I don't know if we would have been permitted to do anything outside that special session. We thought it was a narrow scoop. Well, I heard that we could have. Really? Yeah. That's what I am.  It's a tragedy. Crazy. It's, you know, 72% of Grover Ready and how we handle the flood in Central Vermont. My fault has came up today. I recognize you, but I associate you with the mayor. Senator Andy Perchlich was also here. He's here. My guest roommate, Kate McCain, she just got off cancer surgery. She got the pass tonight. She's doing well. So there's three senators from Washington County and coming was on Zoom, the first one. So she might be participating in Zoom this time as well. I haven't seen her. She might see you here. Well, thank you both for coming. Of course. Of course. I'm sorry to know you. Totally fine. No worries. All good. Good to see you. Yeah. Do you know Tom Sable? Oh, yeah. Yeah. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And I've seen you. I've seen you and your family in advance. Oh, yes. I know. I know. I know. You were happy. You were happy. I know. I know. I know. Yeah. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. Just on advocating for more state, federal and philanthropic funding. And so we actually, Paul is like outlined a process and I'm a big believer in like trusting the process. And so what we're going to do is for 10 minutes, we're going to talk about actually 15 minutes. What are the first steps that need to happen in order to advocate for state, federal and philanthropic funding. Right. So we're just going to kind of brainstorm the steps. Now, ordinarily, this isn't like making a list for other people to do, but I think in this case, it's maybe a little bit of both, right? So, you know, if Montpelier is going to advocate for more funding from various sources, what are the initial steps that need to happen to make that go? And then for 10 minutes after that, we're going to talk about what are the resources that are going to be needed for this specific effort? If we're going to raise more federal, state, and philanthropic funding, what are the resources that we're going to need to do that? And then we're going to do that for 10 minutes, and then we're just going to spend actually five minutes, just like kind of thinking about, like, next steps, but really, like, if you're interested in this effort, say, for example, if you're a legislator and you really want to kind of push this issue forward, you can sign up here. And you're not necessarily, like, signing up to be part of a committee or anything like that, but by signing up on this, it's saying, I'm interested in this issue. I want to be kept informed. And if there is an opportunity to engage in this work, like, I want to be called upon, right? Does anybody have any kind of questions? OK, so let's start. Yes. So it's partly on us to better communicate the structures that are there and how do we, and then how do we get people more engaged? There's central, there's Montpelier with all of its boards and commissions and everything. There's central Vermont Regional Planning Commission. There's state agencies like the EM and others who deal with this. There's agency of transportation is just putting out a resilient central plan. There's all of this. And it's sort of people ask for those things as if they don't exist. So how do we better communicate and how do we engage? OK, excellent. I'm going to push you a little bit and be like, can you, do you have a potential answer to that question? Right. Like, how do we communicate more effectively or uncover more effectively the existing resources and systems that are out there? Some of the stuff I, OK, I could be biased because I'm kind of involved in this. But often we put, we in the agencies put out things that are hard to digest. We can put out things that are shorter and more engaging and more multimedia. But we also want to make it easier for people to be involved. So some of it is on us and some of it is on everyone to read more and understand what is going on. So I think it's a two-way street. A two-way street. So agencies and different funding organizations, different funding opportunities need to do a better job of communicating to Montpelier what's available, what they're already offering in digestible ways. And then it's up to all of us to actually seek that information out and understand it. OK, great. Yes, Sarah? I'm thinking about ProPort Forum and how that is often a local source of communication, but how agencies, state agencies don't use it. Like why not find out where communities talk and move the resource conversations into those spaces like ProPort Forum? Excellent. Thank you. Yes? I just want to speak to reality of what's happening in a couple of places. So I'm Melissa. I own Positify. And a lot of the big businesses in Montpelier are really lacking funding to get back open or to stay open. Smaller businesses, I think, are having an easier time or don't need as much to reopen. So all we've been given is the $20,000 BGAP grant, which most of us haven't gotten yet. We haven't even started rebuilding because we're still waiting on funding. So we do have a group already formed. It's an advocacy group. We are meeting once a week. We're trying to put together an ask, which is what we were told to do. There's columns to the ask. There's an ask of what we need right now to rebuild and to make sure like I know three penny has said they've gotten the SBA loan. But unless they get more funding, they're not going to be able to make the payments on the loan on top of the expansion they had just finished. And we'll be bankrupt within a year. So they need more funding in order to stay open. I think that's true of a lot of the bigger businesses in downtown. There needs to be more funding. So we're putting together an ask for that. Also an ask for the financial loss that we've lost in losing our entire summer and fall, which is our busiest season, which get us through winter. We're going to, a lot of us are going to be reopening in the winter when we're slow and aren't going to be able to make it through without more funding. So these are being done already. Melissa Bounty, who spoke at the state house, is putting together this ask. She's working with our group. She's working with all the businesses, putting together an ask. But we don't know. A lot of people have told us ask, but don't count your chickens. It might not happen. So I don't know how to work to try to really get the case out there that if we don't get more funding, probably a lot of the bigger businesses won't make it. And if flooding keeps happening, they will not rebuild again. So I just wanted to say, what is happening? We do have a group that's putting out an ask. We're hoping that it gets into the right hands and the right people here and bring more funding in. But we really need more funding, both for now and for the future in flood mitigation, because most businesses have said they'll rebuild now, but if it keeps happening, they will not. And so there will not be a downtown if we don't get more funding. I really appreciate that perspective. And just really quick, I think it'll be so important that the businesses really clearly articulate what their needs are, both in the short term and the long term. And my hope, at least, would be an effort like this would really help galvanize that ask. And instead of just the businesses themselves asking, the entire community is advocating on their behalf, which I think is really important. Yes, sir? I'd like to piggyback on what you just said, because I was in your group last time and listening to you and your colleagues. And it was so clear that what you're confronting is a too little, too late set of options right now. In that if we don't do something bold, your prediction is, progressively, it sounds like going to come true. I would submit that the one thing to consider is the special session. Call the special session in the month of October. Prepare for that special session by collaborating with all of the communities in Vermont, who's all of the representatives and senators from the communities that are impacted. Start editorializing and banging on the governor's door to listen. That session should authorize the treasurer to issue debt in an amount that's going to meaningfully contribute to the collective costs in the state of Vermont for near-term recovery. But in that self-help, not wait for the feds, do something here in Vermont. In exchange, however, there should be a payback mechanism. If you issue debt, you have to have a plan for retiring that debt. So somebody needs to do the calculation as to what's the big number, what's the term on the debt, what's the annual amortization, how many beneficiaries are there, what kind of contribution could they make, potentially a combination of a special assessment district for the property owners, the incremental addition on your taxes each year over 30 years, and a local option increment on the businesses. So I get a pie at your place, I got another 1.5% or 2% that I'm paying. And I know that I'm doing it, and I still have it downtown. Are you our senator by the way? I am one of your three senators. Yes. Well, it's lovely to see you. Thank you. This is on you guys. You need to lead a charge to get your colleagues to pay attention, to do something meaningful, and the nickels and dimes that you're getting are not gonna do the job, and waiting for the feds to do it. Last time we said, well, you know, Hawaii, everybody's talking about Hawaii, they're talking about Florida. And next week they're gonna be talking about wherever Hurricane Lee hits. Sir, I'll tell. Yeah, I told, thank you. I think that is really crystal clear. Action items, special session, look for debt mechanisms to get the money that's immediately needed. Yes, sir. Yeah, and basically, thinking back on what she was saying, I was in a different session last time, and Vince from Hibiki Chippy was in my session, and he said that, you know, he said, here it is, we're struggling small businesses. We operate on very small percentages. You're asking me to take on more debt, even in a three or four percent. He says, that's more debt. He says, that's the road to our market. He says, we should be looking at grants. I like the idea of a special session, because right now, until there's actually funding in the legislature, I mean, certainly there's been some emergency funding that's been coming through, but housing came dispersed, and there was actually a really good art column in Hibiki here, and a number of business owners are saying, how all this stuff that they've done, all the teamwork, either got kicked out, rejected for whatever reason, and they said they still don't have their own money checks. They've been kicked out for one reason or another. And so it's really fresh, and if I was a business owner, I could really tear my hair out. Ken, can I ask, like, what's the action step that comes out? It's not tearing our hair out. It's like, what's the action step? I honestly think you need to have a special session. You need to start looking at grants, and where the funding's gonna be available to start re-looking this out. Okay, great, thanks. I just wanna make sure we get some, go real quick. I just wanna give a mechanism for you, great, great. Navigators, remember, Obamacare, navigators? So I live in Montilier. I come to you. You and I fill the application real time, and maybe even, I'm authorized to say, some element of it is approved. So when you have your bill, and you have the money, and the whole idea, get it out quick, don't wait for the current bureaucracy to do it. Authorize, you know, 10 grand for people to do that work. Great, thank you, sir. And did you have your meeting? I did. Yes. So, Anne Watson, one of your three senators. So I wanna put a couple of other things on board. The radar one is that the emergency board does meet throughout the off-session, apparently. And they also have the authority to move money around, which is how Efficiency Vermont got, I think it's something like $10 million for the special program to help people rebuild with more energy-efficient appliances and stuff. So that is ongoing, that is happening. It's composed of money-chairs and whatnot. Another thought that, it's getting in and out of the box. Yeah, so I went 110%. We need to get back in there. We need to get the work, you know, because I don't just trust having the administration go through the motions and do what they're doing, because it's not enough right now. Where I would push back a bit is, collectively, we need to do it. If it's myself and we're Democrats, the governor's a Republican, it gets into a partisan sort of piss-and-match, excuse the verbage, you know, if we're the ones calling for it. However, 72% of central Vermonters in the last poll last week, said Governor Scott's doing a great job