ases in taxes by saying a 3.14% municipal tax increase equates to $24 on an average $250,000 condo or blah blah blah you almost need to say if you are on the average of spending $100 a month or whatever you know on going out to eat and or buying things here and there you will see it will cost you this much so just thinking ahead to if you had to quantify for an average consumer what that would be but if you're going to advertise an increase in your sales rooms and meals tax you need to be able to explain that some of the money is going to go to a facility that really only benefits south brunnen people whereas this other thing is going to benefit the whole county right so those are just some more things to keep in mind okay so what is your pleasure shall we ask the charter committee to work on this well they're bored right now and have nothing to work on they don't have anything to work on let's ask them to work on it and see where we go we don't need to vote on that I don't think we all in agreement you probably can anticipate though if they do their work quickly and if you want to stay on the schedule possibly a special meeting of the council about mid january to make a decision as to whether or not you want to move forward alrighty thank you why not the gas tax why not the gas tax okay moving right along item 13 comments from the energy committee I understand yes us in march and then go to the legislature immediately isn't that too late not for charter changes they typically take them up because town meeting is always in march we want to use that leftover heat from the skating room I briefed made on it I briefed made on it the other day so she chairs the thank you okay welcome would you please identify yourself for the camera yes my name is linda mcginnis I'm the current chair of the south burlington energy committee and I'm Don Cummings member of the committee so thank you for allowing us to present to you this evening we know that it's a long night and I will try to keep it brief we're seeing this is the first in a two-part series so we're hoping that you'll have us back sometime early next year but it's also because we think that there's a couple of asks that we'd like you to really seriously consider at this stage so we're here to talk about how to accelerate our progress towards reaching our energy and climate goals that you have so beautifully laid out in three resolutions I'm going to go over first just to give some background so that we can bring it fresh to your mind what those three resolutions are the first is in 2014 you had an energy efficiency resolution actually I want to preface this by saying we are not as exciting and sexy as city art center or a rec center but we do have the added plus that we can save you money so that you can spend it on the things that you want to spend it on so I just want to put that out there alright so in the 2014 energy efficiency resolution you laid out a goal to reduce energy usage by 20% by 2020 to have an energy efficiency plan developed and to report the results to the city council on an annual basis in 2017 you had a resolution that said you would use the solar landfill revenue to support energy committee initiatives together with the city and that's about five to nine thousand a month that you're already generating the first year has about ninety thousand dollars excuse me already and then the third is the climate pledge coalition resolution which we are very excited about to meet or exceed the Paris goals of 26 to 28% reduction in greenhouse gases by 2025 we're going to focus on the first two this time because it has a couple of asks that we want to discuss with you we were really pleased to have Helen and Kevin join us in last month's energy committee meeting and Kevin committed to on that first one not much has been done on that first one and he committed to working with us on a quarterly basis to lay out an energy efficiency plan and report the results back to you and on this next part I'm going to say that you had said a really great excellent policy context and framework but the implementation in getting us to those goals has been pretty relatively slow and we have a good start but there's a whole lot more to do and a whole lot more money to be saved for the city and I'm going to be two examples of what are a good start and then go into the other things that need to be done so over the past four years around four years 2012 to 2016 you have invested in energy efficiency projects added to the tune of about half a million dollars and over that period of time you've generated if you look at the cumulative savings about a million dollars in savings which is remarkable I can guarantee you there's no other project that you're investing in that will give you that kind of return that's pretty incredible okay so that's one of the things that is a good start but there is a whole lot more to do on that the second as you're well aware is the solar landfill revenue which we worked really hard with you to help get going and that has an annual revenue of around $90,000 we expect it to continue that way for the next ten years that's a total of around $600,000 to a million dollars over the next ten years again you're not going to find any other projects that you're investing in that give you the kinds of returns that these do so what we're saying is that there's a whole lot more that remains to be done we've been working really closely with efficiency Vermont to prioritize and look at what remains to be done these are obviously things that efficiency Vermont has been working on with the city and this is the type of work that we plan on looking at with Kevin over the course of the coming year and the key on this is that these priorities have have a payback which is really you won't find anywhere else the ones that you've already invested in had a payback in about three years and they will continue to generate savings over the course of every year you can buy is the energy you don't see projects are all about so what we'd like to do is take it one step further and make sure that those savings that are generated are reinvested back into energy efficiency savings projects so that you continue to generate savings and have this positive effect that you'll constantly have several hundred thousand dollars at least to the tune that we see right now coming back at you as a city to reinvest in more important things than sending our dollars out of state for fossil fuels so what we feel that we want to focus on with you and we have three asks which I'll get to after this is that we need we can generate far more with putting more priority on these types of projects by allocating some resources and we'll tell you about that and especially staffing these projects are hard to manage as anybody on the city staff will tell you they take a lot of time and a lot of effort and staff are overtaxed as they are and so what we're talking about right now is what it takes is time of someone like an energy services manager there are three other towns in Vermont that are currently doing this then invest in an energy services manager Hartford Lebanon and Montpelier what we're talking about is this person would manage energy projects across all departments and again these are all projects that generate savings or revenue for you they would scope out the projects that are on the priority list that the city has worked hard to pull together with efficiency Vermont they would present an annual report to you and what we're talking about as an ask is a minimum of a third of a full time staff and it doesn't have to be an energy specialist it could be that it's a person who does part of let's say Ilana's work so that she can focus on managing the energy investment but what we're saying is it's going to take at a minimum from what we've looked at we've talked to the other towns that are doing this a minimum of a third high level full time staff equivalent now how do you pay for this right we know okay there are several available options for doing that you have the solar reserve fund which is generating 60 to 90k a year you also have efficiency savings right now that we have worked with efficiency Vermont on that show that you're saving around 190,000 a year but if you invest in new efficiency projects and this is what's happened in Hartford the investments in the energy efficiency projects are paying for their energy manager there's a stewardship fund which I know has some Kevin described to us has some of the efficiency projects in it if part of that could be dedicated