Regional Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. It is November 19th, 2025 6 pm and as a result you are here for the CCRPC board of directors meeting. Welcome and thanks for joining us. Um this is a hybrid meeting and is being recorded as you just heard. Um so a call to order. We have a quorum. Um the attendance should be recorded on the recording um on the video. Are there any changes to the agenda? Hearing none, moving on to item two. Uh start with group expectations. Uh, and Nelson, if I remember correctly, you or somebody else posted uh the list or the link in the chat. Perhaps do that again.

Yeah, Emma just did that. Thanks, Emma.

Uh, thank you, Emma. Uh, so remind people about group expectations, which are both group and individual. Um, public comment period. Are there any public comment for items not on tonight's agenda? I'm not hearing anything and I apologize. My other computer literally crashed at 20 minutes before the meeting. So, I have one screen to work from. Um, no comments on that. Let's move on to item three, staff introductions. We have two. The first is Ann Nelson. Thanks. Um, most of you know me, but I'll give a little more background than you may otherwise know, but my name is Ann Nelson. It's a double name. I born and raised in Charlottesville, Virginia, where double names are quite common. Um, I went to undergrad at the University of Virginia down there and studied Middle Eastern studies and anthropology and spent a couple years doing ethnographic fieldwork in Uganda along with an anthropologist. Really loved that work. Um, and that work kind of got me deeply interested in this question of what are the stories that we tell about our lives and our communities and the people around us. I did some other random things like working as a rock climbing guide and farming and then decided to go back to school for urban planning also at the University of Virginia down in Charlottesville. And while I was there, really focused in on equitable collaboration and community engagement and kind of got increasingly fired up by this question of how do we get all of the voices at the table to

co-create decisions that impact their futures and kind of rethink and reimagine how we design and orient our communities to foster more inclusivity. Um, and following grad school, I worked for a couple years for a group that does mostly just facilitation and conflict resolution work in the field of planning. Um, so I worked down in Virginia kind of mediating and working with um, indigenous communities on the coast of Virginia when thinking about resiliency planning and so connecting indigenous communities with local planners and worked more locally in Charlottesville. I'm sure you all heard of all the Confederate statue stuff that happened down there and worked with a group on facilitating community conversations around what to do with this Confederate statue after it was taken down. Um, and that kind of increased my passion around facilitation and community involvement in planning and now work for CCRPC doing equity outreach and engagement work, supporting project outreach and engagement, facilitating the community engagement advisory committee and working on some internal policy updates with the goal of making planning more inclusive. And on the side, I do a little bit of work for the state's climate action office, also supporting with community engagement work. And yeah, when I'm not working, I'm love to trail run and sew and garden and hang out with my little eight-month-old.

Awesome. Thank you, Ann Nelson. Any quick questions or comments for Ann Nelson? Thank you. That was informative and pathy. Um, moving on to item B, Kate McCarthy.

Thank you, Bard. And hello everybody. It's nice to be here with you this evening. Um, and good to see you. My name is Kate McCarthy and I'm on the land use team here at CCRPC and I've just celebrated my oneyear anniversary. So, I'm still relatively new to the organization, but not to Vermont and not to planning. I've been working in Vermont for about 15 years um in a variety of settings that touch upon planning, community development, placemaking. Um I have a degree in regional planning from Cornell University, but like Ann Nelson, I started off as an anthropology major because I was curious about people. I was curious about place. I was curious in my own life, even as a kid, about how my community was changing. And um after working in international education for a little bit, I I I discovered regional planning, community planning and went on to study it. So that's that's part of the curiosity that I bring to this work is um part of the curiosity I bring to this work is kind of about what attaches people to place, what it means to contemplate change, how real that is for for people, and what what we do about it by working together. So, um, I mentioned I've done kind of planning and community development in a variety of ways. My first job in Vermont in 2010 was actually at the Windham Regional Commission. So, starting off in southeast southeastern Vermont, now being up in northwestern Vermont. Um, so I was with the Windham Regional Commission where I worked on brownfields and energy and town planning. Uh then I worked for about 10 years in environmental advocacy which involved a fair amount of um state level policy work but also helping municipalities as I like to say from Marlboro to Montgomery um with with all manner of projects. It's a real privilege to be able to to work in so many different kinds of communities. Um I've worked in philanthropy for a few years with the Vermont Community Foundation community

development as funer. Um, and that was very interesting, especially as we brought and supported communities through a couple years in a row of really bad flooding, as many know. Um, and after I wrapped up there, I came to CCRPC. Um, I get to work on a variety of projects here, as we all do. It's one of the things I like about planning. It's one of the things I like about regional planning. Um, but just to give you two examples of of what I'm working on, um, I've been part of team Act 181. um starting with some really intense and constructive outreach. Uh like maybe the second hour I got here, we were off and running um last October. Um and now moving from that outreach and mapping process into the um advancement of, as you know, of our ECOS regional plan through the land use review board. Um but you you've heard from Taylor, you've heard from others, that's a brand new process for planning for regional plans in Vermont. And I'm actually really excited to be a part of that. I think it's interesting and while while it's something we're all learning at once, um I think it's a very interesting time to to be a regional planner. So that's one piece of what I'm working on. And another example, um many of you in this room know, um that the town of Jericho is studying the possibility of a village scale wastewater system for the Riverside uh village. um talking talking with stakeholders there and in neighboring communities and um working with a task force of very um committed individuals to make sure that the study is robust to make sure that the engagement is uh reaches the people that it needs to reach and gets good information out and that the community as a whole can make a good decision about that part of its future. So um that's a little about where I come from and the work that I do. Uh, aside from that, I live in Montielar. Um, I've

lived in Montpielar uh for for 14 years. Um, and when I'm not in work, I like cross-country skiing. I really enjoy cooking. Um, I have a 5-year-old, an 11-year-old, and a spouse um who keep me busy. And we're adopting a dog on Saturday. So, uh, life is good. Life is busy. And, um, glad glad to have the variety I do through through work and otherwise. Thank you, Kate. That was informative as well. Uh, congratulations on the dog. I was going to say I will say that Jericho, the committee just loves her. [laughter] Awesome. Thank you, Katherine.

Any other questions or comments uh from Kate's overview? Apparently not. Thank you, Kate. Um, thank you. Hearing nothing, moving on to item four, draft minutes of October 15th. Looking for a motion to approve the draft minute of October 15th. Move to approve. Thank you. That was Andy. Is there a second? I'll second. Uh, was that Katherine? Yes. Thank you very, very much. Um, so all in favor of approving the minutes of October 15th, please indicate. There's just two itty bitty Oh, sorry. Yes. Go ahead.

Two itty bit I mean there, you know, it's really getting harder and harder to find things. [laughter] But there's two itty bitty things that are not, you know, that doesn't change the thing. It just on line 87, it provides a list of potential issue. That should be issues. And then on line 96, Bard said that state budget is embargoed. Shouldn't it be added the just to sound better? That's my choice anyway. the word the that the state budget

that seems plausible. Um are the is the person Andy are you comfortable with the motion being amended to say as revised? Yes, Katherine. I assume you are. Yes. Thank you. Okay. So with the revised motion uh to approve the draft minutes with those changes are hand up. Sorry. Yeah, Tessa O'Brien has her hand up.

