Call the meeting to order is 7 0 6 August 2nd Agenda considerations reserve for changes to agenda items and order We will not be changing anything tonight Comments and questions from the public not related to the agenda All set there. Okay All right, so we do our We continue with a consideration of amendments to the Colchester development regulation supplement 44 All right, hello, everyone. My name is Zachary Maya I'm the development planner for the planning and zoning department and standing in tonight for Kathy on the Rose the department's director Who usually staffs the Planning Commission? so this meeting is a follow-up to the Previous Planning Commission meeting where the Planning Commission walked through a majority of these list items and heard from the public and considered Whether or not these changes would be appropriate We're just going to briefly walk through the list and kind of pause after each one just so that you know the board can jump in Or public can also you know weigh in on these specific changes so for a Change to be considered in supplement 44 create new residential zoning districts Lakeshore 3 LS 3 and Lakeshore 4 LS 4 Changes here are in chapters 3.06 and 3.07 Table a 1 table a 2 that table a 1 is the table of uses table a 2 is dimensional standards and the draft Residential building types which I can pull up as well to have a brief discussion. I'll pause for a moment though for any comments from the board Yep, this is where you had a comment on our zoning Was the restaurant yep, so I just would like to advocate for but it sounds like it's already allowed in To conditionally permit a small restaurant of Dacreia College And I think I've heard the next responses when we had the public here And I just talked to several people not a lot of people today would love to be able to walk Sure, so let me go ahead and pull up the table of uses here So the table of uses being amended to add in Lakeshore 3 and 4 districts the use that I'm hearing Sarita is more of a short-order restaurant generally Tends to be the you know restaurants where people have table service not table service or a counter service Outdoor seating for a brief time, but not a lot of seating And let me just find that use all right, so it'd be uses 8.120 There's some alternatives in there currently for short-order restaurants with no drive-up service With a drive-up service and with outdoor seating right now those are allowed in the general development one districts Generally, they're allowed in the general development districts Mostly conditional uses So with that in mind, I'm hearing that you're interested in Making it a conditional use in Lakeshores 3 and 4 or was it just for okay, and I recall some of the public Some of the public engagement that went on and you know Forming these districts recently and there was some you know Consider a some pushback about commercial uses in these districts I think most of it was coming from the position of traffic and Parking along East Lakeshore Drive Which are not two huge things that the Commission has control over But that is definitely consideration for adding that use here. I'd love to hear what other members Think about this Parking Sure so Conditional use Criteria for the development review board definitely touches on traffic And whether or not the use would have an undue adverse effect on traffic in the area With that in mind The development review board is is limited in their ability to Restrict hours of operation or You know impose these certain conditions, you know some of them they of course can add other conditions Related to certain criteria and the regulations There's not that much that would allow them to provide input there that being said they They definitely, you know Parking on a site might be Related to the size or the number of seats on the site and then You know the amount of seats they have might also be dictated by septic capacity on the site, of course That is a little bit more open-ended when you think about sewer in the area So it's definitely a you know a consideration. There's people on either side of it I would defer to you know, you all here to just have more of a robust robust conversation about it Because it definitely changes the planned area in the future That's all right, you'll need to come up the mic though and state your name Oh, yeah, I'm sorry We will let's do it when we will do it feel us on East Lakes or a drive and Okay, I just find it's gonna be very difficult to that to do that to have Multiple more people coming in. There's already like about 5,000 cars that go by on that road and big semi trucks And to try to get someplace that's going to have a little A little general area for you know 12 a seating So if they're seating 12 and then the 12 they're going to see after them are waiting and then the other ones they're just getting ready to You know, I just it's just gonna be very difficult I think it's going to be a little bit longer before we can say yes or no on this subject because It just doesn't have that accommodation up and down East Lakes or drive. I just don't I can't even picture it I use that a lot if I'm going Anyway, I just can't bring up and down there Vision a spot that that could happen Except for a piece like sure variety. I mean, that's the only place that's come parking that is logical To have any place there. I mean the guy on the corner. It's got the worry of that's it He's not gonna mean so I don't get if you guys are saying like well an example would be I'd like to hear examples We're thinking everything if they were thinking their example of people you're representing Can you give me enough in the example of if you want?  We've got you You want if you're done that we'll continue on we'll discuss to this one ourselves through now. You'll hear it Well, we have to discuss on it. Okay with that Yep We might absolutely we've been doing this for a long time now. We've got a couple years into it. This is not So we're gonna go on Well, my first thought is we had our little public sure it It was really just on the housing. We didn't bring up any other uses on there And I think we're so far on the stage. That's the direction we're going. I think this particular subject I would think needs more input From the community on Eastlake Shore Drive. I don't think we as a planning commission can Right now Make that decision without their involvement just like we got them involved Earlier with the housing It's So but not for probably not for this supplement though, right? If you supplement we decided we'd like to leave it as is but we have another supplement coming up So and every supplement we get to put on new items, which we think are important So at this point, you're right. We have not pushed the commercial Because the community was pretty Resent as minimal as possible That's where we are right now But we do have another supplement coming again right after this Absolutely, I'll just I just want to just say this I feel like on Eastlake Shore Drive The traffic rules people's lifestyle, you know the cars and automobiles and it concerns me that That you know that people have to get in their cars all the time to go somewhere There's very few places where citizens in a neighborhood can walk to someplace And grab a cup of coffee or and I see it in like in summer They'll ask and even it's smaller from on has what I'm driving through I'm looking to see if they have a little Restaurant and and a lot of them do you know, and it's not like they have a kind of parking It's more coming from a place of wanting a space where the community or the neighbors can get together And I understand your concerns. I hear your concerns I just Know I think it's unfortunate We have to get in a car so much and co-tested goes somewhere gets in there and just trying to begin to Respect pedestrians and The so So so For myself, I think we are at the end of this and we have a lot of discussion. You're right It is a good idea. I think in some areas Eastlake Shore Drive, but it would have to be for another supplement Okay, only because we had so much input. You're right. We did put a big emphasis on the little shops at the time That's my favorite Yeah, and then my gut feeling was we don't know it for both sides We cannot do another supplement. He doesn't have to be included in the supplement We can have a discussion on it. Okay to get it if we want to be supplement for you fear Sure. All right. Thank you for did you want finishing off? Yeah, I just wanted to just add to that sure because the last statement that you had made was You know the traffic going through there and like I said just a little bit earlier How we have these semi trucks? Going through that road We I can I'd love to see you know an area like that that we could have people walking and strolling But that's not even planned before we put this into motion. I Mean, there's no walkways up and down Eastlake Shore Drive. There's no walkway at all There's no bike path on Eastlake Shore Drive. There's nothing. It's just two-lane roads There's no side to pull over on or anything. So my concern would be Or maybe a problem-solving skill would be to think about Routing all the traffic Right right down route seven and less. No, really. No, but if you're going to make this a resident I mean a seasonal recreational Come and walk and stroll and walk your dog sit here or sit on the side of the road Then make it not a thorough fear. If you have the regular traffic That's going by, you know on Eastlake Shore Drive Shut off to the big semi trucks and all the people racing are going to work because they didn't play in their time If they use route seven like they were really supposed to be Eastlake Shore Drive I think originally was for Eastlake Shore Drive You know back in the old days the old camps the old this people were camping. It was camps. It wasn't year-round Residential you've got more year-round residential. There are people walking dogs and people renting that have dogs and animals and kids and So and there's no walk across I get you know South Bay. There's no walk across. I sit and I can see them There's like a whole family with their all kinds of stuff in there People come up over the hill and they can't get there They're all like waiting to cross the road and the dog, you know So anyway, so if you could do that something about that traffic On Eastlake Shore Drive, let them run on Westlake Shore Drive. It's commercial. They know they're 25 and Since we've done 25 miles an hour on there. I've seen a big noticeable difference of people by 25 But the regular guys are passing them Because they're not going to pass them up. So we've got you know, so if we could get that piece then we as People might say we love those things there But there's no walkway, there's no lifelike Great. Thank you Okay Yes, so The item here regarding under 4a of draft residential building types There was a draft attached to this packet For discussion purposes hadn't yet been incorporated, but I did put some draft language into Lakeshore for regarding it. So I'm going to go ahead and pull up that table just to have a quick conversation So right now the table of uses really In table a one goes from single family or you know one family dwelling unit to a two family dwelling unit to a Multifamily dwelling unit, which is anything three or greater and it really leaves a lot of the number of units as well as the Design of those units and what they end up looking like kind of up in the air And I think that it through some previous conversations. Kathy Ann had Floated the idea of providing