The City of Montpelier Development Review Board meeting for this Monday, May 7th, 2018. We're starting a little bit late this evening because of scheduling difficulties with prior board hearing. However, I'm calling the meeting to order now. My name is Dan Richardson. I am the vice chair and acting chair this evening. And the other members of the DRB from my right are... Jack Lindley. James Lamonda. Sarah McShane. Staff. Roger Kranz. Kate McCarthy. Okay. And the five members that you see here are the five voting members for this evening. The first order of business is the approval of the agenda. So who? Motion. Second. Motion by Jack. Second by James. Any further discussion? None. None. All those in favor? Please raise your right hand. Have an agenda. No comments from the chair this evening. Other than to note, my understanding is that the sole application before us, which is the capital plaza project, has now fully passed out of the DRC. That's correct. And that we have the full application before us for the first time in this project's history. Is that correct? I'm not sure what you mean by that last comment. I just mean that we have...there's nothing further that we'll be waiting on. Oh, yes. We can complete our review tonight if we have the proper evidence and that we're ready to...there's nothing further outstanding. That's correct. That's simply all I meant. The approval of the minutes from April 16th, those present were myself, Jack, Roger, and Kate. So we have a form. Who may be accepted as created? Motion by Jack. Second. Second by Kate. All those in favor? Please raise your right hand. Then our eligible vote and the minutes are approved. So first order of business is 100 State Street. Why don't you...why don't you...well, you were sworn in last meeting. Is that correct? I was, yeah. Okay. Well, we can... Why don't we do this all over again and then I'll have you introduce yourselves. Anyone who thinks they may be testifying this evening, please raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony they're about to give for the matter under consideration shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth under the pains and penalties of perjury? I will. Okay. So if you'll just introduce yourself for the record, and I think probably the best way to start is to have you give us a recap of what's new. Okay. Thank you. My name's Greg Rabbidow from Rabbidow Architects. I'm joined here at the table with Fred Beshar of the Capital Plaza Corporation. And in the on-deck circle tonight is James Finley-Sheris from Wagner-Hodgson, our landscape architect, and Ron Lyon from Duboy and King, our project civil engineer. When we last met with this board, we were mostly through the approval of the project when it came to light that we needed to come back in a matter of retaining walls. So this evening's presentation is all about retaining walls so far as I know. The conditional use and other aspects of the application were dealt with at the prior hearing. What is new in this, this evening, in this package that I handed out, shouldn't be the same package that you got with your, from the staff, but we have identified four retaining walls that needed approval by the Design Advisory Committee. And as you noted earlier, they took action just moments ago, so that has happened. The four retaining walls, there are two on the west end of the site, one attached to the end of the Hampton Inn building, and a second that is sort of enveloping the work yard, dumpster area attached to the Capital Plaza building. And there are two retaining walls shown on the eastern end of the site, one that's been of particular public interest, which has transitioned from the project site to the Christ Church Episcopal, and a second retaining wall down in this corner, which actually happens to be the tallest of the retaining walls, and that is predicated by the installation of the bike path, which the deck elevation on the bridge kind of sets the geometry for that whole bike path across the Haney lot through Capital Plaza property over the train tracks and to the Taylor Street project. The retaining walls are illustrated on the next two sheets, which are labeled L101.1 and L101.2. And starting at the top of 101.1, you can see that the retaining wall on the top of the page is the one that relates to the bike path location. We could build the garage without it, but we raised that elevation up to the bike path so that we could create that little pocket park where it sits in the back of the garage that we spoke of previously. And this will integrate with the retaining wall being proposed as part of the bike path project, and we have coordinated with STAMTEC on the geometries of those, and we have also coordinated with STAMTEC in the city on the proposed material. It's a rock-faced concrete product. Three of the retaining walls are modular systems built ones. This one on the Haney lot is one of those that's built out of individual units. The other two are the one adjacent to the church, and then there's one adjacent to the work yard that I talked about. The only cast-in-place concrete wall I was corrected earlier, the only cast-in-place wall is the one attached to the Amp to Den. Also on that page, L101, you see down at the bottom, the elevation-looking west from church parking lot. That's been an important part of our dialogue with the church, and I think the important things to point out there is that we've worked on the grading around the entrance to the garage and everything to allow this wall to be 2.5 feet tall at its tallest, and that's a big improvement, I think, over what we were talking about last time. So it's knee-height now instead of being more substantial, and I think that's a big improvement. The retaining walls that show on page L101.2 are the one on the west end of the hotel that I mentioned is attached to the hotel building. That's simply there to facilitate the rising grade from Taylor Street up to the front entrance of the hotel, which is super elevated because of the floodplain racks. And then the last one that shows here on the bottom of L101.2 is the retaining wall that sort of wraps around where we're planning on putting the dumpsters, and there's a few parking lots, but it's doing a couple of things. James, you had touches of those materials? Yeah, just pass those out or pass them around. And will that steel mountain facade be the same for all the retaining walls? That's it, except for the cast in place wall. Just so I understand fully, when you say cast in place, that's just essentially the cement wall will have the facing on it. It'll be poured at the same time we pour the building foundation and it'll have a smooth concrete face. We'll see the form-tied knockouts. And we'll rub it down and fill any voids and make sure it's uniform in color, but it's a cast concrete wall. And Sarah, the DRC approved? Yeah, Mike can probably give an overview. I didn't attend the DRC meetings prior to this, but... Hey, Mike? Hey, Mike? You have the DRC approval for this? Okay, great. I know we signed it, so... Why they're going through that? Would have any questions about these retaining walls? I guess I do have a question that's mostly out of curiosity. On the east retaining wall that you said will align with the bike path retaining wall? Yes. Is the bike path retaining wall going to be here on this upper edge of the bike path? Okay, so that'll be kind of... Those plans as well as plans for any improvement on the church property will be subject to separate applications, logically. But those have been sort of... There's been discussion about making them look the same, I think, is what you said. Oh, yeah, yeah. With the exception of the dumpster retaining wall, all of the other retaining walls sit sort of at the edge of the property facing out? They do, yeah. The bike path retaining wall would face the Haney parking lot. The only visible portion of the retaining wall adjacent to the church would be visible from the church parking lot side of things. You'll see James has planted a series of shrubs along the top of that so that there's no need for any... Yeah, and I think the big improvement in this plan since we saw you last was the manipulation of those grades to get that great exchange down to the minimum. Do you have the ERC approval? Yeah, have you conditioned in any way? It was not conditioned in any way. The only notes were that there were no additional utilities proposed in this. I think just the general comments were just the reflection. There was a reflection of the fact that Tom McCartle had asked that the materials match the bike path and yeah, we can propose to do that in particular along the Haney lot. And then there was some discussion about the port in place probably what we're going to talk about more just to make sure that that had the appropriate finish on it due to its location and the fact that it's the only one that's not matching the block. Although, I mean, its location there at the back of the hotel puts it in a slightly different visual field than either. It's not as if it's going to be next to... You'll see it as you drive in from Taylor Street. Oh, no, no, this is the point. I mean, you'll see it. Okay, so I mean, but I guess my point was and I'll turn this into a question. Does it sit adjacent to any of the other retaining walls? No. There wouldn't be a side-by-side comparison if that's what you're leading on. Right, that's where I'm headed with that because I think that might be more of a... No, it'll be tied into the building and we'll make it look as such. For us, it's a prominent entry corridor into the hotel so we're going to want that to look pretty nice. And this application doesn't have anything to say about signs, but that might not be a bad place for a sign, depending on... As to the utility comment, I do want to know just to put some people at ease if we weren't proposing any additional lighting or anything as part of this, but as prior testimony we've talked about, we have made provision for utility connections for the future project next door in our utility planning. That's not a change or anything. I just want to make sure that everybody