Also, very nitpicky. I'm so sorry, but my name is actually misspelled in the very beginning of the draft minutes. So, with it amended, just that like my last name is an EN, not an AN in like the very beginning for like the who was there. That's my one thing. That's another tricky.

No. Any other changes to the draft minutes? So, we have um a motion to approve the draft minutes with those revisions. Um any other final comments or questions. Hearing none, moving to a vote. Everybody who um approves of the draft minutes as revised, please indicate by saying I or raising your hand. I any nazs any abstensions?

The motion carries. Uh thank you. Moving on to item five, transportation improvement program or tip amendment. Who is leading us through this? Christine, is this you?

This is me. And just as we said it, my phone started to ring. So hopefully that's not too annoying to folks. Um so this is two uh new um vtrans bike ped grants that were awarded um in Chittney County. One to in Heinesburg for a crosswalk that is an addition additional funds for this project. Um the second one is uh for a new shared use path in Essex on Route 15 up uh between Essex Junction and um and 289. And for those I'll share for those who were in the training CCRPC did planning studies for both of these projects and then they went they applied to the VR spike pet program for funding. So if there's any questions I'm happy to answer. Thank you. Any questions or comments for Christine?

Hearing none. Uh ready for a motion to approve the tip amendment as presented. So moved. I think that was Karen. Second. And Andy second. Okay. Any additional comments or questions? All right. We have a motion to approve the tip amendment as presented. Um if you agree, please say I or raise your hand. Mr. Chair, it's an MO vote only. Yes, thanks for that reminder. MO only others, please restrain yourselves.

Just for clarity, that's the municipalities except Bu Gore and Vrans. Okay. Any So, we have a bunch of people who raised their hand or said I. Any nays? Any abstensions? Uh, the motion passes. Um, moving on to item six, draft FY26, first quarter financials. Forest, take it away. Indeed. Yeah, I think uh Bernie Sanders just called me as well. Christine,

me too. Um, [laughter] so, um, this is the same report that the executive committee and finance committee saw a couple of weeks ago. Uh, before I launch into this, any questions, comments, or concerns andor desires to see any of the documents on the screen? Not seeing any. I'll just I'll hit the high points. Um, so this was a this was a nice first quarter for us. Um, we have uh net income or revenue in excess of expenses of about $8,400 through the first quarter. Um it it's a nice result because often this first quarter is is a difficult revenue uh generator for us given all the u uh vacations etc that that happened due um you know July August July and August and then everybody gets back to work in September. Um so really this is a result of some some really nice um billing both in the ACCD um column a lot of work on the ECOS plan also our transportation staff billing uh pretty much right on budget 24.8% 8% 25% of the way through the through the budget year. Um so that's really helping us. Um and like I said, our expenses are also pretty much on pace for budget, but um we're able to um exceed that with our revenue generation. U overall the our balance sheet is healthy. Cash looks good. Um and again, great start to the quarter. Happy to see it. Um I won't

make any predictions about the the next quarter, but um nice to see us off to a strong start and uh really the reflection of um just really a lot of hard work by the staff in this first quarter uh getting after it. Thank you, Forest. Any comments or questions for Forest? Yeah, Forest John Kingston from Hinesburg. Uh just quick qu just a quick question. Um

uh personnel costs ran 22% over plan $150,000. Did can you just uh elaborate on that? I'm sorry that's not over plan. That's over the prior year. So I'm sorry uh which particular program John? No I was just looking at personal personal

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So, those were budgeted for um we do have more staff. Um so, that that contributes as well. So, year-over-year um we were expecting to see that um increased staff and also uh raises etc. So, yeah, those those salaries are slightly ahead of budget, but um I consider those with within the parameters of of what we were expecting. Um staff costs are going up um every year. We had a you know um modest increase in um and salaries year-over-year. Um and then just the act the more more staff being uh in the building also is u contributing to that. Thank you for I when I originally looked at the at at the numbers I thought I was looking at a budgeted column was actually the prior year. So thank you.

Okay. Yeah. Yeah. No problem. Thanks John. Jeff um thanks. Um, hey Forest, just for the benefit of the group, um, I mean, since this is a good quarter, um, is there anything out there that you see that could potentially threaten us the second and third quarter or anything anything that's going on with federal funding programs or anything like that? Um, I mean, I'm sure, you know, you know, when we went through last year, the the staff has got the message about moving work product through. Um, and we don't have as many extended separations,

you know, or anything like that this year. But is there anything that keeps you up at night um about our financial performance or are you sleeping okay after having a couple glasses of wine? Currently I'm feeling okay after the the couple of cers Jeff but um yeah the obviously the the federal picture was um was and of course continues to be a concern um obviously a little less now that the the shutdown has subsided um and we were fortunate to go through the the shutdown without any uh direct impact on us long term. So, or short term, excuse me. Um, so there's nothing that I'm seeing that's keeping me up at night. Um,

is there anything in Montpillar that we're worried about? Anything like that? I just these are these are really good results and I want to be I want to be happy, but at the same time, I don't think we should be comfortable. Well, let's not be too happy. Uh maybe Charlie could speak to any concerns in Montpielar perhaps, but yeah. And well and Jeeoff, you know the financial picture in Mount Peel way better than I do, but um so should we be worried, Jeff? [laughter] Um with the chaos coming out of Washington DC, absolutely.

Yeah. Yeah. And I and I think um so for those of you who don't know, Jeff is the economist for the administration and you know does is part of the joint uh kind of fiscal reporting. You do that every quarter Jeff with the legislature. Every month. And they look at revenues every day.

Oh, okay. Every day. [laughter] Um but um and so yeah, I think you know the legislature was concerned about u you know federal funding changes last session. I expect that to continue. You know things are getting tighter. The other um thing that uh made had made me a little bit nervous uh was uh the transportation funding uh in particular uh because they were you know kind of looking uh at less state revenue which makes it harder for them to match uh federal revenue. I did talk to some Vtrans leadership uh within the last day or two, Laney and I did and u it sounds like they're okay for FY27 in terms of local funds to match this the federal funds, local and state funds uh primarily state funds uh to match the federal but uh subsequent to that there probably is a a growing concern in the transportation side but um defin at this point I don't we don't see anything that's you know certainly impacting in FY26 and then we'll be, you know, closely following what's going on in the budget for FY27 in the spring. That's my way of saying stay tuned.

Yeah. Like, thank you. I mean, we should not get comfortable in this environment. Yeah, absolutely not.

Yeah, we're not comfortable. And, you know, to your point, Jeff, we are, you know, pursuing a line of uh credit. Um we'll see, you know, who who comes out on top with um there's some implications with our revolving loan fund um servicing where we may have to uh pursue that in a more competitive process. Um but that's that's on the table. Heard you loud and clear on that. Um, so yeah, we're not we're not sleeping on it and we're aware and also to your point of just kind of staying on top of our our landlords, etc. with, you know, various costs, um, it all adds up. So, um,

we we owe it to our member municipalities for paying attention to those things. any any board member that needs to understand why we're even talking about this, all you have to do is go to our income statement for July through September 25 and look at the previous year when the number was minus40. Excellent points, Jeff. So, we might conclude that um concern and mild worry are appropriate, but despair would be premature.