to a third of a full time equivalent energy services manager that's a possibility to and then for the types of investments that you're making going forward we'd like you to consider looking into the possibility of a municipal lease taking the solar reserve fund around some portion of that whatever you feel is useful and using that to be able to generate additional funds that you could get through a municipal lease as a possibility and we'd love to talk about it with Kevin we don't have to come to any conclusions right now but it's one of the ideas that we're talking about right now the second is a revolving fund that ensures that the savings that you're generating from investments and efficiency get reinvested back into more efficiency projects so that you're constantly reducing what you're spending on energy so that you can spend it on more important things like a rec center or a city art center whatever you want to do it for but it's basically to reinvest those savings so that you're constantly generating more what is a municipal lease so for example if we are getting revenue from the solar array might not be sufficient if we collected that large list of energy efficiency projects for example changing all the LED street lights at once might be in the range of $200,000 you can't cover it with simply one year's revenue from the solar fund however I think from what little we know about municipal leases you could engage an outfit that provides municipal leasing and use the revenue from the solar fund to pay down say a five year or seven year note effectively oh so you lease the street lights like a school bus that way we referred to this sort of as a big bang approach to doing energy efficiency projects all at once so that you get them done now and so you start reaping savings that very year the way we've been doing it now we've been doing projects out of maintenance budgets and so we get a little incremental savings each year whereas if we group them did them in a big bang approach paid for them all at once the solar reserve fund could pay the note so the three asks that we're asking you to consider as appropriate for the operating budget is funds for an energy manager and we identified where those funds could potentially come from energy projects that are actually generating revenue or savings to consider municipal lease to do a higher level a higher amount of efficiency projects and then three establish a revolving fund for reinvesting those additional savings so that we can ensure that we have continued savings going forward so that's the the three main asks that we have of you I'm sure you'll probably have questions if I could just generalize the last two I think in general we've had two two issues with three issues the city is very busy running the city smoothly and with city center energy efficiency and climate change has got to be a third priority if you've seen anything about the national assessment the recent national assessment it's critical that local governments and state governments along with individuals and businesses even for for local governments it has to become high on our priority list secondly we need a responsible high level person who can can take charge do the prioritization run the project plans work with Tom on financing work with Justin on the implementations whoever that the right people are the key person is important it's beyond us but again work with Tom and the right financial people to ensure that there's money coming in to invest in the efficiency upgrades that will then return savings to the city in a subsequent year and there are models that are working right now Montpelier is doing that right now and as the three towns that I mentioned before have an energy manager and each of them is bringing in savings that can pay for the energy manager which is pretty remarkable and we have job descriptions from them we've been talking to them from Montpelier we have how they set up the revolving fund so that you can ensure the reinvestment can take place so we have lots of examples and those are all the types of things we'll be meeting quarterly with Kevin we're starting tomorrow that we'd like to bring up but we wanted to make sure that the city council was aware of this because again this is the only thing that you can invest in that's going to bring you returns as quickly as it does and on top of it can bring down our greenhouse gas emissions which is something that we'd like to talk to you about more in depth in the beginning of next year so Any questions or comments? The projects that remain like the traffic signals that are 80% complete and street lighting and efficiency we've been working with efficiency Vermont the whole list of the ones that at least have been identified together with efficiency Vermont in the city of South Burlington some of them like the traffic signals 80% complete there you have that on that page we have a spreadsheet that shows what the investment required for each of these things that's the scoping that an energy manager would need to do that's a lot of hard work not the full scoping of these ones not that we know of I think to the best of our understanding these projects have been undertaken when there's funding and there's an immediate need for example the lights traffic signal we will upgrade the traffic signal but what we're what we're requesting is in a proactive manner let's look at all the potential projects lay out a project plan identify the value of each of these projects how much it costs what is the benefit put them together into a plan prioritize them prioritize them have someone who's managing that whole process the way it happens today is kind of a secondary process to other business is my view Bartlett Bay 20 year upgrade that's another whole ball let's exclude that I would take that off the table because when that happens there's a bunch of things that new things are going to be purchased that these concepts will be in there you have to understand this wastewater pumping stations I don't know what the frequency is for purchasing that kind of equipment but those are pretty large capital improvements which is why we're talking about trying to look at different financing mechanisms that can allow you to do bigger purchases that's where I want to have Justin come in and say what the expected lifetime is for those pumps where the payback point is this is a list that efficiency Vermont when they did an audit for the city this is what they came up with it's a fully vetted list they didn't just pick the low hanging fruit they said these are the things that the city needs to do that's why some of these are pretty large these are some of the things we have a 75 page report just one thing that's the biggest bang for the buck yes creating a complete list with the value and the cost so a thorough evaluation and a prioritization could be done which is why we're starting with an energy manager it takes work to do that but the benefits as we can see from the work that the city has already done are enormous right you're getting right now from the energy projects I just listed around $300,000 a year of savings no if you're looking at efficiency plus solar that's about $300,000 a year savings that for the efficiency projects continue ad infinitum and so what we're saying is that yes these are some big projects that have been highlighted by efficiency Vermont as things that really South Burlington could get a lot of benefit out of but it takes project scoping and that project scoping takes someone to do the work so in Hartford what they did is they the city council put aside $40,000 and they actually hired VEC to come and do an energy plan for them and that's what they did that's not what everyone else has done necessarily but that's one way of doing it that was a 40,000 that was before they hired their energy manager after they did that we have to hire an energy manager to make this happen now they have one and they're going through those projects like this and reducing the amount that they're spending overall by leaps and bounds and so that's what we'd like to see here and it's a lot of work I mean Kevin's staff is doing a they're stretched thin we had the discussion they came Kevin came to the last meeting we totally recognize they're stretched thin you have sources of financing right now that can potentially pay for this right? you have solar funds that are coming in every single month that could potentially pay for it or you could project forward and say these are efficiency savings that are going to come