 Well, thank you. I think we will get started. I will call the meeting to order at 633 p.m. I will start by observing that we have two members of the council who are here remotely only. So I'd ask them to introduce themselves. So you want to start? Okay, thank you. This is our first night in the library of Montpelier High School and I want to thank the Montpelier Roxbury public school district and the administration for their efforts in accommodating us and this is where we'll be for the foreseeable future until we can be back in our home base. And I really, really appreciate our being able to do this. I'll mention a few logistics. Anyone who's joining remotely, if you'd like to participate, we're happy to have you participate, please. Connect to our Zoom meeting and indicate, change your name on display to your name and so we'll know who's here and who we're recognizing. Anyone who wants to be recognized, raise your hand either physically or preferably on the screen. And we will call on you. I try to call on people in the order in which they raise their hands and if I miss somebody, please let me know that I'm doing that. We ask you all to keep your comments and questions to three minutes. And if you speak at a turn, exceed your time or go on too long, you may be interrupted. And for all of our timekeeping functions, we rely on counselor bait as a timekeeper. The first item on the agenda is to approve the agenda. And is there anyone on the council who wishes to make any changes to the agenda. Okay, consider the agenda to be approved. Next we have general business and appearances. This is an opportunity for any member of the public to address the council on any topic which is not on tonight's agenda. It can be recognized in the method I mentioned earlier, and please limit your comments or questions to three minutes. Okay. I'm not seeing anyone. So, next up we have the consent agenda, which is a topic of which is generally topics that are believed to be uncontroversial and not requiring a full. Council discussion. I. We had some questions raised about items on the consent agenda. And I believe we still have a request to take D and E off the consent agenda. Is that correct? So, I think item, item D only, Mr. Okay. So, the consent agenda is before it before us and I would entertain a motion to approve the consent agenda with the exception of item D. Any discussion. Are you about to say that people need to talk a lot louder Donna. I'm just having a hard time getting connected. Oh, you're still not connected. I'm here. Well, let's, let's wait. Neither my iPad or my computer wants to do it. Oh, I got. Do you need to get on the network? It's, uh, don't let me hold you up. Okay. All those on the consent agenda all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed. All right, we have adopted the consent agenda with the exception of item D. And let's move right into item D, which is the waiver permit fees for flood related projects. You want to kick that off south. Yes, thanks. So my, my question was, um, whether or not FEMA would reimburse a permit fees and if they would, why should we wave them. The fact that, uh, you know, a revenue sources are down. It wasn't something we discussed when we initially. Um, Talked about this topic. Uh, so I, is, is have we determined. Femus policy with regard to. Femus. Femus. Yes. Sorry. Shouldn't immediately. I guess we have, um, I thought I'd sent that out. Yeah. They do not reimburse for this. For lost revenue. And I think part of the question was I followed up with Sal. If, uh, If a property owner were required to pay a fee. Is that something that would be eligible to have FEMA pay the property on her back? We don't, I don't think we know about that. That's different FEMA program. I know for, for governments, we, they don't, they don't reimburse lost revenue. Um, I don't know if that would be considered part of the project cost. Okay. So the fee, I mean, we're waiving the fees for everybody, right? So for, for residents. So it would be a reimbursable cost to the resident. I think that was my question. If, if they'll, if they'll reimburse it, why not, why not charge it? And we don't know the answer to that whether we don't know from the resident, we know they don't want to reimburse the city for lost revenue. We don't know if they would reimburse the resident as that being a cost of. I mean, maybe they would, maybe we don't have the answer. I'm sorry. I misunderstood your question on that. I thought you were asking whether they would reimburse the city for lost revenue. And we had. Voted to. Continue until she's been in tonight was the last is the last night. Exactly tomorrow. So he got it. You've got to act. If at all. Tonight, we could extend it to the 27th and get the answer. That's what you'd like to do. What's your pleasure, folks. I move that we extended to the 27, 27. Is there a second? Yeah, I'll second that. Any discussion. I'd like to hear the motion that. There's a air filter behind me as well as. Yes, we can move to extend the deadline for the permit application, be waiver until September 27th. Okay. Continue the waiver till the next meeting. We're going to continue to waiver. Great. Thank you. Any discussion. All those favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed. Okay. We have done that. And hopefully we'll have an answer by our next meeting. Thanks. Okay. We next, we have. Number of appointments. We have appointments for. The social and economic justice advisory committee. And the design review committee. So let's see. If any of those applicants are here. If you are before I scroll down to. The bottom of the list. You should feel free to raise your hand. Or yell out. I don't see any of the applicants here. So. What would you like to do? We could, we could, but are not required to go into executive session. Or we could entertain a motion. To approve the candidates without going into it. Yes. So I move we appoint Rebecca Coleman to the social and economic justice advisory committee. And we reappoint Steven Everett and Eric Gilbertson to the design review committee. Is there any discussion. Just to acknowledge Steven and Eric's. Amazing contribution over a very long time in this committee and. I think that's a great question. I think that's a great question. I appear before that committee once in a while. I have to say it has evolved becoming. It's a really good productive committee. Thanks to their efforts. It's really great to have people who come out. Learn the materials, especially for. Important committee like that. So you had a great. Thank you. Ready for the vote. All those in favor signify by saying, I. I. Any opposed. Okay. I think that gets us to. To the main topic of tonight, the country club road workshop. We have been talking about country club road for a long time. And. Councilor Heaney has pointed out that we haven't really had a chance to talk about the whole the general. All the ideas of the marriage to the idea and where we're going with it as a council. So that's what the purpose of putting it on for tonight is. And. Are you kicking it off? Sure, I will, but we do have. Staff here, both in person and remotely. So there are really five aspects. It's kind of like five sub agenda items that got laid out for you. The first is, I think the big one, the workshop discussion that we'd originally planned pre-flood. Just a discussion about the overall plan. I think. And I think that's, you know, I think that's, you know, I think that's, you know, I think that's, you know, in the city's perspective, we, we had the actionable master plan or whatever we ended up calling it. And laid out a concept for the site. And laid out a bunch of steps that need to happen. To, to make that happen. And, you know, the sooner we can settle on at least the, the areas where the housing and the record going to be. We can start moving those forward understanding that we're not committing funds or making final commitments. We want to be able to, you know, make sure that we have a positive. Philosophy behind this, this project. The second is then, if, if. Assuming that the layout stays about the same, we'd like to get started on a project. We'd like to kick off the recreation area planning. We've set aside an area, but theoretically for recreation. What would that look like? Would there be a facility? What would be on it? But what would be included over the cost? How would that work? You know, start. We're not going to go into that for a future meeting to present. It's just being finalized now, but that it would be getting that work. Probably most immediate before us is the. Topic of potential FEMA housing going there. They're very interested in locating. 30 up to 36 transitional trailers. That would be there for 18 to 24 months. They've been very cooperative. We've. And actually. We've had a bunch of things done. We also have a lot of documents from the third Farnam is here from the governor's office to weigh in from their perspective on this. If you'd like. We. We had suggested to them that they. Locate these trailers in the area of what had been identified as the first housing pod and they are agreeable to that. be necessary for hydrogen. So we could, you know, this could be one of these things where we provide necessary housing to people who are without housing right now because of the flood, but also set ourselves up for a housing project in the future. So that is an interesting topic. So what we'll be looking for tonight is your approval of the concept and authorizing me to go ahead and work this out. As we get more immediate, we have the building as it sits now. There are some people that are interested in using it. We haven't solicited any use for that. And I think there's a question about whether we, at least to someone who wants a long-term use, which means then that's going to be the long-term use. If they're going to invest money to fit up a building, is that, you know, is that what it's going to be? Or should we wait for the recreation planning to complete before we decide the future of that building? And if so, if we decide we want to lease it now, then do we work with the two proposals we have, or do we put it out and get a broader sense of what the community might want? And then lastly, so we'd like some direction on all of those tonight. And then lastly, we have a little bit more of an open-ended policy discussion. And that could wait if we run out of time, as we could wait. But the whole thing about the concert that came up really pointed out that we have not really put any parameters around the use of what we envisioned for this property while we're planning, and what process it will be followed to make requests. So we thought we might just have some open discussion about what you all think makes sense for uses. And then we would come back at a future meeting with a draft policy. And obviously we could change the uses at that time to begin kicking off that process, because we all found ourselves, I think, caught by surprise and not in a position to respond in an intelligent way other than, gee, we think we've got these concerns. It's not sure this is the right place, etc. Fortunately, the State House line saved the day. So anyway, so that's it. Those are the five topics. And with that, I'll turn it back to you, Mr. Mayor. As I said, Josh Jerome is here in person, Mike Miller is on the line, Doug Farms here, and some of many of our other staff are here as well. All right. So as I say, this is, this is like the big discussion that that we've been wanting to have needing to have to see where things are going and who wants to have a first shot at saying what they want to have on the all right, Terry. So looking through this list, it seems like the first thing to talk about is the FEMA trailers and that plan, because we can't, we can't build any, we can't do anything else on the space where if we go ahead with this FEMA trailer plan, they'll be occupying space that could be designated for housing. So I have a question about what's the general time frame that was being considered about developing housing is two years, is that going to be, if the FEMA trailers are there for two years, is that a significant delay to what we were thinking? So that's a question. I also, I'll just kind of get out all my thoughts about this, about parking and what the plan is for 36 households. That's like, I'm not sure how big those trailers are, how many people live in them, but that could be, you know, 72 cars. I don't know if that many cars will fit in the parking lot. So that's a question. And then assuming that they do, this ties into the other questions about use of the property. If people are going to go up there and play soccer on the fields, or, you know, if we're going to have some recreation happening there, is there going to be parking enough for it? Are these compatible? So, so not, yeah, so I think that's kind of the first thing that we have to get clarity about. I can respond to those. So first of all, I'll go backwards. Parking, it's our understanding, and I don't know if we got, we were going to ask if we got a confirmation, our understanding that each unit will have at least parking spot for one car, minimum, maybe two. Or in that parking lot. In, at the unit, there'll be like a little driveway next to the unit. So they have not, so basically we asked them to define what parts of the property they want to seeking to use, and they have not asked for the parking lot. So, and we were trying, we got that question, I think with the question of the cross-country scheme, try to confirm that, but it's, it's our belief that, and we have told them that we need the parking lot. With regard to use of the property, they're well aware of the recreational uses. They know that there'll be soccer and skiing and things going on around. They're going to fence their property, their park. They will have security people just to protection and manage the operations of the park. They will have maintenance folks, so they'll be kind of self-contained, but they know that stuff will be going on around them. And they will, they're, I mean, one of the days we met up there, there was soccer going on while we were talking, we're like, this is, and they got it. And in fact, they initially wanted, for understandable reasons, they wanted to put their site in the flat recreation area because it's the easiest to develop. And we basically said, no, that's active recreation, you know, that's under use. And then so, so I think that those two should be fine. We've got a meeting, we're setting up a meeting with the cross-country people. They may need to alter their course a little to go around where this housing would go. Now, with regard to timing and housing, that's what we've been spending a lot of time. Josh, please interrupt me at any point when I go away. Aright. They expect to be there for 18 to 24 months. They are, they are putting these trailers in where we would consider would be the first housing. So the good news is we would have the infrastructure to put the first housing point. We've asked them, and they seem amenable, to basically lead to not occupy one of the sections or one of those conceived multi-family buildings would go. So that in theory, we could be building that building while the trailers were there. And it is possible. So can that be done in 18 to 24 months? It might be tight, but it could, it could proceed. We're, we're, this is still an idea. And that's part of the reason why I think Mr. Farnham's here. One thought is if we could partner with Downstreet or the state or somebody, we could actually off, then people could move into the housing and we can move out the trailers, then build out the rest of the house. So it will allow it to, and if anything, I mean, there's a lot of variables with housing, as we all know, but having the infrastructure in place will move things along a lot quicker. So as we're talking, there's a lot of people, there's people online who are watching this conversation. Could we put, put the picture up either, if someone can. Here we go. And it's 18 months. Is there a typical license use agreement? And they'll ask for a six-month extension. And the effective start date is July 18th. So that is the start date for the 18 month period. July 18th, 2024. 