understands that. Right, I understood the DRC just simply to say that as their specific review that they weren't adding any additional utilities, limited review of the retaining walls. I think we all understand each other. I just know that they're represented as a church here or some remedies. Given that, that's probably the primary thing we're going to be talking about. Was there anyone in the audience that wished to comment on the retaining walls or any of the issues associated with them? If you can come up with a microphone and just introduce yourself. My name is Nate Stearns. I'm an attorney representing the church. I just want to say that we appreciate how much capital plazas worked with us over the course of the last month and the plans that you can see in front of you tonight have on them essentially what we've worked out with with capital plaza to address the impacts on the church property. Capital plazas have been great about representing to us if they want to make sure that there's no impacts to the status quo on the church property. In light of that, the plans that are here to the church have no objections. Any other comments? Okay. Oh, sorry. Any other comments before? Go too slowly or too fast through this. There were a couple of questions that Tom McCartle raised in email. Yes. Have you gotten that opportunity to review that? You got a long list of comments that I think the only one that's remained to the nights here is that he wanted us to coordinate the material choices between ourselves and the bike path project. It's been my understanding as we go along that the details of the utility connections that Tom mentions in his memo, we're not a prerequisite for board approval. I think it's our understanding that public works will have another bite at this apple when we get to 100% CDs. And so, the conversation of the water line at the street is probably a conversation that will continue as we go through construction documentation. Right. One of his points is that the design now indicates retaining wall will be constructed above both existing and proposed mains who require additional design considerations. Our staff will provide a sketch of the desired interconnection alignment of a stub for future extensions. I understand that's not really a problem, but I just wanted to make you aware of that obviously going forward. That's something you're going to have to interact with the Department of Public Works for that. But the one above that about the drainage, that was certainly a concern. I'm going to invite my civil engineer up to try to put you with ease on that a little bit because he's had a more or less running dialogue with Tom on this stuff. Yes, we had talked to Tom a couple of times and walked through some of the details, the location of the retaining walls and the drainage and the water mains. I think that most of Tom's comments and all of Tom's comments tend to be related to moving forward on detailed design and the project must be coordinated with the retaining wall and the stand tech, for example. I think there was a question on as we go forward a bike path a shared use path goes before the hotel there may be some requirements to coordinate on how do you support that bike path with some kind of a temporary wall a temporary fill situation to be sure a bike path could go forward as opposed to being held up by the hotel project. And so that was just something his concern. He says that's the type of thing. He says we've got Taylor Street going forward we've got Transit Center going forward we've got the bike path going forward and the hotel going forward on this small area and it's it really was just that there was a neutral benefit to be sure they all fit together. So we talked about drainage quite a bit he is pleased with what we found in the drainage for the church back area of the church there may be some adjustments to that as we go into detail design and we deal with the city and there may be some adjustments to the water main because they don't really understand quite what that water main is going on the church property yet so that's quite honestly very normal at this stage things will shift a few feet here and there with the water main and work with DPW so there's nothing I don't think there's any real serious concerns about working with the city DPW on that I think the other other things that he mentioned was came up with the last conversation on green mountain power utility pole at Taylor Street and looking at the solution on that some kind of a push-fold and I don't think that's something that's been decided about there'll be coordinated with DPW on green mountain power that's a green mountain power project by the way it's predicated by the Taylor Street project it isn't really an integral part of the hotel application other than it happens to sit on the hotel property so it's no I understand I think at least my specific question really came from his first point about drainage that there's traditional lawn drains that are on the church property yes and invited DRB scrutiny and I think that's proper for you know how that was being managed as far as future maintenance ownership I presume that that will remain church property is there going to be an easement or some type of relationship as to future as far as that drainage system who will maintain it I think there's that is important to have an agreement because it's going to be on church property we've talked to Paul Boyzburg on the placement of the number of these and how it will work best for the church property in the Memorial Gardens we did talk about just I guess it's something if you're putting fertility anything on someone else's property it'll be something to work out much to the same as the water main extension through the church property through the proposal property and so that was kind of a limited discussion with limited to say yes we understand that's a requirement it's in the memorandum of the church to have that and it has to be a memorandum to have a discharge that's why I wanted to make sure that so it sounds as if there's a conversation going on as part of being a larger memorandum of the main Mr. Sterns we have a lot of shared interactions to get these two projects built and so there is a memorandum of understanding that's being formed between the parties the extension of the water line through our property and then across church property is a public works project to replace an aging loop so this water line across this church property is there to charge or provide a backup charge to the water lines on main street and so it's not really a specific benefit to this project it is part of our global coordination of utilities through this corridor and those yard drains were there principally to just keep water from ponding on the Memorial Garden which is a delicate area so I guess our expectation is that those facilities that are constructed on the church property will belong to the church if there's a need for cross easements to connect to the mains those were cited based on the survey that the topographical survey to show that we can get the drainage in that area I think the church their engineer is very comfortable with these drains and you know part of our job is not to sort out the easement relationship we're not asking you to I understand that but just make clear that I think that's our understanding we just want to raise it I want to raise it simply so that's sufficient which is that you've started to talk with the church with a memorandum of understanding that's informed and coming together for these rights I think that's what Tom McCartle's main point is is that part of your drainage system lies on another property you're going to need rights to maintain that those drainage systems both in the installation and then going forward so it sounds like it's part of a larger universal agreement that you're coming together where is correct you're letting water mains go through your property for them I mean it sounds as part of this larger construction who knows and if that won't shift a little bit over time either yeah the community based utilities are definitely something we'll have to work out with all parties involved the utility extensions we're talking about on a church property are for the benefit of the church that should be understood the art drains and the parking lot drainage and a water line extension those were things done on behalf of the church to make their side of this work so I think at this point is there any questions from the board I have a general question not related to the walls but that I think it comes up now because we're talking about the sort of the big plan the universal coordination and I have a question about how that works the first thing I'll say is that it's really clear that everyone's working very hard to communicate with adjacent parties with other projects with the city and that's just always really excellent to hear so thank you I know that will continue I'm still very curious though and perhaps also for our listeners at home to know who is the one who's air traffic control on this who is the one person that says okay you get to start digging today until tomorrow to dig Phil happens this way retaining well goes in now is there someone who who's the puppet master here or is it who maybe that's not the right term air traffic control are you expanding your scope to consider Taylor street as well I'm thinking yes I'm thinking of the numerous projects that are taking place and I wonder again just for the interest of the public is it whoever gets their permit first everyone else coordinates accordingly I don't think it's going to work like that one thing we did in assembling our team was to make sure that there was some continuity between the team members so we have the same landscape architect and the same civil engineer for our project as well as Taylor street that was a big consideration in our determination I would pick the the right now we've been talking to the same general contractor to do both projects hopefully that will continue in that direction so I think it's I don't think there's one person who can claim to be king of the