forward from these projects that could also potentially pay for a manager we're talking about a third of a full time staff that's I think Dave and then Megan so that list of priorities can you share that 75 pages is an expansion of those items there is that one? no there are many other projects oh this is just the priority these are the ones that Efficiency Vermont has identified as priority after having done the audit with the city about what three years ago it's unfair to say this is a prioritized list this is a list of some of the projects that were identified you got 75 pages of projects both all the details of the projects that have been done and identifying a small and large ones that could potentially be done but these are the main ones we're fortunate that Tim Perron who has worked with the city he's with Efficiency Vermont he's on our energy committee and he's the one who's picked these but to clarify there are audits and process evaluations and other sources that date back from 2010 and so on that may contain other ideas that are not included in this list this is not a complete list there are very few ideas about building envelopes for example you know heating keeping the heat in the buildings they're mostly about equipment within the building or infrastructure outside of the buildings I think you heard what you were sitting here when Bob Lecker was talking about the rinks we're saving after putting LED into everything we're saving 30 grand a year it only cost us 55 thousand so we got less than a two year payback if I'm not right amazing really what can be done there's probably work you could do with the compressors outside that are making that cold day done a lot of work with those if there can be savings had Bob finds them but I just want to underscore this is I didn't show this earlier but this is the spreadsheet that the officials were on has pulled together just for the period of 2012 to 2016 which I talked about before I'll read it out loud to you but this is the projected costs of all of the efficiency projects that you did from 2012 to 2016 and the total projected cost was $537,000 if you look at what the annual savings are depending on when the project started cumulative annual $195,000 that payback on $535,000 is three years you're not going to find that I'm an economist you're not going to find that anywhere and the cumulative savings that you have over a four year period of time is $927,000 and growing because the savings come every year now that's like it's not revenue like the solar revenue fund but it is savings and if you can capture it in a financial mechanism that allows you to reinvest that exponentially grows it's a really one of the major cost drivers there was the treatment plant which was the largest single you had to upgrade the treatment plant and so there was a major piece of money spent and it produced savings if you look at some of these other things much smaller costs so relatively a much higher return on investment on the other savings so I'm willing to bet there are a lot more of these small things or $35,000 or $30,000 or $40,000 the examples are here here's just such a few that could be done easily this year sort of if you were doing low hanging fruit we would like to see the whole thing looked out together there's the municipal street lighting phase two energy savings projected are around $8,000 we don't know yet what the project cost is because it has to be scoped out but it will be significantly smaller so police station these are boring things to go through bit by bit but they're really important because each one of them begins to generate savings from you from the get go and then you pay it back in three years maximum five years we looked at the average for people who would ask a really great question of us earlier which was we've done the low hanging fruit which had a payback of two to three years are these next projects what is the payback going to be on them we talked to efficiency of your mom we went through some of the major projects and they said payback in five years on average for some of these bigger projects that's still better than anything you're going to find anywhere else you're talking about paying back the mortgage or whatever you were talking about earlier on 10, 15 years or 15 if you're not so lucky this is a payback on average of five years and then it's gravy after that that you can then reinvest Megan had a question and then Tom just a statement I think it was very right of Linda to remind us that we passed three resolutions and I think that when we decide on something that it really it's up to us then to follow through and not only should we follow through but when we have our investments paying off and making it possible as Linda and Don have shown us to really help us meet our expectations without asking for an increase to hire a third of an FTE yes I mean the answer seems obvious one we have to meet our goals that we've set for ourselves and when it seems that the role there requires an extra staff member and I agree that our staff has a lot on its plate when we can already pay for that I think the questions are good, it's vetting it but I think that we have to meet our obligations Tom no question just a statement you said and I think we should do everything you outlined for all the reasons you outlined so let's do this question we're saving money now right we're saving it no that's what we're asking the cost just goes down if we are to we've got a stewardship fund that in theory takes that revenue much but the stewardship fund is $125,000 125 125 I think and that's from the savings where is it from we're not spending as much money on electricity in some one of our buildings so that's a savings where are we going to get the money paid for if we're already spending the money saving other stuff well you would need to set it into a reserve fund you would need to set it into a reserve fund that's used specifically for that purpose we did with the solar fund we said that should be spent on energy efficiency items and hopefully there's some other funding ways to buy the solar for the library so maybe some of that we'll be able to have this trust fund if you will to plow back into savings that would be from future savings from current savings we're spending that money yes so we're going to do what you're suggesting if we're going to do that we're going to stop spending that money on other stuff what's the other stuff what's the other stuff what's the rest of city operating so in order to do this what are we going to have to short change I'm saying we do have a fund though we do have the solar array income fund it's not a whole lot it's 90,000 bucks a year well it's enough to fund a third of a position yeah that's well yes except we've committed that to the library solar thing however that was just buying it up spending that money every year for 17 years to pay off the loan there's another way to do it but the energy committee has some information that there's another way to do that so we won't have to commit 90,000 dollars a year of that fund solely to the library so that's I think how we can work creatively to find the third of a person we get the top half right exactly the brain the brain and the heart it's all you need right the other thing to consider is if it's a one year ad because if for example for the 40,000 to see let's just assume you needed 50 grand this year over and above the solar array that 50 grand should pay for itself in savings next year if you were to do if you were to do a bunch of efficiency projects we already see what they can generate in terms of savings and you ensure that that savings is utilized to pay again for the person so some of it is tracking and you do get to the end the next year and things have gone up in cost it's saved here and it's more expensive but this is what this was intended to do when we passed these resolutions it was to be reinvested in energy savings so it wasn't intended in our resolution to pay down other city expenses so let's be very clear on what we agreed to as the council you weren't on the council at that time Dave but it's what this council agreed to well it seems to Tom and Kevin it's priority we just need to prioritize this is anybody in DPW has the bandwidth to do this kind of work that has the ability and the bandwidth I think Kevin and Tom just need to hear that this is important for the council and that you gotta bake it into everything we do this is hard we invest in energy efficiency projects it's an ongoing I mean there are some things that