Okay. I'm going to order this May 24th meeting of the popular planning commission. The first thing to do is approve the agenda. That's approved the agenda. All right. Let's approve the agenda. Those in favor of approving. Hi. Hi. Hi. Any opposed? Okay. That's still the clumsy a step for me. So the first thing is just a call for, and I wish everyone's here for this particular thing. Let's try to wrap up the. Working group work. In the next month or so. I know that I'm on economic development and we have not met because it was a chapter that was going to come later, but I've seen that Mike has put some things on the drive for that. So we'll try to meet with that group. Hopefully just do it one time to do a once over of the aspirations and goals and be done with that. Excuse me one time. Of course we can play it by ear. Okay. Yeah. It's hearing how many times we've met for transportation and housing. It seems unlikely. That might be true. I'm sorry. But I'm the, my point though is. Let's finish. Yes. So we can move on. So yeah, again, everyone try to meet with your perspective groups and get down. The second thing is that the, so all of the. Commission and committee chairs were invited to this. Meeting put on by C. Jack, which is the. Social and economic justice advisory commission. I think it's a commission. For the city. So this is, this is an organization. I guess, or, you know, part of the city that's existed for a couple of years now. And it's a commission that is trying to look at equity issues. They were the folks behind the equity survey and. And similar work that's being done. There were a few things that came out of that. And I brought up in that meeting. I brought up the city plan quite a bit and tried to invite everyone to reach out to us. If they have ideas for strategies for. The city plan. And I gave them my email. I also agreed to meet with C. Jack. And I'll probably do that in the next month or two. And Mike, if you have interest in, in wanting to come along for that, let me know. My understanding is they meet on Wednesday mornings, which is just like. Not the greatest, but that's when they meet. So as we get more chapters together, I think bringing the chapters that are most likely to connect with equity issues and social justice issues, like. Housing. Maybe some of the big ones like economic development, transportation. And bring those chapters to them. This is just my idea. Because they just kind of gave me an open invite. But I was thinking of bringing. Those chapters with the goals and aspirations and then asking them. Like their ideas for strategies to, to add equity to each of those areas. Oh, sorry. Yeah, go ahead. I mean, I would be interested in joining to if, if, I mean, I don't want to, if it's just, you know, I don't want to crowd or be inefficient or anything, but I would be interested in that. If you're interested in having someone else. Yeah, yeah, I'll, I'll let everyone know. When I get in touch with, I think Jeremy is the chair. When I get in touch with him and get a date, I'll let everybody know when this can happen. Yeah, it's an interesting group. It's definitely interesting group.  We're focused on action. I want to make sure that the thoughts and things that are taking place turn into action when it comes to this stuff. Which leads me to some other thoughts I had from that meeting for one thing before that meeting, I had some guilt that we, with the historic preservation chapter, we kind of let it go that we're not touching on. Any kind of history not involving Europeans basically. And I think, and Eric Gilbertson was at that meeting and I brought it up with him and he seemed to welcome. The inclusion of a strategy, maybe like having a goal related to, you know, we'll figure out the wording later, but related to this area. And having a strategy under that about seeking a CLG grant to summarize the archeological resources and that was one that we really thought about including anyway. But that would be, we already have in their strategies related to learning more about the historic preservation of buildings built by, you know, white people, but let's have some information gathering related to, you know, an earlier time. And also I'd be interested in trying to include something that's that's also more active in recognizing the history too. And we talked about ways to do that, whether it be a marker. One thing that came out from Eric, he, he thought he suggested reaching out to the Native American Affairs Commission to see what their thoughts are about what we could do in that area. So I'll probably do that, send an email out and see what ideas we get back there. Some of the strategies that we could add might involve working with the state on something because they do have more control over that. But just, you know, just making our thoughts about equity and inclusiveness, you know, better, because I had a lot of guilt that we put it aside because we were afraid that we didn't have the bandwidth, but that's kind of like a classic thing you do with issues that you're not that you say that you're interested in doing, but then you're clear through your actions, you're showing that you're not interested. So I just don't want to that be that, you know, so that so that's that area. Another thing that came up in the meeting was the Public Arts Commission chair was there. And we brought up, I brought equity issues with him and we're still hoping to do an arts and culture chapter for the plan. And he mentioned things Bob mentioned making sure that that artists that are commissioned by the city have a have diverse backgrounds. So, and hopefully we have public art and other art that's welcoming to all groups. And part of that can be through making sure the artists have a diverse background. So that's that's something to keep in mind that I hope to reach out to him more when it comes to the art chapter though. Anybody have any more questions about that? Oh, if you don't, then there was one more thing here. One issue that came up was involving youth. I think that's something we can think about the city plan. That's a in its own way, an equity thing. I think that's something we can think about. If we can think about those. Think about that when we're coming up with strategies. We already have the, the kind of informal program where. High school and middle school students are on the city commissions and things, which. We haven't had one since COVID, but. There could be other ways, maybe. That's it. So I got. Anybody have anything to say about that? I was wondering if. Land acknowledgement came up at all. In the first part of what you're talking about. Can you elaborate? Like adding a land acknowledgement to the city plan. Acknowledging that Montpelier sits on. Nabanaki traditional territory. I don't, I don't remember that. I think that might have come up in another context, but, but not for the city plan. I would be happy if we include that. If you reach out to the VCA. And a thing that may or may not come up. Okay. Yeah. Have we ever, and then involving youth, I kind of like that. I do like that idea. I'm just wondering if we've done it before. What kind of capacity do we have? Especially during the summer. When do we have the capacity to do that? I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. Later when we have kind of more of a thing for people to look at. Good question. I mean, I was thinking about it. Where it makes sense to include a strategy here and there to involve youth and things. That's what I was thinking. But, but as far as us having like a youth member on the planning commission. I guess we'll have to wait until that program gets going again. I think we'll have to wait until that program gets going again. We'll have to wait until that program gets going again. We'll have to wait until the commission meetings again. Was there another part to your question? Okay. So. I think, I think that's it for the, for the, that group. I mean, I guess. My takeaways from the C. Jack meeting where. You know, people are coming from different places apparently. I mean, there were some people who were chairs who said that they didn't. You know, I don't know. Like I opening. But I think it's all more reason for us to be active and trying to include it. Okay. So the next thing on the agenda is general business. I don't believe we have anyone from the public. We do not. So we can move on to. Consider the minutes for May 10. And we're ready to go. So I think that's, that's the main, main point I have. Error on the minutes that threw her off and she looked at it. Do you want to tell them? Well, I wasn't there, but I was just trying to. To figure out what happened and, and it looked. To me, it says review and approve energy plan, aspirations and goals, vote. It looked to me like you had. Had voted on the energy plan aspirations and goals. And approve them. Mike said that wasn't the case. that section. Yeah I think Mike knows what we need to do to clarify it so that instead of saying energy plan there it should have said the historic preservation chapter. Yeah Tam must have populated it under the wrong headers she puts the headers in from the from the agenda and so things kind of got out of order so the first header should be historic preservation implementation strategy and the discussion under there was about what was in the implementation strategy not the chapter so we would strike chapter and out of there and then the next header says review and approve energy plan and should say review and approve the historic resources chapter and then I think it's correct. Thanks Mike. So if everybody can take a look at like if see if there's any more changes we want to make but we'll plan to move to make those changes that Mike just laid out. I'll move to approve the minutes with the changes outlined by