Good to have you back for what happens to be our 184th episode of Think Take Hawaii's Human-Humane Architecture that is looking above and beyond our horizon of our islands of Hawaii to other parts of the world where we can learn something from. And we do this once again, me, your host Martin Despeng from Tempered Germany. And our guest is once again in hot arid and at this time of the year also cool in the nights, Larry Medlin in Tucson, Arizona. Welcome back, Larry. Thank you, Martin. Good to have you back.  And we want to look at a more spidery way potentially of making buildings. And you're a perfect expert for that. So we have great feedback from the audience as well. One of your students, Christopher Wilkinson, has been reaching out to us and saying hi and appreciating what we're doing. And he also gave us great, you know, viewer audience feedback.  But you actually met him and thanks to Christopher reminding us of saying that sharing you met him earlier. And that was where and when Larry. I met him when he was a guest professor at the University of California and Berkeley in 1962. It was myself and a class of fellow students about 12 or 13 other students. And as part of that, he had just built in Germany a wooden continuation of his work with the lattice grid shell. And we built one with steel rebar in Berkeley in the courtyard of the architecture building, a beautiful old historic building with a courtyard. And we built it out of steel. And we built the suspended model and a wire mesh model and measured that and built the structure. But as we went through the process, we had some problems because it was a little bit too large in scale. So we had to sort of collaborate as a team and discussions with Fry Otto. What we decided to do was make it one one sort of bay or smaller and then put a reinforcing member around the edge. And so that's all of us got to know Fry, but he was also very pleased at how we sort of understood his process and contributed and made some a major resolve and working about that part of the process of solving that. He was really happy with what we were able to accomplish there collaboratively. And he sort of extended a general invitation to all of us to come visit Berlin if we were ever over in Europe. And I accepted that. And so I ended up going there. And that's where what we had talked about in one of the last shows, we started working on things together in Berlin. And that's where I built the slide you can see on the image on the right, which is the first iLoop model. That was the stuff that I started working on. We had discovered you could do a simple iLoop. And then the question was how you could develop that on an actual structure. And when we got that built in this slide that you see on the right, we wanted to know exactly sort of how it performed, how it related to the skin. So what you see here is a model that if you look very carefully at the left side of that model, you see the frame, the bottom of a frame. And that frame had horizontal chord lines about physically about an inch and a quarter apart. So when the sun was shining from the left of that image, you see it cast a shadow on the model. And so those shadow lines, when you had it aligned perfectly and perfectly parallel to the base and so forth, which took some doing, you received the contours that you see on the left side where it's coming. And then it actually shines through. And you see in the transition zone, it's a little bit dark, but you also begin to get a suggestion of the contour lines on the right side of the backside. And what we were interested in was looking at how those worked. And if you look very carefully, you can see that there's more lines on the upper part because that's the upper part of the eye loop. And they start out flat and they get to be a stronger curvature as you progress down. And one of the interesting things we learned was that there's a little bit of a flattening out as it went in the edge arcs going around the perimeter and so forth. And so that was just to allow us to explore and have some more specific information about that form and what we could think and use it for in our later work on the project. Yeah, and you were, then you made these models and then you spent some considerable time to document them, photodocument them. And we picked this here from the ZKM in Karlsruhe, that picture here, which illustrates perfectly when you had said he was almost like an acrobat on some sort of apparatuses up there. And this is portraying that pretty perfectly here, how that kind of worked. You also felt a little bad that you have been talking a lot about what you've been doing in the Berlin-Bahazian box, but we also wanted to say at least give a little bit of a hint what he was doing in there. And that's going to be of extreme importance more towards the end of the show. And that's what we therefore see Seymannas very small and too small, but explain a little bit as an appetizer what that is, Larry, what Frey was working on very early in his career. He set up his development center for lightweight structures in Berlin under his own effort and initially his own expense before he got some brat money and so forth later. And he did a series of publications. This is actually the one in the little strip in the bottom is actually publication number eight that he did in that series. And it's where he talked about the three-dimensional space nets and the whole theory and development of that, that will be a foundation and basis for the project that you and your students will be doing later as you proceed with your project to explore that thing. So more about that later. So go to the next slide and recap a little bit from top left to bottom right. You started out with the soap films, then you did what we just saw, the single eye loop, then we see at the top right, the multiple eye loops. Then we see the research demonstration building at the bottom left and then we see the competition model at the bottom right. This is what we're talking about. And now let's go to the next slide and move on from here because there's a DD, a design development model of Larry Ryan. Yes, that was after we had won the competition and we knew that we're able to sort of proceed with the study and the process. I worked and again, we should mention that Herman Kendall in Rolf Goodbert's office was also working on the planning and the layout and the adaptable exhibit system and so forth. So we are working of course with the logical structural geometries and the forms for the cable net structure, but also we were doing that interactively with how it would relate to what was Rolf Goodbert for turn as the terrestrial landscape or the exhibition landscape that would come later. And so this is the final model, the final I would say design development model, and that was taken from Rolf Goodbert's office. And the reason I know it's Rolf Goodbert's office was that he was near the center of Stuttgart where he was up in the foothills a little bit. So we found this wonderful site where we could photograph that across the valley of Stuttgart, which is a valley town and see the ridge of the other side of the valley there. So that's how it looks. And this begins to be much more precise in terms of the final dimensions and so forth. And it really established the geometry from what we already talked about in the lower left there, the wire measuring model that was built based upon the forms and that final model that was the next step was developing that and becoming much more precise in the forms and the shapes and detailing and so forth. Yeah, but also I think this is something that Christopher Wilkinson was pointing out too that in this year specific lightway way different than in more sturdy stony as someone calls it later, which we will get to conventional architecture where the architectural models each stage, you know, then it's going to differ quite a bit and sort of the thing my professor in school, by the way, Professor Schweger always said, I don't trust this model, it lies. But these models here don't seem to lie, right? They're pretty honest because they're basically simulating the real deal, right? And that's why we have this amazing. It doesn't work structurally, you're in big trouble. I mean, it will physically look awkward and you can see it's not stressed. There'll be areas where the membrane is not stressed and that's the whole part, it's getting it equally stressed throughout and last oriented properly and so forth. Yeah, that's why you have this amazing sort of synchronicity between the different scales and although they develop and they become more refined, you can see that the idea stays consistent all the way through and let's go back to the construction side to the next slide and look more into that Larry. Well, that's when we were actually in the construction process. That's actually when we were raising up that cable network, actually hoisting it up and beginning to pull it out around the perimeter. And if you look through that, you can see one of the themed pavilions in the background and it actually, that curving line is the monorail that actually came fairly close around the perimeter of the outside of the German pavilion when it was finished. And