hill I think the same level of coordination that's gone between ourselves and the church to get to this point with them will happen to a lesser degree with Taylor street which is adjacent but not a butting and the bike path project which I think has the potential to be a real coordination issue so it's mostly between the private parties is what I'm hearing you say as opposed to someone stand on top of the hill saying go go go as project architect I'll coordinate the efforts of our team direct a very constructive dialogue with the architects from Taylor street and and stand tech who's handling the bike path part of it I also have the to address the cities part of this Tom Carl said we're going to have very close coordination with the city project manager for the city party line has been assigned to look at all those pieces he's already doing that now on several projects in that area that might have been the point person that I was anticipating nice because it really is we've got that go to the person saying our project we're coming together in these pieces at this time so I'm pretty comfortable with that like I said I've heard that the coordination between parties is very good very positive the way you've explained it Greg but I was sort of wondering if there was that one person at the city who was it's going to be tough there could be some real benefits though because certain self contractors mobilize to the site and if they're stripping concrete forms off of one project and moving next door with them I think that's the hope on the contract inside of things it'll really come down to for us we anticipate a November start depending on the tax increment financing portion of this and one of the reasons why we needed to get wrapped up while we've been pushing to conclude this part of it is we think we're going to need four or five months to to get this nailed down well thank you for answering that question particularly since it doesn't pertain to the walls we're looking at but I think it's an important overall thing for folks to understand so yeah thank you I think there's a few small items of business that we need to address one is the snow storage apparently there was a bit of a typo in some of the earlier ones putting snow storage in different locations and I just wanted to confirm my understanding of what's going on now is the temporary snow storage location to the next door to the hotel yes it was determined in the earlier hearings that we had more parking than is required by your zoning ordinance although we want to need all that parking I think it was determined that we could take some of those out of service as long as we were staying within compliance with your rights so yeah and it's the practice now and it will continue to be a practice that the snow will be removed from the site at the earliest convenience when they're off-siting it now to the to the snow depot the city doesn't have the other comment that the staff have raised in this main I don't know if you've had an opportunity to review some of the staff comments that I've been meeting was about the loading and siting of parking and loading spaces and these are under the old zoning by-laws in particular sections 706 and 707 but it talks about the regulations requiring for buildings containing hotels one off-street loading space for every 10,000 square feet of gross floor area that would be about five my understanding is there's really only one off-space loading and so haven't necessarily requested a waiver but one might be implied from this if it's not too late I would ask you to consider that I think a loading space for every 10,000 square feet of hotel is probably excessive it's not a full service hotel in the sense that it doesn't have a restaurant which would be a big generator or waste or any significant other spaces that would require a lot of delivery of materials right now what happens is trucks come in behind the parking lot and they park essentially adjacent to where we're showing our trash recycling turn and get back out but we just don't have the real estate to create a huge loading dock area and it seems to be working now I mean the real heavy traffic is servicing an restaurant but I don't anticipate a lot of new demand being sprung from this hand to hand so if there were a way to ask for that waiver I would ask for it so just so I understand the expectation is that the new movement is not going to require the same type of loading as I say with the Capapazza but what type of what type of weekly loads are you anticipating I mean you're expecting and obviously there are some food and beverages that are going to be sold here we have to provide a minimum self-service breakfast which is cereals and you pour your own waffles and juice that's about it and it's standardized throughout the whole and we have to adapt to exactly what we have to have where it's supposed to be who does it and everything else but I mean is that delivered then on a weekly basis depending on usage if it's not we store it in your refrigerators we store it in pantries if you have the architectural drawings that were submitted with the application you can see that the amount of food preparation area it's about 11 feet wide about 14 feet long most of you probably have bigger kitchens in your homes and yeah you're going to have hot eggs, bagels, fresh fruit yogurts that kind of stuff generally I mean we've worked with a lot of hoteliers generally this stuff that kind of stuff is getting picked up in Costco you're not going to see the big shadow cross farms or the Provinters, Black River Produce they're coming to the site they're going next door to the Capitol Plaza other than that I mean the big event for loading here will be when the furniture shows up and that will be park construction operations obviously not permanent like cleaning supplies and the normal other items that go into the running of the hotel that's not just trying to understand it's not a tractor trailer it's a small box truck in theaters we get it all in locations they drop it off and run in would the plan for that box truck be to park in that loading zone or would it be to park in front of so small well I'm just just so I understand because it's part of what we have to do and I think the board I haven't heard any statement to the contrary that we wouldn't entertain the idea of waiver but I think it's helpful for us to understand what we're waiving and so if there's the box truck coming with these supplies you know would it be reasonable for us to say that they would park under the the awning in the entrance to unload this type of materials or would there be another location that now we probably would probably I mean just as a sort of social thing we wouldn't want them going through the lobby with that stuff generally speaking we kind of wanted to go to the east end door or the west end door and come in that way because that's where the food truck and food storage stuff is employee based storage type of areas and wandering for this hotel will be done next door at the Capitol Plaza some of this cart traffic going back and forth but yeah I mean we when we came up with that little work yard I mean I was intended to sort of do a lot of things you know out of sight in a controlled contained area yes I was going to just confirm you said all along there won't be any laundry deliveries the laundry is all going to be done on elsewhere on the site it's going to be done on the Capitol Plaza linens and towels so that wouldn't be a loading or unloading facility that's going to be a houseman with a cart going back and forth between the two buildings I think in January thought about a tunnel another variance yeah it was it makes sense to have that equipment busy all the time and not have two sets of it if I can understand any other questions from the board so I think just reviewing the packet I think we've covered all the additional items understanding that this is end of a very long process members have any overarching questions or issues that have previously testimony on for great I was wondering if you could provide just a brief overview of the plans for I reviewed the plans last week prior to Thursday and I was just wondering if you provide a brief overview of the revisions made to the plans that were submitted on Thursday and then just for clarification what improvements are you guys seeking approval for that are offsite okay I think there were some spot elevations and a few minor changes to the retaining walls adjacent to the church that came up Monday we got staff comments from Tom and so we took some of Tom's thinking into the town as well and so the changes between between Monday and Thursday were not substantial but it was really just I think at one point if you look at the planting bed around the it was this sort of planting bed that at one point on a wall it was two feet high all around we've let that just turn into a curve now as far as the as far as offsite improvements go I don't know that the board can approve offsite improvements it's our understanding that what will have to happen ultimately is that Christchurch Episcopal will come in with an application for some of these little detail things on their property which will come at and which will there may be things that Capital Plaza is donating or constructing for them but our understanding is that they need to have a separate permit for improvements on their land we've illustrated this in a way that shows you together but I think the permit for us will stop at the property line that said there are some site utilities that are definitely part of this project do go offsite the most notable of which is our storm drainage facility which will more or less parallel the bike path and discharge to the north branch of the Waduski River through the head wall of the bike path bridge so that's an offsite utility that's illustrated in the civil engineering plans that we would want approved and expect the public works as reviewed that and understand it and think it's okay and then of course we'll have some utility improvements in State Street which will be part of the project not strictly on our property memory