Mike. Okay do we have a second? I'll second it. Okay any discussion? Okay those in favor of approving the minutes with the changes? Say hi. Hi. Can you post? Okay minutes approved and so we next have a review of the energy plan aspiration and goals also known as the implementation strategies. Mike do you want to take it away? Real quick before we start is anybody else having trouble getting into the Google Drive because I am it's just me. I'm currently in it I'm fine but I wonder if there's a limit on how many people can be in it. No it's probably just me I'll keep plugging away thanks. Before we jump in I just wanted to go through so real quick what I've done for so we finished historic what I've done for the other chapters so parks energy housing natural resources and transportation now just grab transportation just for there so what I've done for these is to go in you have what was approved by the committee and I've made some comments now unlike the chapters that are written where you've gotten ability to just go in and put suggestions in I couldn't find that when they use the Excel so you kind of have to just drop them in so if you want suggestions just pick a square and just start typing it in so if you want Ariane suggestions or you want to just come over and put some comments beside it that's fine but I put in my comments for the aspirations and then some suggestions of what I would do with the goals again these are the goals that the committee approved and so some of these I go through and say I think these are distinct and should be kept some of them I say these could be deleted some of these I say these could be merged so I just went through so as I said for each one of these chapters for the implementation strategies I went through and put them in there and then for some of them I've started to pull together some chapters just like we have for the other ones just a first draft but what I haven't done is put anything into the aspirations and goals because we'll complete this after the aspirations and goals are approved so it doesn't make sense for me in the written chapter to talk about it until we approve them but I figure it's a way for me to just start getting some stuff on here for everybody to review so again I've done that for aspirations and goals are in there for parks energy historic we've already done housing natural resources and transportation and now I'm starting to work on some chapters to add in there but the idea of what we wanted to be able to do today was to be able to go through and approve the aspirations and approve the goals so that way between now and the next meeting I can plug in all the strategies and then next time we can approve the strategies because depending on how we adjust the goal aspirations and goals may affect what strategies you know how they get grouped how they fit together which one you know some of them may not be applicable anymore if we drop a goal entirely so I just wanted to be able to go through it and and kind of take them individually so that was you know kind of giving a an introduction of how I'm thinking we're going to go after these and talk about these is to tackle these in that way so I guess with that quick introduction what the energy committee had put together were five separate or six separate aspirations and really the first three are about net zero 2030 which is about the city being net zero by 2030 so that includes a goal an aspiration about electricity one about our thermal and one about our transportation so and then the last three are about the city-wide goals to be net zero so those are looking at 2050 goals and again two of them are ones for electricity ones for heating and ones for transportation so I propose that we could very easily consolidate this down either into one you know the aspirations to eliminate all fossil fuel use within the city including one by 2030 100% of the energy used for municipal government operations will be renewable or offset and by 2050 fossil fuel will be eliminated entirely and 100% energy needs municipal residential and commercial will be met renewably so we can either put it in one or split it into two that would really be up to you guys but that was my thought is we could fairly easily collapse these down in it seems like these are the like these aspirations are actually like the goals those are all measurable objectives and the although maybe it's more nuanced than that it seems like the aspiration is that we eliminate all fossil fuel use and our goals are measurable objectives are these and then every other stuff that was included in the goals and measurable objectives tab are kind of a little bit of like a mix of strategy and more more detailed metrics which I think are great however maybe we I'm not sure we can include them in the plan if we were to do this for every chapter we'd have several hundred goals so I think it's you know there's clearly a ton of work that's been done on this and these should be part of some of the plans or the work being done by the energy committee but I don't know that it makes sense to include everything in the in the plan the the point here was that the the aspiration of the city is to become net zero so because of that we have different aspects of it and originally it was asked everyone to be net zero by 2030 then we realized that that wasn't feasible so it seemed more appropriate to make the municipal by 2030 and the rest of the city citywide by 2050 I can certainly see Mike's point about reducing these to two aspirations one being aspiration that the municipal use would be net zero and then one that the potentially that the government sorry that the residential would be no now now I'm thinking again that that by we should at least have one by 2030 and one by 2050 I guess is where I'm getting to that it seems like that's really nice and clean then like our aspiration is for us to be net zero and then our goals are we have to one for the city to be by 20 municipal net zero by 2030 and then for everyone else by 2050 but the thing is that the the whole approach to those two particular pieces is so different that to me it's an aspiration we have a lot more control over the municipal than we do over citywide so I it it seems to muddy the waters if we try to put those two together I like I like John's approach I think I think what we're saying is we aspire to create a city that is net zero and I think breaking it up into two you know beyond that is makes a lot of sense I get I get what you're saying but it seems to me that I know that they're very distinct but I think the aspirations still one in the same which isn't a quick using fossil fuels in the city so being net zero is a different aspiration than stopping with fossil fuels so but are you saying basically to just replace this with one aspiration yeah I think I think John's construct is it's just really clean and I think for the reader outside looking at it it's really concise and easy to follow so I like I get what you're saying Barbara but I think but I mean my question is is does that break down into one aspiration John I think I think so and and you know maybe maybe it's not eliminate all fossil fuels within the city maybe it's my failure will be net zero a net zero city and then I think having that the two goals that you're articulated seem seem easy you know I can go to my neighbor and say we want to be a net zero city here are two concrete goals that we're trying to hit and then people can like wrap their heads around that and we can outline the strategies that that get us there but a lot of this other stuff seems maybe too wonky to include in like a city plan but before we move on to that let's see whatever what everyone's thoughts are about having just one aspiration and then turning some of these aspirations into goals Arianna Arcella what do you think only concern I think I have about collapsing everything into so on the one hand when I was reading these I felt like there were I was feeling like a little confused about what was a goal and what was a strategy and what was an aspiration so this might help that but then the only thing about saying net zero is that there are it is a little more nuanced than that it's net zero by a certain point and then there are in certain sectors full elimination of fossil fuel use so if we don't feel like we're losing too much of that nuance with a simple aspiration fine but we could add in I don't know having a little bit more nuance might be nice I could agree with that and there's also this one about reducing energy use overall which is kind of a whole other issue so there's like I see three issues there's net zero there's reduced there's reducing overall electrical use and there's eliminating fossil fuels so that feels like either three aspirations or one that kind of gets all of them weren't smithed into all of them unless we can find a way to collapse them all I guess I feel like using less energy is falls under eliminating use of fossil fuels because it is a way to get there actually using less energy would also affect renewables we'd have less renewables we have to use so it that's sort of why it needs to be considered separately but or why we did consider it separately anyway but it just as long as you make sure that it doesn't just say fossil fuel use because that does not represent the aspiration reflected in all all of these it's not just fossil fuel use it's net zero energy and and potentially and reduced fossil fuel use because I mean isn't and isn't a net zero aspiration doesn't that encompass reduced fossil fuel use I mean that's a primary component of like a net zero right reduced but not necessarily eliminated if it's offset I mean there may be some things that that even by 2050 we can't imagine not have using some degree of fossil fuels but they there was a