talking spiders versus elephants, you said that you strategically chose the density of the cables so that you could basically save on scaffolding and basically have the netting as a scaffolding and people like spiders crawling up on it and doing the construction, right? Well, yeah, that network is literally, it would work like a ladder as you see those people climbing right up to, but at a half a meter there's no really imminent danger that you fall right to. I mean, you theoretically could if you tried, but it allows you to walk up and if you slip, you'll have something to grab on to and so forth. So that resulted in half inch cables and the other benefit of the half inch cables was that you could take the segments of the cable network which are joined together in various strip pieces and roll them up like a carpet and put them in crates and shift them over to the Montreal site and lay them out on them and connect them and get them all prepped to raise it up the one that's time to do that. And on the right side is a glimpse of the finished pavilion which we will get to more into what else we see there, but we just want to say it looks very much like once again almost like a model, right? And you have an artificial sky up there which maybe we'll go to the next slide and we see this under construction here, Larry, right? The canvas being installed. That's underneath. You can see the whole sort of process there. You can see the steel cable network is there. That's after we've done the pre-stressing and pulled it taught. You can see that the eye loop looks like it's being pulled by the cables around the perimeter equally. And then you see the membrane being assembled in the first segments of that being raised up. And then we had like a universal joint that could slide across the grid of the net or up and down and left and right. So you could bring the, there were, if you look carefully in the canvas, you'll see there's these spring-like loop things and that's what distributes the load. And so the connector piece was brought from the cable network and oriented to exactly to meet that point so that you could make that connection. We also see in the background which, you know, you guys did the landscaping as well and you see this kind of cascading downstairs there and this was actually then later all filled with water and became a pond ride and people were just sitting there and relaxing. And also you wanted to talk about how many entrances pavilions have and how many years had, right? Well that was the thing about the German pavilion and we'll see that later when we look at some of the plan drawings. You could enter it all along the main walkway which went across one side of the pavilion. There were a couple of points where you could enter there and you could also go out alongside and walk out a sort of a ramp and an edge that came there. So there are three or four different points which you could enter the pavilion. And ironically that made it one of the most popular pavilions simply because of that fact. All the other pavilions had only a main entrance and there were big huge long lines at the main entrance and because we had multiple lines, you know, it was easier to get in and there was nobody waiting at those lines and people could flow through easily. The only thing that happened you mentioned that what we're looking at here that's the low point and later water was introduced that was a pond area that ironically became one of the most popular places where people would come take off their shoes and sort of relax and cool off a little bit. And at first people sort of said oh I don't know about this you know but then they realized it you know it enabled people to sort of just relax and sit there and look at the pavilion and observe it and watch the people moving around. So there are two low major low points like that with the fountain areas inside the pavilion and those became very popular spots. Very Lauren's hope Renny it feels to me. And you were talking about wooden grid shells and don't we see one in the front here? That's that's the grid shell and in fact Christopher Wilkinson asked me the question, did you use any catenary lines like Gowdy used to use and what you did? And we actually did a catenary model to develop the shape and form for a grid shell or modern catenary line which was a fine it wasn't with weights hanging from a net but it was a fine jeweler's chain system that triado found and developed that we could make the suspended form and develop that. And so there was actually about an 80 foot by 50 foot area that was a main auditorium and then wrapping around sort of three edges three edge positions of that was another much smaller diameter grid shell that served as a foyer and there was a beam in between those with glass so it's like a big window you could come into the the foyer or the lobby area look through the glass and if you liked what was going on in the auditorium which was actually a slightly lower level below there was a stair off to the left where you could go in and go and then join the proceedings there or you could walk back out and not disturb the people so that was one of the reasons and the logic for that. And just before the show we were looking forward we said we wish there would be a maybe an even better picture of the grid shell and thanks to Dome publisher Natasha Moyza and her great book about your pavilion we found one and let's go to the next slide and what do we see and who is the married guy on the right side? The that's Friano sitting there and with his shoulders and looking at it with glasses on the left floor that's Eberhard Hauke who was the engineer that worked with us and you know we haven't mentioned him but he was really a critical member that did all the attention gauges and later went on to Berkeley and got a PhD under studying there under TY Lin and he developed the first set of analysis patterns for tensile membranes that later went on and were used for things like radial tires and then he finally added compression to them and was able to do automobile crash test analyses and even leading up to the point where they could mimic surgical procedures because working with human skin that's that's a tensile membrane so it's amazing the work that he was able to do based upon that start but to answer your question that's Friano and on the back rim that's Jochen Schoeling who was in charge of the shop at the institute and then of the character on the right that's a portrait of my posterior there of me standing over there Friano and I were talking about where at one point in this which was a mock-up in a lumber yard outside of in the suburbs of Stuttgart and it's a complete and exact mock-up of a concrete wall that's built in Montreal what was being built and was actually nearing completion in Montreal and it was fabricated to the same dimensions and if you look on the left of the slide you see a quarter-round piece of wood that's actually was the same wood that was then later taken to Montreal mounted on the top of that wall and in the because of the quarter-round the grid shell outches could come in and meet that at various angles and then it was screwed to that so that's that's what you see there and in the corner there there was one area where one of the things was at a very steep curve and a crack and we were just discussing about how you could take that and splice that splice that in the fair that so that's what we're all talking about there at that moment and the little picture we put up there that at the top left is that this was a precursor of his fantastic multi-hullet in Mannheim some years later in the early to mid-70s right and let's go to the next slide and we did a little show quotations from last time up there because you were talking about error and trial and trial and error and you were there drill not supposed to use a power drill and you ripped the whole netting apart and then when Frye and the Germans officials were there there was something happening that you saved the scene and this continued to the actual construction right so the sort of prototyping never ends right tell us that story that's actually true when we are erecting the steel cable network and there were concrete anchor blocks that had slots in them and the edge cables which were two inch diameter cables came down and they they ended in a cast shell that was down below that that you could screw into it one in and pull that to tension the structure and and those were dropped into those slots and the slots were straight up as they were supposed to come down into the low point or the ridge cable or whatever was coming into them and at one of the low points when we were erecting it it and the process of putting it up that one of those things got pulled really too hard far to the right and it actually broke that concrete fin off because it was you know what it was intended only to come straight down there and so what we had to do was overnight we fabricated a little steel plate and both of that anchorage back together so we could use it and everything was good but as you said it's an iterative process and we found things to check and refine as we went through the process all the way through and just as a reference