right now as far as blood relief there. So Montpelier voted for us, but they also voted for Governor Scott in this administration. We need a mechanism to really bring up the heat. And what better mechanism than 500 people in the auditorium up the hill in a state house and invite the governor to stand in front of all of us and say, what are you doing, right? That's the best mechanism I could think of as far as political pressure. So I would say that is an action step. 500 people, governor, front of the room, tell them what we need, right? Okay, yep. Is it possible that we could expand that circle too to like our congressional leaders or other folks? I think so, although I would want the heat firmly on him for most of this. Yeah. Yeah. Yes. So just to build on all of this, putting heat on the governor, asking you folks to get back at it as soon as you can. I think public relations is something that is, or if somebody can tell me differently, I think it's missing. And we do a great job as a local community. We lock arms together. We show that we do that almost to the extent, almost to the exclusion, I think, almost shooing away the attraction of the outside world. I think we're, if we're not already, I think we're very much at risk of being forgotten. Joe Biden showed up in Florida. I think he got to Hawaii too. I've lost track, and no swipe on him, but just what does it take to get that level of attention here in Vermont? Yeah, we're liberal, all that stuff that gets old, but the point is part of this pie is a public relations effort that also lives beyond just the local effort and focusing on state government and local government. Can I just ask a clarifying question on that? When you say public relations effort, is it a public relations effort to tell a story or are you talking about a lobbyist, or like, what are you talking about? But I think, yeah, a loud story. A loud storytelling effort on the experience of something. I have a small business, and I can tell you from my limited experience, paying for public relations is part of how you get out there into the wider world and people become familiar with your story. Great, thank you, sir. Yes. I have a little different topic to bring up. I talked to a friend of mine who was in flood insurance. He's retired now, but he said, well, you can know about all the FEMA money you can get for hazard mitigation. I didn't really know, so I went on the website. There are these big grants you can get for hazard mitigation, flood prevention, infrastructure stuff to prevent and reduce future damages. And it turns out that in FY22, the federal government handed out $3 billion in two of these grants. My question is, who's gonna go after that money? Is it the city? Is it the state? Is this new commission? I don't want that to get lost. Great. We need to go after that money. Yeah, who's the eligible applicant for the money that's available? Yeah. Yeah, great. Yes. Well, the other thing is I don't know how much you guys have been calling in the latest about it. What's happening in Washington, but apparently FEMA is down to $4 billion after all these disasters. And FIPE has come to request the additional funds. What would the potential government check down in between to determine where that funds will come? Okay. Thanks. Action steps, folks. Action steps, yes. I remembered the other thing of today, which is that when Connor and I were involved in city government, we actually established that the city had a lobbyist. And so I appreciated that there's already, like organizing effort and moving forward. That's great. I wonder if there is still a lobbyist for next session. I assume so, but I think we should, one action step would be to ensure that there is still a lobbyist because it's important that somebody is in the room at the right moment to have those conversations. And I would also add again that that person perhaps have a list of interested, molecular residents who they could alert to say, hey, this conversation is happening right now, contact your representative, put the pressure on when is the right time. And so to create this and have the lobbyist alert folks when it's right. Perfect. Thank you, Ian. Yes. I guess if we get back up to the public relations aspect, it's like this reminds me a little bit of COVID and how we had a weekly address from the health commissioner on the status of the numbers, what was being doing and what was expected of us. And we've got, that has not happened. And this is our own emergency to hit our state and not just Montpelier. And we've had to avoid that it's not been filled. And I think that if we had a weekly address where we had like what's being done and so pressure on the governor call a special session, like y'all need money now. What it's going to cost after this. Can I ask a question? When you say have a dip, like a weekly press conference, like they do with COVID. I'm here with someone. Okay. Well, that's one of my questions. Are you talking about like state government, local government? All the leaders, all the leaders. Yeah, yeah. Okay. Okay. Great. What other kind of. Separate actions. Which is sick. I want to go here and then I'll go. Yes. Yes. Go ahead. Well, and this is my job. This is the first meeting I've been able to join.  So tell me if it is, but there are, especially for say philanthropic fundraising going towards a foundation, public sector, et cetera. I think I don't do we have a clear sense of the total amount that is sort of needed. Yes. I don't know. From a business, from residentials that from, because I think having some of some idea will help not so much progress, but like if we're talking to cover spot, corporations, foundations, like we need to, they need to know how much we want, right? Or I think having some sort of. So real effort. It's fine. Some sort of establishment of a baseline of how much. They're working on that. That's the ask they're working on. But it is only the one that Melissa's working on is only for businesses. It's not for residents. But everybody is being encouraged, each community is being encouraged right now to, to put together their ask what they need. They need a number. That's what they said it has to be a concrete number to ask for and they, everyone's working. Who's that? Well, I think each community. So Melissa Bounty is helping to do that for Montpelier along with our business advocacy group. But I mean, who's going to receive this information? Who is they that's asking for it? Is that the treasurer from the last meeting? I think it's for a special ask, right? Like if Melissa's. They're trying to put together something to bring to the legislature, to the governor, or maybe to the feds. Right. I don't exactly the channels, but. The bottom line is there needs to be, we need to quantify the economic loss for the city, like for Montpelier, both residences, the municipality, right? And business, like, okay. We really, we're going to wrap up in just a second. And we do have like some next steps, but if there are other voices, yes. What about wouldn't FEMA have a ballpark of the ask because everyone is being encouraged to go there to register what they needed? Yes. A business is juicer. That's the hard part. FEMA does not have the ballpark of for-profit businesses. SBA might, but SBA's system of tracking is very different. So FEMA will have the public assistance value of the infrastructure asks, and we'll have the individual assistance value, but we'll not probably have the for-profit losses. Last one. Really quickly, I'm going to survey the group, because I think when we consider money and nobody knows where that comes from or how to start or what the figure could be. Quick survey. Do you think it's under $500 million raised your hand? For the state of Vermont? Yeah. Yeah, I think it's under. No. What do you think it's under? Yeah, I think it's under to $150 million. For the state of Vermont? Yeah, for immediate near-term response to these downtowns, I think that's the, if that's the ballpark you're asking, yeah, it's under to $500 million. And not to nail that figure, but just so we start to have a working concept, it's just not an average space. But it's a smart way to think about it. Think globally, because hey, give Montpelier something.  I'm not gonna add that together. Okay, great, last one. Yeah, based on his question, just kind of going all for that. What was the recovery amount for Irene? Because obviously we're north of Irene, and in fact we're in infrared inflation. We are, yeah. Other communities are hit harder and harder. Well, of course we're full, whatever it was. It would be interesting, thank you. Yeah. Okay, so we have, I mean already some really just great first initial action steps, right? And I think in terms of next steps, they are standing up that commission and I think that they're gonna work really quickly to like take these kind of ideas and prioritize them. The last kind of thing that we're gonna ask of you, like you need to sign up on this, right? Yeah. You. Like it means, it does not mean you're signing up to go to a weekly meeting, right? But what it means is that you're gonna be kept informed of this effort and that if you see an opportunity for you to make a difference on this, then you need to like stay informed, follow it, wait for the call, step up when needed. But that's what you're signing up for here, is to be kept informed of this effort. I think like just for sake of conversation, like the idea of having a list of people who care about Montpelier, that when that conversation is having in the state house, that can be notified immediately that you need to be in that room at two o'clock today, right? Like that's what we're talking about here, okay? So please sign up. And then the next thing we're gonna do. And can I say something on that real quick? Yeah. Committee schedules, whenever we go back in there, usually come out on Friday, right? And then we know it's going on the next week. And a lot of what happens is when we testify, it's sort of the illusion of public input, but you gotta make it uncomfortable, right? Get a cream in those rooms so they see, you know? Do you have the presence of it? So if we can divide and conquer, just like you're saying Ben, sign up on that list and say, okay, you're going to natural resources, you're going to appropriations, and we're raising our hand at the end and timing in for Montpelier, so that's gonna be really effective. Because they expect us to go through the motions. We gotta take them outside the comfort zone. Okay. And with that, I mean, sure. Yeah, you're right. Thank you, honor. All right, so we're actually gonna go, I believe, back to the auditorium for some closing remarks, but there's a pen right here. If you could just take a minute and sign up if you're available to do that. I guess I have a quick question about action steps. Do we need to get a lobbyist? Is that what you're saying? Need a lobbyist to speak for us? Well, it's helpful because that person can be in the building, is paid to be in the building and follow when those agendas come out and see when those appropriate times are, and have conversations in the building to make sure that it's, you know, that the leaf for Montpelier is on the agenda and be able to negotiate on our behalf, on our collective behalf. So we have one, we paid that 15K from the city of Montpelier and that monitor stuff. We might need to book that up to actually like, have a few people in there, right? It's very day far away. I want the lobbyists who told me they would work for downtown businesses for free. I would also just point out like, I think there are a lot of organizations that employ lobbyists at the state house right now who could be activated because this is on mission, right? Like the chamber has lobbyists, right? Like the organization I work for has lobbyists, right? It feels like the action staff. Yes. All these action steps, Jen is doing a fantastic job of taking copious notes, right? All of them are memorialized. We're going to share them with the kind of leadership group that's organizing the commission and the other things and they'll start to move this work forward and you will be kept informed through the signup sheet. Are you talking about resources or no? We ran out of time on that. You ran out of time. Okay, one more suggestion of the action staff. Yeah. Which is the commission to coordinate all of the interested potential lobbyists. Yeah. The cities and towns. Yes. Like all of the people that already have people in the building to coordinate those efforts. I think that would be very effective. It's a great idea. It's a great idea. I think, what's that? 835, dude, we'll go to 845. 840. 840. All right. We're going to take this last five minutes to decompress some more time. Okay. Thank you guys for coming to this. Yeah, I really appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you.


