the council, you have seen those recommendations. They were emailed to you. This will be a chance to ask any questions. See if there's anything else you want to know about the process to date. And then we should talk about the questions that we want to ask when we interview these candidates. There were some recommendations from the search committee about areas we might want to poke further into. And then we will also talk about scheduling. Scheduling is challenging. And the sooner we get these interviews up, the sooner we can figure out what the public meeting will look like. So the next step is going to be for us as council to interview these candidates, again, in executive session, confidentially, then we will have a interview, a public forum interview for the finalists so that we can have members of the community engaged in providing feedback. Yeah, while we're still in the public forum, are there any process questions that folks have? Or, you know, JV, is there anything you want to add that I left out? OK, Bryn, did I see your hand? Yeah, I was just curious how we are with timing. Are we on track or are we behind? Slightly behind schedule. Sorry, I was putting this together and our original timeline had us extending an offer by mid-August. I think that's probably likely mid-September at this point. OK. And I have I did discuss with JV about the co-interim manager temporary positions for she and John and just sort of extending that the pay that they are receiving for that appointment. OK. So fingers crossed, we have some of you starting early October. Any other process questions? Any questions from the public? OK, so we are going to discuss these recommendations in executive session. Once we move to that, it will be on a separate Zoom line. This one will stay open, but we'll come back here only to adjourn. We're only going to discuss the candidate recommendations and process in the executive session. So can I have a motion to find that per state statute section three one three three, we should move into an executive session. So moved. Second. Motion by Jim, second by Mike. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Motion carries. So then I will need a second motion for us to enter into executive session inviting our HR manager, Phoebe Townsend. And I think that's it, right? There's no other search committee members here. OK, no. And I did recommend that John is also included in the executive session. Oh, yes, let's invite John as well, both of our co-interim managers. So I'm older. Second. OK, motion by Mike, second by Jim. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Motion carries. So we have a conversation that we'll come back here to adjourn.