Thank you, Mayor. We are recording. Okay, I just want to call this meeting to order March 10th at 502 PM. Thank you, Mayor, if you'd lead us in the pledge. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic, which stands one nation Moell and here for presentation. Thank you, Jake. Good evening, Marin Council. Coming here in a bit of a handoff from our Reckon Parks Director, Erica Madsen, but I've been working with her closely throughout this project from its survey stage to its evolution. And I think we have arrived at a moment in time where we're before you today with the determination of one of two names that you had selected previously as their finalists. Two that are presented today are the Boardwalk at Town Center and Town Center Boardwalk as the new name choice for the park behind City Hall. I'm okay. I'll take any questions or I have to discuss with you. Okay, why don't we just go around the horn and pretty straightforward what your preference is? My preference is the town center boardwalk but I'm good with whatever the team decides. I like the boardwalk at town center, but again, I'm in different either way. I'll go with the consensus, but I like the boardwalk at town center. Chris? I like option one, but. Like my members of my cohort here, I'm really indifferent. I would ask remind me what number one is. The boardwalk at town center. The boardwalk. I also like town center boardwalk. I just think we're moving that at it's only two letters, but it makes the. It's just easier. Thank you, Bob. So I'm actually number one because the town centers, I see it as there's more destinations within the town center, and that's why we would be the boardwalk at town center and midly at town center and all that stuff. So option one for me, and I am not in. Is it in the... It's not anything worth dying. So it anything worth dying. That is my preference. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. Option one. Okay. Thank you. All right. There's your consensus. Thank you so much. All right. Yes. I want to play the music. Someone's going to play the music. Oh, oh, it's writing. How do we know how we can try it? Oh, Bob, but did you actually have a preference on options? I never even asked you. Myself? No, I really didn't have a preference on options in putting these together, working with the team. We kind of, we appreciate it each one. But the boardwalk at town, sir. Bob, Bob we're gonna have to get you into politics. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The next item tonight is the public art ordinance update and we have assisted to the city Manager at Gazda for presentation. Good evening Mayor and Council. Let's hope that Bob's great luck rubs off on me. And I'm very glad to be here with you all. So in December we had the opportunity to work through our first public art application with Dr. Creeg beautification, the ACE Committee, and of course you all the City Council. In going through that process for the first time since the ACE Committee was created, staff noticed several areas that could benefit from clarification or improvement in the process and correlating ordinance. So to the February meeting, staff brought five recommendations for adjustment to both the ordinance and the process to the ACE committee, all of which were generally well received by ACE. I'm happy to elaborate or explain any of the five issues that we raised and elaborate further, but the main decision point before you tonight is related to the final approval authority for public art applications. In researching other processes, staff found successful examples where the authority rests with the city council or governing body is delegated to a citizen commission like ACE or where the authority rests with staff. Currently, the city council is outlined as the final approval authority in the ordinance. After discussing those three options with ACE, they recommended that ACE be designated as the final approval authority with the option to defer the decision to the City Council. Ultimately, all of the options are feasible and include ACE feedback. And the approval authority is just a policy preference of council. So following any feedback you have and what your desired decision is for the final approval authority, we will work to incorporate all those changes in the ordinance and then bring that back to you for final approval. And I'm happy to take any questions at this time. Yeah. It'll have a little bit. It'll be. Thank you, Olivia. At least something there. Some framework to start with. Good one. Okay, here. So my understanding is like the step one is going to be the staff, the city staff will review the applications. And in that process would they look at the, okay, so they are they going to look at the location or it's just an art in the initial, even it comes to the staff and the application is submitted. Good question. So in the interim period where we don't have the Public Art Master Plan update, which will give us that list where all of the locations are pre-approved by staff and that list being created not just with staff input but also with groups like John's Creek Beautification, other non-profits in the area that will have input into that. In the interim, when we don't have that list, theoretically if you chose to leave in the location suggestion, we would take that into consideration and review the suggested location, just like we did for the John's Creek beautification application. So once you do that, then you will forward that to the AS committee, right? Correct. So we will assess the applications on the same eight criteria that this body approved for the 1% for our program. But I want to clarify that the staff review is not intended to be an artistic merit review. It's really just to ensure that the piece meets our safety guidelines. It meets, it doesn't violate any ordinances. It doesn't post a health safety issue. It's not designed to review artistic merit. I know, but if you're looking at the location perspective, you need to make sure that, okay, it's, because you don't wanna go back and put in a place where the land is not stable, or it's hard to get the utilities in there. So would you look at those? 100%. Yes, we would ensure that the location, if left end that a location proposed by an applicant is suitable. It's stable, it doesn't have any known drainage issues that something we ran into when we were considering locations at Newtown Park for the dogs. There were a couple spots that were suggested by members of the ACE committee, but we had already ruled those out because they were either too close to the right of way. They had known drainage issues. They were too close to electrical. So we would assess that, yes, and make sure that any location was suitable to install our. So, to your earlier point, like you said, until the master plan is going to be implemented, we're not going to have the list of locations. So, in the meantime, the staff is going to come back and list of those things, or how would you want to address until that point? That's a good question. So, if we leave in the suggested allow applicants to suggest a location, we would potentially ask for maybe three of their top locations that we could then assess each one and maybe make a recommendation to ACE or if you chose to take it out, we would go through the same process where we chose a few suitable locations and potentially bring that to ACE to allow them to weigh in on an approved spot. Anyway, once when we have someone working on the master plan, they will come up with the list of, you stop duplicating the effort, probably leave it to the applicant to come back with the list of the three locations, then you can determine which one is a practical. Okay, so once that step one is done in the step two, the AS committee will review the applications. And if they approve, it's going to come back to the staff again for the final coordination. If they're deferred to the city council, what are the steps? Do we need to go back to the same old kind of zoning kind of procedure or is there shorter version? We could definitely create a shorter version. One of the changes that we recommended was removing the public hearing requirement. So the changes that we made to the process are designed to soften it and move it away from the rigidity of a zoning application. What I would imagine we would do, if Ace wanted to render a recommendation but wanted to leave final approval with this body, we would work with the clerk to get it on the next council meeting agenda or work session depending. But do we need to bring it to the council? Can we do it in the work session discussion? Because it's more about the consensus of the body, right? Do we really need to take it to the maybe Kimberly could answer that? It can be a work session if that is the desire of council. We can make the process whatever you want it to be. What question, I think everyone was very impressed with a lot of the different cities that we visited, especially Greenville. And what was, what is Greenville's process? Because it didn't seem like that was by committee. It seemed more on the execution side. The process is driven through the staff in that there, they have a staff member in the city manager's office that is responsible for reviewing, approving, curating the public art. So they have a public art committee of source, but they don't make the final decisions on art pieces. You know, I think it's great that we've got the ACE committee obviously, but it seems like that that is a process that will lend itself towards less cohesion. that we could get a more series of one off pieces of art potentially, but I'm also just wondering about, whatever happens in the city, we ultimately are held responsible for it. So just think about that. But in that context, a couple of more items before we go. Okay. In that context, can we put a threshold on the dollar limit for the artwork? If it's more than 50,000, it has to come to the City Council for that. So I want to clarify, because this question came up with the ACE Committee as well. So if the city is commissioning a piece of art, that is a separate process from this ordinance. This ordinance addresses if a privately funded or nonprofit group chooses to submit an application, say, hey, we have a piece of art. We want to put it somewhere on city property. Whether that be a park or right of way or in a facility. This is their process. So if- So it doesn't preclude if there's something driven by staff or council? Absolutely, absolutely. Okay. And- But you could- No, sorry, to answer- as posed, you could say art valued at over $50,000 or whatever your threshold is that's being asked to add to our park would automatically get deferred to council for the final decision. But here's but here's the downside to that you could be encouraging cheaper and therefore maybe not as liked. pieces of art that are just as much of an isore or not as accepted as something that's more expensive. But again, there are always ways to work on it. I don't know whether expense really is fact is in here because finally, whatever gets put in there, we are responsible for it. But the point is, it might be that we need to go in first. It might be that the cheaper it is, the more we need to be concerned. I don't know. No, I'm just looking at the two examples, like the one that we put in the, like the arch in the colleague rig part. That's much bigger and more expensive one. So as a price tag goes up, it becomes like much bigger art piece. So. Should price be a factor at all? Because whatever gets put in the city, it is imploded that we consented to it. I agree. I don't think price has really any place here. I think you've got to go more to factors like durability, ease of maintenance, things that lend itself towards how long will it last. But anyway, I don't know. Probably the last one in the application, can we add one of the bullet points as a team? And I said, team, it's like, what are they trying to convey the message? Absolutely, Yeah. I think that's the same subject matter though, isn't it? I wasn't exactly sure, so I thought about it like a... when you say subject, it's like... I think so. Oh, so sorry, theme. Under artwork information, that second bullet we ask for is the artist statement. Typically, that is a description written by the artist explaining what inspired the piece, what feeling the piece is trying to invoke, and often that addresses theme. Also, yes. As long as the door. Yes. Where I'm sorry, Olivia, where's that? So in the attachment of the application, it's listed under artwork information. Okay, thank you. So just one thing, as we go through this process and we look at the master plan for art, it's great that we come up with a list of different locations. It seems like it might lend itself towards some locations might be given some kind of critique in terms of what maybe they are most appropriate for in terms of dimension. Right? So some places might be better for broad and flat and other ones maybe tall and skinny. And you know, I don't know. Absolutely, yes. So the list will not just be where can we put art, but what kind of art, what scale of art are we looking for in this location? So whether that be a mural, whether that be a smaller sculpture, a larger sculpture, an interactive sculpture, something that's 360. The