some general design standards To the Planning Commission and may have circulated this table With that in mind really looking at breaking out Multifamily into a couple different categories such as townhouse Small multiplex medium multiplex and large multiplex Now noting that you know medium multiplex and large multiplex There's still some some discussion to be had about what those thresholds are But small multiplex and townhouse might be the place to start So really looking at these two here Going into townhouse. We're looking at I'm not going to read the definition here, but three to six narrow dwelling units Generally forming a single row of housing You know with separate entrances front and rear yards a small multiplex being something that's you know single detached a Multi-unit residential building three or four dwelling units. I'm on a single lot with shared front side and rear yards shared parking and potentially some areas where these Types of dwelling units might be allowed in So taking a look at townhouses There was some draft recommendation that these might be allowed in all residential districts except LS one and LS three Those are the lake shore districts closest to Lake Champlain And then small multiplexes being Appropriate in and allowed in our two our three LS two LS four and all GD districts now when I've proposed here just understanding that To get towards this type of Regulation really this belongs in table a one breaking out the multifamily dwelling units into subcategories Being townhouse small to large multiplexes But there does there is an opportunity to kind of put these into LS for now through the additional standards under LS for so with that in mind really allowing for townhouses and multiplexes, but of course making sure that that's what you know the planning Commission's intent was there and You know starting to you know note that those might be appropriate in LS for With the understanding that in future supplements the planning Commission could look at these types of dwelling units across town So there is some draft language I can pull up But I'd love to you know get some feedback from the planning Commission on this proposal and just get your thoughts on it I'm So is this table Being proposed to be included in supplement 44 no, okay. This is just how we Feel about this table at this time to incorporate it and further So the way that I've incorporated some elements from the table Let me go ahead and pull it back. You want this? Correct What was that you looking for this for this supplement for LS for yes only LS for As a way to allow multifamily dwellings in LS for So the verbiage would be in As you said like table 1a with LS for So what this will end up looking like I can kind of walk you through here Right now So this is the proposed table a one here these Townhouses and small multiplexes would be considered multifamily dwellings So realistically it will be either permitted or conditional use In LS for it would likely not be allowed in LS 3 With that in mind we'd be defining townhouse and small multiplex in the definition section of the regulations same definition that's in the table and then in the LS for Lakeshore for 3.07 section under Additional standards we'd be saying multifamily dwelling shall be subject to plan residential development review as per article 9 Stating that townhouses and small multiplexes shall be permitted or subject to conditional use review In accordance with the dimensional standards established in table a tube so dimensional standards And then noting that multifamily dwelling units exceeding those limits Would be prohibited so really restricting multifamily development to smaller You know three to six unit buildings So if you had a Large piece of property could you have multiple? small dwelling multi-family dwelling units on the on the site I When we've looked at the density for all LS 3 and LS 4 You know we looked at what the zoning rigs would allow for density right now How many people max could be there? I think it was taking into account that they could put a lot more housing on a larger piece of property So does that take that into consideration? I mean it's so right now what would be allowed Let me pull up this table here. So so really we'd be looking at the density of the District to guide how many units could be on a property With the way this is currently written it would allow for someone who say they could do Say a townhouse is something that is you know six units at most They have the density to do 12 units on a property. They could do two townhouses In the way. This is currently written I guess so that's the same that townhouses a single unit and you're saying townhouses more of three to six Attached attached units, okay, because my definition of a townhouse is a little different, okay Okay So the density would stay the same they could put multiple buildings, but no larger than a Townhouse or so no larger than yeah, no larger than you know three to six units attached At most right and then you could do another Townhouse multiple dwellings in it You know I'm welcome welcome more discussion on that if you think it's you know something you'd want to see a harder cap on Like one townhouse one multiplex. It's just a little bit, you know, this was more of a starting point to get this sort of regulation into our into the overall regulations Properties So just to clarify rich you'd be fine if there were like say there was a large property and it had them two Three to six unit buildings. Okay. Yeah, I think what we're thinking of is the Condo building that's already on LS for I think it has I don't know how many units it has Has probably at least six I think that's what we're saying before was somewhat appropriate doesn't seem to have a strong impact on LS for Yeah They are set back. Yeah, I think it sounds good There's six units the setback So it's like, you know, like the gin and rice place the way she's got all her stuff and out back They're building a whole bunch of stuff out there. I don't know what they're building but so That's gonna be on the sewer system. I'm gonna just say Yeah, there is different parcels it doesn't it goes per parcel No matter what's on that parcel if it needs a sewer system, it fits on the LS for it will be part of this Just notes down All right So Hearing a yes on that, you know, I think you know down the line will have a Further conversation about that sort of regulation as it applies in future supplements I think there's some room for more discussion on it, but I think this is a good first step to start You know engaging with those ideas So any more discussion on for a from the commission or public Great Rick Davey from East Lakes Shore Drive, I got a just a couple of things I think they all fall within what we're talking about with for a right now 306 a4 it states It might just be a verbiage issue, but it says through lots would it do you mean just lots without the word through in it So it's my understanding that a through lot is Defined as in our regulations is a lot that might have two frontages On two roads perhaps. There's some constrained properties on East Lakes Shore Drive So recognizing that you know There's still, you know some desire to Favor the the historic development pattern that's occurred out there and the ability for a property owner to have a Residence on a lot that might be challenging to develop So through lots are a thing in our development regulations, so I believe it's intentional in this case Okay, that's what my question was So on B1 306 B1 Where you speak of demolition Would it be prudent to put in abandonment also? The only reason I bring it up is because It's very expensive to demo a property and so some properties are just leaving their structures just to Fall away into the ground over time and they tend to be eyesores We'd run into a problem if property taxes are paid Even though nothing's going on to the property. We're not able to do anything about that You keep up on your payments Even though they've walked away from it from now. We would not have any jurisdiction Okay Table a to page two I Sent these to Kathy and this morning. I'm sorry. I was a little late. I kept catching up on stuff. Summer gets in a way So a to page the heights why is LS3 25 feet while LS1 and LS2 are 20 feet So I think the question is about the height of LS3 Wondering why 25 feet is proposed in LS3 versus the 20 foot in LS1 and LS2 Excuse me You want to build still do two feet two floors Okay, so we are talking about the mean the current where the Structure is currently the average mean of that property. So if it's on a bank, it's down low So you really talking about that house is in but this is going to roll across all of them The ones that are up on the bank, too. Yeah, so The other piece I had was 14 table a 114 was that page 14 No on table a 114 the PUD So for the PUD for LS3 wouldn't that be no or conditional? and because up in 1.8 it says no, I'm happy to provide a bit of clarity here. That's all right So my understanding is that a planned unit development is really it's it's not a use that would normally fit in this table What it is is a type of review that a property might be eligible for through our subdivision regulations Really looking at does that property have 1.5 acres of development? The Lakeshore three properties Hard to get to that number, but you know understanding that that might still be a possibility. It's a way It's really a different review process and Understanding that just because you're allowed to do a planned unit development You may not be able to develop multi-family dwelling units that might be subject to plan unit development review so by Having this is a permitted use in Lakeshore three. It does not allow for multi-family housing in Lakeshore three Okay, so if it's very unlikely, why would we put it in? It's it's still a review that is allowed in that district because that's really under article nine of the development regulations Okay Is it and are there going to be any changes in appendix B as far as the diagrams go? I didn't see it attached to this document. I was just curious if there were going to be any changes It's not listed. That's why I was And the only reason I bring it up is because of the you know, the calculation for height Is pretty critical and a lot of the what's happening with LS3 and the height issues Sure, give me just a minute to scroll to the calculation of height in the draft language here So just to address that it doesn't look like there's any changes Relative to in appendix B related to 2.06 B Because really that section was just clarified But that being said, let me just check on the height calculation for accessory structures I'm sad so I might be what you're referring to there. So it's my understanding that This section here in 2.09 A5 detached accessory structure shall not exceed 20 feet in height except as follows that matches with Appendix B figure to Measuring the 20 feet in height pitched roof accessory structures shall not exceed 25 feet in height that Also matches with appendix B as well. Some of these other criteria under B through E are if certain conditions are met I don't believe that There have been certain conditions to get relief from the height restrictions for accessory structures that have not had Drawings in the appendices so there's no update at this time proposed for that. Thank you. Thank you Thanks. All right So Moving on to be reorganization of statutory references to municipal plan permitted uses and conditional uses to reduce redundancy This is starts at chapter 1.07 