nothing most of the drainage is part of the bike path project by the city already so I believe that's all approved the city does own that bike path area right I think Sarah's question I just want to make sure I fully understand what the permit covers that's why understanding of the law that's been our position right along we've gone beyond that and illustrated what we think is a workable solution for the church so that we can put the church at ease and we can put you at ease that when they come in with their application these two things can't work together so we've essentially provided them a curb cut and a curb stop for water and a plug-in for storm water at the property boundary there will be improvements on church land whether it's us or engineering ventures or somebody who comes forward and completes that for them they still have some thinking about how they really want this to be finished on their end we don't want to get in the way of that process again they're thinking about that at the same time but we've done this in a way that it's shown that it works and the impact's on the church if we have to help them get over that we will I don't see a way for them to approve these improvements on a private property owner's land without them making an application well I just want to understand are there any of these I understand the improvements that while you're trying to show that the physical church will be able to do what they can do and obviously it's been an important part of your negotiations with them I think part of what Sarah's question is going towards are there any improvements apart from utilities such as power lines or is it relying upon the way in which your project's going to function that may be located on-site we were talking earlier about the storm drains it's different if the storm drains are part of how the church is going to develop its property and ensure that it meets its obligations it's different if these storm drains have been installed or being sought so you can meet your storm drain obligations let me make that emphatically clear the issue is that we have a storm water regulation that says your first floor has to be at 527 as we build up this fill section to meet that requirement we're sort of essentially damning off the southwest corner of the church's property so that there's this parking in the memorial garden there's an expressed concern that water could impound there so we're providing method for it to get off of their property but the storm water is generated and the facilities are there to deal with that so there are improvements that we will provide as part of our agreement with them or whatever but I can take that retaining wall and run it straight from State Street back to the garage and not impact the church at all with a driveway or anything it's just that we've had this agreement, this working arrangement to maintain access to that from the church in a way that we've illustrated does that make it any better for you? it does it's in part what you're describing because you're altering the way they might have yes but ultimately once that's all done and those utility improvements are made there'll be church property and the church will maintain them as they maintain the rest of their property would it be fair to say that whatever changes may be made to the church's property aren't necessarily improvements as much as they are reactions to mitigate the impact of what your development is going to do on your property I think that's a fair characterization number one, number two do you have a license from the church to enter onto its property to take these to take these mitigating steps? it's not fully consummated but we are working towards that goal and I expect a part of that will be that they'll come in with an application under their authorship signed by them saying we're making these improvements on church property if it's in some part in reaction to us so it'll be there'll be another step in this process for that the actual response to my question about whether there's a license is really if they want the mitigating steps to be taken they should give you permission to enter yeah and maybe Nate could speak to that but I mean we're coordinating on last time I looked at the list there was probably 20 bullet points so any further questions from the board? does the board wish to proceed? I'll recommend that we close the hearing and that we go into deliberative session motion by Jack second by Roger any further discussion? anything further? would deliberative session be after this session or are you going to do it at a date for it in the future? we'll probably start after this session and then usually what happens when we do a deliberative session is we end up issuing a written permit and especially given the scope this project is going to have a number of different findings we understand that yeah the only other thing I wanted to mention is I wanted to thank Sarah McChain for sticking in past her employment to help us get through this we've enjoyed our working relationship with city staff I think it's been really good and just wanted to make note of that because Sarah has moved down the stone but I thank you all for your time thanks thank you thanks to other participants as well hearing no further discussion all those in favor of taking close the record I'm going to move into deliberative session thank you very much appreciate it sorry everyone if you can be a little quiet we have to finish our formal amount of business before we move into deliberative session this is a note other business looks as if one the 4th spring street has been drawn by the applicant and then the 213 Main Street sketch plan was tabled by the applicant do you have a motion to tabled? yeah to continue it to do it so 213 Main Street the tabled to our May 21st meeting I'm going to make a motion to table the 213 Main Street application until the tender amendment can continue yeah continue motion by Roger second by James all those in favor please raise your right hand and it is continued our next regularly scheduled meeting is for Monday May 21st 2018 and James is this your last meeting? with the hotel look like it's being done yes I think this will be the last application I'm going to be a part of well I personally and I'm sure the board as well thank you very much for the years of service I'm sure I'll see everybody around I'm just doing different things how many years of service do we give you credit for keeping that closest to six or seven something like that yeah we've been in Montpelier now so it's been most of that great thank you thanks so I'll take a if I could just make one comment about our chairman who deserves an incredible thank you for the people of Montpelier for shepherding what I consider to be a massive revitalization and I'll fill in the chair and being here we could have never gotten it done I just applaud his efforts and I think the people of Montpelier when you see them on the street thank you they just try to run me over we'll take a motion to adjourn and move into deliberative session so moved second by Jack all those in favor of adjourning and moving into deliberative session please raise your hand adjourn


Hello, I am Dr. Lakhan Kashyap, medical oncologist from Manipal Hospital, Bhanir. Breast cancer is the most common cancer in India, with more than 178,000 new cases detected every year. If you feel any lump in the breast, change in the size or shape of the breast or nipple discharge, get yourself evaluated immediately. Regular breast self-examination can help in early detection of cancer. Remember, early detection of cancer leads to better care and complete cure.


Hey, what's up, YouTube? I'm Zeke, and welcome to The Dream Green Show. Ever since I was a kid, there was only a couple ways that someone like me knew how to make it out of the hood.  And since I came rap, one of those options was immediately out of the picture. So I went on to go to college, and I eventually played some professional football. But after getting cut a couple of times, I got cut from the dolphins, I got cut from Texans.  Now that I made it out of the hood, I realized that throughout my entire years of going to school in college, they taught me nothing about financial education. So I had to teach myself if I wanted to live the life of the NFL player, of making, of having a whole bunch of money after I'm done working by doing absolutely nothing. I had to figure out ways to create passive income. So in this episode, I'm going to show you guys how a pretty normal, average guy that knew absolutely nothing about finance growing up, that learned absolutely nothing about finance in classes growing up, how I was able to generate thousands of dollars every single month in passive income to where one day when I retire, I'm going to have a very large cash flow to enjoy my life. So I'm going to give you guys six different income streams that I currently have making me over $8,000 a month. Whoo! So you guys might want to stick through the entire video for this one, guys. I ain't going to BS in this episode. So through the very first way on how I create passive income, on how I kickstarted this channel is through dividend investing. Dividend investing is when you invest into a company like Apple. Apple has a dividend of, let's say, 1%. They're going to pay you out 1% of each share every single quarter. Or there's other companies that pay you out dividends every single month, which was one of the focuses that I had on this channel of growing my dividend portfolio. So I'm going to show you guys exactly how much I make from every income stream. And the first one I'm going to show you guys is my dividend portfolio. So let's pull that up right quick.  