Yeah, no need to despair. Can I just add one more point uh to Jeff's uh to follow up on Jeff's uh we owe it to our municipalities. The last page of Forest's report, which is our cash flow page, at the bottom of that page, you'll see uh a a table that has all 1231 dates for the last six, five, six years there. Uh thanks Forest. Um I think Forest is sharing it. There it is. I am trying to. Yes. Yeah. Can you zoom in on that bottom there? I can I can try, sir.

Uh anyway, uh what I really wanted to say was that you can see in the end of the year in 21, we had u a reserve balance of about a quarter million and we're up over half a million now. Um and you know, uh we're thinking we can probably add to that. Um, and just for those of you that especially that are new to the CCRPC, this is really um, it's a lot of money, but um, our auditors have been advising us probably for 15 or 20 years that we should have three months of operating resources in reserve just in case bad things happen. And bad things happening for us is, you know, state and federal funding programs getting cut. Um, so this is kind of the the reserve account to really protect our member municipalities from having to be responsible for any obligations here at the RPC. So this is the way that you know we have some money in the bank to make sure if really bad things happen um and we do get into a moment of despair that we can u protect our town members or municipal members and um do whatever needs to be done to satisfy our funders. So u let me know if that raises any questions for anybody. But that's um just in case you were wondering what that reserve account is for. it is to do what Jeff was saying, you know, take care of our members.

Thank you, Charlie. Any other comments on the draft first quarter financials? Not hearing any. Um, let's move forward with a motion to approve the first quarter financials. I'd move that the board approve the first quarter financials as presented. Thank you, Jeff. I'll second. This is Garrett. Thank you, Garrett. Any further comments or questions? Hearing none. All in favor, please raise your hand or say I. I. I.

Any nazs? Any abstensions? Seeing none, that motion passes as well. Moving on to Thank you. a return topic, draft bylaws, item seven. [laughter]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I should have counted how many times the board has looked at this document now. Um I think we started this process probably um a uh year and a half ago maybe. Um, and so, uh, I apologize for not having a memo here. Maybe that would have been more helpful, but, uh, I'm going to say a few things and then I'll ask you if you want me to actually share the bylaws and walk through it or not. Um but the uh reason for the bylaw changes uh which have been in process for a while as I mentioned uh one we have to um every after every census so we're now five years past the census and maybe three or four years past when we got the results we'd have to look at whether we want to change the weighted voting for no voting. The second thing that came up was we had an auditor from one of our agent funding agencies ask us to um add a little bit more accountability into our conflict of interest section of our bylaws. The third thing that happened was the um we got a a EPA Brownfields revolving loan fund and so there's a whole new section to try to address that which we have the statutory authority to do. We just didn't have much in our bylaws about it. And then um probably the fourth significant thing was uh adding the community engagement advisory committee to the bylaws. Um and then there's just some cleanup uh clarity um catching up maybe with some current practice like um uh when the bylaws were originally driven drafted, we had a separate finance committee that is really kind of merged in with one board member joining the executive committee. So we kind of uh have some language here to formalize that practice. Um so those are the major changes. Um happy to either pull up the clean copy or the

track changes if anybody would like me to walk through it a little more slowly or whatever your pleasure is. Emma put a link in the chat. Yeah. And I apologize this did go out kind of after the uh after Emma sent the first packet. um needed to make sure the uh you know we had a couple edits that came in um after the last executive committee review. So it's both linked in the chat and you should have received an email with a clean copy and a markup copy as well. Yeah, that was on Friday. You should have got that. Mike, sorry.

There uh got a couple questions for you, Charlie. Uh oh. I know. I'm sorry. I read through this today. On page two. Yes. Um, so this is uh line 47. I'm just wondering if that's a typo. Um, uh, uh, which see where I am? Perhaps you should pull this up on screen, Charlie. uh you or somebody so we can let me pull up the relevant sections so we're all looking at the same things. Does that make sense, Mike? Yeah. Line 47, the last line of this.

Yeah. Go down. Go down a little bit. Uh it references um go to C. Uh C. Okay. Yeah. At the end of that the third line up, it says this subdivision F3. Should that be FC? Um, this is very minor thing because you're you're in F and you're in C and it says this subdivision F3.

Sorry, that's a language from our attorney, right? Uh, which I Yeah, that may that may be referencing um I believe that's referencing a paragraph in statute, not in our bylaws. Okay. Little little confusing because it says this subdivision. So, yeah. Anyway, hey Charlie, I have a question. Is this the section that's on the um revolving loan phone? Yes. Why is it why is there not any language in in there that references the words brownfield revolving loan fund?

Yeah, this is a broader authority from the um that the legislature has given RPC. So, we're really just pulling in the statutory language. It's not specific just to a brownfield revolving loan fund. And there are other types of revolving loan funds out there uh from CDBG fundings, community development block grant funding or uh economic development administration. So um I think our attorney was advising us just to carry in that statutory authority um which is broader than just the brownfields program. I see. Thank you. Yeah, absolutely.

Charlie, moving back to Mike's comment, how do we want to resolve this hanging F3 partisan? Could we uh if you're going to do a motion, could we uh maybe have it accommodate some technical corrections? Fair enough. Okay, that makes sense. Mike, is that satisfactory? Oh, that's fine with me. A couple more. Yeah, keep going. So, article five. Okay. Under B under the table. B. Yeah, under the table. Okay.

It says a majority of the voting power i.e. 13 of 24 constitum and then it says a majority of the voting power uh and municipalities is required for business. But if you have a quorum of 13, is it shouldn't it be a majority of the folks there? Uh we have to have a majority of the weighted vote and a majority of the municipalities. Right? But what I'm saying is it says a majority of the voting power which is 13 right makes a quorum not necessarily

well I I'm reading that line okay it's for core of the no business yeah gotcha yeah and then it says a majority of the voting power plus a majority of the municipalities is required prepared to adopt or amend but if you have a quorum isn't it the majority of the quorum

typically yeah I think this was adding I think we need one more town to weigh in and I'm not sure where this came from this is historic from I don't know people with longer history with the NO here may know um so it's always been that we need to have make sure we have 10 towns I think it was just to make sure we didn't have like and I I guess the waiting doesn't really work like this anymore But uh we couldn't have Colchester, South Burlington, and Burlington plus six towns. So we wouldn't have a majority of our towns. Yeah. So that's it's trying to do both. Make sure we have at least 10 of our municipalities and have that weighted voting.

But but what I'm getting at is it says once you have the 13, right, and the 10 municipalities Yeah. you've got a quorum. Is it the majority required of that group as opposed to of that group? No, I'm reading this wrong. It seems to be saying that you need 13 and 10 uh votes to approve it. So you if you had 13 um voting members and 10 municipalities, I'm reading this is it saying you need all 13 to say yes in all 10 states. Is that correct? As opposed to just the majority.

That's right. Okay. In other words, yeah. It's not who just just who shows up. We have to have a majority of the voting board membership vote affirmative to act. Okay. Was not 100% clear to me, but that makes sense as you're saying it. I don't know. Maybe other people. Well, if I construe it because I think Mike, you're right. But the first one says if you don't have 13 of 24, you can't have a meeting. Right. Right. And then when you come to a vote, you need all 13 as you suggest to vote to approve it. And if it fails, then it fails. If you don't get 13.