2023. So it's already started. It's already started. So, so, so this is, Kelly just put up the proposed FEMA scheme screen, which is, which is likely to change, but this was simply showing how they could fit 36 houses in. And that area, if, if we could superimpose, that is basically the first housing pod on our master plan. That is that same location where there are, right now it's shown for multi-family, you know, kind of larger buildings. And so if you, they're going to come back to us with revised plan, but for instance, if you look at numbers 17 through 23 there on the left, if those were to move, say, up to the top, that would free that whole area over there for construction. Or if they left the top of, you know, the idea, so they're going to come back with a plan that leaves space for one of these buildings to start construction, assuming they can fit that in. And then they would bring the utilities in. And in fact, they would also stub, they're going to try to build the road. I mean, part of it is one of the, one of the good and the good part about this is it's a great opportunity. The bad part is because we don't have a more specific plan. We can't tell them this is exactly where we want the road to go. This is exactly, but I think it's still going to be a plus and they will stub off a utility, you know, the water lines at the other end to be able to go up to the higher ground. So we won't be ahead of the game there. Now for the benefit of people watching at home, if we shift the diagram a little bit, the existing building is like kind of down at the bottom of this, right? Correct. Right. If you were to, you can see the Elks Club there. That's the existing building. And you can see the golf court path that people right now walk on a lot. So it would be up from there. And then to the right of that are all the flag field areas. And there's the little pond in the middle. And could you remind us of, if we didn't have FEMA putting the water line in, how much would we or a future developer have to spend to put that in? Well, we don't. So we haven't, that's part of the numbers. I don't know if we have that in the preliminary report for this. I think we might have it for the whole site. We do know that upsizing the line just from route two up the hill to the site is approximately 500 to $550,000 because we're talking about doing that. So that would be just getting to just bring the water line from route two up Country Club Road to this area. It's a six inch line needs to be upgraded to an eight or 12, ideally 12. They need to eat for their size. We wouldn't want 12. So we've been negotiating to pay the difference. The city would pay the difference in the pipe size if they're going to lay it anyway. So we'd get the size we want. It's only about a $50,000 difference. So they'd be doing the work and we'd pay for them 10 questions. Is that pipe size then going to serve the rest? Yes, that's why that's why the station. So that's sewer pipe. That's different. So the existing sewer there is enough to serve their needs. It would need to be upgraded for our future needs. But basically, we couldn't really make the argument that it's necessity for them to upgrade the line for their uses. The water line, they need hydrants and you have to have an eight inch line. So they have to do that. And then we're just going to negotiate to have them put in a bigger line that we paid the delta floor. But sewer line, that would still be on us. So I don't know, we don't know what the rest of that is, but they will then have water and sewer service throughout this whole area as well as three phase power brought in by Green Mountain Power, which we would have to do. So it's a huge start. It's really the big initial infrastructure investment that we would have to make to go up. Are we talking about the power line being buried or on poles? They talked about it buried. Awesome. Great. Yeah. I just had another question. The question that people, one question that people are asking me a lot is, who are the people who are going to be living here? I don't know if Doug wants to answer this. You might be able to. Oh, Doug is the recovery chief recovery officer in Santa Vermont. Doug Farnan. Thanks for coming. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So yes, the displaced individuals, essentially over 200 people statewide had significant of damage where they cannot occupy their homes right now. Over half of those are in Washington County. And then of that group, at least 50 have signed up for this direct housing program from FEMA, meaning right now they cannot find any other place to live in Vermont because of the shortages in our housing market. So despite their best efforts, they can't find a place to live. And that's our major concern and why I'm really thankful that Montpelier is considering working with FEMA on this because that size of those 36 lots in would really satisfy the need in central Vermont. And we'd have to figure out solutions in other counties. But we are very concerned that people won't have a place to live before the winter comes. And obviously, even at a best clip, this would be going in maybe just in time for winter. But I do think that that's very important. A lot of the households came from Berlin. There was a large number of households that were properties that were condemned in Berlin. That's where most of them, I believe, come up from. Thanks, Tim. Just curious, knowing what we go through for permitting for everything else we do. Is there any special dispensation to allow this to happen quickly so you don't have to go through this permit gauntlet that normally we would face? So because we are still in a state of emergency, the governor can exercise his emergency powers to adjust or waive permitting requirements. So we do view this population of displaced households as a direct result of the flood. It's directly related to immediate life safety. So I do think we would go through and work with the city and work with FEMA. And we would try to remove as many barriers as we could reasonably remove. But the powers do extend to permitting and they do extend to temporary exemptions from statute. Again, we don't want to abuse the powers, but we do think that this is a situation that if Montpelier is on board with this, it merits a lot of urgency. And we would do our best to make sure it happens as well. Thank you. And to that point, FEMA, the FEMA officials who are very adamant that they do follow all local regulations for why they asked us what we need. They appreciate an expedited permitting process, but they said we will, you know, when we met with them on site, the Secretary of War for May and hour was present and they said, yeah, we'll follow. We know your stormwater rules were going to follow. They were pretty clear about all those kind of things. I know there's a lot of concern about the timing and with good reason. We're in mid-September now. The only answer we got from them was this is what we do. We did this in North Dakota. We did this in Oregon. We did this in Louisiana. We put these things in and we do them fast and we bring the resources to get it done. And we'll see. But that's... How about us, Vermont failure? I mean, are we going to be willing to step aside and make this happen? Because we really haven't over-downtown stuff. We're making people get permits now. Well, they would have to get permits, but I don't know. Okay. That's what I'm asking. But I don't think it would... We said that we would do what we could to get that as well. But have you lived through what you could, Bill? I'm really wary. What's our take on that? Local permits? For permits for these folks to do this project. For the FEMA project? Yeah. In terms of local permit? Yeah. I mean, I'd assume that we would help them go through our local permitting process. And that's what I'm saying. Can it be expedited? Yeah. I mean, DRB meets pretty often. And I mean, I don't know what the process is to have a DRB meeting just like ad hoc, or if we're just going to waive it. Our commitment to that was that we had expedited. It's quickly because of the emergency meeting. I get what you're saying, but I'm living through some expedited, Bill, and I'm not happy. Yeah. And I'm going to tell you... No, I hear that. No, I... And it's... I mean, Northfield Bank took three extra weeks because of monthly of permitting to get a temporary branch. I know what I'm going through with permitting for our properties, trying to get things going. And I don't feel helped a lot. So if we're going to help this project to happen, it's got to be more than, oh, we're going to work through our little process here. Got it? Yep. Thank you. Sal and then Lauren. I'm just wondering if... How hard and fast the 18 to 24 months is given the, you know, given the climate available housing? I imagine some of these displaced folks are rebuilding and that market's also very crowded. What is the... What's the experience... What is theme is experience with these sorts of things being extended and how long are they typically extended for, if at all? So I may need some help from Mr. Farnham here, but what we understand is that the FEMA program, and when we talk about the FEMA program, it's putting the housing, but then they manage the site. So they basically serve as the mobile home park manager for lack of better word. They do maintenance. They do tenant behavior, anything that needs to be handled. They take care of and they run their program for 18 months. We were told they often extended for another six months, given that it started on July 18. And by the time they get this done, it will probably be almost six months into the program. After that, then the state and local officials can work on how to... What to do. So people have, I think, the ability to buy their trailer and move it to another site. Again, if... This is very theoretical. If we were building a building along with a partner where these folks had first right, it's conceivable we could work with the state to extend on here the management of the site until the new building was built and people could move in and then remove the trailers. But we will need to be an exit plan at the end because they can't just be left there without somebody managing the site. So absolutely. So from Pima's perspective, once the 18 months are up and if they were any once the 24 months are up, they are done at that point. They don't go past their timelines, right? From the state's perspective, we want these households to have stable housing for as long as possible and we understand that the city has plans for that location. And hopefully we could work together on some type of transition plan. I think there's going to be multiple large housing projects in Montpelier and Barrie and other areas around the state and I think managing those transitions I think is going to be very important. So I do think we will need a program to most likely help people if they want to move off that site to another location, if they want to buy their trailer and they want to set it up somewhere else. We're going to need to work on making sure those sites are available two years from now because we don't have open sites right now that's part of the problem. So we will be working over the next two years to make sure there's capacity for them to move and I do think the concept of allowing them first right of refusal essentially on a unit in the affordable housing section has some merit and should be definitely explored with that population. I'm not sure how many of them would take them up on that but from FEMA's experience, from my conversations with Will Roy, not everyone stays for the entire length of time. Generally they look for other options while they're in there and then they move out as they find other options and it wouldn't be like a population would be cycling into that. This is a discrete group of individuals that are eligible for this program and we wouldn't be moving other people into those locations if any of them free up during that 18 to 24 month period. So I want to acknowledge that the transition would be very important. We don't want it to be a hard stop from the state's perspective and we acknowledge that there needs to be an exit strategy for the City of Montpelier. And just as a follow-up, how does FEMA leave the site at the end of the two-year period? I mean, you've got utilities and so on. They're all stubbed up and capped off and marked or what happens? They said that they would leave it however we wanted it, including in some places they restore it. It's close back to its original, you know, some places they actually remove the utilities that they put in to, you know, if there was a field and people wanted to keep it a field, they'll try to restore it to a field. That's one of the reasons why they wanted to know what we wanted to do with the site afterward. And so we said, yes, we want the infrastructure to stay in, but they would leave it in the way that we requested. One of the reasons we're trying to coordinate with them now with DPW and planning about how to lay everything out is best, you know, in a way that works for all the best. So there'll be a, we'll have an opportunity at the end to alter or modify what we, what we discussed now since it's very difficult to predict what it's going to look like in two years. Well, we're not just curious. Well, you know, the, where the water lines and sewer lines and roads go, aren't going to, you know, mod, I mean, once they're in, they're in and the, the trailers will be gone at some point and there'll be, you know, new housing going in there. I think the question, our modification would be, you know, we want you to pull everything out and restore it back to open field, which I don't think we want to do. And so it would be at that point, we'll, we'll accept this infrastructure from you, and then if we have to make changes to it at that point, I mean, I suppose if we wanted them to, I don't know, we haven't got that far yet, but maybe if we wanted them to move a line or a road or something, they might do that, but we can, we can discuss the ideas to try to get it as close to right as we can at the front end. So we don't have to do many changes at the end. Yeah, no, I appreciate that. I'm just wondering if there's some sort of allowance in the agreement that some discussion would take place at the end, given that things may have changed on our part as well as on FEMA's part. We could certainly raise that, you know, we don't have a written agreement yet. We're just, you know, we're laying out the terms, what would be discussed. So that part of, part of tonight is to see whether you want us to go ahead with that. So we would obviously have a, have to have a final cover. So that's a good point. We can add that in. Lauren. Yeah, thanks. I mean, first of all, big picture, really grateful this is in the works, I think, just the urgency of getting sheltered for people. So thank you to everyone who's working on this and trying to make it happen. I think it's the right thing to do. Thank you. Did just want to underscore the importance of the transition plan, both knowing, I'm sure we've all read stories of the quality of these trailers and just knowing getting people into long-term housing. So they're not in this temporary situation. So just how important that will be and hopefully we can partner for them up to your side and hopefully that's a bigger state regional effort. And my question was kind of answered when I first raised my hand, but just trying to understand. So if we're invoking, you know, emergency authority, but the city still has some say, just knowing that this site, you know, we have these long-term vision for it. So just, I mean, do we have, because of the permitting, you know, there's this tension between we want this in as quickly as possible, and we want to make sure it's done in a way that is going to facilitate the long-term housing that we need. And so just like, could they decide to do something that we don't like on the site? I mean, like, is it ultimately is an agreement that's going to be written with the city and FEMA and the state? Or how does that work if it's state emergency authority? Like, could the state supersede us? So there's two, there's two issues here. One is that there's permitting and, you know, we've raised a good issue in our senate message planning director about how we work our way through that. But the second