goal is to address that contained within the list as well. Okay. There. Are you done, believe me? Thank you. Thank you very much for this. So I look at in totality, I look at this just a little bit different. We're talking about, as far as my interpretation, a procedural side of how we manage the process of the artist and what we're trying to engage them to give to us. My focus is more on the criteria of the application, the guardrails of the application and what we're, if we, let me try to describe, if we can pull that tighter on the criteria, then how we manage the process becomes more streamlined and we, council don't have to get as much involved with it. So initially the criteria that's in the attachment here is great to start. But if we identify a piece that we want, an area that we want to use or a place art, then maybe we need to have a more specific what we're looking for for that particular piece with that location. Because everything you've identified here, the one through five, I'm a total agreement. You'll let the artist determine, based on his past experience, what should go in this location. But my concern is that art is sort of subjective and interpretive by all different people. And I'm not an expert in art, but I know that if there's something that is offensive, right? And offensive is, again, subjective to whoever's looking at it. That's where I see council needs to get involved. And ultimately, my opinion is that we should have the final say. But we can get interpretation from ace. We can let them lead the charge for location, the guardrails, the criteria for establishing a piece of art. to me I think that that's really what's important because you've identified a really streamlined process here and the only thing I would suggest as far as your ask of council one two or three, I'd say let's bring it to council and because we all know there's a couple pieces of art work today in the city that probably not a lot of people are happy with. We would probably, this council would probably do it a little differently. So that's why I think ultimately we have to stand behind what goes out in the public. But I'm not, it's a complicated subject here as far as the process, but location I think is great. The record, you know, what were the other criteria here. You know, the public, removing the public hearing requirement, I think there's going to be enough socialization about what we're trying to do and what we're looking for, that the public will have a lot of time to weigh in. So I think you one through five is spot on with what you want to do in streamlining. But ultimately I would like council to make the final decisions. And I would like to make that criteria more specific for each of the projects that we are commissioning for. so that it's not just a blanket criteria out there, the one through eight. Should we do that in the yearly retreat? Suppose something is coming on the backside. We can say, hey, we would like this team at that point, but we can't define it at this point. Well, we can't define it at this point, but I think we have an idea of what the spirit of what we're doing here at the boardwalk and at Collie Creek and at Newtown. I think we are really good at trying to figure out where we want to take the city. So having that final yes, it fits the criteria. I think it makes sense. But there's more to it, but I'm going to let some other people talk about some other areas of concern. But that's Ryan with it right now. Chris? So I am content to apply all five of the issues, yes, update the application, aligning the selection criteria, guiding with location suggestions, incorporating public comment into the ACE meetings, and then removing the public hearing requirement. I would probably settle on the final approval, either being ace alone or ace with staff. So either option two or three, or a content with me, the way it's sounding, it's going with this council. I would say maybe number three is a better option that's staff and. Final approval that I have for chance balances. It's not that I don't feel that we are held to that standard. I just think to improve time, efficiency, cost savings, removing the public hearing requirement and keeping it there, it could operate more efficiently. I think different councils will behave different on every piece of artwork. Quite honestly, I don't see our role as appropriate to opine on what I would consider. Things that matter, but that are not in our overall strategic priorities. I understand arts is there but I believe that's us getting in the weeds too much at that point so I would prefer that we had trusting staff and ACE committee with a public comment incorporation. Chris can ask your question because I'm trying to sort this out. So they've said that right now they don't plan on the staff playing a role in judging the merit of the art itself. So, unless we change that, and I believe that's what you're referring to in option 3, which is Ace final approval with a staff kind of game of thrones. Staff has to. Yeah, because that's going to be on then it will be, that's why I figured that might be a good compromise if council fills your hell to every piece of art. Well, staff. It's, you know, I'm very much just thinking it'll out here. So on one hand, you know, this is a great representative body and we're reflecting the views of the residents. The bad thing is this is a representative body and we're apt to, you know, the politics of oh, someone's in our ear saying, oh, you really got to approve this. And it maybe, maybe it's best that we take ourselves out of it. Yeah, I jump in on this one just real quick, just because as Chris was talking, actually, when Larry was talking, started me thinking this with Chris, and then the three of us have like battle wounds of this with a piece of art that was public art that became highly politicized. I mean, to the point it became an issue in election campaigns, right? And so I think that Council not having a role in the decision is my personal preference for that reason. And I know I hear Larry's concerns about obscenity and offensiveness, but ACE is a representative body of the, it's bigger. If there's more ACEs, how many people are on ACE 9 9 it's more than the council even and they are not you know elected and it's just I think between that and then staff and the staff review being having the benefit of an attorney review making sure there's no first amendment issues to me that just even felt in suspenders and gets us out of either you know people trying to kill a piece of art or support a piece of art this so subjective. That's my personal opinion. And the final point on that where yes, we're held accountable, but I wouldn't say any of us are, excuse me, let me speak on behalf of myself. I wouldn't consider myself an expert on arts and what would display well, what would. Be best, I would leave that to the ACE committee. I think they're more selectively collected as a body, were nominated based on their subject matter expertise in that realm that we nominated and approve as a slate. So we've installed our trust in them as being experts in that realm. And quite frankly, I would think we would, I think it would be a lot of extra effort on everyone to come up to council. The public hearing, especially, thinking about that, we all went through it one time, but I couldn't see it getting to that place and us having advertised and all that stuff. I think it could be handled at the ACE Committee meetings in a quicker, more effective and costly manner for everyone involved. So, if I can just real quick, Aaron, you bring up a great point because the public art that I was referring to was a council decision. And so, and it was a not a good, right exactly. So you make, you guys make a good point that maybe it shouldn't come up to us. But going back to number three here, Olivia, if the ace feels that it's contentious the art or they're not sure they're mixed. Is there any criteria that we can stand on to say okay when you're at this point, bring it to council? Because the tendency may be forced, the nine people may be forced to make a decision. They feel like they have to make a decision. When they really don't, if it's contentious, they can't decide. A five, you know. I was thinking that you all would have that deferral process. Like it was written not, I think, about two and three had with an ultimate, they could defer to council if they did not. So, to clarify, the suggestion to defer to council was an ACE request. So, that was not included in the- So, I'm going to try to game this out in my mind. If there is a piece of art that is suggested and it is dividing the ACE committee, I'm I'm happy to take stands on issues, but I don't want to debate the merits of art in this body. And I don't see any upside. So if ACE, I mean, I rely on this metaphor for many, many things, you don't swing at every pitch. So if there's something that comes forward and it's not like wildly, you know, enthusiastically accepted, then biomies don't defer it to the council. Just let it die and say, hey, thanks, but no thanks. We need something else. I mean, that's just, no decisions, it's a decision. Well, yeah. And just because it's controversial or divided, that's not like, oh, we would do a better job with it. We could just make a bigger mess out of it. We could. We could. Absolutely. I find it sweet for us. I look at the committee as the recommending office. Any recommendation, so the recommendations are good. Full acceptance. The recommendations are contravened certain kind of perceptions. No. But to just defer it to some lower authority because we don't want to, we are risk-averse for the adverse publicity. I think we are relinquishing our role and our responsibility. We are not experts in so many places, so many aspects of the agenda which come up to us. We don't tell them, hey, this is tough, you have to refer to them. We take advice, their input. Similarly, in this case, we take advice and input from these committees. And then, ultimately, we have to decide whether we like it or not that whatever the art is there still sits with the committee, right or wrong. What we can't abdicate our position saying that hey, I'd rather let somebody else decide it. And let me provide some clarity there, Council Member Armel. It's not because I am risk at birth. It's to make it more efficient, less time consuming, and cheaper. We don't have to advertise. And it's kind of like how we don't get in the public works. Are there going to be three swings or two swings on a particular playground? I think we're getting way into the weeds of what we are hired. And like I see ourselves as a board of directors, I don't see directors getting into the weeds on intimate product or service decisions like they would in the private sector. So in that case, I think it's a misapplication or a misallocation of resources from the decision making authority. I think it should be given to those that can be best to opine on those. I'll tell me this, and we are pining on makerspace. We are experts. Five stations, we had more experts. We still have a say on it because finally the city expects us to dispel. And I would argue that that criteria is based on the financial or capital outlays that we do on it. But to your point, the items that are made in the maker space, the creativity, the direction that they go in with their individual projects, that will never come to council hopefully. And those projects likewise will not be, you know, something that we're spending the money on. So I know that Stacey has not, I don't know if Aaron got a chance. I just had a quick question, really quick, and then I'm done. What is the right of any of these particular, let's just say to the mayor's point, we don't have to swing it every pitch. We just don't feel it's a right fit for city property. And that's been blessed by attorney review that there's no for some of my concerns or anything with that denial. That being said, what would be the right of this artist to solicit a place to place this art on private property, for instance, like in Menli or in a strip mall, you know, like in one of our shopping centers, if there's a way to do it tastefully in a median or something like that, is that available to private property owners? I mean, we don't allow murals, that's why I'm asking, like a sculpture or something like that. I guess that's something I would consider if we don't have that opportunity. You're saying if it was rejected by the city, it could then go be put up by the property? I mean, I just think we're asking you a very narrow question. If we have a private donor who wants to, like the cute little dogs in Newtown, if they, a private donor wants to place our on public property, what is our role in deciding that? And so what if they, it doesn't work and they want to, we say why don't you go call it medley? We just don't think it's right for a park. Sorry, cool, not great for the park. Right. So that's all I'm saying is that maybe, I think we're just putting a lot of effort into something that really like does that question require looking at it and coming back to us. Okay. I can't say right off the top of my head whether we have a land development ordinance that would regulate that. I know the sign ordinance wouldn't necessarily. I'd have to do some combing. My