EOS. I know. Trust me. I know. I really know that I shouldn't do that on camera, but I just don't care. So folks, EO, establishing operation. If you're as old as I am, then when you first learned about establishing operations, there wasn't even a term called a motivating operation. But today, we use EOS as a particular type of motivating operation. So an EO does this. Well, first off, I should tell you what it is. Establishing operation. So an EO establishes the effectiveness of a reinforcer. So hold on. Because remember, motivating operations change the value of, actually should be motivating operations change the value of reinforcers, right? Because they happen before the three term contingency. Okay, so, so the establishing operation makes whatever reinforcers over here more valuable. One of the greatest, one of the easiest ways to establish a value of a reinforcer, in other words, creating an establishing operation is to deprive someone of something. If you deprive me of, oh, I don't know, chips. I love chips. If you deprive me of chips, I will do a lot of work to get those darn chips. Why? Because you've increased the value of the chips for me. And that said, I think I do the cameraman. Do we have the chips? Yes, I sure do. Yeah. How much work do I have to do to get those chips? You'll find out. No, shizzle. Yeah. Sorry, people. Goodbye.


my thesis potentially of, you know, a legitimate back test could occur tomorrow. But again, like I said, we are prepared for both sides of the measure going into tomorrow. So let's begin. Welcome to Access a Trader, the number one community for those who are committed to taking control of their trading in order to achieve success, profitability, and longevity. Thank you for joining us. Here's Dan Shapiro to help you find your edge, master your process, and own your future. Hey, guys. Good evening, everybody. Welcome to another edition of the Access a Trader dot com Monday edition. Hope everybody is doing well. So if you look at the scoreboard today, nothing is going to kind of jump at you, right? And it's supposed to, right? When you look at the final numbers, Nasdaq down, what 13, 14 points, nothing's going to really stand out as one of those moments that you could turn around and say, well, let's take, let's maybe take a question and a little step back. And I'll tell you what I mean. So pre market today, we were sitting there, everything was all good. And then all of a sudden, a new video out of nowhere comes out and they guide lower. Now, why is that a big deal? Because, well, it's a big deal, right? So this obviously has a major, a major, major factor on a lot of the semiconductors. And it's, it's also what it represents, right? They represent gaming, they represent Bitcoin, they represent chip, Schmitts, dips and everything else in between. And, you know, the Nasdaq started getting hit down a little bit on the video news, as you can imagine, a lot of the semiconductors went down with it. Now, the issue was with every single stock getting hit on weakness into a pre announcement, again, we've kind of did a whole laundry list of this yet Shopify, Shopify, you had meta, you had, I mean, there's so slew them Microsoft this on that one, all came out with either lowered, lowered guidance, missed the top of bottom and what happened? They ran, AMD, they all ran up. And today was the first time in the last two weeks that a major tech company when actually went lower on earnings guidance, right? So that kind of turned around and you go, Oh, okay, okay, it kind of makes sense, right? Bad news at the end of the day actually could be bad news. But the common denominator where we've been seeing now for the last several weeks is the cues continue, no matter what happens with individual companies that could be market leaders that could be part of a major group, the market continues to go higher. And for the most part of the day, the cues are green, right? And that's kind of a very big deal. So it's like ho hum, another company, you know, another company, lowered guidance, blah, blah, blah, blah, everything is status quo, right? And the whole thing was everything was and we saw stocks like Tesla appear to come out of their channels, right? Barely come out of the channels. You had names like Google, but again, pretty decent moves at the open. And we'll get to individual pivots in a second, I apologize, I'm a little tired. And Google, right? You had Google come out of this whole range, okay?  And the one, the biggest one of all with the QQQs that took out the previous three days, two days worth of selling or at least two days worth of buying and went higher. So this is the first time we saw this is kind of what we segue into tomorrow's thinking. You know, this is the first day that we saw a major company guide lower and actually go lower. And this is the first time we saw in the past two weeks since we reclaimed the 29650 area 29675 area on the QQs. This is the first time that we took out ranges, right? Multiple days of ranges in the same day only to lose those ranges and close at the bottom range. And if you look at a lot of stocks, again, I just gave an example, say Microsoft, Google, Tesla, Amazon, I'm sure if you go through the whole Nasdaq 100, you'll get a bigger view. But that's something we have to intake, right? That's something that going into tomorrow's session, we have to keep in the back of our minds. And again, nobody's turning around and being like, well, that's it. That's the top inverted hammers. See you at the lows. No, nobody's saying that. The same way we talked about on the weekend update is again, the markets up, Nasdaq's up two weeks in a row. So anytime you get weakness, like we saw a little bit of weakness on Friday, you know, it's healthy, right? It's healthy, it's organic. It's letting stocks kind of rest a little bit. But this is the first time we saw this in the first last two weeks that stocks took out the previous day channel and they started coming in very aggressively. So for example, look at Microsoft, right? So there was a pivot on Microsoft off this 84 level and granted, it was a nice trade. It was a little shaky, right? A little shaky at the open, but it ended up to be a nice trade. It ran up about two bucks or so. But one was the last time a stock comes out of a channel here, takes out one, two, three days, right? Three days worth of work, three days worth of data comes back, puts in an inverted hammer and puts in the lowest close in this whole formation. Again, that's a negative thing. That's not a positive thing. And it's, and we're, and again, I'm speaking from the point of what happens the next day, not what, where, where I think Microsoft is going to wind up three weeks from now, or three months from now, we're basically talking about the next day. And this is where again, we use technical analysis and price, right? Price data to kind of formulate our opinion for the next day. So for example, let's use the cues, right? Let's use the cues. So we talked about, we talked about over the weekend, there was an area of the cues that I watched that they started breaking down below those areas. I do think there's going to be a back test in the market. So far, this 318 level, the 318 39 level on the cues is a big deal. Granted, today, we put in a higher low, you know, right, a higher low on the five-day moving average, but we also put it in inverted hammer after losing a three-day range, right? So you have to kind of weigh the pros and the cons. And every time you get any type of cons at the top of the range, you want to give gravity the benefit of the doubt. And so that's kind of where I'm preparing for tomorrow. So if the cues start building below 318 39 tomorrow, then yeah, I do think we'll have a proper back test. Okay, again, nobody's saying we'll go into the lows. But again, we have to prepare yourself and whether you're a new trader, new trader, seasoned trader, whatever the case might be, you always have to be prepared for the other side of the equation. You always have to play doubles advocate. So when the market opens up, you are prepared from both sides of the market. For example, I got some longs I like for tomorrow. I got some shorts I like for tomorrow. But I'm definitely gearing towards the stocks that, hell, you know, giving me data enough to say, hey, wait a minute, if they start losing the previous days range, they could back test further. And that's kind of the whole point. So we're kind of getting prepared from both sides of the market. But I'm definitely, definitely watching this 318 39 level on the cues because if they start to confirm down, the 10 day moving average is going all the way down to this 314 level. It doesn't sound like a big deal $4 on the cues. But again, $4 on the cues is still enough that if we could catch an individual underlying, underlying equity for the move down, it's going to be a pretty healthy move considering there's a $4 range to the next rise in support. So we're kind of going day by day, trade by trade. And today was a perfect example, like we kind of reiterate all the time in the webinar and on these updates as well. Again, don't buy the stocks from the top, right? The stocks that are already ran. And that's why, again, and if they do run, start taking profits on them, right, to always take on the way up, always use break even on all runners, let us stop you out break even. Okay, if you, if you get stopped out break even on the balance after you took money in your runner, you did your job, right? Because if your runner is supposed to do two things, either stop you out break even or reach measure potential. And that's exactly what we talk about every single day, putting yourself in a situation that you are in control of the market, the market's not in control of you.  But if you do get the premium hand and you are prepared for the next trading day, then it shouldn't be shocked when a stock that you're looking at plays out after technical confirmation. So going into tomorrow's session, again, we don't have to guess, we don't have to, we don't have to anticipate. We can't anticipate the cues breaking down from the 318 level. How can you possibly do that, right? That's, that's asinine. It's insane. It's, you're putting yourself in a situation that if they get close within a penny, you'll get squeezed back. So let the market, the market is going to back test tomorrow doesn't have to take out the previous day's low, right? That's something we talk about in nausea. If a stock or an ETF or anything else wants to go lower, it needs to take out the previous day's low. If the stock ETF or any other asset class wants to go higher, it needs to take out the previous day's high. And again, here's where the eyebrows arise, right, are arisen, right? It did take out the previous day high. It did take out the previous range high. It went up and then it closed the lowest point in this range without taking out the previous day's low. So this is where my thesis potentially of, you know, a legitimate back test could occur tomorrow. But again, like I said, we are prepared for both sides of the measure going into tomorrow's session. Again, the most important thing is just don't get anything surprised, right? You don't want to be like, I don't understand, how did Tesla go down $60 to there? Where did it come from? Well, if you did your homework and you looked at the channels, you know exactly where the previous channel is.  Again, I'm just using Tesla as an example, but that could be applied to any single chart. So let's talk about today. So we talked about NET. This is a nice clean move here. NET here, we talked about this on the video, came out with great earnings on Friday. It went sideways.  