issue is where the land on. And so anything they need, they need permission from us. So, you know, so we would say this is, this is what we will give you permission to build. And then we've got to figure out how to build. I mean, with any reason, I understand, but they can't suddenly come in and do something different on our property. They would, we have an agreement that says, here's what you do, and that's what you do. So we have, we have even more control, even in permitting with that, because we're, we're the land owners. So we can say, you're going to have this kind of hydro, you're going to have this sort of thing. And these are, these are codes and here's our things. So, Mr. Farnan. I would just add that the state would not be a party to the agreement in any way. Like Bill said, the town, the city is the land owner. The only involvement the state would have is, you know, if certain permitting or processes needed to be waived to move it faster, that's the involvement we would have. And then separately working together to figure out what the transition would be like, because FEMA would not be involved in that transition plan at all. They kind of have a, just a hard stop to their, to their processes. So the transition would be between the state and the city. And yes, emergency powers would allow the governor to do some things involving real property that is definitely not what we were talking about here. It is the city's property and the state's going to respect that. Just hearing this, a question that occurred to me that maybe nobody knows the answer to yet is, would this be permitted as a mobile home park under title 10? And then would it be subject to state, you know, statutory and regulatory provisions for discontinuing a mobile home park when it, when we get to the end of that process? You know, giving the answer to that right now, other than to say that this has always been everything we've talked about, including with the state has been that this is, you know, a temporary arrangement. This is not a mobile home park that's intended to mean there's a long as an emergency provision. Even when we were talking to secretary more about the provisions that she understood, this is not, this is not something coming in for subdivision to create a long term. This is an emergency need that has the benefit of creating an infrastructure. You know, our follow up projects would presumably to go through all the processes and permits, the more permanent locations on it. So that could be one of these things where you talked about waiving statutory requirements. That could be one of those requirements how we, how mobile home park would ordinarily get permitted versus how we're doing this. Yes, I also think it's something I can research on the states and make sure there won't be any surprises or roadblocks there. But the other factor here is that this is a federal government program. It's not a private commercial park. So I think that would be something that, you know, would more than justify an exception. I know that we are going to be having discussions with the legislators about in the upcoming session and we could make sure that there's nothing, no unintended consequences. Great. Thank you. Sal. Well, I'm sure there's a long list. I just haven't seen it. So that's why I'm asking these questions. I'm assuming that, well, I'm wondering what services FEMA provides with respect to the property, you know, plowing, trash pickup, grading the road in the spring, you know, that kind of stuff. Is that all handled by FEMA as the as the manager of the of the project? Yes. And, and actually, I believe it's going to be paved road, not gravel. So yep, yeah, they'll be filing there, the lawn vegetation picking up the trash. Yep. I think this is a wonderful opportunity and thank the resources of FEMA to allow us to work with this and meet this need. If we were to go ahead with this, I'm thinking of a motion to authorize you to act on our behalf, how wide of a spectrum of authority do you need? Because you're going to be negotiating and putting this. You know, I think, you know, obviously it could bring it back for final approval if you wanted. It's really just timing, right? It's, you know, we'd have, you might need to call a special meeting or something like that. It's more to be able to keep this moving without having to come back to the council. But that's fine, too. But we just need to, you know, I think the terms so to speak that we've talked about pretty much discussed. It's what, what's the timing is, what, how the lay, you know, our concerns for layout, the future infrastructure. And I think I'd say the issue that's most undecided is the water line from route to, you know, that's the probably the biggest area. And, you know, maybe you could put that in your motion, right? Essential. That's, well, you know, it really is. I mean, as I said, they said they would follow all of our regulations. Our regulations would call for at least two hydrants here. NFPA regulations require an eight inch line to serve hydrants. So it's a six inch line. So they can't, it really is regulatory. And then our ask would be, if you're putting in the line anyway, put in a bigger one and we'll pay, you know, we'll pay the delta. So I mean, that seems the right thing to do. And I certainly would like you to be able to act forward and move on this as quickly as possible. I mean, December, it's going to be snowing before December. It's going to be a tight line. So I entertain a motion. I mean, I give a motion to authorize the bill to act on our behalf to work in a contract with FEMA to achieve these 36 units for 24 months. Okay. Is there a second? Okay. It's moved in second. Is there any other discussion? The process point, I mean, to me, I think just keep it moving. And if it's all consistent with everything we've talked about, I mean, obvious, I would think if some change to that or some big red flag, then we could call a special meeting and try to make it emergency and keep everything moving. But, you know, if it's consistent with the, I mean, conversation we've just had, I would want to, I just want to be clear that I'm voting to like, keep it moving. Bill knows you'd have to come back and face it, so he's going to do it for you. Okay. Tim, did you have your hand up, too? Just thinking that do we include in the motion something about expediting permitting in the city? It's hard and we really want to make every effort to make this forward quickly. I couldn't have to say it, but it sounds it sounds consistent with the intent, doesn't it? The intent was to expedite the project, right? So whatever it takes to expedite. All right. Lauren. And does the motion reflect, we want to ensure that the infrastructure being built reflects the long-term needs. So the longer the bigger pipe, water pipe, I mean, I want to make sure that's perfect. I said everything you already talked about. Okay. However, John, during that, you got it. John, are you okay with that or do you need a more? I think we're at a breaking point. Okay. Sal, I'll call on you and then I see some members of the public who also want to be heard. I'm just wondering if we can postpone a vote on this motion until we've talked about the Good Samaritan. Just, I mean, I like what I've heard so far about this, the FEMA project, but I'd like to hear from the little bit more about the Good Sam project, which is taking place right on the property as well and maybe put those motions together or at least have all the information before we vote on each of them separately. So at this point, we're not really voting on the Good Sam proposal tonight. I think we have shared that and everyone, you know, we were going ahead with that based on the emergency need for shelter, but we have had conversations with them and with FEMA. FEMA knows this is happening there. Good Sam knows that this is being considered. As I mentioned, FEMA plans to have security on their site to protect their tenants and also to, you know, help manage their tenants, I guess. And Good Sam will be an evening shelter, 7 or 8 p.m. until 7 or 8 or 2 p.m. in the morning. They will have people on site to manage their site. You know, we're confident that there are resources in places to manage situations and obviously we can have emergency responses necessary. I mean, things can happen, but really they are going to be separated. There will be like a sort of fence around the FEMA site. People will be in the Good Sam facility. The plan, I think, for Good Sam is to transport people back and forth because the wheels and things are downtown. They don't really have those facilities up there. So, you know, we've talked about this a lot with all involves. Thank you for that, Bill. Joe Castellano and then Linda Berger. Thanks for calling on me. I missed the first part of the meeting, so I'm unsure if this is going to be redundant. But I assume that there's been an analysis as far as, I assume we're leasing to FEMA for two years, that land and that site. Is there a lease analysis or what sort of rent are we charging FEMA? Is there any sort of figures on that? There is no lease. It's a federal program, emergency program, and when they're working with a local government and that, so the in-kind infrastructure that we're getting, it's one of the reasons they've been willing to discuss some additional infrastructure work that meets our future needs in lieu of a financial lease. And then I had one other follow-up, Bill. I know that you talked about there being a bigger waterline because there is proposed development for the country club down the road. You said the town will pay for the additional funds. And I know that in one of the recent articles in the bridge, you said that we've been impacted pretty severely financially due to flooding. And of course, a lot of downtown businesses are also suffering. I'm just wondering where this is going to come from out of our budget. Well, that's a great question. And I'm happy to answer it. So the difference between an eight-inch line and a 12-inch line is about $50,000. As a total project, it would be $500,000 or $550,000. So it's a pretty wise investment on our part in terms of future development, tax revenue, and those kinds of things. We would, because it's water, we would take it from the water fund. And there are reserves there. The water fund has not been hit as much as the general fund. Obviously, we'd prefer not to spend any money. But sometimes, even in hard times, you have to make good decisions for looking forward. And so that's the order of magnitude we're talking about. And one final question. I know that there's a proposed site plan, which doesn't necessarily follow what the concept A, which I believe everybody was in favor of. So with the roads that are going to be in there, are those going to be able to be reused once FEMA is out of there? So you did miss that part of the conversation. But the FEMA housing is supposed, is intended to go into that first pod that is in concept A. We are working so that the infrastructure would be coming into there. So we would have water, sewer power, and a road into that. They've seen our plan. The plan they put out was really just to see a massing plan, to see how they could get on there. They're going to come back with us with a different layout to try to get it as close to ours as possible, understanding that this isn't necessarily a final plan either. It is a concept plan. So yes, we will be able to reuse all of that infrastructure to develop going forward. And if we have to reroute a road, maybe we do, but we hope we all have to. Okay, that's it. Thank you. Thanks, Joe. Linda. Yes, thank you. I just had a question about transportation for the people that are housed by FEMA. It's a pretty isolated setting. And I'm just wondering about that. And is there an answer about that? I'm kind of looking at Doug Farnham. I think the presumption here is these are people that have been living in homes, living in apartments, and that they will have their own transportation. I don't know what happens if there will be an assessment on an individual basis. Generally speaking, these were individual homeowners, so they likely had transportation. We haven't really assessed that. But what I can do is follow up with the agency of transportation and see if there are any options for adjusting certain shuttle routes or anything like that so that we could serve this new population in a different place. I think one of our concerns initially was the railroad tracks and access up with that many people. So that's still kind of an open problem if everybody's got their car. Yeah, I mean, I think if it's 36 vehicles, people don't always leave at the same time in the course of a day. The railroad does not run that often. We're not seeing that in the next year or two as being a significant issue as far as egress and egress. There's already heavy use for fields, recreation activity, any given afternoon, there's probably 30 cars up there now and probably are leaving at approximately the same time once activities end. So I think there will be more analysis of that required as we think about building out a bigger project there. But for this use, we're not anticipating a big problem. Thanks, Linda. Thank you, Rick. Ricky Angelis. Yeah, thanks, Jack. Ricky Angelis, co-director of Good Submit. I just a few comments about the shelter at the country club. First of all, we're really pleased to be leasing that space. I think it's going to meet our needs very well. It's very decent space, clean, well-lighted, attractive. There's a small kitchenette in the area that we'll be leasing. And I want to thank the city staff in the middle of everything that was going on with the flood. They helped to facilitate and to make this happen. And we really appreciate that a lot. With respect to the FEMA trailer and the FEMA neighborhood, wow, I'm just, it's so good to hear about this. What a great thing. And it's going to help us in two ways. One in a more of a global way. These are people that don't have housing and they're not going to need our shelter. So that's a good thing. And then secondly, everything I've heard about this plan gives me comfort that it's going to be well-managed. And I was really pleased to hear that there's going to be security on site. So I'm just looking forward to being up there. And I think it's, we can exist, peacefully coexist with the FEMA development. Thanks, Rick. I don't want to foreclose discussion prematurely, but are we ready to vote? If so, all those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right. Thank you. I think this is great. I don't see how we can not do this, because this is really great. The number of people have asked me, well, you know, we know what's happening in Montpelier. People know that there's a lot of housing loss in Barrie. And my friends are saying, well, what's happening to those people who lost their houses? And this is really reassuring that this is going to meet the need for central Vermont. Thanks for coming. Thanks for being here. Yes. Welcome to hang out the rest of the night, but that's the FEMA part stuff. Yeah. Yeah, there you go. Thank you. Okay. So one down. Let's be official. Any direct question about FEMA? I've heard that they have been meetings about some regional long-term follow-up through FEMA. And I just wondered if we have city staff participating in it. It's a long-term follow-up. FEMA has laid out sort of a whole structure where when you have an incident of disaster like this, that they follow up and encourage local development of groups that then follow up long-term. So that model, so we haven't engaged with FEMA specifically on that, but that model is essentially what we just did with the community forums and setting up people involved and setting up local groups to follow up on issues, that kind of thing. When I talked with Waterbury, and that's essentially what they did. They went through a whole process, except it took them a year and a half to lay out those priorities that we've already done and then set up a leading group because it was being led by FEMA. So we've sort of went it alone here. Well, it's more of a regional focus. Instead of like ours was really our meetings were wonderful, but they were not figure driven. Barry's been having them independently. And this was supposedly a little higher view more