gut says there isn't something, but I don't want to say that without doing it better. Okay. We have the 1% for Arts program that allows them at the time with the land use permit to provide for the art creation of the art. But just saying this city parks are only one place the art can go. Right. And another issue that I didn't think about. So does this expose the city to any kind of liability? If we were to reject something, could they make any kind of like a first amendment violation claim? I think as long as the art program has some objective criteria and leads obviously art is a subjective form of expression. so I think as long as there is some objectivity to grant or deny it. But I mean, I can't tell you if someone wouldn't sue the city, people can sue the city for all sorts of things. But I don't see that as being a particularly difficult problem for the city. If it's not a good fit or labeling it obscene, that's another matter. I don't know that I would want the city to go that far, but I think just rejecting it. No sir. But in all of our materials, we would say the city reserves a right to reject any application for whatever reason. Are you in, does that? Yeah, did I answer all your questions? My final approval would be with ACE plus staff. Yeah, because, but with the staff review would be, in part, you know, because you guys have the benefit of being able to seek your attorney review. So I want to clarify, all of the options include the staff review and the ACE body review. It's just a matter of who gets that final stamp. So all of the options include staff review and A's review. Okay. I'm going to piggyback on that. If you choose option three, which puts staff on the front end doing the safety structural site distance all that review, which is in all versions. Option three puts staff staff at the back end and ultimately makes the city manager, when you designate the staff, you designate to me, up or down vote, that would not prevent me from seeking guidance or council of council, this council body. If I think that's appropriate or I need to bring it to your attention, it just would not be a required step. As I hope I have proven in my track record, when I have things that raise a red flag, I tend to throw them at you, or make you aware of them if I'm going to make a decision that is... But to be fair, there are some decorations in your office that I'm sure that they're my aesthetic. That's true, very true. I mean, I don't know. Now I'm getting worried again. All right. Can I ask... But we got to get Stacy in here. No, absolutely. OK. Just a quick question to follow up on Aaron's question to Angela here. So in a private setting, let's just take one of the strip models. And an individual wants to do a mural. Would that, from the zoning codes, would that be considered art or a sign? Because you had mentioned sign. Where does that fall in the zoning side? Right now it signs, murals are not a lot in the city on private property at this moment in time. Under the 1% for art program they are, but you have to apply through that program because it has different guard rails. But that 1% program is for new development or is it retroactive too? It is for both. It is for both. So the door is open. Correct. Correct. Yes. If I own a strip center, I can go ahead and solicit Chris here to take the part. And the door is open for me to have a huge mirror. Well, but through the 1% program, they can't just do it on their own. Sorry. OK. Yeah, she had to shed light on the audience. That's a whole other, right? OK. Correct. There's a whole other review process that does speak to the criteria that are here. We also do the same artist vetting to make sure it's someone who's professional. There's a whole other set of criteria. And one key component of that includes community development to assess whether or not a proposal crosses the line between a mural and a sign. So we have specific guidelines for that. And every mural will be reviewed by community. There's an internal staff review committee and community development is one of those review panelists. And to them and thank you, thank you, but to the more the mayor's point about the first amendment. Is that is that we've been there to make sure that we're good with all that? Or do we just need time on that? So all of the criteria, that program and all of its components have already come before you, so they've already been reviewed by Angela. So all of these criteria and their descriptions have been previewed and given the green light. Okay, thank you. Okay, I have several questions and I thought I was set on number one until hearing from some of you all. And so I'm wondering if we could bridge something that I was a little uncomfortable with, is I think in the beginning, is there a way that we, ACE is a recommending body by ordinance, right? So, dude, do we change the ordinance? If, in fact, they're no longer going to be recommending us, they'll be final decision-makers. So, the ordinance amendments that were attached to your memo, that is part of ACE's ordinance. Okay. Yes, it's just one section. So, then to maybe bridge that gap between my concerns and great points my colleagues brought up, could we have, when it is initially was started, I think it was more focused on the entertainment part. And so I don't remember if the backgrounds of everybody on there necessarily is for all, I just, I don't remember. So could going forward and maybe we make the committee even bigger, a little bit bigger, similar to our-PAC. And then have little criteria to where they would have experience in art or qualifications, past art teacher, or that way I would feel so much better about that being the final decision makers if they had a background in it. That is your purview as council if you want to set, so we have nine folks right now, so if you did keep it the same and you wanted to appoint moving forward, or you could increase the number or moving forward, you could seek to appoint three people with expertise in arts, three people with expertise in culture, three people in entertainment. That is totally within the purview of you as a body, how you want to balance. And there may already be, I don't know, I read the applications lately, as a point. So that's one of my concerns. And then, so if everybody would be open to that, like, I would no longer be in favor of number one, it would be more inclined and open to number two. But with, so ace being the final approval authority, but I think they should have the discretion if they wanted to fur, but. Because we are the ones elected and accountable to the community, but. I don't know, I think I'm the only one so that may may just get crushed so that it's okay. I would rather have us have the criteria and qualifications for the committee members going forward. That's my number one if I get anything out of this. The other thing is on the red line version, can we have all proposals go to ACE? And so what we would cross out the City Manager's Office shall transmit the proposal and change that to all proposals for ACE to review? and are seen with what you're saying. So they wouldn't, like everything that was, everything that met this criteria would go to review. And are you saying what you're saying? So they wouldn't, like everything that was, everything that met this criteria would go to ACE. But I can't. Staff would say they met all seven go to ACE instead of staff having to decide which we have to approve. But the side which we have to create criteria is to staff is checking to make sure those submissions fall within those eight criteria we set forward. So if they're going to send everything to the A's, if A's is going to pick an art piece, it comes back to the city staff and it doesn't fall into those criteria we- Well, I don't think it would make it that far though. The City Manager's Office shall transmit the proposal and any documents to render a recommendation, relevant or two relevant internal staff review. So I don't know either internal staff would review it, and then it goes straight to A's, not have internal staff have to approve it, and if it's approved, go to A's. So the process you're describing is an approval process. like I referenced earlier, anytime we receive a proposal, if it raises a red flager, I think we will do this for everything. But it will go to community development for that structural review. If it meets those criteria and the rest of them, it will go to ACE. The goal with saying approved applications or not specifying all is that we don't want to send something that is either impractical or not feasible to actually install because we don't want that to me that it doesn't seem fair to bring something to ACE that we know can't be installed for whatever reason Well, I guess all that have cleared the technical review, but you're saying that's already that is Yes, the unknown. Okay. Yes or the unsaid So okay, then the only other thing is I don't have a problem I know one of our residents asked for us to add back, you know hold for further review is there a reason that We wouldn't want to give that opportunity to ace to hold it for final review? So just because that phrasing is not in the ordinance, it doesn't preclude ace from making that decision. They can absolutely decide to pause, ask for more information, and put that on the next meeting. In trying to deformalize the process, just keeping it simple, approve or deny, that is the final approval, but it doesn't have to be at that meeting. There's no time penalty, they don't have to make a decision that night. Okay, there will be a word of that option. Yes. Okay. Okay. Okay. I think that's it, but is there any way we could get consensus for if we're already going to make a change to the ordinance that we could for, and I don't even know what criteria we would use Olivia, or if you could come back to us with that, but like required minimum requirements of the appointees and maybe- We've been jumping on that one real quick, just a historical knowledge. We used to have arts and culture board and we had public art board. And when we created ACE, we joined the two. Do you recall or does Alison recall off the top of her had how many were on each board? Because I think ACE is larger, is either the mine some? There was four, four or five. And then how many on ACE or on arts and culture board? So we actually lost. Well, I never, if you remember, we had a huge problem with absenteeism and people not wanting to stay on it because there was, there was two little art decisions diffused through too many committees. No, I recall, I was just trying to remember because the public art board, like that was all they did, and they didn't meet regularly because they didn't have public art applications very often. To keep us one track, maybe a very worthwhile idea, but maybe we should table that for a separate conversation in terms of the ace makeup. Yeah, no, that's fine. I's just I can't, I would, my choice would be number one, the option one, unless we could have consensus. Well, and we, and we, and that's just it. I mean, maybe the thing is that maybe we need to table this until we can revamp or take another look at the ace composition. I think it's a great, I think it's a worthwhile issue. I want to just throw out, and again, I don't know that I've really got a big thing in this either way, but just, I'm like you, huh? Is that a finish? Well, just give me a second. I'm gonna get back to you. So just thinking about this as we're all going around, like I think that I would prefer that the staff actually does have the responsibility of having an opinion about the art on an artistic basis. And maybe they are kind of like that initial filter and then it goes to ACE for approval from there. And personally, I mean, I really don't know that I want the deferral to, I don't know why we would set this up and it's like, okay, if the ACE can't resolve it, then we're going to punt it to the council. That just seems like a recipe for disaster to me. But anyway, those are just some thoughts. I think I've kind of hinted where I'm heading. I'm for one, primarily because like last few times we've been getting into the weeds about the football grounds, striping, we've ideally left it to the staff or Parks and Rec, but it has come up to us repeatedly. So in that line of thinking, I believe that I believe the city should be in the business of checking for safety, legal, and other technical feasibility. Second, it should go to the artistic ability, starts with AIS. So it should go to the AIS committee, let them have their recommendation. So I don't expect any filtration to happen if it meets the criteria of safe, legal and technically feasible or any other such technicalities. Then it should come to the ACE committee, ACE committee which is, I believe, mayor has chosen fairly nice people so far. So hopefully those guys will be the guys who actually do the filtering and give it to us. They are looking to us to take the final call primarily because they don't want to take the call. They've been asking us a number of times. Now we are telling them now no, you take the responsibility. So I find it, we, and when we are actually going into fair amount of debt in so many issues, I think at this point, you know, when any public artist comes up, it's not been very major. How do I