So it took out 75, put in the high of 75, 27, retraced and once it went through, it was a perfect second entry and it did exactly what we thought it was going to do. It traded right to the 60-minute supply in the 7660s.  There's nothing wrong with that. Google was good. I traded into the 120s. Again, we talked about Google and nausea, 118, 80, 119 needs to build, traded up to 120 and change and reversed. Microsoft, there was a pre-market high at 85, 20. There was actually a better entry. We'll talk about that in a second. And the video, before obviously guided higher, guided lower, I go, hey, 192, 75 needs to build to the upside. Obviously, that was my next sentence. I have a hunch this won't confirm, right? Got lower. And Tesla was watching to the downside, didn't confirm that level, but this 856 level will be kind of a big deal going forward if there is a little bit of softness. So here is Microsoft. This is kind of where we got lucky here a little bit. If it opens below 284, then use that as the pivot. It opened up below 284 and went from 284 to about 286 before everything reversed. Coin continues to be an absolute monster. 99 needs to build. He was Coinbase. I miss Coinbase. It was just way too fast, like literally way too fast for me, but it took out 99. It went to like 103.5, just a beast, just an absolute beast of a stock. RDFN for all you guys who traded this one. Great job, right? Great job here. What I try to do, I try to put one or two smaller names, either in the webinar or the Twitter feed, just to give everybody something. RDFN, 108711 needs to build. This thing went nuts, right? This thing went absolutely nuts. Here's RDFN, right? So it took out this whole area and traded all the way up to 1240, just rock star move on RDFN. BYND, talk about it if you haven't figured out if this is a bull market yet. Beyond, right? Another perfect example last week, guided lower, like stock exploded. So here's the pivot. 3966 needs to build. Look at beyond it today, right? Look at beyond. Look at the move here. It took out 3966, went to almost 45, right? That's a bull market. That's where they're taking up everything. They don't care. They're literally taking up everything beyond. And I said 1170 potential. This thing went to 1250. We were watching shop. It didn't quite make it there to the 40 to 60 level. Google went to 120, 15. They said next stop 112, 120, 60. Didn't quite get there. And that is about it. So again, going into tomorrow, guys, just keep in mind, just keep in mind this number here. This is all you need to do not to go long, right? So if you see the queues start building below 318 30s, okay, I wouldn't go long. I mean, I just, again, this is just my two cents, but I wouldn't go long. I mean, look at stocks that look heavy, right? Look at stocks like Amazon that are sitting there on the five days. The five day confirms it goes lower. Look at Tesla, right? Tesla had a big move up today, right? Got rejected. If Tesla loses this range, it's like $30, $35 worth the downside. Again, there's definitely value, okay? There's definitely value. Look on the outside, a name like Wayfair looks pretty interesting. A name like Fold for all you guys are trading these smaller names looks pretty interesting. So I think there's something there for everybody, but I just wouldn't get too aggressive on the long side. If the channel start building and everything starts going, that's different. But if we run into a situation that the market's a stalemate and we're just not going higher, there'll probably be a situation that if we are prepared, which we are for tomorrow, that if they start taking down the bottom channels, we'll be ready for that as well. Guys, have a great night. God bless. I wish you all the best and with God's help, I'll see you all tomorrow. Take care.


The study presents a modified low-cost approach that uses spectral angle mapper and image difference algorithms to enhance classification maps for monitoring and analyzing land use, land cover change in Dubai from 2000 to 2015. The approach was modified by collecting training samples, applying filters, sieving classes, and clumping classes. The results showed that built-up area increased by 233.721 square kilometers between 2000 and 2005 and net vegetation area losses were more pronounced from 2000 to 2005 than from 2010 to 2015. The study aims to assist urban planners, decision makers, and research institutes in monitoring land use, land cover changes. This article was authored by Sami Ismail El-Madi, and Mohamed Mustafa Mohamed.


China keeps aggressively surrounding itself with U.S. bases, notes from the edge of the narrative matrix. Facts. There are Chinese people with real grievances against their government. The U.S. Empire's propaganda machine will spin current protests in China to advance imperial agendas. Western intelligence agencies will become more and more involved in these protests the longer they go on. It still amazes me how many people who fancy themselves anti-establishment critical thinkers will spend all day mindlessly regurgitating mainstream media lines about China. I cannot emphasize enough how little respect I have for anyone who parrots U.S. Empire narratives about China and how completely dismissive I am of all their attempts to explain to me that it's actually right and good to do this. Surely all of our major problems are because of the people who rule over us.   You're worthless, bleeding human livestock. Here's a tweet by antiwar.com. U.S. military set to return to Subic Bay, Philippines to counter China. With the comment, why does China keep aggressively surrounding itself with U.S. military bases? Everyone knows the U.S. has invaded countries completely unprovoked very recently and will definitely do so again, but we still have to pretend that Putin is the worst thing since Hitler. It's disturbing how many people I encounter who claim Russia's invasion of Ukraine is worse than America's invasion of Iraq because Ukraine is a democracy.  Leaving aside the fact that a nation which bans political parties, shuts down opposition media, imprisons opposition leaders, and is vastly more accountable to Washington than its own people, is in no way a democracy. That's just a profoundly disturbing way of looking at life. A mother holding the remains of a child whose body has been ripped apart by military explosives does not care whether her country is considered a democracy by the western governments who are invested in that country's military outcomes. Rightists correctly believe that liberals subscribe to an artificially constructed world view designed by the powerful in the service of the powerful, but incorrectly believe that they themselves do not. Common Debates Which status quo party is best? Which side of the culture war is correct? How the western empire should act? What capitalism should look like?  Should the western empire exist? Should capitalism exist? Should class war replace culture war? And it is, of course, entirely by design that the former are common and the latter are uncommon. Keeping everyone debating how establishment power structures should exist rather than if they should ensures the survival of those power structures. It's actually a really big problem that the most visible left in the US is completely worthless on war and militarism. When Americans who are critical of those things look right and see people like Rand Paul and Tucker Carlson doing something then look left and see AOC and Bernie doing nothing which side do you think they'll choose? And of course this is because the so-called progressive Democrats are not left in any meaningful way but your average mainstream American doesn't know that and perception is reality. The US is the nation where anti-war sentiment is most important and the most urgently needed and it's been buried on the left. Americans are trained that Clintonites are center left and AOC Bernie are far left and anyone further left than them on the foreign policy is demonized by these progressives as a Russian agent. This creates the very understandable impression that the entire left is pro-war. When you've got Ilhan Omar and AOC calling people who protest US proxy warfare at their rallies Russian operatives and anti-war leftists like Jill Stein branded as Kremlin agents the message mainstream Americans come away with is that anti-war sentiment is only welcome on the right. Again, I get that this isn't true and there's lots of anti-war sentiment on the true left in the US but nobody sees that left. It's denied any media presence or political validity. Mainstream Americans don't know the difference between an anti-imperialist socialist and a burner. This causes anti-war Americans to drift to the right. I've watched it happen in real time with some of my US followers. I do my best to make the case for the left but I'm just one voice amid a surging deluge of messaging they're getting that the real opposition is on the right. Naming your war machinery after the indigenous tribes your government genocide it is the modern day equivalent of wearing the skulls of your enemies on your war horse. A lot of acceptance of the status quo worldview boils down to a failure of imagination. People literally can't imagine the possibility that reality is as different as it is from what they've been told by their teachers, parents, pundits and politicians. It's actually unfathomable to them and that is because it's so different. The world we are trained to see by establishment perception managers is as different from the real world as any fictional world is. The claim that capitalism is the best system for generating profits is basically correct. It's hard to beat greed and starvation as a carrot and stick to get the gears of industry whirring. The issue here is that merely generating profits won't solve most of the world's problems and in fact many of our problems come from the fact that capitalism is too effective at turning the gears of industry. Our biosphere is dying largely because capitalism values making lots of things but not unmaking things. We are choking our ecosystem to death because it is profitable. Capitalism has no real answers for problems like ecocide, inequality, exploitation and caring for the needful. Yes, let the markets decide we'll generate lots of profits for those set up to harvest them. But profit seeking cannot address those very serious problems. The invisible hand of the market gets treated as an actual deity that actually exists with all the wisdom necessary to solve the world's problems but in reality the pursuit of money lacks any wisdom. It cannot solve our major problems. It can only make more stuff and generate more profit. Find me a capitalist business plan for leaving a forest untouched. Find me a capitalist business plan for keeping someone free of illness for ensuring that someone with nothing gets what they need for giving resources to a struggling parent. You can't. Capitalism can't do this. These are the most important things in the world and no possible iteration of capitalism has any solutions for any of them whatsoever apart from, well, hopefully rich people will feel very charitable and fix those problems. And how is that solution working out? It's a joke. The maybe the very rich will feel charitable and fix our problems for us solution assumes that the very same people who are wired to do whatever it takes to claw their way to the top of the ladder will suddenly start caring deeply about everyone they stepped on to get there. Capitalism elevates sociopaths because profit seeking competition based systems reward those who are willing to do whatever it takes to get ahead. That's why we are ruled by sociopaths and it's why looking to