we want to do but frankly there are very important projects for us but it's the tracking, it's the scoping it's the project management it's the project management scale of we don't have it passed and I think it's the scale of what we're asking Justin when he's gotta repair a traffic light he'll see to it that it's repaired and it's new LEDs and at this time he's changed out 80% of those lights and it's accrued to savings to the city and he's done it with his operating budget or his maintenance budget that doesn't have to be managed that's on its own self appropriate path and we're grateful that he's been able to do that to mount a big project like to manage changing out 300 city-owned street lights and changing them to LEDs that you can't manage on an ad hoc basis that requires analysis it requires putting RFPs out it requires you're already 80% complete right it says here that's traffic signals I'm talking about street lights we have switched out the ones that GMP owns the city owns over 300 street lights for example street lights out here there are 50 traditional city-owned that aren't changed out by GMP they're not LEDs yet it's up to us to change them there are at least 50 on San Remo that the city owns so what's the problem with developing a project to do that work it's time consuming I'm asking this guy because he owns the DBW and that's where the responsibility is right now Dave asked the question the energy committee would have you track all the savings and reinvest it in more savings and energy efficiency so it's a solid known concept Dave's saying well what do we do with the savings now well you put them into other things you put it into salaries, you put it into paving, you put it into every other because you're saving money on energy so you have to make a decision as a council, as a policy decision are we going to forgo the use of our savings wherever they're found in the union contracts in energy in retreading tires are we going to take this savings that they're talking about that's documentable you put it back into energy efficiency programs rather than the rest of the budget and now you'll have to increase property taxes just completing the loop here or finding revenue of some other way to fill the gaps on healthcare costs on personnel costs but it's a clear policy decision to make and if you want to make it because the model is there recognize though when Tom says healthcare costs are going up 7% and and that's going to be a burden on the property taxpayer you're not going to get the savings that these guys are generating to help pay for that so the council could make it I would offer that there are also middle of the road options that you don't have to commit 100% of the energy efficiency savings to a reinvestment you could pursue the possible path of a municipal lease saying you have 100 out of that 190 that you're going to do for efficiency we totally get that you guys have competing priorities we do that on the open space fund and we do it now on the rec pack we've already done that we've financed over 10 years also increased I mean I give what you're saying Kevin but I come back to the three resolutions this council passed and I also come back to this is a policy that was passed perhaps two or three years ago that is potentially paying for itself as opposed to pending for paths as opposed to the local options tax as opposed to all these other things that we're looking at and so I think that we have to think about what obligations that we have already signed on for right and either make good on those or admit defeat I think we have to have that kind of conversation that we can't meet that obligation that's what Kevin is putting out there it's just about how quickly you meet it that's what it is and whether you're willing to put money up front to do the big job right away changing it it's a smaller amount of money compared to other big things like pending for paths or the library I mean this is $40,000 a year and it's malleable so it's not locked in for 30 years so I think this is a priority for us it's more than $40,000 a year $40,000 is a person and then you need to have funds to favor the project but the solar reserve could be utilized to help doing this police so you have these you could call it pending for photons but it's not locked in for 30 years that's another big decision and then we probably should move on I've got this you're suggesting that if we can if we can figure this out for one year then the new funds that are generated and savings can carry forward and that we can allocate a percentage of that into reinvestment and still use and still use the funds that we've been using for other city obligations we just can't continue to load on to that because now we're going to take some of these new savings we're going to go on indefinitely and reinvest those into energy maybe one year off the top of my head is a rash assumption maybe it's one year two years for a payback period of putting somebody in place to manage this and accelerate our energy savings so we will save more so that some of it can be reinvested and then we can continue to support city functions with with a percentage of it as well because we kick it all into energy reinvestment then we do have to shortchange lots of other things but if we can not shortchange anything that we're paying for now and accelerate the savings and put those into a new spot that we're not going to touch for anything but energy then we should win but Kevin's correct if you if there's 300,000 or 200,000 dollars worth of energy savings coming in now and it's directed to pay pensions whatever and we're now asking that money is committed we're asking for money for a third of an FTE say that's 30,000 and we're asking for the full 90,000 from the solar reserve fund that's got to come from somewhere if if you can untangle the solar array from the library that's an easier one because the solar has been dedicated through resolution to right and the money is separated out I mean it's in a special fund so now we're talking finding 35,000 for a third of an FTE in the draft budget that was given to you this past weekend the stewardship fund was increased from 75 to 100,000 dollars so there's a 25,000 increase in that that you could designate for whatever purpose you want that would give you 25,000 dollars towards a third of a person if you so choose to do that Tom is that the fund that Justin also dips into to change the traffic signals I think he has a list of projects for the next year so we're going to steal from one side of the energy equation I'm just saying we're increasing it 25,000 the goal was to increase it 25,000 every year and we've always cut it back to 75,000 because we've needed to but this year it's still in there so there's potential to earmark that for a specific so if we take 200,000 that's currently being used for other things and we accelerate our savings to let's say 300,000 next year and you take that 200,000 and add to that whatever is a natural increase in expenses a percentage of that cost of living or whatever it's going to be and then we dedicate the rest to reinvestment that's a formula that should work because we'll then be saving stuff that we wouldn't be saving if we hadn't done this correct you're hired when we get to the budget we'll do it if that's what you would like we'll try to find the money and we'll see what the balancing act is the sweet spot there's no arguing that it works right it's bringing money into you and as Helen says Megan says you have three resolutions that might tell you to do this okay it's all good thank you that was a long five minutes I'm so sorry what else I just turned up the heat I didn't well I put my coat on so here's the copy the budget okay yes let's wait on the budget all right so let's since we've got some people in the audience waiting for item 17 if everyone is agreeable let's go from item 13 skip over 14 15 we've already eliminated 16 and go to 17 the IZ appointments and discussions related to committee memberships and possible amendments to the interim zoning work plan ten minutes let's do it okay so in my memo to you yes you have the committees nominations for the committees if you wanted to go ahead and discuss or approve those those are the committee suggestions and I have an additional one let me see where was the memo recommendations for appointments yeah okay so they are Andrew Chalnyk for the transfer of development rights committee he is from the energy committee Sam Swanson for the open space committee again a member of the energy