Yeah. Okay. That capture it, Charlie? Yep. Yep. Thanks for that clarification. I understand it now. It takes takes a little time sometimes. Yeah. And and it really as I understood that provision in our bylaws, it was really to make sure that um a less than majority of the membership doesn't vote on something when not everybody's here. Gotcha. Gotcha. Mike, you have more. I think

I I think I have one more, but I'm I'm trying to find it and I can't. So, it's not It probably is not important if I can't find it. While you're looking, does anybody else have any comments, questions, suggestions? Yeah, I'd like a quick clarification. In the last section, there's a line on page 21. Okay. Apologies for the scrolling here. Yeah. Is this in the conflict of interest section or?

Yeah, in line 35 it says, "Conflicts of interest may also arise where a board member has publicly displayed a prejudgment of the merits pending of the matter pending before the CCRPC." Um, so can you I'm sorry. Can you tell me what section what paragraph number you're in? Because I'm I think you're looking at a clean version and I'm in the I'm in the one with the strikethroughs that was just put that was linked in the chat. So, it's page 21, but it's the section 20. Yeah, page 21 with the bylaws, article 13. Oh, okay.

Um, so it's just talking about if you've it can be a conflict of interest if you've publicly displayed a prejudgment about the matter. So, um I was just kind of confused like what things would sort of make it so that that's a like like if you've gotten up at town meeting and you know really pushed a project does that make it a conflict of interest or like you've gone out and

this is maybe some language that isn't very applicable to our business. Um, but I think you if you're on the town select board and you're making a tough decision and um you kind of went out publicly and started stating things before you actually heard everything in public forum that kind of indicates you have some bias and so that's I think he's trying to prevent that like trying to make sure the the discussion and decisions happen in the public forum and people aren't just prejudging before they have all the facts or have heard from all the particip And somebody may have a better way to say that than I just did, but

I I can give an example, Charlie. There was the case of the Walmart in St. Albins's town uh 20 years ago. And so the Walmart was going before the development review board in St. Albvin's town and one of the development review members wore a hat that said, "I love Walmart or something to that extent before the case was heard." had displayed, you know, their opinion before judging the facts upon which they were supposed to judge the case. You're not doing development review. You're not making a lot of decisions like that. But, you know, you can't show bias before you take in the facts of whatever you're deciding upon if that makes sense. I could go back even further and give an example.

Before you do that, Katherine, if if I could. So, Taylor, what was the outcome of that circumstance? Uh, Bart, I don't remember. I believe there was still a DRB decision that was issued, but uh I I I I don't know if the select then uh um remove that member because they have the authority to remove a DRB member because they appoint them. Um, I'd have to go back and look, but that that that development got stymied or put up uh through so much court process after that point that I'm not really sure not really sure if that was a deciding point on anything. Andy can maybe still

uh Yeah, there are two hands up. Uh, and I'm not sure who was first. Andy, is it you or Scott? Um, I think Scott was up before I was. Thank you, Scott. Yeah. Um, page four, line two, I think it is. [clears throat] Um, it's actually line uh five. It's desirable that a municipal representatives and alternate shall serve at the Well, I'm sorry. It's the one above that. So,

unless I'm looking I'm looking at a I'm I must have been looking at a previous document. I thought it implied in here that it should be somebody who was previously Yeah. You're talking about this sentence previously previously elected to a a position within the municipality. Yep. Yeah. That that is what it says that that that sentence I have highlighted there. Yes, that's that's correct. And um what what we found is it's hard enough to get people to volunteer for committees, let alone run for office.

Um and this implies, even though it's not obligatory, it implies that somebody should have been previously elected. Um and uh I think it kind of implies that younger people and maybe people from more diverse are um communities might not be um preferable to somebody who was elected. So, not suggesting you change it, just something to highlight. You you could also add appointed because there's a lot of people on conservation boards and DRBs that are not elected, but appointed. So,

yeah, planning commission, the same thing. Housing committees, whatever. Um, I agree. If you just put in appointed, elected or appointed, it would be probably take care of it. Um well except that this there's a specific reason that this got put in um which was and um is was I my sense of it the way this came about and it may have had some roots in the MO bylaws but was to make sure that the regional planning commission uh board did not was as connected as possible to the local election official decision makers. So, I think there's, you know, been a concern over the decades that it be as inaligned as possible with the local elected bodies. Um, so I'm not necessarily saying it's the right thing, but it that that was kind of there was purpose behind it.

So, we could say that it says what it means to say. Yeah. It's just just that um I was appointed by the council, so the council recommended. So, no problem. Yeah. So, also the phrasing of it is desirable is of course not a requirement. It's right. It's not obligatory. Yeah. Yeah. Scott, is that enough from you? I just wanted to point out that um people serving who are not not elected. Absolutely. Andy.

Um yes. Um, could we go back Charlie to the conflict of interest provision we were just looking at theory? Yeah. Uh, the one where um they somebody might be thinking how they want to um sorry vote. Sorry, I scrolled I scrolled too far. Got it. Yeah.

Yeah. So let me let me first say that you know as a member of the executive committee I've looked at this many many times and I think the comments and concerns that were raised about this are good and I didn't catch I didn't notice this before myself so I appreciate the comments that were made. um this this this sentence here to me seems to fit within um I'll call it both our legislative functions and our quasi judicial functions. It doesn't really distinguish the quasi judicial functions that we might do are ones I don't know that we ever have to approve like a permit or anything like that. You know, like the Walmart example that was given, that's a quasi judicial and you don't want people who are sitting in the role, you know, essentially as a judge having predetermined until they hear all the evidence and everything like that. But in our legislative role, when we're approving plans, when we're, you know, doing like 99% of the work that we do, we all may come in prejudged at one point or another. you know, we may all be looking, you know, we were just talking about we want a close um relationship with our our municipalities. Our municipality may have a view of what they would like us to do as a as a board member here. And so we may come into a discussion with a prejudgment. We may be talking about it. We may be that's what legislators do. That's what that's what policymaking people do is they talk about it all the time outside of the legislative body which is essentially what we are here. So I think this issue could come up a lot of times when we're dealing with things like our plans, our regional plans, like so much of what we do that, you know,

having heard the concern raised about this. Um, I think this is really appropriate for when some when a body is sitting as a, you know, as a judge, you know, as a quasi judicial proceeding, but not in a legislative proceeding. And if we're going to keep this in, I think it would be wise to say, you know, to to couch it in terms of when we sit as a quasi judicial body, if we ever do, that this would be a conflict of interest. But in our regular role as a legislative body, it should not be a conflict, I don't think. And again, I've seen this language a million times on the executive committee when it's come before us. And the comment that was made earlier just shined a light on this and I really appreciated that because I I never thought about this in that way before. Um, and Andy, was that a suggestion that maybe there needs to be a clarifying uh phrase at the beginning of that uh sentence?

Yeah. And the part about an exparte communication really goes along with that. Also, they're only exparte communications in quasi judicial matters, not in legislative matters because we're always having, you know, exparte communications, if you will. We're always hearing from our select board members, our city council members, from from lots of people outside of these meetings. And if this this can't be for the way we just do our normal business, Andy, good points. What um so what do you suggest about the language in front of us today?