These are companies that I'm getting paid dividends in from this month. Let's start on January 4th from WMT in Pepsi. So that's going to be one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine. Nine companies I'm going to get paid in dividends this month from. Totaling a total of what, $68.59. I'm going to put that in my portfolio tracker right quick to show you guys exactly how much I'm making every single day from these investments. So from dividend investing alone, this is me investing into the stock market, investing to stocks that pays dividends to where I'm able to earn income every single month by literally doing absolutely nothing at all. This is the most passive income way that I have of all six of my income streams. This is the most passive way is dividend investing. And what I do with my dividends, I reinvest them back into these companies so I can make even more dividends in the future. So I started off getting maybe six, seven cents per month in dividends. But as I continue to reinvest into these companies and actually reinvest these dividends back into these companies, I'm going to show you how it grown from seven cents to a dollar, $10 a month, $20 a month, $40 a month. And now I'm at $68.59 a month in dividend passive income. So let me plug that in right quick and show you guys exactly how that's going to play out. And then we're going to go into passive income stream number two. So let's plug that in right quick. All right, here we are on my passive income tracker. I usually type in every single dividend. But just to make this video short right here, let's just type in dividends right here. And then I got paid out a total of $68.59 this month. All right, so that's going to add up to $68.59. If we scroll down right here, this is my total. That is me averaging. If I get paid out every single month, that is me collecting $834.51 a year in passive income in dividends, guys. That is me making 10 cents an hour for every hour that I'm alive on Earth. That is me making 10 cents an hour. And every day that I'm alive on Earth, that is me making $2.29 a day. If we're going to the work schedule, this is one since a minute, $0.43 an hour and $3.43 a day. So we're going to go through all of my income streams right here on the side. And then we're going to look at the total on how much I can make every year, minute, hour, and day that I'm alive or work day, work hour, and work minutes. So that's how we're going to divide this up, guys. So you guys can see exactly how much money I'm making, all right. So let's go into passive income stream. Number two is right here, rent to income.  Me and my brother had purchased a house. Hey, what's up, YouTube? Today, I'm going to show you a simple trick to add value to your property. It is a three-bed room, one and a half bath. We have stainless steel, brand new, a pile of appliances in here that we got. We went in as investors together. We got the house and now we're renting out this house. And we collect passive income from this house every single month by renting it out to bring some pretty nice good rentals that we got. It's always important to find some good renters so they don't mess up your house. And the tenants that we got in there right now are pretty sweet. They're pretty nice and they're pretty much taking care of the house so we don't have much to worry about. So me and my brother, we divide the profit every single month after we pay off the mortgage and all of the other expenses. I make around $233 every single month from renting out my rental properties. So let's go ahead and plug that in. So here we are on the rental property. We're going to type in $233. Bang! That's going to bring our total to $301.59 this month alone, bringing my yearly income to $3669.35. If I keep this up every single month and that's around $10.05 every single day that I am alive, I'm making $10.05. It's not a lot yet but it's going to add up. So let's go into income stream number three. Alright, YouTube income way number three is through YouTube. Yes, a lot of people get passive income confused. Either you're going to invest a lot of time into something in order to make passive income or you're going to invest a lot of money into something to make passive income. So with dividend investing and rental properties, you're investing a lot of money into that to pretty much get free laid off passive income.  In fact, the first two years, I think I made a total of $73. Yes, $73 those first three years, those first two years combined, I made $73 from doing YouTube. But now after I invested so much time into the YouTube platform, I finally figured out the algorithm. Hey, hit the thumbs up button. And I've been putting that consistent content which generates me a little form of active passive income to where I'm able to make a couple of thousand dollars every single month. So let's pull up the YouTube studio so I can show you guys exactly how much I make. Alright guys, here we are on YouTube. My estimated revenue for this month over the last 28 days is now $4,296.38. That is amazing. I put out a total of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19. I put out a total of 19 videos over the last 28 days. And that, it takes a lot of time. And these videos that I put out is going to make me money for the next year or so. But as long as the content that I'm putting out is staying relevant, this should continue to make me money for at least the next year or so, right? So this is $4,296.38. Let's put that into our tracker right quick. Let me write that down. Alright, so here we are on the tracker. We're going to type in bang right there, $4,296.38. That's going to bring my total to $4,597.97. That is a yearly income of $55,941. Every minute I'm alive, I'm making 11 cents. Every hour I'm alive, I'm making $6.39. And every day that I'm alive, I'm making $153.27. But if I had a job and had a work day, this is equivalent to $28 per hour if we want to relate that to a job. So right now my income stream is around $28 per hour if this was my full-time job. If it was a full-time job. So let's move on to income stream number four, which is cryptocurrency. Alright guys, so you guys know I am a firm believer in cryptocurrency. I do own some Bitcoin, not that much Bitcoin, but I put some of my Bitcoin over into BlockFi. Let's go over to BlockFi right quick. Alright, so I put around $2,800 worth of Bitcoin in BlockFi over here and $2,400 worth of Ethereum, which is another form of cryptocurrency. I put it over here in BlockFi and I collect interest every single month from just depositing my coins into this account, which is backed by Gemini. I received an interest payment of last month of $23.78. So as long as I continue to hold some of my Bitcoin inside of this platform right here, I'm going to get paid out interest every single month just from holding inside that platform up to I think is around 8% right now, which is insane that I'm receiving 8% from this company right here at BlockFi. So let's go ahead and plug in the $23.78. We're going to type in $23.78. Watch it increase right here from $55. Every little penny matter guys, watch it increase right here from $55,000. Bam, right there from $55,000 to $56. Just from adding $23.78 every single month until I pass this income stream. So let's move on to one of the controversial that I'm going to talk to you guys about. This one of the controversial ones my income streams is through sponsorship ads. All right, so as you guys know, if you're on YouTube watching this video, I'm pretty sure that you have watched plenty of other YouTube videos that they have actual sponsorship ads, whether they sponsor other VPNs or they sponsor other cryptocurrencies and things like that. Well, I am not a fan of making all of these sponsorship ads, but I did have to test the waters, but I did a couple of sponsorship ads a couple months ago. I can't say exactly when or how or which ones because I can't discuss how about how much money I made or how many I made. But from doing those sponsorship ads, I made around $1,000 just from posting 45 seconds sponsorship ads in the beginning or the end of these videos, right? So I didn't do many did like less than five less than way less than five. All right, guys, I didn't do meaning by made about $1,000 from sponsorship ads. But I'm not a fan of sponsorship ads. So what I did to keep these sponsorship ads off of my videos was I created a Patreon, guys. Yes, I made a Patreon. So if you guys want to go to my Patreon, I'm going to leave that link down below. If you sign up for a Patreon, you get access to my Discord. You get access to when I buy and sell different stocks inside my portfolio. You get access to my full portfolio. I'm going to send out great information over there in the Discord. Great information over there on the Patreon. You're going to have access to 5% off merchandise like this right here. I'm making money right now, guys. I'm making money right now. Dividends are dope and I have another dividends are dope t-shirt. So you guys will get 5% off of that if you guys want to sign up for Patreon. The Patreon will help keep sponsorship ads off my videos. Because honestly, if I really wanted to do sponsorship ads, I can make around $6,000 a month in sponsorship ads. But I know you guys don't want to see that. And the reason I'm doing YouTube is because you great subscribers out there. So I don't want to flood my page with sponsorship ads. So I'd rather do a Patreon so I could have consistent income in order to give you guys better content every single month. And actually, you're going to have the chance to make a ton of money from my Patreon that I'm going to talk about on my last income stream that's going to benefit you guys the most. So if you want to try out my Patreon, click the link down below.  