committee I'm sorry those have not been that's a discussion that you need to have oh okay at the top of the weekly updates is it and that's the weekly I see natural resources committee Allison Chalnyk and Duncan Murdock recreation and parks bicycle and pedestrian Amanda Holland is that it planning commission Bernie Gaggin dog park committee Betty one city counselor the TDRs affordable housing committee economic development affordable housing has appointed Tom or has nominated Tom Bailey that's an addition to this that came in today economic development do we have anybody yes uh Michael no I'll get there in a second Albertson I think check with Kevin Michael Albertson Michael Albertson I'm sorry you're right I was at that meeting yeah Michael Albertson good okay and then we have Patrick Ryan for the public member of the public he is requested to be the public member we also have Vince Balduc who is requested to be a public member of I think open space yes so that's in the memo now unfortunately Patrick put in a he said he wanted to be on the PUD committee we don't have a PUD committee no TDR committee yeah oh that's right yes that's right he's just and I think he can go to all the planning commission meetings and they will listen to whatever comments he has because they're moving ahead on those so maybe that is just a clarification he needs because we did talk about that's what they were going to work on first so I think he got a little confused that that was an IZ issue although they actually think it will be helpful so do you want to yeah let's appoint all those people of those people to include what's not on your list Michael Albertson from the Economic Development Committee from affordable housing sure so the ones Allison, Duncan, Tammy Amanda, Bernie, Betty and then Michael Michael and Tom yeah I'll move to approve them well do we have the national public if they have any of them stay around for this point and then but then we have two more that have been recommended by the Energy Committee which is another conversation okay but we have this motion on the table so let's just do you get seconded? second okay any comment from the public? yes so I didn't get no members from South Burlington Land Trust we haven't gotten to that yet they haven't submitted a name I don't believe Vita she she was a while ago you're right you did Sophie Maso Vita Duncan Alan Strong sorry okay why don't we do this and then we'll take that up because we also have some from the Energy Committee this isn't the final we're not closing the door to additional ones just so we get we really know what we're doing we have the list okay so there's a motion to second are you ready for the vote? all in favor of all those names that we just listed from the different committees to serve for IZ committees I okay now we have two more members from public members I sort of from the South Burlington Land Trust is that well the original work plan did not accommodate specific other people it said that the committee the council may appoint other public members as needed so if you want to make that make that case and do that I mean that's something to do I just wanted to say that those more allocated positions in the work planning right but I know we did discuss the importance of having some public members and it may not have gotten included you know in the minutes in a way that was the conversation was a little more scattered than it should have been to be clear did we just appoint Vince Bolduke and so I mean I think having some additional people on these committees is always there's a benefit I mean it's a little harder to manage more people but I think they bring a good amount of thinking a variety of thought and a real cross section that's important I guess my thinking for the open space was really using the open space plan that came out of the previous IZ and really looking at it purely from a conservationist point of view and not you know a broad spectrum of perspectives and obviously there are different fields within conservation you know and so I guess that went behind the choice I didn't have the dog park committee originally but for that reason because of the conservation but I can you know see that Betty Militia is a fantastic person to be on it but for South Wellington and I've known her she's worked for the city in various things as a student doing studies of red rocks and Wheeler and she knows our city well she's been tracking animals she seems like a perfect fit and on the night of the hearing she volunteered herself to be on this committee I don't know Alan Strong I know the name Alan Strong and he wants to be on which one the open space did he apply he's been nominated Alan would be great I think he's the first dean in the emergency school I know him okay yes when you say that he's so I think those two people would be marvelous additions to open space Alan would be I mean they're public members with expertise what more could you want denying Vince Bouldock's request so not appointing Vince to the open space one my initial you know, purely from a position of expertise is what my thinking was. And not, that's what is the public one in general. It's more here's what this open space plan has listed as criteria for prioritizing these lands. And then you have people representing, you know, various, there are various things to consider in land conservation in open space. So who do we have on the open space committee right now? Allison, Charles Nick, Duncan Murdoch from Natural Resources, Tammy Zilka from Recreation and Parks, Amanda Holland from Bike and Ped, Bernie Gagdon from Planning Commission, Betty Malizia from Dog Park. And then you have an opening to appoint a counselor too. And that was what was previously authorized. And so you have those two that we just identified. Who was the other one, Allison Strong with one? Who was the other one?  So that makes seven and then, no, eight. And then if we have a council, that's nine. Nothing against Allen and Sophie, both great candidates in very in-depth perspective. They have got a lot of city history. I just would not want to turn Vince away. Vince has been, is this open space owner in South Burlington. He's been involved. He's a sustainable agriculture committee. He knows these things. So if he's ready to volunteer time, I would hate to turn Vince away. That's my only point. I think Vince Bouldook and Allen Strong are two very strong candidates. And I'd love to plug Sophie in somewhere else. She's perfect for open space. She's perfect for a priority. Ellen, why not have 10? Who says 10? I'm not opposed to 10. There you go. Let's do it. Then why even? Well, I just want to speak for Vince also from a historical perspective. I think he used to be on the head of the planning, or something, because I know years ago when we were interviewing Paul to come be director, and there was a sort of a community interviewing thing. He was brought in because of his historical participation in planning stuff. Yes, no, I, so I don't know if anybody else that has that long historical perspective. I agree. I'm wrong with another college professor anyway. That's right. As long as they're not all lawyers, we're probably they can come to an agreement. I agree with that. Well, I mean, right. I mean, he's, that's fine. I don't see his expertise, to be quite honest. But that's fine. I think what's in his history, though, is his background and his stick of longevity as part of the city. And he's one of 10. I hear you. I hear you. I mean, I think that's fine. So let's, let's add those three people. We have a motion for those three people. All in favor? Aye. Okay. So we have a group of 10 working on open space. That works to what they have. Oh, and then we need a counselor. Is there a counselor who's interested? We need counselors on open space, TDR as well? Yeah, I think so. And but not beauty, because that's planning. No, that's planning. Just those two things. Where's your expertise more on open space? I'm not going to attempt for TDR. I wouldn't be interested in it on me. TDR. I wouldn't mind being on the TDR. Can I hear it? Okay. And you would like to do open space? I'm TDR. Okay. Who? Who's open space? Megan. Megan. Perfect, of course. Well, then you're, and what about Patrick? We don't have a PUD. I think that was a misunderstanding of his. We wanted to have a developer on the TDR subcommittee. So can we just quickly ask it? Let me text him. Yeah, at 11 o'clock. Do you want to provisionally appoint him to the TDR? Yeah. Subject to his approval? Subject to his approval. Yes. I