Um honestly, I would do one of two things. I would take out that whole language because I don't think it fits for most of what we do. But if we do want to keep it in, I would start it with um for matters where the RPC is sitting as a quasi judicial body, comma.

Thank you, Andy. I'll just make a quick comment that some of this seems more like bias than conflict of interest, and I'm not sure bias and conflict of interest are the same. Anyway, um Katherine, I think you're next. All right. I have a very old example of actually pulling together what we're talking about now in the conflict of interest as well as being connected to your uh select board if you're not a member of the select board currently or have been a member of the select board is then it goes all the way back to when the RPC was separate from the MO and the RPC was dealing with the uh CIRC and we had members of the RPC who voted against their commit their their um legislative bodies because they hated the circ so much and so they were not fulfilling the interest of what the community had sent them there to do and so they came in very well you know heavily prejudged but I'm one of the few people that remember that [laughter] because I go back way back like that far

good oral history thank you Katherine

anything else about that that is worthwhile. All right. If not, Dana, Dana, it looks like your hand is up, but your camera is off. [gasps] Sorry about that. Um, I don't think there's anything we do that is um quasi judicial in the strict sense. We may judge things, but it's not the same as what a DRB does or an Act 250 commission does. Um, maybe I could stand to be corrected there,

but I I don't I can't think of anything we do that's quasi judicial. Yeah, I can't disagree with that. Yeah, if um Yeah, I like Andy's suggestion. Maybe the easiest thing is to just delete that sentence. Um, that's sort of where I'm leaning, Chris. Yeah,

I wanted to offer another example where it might fall into quasi judicial and it would be the letters that we sign off on on it seems more administrative but in a certain sense it's not us just doing the check boxes but passing judgment on policy a a project that meets our standards. So, uh, there was a situation where South Burlington had a standard that I had voted against as a city councelor. So, I felt I had to abstain myself on our letter saying, you know, oh yeah, we think this is great. [laughter] I couldn't by heart object to it, nor could I vote for it in good conscience from the stand I had taken previously. So, take that as an example. And I think Andy's uh suggestion is correct. Um but there in answer the question for me Andy maybe whether that's an administrative or a quasi judicial function in the letters that we send out uh approving things of that sort.

I I think um those are all administrative. I think those are all in our role as a legislative body. Um and if you focus on advisory, right? And if you focus on the language in here that we have to disclose exparte communications regarding matters, what that means essentially is is that if this language stays in here, any conversation we have with anybody outside of a board meeting on any matter that we're talking about, we have to disclose that. and it just doesn't fit in with the legislative role that we play. Andy, I think that last observation is the most poignant here.

I'm sorry. Uh, who is next here talking, Brad?

Sure. I agree 100% with what Andy's saying and I would move to uh strike that language from 34 to 37. So, um, you know, we could entertain that as a motion or just consensus since we're not yet at a motion. Are people comfortable striking the section that Brad just described? Is there, let me rephrase that. Is there anybody that objects to striking that last sentence? Hearing nothing, I'm going to conclude that by consensus we agreed to strike it. Are there other comments or questions? Michael O'Brien,

I found the other thing other question I had. Thank you. So, article 12 committees. Which one? Can you share again? So, right at the beginning, Charlie, first paragraph. Yeah. The third sentence it says the chair may appoint ad hoc committees for a specific purpose with the approval of the CCRPC. Should that be is it the board or the executive committee or who exactly CCR is that referring to and I think I've asked this question before and forgive me for doing it again.

It it's it's with the basically the full the approval of the full board. So, it kind of puts a check on the chair's power to make sure the board is agreeing with what the chair wants to do. That's an important thing. Should the word board be in there? It is. It's it's a CCRPC. It's the commission. Um, it says board at the in the last sentence and in the second sentence. Thank you. Um, so maybe it's just parallel construction to insert board as a modifier throughout that paragraph. Got it. Does that make sense, Mike?

Thanks, Barb, for clarifying that for me. [laughter] Makes absolute sense. That's what I was trying to say, but got it. Okay. So, that would be a modification. Uh Garrett, um I actually was going to save my comment until everybody else has made all theirs. So, are there any other comments before I make mine? It appears not. Then, okay, you would have the luxury of being the final comment, Garrett.

Well, um because it doesn't really change anything. Um, per what I when I talked to the executive committee, um, uh, with the MO vote staying the way it is, uh, Bule's Gore will not be voting in favor of adopting this, we will be voting against it. So, I just didn't want people to be shocked when it came to it. I know we like having unanimous votes, but this one can't be. Sorry. Fair enough. Thank you.

Any other comments, discussions, suggestions? Okay, we've had a couple of modifications. So, one approach to this is to make a motion to approve the document, including the revisions discussed tonight. And for clarity, I have three uh changes. One is whatever technical corrections needed around that F3 reference uh if any. Um the second is to um add the word board as we just talked about under article 12. And the third is to delete that sentence on lines 34 to 37 in article 13 about conflicts of interest. Those are the motion. for seconds. I

think Andy, you're first. Who was somebody ahead of you? Mike, it doesn't matter. Moved by Mike. Uh, seconded by Andy. Any other discussions before? Do we need Hi. Hi guys. This is Jeff. Do we need to have as part of the motion and I'd ask the motion maker and the seconder and any other minor technical corrections as determined by the executive director? I'm assuming you're gonna have to run this by the town the RPC attorney again. I'm hoping not. But maybe maybe for that F3 thing. But

he's I just don't want to I don't want to see this again because I don't want Mike to have to read it again and then take up a half hour. [laughter] Hey, come on. It prompted a lot of discussion there, Jeff. You know, I think you I'm fine with that suggestion, Jeff. I'm fine as well.

Okay, with that additional uh concept and language, that is now the motion. Any other comments, questions, suggestions? [clears throat] Seeing none, um let's proceed to a vote. All in favor of approving the bylaws as discussed and revised, please say yes. I or raise your hand. I I [clears throat] any nays? Nay. A nay. Any abstensions? This. This was a 12 month project, was it not, Charlie? Longprint, maybe 18.

18. Yes. That's why I wanted to put it to bed tonight. Thank you, Jeff. You could We can all pop a certain champagne cork, I guess. Yep. Well, this is in the board development committee's purview. That's the only reason why.

Thank you. All right. Thank you for that extended discussion of uh draft bylaws. Moving on to item eight, draft mis municipal plan review guidelines. Hey folks, um you have a memo in your packet explaining uh this agenda item and there are uh several documents posted separately um that are the actual plan review guidelines themselves. Uh so the plan review guidelines are the guidelines that the board uses uh when deciding uh whether or not to approve or regionally approve a municipal plan. Um and so functionally what happens is that the pack the planning advisory committee which is composed of municipal planning directors uh uses these guidelines to conduct the the real review of the plan itself in cooperation with CCRPC staff. Then the planning advisory committee makes a recommendation to the board about whether or not to uh regionally approve the plan uh to confirm that municipality's planning process and then uh if applicable uh grant an affirmative determination of energy compliance which is essentially saying they have a enhanced energy plan that meets the state rules. Uh what you have before you tonight is uh some changes to those guidelines that we use. Um the changes generally um have been made to uh one uh reflect updated stat updated statutory goals and policies um or two just remove duplicative language in the guidelines themselves um and then try to uh more clearly spell out the process that's involved uh when we do uh municipal plan review.