and continues throughout these owning districts any comments from the commission. All right hearing none See updates to process for zone change requests to align with planning commission policy adopted February 2022 can be found in 2.03 D any comments clarifications and minor substantive adjustments related to dimensional standards of accessory structures including height and placement 2.06 and table a to Comments or questions from the commission we kind of just went through it again Moving on to E minor changes to language related to accessory dwelling units Change from use of apartment and residential unit to be consistent with statute Clarity with respect to obtaining a wastewater permit prior to issuance of zoning permit 2.09 B and definitions to 12.02 Any comments or questions from the board? F clarify how heights of fences are measured to point one zero B. Nobody's on the fence. All right 4g changes to status of non-conforming use Status to provide for limited extension 2.12 4h explicitly connect wastewater requirements of chapter 4 of the Colchester code of ordinances to the development regulations 2.15 systems being Just a little concerned about properties that are handed down family to family And may not in this instance would it need to be So excuse me The intent of the language here and also in I believe it's article 11 is to For for new development that obtains a wastewater permit and Zoning and building permit from our department So that prior to Certifying that the work has been complete under a zoning and building permit Relevant to something that would require a wastewater permit a new wastewater permit You would need a certification letter from an engineer It would not be required in the case of someone who wants to In large a deck on a camp that their family is owned for years and needs to get a certificate of occupancy for that deck permit It would not be required in that situation just when one is required if you're adding a bedroom or Building a new structure It's my understanding that so we issue certificates of occupancy related to work under permits Not for transfers of ownership so there'd be no trigger for us to Prevent occupancy Based on a failing septic system now if the septic system is failing it might not be a great idea to to live in The dwelling unit if it's actively failing You know, there's some requirements on the wastewater permitting side of things You know, we're not changing any of that tonight So really there's there's no situation. I see where someone could Come into ownership of a property and not be allowed to occupy it from the zoning Side of regulations not from wastewater. Any other comments on that? so For I update reference to building code subsection to reflect changes in chapter four of the code of ordinances 2.17 No problem Very well 4j clarify that the severance corners form-based district is the general development 3 gd3 district 4.03 4k updates to water protection district to include exemptions permitted under state statute for stormwater management systems 7.04 c for L consider regulations Related to electric vehicle charging stations as remanded from the select board as part of supplement 43 10.01 c 7 through 9 This is the bicycle one that's in there. It's part of the electric. Oh, I know it is But I didn't know okay, so we just took the bicycle out. We took out the charging station for the bicycle Okay, moving to the charging station for the cars outside I mean, I just got a there's no way No To charge it and I just think I don't think they can have a shed or I understand that Unfortunately, I think it's the point where we have to study that Exactly how many we need another supplement comes in. Okay, that's that's not I think I'm not kind of See that point of view that I think we're kind of like at the point moving And again, it's just you know again effort to get people out of cars and you know If you have an electric bike, can you plug it into a normal? So people could take it up to their office and plug it in So for M extend expiration period for major subdivisions and clarify rights associated with 24 VSA 4463 for subdivision plots changes can be found in 9.04 h for n updates related to bicycle parking as remanded From the select board as part of supplement 43 10.01 k So for oh updates to commercial vehicle definitions and parking standards as remanded from the select board as part of supplement 43 Can be found in 10.01 m was this where we decide what the length of Number of trucks and truck size it and residential areas. Yeah, that one. I think we let we said 18 I since then I've been looking at Because it's Like my neighbor used to have one. What have you we might want to increase that one cuz actually Cuz the smallest Cargo van that's what we're talking about The smallest one was 16.2 feet, but the average was like 19 feet six inches There's only one maker that does one that's under 18 It just took a little bit Yeah, now's the time to do it. We want to go to 20 which I think as long as once we go over that number I was where I was getting at then we're getting to the bigger rigs. Exactly. So I was okay with Anywhere from the 16 to 20 at the time. So it seems like the the major makers of these 19 6 to 19 So I would say we increase that to 20 feet The height is under 10.01 m4. So it's height shall be less than 10 feet All right, so I'll make that change and I've got a note down on here as well. All right 4p Updates to photovoltaic systems solar collectors to be consistent with statute in chapter 4 of the code board For the commons from the board For Q updates related to non-net metered photovoltaic systems to provide for increased height and reduced screener requirements of Ground mounted systems can be found in 10.08 b3 For our updates to fence and setback requirements for wind turbines 10.09 For s clarification related to requirements for water and wastewater permits 11.03 b And let me just check on that to make sure that we Totally got that rounded out here. All right, so no further questions on that one just really do okay 4t Extend expiration period for zoning sign water and wastewater permits changes can be found in 11.05 For you amend a definition of in to reduce number of allowed rooms and length of stay chapter 12 So I know that this one was still hanging out in front of the board I think we want to continue it to this meeting to have a further discussion on it I have a table here that I can share Yeah, so currently the zoning allows for Variety of short-term rental sort of arrangements Starting with Ben and breakfast and working up to extended stay hotel In between that you've got inns which currently allow for 60 or fewer units our rooms and then Bumping that up to hotel beyond there So there was some discussion about bringing down that number of 60 Going into the last meeting Settling at you know 20 or fewer units But I think the board need a little bit more time to think over that number. I know that Bob check who is Not here tonight It was discussing reducing the number 20 down to 15 So I'd love to turn over the board to hear more about you know what your thoughts are on this Well That's not that those are the ones on the market correct, but if you think of other ends they were like the Generic was where I could get Dimensions, right, but I can think of others like you know woodstock down in Manchester There's places that are called in They have a huge number of rooms So I this whole thing of an in In seems like a word to cover anything from a very small establishment to a large establishment So I think we're trying to define something that maybe in may not be I don't know ends the right word for it We don't but we allow this in LS for And LS3 and we did not want huge No, I understand that but So I understand coming up with a different word, but at this time unless we come up with Definition or different So just to clarify in Will not be allowed in Lakeshore 3 and 4 it's currently allowed in It's conditional on Lakeshore 1 and permitted in Lakeshore 2 So I'm wondering if we should make it more like a large and a medium-sized and a small And I mean as we're going through this stuff again because there's different Properties throughout Colchester that could probably support a large in And others that you don't anything larger than a small in so I think it needs to be further developed But I think as a placeholder right now. I Think either the 15 or 20 is a good placeholder for our Current definition I don't know that's why I say you know some places are called an in which Operates as a hotel. So that's why I'm kind of fuzzy why we have a definition for an in but if we do maybe we divide it up So we can make it for different zoning areas where it's appropriate Yeah 3 Which one is this an LS for Okay, Henry talking about You had a comment so my comment was just going to be that in terms of creating these different, you know approaches to you know These hotel arrangements whether they're you know smaller or larger You know my read of what's currently in table a one right now is that you know You have hotels and motels that are allowed in certain districts and one Distinguishing factor here is that a hotel is conditional use in Lakeshore to an in which is you know a hotel doesn't have any threshold Whereas an in is the maximum 60 units is you know Permitted in Lakeshore to so you're seeing kind of a Something that was you know You can infer that it might be more appropriate to have a smaller accommodation there smaller being the threshold at 60 units So Rebecca when I'm hearing what I've jotted down is just maybe saying maybe there's a lower threshold in addition to that For consideration in other districts. Well, you have it permitted right? Yeah. No, it's hard to read this thing Let me zoom in so we made it So that's hotel and motel as well as commercial I thought I saw it in commercial. Okay, so we have it No, I was just I was thinking you know in areas like commercial It's not even permitted in commercial so it would be Hotels motels and extended stays would be conditional and commercial I don't know why it's It's almost like it was put in there just for LS to No That's the only place it's permitted Yeah, which is fine it definitely fits in Well, even even in LS to I don't think you want 60 That's fine. Yeah, it reduces it down from 60 to 20 Hotel Sure, so I'm hearing a consensus around 20 units not quite 15, but lowering 60 down to 20 for now So 4v amend definition of excavation to exclude work exempt from or authorized under state permitting chapter 12 Any comments or questions from the Commission? Sure. Let me go ahead and scroll down to that definition here So the purpose of the change here is previously we defined excavation as any breaking of ground And gave an exception to common household gardening and ground care The one point to distinguish here that we want to add in and really make clear is that the installation of a wastewater system That's been approved Under a separate wastewater permit is not something that we can require Permit under the development regulations for because it's already permitted under the state wastewater program So this was just to really add some clarity to what is already the procedure from a legal standpoint for the town 4w various non substantive grammatical and organizational adjustments You're all good there and then changes to the zoning map including changes to Residential to in order to create Lakeshore 3 and Lakeshore 4 districts Any comments or questions about the map from the Commission? I think I know what you're trying to