at the very center and middle in the front is that little blob of the of the auditorium that we were just talking about before right yeah that's basically it was it was covered with the quarter inch sheet supply wood that were nailed to the grid lattices they were quarter inch because we could we actually cut them and out of four by eight sheets and we had two foot by eight foot sheets and then they were flexible enough that we could sort of warp them and make them fit the curvature for those small pieces of course offset them and then then we put an insulation layer over that which also had thermal value but also acoustically isolated isolated the auditorium and then we covered that with the son of what was a grayish green membrane on the outside to enclose that space so what we're actually looking at is the the auditorium part in the the lobby part would be to the left of that slide absolutely and on the on the top right we see again a study model of the membrane and once again isn't the sort of parallel to the to the finished product absolutely amazing unlike in conventional architecture where as we said you don't have that to that degree and let's go to the next slide we have a couple minutes left left and look at the sort of the other effect so while the daylight was able to come through the the translucent membrane and make it feel almost like you're you're outside right when in one trail there's a lot of overcast skies and it feels like it's a cloudy day and you're outside and that reverse effect when there's light on from inside these are glowing and become these kind of you know glowing e-glues because there's actually some snow down there on the ground because the expo started and went through the summer but then in Montreal gets cold fast in the towards the end of the year so you were hitting snow right if i can add that the actually the provision was winter rise but in the foreground of this pillion you see a wall that went all the way around the perimeter and on the top of that wall there was place to connect a little strip of membrane so that connected to a flap on the underside of a pavilion so the pavilion was fully enclosed so you actually the passive solar gain sort of heated it up in the winter and the heat was kept in the pavilion it wasn't allowed to ventilate out in the top which would it did in the summer of course in the summer which was the time of expo those little filler flaps were taken out and the air could come up through that and went up and was exhausted out the top of the mass and that allowed the hot air to pass out through the top and so the cool air stratified down below in the exhibit area that was occupied by the exhibit visitors or going to the restaurants or the various or the auditorium or the various other facilities that were located in the pavilion at that level and as we were quoting previous our previous shows at the top right this all you were basically already prototyping and testing at the il research prototype project right that's that's correct and that's what we also mentioned in the last show that that after the expo was over we came back and got some grant funding and developed that with a wooden lattice system for a permanent roof recloser with a shingles on the outside before we have to head out because we got two minutes left let's go to the next next slide and very quickly look look at the plan and I I want you to I quote up there from this website Otto began building lightly as a counterpoint to the stony grandiosity of Nazi architecture this largest picture there is an oddity to that regard right and we probably cannot finish that funny little detail but let's get started on that Larry well people somebody magazines are around the world said that the german pavilion was designed to represent the height of the nazi arc like the tallest mass was Berlin and the second tallest mass was Munich and so forth and that was summarized in time magazine those series of articles and and actually the basis for the design was me a non-german an american making the final sort of decision and the logic of the pavilion of the pavilion is there's a large square in the foreground that you can see that has four mast and ridge cables running diagonally through the middle of that and then a smaller square on the right and that's the one that leads up to the auditorium area and then we also wanted it to those were it you know the like on the left on the other looked out over with the western areas and the monorail going past in the back and so forth but we also wanted to pull out and go to allow people to experience this in the garden area so we stretched that out across over to what later the water is not there now but this would become an island that was over there and you could go out and see that relationship into the garden well people flew over and helicopters and photographed it you know from all directions they even said the garden island was represented the the danish peninsula in europe and so forth that was one of those kind of things that was ironic that that you know american working on that and making those sort of final decisions as to the exact collaboration of course in collaboration with discussions with raya on hermit kendo for the logic of that but the structural logic was that i mentioned the two sort of rectangles that were offset and then an extension out to the garden area lucky he was to have had you on the team for multiple reasons i wrote her a bottle into i i think it was time magazine and they printed that and they printed that story which was very nice mm-hmm well again how ironic we will later point out the motivation the kind of humanist you know motivation fry hat and and to that regards this is a very sort of ironic well we're at the end of our 28 minutes again larry and we look forward to have you back next week for more so thank you again for these exciting insider stories thank you martin it's really enjoyable that we visit these days and think about them and brings back a lot of interesting and a lot of very happy memories yeah pleasure and honor on our side larry okay so until then you all stay healthy and happy and be increasingly spidery just as larry and fry see you next week bye bye


o work to supplement and increase what's available, both on the social and on the sports. And so it does take sitting down the negotiation and the city saying we feel strongly about this and and you work it out. I don't see anywhere that the city has rented a space and done an RFP. I feel like we've pushed this off and pushed this off. And I feel that a short term lease is not bypassing anything with public input for the long term planning. It'll be four years before we start digging folks, and three year lease to me is totally reasonable. I, I, I totally respect the public process, and it'll be there it'll be happening while we're meanwhile, we have, and I think one of the things of them mentioning three penny and getting them is a place that we feel that we've seen its behavior in town. We've seen its success like bar hill. And so to me that's like, Oh, that's a good source to have out there. And again, everything that's come back when they've made list of games here, but in their memos, lots of detail. So if you go back and read their memos that they've given us, there's lots of possibilities there, but they also want to stay fluid to what we want. So, I feel we're expecting too much concrete from them. Because on the other hand, we don't want anything concrete. So I will not support an RFP. Connor. I don't really like pose the RFP idea, but I'm also cognizant, you know we table this like a month ago when you were pretty clear with us that you're on a timeline. And it may be changing the rules of the game as we go along here. Could you talk a little bit more about your timeline and what if an RFP were issued like next week or something and we didn't have to approve it. The nice council meeting but we gave staff the discretion to sort of form that with some input from us. You might just like talking about the timeline office. Well, the timeline is we would like to have a three year lease. That's basically what we're asking for. And we want to be involved in the recreation part of it. We have been ready to go for quite some time, even before the city bought the property we were ready to go in December of last year. And so we have loans lined up we have a grant lined up. We have to use the grant this year if we don't for childcare if we don't use the grant this year. We lose it. It's a three year grant. We need to get three penny is not interested in waiting any longer they need to be in before Christmas. All of our fundraising with that we started we had to put on hold because this the situation has been put on a pause. It just, you know, and and the issues of the getting these virtual game equipment in there. All of these are removable things are not things that and even when three penny goes in there bringing their own equipment in this is not going to be something that is going to be permanent equipment if if at the end of the lease decisions made, you know, the hub isn't going to be in there anymore, they can move all their equipment out. They need to get in there by Christmas