lot of talk about offsets I guess I would say that it gets really really gets really complicated and we're not going to be able to we can have some of it some of it in the discussion but we can't address all of it in this city plan like obviously I think reducing our demand is a component of it given the you know it'd be easy to flip everything over to or not or not easy but maybe simpler just to flip over everything to to using non fossil fuel energy sources but what if we just you know ramped up the demand to a point where the the generation needed to meet those demands was really high or the other way we meet that is like what if what if our population you know half the people moved out of Montpelier you know we would reduce our we could reduce our demand substantially and I don't think that's how that's how we want to get there and the the other part of this whole chapter and again I don't I don't know that it needs to be a central part of it but what wasn't very explicit was the regional context of you know having a household move into Montpelier as opposed to some of the surrounding communities does far more than anything to reduce energy demand right it has it reduces transportation of EMTs by 30% which is like the biggest component of their energy energy budget anyway and so you know but that would increase our our energy usage overall but it would reduce it regionally so things get like murky or complicated pretty quickly and I don't think that we need to worry about being you know thorough and comprehensive and are necessarily articulating all of these pieces more about like here's where we want to go and here's here are some of the strategies and I think the the energy committee as well as a number of other groups have done an excellent job in getting into some of those nuances that continue to evolve pretty quickly well just to clarify I mean I think this was looking strictly at Montpelier not you're right absolutely right that the best thing to do would be to bring people in from you know they're five acres all around the city but that you know that's not part of the purview of this it really did because the the goal the city council goal goals now were really related to Montpelier so we had to sort of you have to sort of focus it somewhere so can we it sounds like there's enough interest to vote on a change in aspirations can we can we get some language from someone for a new for anyone because it's unless we want to stay with all fossil fuel use that's okay I think I was gonna say what I heard were two possibilities one was just to go with Montpelier will be in net-zero city and the other one was to kind of go in between what John suggested and what I suggested and I just wrote down Montpelier will be in net zero city by 2030 for municipal operations and by 2050 community wide which would be a shorter way of saying what I said it unless somebody can come up with even even shorter way of getting in between but there was just kind of the the real short will be a net-zero city and then the slightly longer I think that covers it Mike your slightly longer version it wasn't very very much longer I think that I think that covers our aspiration and goals John of what you say or is what you're saying that the part that Mike added is he's pretty much adding the goal in and so like we can leave that out and the person can just look at the goals to know what what that is well I think one one option that I like would be I mean if you had that that what Mike said incorporated the I think what could be the two goals of this of this chapter so it's it's if it if those are the goals then it's best not to state them in the aspiration as well right is that what follows logically from what you're saying yeah I guess so so Mike you've added in your wording here I just put it there so we've got something to stick forks into or like or dislike what are other people's thoughts on having slightly longer aspirations of possibility or obviously we would have to that means the goals would be broken down into smaller pieces within that so it would I mean at least I'm interpreting this to mean if we if we have the longer aspiration then we'll probably have a lot more goals it won't be just those two things I don't know I think we'll tackle the goals when we get there I mean I think there's a conversation to be had there anyways because I think they had a lot more goals than they needed but that was how it works out for a work for a working document I think it works but I think you know when we get to that tab will be or we can leave your temporarily go to the goals and come back yeah one relies on the other which is what I'm saying yeah which is why I haven't done the strategies okay so John since you brought up the topic do you have a motion for a particular aspiration or actually we can we don't have to vote but just is there is there a preference that you have between these two are you fine with either one you're muted you're still muted yep just found the unmute but you know I guess I mean I guess my preference is for the shorter one as it usually will be but it could also just be the second one and then the the the goals would just be you know will be net zero for municipal by 2030 and community wide by 2050 so they would be a bit a bit redundant but I don't think that matters it's really just stylistic none of I don't think this changes any of the strategies which will be more important could we could we split the difference and just say my player will be a net zero city by 2050 I don't think it holds our feet to the fire I think I think you can have our goal be then articulated by saying you know will be by 2030 for municipal operations and then 2050 for all but yeah I think I think adding more clear will be a net zero city by 2050 is is clean like it's a bit misleading it doesn't yeah it doesn't match what the council asked for or approved but I recognize it's not incorrect but it but I mean a person could be misled to not understand that there's a shorter term goal in there too there would be contended the goals yeah I don't necessarily think the steps have to be in the aspiration well yeah I was just gonna jump in and say when when we're looking at the goals and when we talked about developing the goals and I'll just jump ahead really quick what we were looking at was the goals were really breaking down the aspiration into bite-sized pieces so not really into necessarily well now we'll have two goals one for 2030 and one for 2050 because your strategies to implement the 2030 goals are are varied that's why this kind of comes out they actually have you know works out well on this screen because these are the eight goals that they used to talk about how to be how to make city government net zero so they they wanted to really take them into bite-sized pieces one is how do we get our electric use how do we reduce our electric use how do we convert the remaining to net zero basically how do we convert it all to renewable and then the third one is what do we do for new facilities for electricity how do we make new fist how do we make new facilities be net zero so you'll see in my comments that I think there's some of these that we could combine and then five six and seven are all about thermal how do we get all of our facilities our city hall fire department police department swimming pool rec facilities heating plant or you know are these are how do we make them all net zero how do we reduce the amount they're producing how do we convert what's left to net zero and what do we do about if we build a new facility and then the last one is talking about how do we get the transportation so snow plows fire trucks police cars how do we get them to be that you're actually a seven and eight are about that so there really the goals are kind of designed to be a little bit more bite sized and you know I think in my looking at this as eight I got it down to combining one and four and deleting seven number two would stand alone three six and eight would be combined and number five would stand alone just because of the types of strategies that come after them how do we implement conservation conservation really comes down to efficiency modifications so number seven is about efficiency modifications to car with which don't make any sense but the other ones are really you know how do we reduce electricity how do we reduce fossil fuels are all through very similar we do a plan we do a CIP we implement the CIP you know there's they're pretty much saying the same thing they're doing different things how to make the lights more efficient how to make the buildings more efficient but it all falls into the same strict types of strategies and then three six and eight you know what you guys can go through and look at them I didn't think seven made any sense because it was reducing fuel fleet use by 30% that's that's conservation like with our goal with our goal to be net net zero fuel use simply reducing fuel use isn't getting us no but everything else we're reducing consumption and this is an idea this this following that same model of reducing consumption in other words you know being more efficient about the actual trips that the fleet uses so reduce the use by 30% it is reflecting on that it's not that it's not the equipment it's how it's used yeah and I just don't know realistically and again everything comes down to this magic 30% and I don't know if there's any thought behind what that was and I pushed me act on that too about I'm surprised to see that everything is a 30% reduction trying to do fuel efficiency on my house I find it very hard to reduce the amount of electricity I find it very easy to reduce the amount of fuel oil I use but you know and then to think about a 30% reduction in the in the let's say the vehicle trips you know I just