go. You're talking about So it's the the one out here, right Way out there. I never noticed that so it's my understanding that that's an error I Think we I'm not sure why that is a Not sure why that is there. It's kind of in the middle of the 89 right of way So it might not actually be a parcel It might have been something that um that does not exist But we can go ahead and clean that up and make sure that it's not included in this own change No, no no underground at the base of lone pine campsites Just curious when you go down closer to the corner There's a development there already wouldn't it make sense to include that into LS4 also Are you talking about this one right here? Yeah, so just to just to clarify that is currently zoned as Lakeshore 2 So it's under the previous yeah, yeah, so it's under the basic same guidelines of LS4 Yeah, I just came around the corner honestly, I don't know why they stopped there I don't think the difference in the zoning is gonna make any difference to that Yeah Yes, and also to note I believe Churchill Lane does have a planned unit development You know approval on record as well So there's some residential, you know very residential limitations on what can be done on that property in specific All right, and that concludes the list Sure, so I Can just give a little bit of insight here, but the next steps Would be at the Planning Commission's August 16th meeting and we'll go ahead and get a draft cleaned up Just inclusive of everything we've heard, you know up to tonight As a draft that would be compiled for a warning It'll include all of the changes beyond just the text So we'll get make sure all the tables tables a1 and a2 were updated and included We'll make sure the definitions are of course updated And we'll go ahead and you know get that draft ready for your review at that meeting The action that you might take that meeting would be to Approve the draft for a warrant hearing We'd be scheduling that out to the second meeting in September likely I'm just in order to give staff time to get you know the warning in the seven days Which is the paper of record that we're using And then beyond that the draft will go to the select board So we're probably looking at closer to an end of year time frame because the select board You know can't take action on it for 30 days once they receive it, but they have to act on it within 120 I believe so There's definitely some more steps in the way here For the Planning Commission, but you know things are definitely wrapping up with this and staff's next step Will be to give you that draft make the motion that we approve the minutes of July 19 Yeah, I can I can see if we can put an agenda item on the next meeting regarding that make an emotion to adjourn


to stop me was a great big sign that this private property, but on the other side it didn't say nothing. That's why it was made for you and me. One more time this land is yours, this land is mine. From Dallas Farmer to the New York Highland, from the musical sting wall. This afternoon we're very proud to have with us Dr. Milton Terrace who has lived in South Burlington for the last seven years and Dr. Terrace is a member of the Task Force on Health Care that I recently put together. And we were especially delighted to have Dr. Terrace participate on that task force because he is in fact one of the national experts in the whole area of public health. And Dr. Terrace, perhaps before we even get into the heart of the discussion, maybe you might want to share with the viewers a little bit about your background and how you became interested in the area. Well, I've been in public health all my life. I'm a physician. I am past president of the American Public Health Association. I've done research and teaching in public health. I was at one time chair of the Committee on Medicine and Society of the New York Academy of Medicine and I'm currently a visiting professor in the Faculty of Medicine, both at the University of Toronto and the University of Montreal. I presume that makes me some kind of an expert. Let's start off with the health care problems that we see in the state of Vermont, some of which have come up right before us on the Task Force. As you know, we have a situation where about 62,000 Vermonters lack any health insurance whatsoever. We have a situation where for people who have blue cross, blue shield or private health insurance, the cost that they're paying has gone up radically in the last few years and it's now taking a big chunk out of people's limited incomes. We have a situation in which for our elderly people, almost 50% of their health care costs are now coming out of their own pocket, despite Medicare. The Medicare in many ways has not done what people had thought. Elderly people had thought that it would do and the scary thing about all of that is that as bad as the situation is now, what all of the experts tell us, that if present trends continue, we have no reason to believe that the situation is not going to get increasingly worse in terms of higher and higher health care costs. What's going on? What might we do to improve that situation? Well, I think the problem is that in the United States, including Vermont, of course, we've approached these problems in a fragmentary kind of way. Voluntary health insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, there's been no overall or unified approach to the problems. This is very unusual in our world because every other industrial country except South Africa and the United States, every other country has some kind of medical care system which is either national health insurance or a national health service where the government essentially operates the program. Without that, you can't really solve the problem. We have large numbers of people in the U.S. today who are losing their medical care insurance because they're losing, they've lost their jobs. And that's a tremendous problem. Many people who work at low wages don't have coverage or they have inadequate coverage. Now, people talk about the number of individuals who have health insurance. The truth of the matter is that a lot of that health insurance doesn't cover very much.  You're absolutely right. And that problem is becoming worse as we see the decline of manufacturing in this country and the growth of service industries. And I think one of the points that we've all made is that when we look at the 62,000 people, you're not just talking about unemployed people. In fact, as I understand, the two-thirds of those people are working people who are working in the service industries, and the McDonald's and the Burger King's ski industry, who are not getting the type of coverage that workers got to work for GE or Ivory M or the University of the City. Well, the curious thing is that Vermont would be in great difficulty trying to deal with this problem because so much of Vermont industry is small industry. And I really think that we would have a serious problem asking very small industries with five or 10 employees to pay for medical care at the ruinous prices that the ruinous cost that we have at the present time. What this would mean really is helping in the destruction of small business in Vermont and elsewhere and the aggrandizement of big business, which is the only kind that could handle the situation. I might say, by the way, this is a burden for big business too. And it's a competitive burden vis-à-vis country like Canada where the payment for medical care, the national medical care program, doesn't depend on payroll taxes, comes out of general tax revenues. And essentially a lot of it is coming out of income taxes, which means that it's a progressive tax. The people who are better off pay more. And I think that's only fair. And I am absolutely opposed to the use of social security for medical care because that's a regressive tax. So that poor of people are paying more than they should. And you recall, so just to pick up on the point that you're making, you recall that Lee Iococo, when he became head of Chrysler, did a study as to the expenses that Chrysler was incurring. And he found out that I think per automobile, the single largest expense was not steel, it was health insurance. And I think that the point that you're making is that in our country where large employers have to pick up the very significant costs of health care themselves, in Canada it in many instances is spread out of the general population of progressive manner. So the hour industry is in a negative position competing with other countries. That's absolutely true. I think it would be to the best interests of Vermont business as well as the people of Vermont. And I would say U.S. business and the people of the United States to adopt something like the Canadian system. Canadian system has many wonderful things about it. Everybody is covered. Nobody is left out of the program. Okay, let's get into that. I know that we went up to Canada twice and I know you teach in Canada, so you know a heck of a lot about it. Let's contrast if we might. I know you're just in the process of starting that. What goes on in Canada with what goes on in the United States? And I think the first point that I want to make for your consideration is that some people say, well, that's great that Canada provides insurance for all people, but gee, it must be awfully expensive. And in fact, what we learn when we are up there in terms of per capita, it is significantly less expensive. And the point that I know that we have been making is that while we have 15% of our national population without any insurance at all, it's not because this country is not spending a fortune on healthcare. But why don't you take it from that? Talk a little bit about the Canadian system and how it contrasts with ours. Well, the costs in the U.S. run to about 11% of gross national product. In Canada, it's 8.5% of gross national product. In U.S. dollars, it's about $1,400 per capita, $1,400 U.S. dollars per capita in the United States, and about, oh, 900 to 1,000 perhaps, U.S. dollars in Canada. So it's much cheaper. And I would say, based on what I've seen, that the quality of medical care in Canada is just as good as in the United States. And they're doing it much more cheaply because they're administer, among other things, their administrative costs are low. They only, the cost of the whole program in Canada is 2.5%. To his minister. To his minister. I know, when you and I, well, we were up there to Quebec, and we spent, there was a gentleman there who was very, very proud of the very highly computerized administrative system that they have in terms of billing positions in hospitals and so forth. My memory is correct. When we deal here as a city with Blue Cross, Blue Shield, when most companies or businesses deal with their insurance company, usually the administrative costs are somewhere 8, 9, 10%. And with the point that Dr. Terrace is very importantly making is that in Canada, aside from the fact that healthcare itself is less expensive, the administrative costs are significantly less expensive. He was talking about 2, 2.5%. 