regionally. So we have not been contacting with FEMA about this and about organizing this in our area. I know that it happened in Waterbury, like I said, in 2011. There have been some meetings happening. So I'll put you in touch. You can tell me about it. Okay. You know something I don't know, which isn't surprising. We have not. It doesn't take much. Sal? I was just thinking that I think we we might want to revisit the hunting situation on the property. Didn't we essentially extend the use to include hunting since it had been traditionally allowed on that property? And now it's, I mean, I can't imagine, I mean, it's going to be any good with all that heavy equipment out there, but should we officially do something about the status of hunting on that property now that it's going to be residential? So fortunately on tonight's list of five things to talk about is the use of the proper policy and use of the property. So presumably hunting would be one of those items that we talked about. Yeah, Bill and I were talking about that the other day. It's, once this is, once there are people living there, it's hard to see hunting being a practical or safe use. So where should we go from here? We have. Bill, were you wanting to talk about recreation next? Well, I thought we would start with, you know, kind of a range from big to big to narrow, but we kind of jumped in the middle. So really whatever the council would like to talk about next. Well, you can make sense to talk about the big picture, the overall plan, because that's really what all the work has been getting us to. Right. And the overall plan we have is the units, the general outline of where they're going to be. Oh, and thank you, Kelly. Are you about to put the bigger picture on the concept day on the screen? Yeah, I think that's useful while we're talking. Anyone want to start? All right. So we're talking about the overall plan. Yes. And we're being asked to come up with a number of units. And we're also being asked to finalize the areas designated for each kind of use. So I might need a little refresher. We've got in our actionable master plan. We've got this concept A. Is that what's on there? Really? Concept A. And so I think staff is asking us to say, this is good. Do this. Right. And we've discussed this in the past, but we never quite got to that point. Right. Yes. Do this. Okay. So as we're looking at the whole plan, there's a lot more to the plan than just what's on this map. And so I think we need to have a discussion about kind of the whole plan and the next step to come. And I mean, I think this is a good concept. I'm, you know, I think it's, I think it's worth pursuing. But I think that it's a bigger question because there's tons of recommendations. There's pages and pages of next steps. And so I would love us to be able to kind of get clear on what we're directing staff to do and say, yes, we think these are the good next steps to take, and you should take them and get going on them. I don't feel like, I don't feel like it makes a lot of sense for us to decide on a specific number of units at this point. And if you read through this plan, like every other sentence is now, don't take any of this written in stone. It's all going to change, which makes sense. And we don't know who's going to develop this. If anyone's going to develop it, we don't know what they're going to come up with when they start to develop. There's a lot of next steps that involve permit assessment, more due diligence, looking at the sites, they're going to be blasting required. There's a lot of variables that could influence how many things get built. So if we don't have to say a certain number, but if we can just say, we like this concept of multi-family housing in these general areas, I'd be a lot more comfortable with that. So I can respond to that if you like, unless somebody else was ready to jump in. And I agree that we can't set a set number. And I think what we were really talking about was if we have a target. So if you set 300 as the target, you won't get 400. And so if we say we'd like to shoot for the higher end of what's possible, and then we have to do all these steps, these are all things. We've got a zoning, we've got a master plan, all the engine, all that stuff. And at some point, we would come back to you and say, you know what, 372 is the sweet spot. We can't get 500. And here's why. And because of blasting or whatever. What we're trying to get is that you as the council, if you think about the big policies, is this the direction you want to go? And would you like us to pursue? And we're ultimately going to come back to some point about the rec area and say, you know, is this where you'd want us to go? And it'll probably include everything under the sun. Doesn't mean we'll end up with, you know, pools and basketball, but you won't get them if you don't start looking and assessing them. And we know there's all this stuff. So basically we're saying we're ready to start taking the stuff on, you know, in the order that it needs to be taken on. But we haven't expended reasonable part because of the flood, but also part we want to make sure that you were saying to us, now start putting this into action. We're okay with the idea. We would like you to get as many units as you can possibly get on there or we want a mix of units where in the, you know, this is the range we'd like to see. I know there was some question about, could we put housing, you know, further down here? And we actually came up with an idea. Well, if we were to build a new community building, new housing could be upper floors. So we get both worlds. You could have, you know, you could have used the space double to get those and have that kind of thing. So, you know, those are all ideas that could still be considered. We're just, I think we're excited. I think, you know, we can hear it a lot when, you know, nothing's going to happen until we get going. And so we're basically saying, we want the council to say, okay, we've coalesced. This is the general idea. This is the general number we're looking for. Start and keep bringing us back the information, the decision points as you get information. And when you get design costs or when you get these things. So that's what the staff's looking for. That's the kind of direction we're seeking to. Not specifically, it's going to be 472 units. And it will be exactly right here. And Bill, it looked like Tim was about to say something. I want to ask, throw in a question too, which is that the conceptual plan we've been talking about has mostly been, you know, multi-unit housing of various kind. Townhouses, apartments, that kind of thing. Does this, I've also heard people say, well, there's a role for single family housing as part of this. And is that something that we need to decide now in order to prevent for you and your staff to be moving forward? Well, a lot of people, yeah. I don't want to respond to that, but I don't want to jump on Tim. So one of the things that struck me about reading this was it wasn't really clear to me that the plans for what kind of housing were based on anything other than people's opinions, like the public opinion primarily, and those of us on City Council. And that doesn't feel like a strong enough basis to make that decision to me. I don't know. Like, I want to know more things about what's the actual need in the community. So I would rather not limit us at this point. I would say that, you know, we have a preference for getting a number of people in there for a diversity of housing. We don't have a preference for, you know, 10-story tall buildings. But I don't know, you know, someone came up with a, some developer wanted to do that and could make a good case for it. I'd be open to it. So I want to keep that flexible. With me saying how flexible can we be at this stage and still enable the City to plan well to move forward? Tim. I think a lot about this project. It's a beautiful piece of land that we bought. I think it certainly seems to have jumped in ahead of other priorities we may have had as a community prior to this purchase. You know, the recreational opportunities, about 80% of it on this plan that we're looking at is recreation at some level, which is wonderful. And I think in a big picture, maybe we can endorse that tonight. Because I think that's clearly part of what's going to happen. We have, now maybe we've done some more engineering since we last talked, because if you've got water looking sizes, it must be something. But we, so I don't want to interrupt your speech, but just so you know, I mean, basically we used our own engineering staff to say what size line we need to serve that many people plus size. And then we also, and we know that an eight inches required for the hybrids. So it was, it was, you know, we have a design, but we know, I mean, it's eight or 12. I mean, 12 should, you know, basically on your own calculations. So I still think we need to do some basic engineering, which I've been talking about for months, but to really quantify what we can do in this site appears in this material that we get for this meeting. It's a little different than I remember from our last public meetings, but it sounds like the secondary road is going to be required out for this number of homes. It didn't sound like it was as optional in this report as I heard just people talking at the last presentation. So if that's definite, that's a really big cost and infrastructure piece we're going to face. And it has to be considered as we look at the viability of this whole project and looking at numbers, talking with other developers who actually have built streets recently are getting really recent estimates. You know, just if it's roughly 0.85 of a mile from middle of this site down to somewhere on Barry Street to connect through the age of Zorzi property, if you went that route at today's cost, just for the road without the engineering design, probably having to build bridges or culverts. You know, you're over 6.7 just for that. If you go up to the Brock property the other way, it's a little less. You'd be in the three to four million dollar range, which is still more than we paid for the whole property. I think we really got to look at the big picture, and I think the real big picture is we're not developers and we really should keep out of that business. I think we should set this project up so housing can be created on the portion that we think should be housing. We've got to modify our zoning because our zoning right now won't allow this to happen. So I think that's something we really need to do. And then step out. You know, set it up. You know, you'll have control because of we own it. You can define who you sell it to. You're going to be able to define through permitting processes what they can build. So you can say, you know, 10 story buildings, you know, whatever, but let the market decide what kind of house, whatever point in time this actually happens because I don't think it's going to happen for at least a couple of years if these things are going. I guess that would be my take is let's define the right part, let that get going. Let's do some basics to set the table for someone to create some great housing up here. And then let's get out of the way and let them do it. So just to quickly, I think those are all great points just to answer your initial question. We have not done any additional work because when we last discussed it, the plan was we were going to have this workshop conversation. And so we, and then, of course, it got delayed because of other factors. Here we are. So all of those are appropriate things that we need to follow up, including the need and costs. And, you know, are these eligible for state housing funds right now? There's a lot of state housing. So we get all of that stuff. How much would a TIF generate? The analysis was done on a local only TIF. If this could become a state education tax TIF, that would bring out a lot more revenue that could do a lot more of those kind of things. So all of those are absolutely, that's the kind of work that needs to be done next. And we're basically saying we want to start that analysis work and then figure out where you go. But we wanted, whatever guide post you wanted to give us before we started. So we don't want to assume that we know what you want. It may sound that we're not in the same page, Tim, but I think we are. I do think we set the guidepost and whether that's guideposts of 300, 400 houses, that we have some concept of how many units we went on that piece of land. And for me, it's really important that it doesn't have single homes. I don't want to see another town hill. I want to see dense housing with shared gardens and shared parks, that young people and seniors can afford. We know how much you can go to the data, just seniors alone that we need housing and young families and single. We have many more single people. So I think it's great that we turn it over and get the staff looking at specific information. But I do feel we need them guideposts that we need to give that vision out. So that's where I'm at is some guidepost is important. And so the guideposts you're thinking about are things like rough order of magnitude for the number of units, general concept that you prefer not to have single-family housing, groups of townhouses, shared units, since housing. Generally putting it where that map shows that you put it. We're going to rezone this. It's going to go through your zoning process. It'll ultimately come back to city council at some point. So we will have that approval with the rezoning when it's studied through zoning to say, how can we do this? I'm not worried about zoning, you are. Yeah, because I know it better than you have. It's an interesting process, but it's also a very public process. And so I think because we're really spot zoning this, because right now it doesn't even fit our zoning code, we're making it be something we wanted to be for our own use. It would seem like the right thing to do is let it be rezoned, work through staff, get the recommendations on dense housing. They're clear on what the community said in this process, which was that. And then we approve it if we like it. Let's not see that. Donna. Thank you. Well, I think if we have the vision, then we can get the zoning done and not make it spot zoning, but do it with a vision of a different kind of housing setting than we've had in the past. So you're right, the zoning needs to be done. And hopefully once we have our vision, and I'm still following line with all the public meetings, I feel we have that information and that's still sort of my vision. And as we get information, we will change it. Yeah, just to that point. And I don't want to at all presume to speak for the planning director. But it's, I think what we're really looking at to Tim's point of spot zoning is, you know, we have, we have this parcel that savings next door that wants to do some kind of housing. And then the land that used to be owned to the college. And, you know, should we be looking at that neighborhood, you know, as a zoning, as a new growth area and, you know, our growth current growth center ends at savings. So this would be extending it into this one property, which would then allow to do some things. And then, you know, thinking about if that road were to go through how that could serve housing and all those projects and what kind of investment would have to be made, but, you know, maybe, maybe the city doing that would spur work in other places. So, yes, it's all absolutely. And I think, you know, at least the, as I understand it, the thinking is to try to make it as permissive as possible on the site, given natural resources. Yeah, thank you. So when we were discussing to have this workshop, I mentioned some people ask me about public transportation, because if like old people, elderly or single people, if they want to leave there, and they will not have cars, so how will they will like come to a downtown or go other places. So is there any plan to create public transportation for this side of the town. So it will connect it to rest of the downtown. It would seem to me that that's going to be, you know, an essential part of the planning process is, you know, and that, you know, right now, public transportation in Vermont is pretty, you know, it's