philanthropy as a solution to our problems is a ridiculous joke. When capitalism proponents tell socialists and communists you don't understand economics. What they really mean is you don't understand that capitalism is the best system for generating profits. But socialists and communists do understand this. It's just that generating profits is a solution of itself is not sufficient. If lack of wealth is your major problem then capitalism can be a tool to address it. That's what China is temporarily doing to keep up economically with the western forces who wish to enslave it. But such measures won't solve ecocide, inequality, exploitation and caring for the needful. For that other measures are needed. If you want to make more of something money or material goods then capitalism can be a good way to do that. But if you need to make less of something pollution, inequality, exploitation sickness, homelessness, etc. it's worthless and other systems must be looked to. You can say but communist regimes are authoritarian all you want but that doesn't change the fact that capitalism has zero answers for the most important problems facing our species. This still needs to be addressed and moaning about Mao and Stalin isn't the answer. Don't like the iterations of socialism we've seen so far? Ok. Then find another answer and remember we've already established that capitalism is not the answer. It cannot address the problems we're discussing here. So we need to find an actual answer that does actually work. Dismantling capitalism if we ever achieve it will be the most difficult thing that humanity has ever accomplished. As hard as everyone becoming a Buddha and essentially not much different. But that doesn't change the fact that it is existentially necessary for us to do so. We'll either move from competition based systems to collaboration based ones eliminating all the obstacles necessary for us to do so or we will go extinct. We are at our adapt or die juncture as a species.


Okay, everybody. Thanks for bearing with me. I'm sorry for the delaying. Start getting this started. Is everybody ready? Okay. Welcome, everybody. This is the February 8 meeting of the Montpelier Planning Commission. First order of business is called order. Second is approval of the agenda. Let me take a look at the agenda unless there's any comments or changes that ask for unanimous consent to approve the agenda. All right. It's approved by unanimous consent. Next is comments from the chair. Kirby is not here tonight. He's attending a family emergency. We wish him the best, but we will move forward. Fourth is general business comments from the public. I don't see anybody on the Zoom call that looks like they're from the public. If there is, please speak up. No. So moving on, consider the minutes from January 25th, our last meeting. Everybody take a look at it real quick. Unless there's any comments, I've asked for unanimous consent to pass or to approve the minutes from January 25th. Erin, do you care about typos? If I guess if you do, we all do. Well, it's only because it's in the bold and underlined section at the end of the minutes. I just noticed it right now. Discussion. New discussion. Discussion is misspelled. Minor point. Okay. So let's we can change that typo from this discussion. Unless there's any objections to approving the minutes. I had a question, sorry. On the removing parking minimums discussion, I wasn't there. But there was a vote that failed. So we are going to keep discussing it before we get to the land use chapter. Was that the end of that conversation? Yes. Okay. So unless there's any other comments, I'd ask for unanimous consent to approve the minutes with the change to the typo that Barr pointed out. Approved by unanimous consent. Erin, you muted yourself or somebody muted you? I think he muted himself. There we go. Okay. So next is receive an update from the continuity and structure subcommittee. I should say continuity. I don't know if John, did you want to go through the pieces you had kind of put together or how do you guys want to try to kind of go through this summary real quick? Could we the committee discuss two points? One was to look at how to structure the implementation strategies and how that would look and what the tables would look like.  So yeah, before John, you go real quick. I just wanted to let everyone know that I made some changes as we discussed last time to the template.  It's the same document. We've added a couple things as discussed. So was that attached? It was the new one attached to what you sent out? I sent a link to the Google Drive's place where we all have access and you should be able to grab it from there. Okay. But that is the most updated one. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Okay. John, go ahead, or Stephanie. Yeah, I guess. I think the upshot is that the template that Marcella sent around is what people should use and if people use that our plan or what we had talked about is I take those and just bring them into a very simple database that we could then use to populate any an application or sort of our final version, pulling off in the same place, but allowing a number of different views like you could look at it from the perspective of a committee, you could say, okay, you know, we're on the transportation committee, what are all the different actions and strategies that we're responsible for or partner in or you could sort from by theme and you could look at historic resources or you could sort by priority. You could say show me all of the high priority or strategies. And then, and the idea being that, you know, those a lot of these strategies are going to have overlap. So if it is, you know, you could have a strategy that applies to historic resources, land use, transportation, etc. But having it all in a central database allows us to view it in different ways. I can share my screen to make this like maybe less abstract. So John, do they have to have certain keywords so that they will read across? So they'll sort that way? Yes and no, I wouldn't worry about it too much. For example, if they're, since we're working on them thematically, just add a column and put that theme for that whole page, right? You know, historic resources. The ones that might, we might try to have some kind of normalizing like just create a dropdown would be like the responsible parties. So we don't have like HPC, historic preservation committee, historic preservation and design like eight different flavors of that. We could clean it all up at the end and it probably, you know, wouldn't be a huge lift anyway, but it might be possible for us to take care of that on the front end. And then for the other thing we want to draw links to is for each strategy, draw a link to the goals. And there again, we don't need to worry about consistent theming or wording at the beginning. Each one will just assign like an ID, basically a unique number and then add them to whatever strategies, but maybe if, again, if I show you, and this isn't really how, you know, it would present no one, we're saying no one, you know, just wants to go read a database, but they have, there's a number of different applications of services like this that really don't require any coding or are pretty easy to use. And this is, you know, I took the historic preservation one, just loaded the CSV up, you could see there's goals and objective, I just put in a placeholder, this is a goal here, and then here, for example, it will pull from the goal sections and then you can just create a bunch of different views, you know, you could sort by priority and create some cards that way and low, medium and high. We could even eventually use this if we wanted to have a status, you know, if it's in progress or completed, people, you could just drag them in between the different places where those, whatever those strategies are at, and if we wanted to keep track of the plan, or if we do like an annual update of the status of all of them, that could be an option. But using that, using these different views, we'll just be able to create tabs in our plan website that people could just click on and then it'll pull up all of those plans and strategies as however we define those views. John, what we're looking at under policy action are the strategies. Right. Those would appear as strategies. So the goal is one step up then. Can you show us that tab too? Yeah. So that tab... I noticed it was on the other one. Well, anyway... It's not currently populated yet. Right, it's not currently populated. Okay, so it doesn't want to come up, yeah. But in this, for example, you have the, if you were to open up an item, and this isn't helpful because these don't have goals on them, but let's see, these three were linked to that first goal. So if you open up strategy one, you'll see the related goal or objective. So it automatically numbers them. It's not like we have to put any of that in. Right. Once they're done in a good place, I'll just go assign them numbers or values. It's easier not to have people worry about that. I guess that I think the upshot is we'll just use the template that Marcela sent around, but the hope is that we'll just take those and then feed it into a structure like this and sync things up. So that'll give us, I think, a lot of opportunity to create some interactivity and have a plan that's functional and allows people to find things quickly. And again, this was done within a few, this only took a few minutes. So the design and functionality of this isn't, doesn't maybe quite convey what I'm trying to do, but yeah, I think just understanding maybe that we'll go from those templates, feed it into this and then basically create views from it that allow people to interact or see things from different perspectives. Yeah, really the take home is just to use the link that Marcela sent out. Because as we populate that, even though it's not very fancy, the whole point of it is just to get everything into cells and columns and blocks, and then we can grab them later on. When we figure out exactly what format and exactly what program we're using, then we can grab those and pretty readily make things match up. So if there are any other comments on the implementation strategy, we can take them. Otherwise, I'll just go and quickly show you what was attached to the agenda. So this was the other piece that I had sent out, and we talked briefly in the subcommittee about, so what I did was just to put together, the goal is to eventually have this as a web based plan. So this would be the text of a web page that we could give to somebody with graphic arts to kind of start to make it look pretty. But to get the text in, we were looking for, at least my goal was to have chapters be between a thousand words and maybe 1500 words. That's kind of a bite size web page and then have links to other things. So maybe this is too long, maybe this is too short, but the idea was I would put together a quick historic resources chapter. So I wrote a quick introduction. I had a section on how do historic resources relate to other chapters. Quick discussion there. I summarized some information about Montpelier, and this was one question we had talked about is, you know, how do we set this up? Do we actually do something like this with links to all of these? Or do we put a single link to a web page that might have all of these? And that's just a format, and that's what the subcommittee will kind of discuss over time is, what's the best way of putting these together? And I think there's some support to try to build all these actually into the city plan web, you know, the overall plan. So that way people who are in the plan can actually access these