2.5% as against about 9.5% for Blue Cross Blue Shield for all private insurance. Which means significant savings to healthcare consumers when you're not paying for paper, shufflers, and bureaucracy. You have to realize that we're talking about a publicly administered program in Canada. Everyone talks about the superiority of private business and private management. The truth of the matter is that under public administration, the programs are administered by the provinces, by a health agency, either the health department, or another health agency in the province. There's no private insurance company involved. So what you're saying is there is no Blue Cross, there is no Connecticut General, there is no Medicaid, there is no Medicare. You have one source of funding. And one of the important things is everybody has the same Medicare card, rich or poor. There's no such thing as charity. There's no means test. You don't have to declare that you're a pauper in order to get medical care in Canada. I think that's terribly important. That's basically the most important issue. I remember about the five or six years ago, not long after I was elected, we invited two Burlington gentlemen who was in charge of that, the Quebec health insurance system. And he said, this guy was no great radical, but he said with a great deal of pride that in Quebec and in Canada, healthcare was a right. It was not a privilege. And basically, you know, it's a funny thing. You go up there and no one makes a big deal about it. You know, in the same sense that we call the police department here and the police officer comes and he doesn't charge you, right? We assume that to be a part of our rights as an American citizen. And what they now understand in Canada is that, of course, when you go to the doctor, you don't take out your wallet. And when you go to the hospital, when you go to a nursing home, you don't have to go broke to pay that. They now understand that as part of their rights. You know, and while we talk about the Canadian system, the American system where people argue the pros and the cons, there's one point that I do want to make. And it's an interesting point. No one is suggesting that the Canadian system is perfect or that we have to copy every detail of it for the United States. We're a different nation. But it's interesting. In Canada now, they have a three-party system. They have a conservative, actually a pro-Reagan prime minister, a pretty conservative guy who recently came to office, Mulroney. Nobody in his party has ever dreamed of whispering one word of changing that healthcare system because they understand any politician worth assault in Canada understands that that system is very popular, that the people have fought very hard to get that as a right, and they're not tampering with it. In the United States, on the other hand, virtually every poll indicates that people want major changes in our healthcare system. And I know your publication, your journal, published an interesting item on a referendum that was held in Massachusetts, which you might at some point want to chat about. Well, in Massachusetts, they voted on the question of a national health program, and it was the victory for the referendum, for asking Congress to establish a national health program was two to one, 67% of the voters. But the interesting thing was, this was not a big city thing by any means. All of the cities voted for it, but of the 307 towns in Massachusetts, 302 gave a majority to the request to Congress to establish a national medical care program. But of course, you know, our political parties don't always listen to the public. I might add, by the way, that the reason we have the program in Canada is the development of the New Democratic Party, first in Saskatchewan, where they established a provincial health program to cover every citizen of Saskatchewan. Then later, they did that with physician services. And it was because of their example that the more conservative parties in Canada decided that they had better pick up this issue and they established a federal program of aid to the provinces to develop the Canadian system. I want to get back to, I might also add, and the mayor hasn't asked me to say this, that I don't think we will get a real national medical care program, health program in this country until we have the development of independent political action as we have in the city of Burlington and the state of Vermont. I think that's a very important lesson. It was true all over Europe. It was true in Canada. It's been true in Latin America. All over the world, you find that it is only when you get independent political action by the people that you get the more conservative parties reacting with the development of a national health program. Yeah, I'm very glad that you raised that issue. I know I've heard in the past you raised that and needless to say, I agree with you absolutely. The heart of the issue is that we should not look at health care as something abstract and removed from politics in general. In this country, what you have is in terms of the medical industrial complex, a tremendous, I don't know if there's any particular force that is more powerful and wealthy than these people. I'm not just talking about the American Medical Association, you've got the drug companies, you've got the medical equipment suppliers who keep coming up with new and expensive technology who are making, you know, when we talk about health care, I always find this humorous and the cause is zooming up and everyone's, oh my god, just can't figure it out why it must be some mystical, magical thing. Then you look at drug companies making billions of dollars, you look at individual physicians making three, four, five hundred thousand dollars, sometimes more than that, you look at hospitals making nifty profits themselves, you look at these medical equipment companies making a fortune, you look at the fact that we're probably putting more physicians out on the street than we need to and no one is talking about that. It is not, it's not magic and I think the point that you're making that I very strongly agree with is that until you have working people, low income people, elderly people beginning to stand up and fight for their rights and I happen to think it's outside of the democratic and republican party. Until you have that force and people saying hey we are human beings, we don't have to have to sell our homes or go bankrupt in order to get into a nursing home or figure out that we have to pay a third of our income for health insurance, we can do better than that and until we have that movement organized politically I think you're right, I think we're not going to get that. You know the question you raised about nursing home care, my wife and I in addition to many millions of elderly Americans live in absolute fear that one of us will have to go into a nursing home for six months a year, two years and we will be pulparized because that's what happens. Everything gets taken away from you to pay for the many many thousands of dollars that you have to pay for nursing home care over a long period. That does not happen in Canada. Nobody gets pulparized in Canada because of the need for nursing home care. You're touching on an issue that I want to elaborate a little bit about because I fear that there is a misconception out in TV land and the rest of this country about what Medicare provides for people and I think you have many people who have the illusion that when they're over 65 and they get their Medicare card that they are in pretty good shape and they're not going to have to worry about nursing homes or prescription drugs or the other additional costs that elderly people have. Well I'm one of the more well-to-do recipients of Medicare and I can tell you it's it would be amusing if it weren't so sad. I keep getting explanations from Medicare that well you have this charge that's been sent in but you haven't yet taken care of your deductible so you have to pay it or you have to pay coinsurance or and this is one of the big differences between the Canadian system and the U.S. system. Your doctor can charge in the U.S. more than he gets for Medicare. You have extra charges that's not allowed in Canada and one of the reasons that the cost of medical care is so great is that physicians and hospitals can charge more and this is a very serious problem for the American people. I think one of the points that we understand that I think was reinforced when we went through the world to Canada is that at least as I see it and I'm not an expert on it but this is the way I see it. Number one you want to guarantee that all people have access to health care as you do in Canada but I think what we understand is that unless we change the funding system and the control mechanisms in this country to do that for example if we expanded Medicaid to everybody right give everybody a Medicaid card we would be spending such an astronomical sum of money that you know we would bankrupt the nation so maybe you want to talk a little bit about that and why in Canada under their national health system you can have access for all people and yet per capita it is less expensive than in the United States. Well for one thing you don't have extra charges for another the fees are negotiated between the medical profession for example and the provincial government. As far as hospitals are concerned it's simple they get a global budget from the province based on their performance and I must say the provinces have been rather good to the hospitals if for a very good reason the costs go beyond what the global budget afforded they will make it up to the hospital if it's a necessary expense at the same time there is pressure from the provincial governments to provide efficient care not to waste money and so on. Let me just jump in and give you an example a couple things I know when we were in Montreal you were mentioning I think you had a friend who had a coronary bypass here in this country and the contrast between the cost of that operation in Quebec I think it was and in the United States? A physician friend of mine had a coronary bypass here in Burlington it was done at the MCHV it cost him $10,000 for the operation and $10,000 for the hospital and when we had our hearing the other day Mr. Taylor the director of MCHV indicated that this was in the ballpark I think he said it's something like $15,000 to $20,000 total cost I was very much interested in that question and when we were in Montreal I asked the administrators there what they paid a surgeon for a coronary bypass and the answer was you won't believe it $1,200 Canadian which means about $800 US and this kind of differential between the astronomical charges of physicians in the United States and the negotiated reasonable charges in Canada is something that we have to think of I think business has to think of this I think citizens have to think of this One of the other things that we learned and I especially when we were there we had a lovely chat with some people in public health physicians at the University of Montreal and one of the points that came out there and elsewhere is talking about the number of physicians you know one of the things that's interesting right here in the state of Vermont that I hope this session the legislature will begin to deal with is we spend the tax play as appropriate $6 million to the UVM medical school and to the best of my knowledge there is no real discussion as to where that money goes and how it values how it improves life for the people of Vermont for example what happens to these physicians whom when they graduate whom we are subsidizing right now do they become just another specialist and help raise the cost of health care to a level that most of our people can't afford right now do they leave the state do they go where they are in fact needed do they work with a homeless do they go to the women's clinics and I think one of the points that what we learned in Montreal and in Quebec is they pay physicians