Any questions for me on what's been amended? I guess the the only other thing I'll add is that the planning advisory committee has reviewed these documents and [snorts] has made a recommendation to the board that you adopt these revised documents and as you noted um Taylor that uh the pack includes municipal planning staff the very folks who are subject to the guidelines which correct

here is arguably a strength. Other questions, comments about the document or the process? I am not seeing any. In which case, I think we're ready for a motion to approve the draft munic municipal plan review guidelines. Apologies. This is Garrett. I'll move or second. Um, whichever. Uh, moved by Garrett, seconded by Chris. Any further questions, comments? Seeing and hearing none. All those in favor, please raise your hand or say I. I. I.

I. Any nays? Any abstensions. That motion passes. Thank you everybody. Moving on to item nine, draft regional project priority list. And a reminder that um for this document there's a separate attachment if I remember correctly.

Yes, I believe Emma or Maya or Charlie sent you an additional document yesterday with uh the regional priority project list actually ranked. Um, when the packet went out last week, it was just a memo and it was a list of applications. You should have received what you should see on your screen now, which is an actually ranked list. It was Emma.

It was Emma. Excellent. and with a short less than onepage memo that describes it and noting that the staff recommendation is recommend to the GBIC board submitt of the last of the draft RP list. Sorry, Mr. Chair, I move approval.

Thank you. Moved by Jeff. Is there a second? And and just just so everybody knows the background on this, when we approve this, it goes back to GBIC. GBIC sends it to the Agency of Commerce and Community Development and then it gets housed there and then it becomes priority areas for CBDG monies and those kinds of things. And it also goes to the Northern Borders Regional Commission which helps with their assessment of grant requests. Just so you everybody knows. Thanks, Jeff. That's really important info. That is a good description. Thank you, Jeff. Is there a second to Jeff's motion to approve? Yeah, I'll second Garrett.

Thank you, Garrett. Any further comments, questions? Hearing none, um I think we're ready for a vote. All in favor, please raise your hand or say I. I. I. I. Any nays? Any abstensions? Uh seeing and hearing none of the above, that motion passes as well. Um we're on to I believe item 10, outreach and engagement update.

Yeah. Um thanks. I'm going to uh usually Ann Nelson would uh give this a little overview. Uh she had to leave a little earlier this evening. So uh you got this in the packet. Um, and you can kind of see things that were going on at the community engagement advisory committee and uh some updates on the uh economic mobility and opportunity special assistant that was just hired uh a week or so ago. She begins work December 1. Uh Ann Nelson is also working with uh Wooki and Essex Junction on some u municipal policy advising. um maybe a little more internal uh work to those municipalities um versus that special assistant position is more external. Um and then um working on the profession or public participation plan update uh stipen policy is in front of the executive committee now and they'll look at it again in December. Um and that will probably come back to you in January. And [clears throat] just for clarity, this public participation plan, we're kind of trying to bite pieces of it. Um, so we're trying to, you know, talk about stipens first and then language access and community leaison sections. Um, and then, uh, sometime in 26, uh, 2026, you should have the full public participation plan to act upon. Any questions, comments? Just to uh recap, this is the public participation plan that's uh not been updated since 2017 that we're working on now.

Correct. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Chris. Any other questions or comments about outreach and engagement?

Okay, hearing none, let's move on. Uh item 11, legislative breakfast topics. Charlie Um yeah, so this is um you're kind of the for the full board, this is kind of your last chance to give some input or suggestions for things to talk about at the December 10th legislative breakfast. Um the executive committee will get one more shot at it at their uh meeting the first week of December. Um so um and that's my way of sharing blame with them if it's not right when we get to the breakfast on the 10th. Um, okay. Thank you for I think I got one smile out of that. Okay. Um, but um, so just to run down the topics that uh, I think I've kind of we've talked about in various sessions before. Um, still the housing uh, issue uh, I expect to be uh, high and then there's some pieces connected to that. Um, one I probably want to give the legislature a little bit of an update on our uh mapping the for the tier 1B act 250 exemption zones um and how that's going um particularly since we would have had our public meeting with the land use review board the week before. So um maybe a quick update there. Um, one question about act 181 that I don't know if you want to take a position on is there is discussion going on particularly from the rural caucus in the legislature about giving more time to the land use review board to develop tier three which is those like highest priority natural resource conservation areas and also uh for the road rule um which I think they had they We're supposed to do rule

making within like the next six, nine months, maybe maybe by this summer. Um, and I think the language review board would like more time and I not sure I I have the impression that a lot of legislators would like to get more time. Is that anything you think we should be taking a position on or just leave it to others? Miles, Charlie? Yeah. I mean, I I've learned quite a bit about both of those things, the tier three and the road rule. And there's not the road rule is not well established. So, I I don't I have no problem with the concept of extending to allow more discussion. And

yeah, thanks. Any any other thoughts on that municipal perspectives? Okay. Um we'll talk a little bit more about that at the executive committee and um uh the other um related thing to the housing agenda um is uh water wastewater um and you know there the legislature approved that chip financing program last year uh with $200 million a year um and but there's still quite a bit of concern about u BEC being able to process that amount of requests for [laughter] waste water wastewater uh system approval through their process. Um so uh and and u and actually I met with the commissioner a week or so ago to discuss that issue. I think she agrees that there is an issue there. I'm not sure if there's a legislative fix that's quick but um the legislature I don't think is paying enough attention to that issue. uh for these growth areas that are being defined in the regional plans. Um so that that's kind of and housing and I also um I was at Burlington City Council Monday night um and I I don't want to put Andy on the spot at all, but he was there with me. Um and you know there was u some requests from the city council there about could the RPC do more to support um a shared housing agenda regionally. This is not necessarily legislative breakfast topic, but more of a policy area that we probably need to dig into more. Um, and and I think some of it is u kind of reviewing what has been happening, what what all of our municipalities are doing. Um, and what is also where and

trying to identify those gaps in the system. Um, you know, clearly that there's there's a lot more to do on the housing agenda, including uh there was a particular emphasis of like is there more that can be done on the to uh help the unhoused. Um, so Andy, I don't know if you want to add any more color to that or flavor.

Um, yeah, I know it's Thank you, Charlie. It's I know the council has been concerned about it for a number of years and you know, on the on the Burlington Planning Commission, we talk about that a lot as well. And you know, I know over the over the last few years, it's come up a few times um at the RPC as to whether or not there's a role for us to play in all of that. And and you know, especially now seeing how the council's getting this Burlington Council is getting more and more engaged in it. I do think that you I don't know exactly what our role would be, but I think it's something that's well worth looking at, you know, and I'm reminded a little bit of something that actually Jeff, you keep saying when we look at it, you know, you know, coming up with our legislative breakfast that, you know, what happens in Chinton County is really important to the state as a whole. And that's one of the things that we keep wanting to emphasize to our legislative our our legislators. And I'll say on a small on a different level, you know, what's happening in Burlington impacts the region as a whole. And there's a lot that's happening in Burlington right now. And I think it is impacting the region as a whole. And I think um again, I don't know exactly what role we would play and what we would do, but I think it's something that's well worth our looking at to see what we can do and what role we can play.