think realistically we're talking about telling people not to go out on emergency calls for police telling people not to go out on emergency calls with the fire department and telling the people not to go out and plow the roads I don't think any of I don't think there's a 30% reality out there these guys already would be the most efficient that they can because that's you know especially for DPW they they map out these routes to be as fast and efficient as possible I just don't see number 7 as being possible personally but that's just my opinion I'm that's why I threw it in there as I would I would delete it but if you guys want to keep it go for it. I think it may or may not be but I don't I don't think that putting it in the plan and spending a whole lot of time you know understanding if 30% is the right or wrong number and debating feasibility under different scenarios is going to be a very productive or meaningful meaningful thing for us to do and I don't think people will look at this and I don't think the decision will be it doesn't seem like the plan should be the decision for this kind of specific specific target. Can I just answer your question about the 30% Mike? The 30% had to do started out with the building efficiency because that's what efficiency Vermont says is between weatherization and other upgrades to equipment and things like that that at least residentially we should be able to reduce energy consumption by 30% so given no you know no other option for a metric that's the that's why that metric shows up everywhere just as as a guideline so that then we're producing a 70% using renewables. Okay so I have one question it's kind of a threshold thing for looking at the goals did the energy working group redo the goals at all like is there something that like is there work that's been done that we haven't looked at? What energy working group? There's not one? No okay the planning commission yeah oh no I don't think so okay so energy wasn't one that we have done okay sorry sorry about that. We could do that if it would be more efficient in terms of of or we could just look at Mike's suggestion for combining them. No I just wanted to I just want to get that out of the way to make sure that we're you know not getting ahead of ourselves on anything okay so okay we've kind of put aside the aspiration question for now and and we're looking at the goals it sounds like if we combine these we still need to restate them Mike right or do you have language here for restating them as you're proposing? No I haven't I haven't wordsmithed something you know I don't think it would be hard if we if we know you know combining the two efficiencies and we can go with you know you know if John's comment if people want to go with that hey we should drop the the buy 30% off of these and the buy 70% off of these and just go with you know reduce to that reduce 2015 baseline municipal energy use or actually it would be some other combination because it's that's municipal electricity if we combine one and four it's municipal electricity and municipal heating loads you know we'd probably use some language about conservation and efficiency. Are a lot of these strategies like all new municipal facilities and buildings will be net zero for electric use at the time of construction like isn't that just it's not a strategy? Well a strategy has to actually relate to a policy or project or something like that so well if our if our goal is to for municipal facilities to be net zero by 2030 it seems like a pretty clear policy to link it to right that our new buildings will be net zero. Yeah and I think that's what my goal was with number combining three six and eight was to have a single goal that would address new facilities and buildings and the purchase of new equipment so I was going to think in this box would be combining three six and eight because they all they're all about new things and so because we're just in the municipal world right here every new facility that we build every new car that we buy every new truck that we buy every new piece of equipment that we buy really all comes out one group of strategies that we simply we're gonna adopt the policy that says we're gonna do this net zero as we build new facilities or we buy new equipment it's in the CIP and then it just gets implemented so it's they all basically are in that same uber box even though they're talking about three different things net zero electricity net zero cars so I think those three could be combined relatively easily and then I can put together strategies on the next page for how to do that but aren't they strategies though no because you couldn't assign them to someone you couldn't assign them to someone and have that happen who would be responsible for that public works director no my understanding so far is that it's fine for goals to be measurable by themselves but the what makes them different the strategies are the there's more than one strategy underneath the goal that is the specific things that get you to that measurable number like gold so that's why Mike salute the suggestions could work well because it it is tying together similar things but there would be a number of different strategies under that those particular combined goals well it looks like okay it looks like we need to come up with with language for these and yeah I'd like to try to move along a little bit more so I'd like to just walk through and for us to create the new goals here if people are in agreement to to group some of these together to make it more succinct and you know palatable for the for the reader so Mike says combine one four and seven so that's conservation and efficiency and then reduce municipal heating load and reduce municipal fleet fuel so so Mike you put conservation efficiency in there because you think that that should be one goal that and this is where I don't really want to make up language like off top my head right like in mid sentence like this but you know a goal there that says conservation efficiency is the purpose yeah that's pretty much where I was kind of going I mean like I was thinking for the one that we were just talking about with with John this third one here it could be something like all new municipal facilities equipment and vehicles will be net zero because we don't need the date in there it's already in the goal or it's already in the aspiration that covers all three of those goals or or just take out the municipal fleet as you just as you described redo eliminate seven that's the one you're talking about right is seven yeah I included it well this is about this is about number eight which is 100% renewable energy used for the remaining 70% of the baseline fuel use so basically this is eight eight becomes one that goes into the renewable energy section not the conservation and efficiency section yeah correct I just jumped to this third to the third one that we were talking about here this number three six and eight oh sure okay yeah that threw me off too I thought you were rephrasing 147 well it seems like we have do we have language for one and four one and four and deleting seven so I just had that one in my head we got to figure that one out bar so if we don't include 30% we don't have numbers are we get this any we're gonna have strategies that don't have numbers that are just vague vaguely say reduce it know the strategies then they aren't in there so the strategies are very specific action steps so the benchmarks we've been kind of separated out the benchmarks and we're kind of holding them off to the to the side and we'll tackle benchmarks in a different place but I think perhaps we should eliminate the benchmarks but well we talked about putting them in some other places and certain we've had some more complex conversations at the last meeting we talked a little bit about benchmarks can be difficult there are two two ways of doing benchmarks one is to measure outputs and the other one is to measure outcomes so these are looking at outcomes being net zero by 2030 so that's you know that's a different benchmark last time we were talking about outputs because you know doing historic surveys you can't really measure the appreciation of a community for for or measure a community's understanding so we talked about doing outputs in other words we want to study two more historic districts we want to conduct an archaeological survey we want to they're very specific things we want to have 16 in the next eight years we want to conduct 16 outreach efforts those are outputs they're not really outcomes so we just said because it's complicated and I'm trying to figure it out and I'm going to be working with Cameron to try to come up with us how to fit all this in we'll deal with the the actual target benchmarks afterwards here what we want to really look at is kind of the big picture of we've got an aspiration be 2030 2050 how do we break that 2030 into a couple of bite-sized pieces one is you know conservation and efficiency one is renewables and one is renewables and one is the munis of what to do about the new things right new construction or new right and if we like that I can just go through and wordsmith something in between meetings to kind of fill in the blank that doesn't include a date or a percent but really kind of flesh it out in the same spirit of this all new municipal facility facilities equipment and vehicles will be net zero it wouldn't include a date be only it needs to at this point because it's all going to be targeting back to that same aspiration which is by 2030 so I mean we can put it in there oh oh I see yeah okay okay so guys so for three and six I don't see it's not including a which you noted right like this for this one this one on the question is seven no it's the the new the new strat the new goal you have