say, difference of opinions? I think it is probably the body we should, repository which should be the body we should make the decision what to bubble up to us because what they bubble up to us, we decide whether it is financially feasible or not, whether we want it or not. So that seems to be the way I look at structures within the city, whether it's our pack or any other committee, there are recommending authority. We are the responsible authority. And staff does what is a feasibility authority, most of the time. They tell us what is possible, what is not. And finally, it becomes our call. And that's how responsibility structures work in every organization, especially in this particular case where we are getting involved in very, very detailed discussions, because citizens ask us. Citizens ask us. Haven't we had enough discussion based on that the tree ordinances come from a citizen this thing? We should have just told community development to start a tree ordinance and just forget about it. But to think that we can just let our responsibility slide downwards seems to be contraindication. You know, I've been thinking also during this entire debate about public art. You know, when you think about public art is a little bit like art that you might find in a nice hotel room, right? So you're not going to find the most avant-garde art in a hotel room at the high end or the hilton or whatever. It's going to be something that is pleasing to 99% of people. It may not be the most tip of the spear piece of artwork. So if we we were if this group was the Board of Directors for Hotel chain Would we like likewise want to be involved in the decision making as to what artwork Goes in that hotel room or would we depend on our staff? staff. I'm sure there was a comment with some want to see you guys meeting one and visit the election. Because finally it comes to see you on the can. Okay. All right. So I'm having trouble deciphering a consensus. I think maybe Chris and I might be in alignment. Maybe you, I'm not sure. I could do two, I mean I say three, it was a better option but I could be two. I was number one, but after hearing the conversations, I'm number three. I think we can push a lot to ACE, they're the experts, and but I want to give them a safety valve. So if they just can't get there and it's a critical piece of art that has to be decided upon, they could throw it to us. They probably won't 90% of the time, but it's always there if they have to, if they need to. So I'm going to choose it. I'm going to choose another three. That's number three. Okay, well that's staff. No. No. It's like a A's recommended staff approach final. Yeah, number two is have City Council designate authority days. Well... Okay. Well, that's staff. No. No. No. But three is like a eight sort of commonsense staff uproost final. Yeah. Number two is have city council designated authority days. Well, okay. I thought number three was where there's Where there's discretionary if there's not consensus they can throw it to council So that is option number two with the ace add-on so a specifically requested to have that deferral. Option three, so really what you're referring to is I think option two A. So, to have that deferral option, option three would be once A's is able to review, staff gets the final seal of a proof. No, that's a two A from the top. You want two A's I want A but I want us to please show. Just a devil's advocate here. So think about if you're an A's member. Would it be better to have staff as a pre-filter and then it go to A's as the final approval versus the other way around? Because if you have A's say, yeah, we like this, we want to do it, then that's creating a very, that's a conflict that we're creating. I talked to this talk, he's already doing that. They're not doing artistic merit, and so that's why when I say three, I actually thought that it was going to be vetted by staff before being sent to Ace, because rather than Ace approves and then staff as the final approval, because y'all, I mean, you'll know, John's Creek, you know what the council likes, you know what the residents like, you know, you have a really good finger on the pulse, but. And you have that criteria list to work with. So what do you think? Because then it can be a home run and everyone's happy, Whereas if it just dies first off with the staff, and it never goes to ace, then they have no reason to be upset either way. But if you do in the reverse, everyone's gonna be up. Everyone's gonna be, because I don't want the ace committee members that are volunteering to feel like that, oh, we're not important. Our participation isn't really meaningful. We don't want them to feel that way. All right, so it's seemingly like it's option three, which is a staff, including an artistic merit within the criteria, then going to ACE for final decision making authority with an option to defer if no option to defer. I don't want it to come in. I'm indifferent because I don't think after all those will come. I think. If you think about it in the history of the three of us on council, it's been the horse, the tunnel, the gateway markers, the dogs, and forgetting one. That's it. That's the amount of privately funded art that has been installed in John's Creek in over nine years. So we're not talking about a lot of stuff here. Well, I wish that the gateway markers are then privately funded. No. Like, if somebody has wanted to do something good. The thing what I heard is consensus, just parroting back, is that change the initial upfront review that staffed us right now, it is a technical review. You want to change that to include artistic merit review, which uses those criteria that we adopted, this body adopted the guardrails we used for the 1% for our program, so that staff can use our, okay, we know what we think is going to fly here. We'll call it hotel art for this purpose of discussion. And with that, so we've done a technical review and an artistic merit review with the eight criteria. If it passes that, then it goes to ACE. And ACE does their review, awesomeness, and then they make a decision? Yes, or no? And then we are done, and the ball goes back to staff to just implement if it's been approved, if it is not. We then work with the applicant and say, hey, maybe this will work on a private property, or maybe you should try something. So what number are we calling that? That's going to be option four. Freebie. All right. Option four. So option four is amend the review process to add artistic mayor review by staff using the eight criteria established in the 1% for our program to be the safety check before it gets to ACE. And ACE reviews and makes a decision up or down. Okay. Is anyone interested in it? No, I'm going to be dead. But but the relief foul where it comes back to us is anyone. What you have for so like option for it has controversial. She's responsible for letting you know she's answerable to us. So if she's if she's approving Robert Maplethorb statues or something that that's probably not going to fly here, and that's going to be a problem. And hopefully most people don't know what Robert Maplethorpe is. I really wish I'd not use that. That's just guess, when we get a public art application, you're going to hear about it. I'll probably be a friendly end of the week of email that says, Craig is on the arts and culture front. Here's a picture. Okay, but that's option for- We're putting nudes in the roundabout. Good luck. Option four, go fight. I'm not sure if I want to make sure there's consensus because that is not unanimous based on the conversation. I'm going to- Do you want to see this come back? Do you- Will, can we just go around the room as a suggestion just to say if I love option 4? I think it... I'm going to be done. Do you want to see this come back? Do you heard from the governor? Well, can we just go around the room as a suggestion just to say if I love option four, I think it captures everything, but I still like that safety valve for the A's to be able to say, hey, let's go ahead and send it to council. I know you don't like it, but I don't know who here wants that. I would love to have that if not, I'm good with this. I'm good with four. But, look. Turn that consensus. Take a step back and say say why would they do it? Well, because they're deadlocked. There could be eight people out of nine, one's person six, and they can't make a decision. They can hold it though, like we talked about. They can hold it and review it again. Yes. So, if you're already giving them all the options, so like, I don't see a body coming back to us, because- I'm great with the further review. Yeah, me too. I think that makes sense. Why not? That's what we do. Yeah, so if we're not necessarily- Then why do we need- Well, I'm good with number four. I just like that safety valve in there. I think that's what we're elected for. What's that? We're elected to make the hard decisions. I know, I know. So. All right, so that's you. And before you. Four plus. We'll call four. Are you four? You're four plus. I'm four. I'm indifferent for plus because of what she said from a practical consideration, it would never happen. I forgot the mural. We all need to on the park. The where's the call I could grant about the tunnel. You're making his fairy. What am I forgetting about the gateway markers? Which although they were, it was taxpayer dollars. It was sort of whatever. It was a private situation. What am I forgetting about? The veterans walk. That means it's so few. I just don't, yeah. Yeah, so I'm indifferent to having it. I just don't think it'll be a practical concern. And I think Ace is wanting this. I don't think they're wanting to defer it to us. We want the option. That's the option gives them empowerment if they need to. If it's not going to happen to know nothing lost. Well, I'll tell them elected officials at johnskreetge.gov. Hit all seven of us if you want feedback. I agree. They could ask. I remember with the public art board was considering the mural that they reached out to all the council members asking for, like, because they wanted to know. Because they didn't before it went, yeah. So you're indifferent? Yeah, I mean, four or four plus, four. Four plus, four, I don't know what it's for. Four is like, just rewatching them, auctioned, but without a deferral. So you're four plus, four plus, you're four plus mean I'm not for 4 plus, I'm for 4. 4, all right so I've got 4 for 4 and 3 for 4 plus. Well, Chris is indifference. Chris, you got to, you got to, so all right fine, I will go just for them. Okay, then option. So then this comes back with red lines to your council meeting because it's an ordinance change. Okay. And it will be written up with option four as the proposal. Yalk and lobby amongst yourself. So before we do that, should we do the criteria or the committee members at the same time? Could we do that as a separate item so we can advance? That's necessary. Or sorry, it would have to come twice. I will step out of it and let you guys decide. Are you talking about four A's? Well, if we're up to the ordinance anyway to do it once instead of twice. The items in the criteria that we're measuring from. I don't, it's whatever the pleasure of the body is. But if we make suggestions to the criteria, well, that wouldn't do it because no one's good. It's not going to be circulated in time for the next council meeting. What I was going to say is we may have suggestions for the criteria, for the guidelines, and at that point, we can suggest that to you and keep this thing going. Sorry, to clarify for the eight art criteria or for members of the A spotting. For the A spotting. Okay. I was talking to criteria, you talk about the members. So we want to review the members of the A spotting. No, just add in some criteria there and maybe increase. Who can be on the computer? Who I experience in our. Okay, right. Yeah, I'm for looking at that council member's dinner. In terms of timing though, I don't know if it's needed ASAP because the body is full unless we're planning to add seats to it. So only if administrative lead update the ordinance is more work to have to come back twice. Okay, the no worries on my end. We're good. All right. Well, we moved along at least for consensus for the main topic. All right, thank you. All right, next item. Thank you. First item under ongoing projects is the Stormwater Grant Program and we have Stormwater Utility Manager Rayburn. Good evening, Mayor and Council. At the February 24th meeting, we had a great discussion about the stormwater grant programs framework and nine specific items were brought up that we need a little bit more clarification and hopefully decision made tonight to move this program forward. The first item was involving the property value used as a scoring criteria. And generally speaking, there's consensus about removing that property value from that criteria. So we would like a decision on whether we want to keep it or remove it. Number two, there's also consensus about reducing the maximum grant contribution per property from 50,000 to 30,000 to enable awarding more grants to more residents. So we need a decision on that item. Item three, as far as eligible applicants who can apply for this grant awarding, there was a suggestion that the awardees only go to residential property owners. And