Yeah. Uh Dana, did you want to weigh in there? Yeah, I just wanted to say that I think that septic disposal in our rural areas that are designated for growth is a huge issue. It's like we can write policy but if there aren't if there isn't the community smallcale rural infrastructure there to support our aspirations it's can be kind of meaningless. So I uh I just wanted to weigh in any any kind of role we can play on that I would support.

I'll just make an editorial comment to write on that um informed by our experience in Richmond. So picture if you can the village of Richmond kind of the center that's where our wastewater treatment plant serves the village center and a couple of areas immediately contiguous to it 420 total customers. We're looking at an engineering study and upgrade updating of our sewage treatment plant which is in the neighborhood of $20 million for 420 customers. And I only share at to point to the scale of the issue for small communities. It's a daunting kind of task in terms of financing.

Uh who is next? Was it Miles or Garrett? Garrett. Garrett.

Okay. Um I'm not positive this is a topic for the legislative breakfast, but yet it may be. So I'll toss it out there. um just in watching everything that's been going on over the last couple of three years in particular, but you know, with watching being on the commission for so long and everything, seeing the changes, um Vermont has historically been a from the bottom up planning um paradigm And it really feels to me as though the last few years has accelerated the desire in Montpielar to have it be far more top down uh you know with the lurb and and all of that kind of stuff. And I'm actually a little concerned about that. Uh actually quite concerned about it. you know, I don't want to see the towns lose their control, but by the same token, I also know there are certain areas where the towns haven't stepped up. Um, but that to me is a is a big topic for the trend of planning in the state. I don't know if others would agree with that.

Yeah. One one of the things that has really struck me, Garrett, as we were, you know, kind of working on these like regional plan maps, which are bottoms up, right? We're taking what the towns have planned, um, was that the state really as a entity and and and agencies have have not really been very connected to to municipal planning efforts. And so, um, the I think what is happening, the one encouraging side, I guess this is like the a little tangent maybe on what you're saying is I think I'm hoping that what we do better connects the local planning to the state investments and decision- making um that aren't very well connected right now um not just from an investment standpoint, but maybe even also from, you know, a permitting regulatory standpoint um and those kinds of things. So, I don't know. I'm hoping that it gets a little better. Um, on the other hand, there is definitely a reaction in the legislature to um to I'll call it, sorry for the majority, but the nimi uh you know, situation that is, you know, preventing housing development in this state, too. So, I don't know where the balance is, but it's still evolving. I think

I'll say

I would just toss out that Go ahead. I would only say it, you know, it probably looks different in different communities. It's clear to me or apparent to me that um in our community, we would never have allowed the ADU infrastructure in the village without legislative initiative. It is I won't call it nimi, but there is a resistance from people who like the way it is. um that's either nimiism or I don't know whatever. Um so at least from where I sit that's perhaps a positive impact of the legislature to sort of definitively say you can't stand in the way of some of these housing initiatives

in the in the Gore for example that was already approved. Yeah. Um, and you know, same thing as residential alternative energy, wind, solar, hydro, you know, that's a a permitted use. Um, you know, so but that's community dependent. Um, Charlie, just to address what you're saying is the state not being involved so much with the town. Well, to me, that's the role of the regional planning commission. You know, it should be town, regional planning commission, state.

I could have said the same thing about the regional plans. Yep. Exactly. Yep. Um, so anyway, I don't know if people think it should be a topic, but I thought I'd mention it. Thank you. There's a way to address it. Yeah, Miles.

Yeah, just going back to Charlie's original comment and responding to Dana and Bard about the wastewater and water supply rules. The rules are sound. It's not like we need to rethink the rules like we've been doing for act 250. It boils down to staffing. It really is. We used to have we have seven commissions. Each commission each district had, you know, two or three regional engineers. So there's, you know, 15 16. Now we're down to about seven or eight in the whole state. So it's really it really does it slows things down. So a lot of it is we just need need to get more staffing in there. Thanks. Thank you.

Um just sorry. Um, I added uh or well actually had already on the list. Uh, Andy mentioned uh Jeff's perennial. Don't forget the importance of Chittney County to the rest of the state. So, [laughter] I got that on the list. Um, the transportation funding that we talked about earlier. So, sorry Jeeoff, I don't want to, you know, reduce your air time, but um the transportation funding I wanted to just bring up, you know, something that I think we care about, uh making sure that there is sustainable transportation funding. Um and then the the final issue I had on my list, well, no, no, not final, sorry. The other one that came up when we had our uh select board trienal forum a couple weeks ago uh was a point about um uh sharing the state sharing more of the local options tax percentage a greater percentage of that with the municipalities um which I think there have been some progress on in the last couple years. Um I was going to talk to Ted Brady of VLCT to get a little bit more uh clarity on what that is. Um, and then the final thing that has been coming up, and not that this will necessarily get addressed this year, but it's coming up in multiple forums, uh, I would say every day, there's a conversation I'm in that's talking about how to update the governance model in Vermont to make it easier for towns to be able to work together. Um, there's probably a smoother way for me to say that, but um, sometimes it's just called the shorthand of county government. Um, which we need to be really thoughtful about how that might happen, but um, anyway, I just, you know, it's an issue that's been bubbling up. Um, and not that I have a a quick answer. Is that sound? Are we hitting the high points we need to hit? is not touching public safety, education,

healthc care, there are a lot of other policy issues we could talk about, but Charlie, you're u you're um that last issue you raised about and I forget the technical terms, but uh intermunicipal uh sharing of services, we we've had a um kind of a failed effort to do that with policing in Hinesburg and Richmond. And it's uh when you dig into that issue, it's enormously complex to set up the right municipal governance to to to do to do those. And it anything that simplified that could drive some efficiencies and reduce taxes and everything else. I think it's a great subject. Y thank you.

Hey, thanks. I've always thought that too. And perhaps you could add to that contemplation of incentives for those towns that are sort of the tip of the spear because it is somewhat daunting. Um yeah. So if there were incentives or consultants or you know legal like loopholes or um there's things that make it easier.

Yeah. Yeah. If you have other Oh, sorry. Charlie on on lot on local option tax. Um I think what the um the league is hearing is two things. Uh number one uh thank you for the extra 5 percentage points from 70 to 75 that went into effect this year which I guess it'll start affecting revenues October 1st because the um the coverage period sometimes is lagged when you put the effective date in. is does the state really need 25% for pilot and pilot is payment in lie of taxes for a lot of the other folks on the committee um especially because now there's like over 70 communities they have local option tax how much pilot money does the state need um as a function of that and then secondly um I think the league is probably going to press the tax department on the administrative costs that are associated with it and I think that one One of the big areas of uh concern for the municipalities is how is the state department of taxes defining a document which they collect a $5.96 per document fee on and that's particularly become an issue with ecommerce

and the sales tax. Are they counting the document the reports from the payers like Amazon and those kinds of things and then in the um then in the meals and rooms taxes, Expedias, the home aways, the Airbnbs and things like that and whether or not um that significant increase in administrative costs is that's being deducted from the state from the state on the state's part from the revenue that flows to the municipalities is fair. And I think that's what you're probably going to hear from the League of Cities and Towns. And my community has been pushing the League of Cities and Towns to take that on in part because of, you know, the large deductions that have come out of our state, our sales and use our sales tax. There's no use tax in local options, just sales.