and they need a place that they need to go if they can't get in there by Christmas, we may not. They would have to make that decision but they've made it fairly clear to us very clear to us that they need to be in there by November 1. Carrie. I had a question for bill how what's the fastest turnaround from tonight that we could do the RFP process. We had some, you know, I'm going to count on Mike and or Cameron to interrupt me. If I get this wrong. I think the biggest struggle with the biggest challenge with any RFP, and I will answer your question, but I got is knowing what you're going to do. So we could ask for just highest bidder, you know, who wants to make proposals to use this space and how much will you pay for it we could say we want proposals that include a recreation component and childcare component. We could say make us a proposal that shares space with this, you know, so, so a lot of it depends on what we're asking for and that will change the market for who's interested is what what we put into it. So if there was clarity about what we want to ask for, we could probably get an RFP out pretty quickly. I think our RFP writers are all three of them are in the room. Josh, Mike and Cameron so, you know, again, but, you know, you want to give so good, but we also have three weeks till the next meeting not to. Maybe we could have responses maybe they come in right before the you know I maybe you I mean if you want to know the absolute quickest, but that would be that would not give people much time to respond. And it would not you know it would mean we have to lightning get one out the door right I mean, please tell me I'm wrong here I'm making. So you get to Friday right. So I mean that's but I mean those are all you know you got it, you got to post it, you get you get to find what you're asking for what the terms of submission are like what we're looking for. And then we've got to, you know, presumably some people would want to toward the space I mean that we could manage give a period of time for people to prepare I think these folks, you know what they want so they'd be able to prepare something for somebody who never thought of it before needs to at least think about what they want.  So, you know, a lot depends on the clarity going forward. I also wanted to sort of put on the table just another, an RFP is not the only option that you have. There's other processes that we could go through. There's a request for information, which is more of just give us your proposal, which I think would be more similar to what the hub has done is less formal gives folks the opportunity to say if I had this space this is what I would do with that space that it doesn't have to be as formal as an RFP process it could be a council is interested to hear what else is out there if people wanted to bring something to this space and RFI would be a much quicker and simpler process. Okay. Thank you. That was going to be my my next question. Because I agree that an RFP for a lease is an odd thing that I haven't seen before and but I would like some way to kind of communicate to the public that it's possible that we might be able to lease this space out for something. And tell us your ideas and come to us with your thoughts and so if an RFI would be the way to do that. It would be. Could we authorize the staff to do that tonight, keeping it really open. So we don't have we're not asking for certain kinds of uses we're just saying tell us what you what you have, and then come back in three weeks and bring to us what you've got. Yeah. Okay. I have a question about this. And how would doing this as a RFP or an RFI mitigate your concerns about offering a three year lease to anybody without the public process having taken place. I don't understand. It sounds more like you're just saying, I want to get somebody in there and get some money from them. But and the public process doesn't matter as much if it's, if it's done it with an RFI I don't that doesn't really add up for me. Jack, go ahead. I have a response to that and my response is that I don't think that that is really a fair criticism because what I'm hearing at least two members of the council say is that they don't want the perception that someone came to the council before we got took even step one of our public process and lined up this deal to rent the property, and nobody else even had the chance to, to come in and say they, they wanted to do it and maybe someone else would have had a better idea than you and maybe someone else would have offered more money than you are.  So that's what my thinking is that I don't understand that I don't think the term and I'm not married to the terminology RFP I'd be happy to go with Kerry's proposal to say well let's let's be in a position to put out whatever requests we need to put out so we were in a position to make a decision at our next meeting. So do we think it would be realistic to put out an RFI you have enough information you feel to put out an RFI and to get responses by the next meeting. We could structure it loosely and we could obviously ask you know, I mean, just, there might be a lot of interest but some may, you know, I think we could say, provide your estimate of, you know, would this be a revenue generating you know because it's probably people all I could have this that there and the city could let me have it free so I think, you know, we would be saying no the city is looking to lease with you know so for financial terms so what is it. Proposing and at least I don't think we need a business plan. And by the way just for the record we did get confidentially a look at their business but so they have provided one to staff we didn't keep it because we want to create a public record but they did show it to us so they have shared that with us just so you know, there was a business there was a document that I was meeting with them and they should offer to show it to me and I said well you know to give it to me it's a public record so do you want to do that and and they wisely decided not to give it to me. So we went over the things but we never got a copy of any records. So I just wanted that to be clear that to the extent that anyone says they haven't provided something they said they would they did and I'm not shilling for them or against them just that's a fact. So, I think we would ask for you know your idea how it would be used. How it would generate revenue for you, you know to pay the lease. And, you know, I think personally I would say it ought to be something it ought to be in the public's interest, or open to the public, I don't know what you all think about that not just, you know, we're going to create a private. I'm going to use it, you know, for a warehouse and pay you top dollar because it's a big space that I could, you know, I think because I guess as I'm thinking about this out loud one of the goals of what we're talking about is to get people going up there using the space. So I think a criteria would be something that will generate a public use, but also generate an income, and it wouldn't have to be, you know, long drawn out to just be here's kind of, you know, here's our overview of what we would propose to do and what it might look like and then you could pick the one that you thought was most attractive and be where we are authorize us to negotiate a lease with them. I mean, if that's what you wanted to do. Bill, would you want me to amend my motion or to say that or are you happy with that given the gloss? I think you ought to be clear RFP is a term of art. And I think it would be clear to just what you're doing in that you, because that you want to move this quickly. I mean obviously we have this conversation I've heard it, we've all heard it, but it's still for the record. Okay, so I moved to amend my motion to direct the city manager to issue an RFI for uses of the real estate for three year lease with the, as the manager said, the component of public activity on the property and with the responses to be ready to be acted on at our next meeting. Is there anything else you'd need? We'll make up the rest. Okay. Yeah. So that was a motion to amend my motion. Okay, further discussion about that. Yes Donna, would you make it do so there's going to be in the packet on the 10th. Yeah. Okay. I want to try. I, yeah, so that you, so you would have them to review in advance of the meeting. Yes. I'm glad you changed it to an RFI but I'm going to vote against it, because I don't think that leasing something for three years requires. Okay. Further discussion about this. Peter Kelvin go ahead. Yep, you're good now. I'm feeling free to speak a second time because this is a different motion than the discussion before. That's why I called on you. Thank you. I don't think this is a good idea this RFI. Let me just say very clearly, and by the way, all of you know that I am in favor of public engagement as much as anybody on the city council. I don't feel that having an RFI to have somebody else come forward is going to change the misperceptions that are possible in any way. I don't think it addresses the legitimate concern that Jennifer and Kerry have raised. But I think that the concern that Jennifer and Kerry have raised is one that we