we discussed a little bit with council regarding that. And if we do decide to limit that property owners eligibility, we need to have a pretty good reason to do that. So the three options in front of you are to limit the grant awardees to residential property owners. Be limit the grant awards to residential property owners during the first year of implementation. As a pilot and open it up to all property owners and subsequent years. Or see, keep it open to all property owners. Number four involves changing the scoring criteria. So there was a suggestion during the discussion last meeting to have a combination of rip-wrap and vegetation score the highest or leave it the same as was presented during that 224 meeting where vegetation alone scores the highest. So we needed decision on that. Number five is involving splitting the total award amount between the two measures, the preventative and the reactive measures. So the first option is allocating 25% for preventative and 75% for reactive. Second option is splitting at 50-50. The third option is allocating 75% for preventative and 25% for reactive. Or D, do not specify how the funds will be allocated and whoever scores the highest will get awarded. Number six involves the minimum scoring criteria. There was some discussion about making sure that there's kind of a threshold to meet in order to qualify for those grant or dollars. And so we've suggested having a minimum score threshold of either 40, 60 or a note threshold at all. Number seven, projects that score the same in the chance that two projects that are kind of on the threshold of the lower boundary score exactly the same. The application submitted earlier would have priority or the applications that's closest to an impaired stream would have priority. Number eight, resources needed to actually implement the grant itself. It really depends on how many of these grants come in and the staff demand. So option A is basically to gauge after the first year to see whether or not we need more staff to implement the actual program. Or B is to hire a stormwater grant administrator prior to proceeding with implementation. And number nine, severity of erosion, adding some scoring criteria that deals with the actual severity of the erosion on the property. So the decision needs to be made about whether we want to add a line item for the residents to gauge the severity of erosion and then staff will review those and make the ultimate decision or be do not add a line item the application for erosion severity. So if you all may or you want to lead the decision. Yeah, so I think that if each of us could go around and go through all nine of these questions, give your opinion fairly quickly without it becoming a huge argument, and then argument being made to advocate for your position. Because more likely we're going to be in consensus on a lot of it pretty quickly. All right, property value, for me, I'm a no, I don't care regardless what the property value is. I'm good to reduce the maximum city contribution from 50 to 30. I'm okay with it being residential focused. On number four, I feel like that this, you know, if you had to say, okay, which one of these is not like the others. Number four is really talking about post grant award and what solution is implemented from an engineering standpoint. And to me that just shouldn't even be a part of the conversation. Because ultimately we're just trying to make sure the money goes towards a solution somewhere. Period. Split total definitely want the lower amount for the preventive and the higher amount for the reactive. Minimum score, I'm okay with either the minimum score or just being able to say no outright to a project. Projects that score the same. Ty goes on whoever was earlier. Resources I think it's anybody's guess as to how much we're going to see come as a result of this program. So I think we need to wait on hiring staff. Severity of erosion definitely needs to be part of the criterion, so add a line for the application. All right, hopefully y'all can keep track a little bit. Thank you. OK. Thank you, Corey. It's getting along very well. So number one, remove the property value. Number two, I'm OK, reducing it to 30K. Depending on how it goes first year, we can adjust it. Number three, I would say option B, start with residential and then expand it in the subsequent years. Number four, leave it the way it is, which station getting the higher score because of the previous nature and adding more greenery. So number five. Seven. Right. That's the part of the solution. Right. It's part of the solution. What do you have to do with that? Exactly. Again, it's in the criteria again. I thought that could be the move there. That should be there because again, you are encouraging the people to look at the long-term solution than just the... Because they're not part of the solution. They'll... Solution will come from the staff. Not really. Again, the contractor, they'll come back and they have a preference to the final state. It's not, right, Corey? So, they will have a preference when there's sub-mid application to. Okay, I understand. Okay, number five, 75% to the, oh, it said, just go lower, wait, it's 25% to the preventive. Six, no minimum score for the first year. Are you tracking it, go for number five. 75, 25, react to and preventive. Six, no minimum score for the first year, depending on how we get, we can, okay, who has submitted earlier? Number seven. Number eight, let's just proceed with the existing staff to see the amount of work and the application, the complexity. Nine definitely add that severity to them. Good? Okay, so thank you for your work on this and trying to distill it down to this simple exercise here. So number one, remove property values as irrelevant. Number two, I'm good to move it down to 30K, get more people involved in the program. Number three, I'm good for B, which is for residential properties for the first year as a and expanded from there. Number four, I am good for making it where the rip wrap and the vegetation is scored higher than just the vegetation. So that's where I am there. Number five, it's a 50-50 allocation to me between preventative and reactive, because we just don't know what the public's going to latch onto. Number six, let's eliminate the threshold for the first year as it is a pilot. Number seven, this is where, it's A, application submitted, either would have priority, which came first, would be a priority to me. Number 8, let's just use the current staffing FTEs to implement the program and see where it goes. And number nine is A for sure, I'd like to have an understanding of the severity of the problem. And I would also include, if we could, photos where the homeowner provides photos. That'll be part of the occasion. They'll take pictures of it. I just missed something. Thank you. Courier number five, when you make those buckets, depending on like, if you don't get enough applications, you should be able to move it from one bucket to the other bucket. So it's just like you're just setting the guidelines, but it doesn't mean that you're going to stick to like if we say 75% it doesn't mean that we get to stick to that. So at some point some cutoff date. Well, and maybe that they have to come back to us and just give us an update Chris. All right, number one, I'm okay removing the property value. Number two, absolutely, I wanted to be kept at 25 when we started this conversation. So definitely support going to 30. A little different on number three, I say keep it open to all property owners. I'm in the spirit that this is supposed to help with water quality and storm water as a whole from John's Creek. And we can't just separate what's commercial versus residential from my perspective from a system. So you need to keep it open for all. For number four I I would lean towards still vegetation from what I understand is a better option. So I'd like to retain that or the original. On the split, again, I do not specify how funds I want the most efficacious projects to reduce storm water erosion and improve water quality to be selected. For number six, I would absolutely, this is one of the hard things for me going on with this grant program is that we're essentially taking tax dollars and doling them out from my perspective for different projects. So one of the saving grace from my perspective was the fact that it's a pilot. However, I still think it has to be worthwhile, worthwhile, or staff's time, worthwhile, or communities for those dollars. So from a grant program as a whole, I'm kind of yes or no based on minimum score required. So I add link towards B, but having something there. My concern, for example, and this is anecdotal, so take it with a grain of salt. But I love those driveways with brick that are porous. If I wanted to get a new driveway, I think this would be a good opportunity. It may not be the best solution for John Scree in our community. So having those MQs is essential in my perspective. Again, this is gonna be odd. I think this will be, I'll be in the minority here, but I would take the project that is closest to an impaired stream. If we set the application window as starting x, ending b, it's kind of like how you submit different bids. It doesn't matter when. It's what is the best during that time window. So that's my perspective. What will do the most for our stormwater system. Number eight, I would go with A, proceed with program implementation during the pilot period. We don't know 100% if this will be successful and it will be continued. So I wouldn't ramp up right now. And number nine, yes, I would sport adding a line on the severity of erosion, but I just want to be careful because I did want to limit the impact of staff time on grading these. I wanted to make it automated scalable to the capability we can. So yes, but I just want to be careful on how much regulatory tape we're adding that will cost staff to be overburdened by these applications. So I think I hit all nine in 30. Okay. Here. I'm in agreement with Chris on some of these things, which is scary, right? Yeah, I would actually, I think I'm the only one, that I would keep the property value in this green criteria, agree with 30,000. I was all aboard the residential property owners only, but I actually do agree with Chris about all property owners, especially because I think anecdotally that maybe commercial properties are some of the worst offenders with all the asphalt they have in their parking lots. So maybe having them engage in this program would be a good thing. I would like to leave the vegetation scoring as presented by staff. I have, I don't want to specify how funds will be allocated. I want high scoring projects to be funded. I don't want to create a minimum threshold. I agree if you're the closest you are to impaired stream you have priority. We'll see about staffing so that's A on eight and then for nine out of line item about severity of erosion. Yep, that's it. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Corey. So much for coming to us several times with us. We appreciate it. I was going to just read the letters so I can give out explanation if needed. Number one, yes. Remove property value criteria. Number two, 30,000 is good. Number three, I changed my mind after hearing my colleagues and I want to go see. Keep it open to all property numbers because I did think of some commercial properties that could benefit. Okay, four, yes, change the scoring criteria. Five, I was in favor of B. Six, I was in favor of B. Seven, A, eight, A, and nine, A. Okay, and thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Corey. Thank you, Corey. A little context. One of my friends, how's got hit by lightning? It burnt. The city in Inguma, Dine. Okay. I'm notwithstanding that, we are not in the business of doling out money. There's a pilot program as I see it. And because it's a pilot program, I'd like participants may as many participants as possible and also as very number of participants. Keeping that in mind, I think number one, yes, number two, yes. Three, I'd like it to be for everybody because that will keep it in the spirit of keeping it open so that at least when we are deciding if this is a pilot program, this is the outcome and based on this pilot program. So we should be confident about saying that yeah, it addresses all needs, it meets all needs. So that's why I would like 3C to be. 4, I'd like to keep it both vegetation and reprep. Why, I'd like to keep it be, allocate 50% of the funds to preventative measures and 50 to reactive measures. I don't think, again, keeping in the spirit of pilot program, I'd like it to have no minimum threshold. Projects that score the application, I have also in favor of what Chris said, seven B should go first, A should be next. Resources current staffing levels are fine with me. Since again, it's a pilot program, we do not have the exact scope and the resources need. So, based on this pilot program, we should be in a better position. And I think number nine, we do need to have a line item for severity. Of course, you folks will be assessing it, house abilities? Thank you Nine times seven But helps I've I've probably changed my opinion over the course of listening to everybody and I'll I'm good with Residential and commercial Okay, same with me like