funded largely by the state. And it's based on where people are and what their needs are, their root needs are. So if suddenly there's going to be a much larger population here, you know, I think we'd be in a position to try to negotiate a route up in here, particularly if there's a youth center or a community center that people want to go to. So absolutely, that would, I think it would have to be part of the planning for this, is how do people get back and forth so it doesn't just become an automobile hub. So can we also think about other ways in addition to public transportation, maybe like shuttles, you know, just give different alternatives. So people won't be dependent on only one, you know, modality of like, yeah, thriving around. So correct. No, I think I mean, all of that is some form of public transportation, whether it's a big bus or a small shuttle, or, you know, maybe, you know, I just thought of this now. So there's no thought to the merit of it. But, you know, depending, maybe a developer creates a neighborhood association and they have their own neighborhood van that, you know, some senior housing things do that. But, you know, just becomes part of, hey, you live here, you get this transportation route or something. So I think there's a lot of things we could think about. Okay, yeah, thank you. So whatever talk we are talking, it will be part of the public transportation planning anyway. Correct. Okay, yeah, thanks. Lauren. Yeah, thanks. I guess I'm a little bit unclear how much specificity the city needs. Like, I mean, just looking through the plan, it's, you know, okay, we need to step one, do zoning, we need growth center designation, look at the tip, do a housing needs assessment, like it's all here. Yes, you need to sell them, tell us to go on that. Right, but I guess what I'm not clear. So I mean, I think it's all here and then it's got their RFP, like everything we're talking about is in the plan. And it's like we've talked about it before, we had a lot of new counselors. So we wanted to be able to make sure that the concept that had been kind of, like we were ready to go and then we had a bunch of new counselors and we wanted to make sure. So I guess it's just, is this really off base, this concept for the folks who have come in and that's all you need to know? Or is there more specificity than that? Okay, I'm so good with where we are. That's one way to put it. I mean, not just the new counselor, that counselor as well. We have had a change, a flood, we've had a lot of things and we're about to embark on this next stage. So we want to make, we want to make sure we're all in this together. We're collectively the seven of you and us and our team, we're all going to have to answer from these decisions and we want to make sure people are comfortable and it's reflecting what the communities goals are. So I mean, I think yeah, no, and I think the feedback and the questions are all great. It's just, it's not, I just wanted to make sure that us just giving that what feels like in some ways concrete and in some ways really vague and flexible advice is giving you enough direction to just keep things moving so that people doing rezoning actually know what have enough guidance to do that so that we're not just back here rehashing things. I guess, I guess that's the line I'm trying to find. You know, that's always right depending on when the rezoning gets done, you know, I mean, who knows who will be sitting here and, you know, things that's part of the nature of working in the public. But, you know, I appreciate that and I think, you know, I want to be clear that just because you give us to go ahead, there's going to be a lot of checking and a lot of updating and a lot of decisions to be made by this council as we go forward. It just means we will start going down this list of doing things and which was, we haven't at all, we just kind of stopped waiting for this conversation. So, Joe, I think you may be muted, Joe. Sorry about that. Can you hear me okay now? Yes, thank you. All right, thank you. I just want to point out I agree with Kerry's point early on that a lot of the initial concept was done just on public input. And I think there really needs to be a dive down into actual needs for the community as far as housing and housing types and whether we use Whitenberg or an outside consultant like Michael Bryan who did the appraisal on the country club property. I think that would probably be a logical thing as far as a potential next step. I also agree with Tim that the cost of doing a secondary road is going to be pretty expensive. Whether you come in off of East State Street through Sabans, the cost of the road itself is pretty substantial and that's not including the cost of whether you do an easement or whether you do an outright buy of Zorzi and Goldman's ownership interest in Sabans. So, I think that's another thing we need to factor in. And I'm looking at page 20 of the agenda packet that has some of these costs and I believe that one of the bonding things that they said is that we're going to have to bond for another $16 million to bring up infrastructure including new roads, new water sewer, new connector road. And I'm just wondering, you know, we've recently had this devastating flood. The majority of our downtown commercial tax base has been devastated. So, I'm not sure where the money is coming from and I know that there's been proposals as far as TIF districts, but as far as I am aware of, there's been at least two failed TIF districts in the state and I'm wondering how our TIF district is going to be a little bit different. So, I just replied that those are all the, those are the questions that need to be asked before we proceed. You know, we need to figure out real costs and real revenues and what, you know, what, you know, are we going to sell the land, lease the land, like where did the money come from? Are we going to try to use TIF? Are we, you know, what would that generate? I mean, that's, those are all the things we need, we need to do before we go ahead. I'm not sure which other failed TIFs, most of them have been highly successful and I think the question is, you know, we've withdrawn ours right now, so we would have to reconstitute it. And part of the reason we withdrew is when it's basically thought it was too broad and we want to be able to target it to, you know, real project and not a proposed project, we have the authority to do a municipal only TIF, so we could reallocate the municipal taxes from this project to this project. And then we could go for a statewide TIF where we also could allocate funds. So, excuse me, education funds, a short circuit there. And we would have to analyze all of that. And as I said, right now, there's also a lot of state housing money and have talked to the state preliminarily about tapping some of that for this kind of project. And they said that was certainly something they want to continue talking about. But you're right, we can't make up money, we can't print money, and we have to look at it in the terms of all of our needs and, you know, is there funds that are unique to this property that don't relate to the rest of our properties, right? If this property and its improvements can pay for all the improvements and it doesn't downgrade our ability to fix other infrastructure elsewhere, we might want to consider it. If it's going to draw from other resources, then I think we have to view it differently. But again, these are all policy decisions the council has to make. We have to, you know, it's not up to me to say what we should or shouldn't do, but that's our plan is to make sure we've crunched all of that pretty carefully to make sure we're not going down a rabbit hole. And another quick question. I believe we're close to our bonding capacity, am I correct, Bill? No, not to set you wrong. There's a bonding capacity and a bonding policy, a debt policy. So the statewide legal bonding capacity, the city has a whole lot of room now, so we're not anywhere close to our legal bonding capacity. We have a city council imposed debt policy that we are near the top two. And I think one of the questions that we've wrestled with in the past is if we have a, if we have a bond that is funded by itself, like the TIF bond, you know, how do we count for that? Because it's not really drawing from the general taxation is coming from a very specific set of revenues. So we would probably look to address the council policy to make sure we were following the general principles and the council can amend it. But I wouldn't say just amend it for the, you know, lift the limit. It would be a thoughtful amendment to account for a project like this if it was affordable. And one last question, Bill, what's our bond rating right now? We don't have a bond rating. Individual communities in Vermont with the possible exception of Burlington don't have bond ratings. We go through the municipal bond bank, which is a consortium. So when municipalities pass a bond, none of us pass bonds big enough to really make a difference in the bonding market. So we work with this, the municipal bond bank who pools all the municipal bonds from all the different towns and cities and puts them out to bid on the bond market. So it's a much larger sum of money. We can get more attractive rates. I don't, I'm looking at people in the rooms, if they know what the bond bank's bond rating is, but I don't know if we know it yet. But so it would be whatever their rating is would be what ours is because it's through them. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thanks, Joe. Sal, and then Tim. Well, I just, I just wanted to agree that I think we, when we approve the actionable plan, we kind of gave the okay to the big picture. You know, there's a, there's a lot of tale that needs to be covered and, and others have mentioned just about all of it. The word affordability appears in one place in item 10. And I just want to make sure it doesn't get lost. It's on page 29. Housing is it can be expensive unless we, unless we make a special effort to make it affordable. And I hope that that'll be part of what we do. I agree that we also need to figure out what, what the housing needs actually are. I agree with Donna and many others about single family probably not being a preferred style, but I think we got to do our due diligence and figure out what we, what the city actually requires. And then two other things. I don't know how the analysis of the downtown with regard to any action taken with respect to the river itself will affect our plans. But, you know, if we, if we eliminate some of the hardscape behind the state buildings off of State Street and, and need to, to replace it somehow downtown, you know, those are decisions that are going to coincide with what we're doing here. And so we're, we're really undertaking not by choice, but by necessity to fairly large projects at once. And I'm, I'm wondering then my, my second concern is what the feedback process will be. Bill, you mentioned that there'd be a lot of coming back to the council with progress reports. And I just wonder if that's something that you've thought about in, is that how that process would actually work? We've thought about it in a couple of ways. I mean, I think we'll probably schedule a regular, you know, at very least quarterly check-in about what's going on. But I think what's really going to happen is things go forward. There's going to be, you know, we need X number of funds to do study. So we have to put it in the budget, you know, you'll have to approve those kinds of things. We're going to need a decision zoning. You'll have to approve zoning changes. You'll have to approve an application for growth center. You'll have to approve, you know, TIF plan. You'll have to, there's a lot of things that will need council action to move forward. And I think it behooves city staff and the community for us to be doing it in concert with the public officials is as much as possible when there are key decisions to be made. It's not our place to, you know, to make them for you. It's our place to try to help you achieve what you want to accomplish. And, you know, if that's this, then that's what we're going to try to do or something like this. But we're also going to come to you if there's a change to this. You know, maybe we do a housing study and it says the only thing that can sell is single family homes. You know, you should, you need to know that. And then you can make a decision that says, don't matter. We're still going to go ahead with what we go. But, you know, it's, we have to provide you the information so you can make informed decisions along, along the way. And this is a big project. We're going to be at it for a little while. And so, you know, we'll be, we'll be coming back a lot. I would imagine. Yeah. So I think kind of back to where Carrie started in the first comments is kind of looking big picture. And I think the guidance that I think you're seeking is going to be, how do we break this property? I've been clear that I don't like the plan white and burnt came up with. And even with the three plans, they said it was really one plan with three options. I don't think they were very imaginative. Regardless, I think what we need to do is designate a housing portion. We have to, I hopefully we'll make a decision and maybe you don't agree with me, but to not position ourselves as the developer, get ourselves out of this place and everything we're saying tonight still sounds like we're the developer. And that isn't, it's a black hole for us. I don't think we're equipped to do it. We have no experience with this. And it's a really challenging project. I mean, this is like a teenager wants a motorcycle. And the first thing you give them is a high performance to cut. You know, this is a, this isn't the place to start when you want to do your first project and to be able to produce housing that's affordable with the kind of overhead and infrastructure needs for this project is more than a challenge. So I think something to be aware of, I think we've got to take the steps, build, just went through, you know, set it up, get the tip, get all the right pieces in line, designate a housing portion and then we can focus on the recreation pieces and the other issues that we need to develop as a community. And we can get back to our water system and our sewer system and our streets and our other priorities too. But I don't think the track we're on where we're talking like we're going to do this, at least in my opinion, is the right way to go. And, you know, I would say to that, first of all, I get it, we aren't realistic developers and we want to be, you know, one of the action steps is to identify partners. And I think that's where the city can, you know, we can, because we own the land, because we can leverage infrastructure money through the various public processes, we can do some of what a developer might do without necessarily actually playing house, selling houses. You know, we can work in partnership to help create the kind of thing, but I agree with you, you know, I want to be in the real estate business. But we also own the property. So we can kind of say this is what we'd like to see and then you put out our piece to developers and say this is our goal and they could come back and say, you know, that's feasible or that is in or here's, you know, but I mean, we, it's not just a zoning process that gives the land ownership. This is, we would like to sell or lease or give you the land or whatever it looks like to get this result. You tell us, you know, and I have people come in and say, I can do 10 units of that or I can do 200. You know, I agree with you, one shouldn't be the ones putting up houses, but we can put up the means of getting houses in partnership. One person's view. Perel and then Barry. So is there any way to find out what will be the cost for city, just like building this by ourselves or giving this to private development companies? I hope I'm using the right work. So can we learn like, can we have a chance to compare the cost for the city and for its residents? Then maybe it will be easier for us to decide, oh, we want to build, we want to do this, or we can just tell the details what we want to see and someone else can build this for us. I think a budget will be a very important