The Discord is going to be popping. You do Discord, it's going to be popping. You're going to have access to my full portfolio when I buy and sell certain stocks, when I put in these option trades that generate me passive income every single month. So it's going to be a fun time over there guys. So make sure you go down and check that out right now. So let's go back over. Here we are. Let's type in $1,000 because I just got paid out this month from doing those sponsorship ads a couple of months ago. I'm going to hit enter and right now I'm at $5,621.75. So that brings my yearly income to $68,000. Every day I'm alive. I make $187 a day and equivalent to a workday. This is $35 an hour. So let's go over to the last one, affiliate marketing. Okay guys, affiliate marketing is a big one. When I talk about Amazon links below, when you go over to Amazon and sign up for Amazon, I get a little change for every time that you got to buy something from Amazon. I might get a dollar if you buy a hundred dollar purchase. So it's not really that big, but all of these affiliate links add up from Robin Hood, from Weeble, from Track Your Dividends. All of these little affiliate links that I have usually down below in my videos from Coinbase, they all add up guys. So I've been making a killing from affiliate marketing by putting out great content and only pretty promoting platforms that I believe in and platforms that I actually use. I will not put a link down there just to make money if I don't believe in that platform. So these platforms are pretty good. Like when I talk about Weeble and getting your four free stocks, that is an amazing deal. Getting four free stocks just by depositing $100, that is an amazing deal. It's been making me a lot of money so far. So you'll be amazed of how much money I've made from affiliate marketing guys. So let's go and put in this number. So I can show you guys exactly how crazy that is. And I'm going to tell you how you can make money from me through affiliate marketing just from signing up for my Patreon. Is this special going on right now? So but let's just dive into it right quick and show you guys. All right, guys. So here we are on the last one, the affiliate marketing from people signing up from Coinbase, Acorns, Robin Hood, Weeble, Track Your Dividends, Amazon, all kinds of affiliate links that I support and use. I've made a total of, well, I got over 300, 400, 500 people to sign up on these different platforms, but I made over four, uh-oh, seven, 470. Nope, 4704.36. I made $4,704 this month alone in affiliate marketing. So let's hit hit. That is, wow, that is $10,326 from this month alone. If total passive income, which is 125,000. Oh my God, I gotta tell my mama. This is $125,344 a day are the equivalent of $64 an hour. If I was working a job. That is, that is insane, guys. Hold on. That is insane. So as you guys can see, my affiliate marketing is doing an amazing job. $64 an hour. Every day I'm alive, I make $344 and if I keep this up, I'll make over six figures this year and I'm giving you guys the opportunity. If you signed up for my Patreon, one of my patrons every single month is going to have the opportunity to leave their Weeble link or that Robin Hood link underneath one of my videos forever for life. It's just going to stay under there forever. If you're a Patreon member right now, one of the early ones that signed up and get in, let's say only two of you guys signed up. Well, you have a 50-50 chance of leaving your link under one of my videos and as you guys can see, it is proven that my affiliate links work and you're going to make money just from joining my Patreon. Not only through your affiliates links, but you're going to get some very educational tips inside of my Patreon, especially when I'm buying and selling different stocks, especially when I'm doing the Wheel strategy. If you keep up with some of these strategies, these are other ways that you could create passive income and the easiest way to keep up with that is through the Patreon, but you can create a lifetime opportunity by joining the Patreon and leaving your affiliate link under one of my videos for life and that could be a game changer for you guys. So those are the six ways that I create passive income that generates me over $10,000 every single month in passive income. Some of it is active income. Some of it is completely passive income. Either you put in a lot of time to create some passive income or you put in a lot of money to create some passive income, but either one of them is amazing. So I'm finally living out the dreams as a professional athlete that I'm going to be able to have some consistent income come to my bank account no matter what I do. So if you guys have one job, two job, three jobs, go down to the comment section and let me know how many sources of income do you have down in the comment section. If it's just one, put one. If you have 12 sources of income, put 12 sources of income. You don't have to say how much you make. You ain't got a showboat. I know a lot of people don't make a lot and I know a lot of people make way more than I do. Let's just go down and let me know how many sources of income do you make down in the comment section. But other than that, I'm Zeke. Bring you to Dream Green Show and I'm out. Peace.


It's Friday. It's time for Trump week. I'm Tim Appachella, filling in for Jay Fidel, and I'm here with Cynthia, Cynthia, Lee Sinclair. I always get that up on that one. Good morning, Cynthia. How are you? Good morning, Tim. It's nice to be here. Nice to see you. Nice to see you too. Well, ladies and gentlemen, we have quite the topic today, and that is the declaration of a national emergency from President Trump. The bottom line is he's declared a national emergency, and that is going to have very large impacts both on the House and the Senate, and of course there are other states involved with this that we're going to discuss in a little bit, but let's just go right to the national emergency. So he, the bill was passed giving the wall a concession from the Democrats passed in the House, then the Senate of $1.3 billion for not necessarily a concrete wall, but for border security and border defenses, if you will.  The rest of it was all electronic stuff, surveillance, staff, more people, things like that, right? So when Trump stands up and says today, I was watching him in the Rose Garden this morning, and he's saying that, you know, they kept saying they weren't going to give me even $1, not $1, and I got $1.3 or $1.4, $1.3 billion, and it's like, no, you didn't. So he's trying to spin it that $1.3 billion was for his wall, when really it's not.  And it just reminded me of a sour grape type of negotiation, and it's just, you just don't expect it from a president of the United States. Well, you would hope it wouldn't be coming from a president of the United States. You would hope for more decorum and more control and more stability for goodness sakes, but we just don't get that from this president. You know, and as he's talking about where he's going to get this money, which he won't exactly tell us, because now he's declared the state of emergency, which means he can go and get the money from all number of places. And he's saying that the generals think that this is more important, because someone was asking, one of the reporters was asking him about, you know, where is this money going to come from now that you've declared this emergency, what are you going to do? And he's saying that the generals think that this is way more important. Well, just a little bit after that on MSNBC, they had General McCaffey on, McCaffrey. And he says, it is two to five years in negotiations to get the funding that they get. They're not going to want to give it up without... Not easily. Right. Not easily. He said there's no generals. He cannot imagine that there'd be any generals that actually feel that way. Well, I like to take a little walk back, because what this stems from is the criticism that President Obama received when he... Remember when he would introduce, you know, the bill would be introduced, and of course the Republicans back in the day wouldn't entertain it at all. So that kind of forced President Obama to do executive orders. And executive orders was being criticized as trying to skirt the Congress as far as their role to fund projects and activities. And so we had a tweet from Donald Trump back in November 20th, 2014, addressing his criticism of President Obama about trying to skirt Congress. And I'd like to share that quote. Okay. He says, Republicans must not allow President Obama to subvert the Constitution of the United States for his own benefit. And because he's unable to negotiate with Congress, that doesn't sound like his national emergency is exactly that which he tweeted about November 20th, 2014. So often he does that kind of stuff, right, where he criticizes past presidents and then does the very same thing that he was criticizing them about. And then I was struck by the fact that he's saying, well, past presidents, all these past presidents have declared national emergencies. Well they looked it up and they were talking about it. There's the main big, there's only three of them. And these were the reasons that it was declared. And it was President Roosevelt, and that was to confine the U.S. citizens to the Japanese war camps in World War II. And then President Bush, and that was to justify the warrantless wiretaps and other things, right, after 9-11. And then President Obama, and it was his response to the swine flu. These are all things that happened in an immediate emergency type of a situation. This can't claim emergency. He's been sitting on this, working on this for two years. It's not an emergency anymore. He certainly has been advised by his attorneys. Now let's go back to the 1970, 1976 Act, the National Emergency Act, September 14th, 1976, which is, you know, there's still existing national emergencies on the book. Some are very small, some of them involve Iran. Very small, but they have to be renewed, I believe, every year by Congress as continuation of a national emergency. Now what I find as interesting is that Congress renews it, like I said, once a year. But they also can pass a simple resolution terminating the Act. What? Yes. And it hasn't been done? That's what's in this law. I'm like, why doesn't anybody know that's their job? That's the point is that, you know, I think Congress, if they really do object to the use or the misuse of a national emergency for something that he just can't get funding for, which is the role and job of the Congress, well, mostly the House of Representatives of course, they do have the right to say, we do not agree with this. And they could, you know, they could pass a resolution and send it to the President's desk. And of course they did. He's not going to sign it. Well, okay, but what's that called? It's basically an unsigned veto, right? Does