documents, and we would PDF, we would scan these documents and have links to them directly in here. So we would have obviously a map. So some map layers that we had identified, what are the capital complex boundaries, location of historic markers, location of the design review district boundary, the location of designated downtown district, and location of National Register District. So these are all just a number of related files that we would put in and either a single map that would let you turn on and off layers. And then we would briefly introduce aspirations and goals. So this is our aspiration for that. And this is how we came up, you know, a quick paragraph. So somebody who wants to understand why this is our aspiration or what we're doing it for, they could kind of get a quick sense for it. And then an outline of how we would implement the plan. Now, I just put these in different sections and we can, you know, grab one of these and move it up. You know, this should be talked about first, that should be talked about last. There were, you know, kind of just meant to be a list of possible topics. Maybe there's a topic we should talk about that I didn't include. So I really wanted to kind of leave it a little bit, open a discussion of what people thought or what they think or if you guys want to take this home and kind of talk about it or think about it for a little bit. But the idea was to find out what we would need for a template because then I can go back out and start going and writing a quick historic or a quick housing chapter and a quick transportation chapter and a quick energy chapter and we could start building out the plan. And then the idea would be once we've got the text and once we've got some of these other pieces, we can start working on actually developing the web pages because then we just need to get images and start to build out what the page would look like. And I think that piece I would hope would go relatively quickly because I think the hardest part is, you know, the implementation strategies which we've been working on and then the text of the plan. So I'll throw that out and see what you guys are got questions. So you would go ahead. I'll just add that from our continuing structures working at meeting on Friday. The other piece that we were interested in and I'm throwing this out to the committee for discussion. But the other piece we talked about was adding benchmarks for each chapter, something we could make a little more visual. That would be not just benchmarks for the sake of benchmarks, but finding something that's actually useful to help us quantify each of these sections and determining what that is. So I don't know if that's something that the working groups, the subgroups should be thinking about if we're interested in including that on each page. That would be my recommendation. So those benchmarks would fit within the strategies? Is that what you're saying, Stephanie? So within strategies or goals? They need to relate to the strategies. Yeah, they need to relate to the strategies and what we're trying to accomplish. But I think they fit within this overview page that Mike is talking about for each chapter. Could we have them in both locations just so that they're clearly associated with the strategies as part of the database within the template? I mean, some of the chapters do have benchmarks, but their benchmarks are directly related to at least specific goals, if not strategies. Is it possible to include those in the template? I think it depends on what it is. We certainly can. I can add in discussions on any item, really. I just put together those, because I suppose we're kind of the basic ones. And if we wanted to have, I think we should have whatever it is, it'll probably be a very short discussion. If we're talking about aspirations and goals and we're talking about how we're implementing those goals, we can also have a discussion of an introduction to the benchmarks. You know, the energy committee will continue to track these metrics as they are important in determining. So just an overview. Produced from certain things. So the the benchmarks discussion within this section, within this what you're calling the chapter then, is it would just be a general overview. But the specific benchmarks would be entered into the template and then into the database. Because that's how we came up with the benchmarks. I mean, we don't have them all for energy, but that was it was a lot of effort. Yeah, I think it's going to come up a little bit depending on where we get to in developing. I mean, if we use, say, the R-Cov, those are really kind of designed to have some of these links. So it could be more of a live, and this would be a question from a legal standpoint, whether you can have live links in your plan, because your plan is supposed to be more of a static document of a point in time. And you have these goals, but I don't know, I don't see why we couldn't bend the envelope and put in something that says, hey, here's our benchmark. And it's automatically linked to the VEIC tracker for certain metrics. And therefore, if you were to go to the energy page and scroll down, you would see the energy benchmarks, and it would actually have over time, are we, how many houses have been weatherized every year? If that's one of our things, our goal is, if our target is we should be weatherizing 100 homes every year. And we can get data that automatically uploads every year from efficiency per month, and we could just link to their dataset, it'll automatically download into ours. And we would automatically have these targeting across that would go through and say we did 65 this year, and we did 110 next year or whatever. That would be really helpful. In the template and the database, I think is where we describe what the benchmark is, or maybe highlight what we want the goal to be, but in the actual plan overview and section, that's where we could try to have the dynamic updating the actual measure itself rather than say what we want to measure and then not measure it. Yeah. And I think it'd be interesting to hear from the state and some other folks as to, you know, I would love to see us be able to do the dynamic measuring within the plan. I just don't know. Is it possible? Yeah. In a city full of lawyers, it's always suspect to get ourselves in a position where, you know, we aren't making this a PDF plan. So we don't, you know, it's not a fixed in time document. And so I think some people may have concerns about that from a legal standpoint, because it is adopted by the city council. And if it's adopted by the city council with a dynamic link, doesn't that change the adopted plan when that gets, and that's that I think is just a legal question. And could we put a line in the sand that goes and says here's the adopted plan. And below this line is the dynamic benchmarks. Therefore, there's a clear delineation. I think there may be ways we can play with things, but nobody's done this before. So I think we'll have to work through a few potential areas where we either clearly recognize that this this is a dynamic benchmark and therefore is not technically part of the plan. That would be it's be so incredibly useful to be able to have it be dynamic like that, especially when we have tight, tight limit timelines for the energy plan, for example, that as to know how we're doing as we're going along would be incredibly helpful if it can be done. I mean, it sounds pretty complex, but you can do anything, right, Mike? I'm just yeah, I mean, in certain cases, I'm just trying to make a great plan. And if the more ideas we can come together to make it, you know, this web plan is going to be new and different. And if we can come up with good, good, good ways of doing things, you know, we'll make it happen. And I think for some of them, we can be probably really easily automated. Others, if they're just being updated once a year, and we know where those data sources are, then it shouldn't be a big deal as long as we make a point of it to update that as simple as putting creating a Google sheet that we pull from updating that every year. Somebody has to do that. Yeah, just have a calendar reminder that pops up for probably me or somebody in my office to go and start to go through and, you know, whether it's unemployment data or, you know, whatever, whatever the metric is and whatever the chapter is, we just have to know to go through and make that addition to the benchmarks. Or, like, our first meeting every January can be one where we update everything and take stock or something. So, yeah, we'll leave the, as I said, I'll leave, then, sure, everybody hadn't really had a chance to go through the historic resources chapter that I wrote, but in some cases, yeah, I mean, read through it and see if it looks good, but does it, you know, is it too in depth, not in depth enough? Because what I really want to do is just to get a feel for, you know, not necessarily going through and correcting punctuation and stuff like that, but just kind of getting a feel for, are we going in the right direction? We got a good idea. This is what we're looking for, because I don't want to write out 12 chapters and then delete the same section out of every single one of these. We're kind of looking for a template, so I know what to build, and then we can all review that and make the edits and changes, but the goal is to come up with a chapter of about 1,000 to 1,500 words, and it's going to cover these headers, these topic areas, and that way it'll be consistent throughout each web page. We'll have those same headers, those same things we'll kind of transfer across. All right, is that it? I think so. Okay. Moving on. Continued discussion of the removal of residential density caps and the unified development zoning regulations. So I do know this was a bit of Kirby's one that he was kind of putting out there for people to consider, and I know when he sent me an email yesterday, he mentioned that he wasn't sure how much everybody wanted to get into this if he wasn't going to be there to kind of direct it, but we certainly, if we are all here, if we've got questions or ideas or thoughts that have come up over the last two weeks, certainly would be open to start hearing them. I'm trying to remember, I guess I could check the minutes. So we just moved the parking further on. That wasn't on, it's not on the agenda for today. Right, parking was just moved on. I guess John and Stephanie and you guys weren't there at the last meeting. So do you guys have questions or do you want a quick update on where this was coming from and going to? A quick update would be helpful as long as that's not annoying for those who were here last time. Yeah, so the new, yeah, the new discussion on the residential, removing the residential density caps. So this, Kirby kind of brought this up to discuss whether or not it made sense to start looking at the idea of, you know, if we've got the good, and he had the links to those documents that he had sent around. And that was one of the suggestions, which was if you've got good bulk and massing requirements, does it make sense to start to remove those density requirements? And this kind of especially dovetailed with the parking discussion, because really, if we didn't have parking requirements, that's really the only external impact that a change in, you know, if somebody had a single family home and went to a four unit building, if it was all within the same box, it really would have no impact on the neighborhood. But for potentially parking, there could be, you know, four additional cars. But the idea was we would be able to open up more possibilities potentially in our