there for the supposed to be for three six and a that doesn't actually include a which it's about offset the vehicles it's net zero is the offset so just as a quick understanding so net zero works in two ways one is either we're going to eliminate the fossil fuel use or we're going to offset that fossil fuel you may still use let's say we've got a ladder truck that it's impossible for us for our two million dollar ladder truck to replace it and be net zero so we will offset that by purchasing wrecks basically the offset that fossil fuels that we are using eight as it's written does not apply to just new vehicles though and this new goal does correct correct and this goes a little bit back to some of the complaints that I had about how this was structured with me which was that the only way to become net zero was really through vehicle replacement and for the most part most of our vehicles now had we started this couple years ago would have been really good because even the heavy equipment gets replaced before 2030 only your fire fire trucks by 2030 every single police car that we own today will be replaced no police car will exist so we can fully replace all those vehicles dump trucks small dump trucks last about 8 to 10 years your larger ones will last 10 to 12 years unfortunately we're a couple years behind from getting every single snowplow really your big ones are your fire department equipment which tends to have 20 25-year life spans fire equipment lasts a long time so those will probably be doing a lot of offsets unless we've got some scheduled replacements in the next 10 years okay so okay so so so if we if we eliminate a and we use this new goal it's not exactly the same thing but it gets added in a way yes okay just I just want to make sure that we're all following along with that Mike have you added wording for this new goal into into our template which have you typed haven't typed in oh you're okay yeah it's in trying to trying to find it so it's it's another yeah just look at the screen from the zoom right now it's way over there yeah okay i'm trying to find it on my screen i have a hard time with jay okay i got it i have the shared screen up and then the other window up and i keep clicking on the zoom window because you've got the spreadsheet up there um okay so so so we have that we have we have three six and eight condensed there so let's let's do one four and seven now um well sorry sorry i just saw this now so net will be net zero or offset right that's net zero pardon me that's inherent in net zero all right all right yeah you could either say net zero or you could say we'll never mind let's leave it at zero we'll not use fossil fuels or be offset let's let's leave it where you have it I think I think we should make a mental note though to make sure that in the chapter we defined that zero correctly yeah all right yeah um okay oh so let's let's let's get one four and seven now um okay that looks like it that looks like it writes itself if you just combine the three they all start off with the same thing so start off with reduce reduce baseline municipal electricity heating load and municipal fleet fuel to be net zero do we want to just say energy use at this point yes because we're talking about renewables now right just renewables well we're talking about this is the conservation and efficiency so this is reducing whatever we're talking about oh i'm sorry less electricity we're going to be using less heating fuel we're going to be using less um vehicle fuel i'm totally i thought your first one was was the conservation one the one the one you inserted into j was intended to be for conservation no no i mean number four coming number four coming across was about new municipal things so if we're buying a new buying a new vehicle is different than than reducing baseline energy use i see now that you put that you put that in in the j column next to your note about combining three six and eight i didn't see that before okay so do we need do we need to refer to 2015 as the baseline in the goal um not if we put in municipal because we've already identified that in the aspiration mike said yeah i mean these three are going to be referring to that the first aspiration which is 2030 so and i don't think we have to say um 2015 because it's actually kind of redundant if you you know you could say reduce 2015 reduce whatever the baseline is 2015 so you don't actually have to say the big the 2015 baseline because that's being redundant do we want to identify anywhere that that is the baseline yeah we have to identify that somewhere okay probably where we have the benchmarks okay i think we should put municipal though in just uh for clarification about what it means under the first one reduce baseline municipal energy use yes because that's that's i mean it's referring to just the city it's not referring to everything in the city for that great uh okay so yeah let's move on to restating to go ahead mike so the the issue that comes up with two and five is combining those are actually a little bit tricky because they actually have slightly different implementation strategies that go along with them um how we reduce our or how we offset our electricity are which we've already done basically um you're talking about building solar panels we're talking about um co-gen plants we're talking about um you know g mp is already going to be net zero anyways so all right so most of it doesn't doesn't matter for for us um because we're already buying net zero energy um so two is different than how do we convert our you know um we can't use city hall because that's on the the district heat plant but um the senior center how do we make the senior center um net zero is number five and that's completely different strategies um than how we do number two which is why i kind of said you know number two you know this is my personal opinion i would probably keep number two as a separate goal and keep number five and we would end up with what one two three four goals we've gone from eight to four did you say that goal two is already met as of today i would kind of make that case but i don't know if that seems like a good reason to get rid of it is there a high fives button on zoom well it depends on how you look at it 70 percent of it is is net because if there was the assumption that we were going to you reduce municipal consumption by 30 so that's why the solar installation is only set to produce 70 percent of the municipal and we ended up giving some to the schools as a result of that otherwise it would have been higher than 70 percent yeah but the the idea is if we want to use 100 percent renewable energy um renewable electricity and even if we didn't have our solar farm and even if we weren't going to be producing electricity at the power plant or at the sewer plant we're still buying 100 green power from gmp it's already using nuclear power for some of that until 2025 and they'll be net zero by 2030 is that meant is that meant to be the entire city or just municipal in this case that's the that's there that is gmp gmp has as their their mission they're going to be net zero by 2030 which is why a lot of these electrical pushes in my view have been you know we're investing a lot of energy um personal energy in doing more and more on the electrical front when it's not we're just getting we're just getting super duper duper net zero you know we're gonna produce as much power as we use well that's not net zero that's that's a different goal um and I think they've they've just gone overboard on the electrical front because we are fortunate you know if we were hooked to a different utility we would be wanting to do all of the things that we are doing um we just end up in a unique position and that we're hooked to a good power um group that's that's doing it and it's not say it's not a good idea for us to be doing these solar farms and everything else but um should we drop the should we drop the goal it can can anyone say why we should keep the goal well for one reason because the thermal side is going to increase our electrical consumption perhaps drastically with the addition of heat pumps so the thermal side affects the electrical side so I you know how do we kind of assume do we assume that green mountain power will continue to provide us with a never-ending quantity of electrical power this is what why it gets complex hydro kebek well yeah you'll have a lot of people saying you know hydro kebek is not uh is not our ultimate solution well gmp would disagree in some cases but I just I just want to I mean I don't want to waste people's time by having goals that that don't mean anything um so if I mean we can still talk about the thermal sidebar but have goals related to energy efficiency because when you say thermal I take you mean I take you mean energy efficiency it means converting our our current fossil fuel heating sources to electricity because that's what heat pumps use is electricity so um but that does sound like a different that's a different goal right and is that yeah and I see those the strategies for implementing number five would be different strategies assuming we kept number two the the strategies for implementing number two are different than the strategies for implementing number five so I'm kind of looking ahead a little bit and then kind of coming back to go through and say I probably wouldn't merge these two because they're going to be harder to you know they'll have a clunkier set of strategies I mean we could do it and just have strategies that you know are very specific about the element they're attacking uh okay well let's let's if everyone's okay with it let's move on to five for now and and not worry about two possibly not if it doesn't achieve anything for us um so for number five do we need to rephrase