that give them the right then to override a veto? Don't they have to have enough votes to be able to override it? Yeah, and I think there might be enough Republicans in the Senate and the House that says, look, we don't want this national emergency to be put forth because why? Well, mainly because when the next President comes in, they've said a President, I think he can do whatever he wants to. Well, and what do you think is going to come to the table? I think it's going to be gun control, because that's a national emergency. And that is a national emergency. If you want to start putting an end to this context of, you know, thousands of kids being shot up or people being shot up, it's a national emergency. So what would prevent any Democrat president in the future to put that on the table as a national emergency to get funding for it to do something about it? Or whatever they want. Well, then let's go down the line. What else? Gee, our Medicare is becoming into a financial crisis. Doesn't that constitute a national emergency for people who are not without health care? You know, the funding levels are low. What else? Certainly climate change. Certainly. I would think climate change would be number one, right? It's going to be number one. We're removing or reducing our use of fossil fuels. Get more electric cars, you know, more renewable energy. But President Trump doesn't want to do any of that stuff, right? So you can understand why there are enough savvy Republicans in Congress to say President Trump is not going to be a president forever, and we may not have a Republican president the next term after, you know, 2020, and what are we going to set ourselves up for? So why would it be who them? Why would they not want to say this? This is a use of national emergency that we don't like and we don't endorse. It happened. We don't know. Time will tell. Yeah, time will tell. From what I understood about the National Emergency Act is that you had to be Congress like couldn't be, what is it, isn't available, that's what I was looking for, that Congress isn't available, and that's the only reason they can do that. I thought that was part of the thing. The purpose of the National Emergency Act was to end open-ended declaration of emergencies. So in 1976, they said we need to put some parameters and some checks and balances on the President of the United States for the declaration of emergencies, and that's why it was created in the first place. So there are stipulations on how it can be used and how it can be declared and what type of situations can you draw money away from certain military. Now, when we say the military, we obviously think the defense, you know, either abroad or, you know, here in the National Guard about military, what about the Army Corps of Engineers? Oh my goodness, yeah. Okay. So there's a number of projects that the Army Corps of Engineers, which could be construed as military, they're working on here in the United States where that money could be, you know, drawn from. Now, the amount we're talking about is $8 billion. He now thinks he can pull with the combination of the $1.3 billion that's in the act that he's going to sign off for. Wait, and how much did he get before? Because didn't he already get a big chunk given to him from funding that he hasn't done anything with it? Well, it's been basically unused. I'm sure they're looking at that as far as the money as well as for his funding for his $8 billion or how much he thinks he needs. Right. Chris Hayes did a really good sort of a comprehensive look at the border and he had different reporters all along the border in different places from Florida to Texas. And it was a really, I really recommend people to watch it because it really gave an inside view, talking to border patrol, talking to people who live there, you know, whose land is right there. So he's going to have to confiscate people's land in order to put the wall up. And they don't want it. Most of people that they talked to didn't want it. Bedouin Rourke was in El Paso, right, because he was having his little, you know... Counter-rally. Counter-rally, thank you, yes. I don't know what to call it. But he was talking about, and even President Trump in the Rose Garden this morning made reference to the fact that, you know, there's other places that would benefit from the wall, not, you know, not like El Paso, because you can go there and say El Paso is the most dangerous city, blah, blah, blah. He tried to trump it up to be all this crazy stuff. And it turned out that he was just full of it because none of it's true. And so he even made reference to the fact that he blew it, that El Paso isn't really like that. But I was, he was talking in the, when he was trying to write down everything he was saying this morning. And he's like, he said, we will be sued in the ninth circuit, even though it shouldn't even be there, and possibly get a bad ruling, and then it'll be appealed and then we'll get another bad ruling. Then we'll go to the Supreme Court, and we will hopefully get a fair shake, and we will win in the Supreme Court, just like the band did. Right. Well, I've always said that he really doesn't want to resolve the wall problem because it's the easiest way for him to gin up his loyal supporters and get them agitated and get them to come out and support, and he just goes through that over and over again.  So why would I want to solve it then really? So what better way not to solve it is to tie it up in the courts. And then at the same time, he can say, well, you see, I'm trying to keep America safe. The Democrats are not. And now it's in the courts. And I'm sure the ninth circuit, which is a liberal court, they're not going to agree with this. That's basically what he was saying. Yes. And so he's going to string this out. And hopefully, maybe in his mind, this gets him to 2020 election to use this over and over and over again as a campaign banner to say, see, I'm trying to keep America safe. Vote for me. I think he said something. Didn't I write it down somewhere? So yeah, I've already done a lot of the wall for the election 2020. It's like he's claiming that I don't need to do this just because I'm, and the only thing he said, though, was I've already done a lot of the wall for the election. For the election. Wait, nobody asked him about it yet. If we use the word logic, which I'm kind of hesitant to use because there is no logic or logic, right? If, if really most of the wall has been built, then therefore, where's the national emergency? Right? Where's the emergency and why do you need so much more money if it's already been, you know, done? Right. Well, here's something else that he said in addition to it. And I, I agree with you that the his, his proclamation about how it's going to go to the Ninth Circuit and then be appealed in the Ninth Circuit. Oh, right. And just like the band did. And that's the way the band did, too. Went to the Ninth Circuit, it got appealed, it got, you know, they didn't get a good ruling, finally got to the Supreme Court. If it's going to be immediately challenged in court, does that mean he gets to pull the money until it's been declared, you know? I don't know. I would think he, I would think he is going to pull the money. And he'll say, well, until, until it's declared illegal, I'm going to use the money. So we'll see how that turns out. And that would be his style. I would, that would not surprise me one single bit. Yeah. So he stands up and he claims I didn't need to do this, but I'd rather do it faster. That's the only reason he's doing it. So we're going to talk about some recent comments from the governor of California and the attorney general of California when we come back from this break. Okay. I'm Tim Appichella here with Cynthia, Lee Sinclair. This is Trump week. We'll be right back. Hey, Aloha. My name is Andrew Lening. I'm the host of Security Matters Hawaii airing every Wednesday here on Think Tech Hawaii, live from the studios. I'll bring you guests. I'll bring you information about the things in security that matter to keeping you safe, your co-workers safe, your family safe, to keep our community safe. We want to teach you about those things in our industry that, you know, may be a little outside of your experience. So please join me because Security Matters. Aloha. Aloha. I'm Wendy Lowe, and I'm coming to you every other Tuesday at two o'clock live from Think Tech Hawaii. And on our show, we talk about taking your health back. And what does that mean? It means mind, body, and soul. Anything you can do that makes your body healthier and happier is what we're going to be talking about, whether it's spiritual health, mental health, fascia health, beautiful smile health, whatever it means. Let's take healthy back. Aloha. We're back. We're back. It's Trump week. I'm Tim Apachele, filling in for Jay Fidel here with Cynthia Sinclair. And we're talking about the national emergency pertaining to the wall, the wall funding. So Donald Trump had his press conference in the Rose Garden. And if you watched it long enough, you're going, is he unhinged? I mean, he was talking about some very strange things. He was very combative, of course, again, with the reporters. By all this is going on, we had a press conference in California. We had the governor of California and the attorney general basically talking about how this national emergency is going to impact their state the most. Oh, my gosh, yes, because of all the fires and stuff, and they're going to lose all this emergency funding. That's a very good point about what they were already there. They're natural emergencies, natural disasters that are national emergencies for all of the state of California. And Governor Newsom did point out that there's $12 billion reserved for disaster relief that has not been released at all. So he's comparing this national emergency to the disaster relief to a real emergency of $12 billion that has not been released at all. And it's not just for California, but it's other states. Texas and Florida and places that have been hit so hard, yeah. So I mean, do you think he has a valid point in that? Oh, yes, he