think that's a good. He's interested. He may not be, but he's interested. Well, yeah, on the TDR. On the TDR committee right now it's just Michael Miteg and. Michael Albertson. Michael Albertson. And Tom Bailey. And Tom Bailey. Oh, so we need to, and Tim Barrett. You're going to be on that. Yeah. And then the energy committee wanted, they have two people. Oh, they have someone for open space as well, Sam Swanson. And one to the TDR. Yeah, Andrew Chalman. The husband and wife. So do we want another, an energy person on open space? Well, you want a person with a lot of energy, I don't know. Exactly. What is Sam Swanson's background? God, everyone on that committee has a lot of expertise on energy items. Yeah. You're talking about TDR, not open space now, right? We've got 10. No, no, we got, no. I was going back to the energy, the energy committee requested two people. I mean, we don't have to take the request. They have someone for the TDR. We need some more people on TDR, correct? A member on the TDR committee that hasn't been filled, possibly Patrick O'Brien, that's correct. OK, he's the senior policy advisor, Pace Energy and Climate Center. That's Andrew Chalman. Sam Swanson. Oh, Sam Swanson. He's on the Vermont Clean Energy Board. Well, let's put him on open space and put Andrew Chalnik for the TDR committee. Are we, I mean, Vince worked on TDRs. I just, I don't know why he's, I don't know why he's not going for the TDRs. Well, maybe he has one or something. Maybe it'd be a conflict of interest a bit, you know? I'm hearing whispers in my ears about concerns about any biases that Andrew Chalman might have, is do you raise something last time? Is he the guy suing you? He and his wife live on no one farm road, I believe, right? And so I don't, when I ask directly, are you involved in any legal aspect of a challenge to the Dorset Meadows? She said, not me, not me anymore, but I don't know whether her husband is or not. And I just don't know. So, I mean. I've been told to find that out. I might, you might want to figure that out, because you don't want to disqualify any of the outcomes of this if there's a specifically vested individual or one specific project that might have an outcome. I think it'd be okay on TDR, maybe not the open space. I think they're kind of tied together. Well, he shellnecks on the TDR. TDRs affect that project as well. Do they not? Well, I mean, it's pulled out, yeah. You could speculate that the legal team is using, here Meadows would be applied to Dorset Meadows as well. I'm not far against him. I just felt like raising that since I was hearing some. But that could be, it could be cut off the past by the. I'd like, Chair, if you want to recognize Sue, I don't think it seems like she has something to say. I spoke at the appeal of the Dorset Meadows and spoke against what the DRB had done. In that appeal that was heard a couple of weeks ago.  Yeah, yeah. Right, but. So how does that relate to a conflict with it? Looking at how viable the TDR program is in the Southeast Quadroner and the city of South Burlington and what would be a better methodology, if any, of TDRs? If he's successful with his legal challenge, I'm guessing this has to do with Dorset Meadows, then that would then put the TDR changes under the purview of a body that he would be influencing. So it's since, I don't know, I guess that's where you're coming from on this. And I don't know these things. Thank you for that. Ready? Wouldn't that, I mean, if you looked at it that way, wouldn't that mean every single resident of the Southeast Quadroner has a conflict? Right. Because they're all living in this, they're virtually all living and receiving districts. Not every resident has contributed money to a legal fund. Just raising that point, right? So, I mean, there's room for discussion. Well, but still, how it comes out will affect landowners down there, whether they're involved in this suit or not, or could increase or decrease the value of their property. I mean, I guess. Yeah, I tend to agree with Sandy. I just don't think you, just because he's an activist, your decision, but it's. I'm not ready to support him, but I could after some more conversation and then have a lawyer tell us with some thoughts on this, so if we can want to appoint him next meeting or something, I'd be ready to appoint him next week meeting. Is that what people are interested in waiting? Is it Andrew Jellick to TDR? Yeah. Our lawyers say if there's a concern, I honestly don't have a real concern. How many people are on that committee? Five. So we've got plus that. You're interested in being on that committee. Yeah, we'll keep him in line. Oh, you didn't? I thought it was the TDR committee. There's a TDR committee. He'll keep him in line. You're on that committee. There you go. Yeah, I mean, I'm counting on you to maintain balance. So there we go. I don't honestly see it as a real. I know. There's some people on both committees that we've got checks and balances. It is a commitment. I'm not too concerned. That's exactly right. It's not a body of law. They're going to come back with recommendation. I mean, recommendations. That we can take relief. OK, so shall we appoint then Andrew to the TRDs and Sam Swanson to the open space? Are we OK with that? Sam Swanson's number 11 on open space. 10. No, he's 10. Oh, he's 11. That's like the legislative committee. 11. Perfect number. Did you say TRD or TRD? Did I say TRD or TRD? But it's after 11 o'clock. I'm just a slack. Let's kind of go slow down and stuff. I am trying to move this along. Let's have a vote. I'm not sure we want to go more than 10 on either committee. What do you think? It helps with quorums. I think it's after 11 and I got an early morning tomorrow. Oh, why? Let's just go the open space. Just not have Sam Swanson on the open space. Just go with Andrew on the TDR. Put him wherever he wants. Fine. Well, they recommended him for open space. So that's the question before us. We'll go with it. Save his legislative committee just like you said. They all work. Ah, it's an odd number. That's good. They're not. OK, some of them are. So we are going with I have a motion and it's been seconded. Right, Megan? Who's seconded? I didn't hear the motion, but I will second it. The motion is to add Andrew Chalnick for TDR and Sam Swanson for open space. Just vote no. I'll second. I'm going to abstain as I'm not familiar enough with the intricacies of the concern race. So I'm abstaining on Mr. Chalnick. We have a second. OK, so all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any, your what? Or say I'm a aye. We're doing them together. But we can do Sam alone. OK, we got five for Sam. And now Andrew Chalnick. Aye. Aye. David, aye, aye. And you're abstaining. OK. Is that all the appointments we have? I think it is. All right, please let it be so. All right. Good, we definitely. What are you doing with Patrick O'Brien? I'm going to reach out to Patrick. I'll see if he'll. He's on the TDR. To the TDR, right? Provisionally, he has to agree to it. Yeah. OK, let's go back to the general fund budget overview. Yes? The memo from the regional plan commission. Right. And the affordable offering that is very, right out there. I think we may have to. The centrum zoning work plan. I think they have a lot of time. Yeah, they want $15,000. So I think. And they can give $800 to $100 to the inclusionary. Yeah. And they won't need to do this. And call it set $60 to $80. The lead rule if needed. OK. So I guess the question is then, is it worth $5,000? I would say yes. And this is where I come to my committee follow-up report. I don't know if you want me to report it now. It appeared in the minutes. And as I stated, and I misstated, that the 2050 transportation plan called for, and I'm quoting the minutes, and I was quoting myself, 25% increase in population, but it's actually of traffic on I-89. And Charlie wrote back with more details about that. So you don't have to change the minutes. I'm now fulfilling my role by giving you more specific information. So 25% increase in traffic on I-89 is forecast between now and 2050. The county-wide population will increase 12.78%. The number of jobs is forecast to increase 35%. And the number of households, 25%. So that's very interesting. So we're getting smaller households. So when we think about this opportunity to include in this time of interim zoning some focus on getting inclusionary zoning in these transit overlay districts, when we look at the forecasted population, smaller households, that would make sense. That type of housing would