item to decide which way we want to go, like the less expensive, right? Oh, I think there is a way to do that. We'd have to think about how we position that and it was something we'd probably come back and talk to you about. I don't, right off the top of my head, I think we could, I think there's a way we could do that, like say, I don't know, let me get back to you on that. But I do think we can come up with some different alternatives about, I mean, we could probably estimate, let's put it this way, we could probably estimate what it would cost to build all the infrastructure. I don't think we'd be building the housing, but roads, the water sewer, all that stuff, public stuff. And then, so then the question would be, let's say we did that, what's the return from the taxable value and or could we then get developers to invest, you know, pay back for some of that infrastructure? Or do we say, we have an estimate of the cost, we go to developers and this is what we want to see done. And then they say, well, what's your estimate of cost? And, you know, then they can make a proposal to us based on what they know to be the cost. I think there are ways we can do that. And my hunch would be, and you know, I'm sitting next to one of the top real estate people around who knows way more that that's all going to have an impact on what the cost of the final product is to the end user, right? If the more the developer has to put out, more they're going to have to charge for a house, I presume. And so, if the city can, that's where our negotiation with a development agreement might come to play. If we want more affordability, we say, well, can we buy down some of these costs, maybe not for the whole project, for part of it, so that some of these units are perpetually affordable, something like that. Maybe a place to start would be to attribute value for different portions of the property. So what do we feel the value is to the recreation portions we're going to retain, right? And then what's left? I think when you really look at the numbers, Pailin, in terms of what it's going to cost, there's a couple of issues. One is time. I mean, if this isn't even going to happen for two to three years, still, you know, things actually can actually be constructed. It's really difficult today to get a sense of costs or what they will be at that point. I mean, look at Burlington High School now in the news, you know, it started at $165 million not too long ago, and it broke 209 today with estimates, and they haven't even started the building. You're in that kind of an environment, so it's really hard to frame it in with good numbers. But I do think if you just do big picture numbers the way I've done them, there's no question that selling it is our best opportunity. And selling the building site is the one I wouldn't get into leasing it. Just get a clean sale and through zoning and our other processes we have, we can control what happens on it. Period. So one of the things I like about this actionable master plan is all the recommendations for next steps that come along. And so many of the things that have come up in this conversation, people saying, we need this, we need to learn more about that, are addressed in these next steps. So if we follow this plan and we do these things, we'll get a lot of those answers, including a housing needs assessment is in there. And so I like the idea of saying, these are the sections that we think should have housing on them. And not getting too specific about exactly what kind of housing or how many, but that trusting that that will come out as we learn more and do these next steps and then really authorize the staff to move on with this plan and form these working groups and do this research and take these next steps. So is that a motion to direct the staff to continue on the path of implementing the actionable master plan? Yeah, the only reason I'm hesitating is because it is sort of specific about how many units and exactly what kind of housing and I would like to stay more flexible than that. So I think my motion would be to direct the staff to continue with the planning of the actual master plan without strict adherence to the number of units and the exact type of units. Are you getting ready to second that? Is there a second? Okay, go ahead. Just trying to understand and maybe Tim has an answer to this. Are there parts of the plan that there's a lot of steps identified where if we were to go the route of exploring, selling for development that the city would not need to do or would all of that be best done by the city anyway? I guess I'm just if, I mean, it seems like at some point a developer is going to come in. So I just want to make sure we're being efficient with our resources and keeping things moving quickly well also wanting to make sure that we're, as a public land, defining the public good that we wanted to come, why we purchased it, which I think we could do through a really well-crafted RFP to a developer or like that kind of thing. But is there duplication being done if the city is pursuing or would the housing assessment be done by the developer anyway? And so we could get them to do some of that work. I think so. Because there's a certain amount of art to this, it's not right. And the developer is the artist and you have to leave them some latitude to want to do the project. And I think there's a lot of basic pieces to it that, like the single family house thing, when you think about it, what it cost to build street, especially if we build city street, which we would probably have to do if it was us. But the cost to build the street to get from one house to another, if you had just 100 feet of road footage, your whole lot cost to these lot values of Montclair would go to just building the street. There'd be no return on the land or other aspects. Nobody will do that. That's why it makes more sense to build multifamily buildings in a more dense situation where you have less infrastructure to service them. But the single family, that's why you're really nuts. Yeah. No, I know, I think that's reality. But you were agreeing. I think it's okay to make that statement, even if it is sort of a directive. But ultimately, the directive is for our staff. And then once we bring in whether that's a nonprofit housing person, another developer, then that's a partnership and they're going to apply their expertise to it. They're going to learn a whole bunch more. But when I read the tier one, two, three action plan on 106, it seems to me that those are all applicable without limiting any specific vision. We need to do those things. So, and that's why I supported the first and second motion there, that Kerry made, because I think it's there. I think we just need to give the staff the green light to do it. And as they come back, we consider everything that they bring about to us. And Tim, the way you're, I don't see the conversation the same way you're seeing it. I don't see the conversation as being everybody thinking the city is going to be the developer. I think the conversation is mostly about what we would like to see on this land and who's going to develop it. Probably not going to be the city. We've had, well, the city has a history of funding or partially funding other housing projects around the city, mostly downtown. And we didn't do, we weren't the developer. We didn't build it. We had other entities like partnered with nonprofits to make it happen. And that's whether some of this is done in partnership with the, with Down Street or some other nonprofit, some of it is done by profit making developers. That's the reality. That's what I see happening. Joe, I see you've got your hand up. Thank you. Can you hear me? Yep. Yeah. No, I just want to echo my support for Tim Heaney's idea. Obviously, he has a wealth of experience. I've got a lot of experience. I've been a real estate appraiser since the late 80s. I still work as a real estate appraiser. I honestly think that, you know, it's such a complicated project. And some of the stuff that we're taking on and we're asking people to decide, it's way beyond our capacity or way beyond what we should be doing as a city. I think that a developer who does this stuff day in and day out, they're going to know if we set certain parameters as far as how much recreation we'd like to set aside and say, here's what we're generally thinking of. And you come up with something workable and then come back to us to weigh in on, I think that would be a way that I'd like to see us go. Okay. Thanks. Are we ready to vote on the motion? Any council members who yet need to be heard? I just want to check it. Have I missed anything? I misspoke an idea. I was just checking in with the planning department because I've been yapping and I want to make sure. Yeah. I mean, I think largely throughout the whole process, we've been pretty consistent in saying that it's just a conceptual site plan. The developer who eventually builds it will tell us what can go there. And so, because they are the professionals, I think it's important to, that we figured out the massing, you know, the community told us they wanted multifamily structures on the southern part of the site, right? And then no single families for the most part and duplexes, triplexes throughout. So I think, you know, thinking about first phase multifamily structures, when we go and do that RFP to developers, we'll end up saying like, this is what we've done through our master plan process. This is the lot that we had that you might have access to. What do you propose as being the best use of this size lot? How many units can you do? And by the way, we would like a certain percentage of affordability in those units. What does that mean? How many units can you do then? So it's sort of a back and forth. They're definitely, developers definitely going to be the one to be driving what ends up going there. They are the professionals. But I think, you know, this gives us the massing. We weren't going to put multifamily structures on the western edge. That would be ridiculous. The community didn't want that. So with this, it gives us a guide. And with FEMA's help, the infrastructure cost is reduced for that first phase of development, which will then bring the actual investment for the city extremely low on a per unit basis, which might then mean the rest of the development looks a little bit better financially to have more conversations about it. So I just would reiterate those points. So I think you're all correct in that the developer should be the one deciding what goes there. And that has been our intention all along. Thanks, Josh. Well, I'm just wondering if, I mean, Jim, you mentioned that you don't, you know, you didn't like Whitenberg's plan that we should really just be defining where housing goes and where recreation goes. And if you take away all the little orange rectangles, that's what Plan A does, isn't it? I mean, what are you, are you saying that, I mean, it seems to me, the developer ought to decide where multifamily makes sense and where there should be or should not be townhouses and so on. And as I understand it, that would still be possible if we were to proceed with this actionable plan. Do you not agree with that? That's possible. I mean, this layout wasn't set up for facing as well as some other earlier options. But Whitenberg or the committee, whoever came up with this last version, went with this. I, you know, it seemed like if we were going to end up with potentially more than one developer to partner with, this isn't the best layout to be able to break it up and say, okay, down street, this is your section, and we'll sell you this piece. And I don't know whoever, Farrell, Redstone, somebody else, this, you know, you'll do this here. This doesn't make that a season, but those are still conversations we can have because this isn't set in concrete. Yeah, I think the phasing is mentioned as an item that, you know, needs to be settled, it isn't settled yet. You know, it's part of this next step. Okay, let's vote. Oh, sorry, Lauren. It's come up a little bit, but just underscoring, I know that you're very aware, but just want to make sure that we are front-loading the conversations about potential state dollars or federal state dollars that could go to this because, I mean, there's some pretty tight timelines on when money needs to be committed for ARPA funds and other things where there was housing money set aside in significant ways. So like, if there's things that we need to be doing or that we'd be able to take advantage of if we did it in certain ways or moved on certain timelines and stuff, like obviously just, I would love for us to be taking as much advantage of state federal funds as we can. So like, as I see it on tier two is the exploratory conversations, like, I mean, I think I assume soon we're talking to VHCB, we're talking about like the other people that have been getting that money and like, how do we make this work to take as much advantage as possible? So that might bump it in the order to hire to make sure that we're doing the other steps in a way to maximize that. Great point. I mean, one last point before we go, this is not contrary to the nuts, but I do want to say out loud that I think I agree with everything in that we have a lot of flexibility. I will say that we have may have already set the stage for the multi-family housing at the beginning with the FEMA decision. I just want to say that out loud that because of the clustering of the things and the idea that we might build work with downstairs on the building that I just want to make sure that we acknowledge that we voted in that later on when this comes to happen, no one says, hey, we hadn't decided that that was a multi-family area. So I just, clarity is kind. Right. Great point to make. No, everybody's eyes are open. All right, are we ready to vote? Can you state the emotion? I have a strangely, I think it was a horrible misspelling of planning. So this may be off by word, but the direct staff to continue the planning of the actionable master plan without strict adherence to the number of units in the exact nature of units. Yeah. So that must be planning. It looks like peckening on mine, but I'm going to change that now. Okay. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? All right. Great. That's very good to have that part done and it is now time for our break. 