does. And I think that maybe Trump has been sitting on it. Well, we've got the homeland security is who's in charge of that. And I don't trust Kirsten Nielsen as far as I could throw her, probably, because she's a little girl. I might be able to throw her pretty far, but I don't think it would work because I think that she just hosed that gets in line behind Trump, does whatever he wants, goes right along with whatever it is that he thinks is the way it should go. I don't think she stands up and I don't think that we are very safe in regards to homeland security. She was also involved in all of the separating kids from their parents before it was actually declared to happen. So I don't trust her at all. Well, I'm going to switch gears just a little bit because most of the show is dedicated to the propagation of the national emergency. But getting to your point, you just made. Remember, we talked about distractions and stories that just distract from real pertinent, important stories that the press does not have time to basically dive into. Well, one of them is that there is an announcement from the Department of Homeland Security was that the funding for the prevention of Russia meddling with our 2020 election has been slashed. What? Well, it's going to be slashed. It's going to be slashed in half or even more. And so you're thinking, OK, at a time where we know Russia has been trying to meddle with our election and we saw evidence of that in the midterms. Right. And we know it's true. They've already proved it. It's not like it's a question. When you have that particular office and the formal offices, Cybersecurity Infrastructure Agency, it was designed in 2016 to basically address prevention of Russia hacking and meddling into these elections. Right. Why would that funding be shelved or cut drastically? When we need it more than ever now, as we're going into another election cycle, we need it more than ever now. And would it be just to let them be able to do it? Well, let's back off so they have more space to do this hacking because he's denied that it happened all this time, believed Putin that he didn't do it. So all the way down the line, we can see that he doesn't believe that, well, or he knows that it's true and refuses to admit it. But he has said it didn't happen, it didn't happen, it didn't happen. And so, of course, he's telling all his people in his administration, this is just a hoax, it's not true anyway. You can say that after the Helsinki that this is a hoax. He didn't believe his intelligent agencies. Then he said he did believe them, then he said it didn't believe them. And he reversed himself four times after Helsinki. And so we're talking about national security, but what about the security and preservation of our democracy? And voting and the integrity of our votes is paramount to our democracy. And why would you cut funding for something we know they're trying to do currently? I don't understand that. I don't either. And so, but we haven't heard that story, but it's out there. And we haven't had time to hear about it because we have proclamations of national emergency. We have distraction after distraction after distraction after distraction. Like you said, the distractions on the distractions, right? You know, and ever since you said that a few weeks ago, I've been thinking about it. And each time one of these things comes up, that's what I kind of wonder about. Then I go, no, is this just another distraction? And sure enough, it turns out that it looks like it is just another distraction. Right. So let's just turn back onto the road and talk a bit about what the Democrats and the Republicans have said about this national security. Well, I have a quote from Pelosi and Schumer, or it's not a quote exactly, but it's their statement. It's part of their statement. It's really long. So I just sort of grabbed a little bit of it. They did refer to this national, this claim of a national emergency. They called it a power grab and they called it unlawful. And they said that the Republican actions clearly, I'm sorry, the president's actions clearly violate the Congress's exclusive power of the purse, which are founders enshrined in the Constitution. The Congress will defend our constitutional authority in the Congress, in the courts, and in the public using every remedy available. And I thought, you go guys, please, please defend our Constitution. It's a clear declarative statement of what the issue is here. Right, it's unlawful. It's a power grab and they are going to do the best they can. So I like to not only look at what the Democrats say, but to know how many Republicans are having issues with it. Right, that's a big deal. And so Senator Susan Collins from, a Republican from Maine, she is concerned and she feels that the dollars of Congress are reappropriated. And she said it strikes as undermining the appropriations process and the will of the Congress. And I don't think she likes it.  And it is, that's why I took this part of that quote out of there. Because I thought that they really addresses that, the whole appropriations thing and the power of the purse. I love that. The Congress's exclusive power of the purse. They are the only ones who are supposed to be able to approve or disprove any kind of funding for anything. Right? Right. Well, and I'm glad to hear them have stated as they did. And I'm glad to hear Susan Collins, Marco Rubio has some issues with it. So in the next few days, let's see how many Republicans in the Senate or in the House, I'm sure there'll be some in the House as well, that actually stand up and speak out on it. Because I'm sure their constituents, they represent in their home state. Oh, yeah. Gotta have some questions about this. Oh, yes. I'm sure they do. Because they're wondering the same thing. I wonder, because we haven't heard anything about it, you know, that next step process of national emergencies to going to martial law. Right. And that's just terrible. Well, I think martial law is a big stretch to a national emergency. I think you could have states say, we're going to bring in the National Guard. That's what I mean. Yeah. But that's not really martial law. It's just they've already brought in the National Guard. We have 5,000 troops down there, right? Can they read that? 5,000? Yeah, 5,000 troops are on the border now. Yeah. And I think some states have retracted their National Guard from that duty. The governors have said, I want you to come back. Yeah, because it's not real. You don't need to be there. Well, they don't feel it's a national emergency. Because it's not. And these aren't necessarily democratic states that are saying, I want my National Guard back. Right, exactly. Because we might need him for something real. And General McCaffrey, he addressed that when he was being interviewed about how all of these troops that have been sent down there are missing out on all the training that they need to be having. And it's important to be fully trained and ready in case there is a real emergency. They need to not be, oh, out of the loop because they've been down on the border eating tacos or whatever. And I know that's not what they do. I don't mean to disrespect them. But they need to be primed and ready for a real emergency. Absolutely. And they're missing all of that. And if those real emergencies could be natural disasters, that's where the National Guard comes in and really helps out when there's natural disasters. And there's plenty of opportunities for that to occur. So if they're deployed at the border, they're not going to be utilized properly. So I agree with those governors that have concerns. So let's talk about the reaction to the initial signing off on the bill before he announced there's a national disaster, excuse me, a national emergency. Let's talk about the government within the government. And who is that government within the government? It's our conservative tacos, Rush Limbaugh. Oh, gosh. Sean Hannity. He loves Rush Limbaugh. He talked all about how much he loves Rush Limbaugh. And who was else that he said that he, Sean Hannity, yes, absolutely great supporter of what I do. But if I didn't do, if I didn't keep doing what I'm doing, then he wouldn't like me. So it's not me that he likes. He just likes what I do. And didn't President Trump in the Rose Garden this morning actually make reference to Rush Limbaugh? Yes, he did. Make reference to Sean Hannity? And Ann Coulter, too. Yeah, he doesn't like Ann Coulter. He says, I don't know her. I don't really know her. I haven't talked to her in over a year. And then, but I like her. But I like her is what he says. But the point is, does he have to check with them on every issue? Well, I don't know.  Are they? That's what she tweeted today. She tweeted that. Well, she said worse in the past. But that's Ann Coulter. I'm just saying is, who's running this government? Is it the conservative talk show host or is it President Trump? Does he have to check in and say, mother, may I? For everything he wants to do to make sure that the base that listens to their programs are going to be in sync? Right. Boy, that's a kind of a finger in the air testing where the winds are blowing. That approach to being a leader and the President's face. He puts things out there to see how they're going to react and then goes forward with it. So I think you're right. He does kind of check in with them first. And I'm going to say that previous presidents have looked at polling data a more scientific way of getting where the nation is on a certain issue. The bottom line is going to Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh isn't going to substitute, in my mind, the value of a scientific poll that's been conducted with a number of survey respondents. The real deal. Yeah, the real deal. Instead, he just gave the polling information to his buddy, Roger Stone, who gave it to the Russians and also, hey. Guess what? We can talk about this for another 20 minutes. We're out of time. No way. That went so fast. Thank you, Cynthia. Nice to see you again. Thank you, Tim. I'm Tim Abachele with Cynthia Sinclair. It's Trump Week. We'll see you next week. Aloha.