all, all of us need to be able to talk to people who have concerns about this. This is a unique group. They've been thinking about this for a long time. They have lots of plans. They've, they've demonstrated flexibility. They've come back with a proposal that was is much less grand than the first one. And to do to delay it further where they are probably in danger of losing their loan. All of these delays this kicking the can down the road. I don't think anything will be gained by it. And I think what would be more important would be to enter into a short term negotiation for short term arrangement. And I think that the bill now knows what the concerns are. And part of this is to announce this in a way that will be understandable by the public. Anyway, I, I, I, I, I'd be very disappointed if you kick this down the can down the road. Thank you. Thank you. Stan, go ahead. I stand breaker off from from district two. You know, when this, when this issue came up. When we all voted on it. I think there's a lot of discussion on front page forum and other places around, you know, what the plan was, I think for a lot of us. The hub was part of that plan, getting folks up there was part of the plan using it as a recreational space was part of the plan. I mean, in person been up there. I don't know if it's open to the public. I think it is, but having a group like the hub enter into that short term agreement I think I, I believe was pretty well understood I thought that was part of the deal. I thought that was you know what that use of that building was intended for until we had a larger plan for it, including things like housing. The hub can't make use of it and the timing doesn't work for them having a building sit for three years is, is not ideal. You know, for folks who represent me in district two I would, I would really appreciate a thought to help support what I believe we were voting for at the time. Thank you. Nat Winthrop, go ahead. Hi. I'm the chair of the hub I, I made part of the presentation at the last meeting. As I reported then. We've been in discussions with the Vermont community loan fund. The folks there are very excited about this project. They represent the biggest project that they've ever given a loan for in their history, and they're based in Montpelier. And as has already been said, we've been working on this for more than a year, just about a year ago. It was the city that proposed a public private partnership. We've been talking to the city regularly ever since for going on a full year going on 12 months. This is well thought out we have shared a business plan and a financial plan with Josh Jerome, who's our point person in the administration. So it's simply not accurate that we don't have a business plan or we haven't shared it. We just did not want to make it public because we keep having to tweak it. We keep having to shift it as circumstances change. The bond specifically referenced recreation. No one else has come forward since the bond was passed that's several months ago. And there is the possibility that we are plan may not turn out to be viable if we have to wait another month or two. And I think having three penny who have consistently said that they're enthusiastic. They said we could go public with their intentions to run a restaurant and bar up there. So, I think a bird in the hand, namely the hub for three years. Who is prepared to invest millions of dollars in the longer term should should a path be made clear through the panic planning process for us to participate after the first three years. And all of that is something that you shouldn't take lightly or casually, you know, we're ready to step up to the plate. We're ready to start construction in terms of renovating the space. October 1, mainly for three penny but also for this virtual sports equipment. There are already three tenants in there so we would be a fourth tenant. I just think to go, you know, you already tabled us at five weeks ago. Now it would be for at least another three weeks and probably for substantially longer than that and at a certain point, it's just not going to work for us so I'd really appeal to you folks to authorize the city to negotiate the short term lease I think it's very much in the public interest. I want to just be clear that the motion that we're voting on right now is about the language change to an RFI. I have thoughts that I want to share about that is about, you know, the this plan in general. But thoughts on any further thoughts on just changing the language from RFP to an RFI. Yes. I totally get the sentiment. I think just at the end of the day, you know, three more weeks isn't gonna, you know, I don't think anybody's coming up with a viable offer that's going to knock everybody socks out. So to me it feels sort of like the illusion of public input, you know, on such a short timeline. I agree with the idea of an RFP. I just think it would have had to have been done months ago to really get some, you know, serious bids in there. So I think I still am where I was. I think there's value to this. It brings in revenue. And I think it would be a service to the community. So I'll, I'll be voting against it as well. Okay, so. But to be clear, yes, Lauren, okay. So as the person who brought forward this idea, I mean, I've heard a couple of things since I had offered that thought as a way to move forward, including some details on the timeline before had just been more amorphous to me like of course you want to move as quickly as possible but some of these grants and things that are lined up and especially the childcare to me like getting that in it's part of our strategic plan. You know, that I didn't, you know, some of those details and apologies because I missed the last meeting so I'm sure some of that might have been talked about so my apologies that I'm I think catching up a little with some of the details. I mean to me also, you know, a fourth tenant in a building for a short term lease. You know, I'm more prepared to move forward now hearing this. And, you know, maybe as part of the announcement it's we're also talking about the public process for the long term and broader, you know, like everyone get your ideas like let's really, you know, get together as a community and think about what we want to use the space for and how many opportunities for recreation and housing and other things so you know I think hopefully we can be thoughtful and how that's put out and really clear this is a short term lease opportunity to use the space as we figure out the long term vision for the place so I will be voting against. Or I guess I would vote for the motion to make it an RFI, but I'm going to vote against doing an RFI. Okay. Any further thoughts just about RFP versus RFI. Okay, anything you would like to say about that. RP versus RFI. I don't think either the RFI or the RP would meet our timetable. Okay, okay. Fair enough. I have further comments on this amendment to the original motion. Okay. All in favor please say aye. Sorry, we are voting on the motion, but not ultimately the right so this is. Okay, so. Right we're voting on should we change the language to RFI versus the original language from RFP. Okay. Okay, all in favor please say aye. Aye. And opposed. And Jennifer, I'm not sure I heard you. Because I didn't vote. Okay, would you like to vote one way or the other. Nope. Okay. We, I think they have to do roll call. That's okay. Lauren. Jack. Connor. Okay. Okay. Okay. Here. Donna. And Jennifer. Not. You're seeing. I don't, I can't, I can't vote either way. Okay. You do. All right. So now we, oh gosh, math. Okay. So that motion passes. So now we're on to. I think we're clear on what the motion is. I think we're clear on what the motion is at this point. So I think we're clear on what the motion is. Should we issue an RFI for use of the space? Yeah. Probably. Should we just start with that? Yeah. Okay. I'm going to go, I'm going to go around. I'm going to end with Jennifer. Okay. Lauren. Jack. I. Connor. Harry. Donna. And Jennifer. Sorry, what was that? No, I. Oh, I, okay. Sorry. Thank you. Okay. So it's three, three. Okay. I am going to vote may. And so there we are. So the motion does not pass. Jack. Okay. I will authorize the city manager to enter into a three year lease with the hub. Nope. I feel like we should. Does that work for you? Cause I feel like it could be like to authorize to negotiate a three year lease. Okay. Cool. Okay. Okay. And there, and that's also your understanding. Okay. Remember that we're asking for a memorandum of understanding. It has three components, not just the three year lease. Okay. Okay. Further discussion on that. Part of it. Okay. Not seeing any. Which part I'm sorry. Mayor. Sorry. This is a motion about. Authorize the manager to negotiate a lease to come back to the council for review and approval or consideration. Okay. Any further comments from anybody. About that. Yes, Jack. Jennifer, if you're just. Not proposing to include the special. Status in the planning process or the anticipated. Commitment of land to the. To the hub in the future that would all be. They have absolutely the same right as anyone else to participate in the public process, but not. And to advocate for whatever