downtown, in some of our neighborhoods, if we didn't have these requirements, because in some cases, it may be an artificial limit on things where somebody could fit more smaller units, rather than going with, you know, two or three bedroom units. And some of this came out of a conversation actually in South Burlington. They were talking about this exact idea, taking out the density, because if you had, you know, say a building that you could fit 10 studio apartments in. And that's really where the market is. The market wants to see studios and one bedrooms. There's not enough of them in the market. So we could fit 10 of them in here. But the density requirement in that district is only allows us to have six or seven. Well, then you may go in and put six or seven two bedroom units, because you're going to get more money. We're going to still maximize our bulk and massing when we build this new development. And we'll put in the two bedroom units, which really isn't what the market wants, but you're going to get more money. And therefore, it pays for itself. The development pays for itself better. And so it kind of artificially pushes to less units with more bedrooms rather than maybe what the market wants, which is a number of smaller single units. But what matters for character of the area really is how much, you know, how big the building is, the bulk and the massing and the amount of setbacks and all of those other requirements that we already that we already regulate. So that's a little bit of where Kirby was kind of pushing, why don't we head down this, this avenue? Mike, I had a question. So by taking out density does not mean that we would take the FAR out, right? Floor area ratio would still be part of it, because that's a big part of the massing. Right. Okay, fine. Yeah, because that's, that's how the non non residential is regulated. Right. Right. And again, there's an FAR value in the residential as well. So to some extent, it controls the size of the building if it was a new building. Footprint. Footprint. Yes. Footprint and FAR together. Yeah. Well, I'm just for reference, I after our meeting last time, I did look at some hypotheticals using all of the requirements in a, I think it was our 3000 zone, using all the requirements except for density. And it certainly did seem clear that more units could be added in. I certainly feel a lot more comfortable about this with existing buildings. But I think the reality of the construction market is that we're looking predominantly at existing buildings anyway. We don't have very many open sites in Montpelier. And what I, what became clear from my discussions with multiple developers was that the cost of construction pretty much precludes new construction at this point. No matter how many units you put in it, apparently. And I learned a lot about ADUs as a result of this too. So the opportunities for us to put ADUs into existing buildings certainly helps us to add significant number of units. The real issue that came up, which may end up being a limiting factor, which I think we should know about even though it's not something that we regulate, is what our current sprinkler codes is. Which is that if we put multiple units in an existing building, each one of them has to have a separate entrance and exit. So it's, it becomes more complicated in terms of that. You know, they have to have their own stairway. They have to have their own entrance door. And they have to be separated from other parts of the building with a fire resistance rating. So when you start looking at that, it does become more complicated. But it doesn't really have to do with the, with the density necessary, necessarily. You would still need to get a permit, right? It would just, it would just be approved. Yeah. Yeah. And the part that really surprised me, because I've been over the sprinkler, I was involved when they changed the sprinkler ordinance, and I've been over it a million times, and I still can't quite find this, but Chris Lumber says that any number of units could be added to an existing building. That was his latest email to me, Mike, if you saw that, without having to sprinkler the building, existing residential building without having to sprinkler. So that's huge. That certainly makes it more, much more affordable to work within an existing building than, than necessarily adding a new building. So I, in other words, I've softened my position on this, if you couldn't tell, because I was really pleased to see that, that the other requirements really did control scale and massing. Yeah. And I think that would be the key that we would have to look at. We've got good standards because the thing we got kind of beat up on a little bit when it went to public hearing the last time was the argument of the tear down. Of course, we can argue that there's nobody who can afford to tear down and rebuild. But that was the argument was that people will find, you know, maybe a property or two properties with a, with a small ranch and they're going to tear down that house and they're going to build the giant monstrosity. And that's, you know, I just think the reality of the market is it's, you're not going to, you're not going to buy a $300,000 house to tear it down. I mean, it happens, but I don't think our market is such that you could afford to tear that down and build something new and make money. And the other requirements would keep you from building some large building that was out of scale with the rest of the neighborhood, which I think was a big concern. A lot of the, a lot of our beating up had to do with putting buildings that were not appropriate into neighborhoods. So, yes. So it's going to be really critical in terms of how this is presented to the public. And I think examples would be really helpful. You know, the kinds of graphics that, that Randy, Randy put together when we were doing the zoning were really helpful for people to be able to visualize. So if, if we decided to do that, we couldn't just sprint it. Yeah, I think another thing that could be powerful or helpful is, I'm going to attend this in talks before. So I think I actually have photos from around Montpelier, but it's the show of a photo from the street of, you know, a home or her structure and then ask people to guess what the density is. And I think I have maybe a dozen or 20 examples and, you know, it can range from, from like, half of, you know, one unit an acre to 40 units an acre and people can't tell the difference. And I think that like really illustrates the point where it's, or it becomes less abstract when you're just looking at a building and, and you, it becomes when you go through 20 of them, then you realize like, oh, this is really a meaningless or this measure does not mean as much as maybe I thought I did, you know. Yeah, actually something that could be contained within the, the document itself might have, you know, more to do with comparative drawings, which is similar to some of the stuff that we have in the zoning right now. So I think both would help, you know, your, your formal presentation to would be really useful, John, from that standpoint, and then to kind of carry that on into the actual document because of all the people who won't see that presentation is going to be important too. I think even if it's not something that ends up going town or citywide, it may be something that starts to roll out and starts to grow. I mean, currently, that's what urban center one, urban center two and urban center three, they don't have any density requirements, they only have bulk and massing, and they also don't have parking requirements. So that's pretty much the start of what we're talking about. And if we started to grow that out a little bit, we know residential 1500 doesn't have parking requirements, but you know, whether these are two, two of the same things that we're doing or whether we're just doing the density, it's something that we can certainly keep rolling out neighborhood to neighborhood to kind of kind of grow that out to some other places where we stop regulating density in some of these other other neighborhoods. But I think it would be more challenging to go and not have a density requirement out in the rural district. Or, maybe in a couple of the residential 9,000 areas, it may be a little bit more challenging because the houses were bigger. So the bulk and massing requirements are bigger. So it's actually easier to put an eight unit building out on terrace street because the bulk and massing would let you do it. Now that may not be a bad thing. That's policy question, but that's what we would have to kind of consider and whether the public would support something like that. But I think the public would support certainly in these closer to downtown areas, the ability for a developer to go through and either convert, you know, I've got two, three bedroom apartments and I think I'd be having easier time renting them out if I had five studios or six studios. That's, you know, that's up to the developer to decide what's the best way for them to subdivide that building. And I think the public would support that. Well, maybe. I'm not guaranteeing that one. No, I can probably find a couple of people that I know for sure. I have this vivid memory of some of the comments that were made at zoning. So I can imagine exactly who would probably not really feel it same way. Mike, I would guarantee I would, as long as something is changing, I will get, I will, I will get an earful from, from certain people and the irony would be that they would be defending the, the bylaws that they didn't like the first time. They don't want those to change now. Yeah, they worked out okay. So. Isn't it like the only thing that, that like brings like Democrats and Republicans together is their hatred of density? I'd say there's probably. They're changing zoning. Yeah, zoning and bring everybody together. Yeah, I think, I think it would, you know, in, in, in the same way that I think last time there was, there were opponents to the zoning changes when we went to the 90% density rule, there, it wasn't universally supported, but at the same time when it got to city council, the idea kind of went through pretty, pretty handily, even though it did get a lot of comments from the public and in the paper. But I think the same concept would have the same thing. It would get a lot of people concerned. Bad things could happen, but really they're pretty low chance of those bad things happening and in exchange you have the opportunity for good things to happen and that's what we hope is that the changes would result in good things happening. We'd have to really focus on hypotheticals for the good things to happen because people can visualize in their own heads all the bad things. So let's have some good examples of this could work really well in order to, to mitigate that. So what would be the next step for considering this? Like would we go through which, I mean, does somebody have a proposal for which zoning districts or, or an idea or do we go through them or? I think it was Herbie's kind of his, his idea and I don't think he was necessarily making a proposal that he wanted to see, you know, making a zoning amendment right now. I think he just wanted to start to have that conversation. He thought it was important because we're going to be heading into conversations. You know, it just like John's conversation for parking is going to affect how we write our transportation plan and I think Herbie was kind of thinking ahead to the land use plan and thinking land use housing plan. Let's think about what we want to, you know, what changes we would want to make not necessarily that we're going to put those