that we stopped referring to this remaining 70 thing I would so convert uh convert uh or base heating loads to 100 renewable energy yeah convert remaining base heating loads to 100 percent renewable energy without the percentage I mean just saying or we could say rather than saying 100 we could say all renewable energy or total renewable energy I don't think I don't think remaining is helpful there to me if you're trying to I don't know I think it could be it would hard hard for people to know what that means if they if they're don't have all the background info well it's it's piggybacking on reducing the baseline municipal energy use up above but um so once we reduce it then we convert yeah I mean it's you know the it we can leave the word remaining out there and it doesn't do anything to stop the reduced baseline municipal energy use it doesn't take away from it I didn't capture where we where we had gotten to I think you wrote it oh isn't okay wait I mean I think I think Barb uh pointed out it's interesting 100 percent renewable energy she said something like all renewable energy something like that which I don't but I think we probably should specify that that we mean completely I guess I was you and I were arguing about remaining um so what I was suggesting was convert the remaining base heating loads to total renewable energy or offset I just like clarity and so if we're going to say remaining I think we need to also include in the sentence remaining after the reduction in baseline municipal energy use so that it makes sense by itself that's why it used to be that's why there was used to be the 30 and the 70 um it doesn't matter okay so mic for number six six has already been looped into the one above yeah oh yeah okay three six and eight it's seven so it leaves a question of whether we okay loop to in as its owner how about people who haven't said anything in a bit uh what do you think about having a goal to provide 100 percent renewable energy knowing that our utility is going to do that and that we will do nothing but we will achieve the goal I don't think it's worth the space if we're not going to do anything I don't think we need it well the the trick is they actually are doing more and that's been a little bit of some of my comments to them is you know we do have although we are we we are kind of wrapping it up the last of the steps is really this phase two energy production for the waste biogas plant but they also had a goal to study additional renewable energy productions as future demand increases so they have the the strategies are really to develop the net zero plan continue the net meter solar project I mean if we're going to collapse on around the idea that gmp is going to be the primary driver of realizing a net zero future that's fine but it sounds like there's plenty of there's plenty of part there's plenty of projects on the margins that help bring that along so I think that's consistent with a our broader net zero stated goal so I think it's worth keeping and fine going along with what others want to do okay well what do you think about what Aaron said Mike um that it sounds like we will have strategies that go along with this and things for the city to do in which case I think that would be an argument for keeping it plus I kind of question and this I don't think this is a particularly great reason to do something on a town plan but I sort of question just the optics of fashioning an energy section of a town plan around the concept that like well we purchased power from utility that stated that they're going to take care of this problem for us um so you know we will realize our goal by being a power customer I I it just seems to me we can highlight these other things that the town has decided to do even though they might not it might be fairly marginal it's unvermounted to just accept to not reinvent the wheel or to do things the easy way exactly exactly we've got we've got to put our two cents in in addition 500 renewable I mean we're so close to doing already um yeah all right how about continue to provide I'm just winging it here close what I have one thing I have one thing can we instead of say continue to provide can we just say provide and that's something that came up in our when we were tinkering things in housing too it still starts with an action word that way but it just I don't know yeah I think it's uh and on that same on that same theme the what we have now is goal three if we're also of course I think our convention has been to start with action words on the goals so if we could rephrase that um which one are you talking about I'm talking about well the only one that doesn't start with a verb the one up is all your municipal no I got a purchase and purchase and construction of all new facilities sure I mean I would be fine with the word like make or something like that too if you want to uh if if you're um I keep making a big Lebowski reference when you're if you're into that whole brevity thing man well that kind of it doesn't do a ton for those but those were the four now down here we had for the non get up to from nine to 18 are all the ones that were done for the city and so I had again put a couple of thoughts here they broke them into like residential commercial new construction weatherization fuel switching so they had a bunch of them that were kind of very easy to to start to combine them me act targeted their strategies for residential in commercial we could combine nine 10 and 12 as these all involve assisting and helping people do energy audits collaborating with efficiency vermont and having programs to assist in conservation or weatherization and we maybe could combine 13 which is fuel switching for heating that would combine nine 10 12 what happens to 11 oh 11 and 14 are combined because they're both new construction 13 yeah I just talked about 13 it could be either held alone or combined with nine and 10 and then for me so I really got this down to three we've got one two assuming 13's in there and then the transportation and again this is going way beyond my authority to be kind of pushing things but actually this can be digested down into two so we're think remember we're talking about how do we make the residents of mont pilier net zero so first is converting to electric and biodiesel vehicles whether it's private or transit vehicles and the second is to reduce vehicle you know vehicle miles so I think a couple of these I think 18 is not possible and I don't think 19 is something that's in our control as well so 18 increased fuel standards and 19 increased use of electric vehicles by commuters I don't think either one of those is possible but I think if we broke our transportation into two pieces one is a goal to reduce vehicle miles and the second goal which is conversion to electric uh couldn't you couldn't you even turn those two into one by stating that having a goal this uh I guess I guess we're not looking to eliminate fossil fuel used by vehicles but something along those lines would be a goal that those two new goals fit under the strategies for if we're jumping to transportation the strategies for reducing vehicle miles comes down to you know using public transit um strategies that are out kind of different than how do we get people to convert to using electric vehicles uh we're gonna maybe have to provide Burlington it's providing some subsidies you buy an electric car and you live in Burlington they'll give you a check for a thousand bucks to buy that car two thousand bucks that's a program for how you get your residents to convert to electric vehicles making sure we have enough electric charging stations making sure we've got those types of things reducing vehicle miles is kind of different that's talking about making sure we have the the support of the transportation plan and bike routes and having meeting dense certain densities um yeah but they all those things fit under you know reducing the use of fossil fuel by vehicles but we want to eliminate it I mean they want to be net zero so right so yeah in here they talk about reducing fossil fuel use and reducing fossil fuel use will not get you to net zero you want to eliminate fossil fuel use so so so I mean I'm gonna be because because these are this is still a lot of goals compared with the other chapters we've we're you know we're gonna be contemplating so making that into one I think seems better to cut down the number because they're they I think they both they all get at the same thing which is to eliminate fossil fuel use by vehicles so Kirby then you're suggesting that the two uh reducing vehicle use would be a strategy that would contribute to that goal as well as the converting to uh electric and biodiesel would be another strategy yeah so I don't know if we have to go through and rewrite these but so our goal is really to get this down to three is that the thought well he had five under municipal didn't we yeah well yeah and I think I mean remember we're talking about a very um you know we we can't just be really nonchalant about the fact that we're talking about trying to make our our city net zero I mean these are of all of our transformative um things I mean energy our energy goals are the most transformative and are the most progressive ones that we have in this entire plan it's not surprising that we would end up with four or five up here wouldn't be one two three four goals up here um and now we're talking about here so we're looking at seven goals um to make our city net zero with seven goals uh eight it's eight if you count the transportation ones if transportation split into two yes or am I counting this wrong like it looks like the bottom part it looks like you have even if transportation is one goal there's four spots there right nine ten and twelve together eleven and