they say to physicians if you want to practice in an area where we already have an overabundance of physicians you're really not needed if you want to go there you can go there but we're paying you I think 70 percent of the rate was that at the something like something like right so in other words they are discouraging people to go into an area where they're not needed and on the other hand where they do need physicians right I think up in the northern part of the province they're saying why we will pay 120 percent of the fees that you had otherwise have gotten and they are using there for public money to bring health care areas where it's needed and using their power to discourage you know do we need how many more specialists do we need in the city of brook it is not really our major health care crisis I think it's a mistake for the state to spend six million dollars to produce more and more physicians we have an overabundance of physicians now in the United States to produce specialists to produce people who are leaving Vermont I think that money could be spent for very good purposes we heard from the visiting nurse association for example that they are in grave trouble for lack of funds we heard from the Vermont state health department that all of their programs are suffering because they don't have enough money to meet the needs I think the money should go to the you said this in that statement to the press the other day that the money should go to the vna the money should that six million could do a lot for the vna the state health department programs for many programs around the state the problem is and it's the point that you made a while back is that we don't have a system you have a fragmented structure so that we learn through our task force that Jim Letty made a passionate discussion from the Howard mental health they're getting cut all over the place they can't do the desperately needed work they have to do for alcohol prevention and many other important pieces of work they do the vna which does excellent home-based health care is in desperate economic trouble the state department has been the state health department as I as I recall has been losing federal funds where they are very excellent preventative health programs we don't have physicians in certain parts of the state where we need them and yet do we need we're putting six million dollars into the medical school there is no public discussion as to what we as a society as taxpayers get out of that and nobody is sitting down and taking the overview and saying look we need more money and preventative health care we need more money in community-based health care we need less specialists and I think I mean that's pretty much at the root of the problem isn't it well and you have to realize this is a medical school that is one of the few in the United States that does not have a department of community and preventive medicine so all of their focus is in terms of tertiary care specialist care not in terms of meeting the health needs of the community not only for treatment but for prevention and as a person who's been in public health for some 40 years I can attest to the fact that much more money should go into prevention and that money should be taken out of the swollen budgets for treatment because we would gain tremendously by not having to treat diseases like heart disease like lung cancer like stroke that could be prevented we have all the knowledge now as a result of the work of our epidemiologists we know how to prevent these diseases and we we have simply failed to put the money where the where the knowledge is and where the opportunity is that is to keep people from getting sick and having these tremendous medical bills you know the issue of public health and health in general is such a deep issue there are a few issues that I that I deep up because it almost it relates to everything that we do it's obviously a political issue not only in terms of availability and cost and accessibility but in terms of the quality of the lives of our people I don't know you showed me a study that I thought was it was very interesting needless to say the medical establishment in this country with their billions of dollars for research somehow doesn't do studies like this but why don't you briefly describe that Canadian study that well what what that study indicated was that medical care although it plays an important role in the health of the public is not as important as two other factors one is prevention the other is the standard of living and what this study showed was that if you you take Canada which has now an effective medical care system there is equity everyone has the right has access to medical care and yet there are still big differences by by economic level the poorest fifth of the Canadian people have a an expectation of life that is an average life span of four and a half years less than the highest fifth in terms of income level okay but if you look at life expectancy in terms of the years free from disability what we call health expectancy or disability free life expectancy what we find out is that the poor people of Canada have only 55 years expected for healthy living that is without disability and the rich people of Canada have 66 health years average life an 11 year difference in life expectancy on a healthy basis without disability so it seems to me you have to look at other issues at employment there's a 10% unemployment rate in Canada and in the maritime it's up to 14% it resembles Detroit and our middle western cities you have to look at housing you have to look at education you have to look at nutrition all of these factors play tremendous roles in health and I frankly think that between prevention and the standard of living you're dealing with the key factors in health but the point being there we're going to have to end the program right now is that health is more than going to the doctor it's the quality of life that you experience and that has a great deal to do with class and if it's true in Canada everything being equal I would say those figures might even be more stock in the United States but we don't know that I think they would be okay Dr. Terrace thank you very much for joining with us this afternoon I think we almost only began to touch the surface I hope you'll come back and thank you all for viewing the program thank you


Welcome to the third of the series of the podcast on Sustainable Development Goals Evaluating Progress for a Brighter Future. This is Kasim El-Sadiq. I am the co-chair of Eval SDGs Network, the global network of evaluation practitioners around the globe. We've discussed so far adaptive evaluation when considering global climate risks and in the second episode we covered how to get started in designing, scoping and defining the SDGs evaluation. In today's session we will be exploring with our guests the use of the country-led evaluation of the SDGs. And with that I'd like to introduce and to welcome three of my guests for today, Dorothy Lux, Ana de Oliveira and Pethi Osekela. Dorothy? Yes, hello to you all. My name is Dorothy Lux. I'm the executive director of SDF Global that stands for Sustainable Development Facilitation. I'm a credentialed evaluator and we operate a social enterprise that works not only in evaluation but also in a whole range of other sustainable development support processes. And good to mention that Dorothy was the former co-chair and one of the founders of Eval SDGs Network. Welcome, Dorothy. My second guest is Ana de Oliveira. Ana? Hello everyone. So Ana de Oliveira, I am the policy and research officer at Cooperation Canada which is a Canadian network focusing on international cooperation. So I lead the files around the 2030 agenda and the SDGs within the organization and for two years in partnership with 12 other global organizations, I coordinated an independent civil society-led report on the progress of national SDGs implementation. Welcome, Ana. My third guest is Pethi Osekela. Pethi? Oh, hello. My name is Pethi Osekela. I'm a managing director of Friskit and Joy and a research company doing evaluations but I also have a position at the University of Vasa. I'm a research director in a research platform called the complexity research and that is a systems approach to more complicated and complex societal issues. But I've just started an evaluation of the national SDG goals in Finland and that is national evaluation so I'm willing to share also some of the ideas that we have in mind during the national evaluation. Thank you. Thank you Pethi and Ana and Dorothy and I think Pethi you've laid the ground for probably the first set of questions and kicking the dialogue and basically I'd like to start with you so we're clear and we have some clarity on what is a country-led evaluation since you're just embarking into it. What is country-led evaluation? Why is it conducted and how is it done? That is an important question since Finland has been very active in evaluating the national implementation of the SDG goals. We carried out the national evaluation in 2019 and that was an excellent evaluation. It gave a very good state-of-the-art analysis where we were at that time and also I was very happy to see that quite a few of those recommendations in that evaluations you could see in our government the forthcoming government program and its implementation guidelines so it's really fed to the political process as well. And then Finland has also carried out so-called the voluntary national reviews and the latest one was in 2020 and that's also an excellent report and there was a Switzerland and Mozambique that gave the peer review comments that report and it's an excellent piece of work also. But why Finland is doing another evaluation at this time? I'm not fully aware of all the motivations behind it but I think one of the reasons is that SDG goals have been very high in our government agenda and also quite a few of our ministries want to see the continuation since we have a government election coming in next spring and that is a way to give the state-of-the-art analysis and results prior to government program preparation. So I think that's one of the key reasons. And the main emphasis in our evaluation is the implementation, the governance and the mainstreaming issues from the governance perspective. That's one of the main topics. Thank you, Petri. So mainstreaming issues, governance issues that seem to be carried over from one evaluation to the other within the context of the agenda. Dorothy, what if it's not a full-fledged evaluation of the SDGs? What if it's only contribution to the evaluation of the SDGs? And from your perspective, what can it bring to the picture and what role different stakeholders would be contributing to? Yes, thank you, Kasem. There's no doubt that Finland has been a world leader with regard to evaluation of the SDGs and Petri, we watch Finland with great interest on how a more systematic approach across the SDGs is actually carried out. Most countries find that difficult to achieve, that very often the issues that they're facing are very broad and vast and therefore the resources to lead a full-scale evaluation of the SDGs at the national level is beyond their reach at this stage. But what has been happening is where there's a lot of focus on the partnership evaluations. So they may not be fully country-initiated and led, but there is strong partnership on particular SDGs, if we take the example of Nigeria, where they went through a process of prioritizing which SDGs they would focus on. Or