zoning changes in effect right now, but that we should start having them and having those conversations in the context of our land use plan and these other plans going forward and then hopefully in his view maybe in the fall or the next time we have the zoning opened for amendments, we'll bring back up the parking and we'll bring back up the residential densities and see where, where we end up. So would we want to include goals in the transportation and housing sections regarding this? I mean, do we feel like we want to go that far because that certainly shows our intention and it's not in there now? No, I think these would be strategies, you know, and I think it's a strategy for accomplishing a goal and, you know, if if it makes sense, you know, going back to John's proposal for the parking, we wanted to remove parking from some or all the zoning districts, then it's a, you know, it's a strategy towards accomplishing the goal of not, of having a community where, you know, having an automobile is not a requirement. And, you know, if it's not a necessity, you know, if we're trying to have a community where it's, you don't have to have a car, you can live in Montpelier and not have a car and, and that's okay because our community is set up for alternative transportation and public transportation and you can do all these things without having that car. And if that's our goal, then why should we have a requirement that every house have a parking space if our goal is, you know, so, so here's a recommendation in our, in our strategy to, and it may just say consider. Yeah. It may not be as hard as going and saying in the, in the city plan, we will remove the parking requirements, may go say that the city should consider removing the parking requirements for some or all zoning districts in order to facilitate this objective. We just have to make sure that all of the other strategies do in fact make it possible to live without the car so that we haven't, you know, pulled one, one end up being the ends up being dependent upon the others. So we have to make sure that in fact that's true. But yeah, I would be in favor of saying consider just because we don't want to throw a wrench into this process of the city plan. Kirby was saying something different that he was saying, if we can move on something now, let's move on it. That's what I heard him saying in previous meetings, but you know, and I don't want to give a broad update to Stephanie about the parking discussion from last meeting, because I don't know that I can encapsulate everyone's perspective, but I felt like it was pretty, we were pretty divided and on that discussion. And there were some about strong feelings. So I would definitely not, you know, I would like to bring that up again, but I don't think we're ready to move on that. But it seems like, and I guess it is intertwined with this, but it doesn't seem like there's a lot of, I don't hear a lot of negative feedback from other commissioners about this. So it seems like it's potentially a thing we could move on now, which I think would be, I mean, I'm in support of Kirby's, what I heard Kirby say, just if we can move on something, why wait and why put it, you know, in the city plan, just do it. I'm just, I'm just really worried that if we were to go ahead and get it open up that Pandora's box, then, you know, it may sidetrack the city plan. You know, it'd be great to get the city plan done and then move on to these, you know, potential zoning changes. It's, we could be another eight years doing, doing this one city plan. And I think Mike would not be happy about that. Yeah, I mean, I think Kirby had, I think you're right. Kirby did mention it, but it does require us, we would have to go through and re-warn and redo things. And I think we would be wanting to wait a little bit, but we can wait till Kirby gets back. Certainly it's not my call to make. If you guys wanted to warn another public hearing, that's certainly within your authority to do that. So we can wait till Kirby gets back and see how he wants to move on it. But if people are generally positive towards this idea or at least worth exploring it further, then I guess that's, that's, that would be something I think Kirby would be looking for. If we've got general positivity towards this, then it's something that we can start looking at. What are the consequences? What are the other things that we would have to consider? Like I said, we could still require a permit. We can still have a parking requirement, in which case anyone who complains that, well, this is going to have, you know, go from two units to four units going to have too many cars. It's like, well, we still have a parking requirement. So you still need a permit. We're just not going to regulate whether you can go two to four as long as you can show you've got, as long as you show you've got the parking spaces, then you can internally subdivide it and get the permit. As, yeah, as long as you can get a building permit, which is, yeah, not it, it's not going to be easy. That's not going to be easy. You know, I have a question about that, Mike, in looking at the ADUs that, isn't it every time you add an ADU, you have to have a sewer hookup fee? So if you went from one unit to four units, would you have three additional sewer hookup fees, even though there's only one sewer line from the house? It's complicated and I don't have all the answers, but I do know there's a state rule, it's either a state rulemaking process that's going through right now, or it's a state statutory change that's going through right now, because that, that has been brought to the attention of the state that that has been a barrier, because it's the state that takes most of those fees. It's not, it's levied by the city. Yeah, there's a city one and there's a, then there's a state one. Yeah. I mean, the city one is pretty substantial. So that's why I thought maybe that was the one that goes to the state. But anyway, regardless, those are some of the issues that come up. Yeah. Yeah. And we, those are pieces that we are learning as we're doing the ADU pilot program that we're doing is all of the barriers to doing these. And we're lining them all up and we'll probably make a presentation at some point to the housing task force, so they can start to identify what, you know, what are the parties that we need to address this with. In some cases, in some cases, it can be complicated. So there may be a hookup fee if it's a separate, in a separate structure, as opposed to a subdivision within the structure itself. Yeah, structure itself. Yeah. Well, yeah, I had a long discussion with Taylor Moss from the House State Housing Authority about the ADU program. So he was kind of filling me on some of the federal regulations, which are certainly very limiting. So something else that we might want to be considering is if we want to have incentives that we might not necessarily go through the federal government to get those incentives. Things like that. Almost guaranteed not to use federal funds ever again on those projects. It sounded nice, you know, $20,000 unit. That sounds really nice. But $20,000 in unit, then we'll use $15,000 of it to go through and do all of the lead abatement and historic preservation and study. Environmental assessment. Environmental assessments and phase two assessments. And even though it was in the same building, but even though it was inside the same building. Yeah. Yeah. Or if you got to put a new door in on the side of your building, then it's going to change the historic character of the historic building. And therefore you need a section 106 report certified by blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Yeah. Let's find other incentives. Yeah. All of that felt a little too real to me. Funding that I deal with constantly. I bet. Archeology. Yeah. And these were people, we were just trying to do these small little projects to put in it, you know, hey, we'll give you $20,000 to do an ADU and we're doing archaeology and you're like, oh. $3,000 archaeology. Yeah. Yeah. $7,000 for the EA. Yeah. Not worth it. Yeah. Yeah. So that was our determination was that we just need different funding. And so we're hoping that if the state does a bond that maybe we can get a portion of that bond allocated to not only Montpelier, but all communities because state money then wouldn't have all those hangups to it. And we could maybe be able to provide these either grants or, you know, we like our system of doing the 0% mortgages. Those work really well. The state doesn't always like those, but those work really well locally. Why not? Why does the state object to them? I don't know. It's different. It's not something that they're used to. They're used to either doing grants or loans. And I think doing a 0% mortgage is just not something that they're used to doing, but it may be just one that they've got to learn the advantages of and maybe they'll come around to the concept. But somebody has to own that mortgage and track that mortgage and that becomes part of the, you know, it's easier for the municipality because we've got all this stuff tracked and it's all in the land records. And when somebody goes and sells a house, we're right here to go through and follow up with somebody. But even anybody putting in an ADU under the federal program would still need financing. So it seems like they shouldn't really care what the interest rate is. But Oh, ours is, no, what we do for a lot of ours is we'll do a 0%. Like if you do a first-time home buyer or you do a housing preservation loan, those we will give you $10,000. And what we do is give you a 0% loan payable upon sale of the property. So you could live in that house for another 25 years and not pay a dime on the mortgage that you owe the city. But when you sell the house, then we're going to get our $10,000 back as proceeds of that mortgage. So it's a way for a lot of people to, especially if you don't have the money or you can't afford to pay the money back, it's a great way for energy improvements or first-time home buyer or a number of programs to help people out because it, you just owe us the money, but you know, we're giving you free money for as long as you live here. And if your house, if it appreciates in value, you still just owe the city what the amount of money that they put out. Yeah, the risk for the city is only in a depreciating market that we would end up being second in the mortgage. And so if somebody short sells their property, then we're SOL, but it happens very, very rarely in Montpelier. Totally, yeah. I can't think of any. Well, sorry for that aside, but that was really interesting, Mike. Thanks. So we'll just, we'll pass this along. We'll, you know, when Kirby gets back, we'll put this back on the agenda again to just talk about and we'll see when we work that, work it in. And we can have a conversation about when, if we want to start having those conversations, but we will have to start looking and thinking about what some of the other implications could be because we don't want to jump into, I mean, it's a substantial change to go through and say we're not going to regulate density. And we really have to make sure that we've thought about all of those unintended consequences that might be out there that we don't trip over something inadvertently. So we'll have to think through, but I think it's good. All right. So is there anything else anybody wants to talk about? Looks like a short meeting, everybody. As for unanimous consent to adjourn the meeting, we're adjourned. Thanks everybody. Good job facilitating chair. Just read what's in front of me. Thanks, everyone. Have a good night. All right. Thanks a lot, everybody.