land they think they should have, but not. A memorandum of understanding, giving them anything. At this point. Jennifer, I saw that you had a hand up. Do you. Have anything. Yeah, I just. I just wanted to be. About why I'm. You know, I think the reason I'm being resistant is because. I don't really understand. I mean, I've, I've, I've emailed with them. I've seen their presentations and I still don't really understand. What the hub. It's like, I've been thrown all these different ideas. Child care, this, that and the other. And it's like, how are you going to do all that. In a small space. And then also have a bar with child care. It just, it, it's just like, it's like, It's like, you know, you don't really want to be struggling with this. Because. You guys have a lot of ideas, which I think are brilliant ideas, but they just seem very scattered. And I just don't feel comfortable with that. And that's the reason why it's nothing personal. It just feels very scattered to me. Okay. Thank you. All right. Any further discussion. No, any of it. Okay. I'm going to go just do a roll call. I'm going to do the same order ending with Jennifer. All right. Lauren. Hi. Jack. Hi. Connor. Hi. Carrie. And Jennifer. Okay. So the motion passes. So we'll be doing that. Any further discussion about any of the rest of the proposal. Not seeing anything at this point. Okay. Sorry. Is anybody else hearing that really high pitch? That is very curious. I would like to share at this point. I would be. I would be curious. If one of the council members was willing to offer. A motion to consider the other two aspects that we're requesting be in a memorandum of understanding. Yeah. Any thoughts about that team? Okay. Anything more you could tell us about those other two aspects. Well, just to clarify, Jack earlier said that we were asking for a commitment for space. That is not what we're asking for. We're just asking for a statement that says. There's an intent to try to make a collaborative effort so that we can invest our three or $4 million in this project on that property. But we're not asking for a commitment. We're just asking that something, there'd be some understanding between us and the city so that we know how to plan our future. And second, that we do feel that we have. A legitimate request asking to have a stakeholder position in the discussions about the recreation, given that the history of. The whole process that's gone on, which most of the council members are familiar with, but just as a reminder, we were the ones that introduced the city to the idea that that property might be available. And we were about to sign a lease with the former owner to allow us to go ahead with our project. So I, I don't feel like we're just coming from out of nowhere asking for a slightly different position rather than just the person when there's a public notice put out, there's going to be discussion about it. So, you know, we feel that, that these are things that really we would like to have in writing so that we, we can plan our future. The lease is important and I'm really grateful that, that the, the council has considered it, but it doesn't put us in a very safe position. If you understand, we really need to feel like we have a little bit more security and an understanding, a written understanding that because one of the reasons we're in this position right now is because we have nothing in writing. And so we feel that it's really important that we have something in writing that gives us some sense of what we can do in the future. Yeah. Thank you. Donna. I've been in a lot of planning groups in my one on nine, nine years on the council. And no one at the table has ever had a more steak.  At some point, indeed, if the vision is, oh, we want to do this and you want to come and present something to the planning process, then you and others can do that. But that's the one that maybe I think is a little strange. I think you just need to get your members to the planning meetings and have them vocalize it just the way everyone else does. And the intent. On one hand, I totally understand you needing something. And I would propose a motion. I don't think it'll pass. But I'm not sure how we can have a flexible intent. I mean, we can say we have an intention to do that, but it's not a promise. But yet. Yet somehow it gives. How would you use it? So we give you this intent. How would you use that? Would you use it to go to the bank and say, this is a likelihood? Well, I think. We would use it in our plan in our, you know, hub planning processes of knowing that this is the intention that we're going to move forward that we don't need to be thinking about alternative places to put up our structure. We've got a three year lease. And we don't know what's going to happen next. We don't know what's going to happen next. We don't know what's going to happen next. We don't know. Even if we don't have a commitment, but we know that that's the intent. If both parties can agree on it. And that can be worded in a memorandum of understanding in a way that everyone is comfortable with. Well, then I suggest you work on language within the MOU. And then it comes back to the council and we'll see if you get the wording that people can accept. Yeah. I don't think you'll get a motion specifically on it, but you could. The lease. The lease, the lease agreement. Well, keep in mind that what we're asking for is an MOU. And one of the components of the MOU is that we would negotiate a lease, which would be a separate document. The lease document is not the same as the MOU. They're two different documents. So the MOU would contain. The MOU. The MOU. The MOU. The MOU. The MOU. The MOU. Things that would give us more confidence that we know how to move forward, that we have an expectation that. It is everyone's intent to try to make this work. It doesn't mean we know that it will work, but it's everyone's intent that it's going to work. I can see that possibly happening at the end of our first year of planning. As things get more. But I'm, I'm, I can't. This year. I can't, but we could put that in the MOU. That after the first year of the lease, we would have a discussion about what the long-term. Plans are. But something that would give us some idea of, you know, where we're going to stand in three years. Okay. Problem with that. I recognize why you want that. The problem with that is that speaking as one council person. I don't know. I don't have any idea where we're going to stand in three years. And. And I can't make a commitment that our intention. Is anything at this point. Other than to. Get a lot of public input and get a lot of, but a lot of resources into planning. And then move forward on what. Looks like the. We're going to move forward on what we're going to do. After we have all of that. And that's really the only commitment. That I can. That I can make. Yeah. I mean, I. To me, this. Really gets at the crux of the concern. Carrie expressed of like feels like you're getting ahead of public process to say, we have a predetermined outcome. We're going to go through motions, we're going to go through motions. We're going to go through motions. And I think this actually accomplishes what you're looking for. Cause I, you know, like, Jack, I totally get why you want this.  The hubs intention to demonstrate. As part of this three year lease that we are a. Viable and vibrant part of the community and drawing people in. You know, so somehow maybe there's like some way to measure. This is proving to be a successful, you know. So, but I think it's a good idea to see what you're looking for. And I think that's what it's giving you that. Information you can bring to the public process of look at, you know, it's kind of, this is the proof of concept and let's see how it's working. And so. There might be a way to word it that way that I would be more comfortable with. I think. Any other thoughts. So it sounds like there's not necessarily support for this. I mean, correct. So, but let's. Let's keep talking. So thank you. And I look forward to. What you all come up with to potentially be approved at the next meeting. Any, any further thoughts that folks have on. Yeah. I just like to say thank you to all of you for taking the time to really think about this seriously, because it. It's a tough balance that you're trying to achieve here. And, you know, obviously we have our needs and we're going to advocate for them, but I wouldn't want to be in your situation. Figure out how to balance it, but I appreciate your support. Well, thank you. And look forward to. Yeah. Well, we come up with that at the next meeting. So thank you so much. Thank you. All right. Cheers. Okay. So now we're going to move to the. Yes. To the project manager recommendation. And for this, I assume I'm turning things over to, oh, to Cameron. Oh, Jennifer. Yes. Go ahead. And then it'll be like. I'm sorry. I need to, I need to go. My medicine is kicked in. So I got to go. Good. Good. Good night. Good night. Yes, Jack. We only have a couple of items left on the agenda, but we've been going for kind of a long time without a break. Like. Not quite two hours, but it might be a good time for a break. For a short break. Other thoughts. Break. Yeah. Okay. I'm seeing some nods. I'm sorry. 