number three. I'm open The only reason why I think residential should be just residential not commercial for the first year because it's a pilot, because we don't know what we don't know and the complexity of a commercial is exponentially more hard and more difficult to figure out. though I do want them to benefit from the program, but if we don't get it right, they will be probably in a detriment, because they will be hurt by us not having our act together with all of it. So I'd rather do it on a smaller project, work out the kinks, then roll it into a commercial program. Okay, just to recap, I'm gonna to go through them quickly and make sure we're all together on my tally, compared to Kimberly's, compared to Brian's. For number one, we have consensus on removing the property value. Number two, unanimous on reducing the 30%. Three, as far as eligible applicants, we're going to say all are eligible. We have a majority on that one. As far as the scoring for the rip-rap combo or just the vegetation alone scoring higher, we have kind of a tie. I think the mayor said just to remove it altogether. But other than that, we have three for changing it, or three for leaving vegetation as the highest. Can we make them equal? Well, but I just wanted us to think about something. Everything else is about what goes into deciding the grant award. That is deciding the physical implementation for the actual problem. To me, it's a completely very distinct and separate thing. And I don't know why we would want to play, why we would want to put our thumb on the scale of what is appropriate or not appropriate. I think to encourage that was the vegetation vegetation because rip wrap last longer am I correct, Cory? Right. It's a little bit of a way to incentivize kind of a long term stabilization effort. Rip wrap has its place, but it can also cause some problems. And we're trying to limit the amount of hardened surfaces that are in the stream corridors. That's why we would give a little bit more incentive towards using a more natural approach, establish the root zones to have that long lasting. But are we not going to, I mean maybe this is my confusion about how this is going to be implemented but it seems like we would be saying, look, this is the best practice. This is what's the best solution in this particular place. And it just seemed like a very strange thing to me that we would be getting such an opinion at this stage of the process. I thought it's the same. And then when he suggested, sometimes the citizens will insist no our solution, we need this. in the process. I thought the same and then he suggested, you know, sometimes the citizens will insist, no, our solution, we need this. When the submit application, that's what it is. Well, I mean, that's great, but people, one day so for that, for what you are suggesting, they will rate it accordingly. They'll get more points, for example, like that. Yeah, right. And if they want to get the score. But another part of my reading I remember is something about the live stakes being the even more preferred, right? It's the vegetative approach. Right. And as much cheaper, it can be much cheaper than part and so. Right. And so again, I'm like, why do I want to put my thumb on the scale at this point when I don't know the ins and outs. I haven't studied the efficacy of stone with plants, just plants, or just stone. But I mean, I'm opposed to it. I think that that's the wrong move at this point. But what do you think, though, Cory, just a question here, if that, if vegetation is a longer term approach, but to get the plants and the stakes to survive the short term rush of water, that the rip wrap provides that long term approach. And I agree, and I've had this exact thought and question, but again, I've got to trust that the engineers that design these solutions, that they've figured all this out. I mean, if we're being expected to prescribe the actual engineered solution at this point, then I need a lot more time and information. Well, I was just trying, we're talking about the scoring, because I think, am I wrong here to say that a combination of rip-rap and vegetation is ultimately the best solution? You got a short term fix and a long term fix. In certain circumstances maybe, but whenever you're replacing soil, which is what the vegetation's need over time, with a bunch of chunky rock that has zero nutrients or anything, long term you're going to to get healthier vegetation with just soil instead of having a bunch of rip wrap in there that competes with the nutrients. But let me ask you this question. So are we not going to, I mean, we have quite a bit of say as to what's going to happen if we're going to give taxpayer money. So it seems like we would be saying property owners, if you want this money, you have to bring it to what we believe is the best long term solution or the best quality solution or maybe it's the most economical solution. To me, this is a debate with a criteria that's completely separate from everything else that we've been asked to look at. So there will still be a process after this initial, this is just the initial application. So staff will still have a second review after the property owner. Once they get that on that short list, they would talk to a contractor. They would come up with a contractor that knows all about these different sequitization techniques. They would come up with a solution together and present it to staff who would have the ultimate final say on that award. So there would be one more review after this whole process. Just to make sure it is good for the city. I got it. Help me understand, I've been listening to you. How does a swamp react, swamp is full of vegetation. How does it react to flooding? Does it have the same issue? Because when I see Chattu Viji near her house, there's a lot of vegetation there on the banks of. And that seems to be actually protecting it. Correct, yeah. Yeah, wetlands and vegetated buffers are what we're trying to go for with this program. I would like to keep vegetation at a higher score. But is it possible at any senior year what he's saying is correct? What Larry is suggesting is correct? Is there a senior year where what Larry is suggesting can be correct? Can be a preferred solution? That would be something that we would bring up. If someone just wants to riprap, we could say it could be more effective. If you add in some live sticks or cheap, it'll, you know, it'll, it'll, it'll, it'll, it'll, it'll, it want to riprap in a channel. So yeah, the answer is it could be better than some of the other. And at the end of the day, we want to implement a program that's best for the homeowner because this should be all in a positive column. I just trying to give that little sapling that's going to be planted next to the stream an opportunity to grow versus just getting washed away. That's why the rip wrap. And some people are looking for immediate solutions. That was lovely like by the way. You know, I'm going to take the band it off. Is that, is that, will that be a relevant concern? Cory? Yes, we have, yeah, we have a majority for that. No, no, will that be a relevant concern? Like, you know, you're planting all these saplings and all that to bamboo shoots and all that. A little hyperbole, but I think it could be a situation where a bunch of little saplings are carried off. They are driven down into the stream bank, but yes, if there's a 100 years storm event, then everything's going to be washed out. But we do have consensus on that. Number six six, as far as minimum scoring, we have a consensus on no minimum score. Number seven, we have consensus on the earlier application, gets the priority. Number eight, we're going with existing staff. Number nine, adding that erosion severity criteria. And the only one that is left without full consensus or majority consensus is number five with the splitting of the award. We have three for 5050 and then we have two for 25% preventative, 75% reactive, which is the first option. And we have two for no split at all. Whoever scores highest would be the ones that select it. So between the two measures, we're going to grade them all at the same time. The no split means whoever is scoring highest regardless of its preventative or reactive, they would get selected for the moving on in the system. Why not? They are not the same. They are not the same. They seem preventative and separate. They act as separate. For me, there's no issue with stormwater, but I can still opt for a preventative solutions like rain battles or whatever you think. So it's just a policy allocation, allocation policy. No, I think the majority is just to say have no restrictions. Correct. Right now there's only two that are saying no restrictions. So the only reason I was four, I was one of the 50-50 and I know I didn't talk because I was trying to be brief, but I thought more residents could take advantage of the program if we started with preventive measures because the reactive are going to be so expensive. So that's the way I was looking at it to touch more homeowners residents, I should say with this pilot program. So I kind of want to stay 50-50, but. But. I'm good. 50-50, let the homeowners decide what they need and let them submit the application of 50-50. And I think it's an alloc- it's a policy allocation. I really. You're just saying that it's a bug at some. If you don't get enough applications, we can just take it from the other way anyway. Oh, absolutely. But actually, they're not enough reactive measures. All of it is more to prevent it from happening. Exactly. Right. Right, first of all. in this wouldn't necessarily be in the ordinance. This would just be kind of like an internal policy. But you can add it also. If you add it, I can just come back here. So it's like, I think you want to stay away from it being part of the ordinance. Okay, that's the case. We are seeking consensus for how to start though. We could certainly leave it out of the ordinance, out of the formal scoring criteria. So as long as it's just a consensus to undo a consensus just takes a quick work session check in right I'm saying 50 50 let it let it run from there. I mean 50 50 fine. Like just what do you recommend to get us off? I think that may not a great way to do a 50-50. That's fine. If there's a huge gap, then you just kind of reallocate. That's fine. That's fine. I'm pretty good. No. No. We have to. What? All right. All right. Pretty good. Pretty good. I'll come back to your next council meeting with the consensus items as Corey just went on the list and you will have the final versions to adopt on all of that. Thank you so much. We hope to see you more often. A lot more often. Thank you. Next item is the Tree Ordn options with community development director song. Good evening, Mayor and Council. I won't go through the entire presentation. I did Staff did review the tree ordinance and presented four options for consideration by Council and I'll be happy to answer any questions. any questions. Thank you. I appreciate you coming back. I felt like that the memo was a miss, and I hate to say that. I felt like that the discussion, the memo that teed it up, and then the discussion at at council was I thought somewhat pretty clear cut that we were not necessarily trying to prescribe what the actual policy changes were but the direction in which we would like you to come back to us with the range of options. And I was disappointed that it seemed to just focus on the diameter of injuries. I thought that that was missing the mark. I decided to do my own research. And so, you know, looking at, you know, you've got the loooth that they say basically residential has the ability to make those decisions for themselves. Obviously we're going to have to stay within the law on the river corridor and the setbacks in that way. Roswell somewhat different but slightly similar in that they also had a fairly liberal policy about the trees being governed by residents. For me this is kind of a life safety issue and I just want to make sure that we are not. It's important for the government to step in when the residents aren't able to really make the decisions for themselves. But in this situation, I really think that they're the only ones that can really do the best job of deciding what trees are safe or make sense in their particular locations on their property. And so I would really like to see us move in a direction of really removing the residents needing to interact with the staff to manage the trees on their property. But that's where I am. And I just had a question. So do you mean mean all specimen trees or others? Yeah, I think that originally the tree ordinance was Intended to be for commercial and if you read the administrative guidelines, that's the way it reads And it's almost like the residential just kind of got swept up in it and You know if you think about how expensive it is to cut down a tree, how much I think most people really love trees for their aesthetic beauty, for the shade, you know, it's an increase to your property value. I don't see there being a rush of people wanting to just go out and clear cut all their trees. I would be shocked. And frankly, I think you would see that happening already, because I think most people probably don't know the ins and outs of what we require