fourteen together would be a second goal thirteen oh is this thirteen goes up with seven okay that would be all right yeah assuming you guys wanted number three rolled into the top which we haven't really talked about but um okay yeah we can try to we can get to that now but did you have something here no uh so is everybody fine with us hammering out number five here and getting our goals done okay uh so yeah thanks mike that was nine ten twelve and thirteen mike are you rewriting baseline so yeah you could say baseline residential commercial uh uh reduced baseline residential commercial residential use and I don't yeah I don't know about fitting 12 into that about weatherization it's a it's a reduction strategy too yeah I just I don't know about fitting it the same goal that's talking about reducing electric electricity use for residential commercial it was why I jumped on that's the using the baseline energy use it was what we did up here we had reduced municipal energy use and that was how we combined our electricity with our thermal was just by using the word energy so I grabbed that same okay thought because it would help us grab nine ten and thirteen sounds good reduce baseline energy use what for residential and commercial uh building is it just the buildings yeah that's why I was trying to well once we're talking about if we're going to include weatherization yeah well yeah actually the electricity used to be used for someone inside the building yeah it doesn't seem to be buildings specific as Britain but I think both all of them do the intention yeah because yeah I mean electricity will come from the buildings even if it's powering something else I think it may end up not just being semantics it's yeah if you're talking about process electrical use or something like that that's really a different one to go after should we change four to buy their reduced baseline energy use by residential commercial buildings and equipment oh you know oh that I was thinking the number four I was like you're confusing me by yeah basically used by a residential and commercial buildings and equipment so I just threw the buildings and equipment and above when we talked about this stuff a lot of times when we start talking about residential lawnmowers and weed whackers and you know so we're kind of actually looping that into these as well even though it doesn't quite fit perfectly into thermal or electricity but it's really difficult to talk about that in the in the same box as transportation so I think I think that captures all four of those other goals so and the reason why we these guys are all looking at existing all these things we just did are looking at existing buildings and uses so how we help people who are already here with existing buildings is a completely different set of strategies than how do we help people who are building something new and it's not really helping people build something new building a new house that's why 11 and 14 are separate okay should we put should we put should we specify that in the goals to say reduced baseline energy used by pre-existing residential commercial buildings and equipment you can use the word existing yeah existing pre-existing yeah um and then I think that helps the reader understand oh what did we do up top here we had uh it's yeah the provide 100% renewable um now you're gonna be a problem there you go construction trying to get a starter word for this one what did you say up top about the construction it was but it was ours because it said provide but that was because it's we're building our own municipal facilities that's easy for us to say provide you did you did you did a different goal up above uh not using provide scroll up a sec purchase and construction of all new so you can in this case you can just say construction of new residential and commercial and then what's 14 today oh okay uh yeah uh we'll we'll be we'll be net zero for electricity for electrical and uh heating use uh except the electrical is already taken care of uh oh but this was 11 and 14 yes so actually you're right electrical and heating well I guess it's just electricity and heating right and is that construction of all new residential commercial buildings will be net zero for electricity and heating works good is that a cogent sentence there's one of 11 is 2050 and 14 is 2030 does that matter so they got a little wonky with their stuff when we started talking about 2050 um they jumped ahead and took their 2050 goal and divided it into thirds yeah okay and so I think this works I think we can tackle that within the talk of benchmarks okay Mike you need to delete the a on the end of residential there or spell the word residential correctly basically unless typo to deal with later I like residential I know it's a very you know it has a certain European flag to it I like let's make this whole thing in Italian actually that's good uh so 13 you did that so it's really looking at trying to see if we keep it as one or two we're kind of tackling it is um reducing vehicle miles traveled and reduce and switching to electric vehicles so so is is would it be okay to say eliminate fossil fuel use by personal vehicles to get it all that stuff eliminate fossil fuel use by and and I think I think we might want to specify personal vehicles because that's what it really means right no because it can also be transit transit vehicles okay to pry that okay by if there's if there's strategies going at at buses then okay that then that's fine now do we want to touch on the two parts so what I'm thinking of and we can go back and eliminate it through Mike have you added something in for that section I'm just not seeing it on my screen are you looking at the zoom screen it's probably because he's still typing by oh sorry yeah all right all right so I'll put that in really quick eliminate fossil fuel used by vehicles through reduction of vehicle miles traveled and conversion to electric and biodiesel open for race wordsmithing I think it's fine with me if you want to specify that and it's also fine with me if you want to leave it to strategies to specify that yeah I agree because if we're doing it elsewhere it makes more sense maybe to leave that as part of strategies there's also an overlap with the VMT potentially overlapping with transportation I think he plans to write it out the vehicle miles traveled no no no I just mean that that that part of that goal might overlap with transportation so if he were to break those into the goals Kirby it would just say eliminate fossil fuel used by vehicles yeah said the boot what do other people think do we want the long version or short version Marcella do you have a thought I guess short it goes with the others better okay Aaron do you have a thought as long as sure shorter is better for me yeah as long as that's captured elsewhere or in the strategies does that bother anyone that these were all talking net zero and now at the last time we threw in eliminate fossil fuels I think that was an initial confusion of mine but I think we just got to go with it because that's what is there like it took me a few reads to understand like when we're reading the aspirations but I think if we as long as we make sure that we clearly define the net zero concept is including reduction in fossil fuel use it's okay oh do you think people are going to think well it's out of the blue do I think the question is do we plan to do any offsetting when it comes to vehicles do you get to choose I think you just off yes what some of it might have to be offset for example the fire trucks I mean you know except that's municipal but some elements of it may end up being offset well we can't say eliminate fossil fuel use if we're going to offset some of it yeah that's yes right after 2050 you eliminate or offset fossil fuel use by vehicles that's fine if we want to do that if that's what if that's what just is net zero net zero for fossil fuels then we use the language if that totally changes it though because it says in those chapters that it's eliminate vehicle fossil fuel for people living in Montpelier and it would have to be something along this this line make yeah people use net zero yeah there's something like some develop but net zero transportation fleet or something like that I just I'm not wanting to I don't want to keep both sentences but I'm just yeah throwing in another way of saying eliminate or offset fossil fuel use if we want to keep using net zero is make vehicle use net zero for residential commercial vehicles or something like that we might need to say vehicle fuel if somebody wants to get real technical there's like it should be fuel yeah yeah that's a good point for which which one make vehicle fuel use fuel use yeah fuel in there yeah can is there a verb net zero but the net zero speaks to carbon emissions not fuel use so it's to focus on your definition to focus on fuel use well if we're only I mean I guess I don't know the definition of net zero then if that is the case and we're talking because like fuels have embodied or sorry cars will have embodied emissions so if we're talking about those or if we're just talking about fuel two different things well the the reduction of fossil the reduction or elimination of fossil fuel use correlates to reduction in emissions yes but I think we just need to be clear that net zero speaks to emissions not actual fuel use okay well they're related but they it speaks to different yeah well I think I think we're all good there but Marcel does make a good point about the embodied emissions and that's kind of beyond the scope of our plan why don't we just make sure when we define zero that it all makes sense after this act so are we going are we going for the to use net zero is that what people want yeah I think Mike's stuff I think Mike's last uh proposed