fit the needs that are going to be rising here in the next 30 years. So if we have apartment buildings going up, it would be nice to have some affordable housing in them. Is there a proposal here? Well, we're looking at the Charlie Baker came back with. Charlie Baker's thing. Same, 17, the work plan. This really isn't, we were talking about, yeah, but we're only, the agenda item is appointments and discussion related to committee membership and possible amendments to the interim zone work plan. And that references your note that was like who is going to be assigned. There's a simple one, yeah. It did not, Megan, include agreeing to the CCRPC their capacity. I think we need to discuss this, but I think we're going to have to hold off till January. Does this really need us to weigh in on? I mean, it seems like small change. My understanding is that the last meeting that I was not at, CCRPC and ask what kind of support they could provide for IZ projects. And that we could get it tonight to act on it was my recollection. This seems so small enough that Kevin and Tom could just do it. I mean, but sure, I support this, but let's move on. I don't think we need us. I think Kevin and Tom. Well, I just want to say it's not just affordable housing. I mean, $15,000 for all the work. And I guess what they need is do the contract. Is what they need from you is because time's marching on. Yep. I support it. All the other work that we support. Well, I guess the question is this is, is the 15,000, does that include the inclusionary zoning too? Yes. Oh, okay. That's the land use bylaw housing. That's 140, okay. Inclusionary zoning. So this is $15,000 for the technical assistance that Paul says he needs. Yes. Is that something that you find in the budget? Do you need us to? Well, we're gonna have to, we've also reached out to an economist to help with the cost benefit analysis. So there will be some expense associated with this. Where that comes from, I'm not exactly sure. We need this is what you're saying. Well, I mean, that's all he asked for. Paul suggested that he really needed the help. So I think this is a nice offer. And to the extent that the council is agreeable that at 50 bucks an hour, that seems pretty good. I think Paul was very pleased with the. Yeah, so I think we should take Charlie up on that. And I guess you need to let us know where you find the money. And we'll make those arrangements. And then you will get back with us when we can figure out you're talking with someone now about the financial impact analytics. So we'll have a full picture of what this will cost. So I think this is great and tells Charlie thanks. Okay, so now we can go back to the overview of the general fund budget. So I know you've received a tremendous amount of information in your back. It's getting late here too. I think what I'd like to focus on is it's within your guidance, it's at 2.84% right now although the chair of the GMT board tells me that their assessment hasn't come through yet and it's going to be higher than what's in the budget. So there's a little bit more money going into that. Tom will know within the next few days and we'll plug that figure in. It's kind of a work in progress. It's based on a 1.25 growth in the grand list which Todd is comfortable with. Last year was it 3.25%? Yes, yeah. And we ended up with significantly more than that. So we feel good about what's being proposed. I think I'd like to just encourage you to look through it as you have time at this busy time of year and as you have questions to feel free to funnel them to me, I'm happy to respond to anything I have for tonight. Don't get me wrong, but I know you're probably getting tired too. So if you want to email it to me, if I don't have the answers, I'll make sure I get the answers from the managers and get you the information you need. Because part of the session on January 7th, council meeting will be the working session on the budget.  All the managers will be here and I think I'd like to spend any capacity that you do have tonight, just getting your thoughts of what would be most meaningful to you. Is the traditional way of having them come in and just kind of go through their budget the best or what kind of interaction would you prefer? Well, quite honestly, after reading what you have shared and said, I don't think we, personally, I don't need to hear from everybody about everything, just significant innovations, changes, or adjustments. I don't need to hear from a single item, just the highlights. What is it that you should know, we should know that might be different, that we might want to have an opinion on, not the everyday stuff. That's helpful. That's my... I would like to present and have the department heads here in case you have a specific question for them. That might be good. That'll be much better. You're pretty concise. That's fine. I just thought, you know, here's this department and here is a significant change or difference or everything's status quo from last year. We haven't made any major changes and it's operating well and we're going to go check. I honestly... Well, feel free to reach out to me with any questions, concerns, or whatever. Well, it's a work in progress and but I'm happy to take whatever, whatever you have tonight for questions as well. Right now you're saying 2.84 GMT? 2.84 increase in the tax rate. Or GMT. That's a... Yeah, yeah, so it will go up slightly. There's, I think I built in 3%. Well, they cut four bus routes out, then it would... If that's a segue to our board, I'd be happy to give one on GMT. We used to have financials, you want to talk about? Okay. I'm sorry. We have October, November financials. Were there any questions that people had? I read through them and I didn't have any questions. All right, I mean, the ones that are off are usually are things that you pay twice a year so it's like the percentage is weird. I didn't have to go through. The energy raise announcement. GMT's having a really rough budget year and we're looking at a million dollar shortfall and we are approving the budget tomorrow. So it's translating to expected increase in assessments to our member communities. We're also cutting service. We're also looking at fair increases. So I'll have a lot more to report. On the bright side, we are finally seeing ridership to increase after about four years of steadily declining ridership. But I'll raise a couple questions as well for personal issues. So that's where he's talking about it. I've been working to get him that number but we have had some very difficult decisions to make and we are coming to a conclusion on one. We will have that number by Friday. Close of the day. So a million dollar shortfall. We already pay half a million just under. Brunham pays like $6.50 or something. Everyone else's. 88 ridership was down last year so it might balance out. What's their total budget? How much? $2.20,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. Something about 5% though. That's big. All right, well, okay. I'll order a report next meeting. So I'm snuck it in but go ahead. All right, so are there any other questions on the October, November financials? Yeah, we're in good shape there. So you have both months. We're at 60% revenue, 45% on expenses and still a lot to be done. Still got winter to go. We'll see. We'll have three times in November and that gets me nervous. December's been better. I called state tax to find out if Target's forwarding money and they won't tell me. Can't give planning on purpose for that. I have another call scheduled with a superior person who haven't called them back yet. I just want to know that the pipe is boiling. That's all I want to know. Are they remitting anything? Because I don't know that they are. You don't know that they are. When you get your next check. We should have Tim come down with us when we make that appointment to the state. I think you should come with us. It's a phyton down there, it really is. Are we going to do announcements in the city manager's report? Let's skip the announcements. Do you have a big report? I do, but it's nothing that's earth-shattering and I'll put it in a memo. Okay, because the other memo was great. Yeah, I love those maps. They're really great. Those are very helpful. They're really, very helpful. I don't think she saw that. So, other business, we got, I have a copy of this naming rights policy and I just, I think it's something that would be helpful at some point to review. I send it out to everybody, so you all have it. Yeah, for buildings. I just think it