in other countries where there's been a focus on SDG-2, SDG-1 that particular organizations have worked with national agencies and other stakeholders to focus on particular SDGs and accelerate and deepen understanding of progress around those. And a contribution is still progress and better than nothing at all. And there are useful lessons coming out of these. The principles embodied in what Finland are doing, even if they can't be fully replicated, there's a lot that still can be done to push forward on country-led evaluations related to the SDGs. Brilliant, thank you so much. So in a sense, a country-led evaluation, while it has a premise that revolves around national ownership, whenever capacity and resources are not there, we focus on our partners and we capitalize on the partnerships to get it running, to get it done. I mean, from there I'd like to pick up on that discussion with Anna and see and explore with her that although it happens at the country level, but some of the results of those evaluations of the SDGs are picked up also and used at different levels, at various levels. From your experience, Anna, I mean, what other levels do these country-led evaluations, what are they used there? So these evaluations, they can be used at the global level. So for example, to measure progress strategically across all countries, as well as national and subnational levels. So these evaluations at the country level, and particularly the voluntary national reviews or the VNRs as we call them, they bring contributions in different areas. So for example, they outline which governance arrangements exist, which institutional mechanisms are in place to realize the agenda and the SDGs, which policies are being implemented, how multiple stakeholders and this including non-state actors are being engaged or how the country is pursuing partnerships. So all these elements can contribute to global level conversations. And picking up on what Dorothy just said about partnership evaluation, there is an interesting example from the 2021 VNR reports that relate to coordination and partnership in reporting. So there was a coordinated effort between six small island developing states or the SIDS as we call them, in which they collectively highlighted common vulnerabilities, challenges and strategies, which could then be turned into shared solutions and new common opportunities to contribute to sustainable development initiatives through inter- and intra-regional cooperation. So all these would feed into another level of conversations in the regional and in the global spheres. Of course, the country evaluation and the VNR, the relationship between them is more or less complementary. In the sense that VNR might feed into the counter-led evaluations and vice versa. Probably I want to catch up with Dorothy on the use of those counter-led evaluations and VNRs globally, both in terms of accountability and in terms of learning. From your perspective, what lessons have we learned so far after seven years of engaging on the agenda 2030 with whatever we have in terms of evaluation and VNRs? Our positive lessons and negative lessons, I think, that what we've learned over the last years of implementation, that there's no doubt that there has been an increase in what we call meta evaluations, where there's an approach particularly by some of the development partners to look across different countries and look at the emerging lessons related to the SDGs or around particular themes which are important across the SDGs. So say, for instance, meta evaluations on capacity development or on learning, methods of learning. So these meta evaluations contribute very much to the development body of knowledge, and these are used by development partners. We know not only within specific development partners, but there is quite a lot of collaboration across different networks like the UN evaluation group, like eval partners. So those global platforms allow for sharing of information. Similarly, the VNRs that UNDESA does generate a synthesis across the VNRs. And this is a very useful resource to look at what aspects are moving well and which need further focus. But at the same time, there are some lessons around the challenges with that. One is that there are insufficient evaluations actually being carried out, that there has been a strong push to develop national evaluation systems, but perhaps with limited success or very varied success. This means that the number of evaluations being generated are below what might be possible, below potential. Also, there's not always a systematic approach to looking at country-led evaluations, not just those related to a particular organization. Thank you, Dorothea. You've raised a couple of very interesting points that we can probably carry out with Petri. How the evaluation in Finland potentially is informing policy development at the national level? If you give us some examples, probably, to pick up and then share the learnings with others. There are actually two very important platforms in Finland. One being the Strategic Research Council under the Academy of Finland, that is more, let's say, research-oriented, but also has a certain evaluative missions included. The Strategic Research Council aims to identify the critical phenomena at a very broad level, and that also links to the SDG goals and targets. There are big research programs that also contain elements of evaluation, so that's a long-term strategic research and evaluation. Then there is a new instrument called the ENTIAS, which is the new funding instrument located under Prime Minister's office. They carry out several annual evaluations that are targeted to critical phenomena related directly to the government program and its implementation. When the finance comes from the Prime Minister's office, then also it's easier to feed the results and recommendations back to the policy process, because it's located at the high level of government. That's one of the reasons. The second is also that various ministries are very keen on financing their own evaluations, somehow related to the various goals and targets of the SDG. That also feeds to the sectoral processes at the ministry level. I would say these three are important platforms for doing evaluations. If you allow me on picking up on this, obviously it seems that there is a systematic approach in conducting the evolution in Finland, and there is more of a well-crafted process that feeds into the policy making and development agenda. How inclusive are those evaluations? What about the current one? How inclusive it is, and what type of stakeholders and partners are engaged? I have to say that the VNR in 2020 was extremely inclusive. When we started our evaluation mission, we went through the VNR and its main recommendations. I was very happy to realize that the involvement of civil society organizations, various NGOs, and also the enterprises and the business community was included. The way how they included those stakeholders was applying the contribution approach. NGOs and companies reported how they have contributed to the certain goals and targets of the agenda 2030. I think it's a very important approach. What we are doing, we also want to involve various stakeholders and societal groups in our evaluation. Some of the issues that we are evaluating are more administrative, how the SDGs have been combined with performance budgeting or performance management processes. Of course, that's the administrative issue. In other areas, we also carry out several interviews and we organize a number of stakeholder work groups where we want to hear the opinions of various parties. It's included. Thank you so much. Brilliant. If I can turn the discussion a bit at the sub-national level and with other sub-national stakeholders. Anna, building on what Dorothy brought up in terms of the global scene and capitalizing on what Petri just said in terms of the use at the national level. What about the sub-national ones and sub-national actors? What can you bring to the discussion? For sure. I guess we should first recognize that there should be an understanding that all the different levels, say the local, the regional, the national and the global, they are all intertwined. Overlooking the local realities would ultimately mean losing important perspectives, experiences and drivers of local action to achieve the SDGs. As an example, there are colleagues at the United Cities and Local Governments which is an umbrella organization focusing on the local level. They have been analyzing and reporting on local efforts, meaning efforts driven by cities and by territories to achieve the SDGs. They have been doing this for years now. A lot of learning comes from sub-national and local processes. As you've mentioned, Cassin, we see that more countries are mentioning the voluntary local reviews and their national reviews. They're mentioning BLRs in the BNR reports. This is a very positive trend. It directly relates to SDG11 on sustainable cities and communities, but this is also positive in the sense that the BLRs work as an instrument of local efforts and as such they pave the way for sub-national accountability structures. Some examples from 2021 VNRs include Colombia that published a guide to voluntary local reports for the cities and municipalities of Colombia. Another example is Japan that established a VLR Lab, which is a platform that collects worldwide information on VLRs. For sure, this topic is really picking up momentum in several places in the world. Thank you, Anna. I think you've raised a couple of interesting examples of local and sub-national initiatives feeding into counter-led evaluation of the SDGs. It would be wise to reflect on the main big lessons at the different levels. Probably if we can pick up on a couple of lessons from the global level, Dorothy, if you started there, and then rolling it out at the national and sub-national with both Petri and Anna. Yes, indeed. I think the role of the development partners, particularly when they work together, can be very powerful because there is a level of resource there, which if it's combined with a country-led approach, that actually helps to move a common agenda forward. So if we take a few examples, for instance, of the Asian Development Bank that's just completed an evaluation of its approach to climate change, this was a very large evaluation that engaged a number of different countries and particularly the Pacific region as a region and looked at countries there which are really heavily impacted by climate change. So in relation to SDG 13, even though the evaluation was really looking at the Asian Development Bank's approach, it brought together a whole range of different countries to talk about and reflect on their own progress. So there was bringing together country evaluations that had been done, project evaluations, all looking at this approach to climate change. One important lessons from that was that the decision-makers in the Asian Development Bank and in countries were engaged right at the start of that evaluation to really look at the key evaluation questions that wanted to be answered to then feed into decision-making. And that has been successful in that ADB has now intensified its approach and is working across different countries to work with them on a range of priorities. The other good example here is the MOPAN network, which brings together a whole range of bilateral development partners who contribute to a central fund to do evaluations, not just of their assessments really of development