10 minutes, which gets us to about 8.35. Hey, I think we're all back. You're welcome. Again, I apologize for last time. All right. Moving along. I think we've knocked off the biggest two elements of this checklist. And I think we're down to the recreation plan. So this one should not require as much discussion of the person unless you want to. It's simply, you know, now that we've established the rec area, it would be sort of get the head nod from you folks to the beginning of the meeting for what might go there, including the facility. What else would go there and it would be, I don't know if it would be as quite as extensive as the community process we did before, but there certainly would be community outreach, probably some service. You know, I don't know. Does anybody want to speak to what our thoughts are for that? Or are we all good? Okay, thank you. The brains and the outfit back there. Tell me what to say. So anyway, I think it's just, it's kind of the same thing. We put this stuff kind of on hold because of the flood and because of waiting this off. If it's a go to proceed. Okay, so I'm taking what it says in your memo at its word, which is this item will be on a future. There you go. Even better. And no staff recommendation and no action needed until future agenda. And so what I'm reading here, it sounds like there's some planning and studying going on. Yep. And we don't know what the outcome of that is yet. And we should wait in here rather than just like, yeah, I think, I think we changed our minds after I wrote this, but you're right. Okay. That's fine. No, no, I think I think as long as we know, as long as we're saying this a lot that we are going to continue active planning and nobody's against it, we've covered that agenda. It's on the list and beautiful. Great. And Donna, your camera is still off, by the way. Your camera is still off. Your camera on your laptop. Oh, beautiful. That was easy. Gotcha. Sorry about that. Okay. Now uses for the building. So basically, as I outlined at the beginning, we have our building. We're obviously using it from the shelter for this winter. And I think there's, there are some thoughts about ways it could be used now or in the near future next summer or whatever. We've got a couple unsolicited proposals, one from the hub, one from a daycare center. And I think so there's a couple of questions. Do we want to consider at least as now that might involve fit up when we don't know the future of the building? And if so, what process do we want to do? So those are the two central questions really say, I think our, our suggestion is this was always said, we're going to complete a process to decide what the future of this is. We ought to continue doing that. But on the other hand, there's something we said for having something stable there and having cemented. So truly, I think we're seeking your direction as a policy matter on this. And given the, the two current uses in the building now, the childcare center and the shelter with good Samaritan Haven, obviously they're not in there yet, but they're about to be. Does that fully occupy the building for the current, for the upcoming winter? No, it doesn't. And the current daycare center that's in there is planning to move out at some point. They're building a new facility and they're, they're on a month to month lease. So their plan is to move out as soon as that's ready. They don't know sometimes this winter they think. So that's their plan. And then the, the shelter is really from November to spring. It's, you know, I think we all have agreed that that's not the ideal location for a shelter. I mean, the space is good for now. The downtown locations are precluded. If it works and we want to continue it for another year, we could consider that. But at this point, the plan is to not have them be there. We do have some building issues, some role that we're meeting now in advance of that and need to take care before any other time it's keen in, but that's happening already. So I think it's really more conceptually, what do we want to do for now? We do have a building that's being used. And what's left of the building? How much space would you say is available for other things? Space and functional elements square feet. Yeah, the whole building is 15,600 square feet. The space that the shelter will occupy is about 2,000 feet. And then the existing childcare is about 2,000, 2,500 square feet. So that'll leave about 10,000 roughly. Okay. But it's not contiguous necessarily. Right, right. So in terms of desire, there's one section where the shelter is going to use a part of that. Together it would be, I think that's the area that the daycare center wanted was that whole area. Yeah, the childcare center proposal that we had would, in essence, use about 12,000 of the entire facility. Right. And so they would occupy the better part of the building, but they also, I can't, we haven't talked to them specifically because we haven't really got into that, but I can't imagine they wouldn't want to come in, fit up the whole place for a childcare center for a two-year lease or something like that. And I know, you know, back when we negotiated with the hub about a year or two ago, that was part of it. They wanted to put a lot of investment in the building and with no assurance that was necessarily going to stay. And so I think that's a challenge for anybody going in is what's going to happen. What's the future? Is that building going to be reused as part of the holes and be torn down in favor of a big new facility? I think those are just all questions that we talking about as we go forward. And we still don't know. And we still don't know. So, you know, we have been, you know, we've been entertaining short-term leases that people need like the shelter and those kind of things. We did some revenue and that was consistent with the direction you had provided was if we can get some, if someone needs it for storage for a period of time or something like that. But we are not really sought longer-term leases, but we received the calls from too. Lauren? What I have is, is there opportunity, given that the city staff, I mean, I know probably many of us have heard from the senior center to do, to meet other city needs like senior activities that could be held there because we're using up space. We are looking for all of that. Yes. So, I mean, I would prioritize, I think, that and I think just big picture. If we were going to pursue leases, I would think things that did not involve big construction and commitments, it would certainly be open to short-term things that could bring in some revenue if we're meeting city needs and things in line with our strategic plan. Like, I mean, I think child care has been on there, the shelter has been on there. So, kind of urgent community needs like that. But I think like open RFP process seems like a good practice in general. So, some initial feedback. If we were going to do that. If we were, yeah, if we were going to go in and do some of these things, we would want to open it up. Anybody else? Just a clarification. We're saying long-term leases, what are they asking? Well, I think long-term, I think something more than a couple years. Something that would require an entity to come in and have to, you know, that would want to change things around. Like a child care center, you know, 12,000 square feet. I'm sure they're not going to want to use the office space the way it is. They're going to want to create classrooms and get friendly spaces and all that kind of thing and then, you know, put a sizable amount of investment. I know when we talked to the hub, it was 180,000 you were talking about putting in more than that, right? A couple of years ago. Do you remember that? Something that would qualify. Yeah. And so, you know, they wanted to invest a lot of money and it's like, okay, but you're only going to have it for, we can only commit for two years. So, you know, it doesn't make a lot of sense for anyone to do that. So, I don't want to string someone along and say, you can come in here and you can do all this thing, but so I think it's really what is the proposal. Whereas, you know, as it's structured now, the shelter can operate without making any real big changes. We can use space for senior activities without making any changes, those kind of things. So, I think that's, you know, so I think if we were to say, yes, we're going to open it up for these proposals, then I think what we would be saying is, you know, for an extended period of time, we're not doing anything with that building. We're going to lease it for 10 years or 12 years or whatever. And we're leaving it as is with whatever goes in there. And so it would be, I think that's the policy direction we're seeking. You know, the prior direction of end short-term lease is only wait until the end of the process. And that's still what the staff's recommending is to continue with that. But we also, you know, we want to get back to people that have given us proposals and with a good answer. We don't want to presume again to speak for anything, so, Donna. We're going to need little bits of revenue as well as big bits. But if we don't, then I really want to see the city use it. The city talked about using it, but it hasn't. And so it's just set there empty. So I would just, I would like us to really commit to do it if we're not going to lease it. So that carry. So I feel like it's a little premature to talk about using it for longer term uses that would involve renovation and real commitment. I think we're not, we're not quite done enough with our planning process around the recreational use particularly. I am interested in shorter term things. And I'm also interested in the city using it. And if there were, you know, a childcare program that wanted to occupy the current childcare program space, so it didn't involve a lot of renovation, and they, and they were willing to do a two year lease or something like that, then if we are going to consider though issuing leases like that, then we got to go through a public process. There's got to be bids. And then I hope we soon get to the point where we can entertain proposals for the longer term, renovate the building. But I don't think we're quite there yet. No, because again, depending on, I mean, the building has some positives, but it also has negatives. And you know, it might be that the better use of that space would be to take that building down, build a new center, maybe with housing on top, or, you know, we want great things, then, you know, so we can't rule that out. So It's interesting, is the Black River Report, Black River Design Report sounds like it's, they assess this being a good solid building. It is. But not necessarily one that's compatible with probably what we want for our recreation. That's the same. And so the question is, you know, we could try to figure out a way to incorporate it in, you know, but I think we're not there yet. I think you all got a letter from Gene Olson about the senior center and having the office staff there. So has that been a consideration? As you look at it, is whether or not some of the staff that isn't able yet to move back where they were being located at? We're looking at all those options. You know, and or holding some of the senior programs there where there's parking and those kind of things that people can come. Those are definitely all on the table. Yeah. Anybody else have anything to say about this? I think this is where we are. I don't think we need to have a motion or a vote. But that's the snapshot of what people are thinking. I mean, that was the council policy before. So as long as we're not changing it, I guess, then that's fine. Net, you came out for this. Would you want to be heard on this? Or are you mostly listening? No, I'll wait for that report that you're waiting for for the recreation discussion. Okay, great. Use the anticipated timeframe on that. This is the same $20,000 study that the council correct. So we have a draft report expecting to finalize it shortly. And that really is assessing an actual facility, what different sizes, what kind of revenues it might generate, what operating costs it might have. It's not really talked about the whole, but it would reform at least that part of the conversation. And we had a lot of questions about it. So we're seeking clarification from them before they get a final report. Okay, moving on to the last part of this item, the use of a lamp during the project process. Yeah, from now on. Well, yeah, starting now while the project's being developed and then who knows what happens after. Yeah, I think, and so again, just to tee that up, you know, obviously, we've been pretty much hands off on the use of that project. We've had the rec facilities, the fields being used, there's been skiing, there's been walking. It's really have been great multi-use area, actually, a lot of people walking dogs. But with, you know, there's been, council has approved hunting, I think with a residential project coming in, probably rather quickly. The combination of that plus being caught by surprise by what, in theory, sounded okay. The concert in this big open space, but when you are sort of thinking about the roads and the facilities and the bathrooms and all those kind of things, it really didn't make sense. And so it caused us to think, we should probably have a discussion with the council about what you think are sort of good uses. This doesn't have to be an all-inclusive list, but just get and then we'll draft a policy and a procedure if people want to do something out of the norm or ask for permission or whatever. Because we're not going to think of everything. Someone's going to come up with a great idea. But just thought, we had nothing in place when they came to ask us about the concert to say, here's a basis for granting this or not granting it or anything else. And so we should be prepared for that. And we've heard from the cross-country ski coaches saying, hey, what about us? Yeah, and we are setting up a meeting with them to look at, I mean, if there's how they could reroute their trails, their course around the female. And the rest of it's still going to be open. And so I think there's a lot of land there. How quickly things get established. It's ours. No, but that's okay. I mean, it's glad to have you know, it's given. It's great that it's getting for season use. And they were very amenable to it. They just wanted to make sure they knew what areas were in. So I think it'll be come out fine. So this is just what do you all think would be? To us or should be like Parks Commission or someone? All of you both. I think we're just trying to get a sense of what you think are in and out. We'll run it past the Parks Commission. We'll, you know, direct folks and then we'll come back and say here's a recommendation. We just want to start the conversation. Maybe I don't want to have it here. That's fine. We just wanted to make sure you were weird. This was happening and get your thoughts on it. So so open ended question. Not one with the action required. So Donna. The speed team and probably the running cross-country team, they also use that land and they have never had any conflict with the hundreds that have been there. I don't know exactly even what the season is for hunting. Sorry. I'll see when it starts. That's been going on and coexisting. But when we get all that construction going on, is that going to be more intrusive? Well that and people living there. I think it's a big difference. And there is there is a one of our city ordinance that has a restriction about shooting in so many feet of a residential area. And so it may just be that we see the signs go up at the city limits every year. No rifle shooting, but not only. We may be the only. Maybe we may be the only capital city that has that at their city limits. So what do you think? So I for probably in a pretty good in a pretty good place already, especially hearing that if there's an ordinance about not hunting within a certain number of feet of residences then I think that's pretty well taken care of. So there may be parts of the property that people can still hunt on and I don't I haven't heard anything to make me think we shouldn't keep allowing that. We've been doing it. Yeah. So I think that's fine. And then and then your your recommendation is that you discuss uses we find accessible acceptable and compatible with the community vision and direct staff to create a policy. So I think that this this plan, this master plan does a really good job of laying out community vision. And so and then I also think that the so I think you have some standards by which to go if somebody comes to and wants to do something there. And then the other piece is that when this concert wanted to happen there there were a lot of public safety concerns and logistical concerns. And that I think that's always a basis for the city to say no we can't do that because we don't have the structure to support that. And I think it worked. I mean it may have been may have felt confusing from the inside and you know we're not really sure what to do here but the outcome worked. Right. And I think you know could the policy could just be something that you know is I'm thinking of what you're saying I'm just reflecting it could just be we would consider certain events but the city reserves the right to deny the event when basis of public safety period. So I mean it's just so that's already established so we don't have to like come to the council and say you know is it's okay. You know we have 50 people and you want to have a campfire and sing around the camp or not a campfire but you know what I mean you want to have that's okay you want to have 5,000 people no yeah so we'll put something again maybe that's easiest give you something to react to. Yeah I think you know public safety is one thing impact on the property on the property and on other users and people living there is another one there since there will be people living there but I've met I'm happy with it being as wide open as as we can because people are using the land I think it's great there's that one guy who said he on channel three said he was out there golfing every day and Jim Sheridan's brother okay also of course