Yeah. Yeah. Thanks. Thanks for that, Jeff. I may follow up with you if I need some more. No problem. Thank you, Garrett. Um, back to the pilot. Um, twothirds of Bule's Gore is owned by the state of Vermont and the pilot funds that the Gore gets are really tiny compared to what uh get from regular properties. So, the pilot funds have a place and are important to some communities. Yeah, absolutely. Just wanted to say that

Garrett, I'm not talking about doing away with it. I'm talking about, you know, how much do they have to how much do they need to send versus how much is being contributed when there's a huge increase in the amount number of communities that are going to lot and so that dollar amount's going up. Yeah. Yeah. G. Yeah. What I got from Ted was that that fund balance is increasing and they're not it's not getting out the door so they're just holding on to it. Well, they could pay us more then. Yeah, I think that's what the municipalities are saying. Yeah.

Or they or they could, you know, do both. They could pay municipalities more and reduce the burden on the people who are funding it, which in ecommerce for sales tax and things like that are coming right out of the citizens pockets. Um, so I'll I'll end this conversation with if you do have any more thoughts, you know, please uh email me or one of the executive committee members uh sometime in the next couple weeks, you know, while you're thinking about this over the Thanksgiving holiday. I'm sure you will be.

I I conflict, Charlie, with a 10th, so I'm not going to be able to make it. Uh but I would encourage board members that when or if it's usually when unfortunately members get up and tell us that that we don't understand how hard the Chittening County anti-Chitten County uh effort is down there that we push back on them and say, "Well, you guys are there all the time. We're not. We need you to advocate for us. We know it's hard, but you're we don't send you down there for a picnic. we send you down there to represent us obviously nicely and constructively but I was kind of bothered last year when we heard from two or three members that we just don't understand how hard it is to represent Chitten County down in Montpillar and I said well if you don't like it then get somebody else to represent us who will fight for us.

Thank you. We'll close with that. Thank you Jeff. Um Charlie, you have the next topic as well. Um all right. Um so, uh just some quick updates. Happy to take any questions. Um so at the end of October, uh we had a housing convening on I think Wednesday the 29th. Um I was not able to make that, but I think that went well. So somebody Taylor, how many people attended? Oh, uh 25 30 probably pretty well attended. Yeah, closer to closer to 50. Just want to make I had a terrible memory. Thank you, Emma. 50. Lots of people. It was on Zoom. It was hard to tell.

He doesn't have that many fingers, you know. [laughter] Um, so, uh, so that was good turnout. And, you know, I think part of what we'll talk about with Burlington is that, you know, there is that opportunity. We are pulling municipalities together, uh, through those housing convenings, uh, two or three times a year. Um, we also on the next night did the select board convening. I think we had about 20 select board members there. Um, and I I think I think uh was any Well, sorry. One of you were any of you there? I was. Hey, Jackie. Yeah. Yeah. I don't know. Maybe. And Andy was there, too. I was there. Yeah. Yeah. And Andy was Yeah.

Um, any any feedback or how did you guys think that went or I thought it was worthwhile. Yeah. I mean, you know, just to hear what other towns are dealing with and then to have a little chuckle over the goats was fun. [laughter] But I I think at some point, you know, there was definitely an urban rural conversation that kind of happened like yeah, you know, Burlington was talking a little bit about some of their issues and then and then I think some I think the suck board member from Jericho, not Katherine, but one of her peers uh was like, "Well, we had a problem with goats this week, you know." [laughter] So, yeah.

And another town did, too. Yeah, that's what was funny. Yeah, Eric is our current chair and he encouraged him to go and um he felt he said when he gave us the update, he said it was really very depressing to hear the issues like Wooki and Burlington and the the the urban is having and he felt like we needed some levity to add there. So that's when he we were dealing with the goats. I mean, goats had gotten out, but that's when the the feral pigs got out. But, you know, but at least the goats were [laughter]

and Katherine, if you can take back to him, he also um had the group um talk about because we were talking a lot about issues and problems and probably that consumed probably 90 minutes of the two hours. Um but at the end of the conversation, he actually kind of turned the group like, "Well, can you tell us at least one thing that's going good in your town?" And so it was very nice to have like that that kind of shift to like you know there are positive things as well. Um you know as much as it's kind of easy to focus on the negative I think that was a good conversation. So thank him for bringing that up. I will. Yeah. And and thank you Charlie for letting us go overtime to finish that. That was it was it was an excellent topic to cover. It was

there were still a couple more slices of pizza to eat. So um so um regional plan lur uh lane use review board I I mentioned earlier we are having we're in this pre-application 60-day period with the lane use review board right now um the uh there is a public meeting in our office our conference room scheduled for December 1st Monday December 1st from 2 to 6 pm um we have uh reach out at least to like the planning directors in your towns uh to you know ask them to submit comments in in support comment letters to the lurb um you know we'll we'll see how that conversation goes we're the third region going through this um and you know I think we're really trying to demonstrate to them how we are complying with statute but there there is going to be some push back on the other side uh that our uh some of our uh the tier 1B eligible areas is maybe a little too big or not as walkable to historic centers. Um issues that we're going to confront. Um and um so anyway, just uh just a heads up, we'll uh have a lot more conversation about this in January. Um the notice I think you warned at your last meeting for that public hearing on the regional plan at your January meeting. Um and we'll have by that time we should have the comments from the land use review board in hand. Uh and they are getting comments from all the state agencies. So we'll have a sense of how things are lining up and and what changes we need to think about or if we need to really go to the legislature to um have some changes to the law made uh which I think is very possible. Um you got a press release I think it linked in your packet here uh for the communications union district. I shall sorry I should pause on that that land

use review board. Any questions about that before I jump off of that? That is all right. Nobody wants to go down in the mud with us. Okay, [laughter] we'll uh work on that. The communications union district I think was just a press release kind of um finished a $2.1 million uh investment by communic uh consolidated communications this summer. Uh they finished that project. Um, so, um, I'm not sure how much more of the CUD will be doing. Um, but I think over the next year or two, we'll see if they have more of a more more to do. Um, heads up that our UPWP, that unified planning work program application is going to be released on Friday. Um, the due date for requests is January 23rd. Eleny. All right. me.

Sorry. Yes. So,

January 23rd. Yeah. Marshall. Oh, sorry, Marshall. I didn't see you. I would ask you. Um, and then, um, I've had the standing topic of federal and state funding issues. As Forest mentioned earlier, we really, thankfully, have not had any negative impacts at this point, uh, directly on our organization. Certainly, some of our municipalities have, but, uh, none that have impact us directly. Um, happy to take any other questions, topic areas. That's all I have, Mr. Chair. All right. Thank you very much. Sorry for the delay there. Um so I draw your attention to committee liaison activities and reports under item 13 with links. Um and finally item 14 members items. Are there any additional members items reporting? I am hearing none which means that we are ready. I

move we adjourn. moved second and a second. Thank you, Andy. All in favor, please say I. I. Any questions? Good night. Yeah. Thank you all. Thanks, everybody. Good night. Happy Thanksgiving. Happy Thanksgiving. Happy Thanksgiving. Take care. Bye. Bye. [music] Hey, hey, hey. [music]