might be good to look at. Light bulbs, light bulbs, I don't know what to do. What do you mean you say? The Tim Bernlake bulb, LED. Ambulances, fire trucks. Or Megan Ambulance. Over the Adirondack, everyone was named after somebody. Yeah, it gave money, put their name on the ambulance. Well, you want to put that on the bike rack thingy? At the bottom? Elaborate the naming rights policy. I don't know, how soon will that be coming up? For naming? Yeah. Well, I mean, it probably doesn't have to be done on January 7th, but I think before we get too far along with people saying, I want my name on something, I think it would be good to have a policy. And it might be helpful in informing to the library. Maybe the second meeting in January, the first one in February, we're not sure. Yeah, I think that's fine. The other thing, and we can do the signage some other time, it's just a pet peeve and I'd like to know what we, you know, if there's a process that would work more effectively. Who's filling in for Ray Belair right now? Because it's usually he who did that. Our new zoning administration. Okay, because Ray would drive around. And then Tim has a tiny issue. Tiny. I've had a complaint from a non-resident, a working, you know, an employment resident at all groups. The parking on both sides of Green Mountain Drive during the daytime has constricted traffic so much that it seems unsafe to him. And he doubts whether an emergency vehicle could navigate easily. Green Mountain. Oh, Green Mountain. Yeah, it's between Heritage and Willie Racine. Oh, that whole street. And I'm not sure why everybody's parking on it. This must be some reason. Okay, Megan had sort of the issue that Jimmy Lee's raised. The governance of the National Guard and do we wanna, as a community, you know, write a letter maybe, or something, you can talk about it to our legislators to say, please, we want some better oversight. It's concerning, or maybe it's not. I don't think that's something we can address, 1120. Oh, no, just do you wanna put it on a future agenda? Should we put it on a future agenda? Helen Head supported it. I talked. They vote in February. John Colackey. For the new, for the new commander. Supported it. And really, it's intended, I mean, I come at this as someone who has seen in our fine place of work, cultures that sometimes go sour, and it took going to the boss of the boss to make things change for the better. And I was very disheartened to hear the governor say that he didn't see any need to do anything more. I'm glad to see that there's a will in the legislature, but I just, I think that there is a place for the commander-in-chief here. And it's not only my opinion, I've been hearing from constituents and people who are very concerned that this this limited response is not sufficient. So talking with Helen, she encouraged me to not, Helen Head, right? To not only contact the Senate pro tem and the House Speaker, but also to talk to the majority leaders in both houses, to write to the chair of the Senate Sexual Harassment Committee, Jeanette White, the vice chair of general housing and military affairs in the House, Representative Thomas Stevens, in addition to the governor, in order to discuss governance. Now, Jimmy Lee's brought up T.J. Donovan. That did not come up in my conversation with Helen Head. But I think that what we saw from Martha Rainville's, the former adjutant general's interview with the VT Digger was that a lot is delegated to the wing commanders. And so I think that this is a leadership issue. I really just, culture is not just bottom-up apples because a leader can squelch it like that. That's just, that's the power of a good leader. So you're asking whether the council might think about a resolution to ask the legislature to move on this? And the reason why is I think that as a council, we have had some experience with the guard leadership. And I think that they've maintained a decorum, but at the same time, I think sometimes they have not been the most forthcoming with the council about information that we've needed. And so when we see that there has been perhaps some dismissal of important items in other areas, it's something that I've seen in our relations. So I, that's why I don't wanna be, you know, just, you know, what do I wanna say? This isn't gratuitous. I think that this council has had some frustration. You think that's because the airports in South Burlington, I mean, it seems to me the National Guard, it's Vermont National Guard, it's the state. My general perception would be that's a legislative, we elect our representatives to the legislature to represent us in all things state and let them deal with it. You know, it's kind of like us getting involved with the nurses or involved with this, or if we can get involved with absolutely everything. My general thinking is just that's a state, let the legislature deal with it. I honestly have not read most of this. I just haven't had time in the last couple of weeks for the end of the term. Well, if you read the VT Digger articles, I mean, specifically on the legislative response. Yeah. One of my good friends is Bill Stenger. He's an Indian who's a meat grinder, totally unnecessarily and inappropriately. I don't have a whole lot of use for them. Well, I'm just talking about quotes from Senator Dick Mazda, for instance, and another senator who said, you know, none of their constituents have contacted them and so they don't see a need. And so I think that we're constituents and I think that the constituents can do anything. I'm not sure as a council, but again, it's now 1130, we can't do this tonight. No, no, no, but. Well, I think the question is, do you want to discuss this at a later date or discuss it off, you know, with each other? I mean, it seems to me, we all have the option to write a letter that says to the legislature, you really need to dig into this and when certainly when you select the replacement. But that's what I'm saying. I would hope our legislators, that's what we're elected them to do. So I don't even feel I have to write to them. That's what they're supposed to do. The only effect we have. The democracy. We can, I'm not going to that. We can have individual effects, but the only other effect we can have a city council is whether or not to renew their liquor license next time. Do they have one? Come on, we got a question. We just renewed it. So my question is, you know, every liquor license has to go through a process where the chief of police or somebody has to give an okay. Some of the insinuations in the Digger article say that there is excessive consumption that occurs there. I mean, if that's true and that's in violation of DLC laws, right, then something needs to be done. So one question is, and I asked Kevin earlier today, is there a process for revoking a liquor license that we've okayed? And I'm just curious whether or not we have to do that. So that's a question that I'm going to let you explore with the lawyer, because I just don't know what the rules are. I think that's a fair question. It is a very fair question. And it's in our city. Yeah. And they're driving home from work. Right. And I think that we do have. Every other drinking establishment in South Burlington is governed by rules the state has. I don't know if the state has jurisdiction even at the V-Tank base or not. So it's a valid question to ask. And maybe we need to ask it. Okay. Is that, Kevin? Well, I think the liquor license that processes through the city is for the officers club or the enlisted officers club. It's not the, that was not the subject of these articles in there. What was the subject was this other facility within the wing that was separate facility. Oh, really? That's my understanding. They have two bars on top. Well, there's the official one and then there's perhaps an unofficial one. Great. And I don't know that for certain but that was my perception. Okay. I don't know either. This discussion is deteriorating. We've, Kevin has two small items. Those are the facts, man. Oh, one was the, one was the, you took care of on the war. Okay. I don't remember what the other one was. Okay. Okay. So I guess we're done. Emotion, we have emotion. Do you remember? Yeah. Oh, okay. We already did that. All right. Motion to adjourn. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Happy New Year. Merry Christmas. Happy New Year. Happy whatever. Happy belated high. January 7th is our next meeting. Correct? Yes. Bye, Barb. Bye, Barb. Barb's service is watching. Sure. Barb's service. Thank you. You're welcome. Ha, ha.