everything all right good green seats happy with that okay thank you yes we'll make that work moving to item nine staff appreciation so that was supposed to be taken off not that not that we don't want to appreciate the staff it isn't it isn't actually on mine oh it's on mine but yeah it's on not we just didn't have a firm plan yet of what to suggest to you but we you know certainly I'll take this opportunity again as you know we want to recognize city staff that really did a lot and in terms of the flood and all their work and I think so we didn't take it off because we don't want to do it but we we want to bring something to you to suggest that you do or so we're gonna come on that that will show up again great because we had that thing we're calling that above and beyond the word and it seems like the whole staff right yeah this has been I don't want to single individuals out but certainly many people did a lot of great things and we appreciate them greatly but you know like the public to have a chance to recognize them well somehow but we want to think of what that looks like so all right um more to come on that more to come I don't think we have any other business city council reports going starting at your end well I've been gone for about two weeks to Alaska I went to a rotary conference dealing with climate change and Alaska has the very same problems we have plus glaciers are melting at unprecedented rate so you have the glacier melt that makes the water murky and all the fish leave all the rivers that get the glacier melt because they can't breathe in it the silk is so solid it so it's amazing to be there and look at the projects the local people were doing especially the native alaskans to counter that impact it's just very impressive also very sad yeah no reports so you muted south sorry still I have no reports okay very good thank you Tim um because reporting we're so happy to see stores opening downtown and yes the activity levels picking up and people have been coming in supporting them which is really wonderful yep more to come real soon no report for tonight Lauren um I just wanted to thank everyone for the ongoing participation in the resilience conversations I mean it was great to see yet again hundreds of people turn out between online and in the building and yeah I think some great ideas and there is the open applications for the commission to keep moving that work forward do tomorrow just a single paragraph expressing why you want to to do it so just encourage folks if you've got energy and enthusiasm and ideas please throw your hat in the ring we're using good people too to step up just say again how people can find that and how they can do that if they want to if people are interested in I can tell you the short answer if you want to send in an application you send it to our office to msmith at Montpelier-vt.org and it's basically this is why I want to help serve that I don't have the actual description of what is but it's basically to deal with the flood resilience of commission to look at all the different priority topics that were raised through the process but msmith that's Mary Smith msmith at Montpelier-vt.org and since I was going to say this from my back we have 12 applications so far received as of now all right my report is pretty brief I thank everybody for your for coming out to the community forums that we had had a lot of enthusiasm a lot of great ideas and I'm hoping that that energy continues please do we've started already with establishing the commission for the future and I hope we get some very good applicants and we've got a long way to go and so this this this is really just the beginning but I'm glad I'm glad we are already already rolling and I think that's all I also go go out and shop downtown yes okay clerk's report yes just a couple things I got to finally have the final number of the assessment appeals that the board of civil authority will have to hear it's 69 now that's it's a big number I'm hoping that a sizable trunk of those even maybe almost a third can be actually dealt with pretty quickly and easily I'm hoping so no promises our first meeting is going to be next week the 21st Thursday they'll all be at the senior center we may have to move between one or two different rooms depending on whether it's the first first Thursday of the month which is when the community jam likes to be in there so there will be a little bit of musical accompaniment once a month but we may have to be in a slightly smaller room to block it out but it should be enough space to accommodate us it shouldn't be a problem these are not going to be hybrid meetings that was the the sort of majority of the group that they would be all in-person meetings so it's very important for not just for folks to to to come because we're down so much on the number of the board of civil authority and unless I hear otherwise from our attorney then the quorum is still going to be eight due to a quirk of our charter which I I regret not stepping in under the state law quorum is three no matter this for bca no matter what the size of the town no matter anything yeah yeah every other legal group of state law says it's a majority of the members even if there's vacancies yeah you know not not with not with this one they had they had these problems in mind and yeah my pillar went their own ways but the problem is going to be then just so you all know and I don't want to drone on too long but an initial hearing will happen a committee an inspection committee of three people will be made to that will go out and inspect the property in question come back and return a report possibly a recommendation to the greater body but then the only folks who can vote on that final decision are ones who were there initially and witnessed that first period when there was testimony now we looks like we can record these things so if you want to show up and vote you can listen to the recording and do that way the lct seemed to be okay with that but it is kind of complicated and it does mean you know if you're going to come to one at the very least if you could try to plan to come back for the one where that inspection committee will be returning this report so the gene can vote on that but it's going to be tough we're down so far on the members of the board of civil authority the numbers are down so much it's going to be really tough to get forms for this but we'll we'll slog for anyways it sounds like a complicated process jack's been through a million times I've been through a couple smaller just individual ones we'll make we'll make it all clear to you when you show up if you don't know it's sounds complicated it's actually very straightforward and they'll get me they're going to get routine pretty quickly and I want to jump in mentioned you be mind everybody here if you're on the council you are a member of the board of civil authority and the board of the baker yeah so is so it is had mentioned a couple times over the last few months it's work and fortunately anyone who's on the council has already demonstrated that they have a capacity for hard work so it's so informative this is another piece of work it's really a very community it's personal very interesting project to do and yeah Tim so are there binders we're supposed to pick up yes well we got the final uh appeals in today so the binders should be done by the end of the day tomorrow and I will send you all electronic copies week to week to week of the ones we're going to be hearing next week so rather than fold through the binders are big as you might imagine but I think we've got six lined up for Thursday and I'll go ahead and send you those electronically too so you can you can look at them yeah Lauren I'm just going to schedule so it starts next Thursday the 21st and then every single Thursday and I have real concern about this because these could this could go well into election season and that's going to make the the bandwidth of my office be stretched possibly beyond the breaking point um so I'm not sure what to do about that yet but you'll see me look older faster there's nothing else so good information and my understanding and reading it was that you have to go see every property is that correct that is not literally correct because we're in the state of emergency technically the board can vote to forego this is unique that we're in an all hazards zone that you can't make the inspection before the physical hearing it's not like then you have to consider them twice they present you go visit and then they you say a decision well I'll get you out our draft I work with jack on a draft um uh procedure list and I'll get that out to you I'll get that out tomorrow I should have gotten that out earlier this week and it lays out that they're you know the real back and forth is in that first meeting and then I guess there'll be an opportunity for folks to ask questions after the report is back but it's not going to be starting the whole you know the it's a quasi-judicial hearing so evidence is presented by one side evidence is presented by the other when the report comes back there's usually an opportunity for a question to but there's no longer an opportunity to present new evidence or to make new arguments just for clarification if you're allowed the alternate decision to go visit before you actually take evidence would that not reduce the amount of time as we do take the evidence before the visit the visit well the other way around first um that's not how the law sets it up okay that's what I thought and then you said something about emergency didn't have to okay oh no well no you asked if we needed to always have an inspection committee and under the emergency declaration we could theoretically just hear the evidence say there's going to be no inspection committee and we're going to make a decision here and now but if you do do it you have to do it after yeah okay because it's the hearing at which the inspection committee for each property is appointed so we hear the evidence about uh you know one mainstream here whatever and say okay who can who can do this me you and Kerry will be the committee for that for this property we'll make our arrangements for when we're going to go but I can tell you that I had a conversation with the attorney for one of the taxpayers who has a whole bunch of them and we talked about well maybe an inspection isn't going to be necessary for those because that's not necessarily what the basis of his claim is going to do and so that could save us some time and so one of the nights we're we're taking up like all of those properties at once I think a lot of it may be some other similar bunch right we usually do at a minimum we usually do that at the last meeting so yeah the other thing I never go on forever like this I report it but um you know I just a little bit I'm mostly back working out of city hall now but I have to go back and forth quite a bit to the senior center and I like to maintain a presence of the senior center but was down there long enough that I just think it's worth saying this is the whole process has is really continues to stress staff out a lot um it's it's it's hard on them but everybody is working so hard when they're keeping their their chins up and I I know it's been rough on some folks because I've heard some things but they're doing a great job but committed to continuing to do a great job there you know under unusual circumstances people are kind of on top of each other over there but um you know just means there's a lot of collaboration happening and a lot of supporting of each other happening and it's just it's just been an amazing thing to see and I just want to put that out there okay is it city manager's reporting I've got a few things first of all the goal star goes to council member heaney who are sending me a note asking me if we had warrants to sign tonight so he observed what we hadn't passed them around so they will be at the police department tomorrow morning this one of our little adjustments to a new space so we'll try to remember to bring them to this or just have them at me so it sounds like there aren't any that are really really all right so it's it's no no big rush but I just didn't even agree to it no I know it so right what's that yeah and the binders pick up your bca binders and sign the warrants so um at least four of you so thank you for the heads up uh we that was uh so speaking of meetings we have scheduled um thanks to all of you for your feedback we've scheduled the strategic planning meeting for october 18th we will have to find a new site that is a school board night so they'll be in this room uh so I have to find a new site uh so I have a couple questions one do you want to start a little early and have some food or do you want to stick to 630 go along at paul costel we'll be facilitating that if we start well you know we have a lot to get through so we can talk and we'll find out so is that how early is it like 530 that work for people okay so then part two of that question is so we'll get back to the location and details part two of that is normally our regular meeting would be on october 11th which I know at least one person can make or could make remotely but not for it wouldn't work for strategic planning so questions do you want to skip the 11th and have it be the 18th you want to have a business meeting on the 11th and only have the strategic planning on the 18th let's see what things look like after our next meeting okay um all right we'll do that um so we do have some you should so the next meeting uh can you talk about confluence park amongst other things uh and pa you will give you an update maybe on what's happening with city halls and you're going to have um some heavy lifting really right from the time you do the um the strategic plan for next year somewhere in there it's one of the reasons oh I know if you want to have a 11th meeting or not somewhere in there that we'll be presenting to you a recommendation for how to deal with this year's budget with the perceived shortfalls and part of the variance is we don't even know what the abatement applications are yet so we don't even know what the worst case scenario could be or how bad it is so we're still trying to figure that out but at some point we will calculate a budget a revenue gap a revenue shortfall and provide recommendations for how we would recommend closing that and that will come to you for a discussion just for those of you that were here before that's what we do with COVID um and be the same kind of thing sooner we do it the sooner it's in place for the rest of this fiscal year so we can't let it wait too long but we also don't have enough knowledge to know that'll probably be some time in October once you have the strategic plans at your priorities shortly thereafter we have a conversation with you about next year's budget the FY 25 budget on what how you see those priorities moving forward and what your thoughts are what parameters you might want to put on as far as budget limits or tax rates or whatever because then we will be starting in November with our own staff presentation to give you your budget in December so going to be a lot of uh thought processes coming up in October so just enjoy your September and when you're not looking at assessments on the board of civil authority still as we're talking about budgets are we still on track to have a fiscal 2023 I believe so for the next meeting which would be just one meeting later than normal yes thank you okay come check in with the boss back yes yep she's nodding and then one other thing I didn't want to add it to tonight because we just discovered this so late but um you may recall it right after the flood you issued me some authority to take actions with flood related and that actually expired on august 23rd so we might need to re-up that so um you won't probably don't need a million dollars now but it would be but there are still some FEMA related things it would only be those kind of things to move along so we might ask you to do a call-in meeting sometime just to re-up that maybe only agenda on the item for some more period of time at a lower level so great because we've been kind of operating as though we're still in place so I missed that is that it that's it okay so we can adjourn at 9 22 p.m thank you all thank you