legally. But just thinking about it from a life safety standpoint, you know the trees in your yard, right? There are n' anybody. And you know the ones that are potentially that could hit your house. Or you also know, okay, what if, you know, trees can act like dominoes, right? So you could have a tree at the back of your property that you think is perhaps not in great shape, but it falls on a healthier tree closer to your home, likewise it falls. And so to me the big impact, the big thing that is impacting from an environmental standpoint is really at the commercial level and for the residents I think that I would like to see the city really defer to the judgment of the residents. Thank you Mayor. Ben, again, it's just hard, but we need to look at like more on the the criteria like Mayor brought up, like some of the trees proximity to the house. And like it's, so can we look at like, okay, fine. This one, you guys did the research and came back. So I'm fine with option one, but can we look at a big picture of like revisiting the whole thing and say, okay, in there are some certain criteria, in these criteria, yes, the residents can do these things. So it's... Most definitely, I think just to... If I was to just explain or sort of explain the criteria, because I think there was some discussion that was also brought up to my attention about distance from a home and so forth. And so a lot of the issues that we run into is specific to how we classify specimen tree, what that threshold is. A lot of times what you may hear as a complain is, okay, I have a tree that's next to my home. It may be less than 10, 15, 20 feet off the building itself. But the main reason is, is because it's a healthy specimen tree, and that's why we say that there is the option to remove if you like, but there's recompense required. You have to replant. Now, if we were to increase the size of the tree, the threshold for what we deem specimen, then that's an opportunity that's available, because if it's not classified as specimen and it's not in a protected zone, yes, then they have the ability to remove it. The only thing about specimen tree mainly is if it's healthy, it's the recompense, that's the main issue, truly. But if it doesn't meet that specimen threshold, then they are able to remove it if they're not in the protected zone. So I wanted to address this idea of recompense. When you've got a developer that stands to make a lot of money based on the development of the law or the property, the economics of that pencil, as I think our friend Arthur Holtz would say, you can make that part of the deal and make it work financially. But for a homeowner, you know, we got an email this past week from someone that is applying to your office for a permit and to take down a few trees, they were told that they're going to need 37 trees put in for recompense. So if I go out on 141 and I drive a hundred miles per hour, what is my ticket going to be if I get stopped by the police? All right, $500, $600. But if you're having to pay for this recompense, you're talking thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars. If you're going to have that installed on your property like for the homeowner that I put the pictures up on the screen, you know, to put in those trees would have required a bobcat. So that's not going to be doing great for a citation and, you know, protecting the other trees. But you're talking about thousands. I mean, the way I figured the 18 trees that would have been required by the recompense formula, you were looking at around $20,000 in landscape bills. I mean, that's severely out of whack. So, I mean, we've got to decide, you know, are we going to be, you know, a partner and a friend to our residents or are we going to be like their overlord? And really, I mean, I feel like this is almost like we've got our boot on their neck. In case you're wondering how I feel about it. So, when this topic first came up a few work sessions ago, I've got pretty strong feelings about this. I love trees, you know, but I love them to a point. I think that in the conversations we've had offline, I think the most important thing is the council we can do for residents is provide safety and security and that's beyond just the first responders. It is how we set up our codes, how we treat and empower the residents. Because they know their home, they know their environment better than we will ever know. When it rains, I'm not at some citizens' house during a thunderstorm. I'm not seeing the trees sway back and forth. My personal property to replant a simple layland cypress that's seven feet tall. It's a burlap bag. And they had four guys out there digging to plan a tree. And that's expensive. The whole project costs just under $1,000 to plant that tree. So to the mayor's point, it's an incredibly expensive to cut down and to replant. My proposal to the council and when you guys all know it is, I originally said, let's take a look at the dwelling, the main dwelling of the house. If there's a 50-foot exclusion zone around that property, around that dwelling, then that homeowner should have the ability to take down even a specimen tree without penalty. I don't think penalizing him to take care of his property to be sure of that, that it's not going to fall down during the storm. That's how I feel with it. And it doesn't mean I don't like trees. It means that I think that what's more important is that the individuals in the house and the dwelling itself. So that's where I'm stepping on the scale, as you would say. But I also believe that beyond that exclusion zone, the code that we have with what I call an overlay, which is your buffers and all those things, the Chateau Huchir River Court, those should be abided by. Because those are some of them are state mandated and some of them are city mandated. So I think we should have a permit and work that process that we have in place today just keep that in place. But there should be some allowances where the homeowner is the best person to make decision within that 50 foot straight line distance circular around dwelling, and to make that a little easier for everyone, I think I would like to propose increase in the diameter or definition of a specimen tree to 32 inches in diameter. And I think that will solve a lot of the specimen trees versus non-speciment trees. So if we increase it, because the ordinance was originally designed in 2006. And we had a specimen tree with 24 inches. Well, the tree has grown. So now let's make the specimen definition, 32 inches diameter, anything above that is considered a specimen. A little baby saplings that we put in the river bed, they've grown up to be on the ground. In 20 years, if they survive. But I think that's it. And I appreciate the work on this. This is one of those ordinance that, if this topic did not come up, we would not have updated this ordinance. We could of some day, but we've done it today. So, I don't remember. Where you for I can't. Sorry. Which choice were you for? I can't remember. You kind of created his own. I did. I created my own. I'm. I'm. I'm in number. I guess number two. Only 30. I would just say new. New. Yes. Good. And just to clarify, the goal for this is not to necessarily land on, I mean, it'd be great if we were all in consensus. But at this point, we're kind of just throwing up what we would like to see in a memo for options to come back. I mean, that should, we could be there today, but that's not where we are. But anyway, Chris. Excuse me. I was number three, but okay, so we're now advising what we would like on the tree preservation ordinance. I mean, I did like, so my perspective is that we should not be involved in the day-to-day quality of life decision making of individuals or residents. So in my head, it wouldn't exist at all. However, I do think having some guidelines I think may or touch something. There is a purpose of that, to see broad clear cutting up trees for specific development. There are reasons these are also put in place for stormwater concerns. It's not a necessarily separated factor. So to a degree, we should have some guidelines. I think Mayor, you pulled some things from other cities. I'd like Duluths that was more urging in guidance. But I do think giving people light. I have a few trees around my house that I need to get cut down just from their pines, their right next to children's bedrooms, whole host of things. The last thing I want to do is start putting my arms around tape measure, contact and community development about when I'll cut those. I think that decision will be best made by me. Because I do agree trees at property value, we want them, they have a beautiful aesthetic, they do wonders for our local environment. So there's a whole host that I'm not just going to be removing them whimsically for an outstanding purpose. So while I came in three because I don't know, pines are fairly, fairly common and not as stable. And if safety is a concern, I do think pines should be removed from the list in its entirety. But I do think exemptions outside the locale of your residence should, we to lead that choice to the homeowner. To the best of our ability, I want to have calm, depth staff not worried too much about that stuff as new locations that are going to be put up for growth. How can we preserve that green space? How can we urge those applicants to use the green rules? Those are the higher quality things we should be focused on rather than this, both spending staff time, resident time. So if it was me, maybe very stipulated in those protected zones and very described rare and specimen trees. But yeah, I would lean towards going with the decision-making of the person who owns the property and will most often do not make the best decisions for what they want on their property if I wouldn't see it in that. Just to clarify, we've been pretty close to getting attention. We've got 10 minutes and we've got, let's let everyone get in the cameras. It seems like we're not going to come to consensus tonight anyway. So I agree with number three about the pine trees. I sort of agree with Larry. I'm not entirely certain if I understand. If it's a specimen tree that's within that 50-foot bobfork and you cut it down, regardless... I sort of agree with Larry, I'm not entirely certain if I understand, like if it's a specimen tree that's within that 50-foot buffer, can you cut it down regardless of anything? Or does it have to be disease or dying or hazardous? If it's a specimen tree within the 50-foot, which is just a little longer than this room, I'd say let the homeowner decide if he needs to take it down or not. Outside the 50-foot, he needs a permit and he needs to follow the process. Can I just ask a question on that? So like I know Chris is backyard enough if you've got a hundred foot pine tree that 75 feet off of your house then I have to meet the standard if you go in that direction should be if the tree can touch your house or Maybe your swings. I don't know what the standard should be that would be it rather than the arbitrary 50 feet Well originally that's where it was okay in that you know an average specimen tree could be 75 feet or a hundred feet tall what I didn't want is exactly what we're talking about here where someone goes in and clears out their backyard just because they want to put a pool in there. I'm more concerned about safety issues. A specimen tree will have a less likely to fall because a root system is probably more developed because it's been around longer. But on the other hand, we can't manage every tree process. And what I was going to say earlier, the only thing that a person can't take down is a specimen tree. They can take down a 20-inch tree without a permit right now today in our code. Is that correct me if I'm wrong? Yes. Okay. So, clear cutting technically could happen, but we don't want it to happen. That's why I said 50 feet. Now, if we want to change that, that's up to council. But that was just a starting point. So I agree with the hazardous thing. However, I think that there still needs to be additional guardrails. And I'm sorry mayor, but sending us those examples back fired a little bit in that. I noticed that Alfredo Milton and Roswell have more complex codes, but I thought that landed very fairly in the way that they tried to determine disease in dying, hazardous, etc. exemptions, so they were trying to focus on safety, but it requires more time. They all had arborists. And so do you know if they're full-time arborists? Yeah, so I spoke with both Alfredo and Milton arborists in preparation for this, and yes, they are. Yeah, okay, but even then, because they can't go out to everything and inspect everything. What they would do is review the Arboris report that is provided to them. Yeah, by the private property. How much does it cost to have an Arboris come out to look at the trees on a property? 