10 minutes, five minutes. Community five. Okay. Five minutes. Well, we can be in 10, 15. And then. And so we're going to bring it back together here. All right. I'm going to turn it directly over to you all. Go ahead. All right. I'm Mike Miller, planning director for the city. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Josh. Community and economic development specialist for the city. All right. So really quickly, what we're here to talk about is the. Two or three country club lane, the Elks club property. Project manager recommendation approval. So we did put out an RFP. For project manager. To continue our planning process. We received four applications. We narrowed it to two had interviews and we have come up with. A recommendation to council. The firm. It's going to be led. The recommendation was led by white and Burke. Who's a real estate. Brokering firm in Burlington. And they'll be working with. VHB. And black river design. To try to go and do the planning process. So what really stood out to, to us about theirs was first of all, their timeline. It's a very rapid timeline. And so we're going to be working on that. We're going to be working on that. We're going to be working on that. Nine, about nine to 12 months for the planning process. They're hoping for about nine. To try to get through that initial planning so they can start working then on the preparation. We did ask them about. The potential of groundbreaking with that happen in 2024. And in the spring, that would be 18 months from now. They said that might be a little aggressive. Because we would need the funding and such, but they're looking at it. We're looking at it two years from now. In the fall. So. Just. Something to keep in mind. That's what their timeline is when they're working with us is they're looking at a two year timeline. To, to be able to start working on. Implementing what gets approved by council. Hopefully sometime in the middle of the summer next year. So the funding has, I believe it's in the report is. I think it's in the report. I think it's in the report. I think it's in the report. Additional costs that come up. We'll be working with bill and finance to. To see either. Because it's ending so close to a fiscal year, maybe something that gets rolled into a following fiscal year that we'll talk about during budgets, but. It's in, in what we had approved. For a budget of 150,000. Okay. Questions. Nope. Okay. Comments from. No one. Public here. Okay. Peter Kelman. Go ahead. Maybe Peter's hand was left over from the previous discussion. No, no. Okay. Okay. Okay. I read, I read all the proposals and I can certainly understand why you would have selected this one. I think I probably would have also. I do have one question. This is the same group that is representing VCFA in their. Selling their property plans. Now, probably a different department and different group of people. But. I hope that in talking to them. You'll make clear that you hope there's not any conflict of interest. With that, that's going to be another large property. It could be have multiple uses just like this one. It might be synergies perhaps, but we want, but you need to make sure there's not going to be a conflict of interest. That's my, that's my only concern. Otherwise. I thought it was clearly the best proposal. Thank you. Thank you. Any other, yes. Carrie, go ahead. Yeah, I also like this proposal. A lot out of all the ones that I read, and I'm a little bit familiar with the organization. I know that they do really good work. So I have a lot of confidence in them. So my, my only input would be about the public engagement part. And I know that that is a, that is a sticky tricky thing for people to do. And it looks like they have it kind of blocked out as one element. They're going to do for three weeks and then they're going to move on to, to other things. So I would be so much more comfortable seeing it more integrated throughout to the whole, the whole thing. So if you could encourage them to do that or talk with them about that. I would also ask you to consider encouraging them to. Think really creatively and seek out some different, some alternative sources for how to engage the public. Because I think we're pretty good at putting things on front porch form and putting things on our meeting agendas and posting something on the city website. And there's a whole ton of people that that doesn't hit. People who will never come to a public meeting, people who aren't going to come to a zoom meeting. And there are ways to get in touch with those folks. There are ways and I, I'm not an expert in it, but I know that there are a lot of people who have done a lot of really good work on public engagement processes, processes that are really citizen driven, that really meet people where they are and not. Just asking them to come to us. So all that stuff is great. We got to do all of that. But we have to do a lot more than that. And I guess I would say our observations, your observations were the same as ours all, all four of us. And so when we contacted them after we decided. That we wanted to select them are one concern was we wanted them to enhance their public input process. And so they gave us a number of things they're going to be bringing on a specialist from their organization who's going to be able to do that. And so we wanted them to then go and help to. Expand the public input process beyond what you see in the application. It was the same thing we saw. Any comments that you have about Peter. Comments suggestion or thoughts around the. Yeah, go ahead. Actually, you know, they have the experience working in the city. They were our partner on the parking garage project. They've been advising us on Tiff. They've been teaching us. They've been teaching us. They're familiar with the city. We saw that as a plus. I mean, obviously they're different projects, but the fact that they were. Doing market studies of what was flying in the city, but they were understanding what the needs were. You know, we wouldn't want to duplicate or be competing. And so the fact that we had, you know, that there's a single. That's the same firm. I think we'll bring informed both processes. I mean, we have. I talked to them about it actually before they even submitted. They want to know what I thought about it. And that was my take, but. You know, we, it's a good point that he made. Yeah. Thank you. Lauren. I agree. This proposal looks great. Totally support it. Just. Yeah. One note on Carrie's suggestion this morning, the social and economic social and economic justice advisory committee was talking about this project and that we could potentially bring some ideas because working with creative discourse, there had been a whole process of affinity groups and something. So would love to just. If there's a way for us to kind of interface with this person who's going to be running the public process, I think it would be a great way for us to work together. I think it would be a great way for us to have equity work on some ways to engage the community. Great. On our city's own communications person will be working on this as well. We'll be all just them. Great. Okay. Jack. I move that we approve the contract to awarding the contract to Whitenberg. Further discussion. Not seeing any. Okay. And opposed. Okay. So. That is unanimous. So we do not need to do roll call. Jennifer's not on, right? So. Thank you so much. Yeah. Forward to see how it goes. All right. I would also suggest that. We not take up the. Where did it go? The park that ordinance. First reading. I think it's late. And there's. Nothing really. I mean, I feel like if we want to give people a real chance to, to weigh in, I think we probably should. Put it off for now. Yeah. So I would say if we're going to put it off, which is fine because it's not urgent, although. It's not urgent. It's not urgent. So. Again, the sooner, the sooner we can do it, the sooner we can give people advanced notice to be prepared. But I did note in the memo and, you know, Mike's here that planning a DPW really took a good look and kind of redrafted it from the earlier draft that you saw. I personally feel it's a much. Better version. But if anyone has any concerns about that, you know, if you can let us know in advance, so we can be ready to address it at the first hearing instead of the next meeting. I don't know if that's a good idea. I really appreciated the work they did, but. You know, it is, it is different than what you saw, although I don't think the content is that different. But just. That would help. Okay. Okay. Great. Any further. Conversation about anything. Okay. All right. So with that. And my gosh, my. Prepared. You can change the agenda. I could. I would. So I, it's been a little while since I had. At least advertised that I'm doing office hours. If folks would like to have office hours with me, I would like to have a chat with you. So just email me and I will get you a link to. To have a time to chat. And that would be Sunday at 2pm. So Sunday 2pm. Folks are interested in having conversation. I would love to do that. And that is going to be it for me for right now. Connor. Yeah. I just want to say, you know, I