definition was pretty cool okay anybody else okay all right so we have survived reducing the goals and strategies here well aspirations and goals aspirations goals aspirations and goals yes yeah we wish and did we make a final decision on net zero by 2030 yeah I'm fine with either one of those now that we've gone through the goals what other people think what are we talking about that they're all talking about the the short do we want the short or long version of the aspiration now do we want it to we want the aspiration to be modular would be a net zero city or modular would be a net zero city by 2030 for municipal operations in 2050 community-wide I like that one I do too because we we made our goals refer back to it yeah I think yeah I think I think it does make more sense to use the long one now everybody okay with that okay so let's uh we get to jump out of there and we got a couple minutes do we Mike would you rather us vote uh the implementation strategy through before oh yeah you guys are willing to I don't think anybody's itching to come back and do this again so uh is everyone okay with the with uh the modifications that Mike made so we're voting on Mike's column J is that what you're saying uh for we yes for well this new aspiration the longer aspiration uh and the and then all and then rewriting per you know reorganizing is what it is reorganizing the uh goals into what Mike has included in column J yeah I think that makes sense so we have one aspiration now is that right yeah yeah and we have seven goals do you want to jump in and make that a motion Marcella or sure um move to approve the short aspiration in line 15 column B and the rewritten goals in column J just just for clarity though it's not the short version of the aspirations the long one that's in line 15 a single single aspiration in line 15 shorter than it was before but not the shortest one we consider just but yes I think it's well identified as B 15 it is that was that was smart to say the line okay uh who was the second right on D okay okay so we have motioned by Marcella the second by area on to approve of a new single aspiration in line 15 of the template document um and uh new newly stated organized goals in column J of the template all those in favor of Marcella's motion say aye aye aye any opposed okay aspirations and goals down are we voting on the goals separately no the goals okay goals with the aspiration okay fine uh and so we we have eight minutes left so I don't think that I don't think we have time to to give the chapter any kind of justice uh Marcella just for clarification it looked like you made some edits have you like fully edited the chapter language no I was gonna no I have not sorry about that I will okay cool well okay so that's good if you if you um are able to do that for the next meeting we can yeah your version and to be clear I'm working off of Barb's version okay oh okay that will I think that will be helpful too because you know yeah I'm out yeah in one place yeah okay so you're working off the one that is on the google drive that's separate okay okay so that's what we'll look at next time um maybe Marcella and Bart uh can walk us through it and I think that this meeting will help inform your editing anyway because we brought attention to the fact that we want to make sure net zero is very well defined yeah we're relying on it right so yeah we're gonna have to make sure that's in there yeah I'll look for it okay and I'll populate the strategies so we can have those to discuss as well for the energy chapter now that we've got the goals done uh Mike what what were you thinking for uh the the next um aspirations and goals for us to look at uh well I think we've got the energy chapter for the next meeting so let's just let's look at it optimistically and so we get through the chapter and have time all right um that's somewhat up to you guys I can I can tell you the housing working group is done um and so we can send you what we have natural resources might be done but we're we haven't met yet but I think we're gonna but we'll have had one meeting before next time but I don't know that we'll be if there's one that's more done than natural resources that might be good so Kirby should we be sending Mike what we have so far after the last meeting you can put them on the drive actually Ariane volunteered to put the transportation on the on the drive right yeah I mean if you guys got it written separately drag and drop it on if you guys have it written as a separate document that's fine um I don't want you guys to spend a lot of time working on on like going in and trying to change and adding things on to into the excel tables because you've got to go through and like the process we're doing right now um yeah we didn't we didn't do that we have just a separate word document that has it has the aspirations and goals written out and that they could be cut and pasted into the template but they're not actually in the template so we're gonna ask Mike to do that well I think I think Mike's want to do that as part of his process okay is that right Mike yeah I mean if you guys have them as as word documents I think the easiest thing is just to drag and drop them onto the drive into the chapter section that it goes in and then we can talk as a commission about you know all all the pieces kind of put together there or at least that's my thought I mean this is your process so I'll send you the word document um but I cannot right now um add it into the um google drive okay no that's fine okay that sounds good sounds like we didn't plan uh so again from what I said before I mean I would like to quickly revisit historic preservation when we have time sometime in the next few meetings um to possibly add just a couple strategies um there's still the arts and culture to be worked out there's still land use to be worked out so we have a few that are will be building from scratch sort of yeah we have a yeah we have a couple of chapters we still have to do I've just been trying as I said to populate the aspirations and goals so that way we can get those approved in meetings and then we can go through and you know in the meantime I can keep working on these remaining strategies you know we've got the rest of community services um I mean we did parks but we still have to do recreation senior center cemetery and those so I still have a bunch of ones to do there public safety is another one um land use is a chapter that has to get done and then we've got those are the required ones that we have to do and then we have some optional ones like arts and culture or governance or other things I'm trying to focus on the required ones first um and trying to get as much in here so we've got opportunities to talk so that means it makes it easier for me to develop new ones if I know how we're all thinking where it's going that sounds great uh okay so well done everyone that was a hard working meeting I think uh do we have a motion to adjourn okay I'll second motion by well I heard a motion by Aaron in a second by Ariane okay all those in favor of adjourning say aye hi hi all right see you see you thanks thank yeah thank you


Okay, so the greater of colon subtotal, either the itemized deductions, I'm gonna put those two on an internal bit right here, a subcategory, that's what the colon means. It means there's gonna be, I'm gonna pull these inside in here and then have a total outside, which will take the greater of the two, in essence. So itemized deductions, or the standard deduction. And then the standard deduction, I'll put a little asterisk because it's gonna be coming from a worksheet. Now the itemized deduction, let's indent this as well, home tab and then alignment and indent it, because it's gonna be one or the other of these two. The itemized deductions come from the schedule A, so we will create another worksheet for that, but we don't have anything in there right now, so I'm just gonna put zero. We will continue to build this later. The standard deductions is gonna come basically from a worksheet. Now you can get this in essence from this table right here. Here are the standard deductions for single, married, head of household. So these deductions tie into the filing status. So I can put a little worksheet down here and then again, you can get more or less sophisticated with this, but I'm gonna put it down here on, let's put it just for now on 21, I'll put it down here and say these are the standard deductions, colon. And I'm gonna say if they were single or married, filing, separate, which is M-F-S, that's the shorthand for married, filing, separate, dedu. Then let's put that over, could I make this a little bit wider? Let's put it over here, 13, 8, 50. That comes from our table, so 13, 8, 50. All right, and then this is gonna be head or let's say married, filing, joint. And that's often abbreviated as M-F-J. And that's gonna be, you could think of it as this, hold on a second, this is not right, 13, 8, 50. And then this is gonna be that times two, 27, 700. That helps you to kind of memorize it. If you can memorize this number, you can say, okay, then it's doubled for married. And then we can say head of household, often abbreviated H-O-H is gonna be in between at 20,800. So that's the 20,800. Now, if you're filing a 1040S-R, they have these added brackets down here for single, married. So if certain conditions are met, which we'll talk about later, but I'll try to put a little thing in here. So if they say over 65 or blind, for, I'll put this up top, married, filing, joint, and single or head of household, then you have another 1850 and 1500 per person.


Hi, I'm O.S. Tuhardy from Jacksonville, Florida, stationed at Compt 6 fleet, and in honor of the Navy's 239th birthday, I'd like to thank Chief Petty Officer Stoddard for his support.