partners, but they also bring out some of the themes that Anna was talking about. But I want to raise one other point that isn't always considered at the moment, and that's of the need to involve national evaluators, so people from the particular country of focus, and even sometimes subnational if there are different languages, if there are indigenous peoples for instance within a country or not even within one country but across countries, that those kind of approaches haven't necessarily been picked up enough yet in that link between national evaluations, global evaluations and subnational or thematic evaluations, the integration of language and culture so that the findings of evaluations can be contextualized to the people that really need the lessons arising from these evaluations. Brilliant, brilliant ideas Dorothy. I think you've brought into the picture a couple of very interesting aspects revolving around peer learning among countries within a collective evaluation, engaging decision makers early in the process and even designing and scoping it. Doing some evaluations, more thematic evaluation and most importantly this aspect of localizing the evaluation. And on that point probably I'll pick up on Anna. Given bringing the voice of the CSOs both in the VNRs and evaluations, what can you share with us probably picking up on the localization of the evaluations in such a context? There are many lessons learned in this sense as well as recommendations. So I could probably extensively list recommendations around each one of several topics related to West Digi's implementation and evaluation and what Dorothy has just said is tremendously important. So a key takeaway would be in the sense of the need of working together with non-state actors. So what you've mentioned Cassin of including CSOs but also being mindful of Indigenous groups or those groups who are in many different cases overlooked by governments at different levels. So I would say that there are many actors civil society organizations and other experts as well like the academics that have been collecting that have been producing their own evaluation processes and presenting very comprehensive reports that highly contribute to country level and global level review processes. So with this collaborating with civil society and other groups and advocating for their reports to be acknowledged and given status in the high level political forum for example would be important in terms of one participation and partnership coordination also in terms of transparency in reporting processes and third also in terms of ensuring accountability for progress of the 2030 agenda and STG's implementation and evaluation. Thanks Anna, I think you've shed some light on aspects that are critical to both the DNR process and the counterweight evaluations and we know that evaluations obviously don't happen in vacuum. There are politics definitely but most importantly also there are risks being them the national, subnational as well as global level. If I can turn to Petri with a bit of reflection on how does this current counterweight evaluation in Finland is integrating or accounting for those potential risks. Can you shed a bit of light on those aspects Petri? Going to the risks and the future challenges I think our national commission on sustainable development is doing an excellent job in coordinating all the activities but of course these are very complicated and complex issues where you face immediately the question of the systemic impact on certain things and that is something that goes beyond traditional policy coherence thinking because if you really want to understand the systems change in the field of Agenda 2030 or STG's you also have to see more strongly how these various goals and targets are interconnected, how they influence one another and you cannot do it if you tackle them separately. And now what we have been doing an excellent job in dealing with these issues separately and we have very active ministries who have done a wonderful job but when it comes to interdependencies and systems change and systemic approach there we have still much to do. I think I have to mention that the STG evaluations as a whole have created much closer cooperation between ministries especially the Ministry for Foreign Affairs and other line ministries because the Ministry for Foreign Affairs has a very strong evaluation unit and now the STG's are connecting the various line ministry like the Ministry of the Environment, the Ministry of Employment and Economy and so on together with the Ministry for Foreign Affairs which also gives a more global approach to our national implementation. I think it's a good thing whether it's intended or unintended it doesn't matter but it can be seen as a positive outcome of a process. Indeed, often unintended consequences or outcomes turns out to have much more impact on the change that we all aspire for. Probably on that point, on the points of risks and the era we're living in we've all noticed that there has been a slowdown in terms of the progress on the Agenda 2030 and I'm afraid that this slowdown basically is affecting also the uptake and the scale of evaluations of the Agenda 2030. Quick remarks probably or quick reflections Dorothy if you can if you can shed some lights here. In terms of the slowdown of the 2030 Agenda this indeed is a big issue and one that evaluation as a sector needs to consider and move towards. Evaluations take too long to organise and present at the moment but there are ways around that that most evaluations that we're doing at the moment have some element of consideration of this slowdown they have some consideration of the impact of COVID. So these, what we need is more dynamic evaluations which cut across and draw out some of these risks and the responses so that the learnings can be generated quickly and fed back into programming. Of course, thank you so much. I mean that's critically important bringing the aspect of dynamic evaluation. I think we're coming to an end now and we want to probably conclude our podcast. Can I ask you please to formulate and give us at least one thought for our audience on the value of those counterweight evaluations to inform the stakeholders about the progress on the Agenda 2030 one key takeaway message from each one of you before we conclude. Let's start with Anna and then Patrick and then Dorothy. I just wanted to quickly circle back to what you have said in terms of challenges. And you mentioned a couple of them beginning with C, like COVID-19 climate change conflicts. And I just wanted to add another one which is a civic space and how it has been shrinking in many parts of the world particularly after the pandemic and how many countries started using the pandemic as an excuse to further close civic space. So it would be worth checking a document from the OECD DEC which is the Development Assistance Committee a document they launched in July last year which is the committee's recommendation on enabling civil society. And so this is a common standard for official actors to address civic space and work with civil society towards the 2030 Agenda. So a key recommendation in this sense would really be for countries to not only adhere to the recommendation but also embed it into their practices. And one big concern is that a worrying number of countries is falling short in achieving the global commitments and even to adhering to the UN Secretary General's guidelines for evaluation and reporting. So we have eight years left until 2030 so governments and stakeholders from the global community they should redouble their efforts to address gaps and work towards achieving the SDGs. So I would leave as a final note that there is opportunity for this to further strengthen evaluation and reporting and the way of doing that is making use of comparative analysis from using data from other reports including civil society reports and including peer countries reports so keeping the dialogue open is a major key. Brilliant, brilliant idea Patsy. I think it's extremely important to carry out country land evaluations, the national evaluations because what we really need is evidence for our policymaking and I'm not referring to a very narrow evidence-based policymaking but I'm referring to the more evidence-informed policymaking where evaluation is an extremely important tool for giving decision makers updated information where we are in the certain fields of Agenda 2030. That's the first thing. But second thing is that evaluations if they are carried out in the open and participatory way they are also excellent tools for involving new groups and stakeholders in the process and we saw that in our previous national evaluation carried out in 2019 and one of the key factors was also the participatory approach applied in that evaluation. So I think that's a very important issue and maybe the third one is that when you carry out national evaluations I think it's important to apply somehow the developmental evaluation approach meaning that you are not only collecting data and then reporting at the end of the process but it's a dialogue also between the commissioner of the evaluation and the evaluation team and the stakeholders so you feed the process while you are doing the evaluation. I think that's the lesson learned from Finland. Thank you so much Petri, I think you've shed the light on a very important aspect of course. Dorothy I think if you can conclude with one or two takeaways that you'd like to highlight. Yes, I'd like to build on what Petri mentioned there about the importance of inclusion and participation that if we're talking about country led who's actually doing the leading? Are we talking about country leaders? Are we talking about only one sector? I think we're not. We're actually talking about a broad based country led approach where there's a reflection of the diversity in that particular country or even in that sub-national area. So while country led evaluations of the SDGs are very large and difficult to achieve there are digestible chunks that we can move on with very quickly which is the value of country led inclusion in evaluations for the SDGs so that we can have something that's very manageable of changing the way we do practice of any evaluation to make sure that we are touching base with the key sectors of society within that country. Those who are impacted by evaluations making sure that they are contributing to the evaluations in a way that brings value and brings learning on progress for the SDGs and it identifies innovations and accelerates progress. Thank you, brilliant ideas. I would like to thank you so much for your deep reflections and your takeaway messages. And I want to, before saying goodbye to our audience I'd like to call upon them to sign up for the links and sign up for the different episodes that we've created under this series and to also announce that this network and other partners including Eval partners are moving towards initiatives to reinstate government commitments to the evaluation of the agenda 2030 under a new resolution that promotes country led evaluation and discussion is still there and I believe what we've covered so far feeds and comes timely into that dialogue and those efforts. So thank you so much and final call for our audience to read, check and visit the website of IAED, Eval and Eval SDGs and other social media platform and share widely those episodes and hopefully we can talk and we can initiate new dialogues on new issues around evaluation of the agenda 2030. Thank you and goodbye.