400 books. Yeah, and it varies on how many they're reviewing, what type of trees, the complexity, and the level of assessment that they want, because there's the simple visual, and then there's ones that it varies, but yes, like a general one would be 400 potentially. We've had, we've had them come out to my house regularly, because we live in Rivermont, many, many trees, it's a pride of that neighborhood. I've got the most gorgeous oak tree. It's got to be over 100 years old in my front yard. And if it were to fall, it would hit the house, but it would be like the branches. But it does. any many trees, it's a pride of that neighborhood. I've got the most gorgeous oak tree. It's got to be over 100 years old in my front yard. And if it were to fall, it would hit the house, but it would be like the branches. But it doesn't stress me out because it's stood for like 100 years. It's probably not going to fall. But we have our births come out regularly and make sure. Because if it ever were to be diseased or dying as a I would want the right to cut that down and not let it fall on my son's hat bedroom, right? But I'm not afraid of that on a daily basis because I understand a little bit about trees. If there were a pine tree. to cut that down and not let it fall on my son's bedroom, right? But I'm not afraid of that on a daily basis because I understand a little bit about trees. If it were a pine tree, I would feel very differently, but it's not. It's a hundred-year-old oak tree. And so that's where I have my concerns with your approach, Larry, because if someone were to cut down that tree, I just feel like it would almost be criminal, honestly. And so having an arborist or having some level of review where arbor says, yeah, this is a hazard, it is going to fall. But on the other hand, not having a blank check to be able to cut that down because not all people would have that same concern. In Erin's example with the oak, she would be allowed to cut it down by sending you the arborist report that says it's diseased. Yeah, that's so. Under the current one. Yeah, so that's the thing is yeah, there was a pine tree years and years ago before I was on council that we cut down That was very close to the house maybe Maybe under this rule would be spasm in at the time it wasn't that wasn't the ordinance. But I was like, well, it's going to follow my kids room. I'm sorry. It's going to go. And there's emergency options too, right? I have to be taken that. And so when we get a report, if it's dead, it's not the right terms, but anyway, this is the terms that we are using for this purpose. But dead disease or hazardous, there are times when we do get the reports, we do review it, and obviously we do get the reports, we do review it, and obviously we do take the arbor's assessment into account. Yeah, so I think to the other issue, and I know we got to move faster, I'm sorry, the other issue the mayor's brought up is the recompense. I do agree it seems overbearing. And so like in the event that my oak tree needed to come down, I feel as someone should replace it with a tree, but not 37 trees. I mean, that's not reasonable. And I think there's some way that we could work it out. Mind you as the mayor said, it's an old antiquated sort of ordinance Every city does a little bit different Alfredo does it buy inches calculation just to make the math simpler for residents. Milton does it base upon coverage. Yeah, I liked Milton's because like I have a lot of batteries, she's in my backyard, right? And so if my oak were to come down, I do think some trees need to be replanted, but I have a lot of trees already. So I don't think any plant 37. I wouldn't have space for 37, right? But in that case, her orborist said she doesn't have space, she can only plant three. Yes, so same situation with the example that was provided at the time when we initially started to meetings ago, work with the homeowner. The orborist justified to us, look, there is not enough land to support. And so instead of 18 trees, it was four trees that was planted, but so how did you come about deciding the four trees? It wasn't necessarily my deciding specifically it was based upon an assessment from a certified arborist that they gave us justification to say look there's ex-amount of trees existing, there's only so much removable, these are the amount of trees that could be supported based upon the list that was provided by the city in terms of replanting. So I have to say that this is a great example of why my hope would be that we would err on the side of getting the city out of being over the residents in these decisions. know I've read've read all the materials, and with all due respect, I don't think you had the authority based on what I read to make that decision. I think that you went beyond. On the recompense? On the recompense. And I think that it would be so much more straightforward if we were to take the city out of this conflict between the residents and what they need to do as much as possible. And I mean, you can't make a valid life safety issue in favor of more regulation for the trees being regulated by the city, I don't think. Which is what we typically have gone to when it comes to the water heaters or whatever for other things about them. Then on top of that I would argue were actually it's not an incentive to go about it the right way work as a partner with the city because if you're looking, so say I get something removed, I'm going to go remove it, well not me, but I'm going to have someone remove it and not necessarily get the city involved because I don't want to potentially get a $10,000 requirement to remove this tree. So I might. That was a situation that was in a neighbor reported that that family. It's a family. Because people, I mean, people care about trees a lot and they affect your neighbor. Well, but we also know that there are oftentimes where people just weaponize our code. You know, I mean, I don't know if they cared about the trees or if they just didn't like their neighbor. I don't know. Well, that doesn't actually happen. I mean, I think that that happens a lot. I mean, it does happen, yes, but I don't know. I don't know if it's a solution. Is there a, if we specified the repotence as far as what size tree it's going to be replaced with? It's an entire, you got to check, you need to be like a math. I don't want to say you need to be a math major, but it's complicated. It's based upon the size of the tree that's being removed. there's a density number associated with the correlates to it. And then based on that's based upon the size of the tree that's being removed. There's a density number associated with it that correlates to it. And then based on that, based upon a two inch or four inch caliber tree that's been, that's gonna be replanted. There's a certain density number associated with it. So it has to add up to the total that's required. Gotcha, gotcha. I, I, I, I appreciate where we are with this, but I just have to lean towards that. Two of us haven't weighed in yet. But yeah, I know. If we, so you would be surprised at the amount of people that clear-cut. And I've dealt with a lot of that in our neighborhood, and it's clear-cutting any size, any, any type, whether it's oak, pine, and so they will do it if you allow them to. I was, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, even if you don't. Yeah, exactly. And I think their trees play a huge part in our quality of life. So I'm for protecting the trees, but also property owners rights. So where's that middle ground? I was for option one, but with the caveat outside of our protected zone. Because what would happen if everybody's removing these trees and we're having all these storm water problems and some of these backyards, that's going to make things even worse. That's the first thing. The other thing is, any major changes, because it sounds like a little scary, there's consensus to just remove specimen trees, period, maybe I'm wrong. But what about community input? Can we have a? Because something this big, I think, they're, we need to hear from the community, because a lot of us moved here for the way it looks. And I wouldn't want my neighbors on either side of me, behind me, to be able to just clear cut it, regardless of how close they are to the house. The, and another problem with that is, a lot of it is the awareness on the homeowner, not know how to maintain these trees. And so, the pines are growing just to one side because they grow big, they're too close together because they haven't been properly limbed up to get the sunlight. So maybe we can just increase awareness on proper tree-carrot as well. It stays you to that point, if you think about the specimen tree ordinance, the way it's currently written, it incentivizes people to cut down trees before they become bigger. And I've heard stories where people that kind of know the rules, they try to make sure that their trees aren't ever getting that big so that they can maintain control. We're keeping them trimmed up and limbed up and you know, just better education. So yes, I would put an emphasis on the community input if we were going to make change that large. And I think that was, so yeah, number one, but outside of our protected, with the caveat, not out, has to be outside of our protected zone. And then I think that's it for now. Just thank you for doing all this. I believe our city earned worked hard and got this Arbor City moniker recognition. So there is, I believe that the spirit of keeping the trees is what the community desired. But we also know that there's a happy medium that when trees fall down, they cross colossal damage. I would like to know your opinion, Director Song. You talked abourists report. Does it officially give us the risk factor also? Like, like Mayor said, you know, the domino effect and things like that. Well, that's the situation. Sometimes they are, sometimes we do get reports like that. A tree has to be removed because it fell or it was caused by another tree that fell. Yes. And so, those situations do occur. But the arborist does include the risk factor posed by the tree which is in there to be removed. Sometimes they do. Sometimes they just say that because of the impact, it has impacted the tree negatively, so therefore they recommend removal of it. So, it varies on situations by yes, they do. Either way, there's a chapter, I mean, subheading called risk factor posed by the street which is to remove. That's what I want to know. What I'm trying to say is you are aware of the risk factor posed by the street which is, which needs to be removed. Yes, there are situations. Yes. That's one thing. Then typically all the requests you must have gotten so far, what is the average diameter size of this tree, and which tree is that? Yeah, so most of the ones that I've seen thus far, it's the prevalence of pines and typically less than 30 inches in diameter. We do have other hardwoods and typically it is less than 30 from what we've seen thus far. So when you say that, that means if this 30 inch tree is right next to my house, I don't need to come to you to take it out. Well, at this point you do. Unless it's dead or disease, yes. If this ordinance goes through, I don't have to come to you. That's correct. I feel that if majority of the problem lies with this point, trees, the size whose has not exceeded 30 inches, then I think this point number one is answering that question. The point, because I don't, I definitely don't like over a period of time. I'm just taking an arbitrary number. If you have about 500,000 trees in our city, and every year we lose certain level of vegetation forest cover, in 10 years we'll be down to 300 or 400. So, and we are here discussing about stormwater issues and all that. And I am in the receiving end. I don't actually want it also this to be included in a new resident packet that this guy cannot come and cut trees left-frightened center. This guy in my neighborhood river view, he came and took down 17 trees and the erosion is silting up our lake. Now we are paying for it. Knowing that this kind of deforestation is definitely going to hurt people down the road around you, there needs to be some guardrail. And I also believe that safety is very critical. 30-inch tree should be the answer. We are upgrading from 24 to 30 inches. That may be, I actually will go up to 32 inches. But I don't think that I would also like at a future date, we should discuss about recompens mechanism because I think most of it here seems to be is telling from the fact that it places undue burden on our citizens. We are trying to make it easier. We are reducing the number of when you need a permit. And if you can also God forbid, we need to take down a tree which is healthy, close to the house. The recompense mechanism should not be so overwhelming. I definitely, I think we should get that also up one of these days for our scrutiny. Because did you say that Mark Tore is paying $300,000 into the fund? Medley paid yes 295,000. So I think all these are burdens being placed on people, where it can be awarded, can be made easier. And I think your suggestion of increasing it from 24 to 30 or 32 should answer most of our problems. All right. So it is past our time. Ben, have you got enough? This is not changed. I'm going back to the future. But I think you've got enough that you can more fully flesh out the spirit of what the council's looking at. Yes, sir and give us some options We'll set the okay a range of options. All right Thank you, Ben Madam city manager are we okay or madam clerk are we okay? Do we have to take up the item? Okay, so we can let it go to the next meeting no No problem. All right, are we okay to adjourn? Yes. All right. You know, Jacob was conducting the meeting.