just want to thank you for being here. Thank you so much. Thank you so much. Thank you so much. Thank you. My mother passed away. The same day. So it was kind of a whip last day. I just want to thank everybody for reaching out. It was pretty, pretty difficult week, but I really appreciate all of you. Thanks very much. Yeah. Jack. Yes. I wanted to comment on something that I've noticed on. Facebook lately. They've been doing a lot of different things. They've been doing a lot of different things. They've been doing a lot of different things. They've been doing a lot of different things. And that has been. Much more active. Posting on Facebook posting on different law enforcement activities. They've been doing. And. Other neighboring police departments have been doing the same thing. And I. Want to say that I really appreciate and support the decision that Montpelier police department is made. And I think that they've, they've done something and they've made an arrest that they have not been. Publishing the name of the person who has been arrested. And I think this is a really good thing. For a couple of reasons. One. When the person's arrested, they're still innocent. You're innocent until proven guilty. And so. So why should we be putting someone's name out there and. Making the whole world think they're a criminal when they're. Innocent. To why. I think it's definitely in the public interest to. Have the public know what the police is doing or doing, but why. Publicize the worst moment. Well, maybe the worst moment of someone's life. If we don't need to. The choice not to publicize the people's name is really. Yeah. Part of our public policy of restorative justice. And so I think. Good job doing that. Yeah. Lord. Just wanted to remind people that we had several appointments tonight and lots of committee appointments that we do have our stipend that are now available for participation in city committee work. So please. Look at that. Apply get involved. And would also just wanted to note that, you know, I mentioned that the social and economic justice advisory committee was talking about the, the Elks project as a place where we could look at public engagement and we're also doing kind of prioritization right now. So I think that's a good idea. I think that's a good idea. I think that's a good idea. And so if there are projects that you all as counselors being on many of these committees or, you know, anyone who is serving on those think could be a good place for, you know, where the expertise of that group could be helpful or we're, you know, weighing in looking at the equity implications of different actions, the cities taking, we're definitely interested in trying to kind of collect ideas and set some priorities for the upcoming year. So I think that's a good idea. I think that's a good idea. And I think that's another thing that I've gotten a couple of communications from, from various folks about the, some of them are now outdated, but about the parking. Band, like the winter parking band. And I feel like normally we talk about that post spring and. I feel like we didn't really do a debrief. Yeah, we didn't do a debrief and like, I feel like sadly winter is going to be here before we know school starts tomorrow. So I don't think we're going to be at this point and do the debrief all together, but it just was on my mind that we never kind of looked at the lessons learned and definitely got a good amount of input during the winter about it. Yeah. I'm going to take a little prerogative and add to mine. Which is to say that I am very grateful for the support of the voters of Montpelier. Having one. I've gotten the highest number of votes for support for states and democratic primary. From Montpelier was significant. That was very helpful and I'm very grateful. For everybody's support and. Yeah, thank you. Congratulations to you and Connor. Yeah, yeah, thank you. Right. John. I just might as well mention that I have already updated the ordinance on the, on the website. Isn't there a certain number of days before it's well, no, the days are indicated in there, but the document is up there. And I just wanted to say it's up there after all that. It's it's now. I actually have a list. So I'll try to get through them pretty quickly, but there are quite a bit. So number one, I did send you out this information earlier. I think today or yesterday, but we. I'm sorry. Is that bad? I'm not. It's an error. I'm meeting it. I'm not vibrating. Okay. So, uh, I'm not. I'm sorry. We unfortunately did not get the. Grant for district heat. So that is a shame. We put hats off to Cameron and our staff or really putting a ton of work into that grant. I think, you know, at least in the letter we got, they really emphasize that they were looking for economic development projects. That was their real key priority. So. The closing class for us is looking hard at sheltering options for the winter. And they, you know, you have the grant at the last, actually tonight you approve the contract them to move forward with their, their plan that's going to be a big step. But right now, you know, there was no plan to shelter at Christchurch again because there's not a little bit. So we are looking at that and looking at the costs. So more to come on that. Speaking of sheltering the comment was made earlier tonight and I didn't want to get into it because we were talking about something else about sheltering. Just a reminder that the city put $100,000 into that new shelter in Berlin. So it was not a neighboring town simply taking care of affection partnership and we're one of the major contributors. In response to that general comments of that individual we do follow up to the general business every Friday. So we don't get to back and forth here but people have questions or raise issues or comments in the weekly menu. If you're going to respond to that. I know you all know it. If there's somebody still watching I want to make sure they knew that that we don't just ignore it. Let's see. What I mean post. Could you somehow make it a public statement there. Sure. Or maybe at the end of public comment because I wouldn't mind you mentioned that but I don't think it's really live. Well, it's fine. Let's see, just main street paving is going to be a big job that's going to start next Monday when they hear about this is right after school starts. We made all efforts to have this done prior to school starting due to some programming con you know conflicts with the contractor, they're going to start Monday. They have agreed to not start work until 9am. So all the morning commute will happen. It's going to happen on Monday next Monday. They're going to start at the roundabout.  Main Street toward town hall and do that side of the road. They're going to stop when they finish. Then we're going to fix like something on Tuesday. So, these days they will be starting after the morning commute and by the afternoon. It's not going to be perfect, but they should be up to no one out of the school zones. Mechanical. But that is the plan. And they've been really good to work with. And when the final building is going to actually occur on a Saturday. To avoid school conflicts. So, and that's by September 10 so that project will be completely done by September 10 that's going to be a long stretch of road. And then we'll be moving along. And then again, all the work is on our website and on the McLean memo that DPW has been really active and our staff has been really active at getting the word out of what's happening, but a lot of projects happening. Unfortunately, we've got a couple of hiring processes on your way. And the building inspector assistant city manager. So if you know anybody that would be good at either one of them. Let us know. And then lastly, I don't want to mention talking about hiring, because and I, this is big. You know, you really are getting to a point of really emergency crisis shortages in police and pretty close to that in DPW. They're really reflecting the the nationwide situation, you know, police police, I think you're just having struggles anyway. In DPW, you know, if you have a CDL and experience running heavy equipment right now contractors are scooping up left and right at top dollar. So it's becoming it's becoming a crisis as far as getting work done. So we're conversations with departments about how to address that. And one of the ways to do that is to revisit their contractual wage agreements. You may hear more about this. I wanted to make sure I said that and said it in public that we, we have longer term agreements with both these unions. And we are looking at perhaps having to open them obviously you would be involved in that. And, you know, what that costs where the money comes from, all of that, but it's going to be that or a choice between not delivering our essential services because we don't have anybody to do it. So I don't know if it's going to impact the next year's budget. But it's probably the biggest, most stressful thing that's on our offices desk right now. So, so have a good evening everybody. Gosh, well thank you. Yeah, keep us posted. All right, so I think that is the end of our business so without objection, we will adjourn 1037. Thank you everybody.