Back Byline with airSlate SignNow

Accept byline request

welcome everyone like to call tonight's regular council meeting to order recommendation that the agenda for the regular council meeting of january 25th 2021 be adopted uh amendments amendments to remove item 4a uh report from corporate administrator regarding dvp 2025 for 2050 parker ave and replaced with new item for a report from corporate administrator regarding haste creek restoration project grant application moved by councillor cunningham anybody opposed motions carried item 3a recommendation at the minutes for the special counsel meeting of january 11th 2021 be adopted move by council ready counselor 80 second bye niche counselor niche any opposed motions carried item three b recommendation that the minutes of the regular council meeting of january 11th 2021 be adopted move by aaron helper scout morgan moved by council run highway second by councillor scott marvin any opposed motions carried okay item 4a report from the corporate administrator regarding the haze creep restoration project thank you mr mayor me oh is that better all right the uh hayes creek is the primary collector stream for the drainage of the north slope of mount hayes in the 1950s and 1960s this stream was collected into an artificial channel lined with stone walls as it passes through the civic center in mclemont park the estimated cost to complete this project is uh 1 581 hundred and ninety two dollars the isip covet 19 resilience infrastructure stream presides provides 100 percent of funding for approved projects and therefore no initial cost contribution from the city is required the resolution before council tonight is that council direct staff to submit a grant application for the hayes creek restoration project through the isip cohort 19 real resiliency infrastructure stream okay so the recommendations that council direct staff to submit a grant application for the hayes creek restoration project through isip copa 19 resilience infrastructure stream so move perry moved by counselor cunningham second bye council randall any discussion um counselor ada i do have a question um i i'm in favor of doing this i i i think that it's a beautiful area beautiful walking area for people in town um my question is around the work itself and i'm assuming it would involve a number of heavy vehicles in there or destruction materials would kind of restoring the uh the natural environment um i'm thinking of the the grassy area near the bridge there would that all be restored as a part of the plan that this funding would supply uh thank you probably the best answer to that will be i will discuss with the director of operations then i can get back to you counselor okay thank you more discussion okay hearing none anybody opposed motions carried next we have a report from the corporate administrator regarding the downtown core revitalization tax exemption by allowed program number three four six six twenty twenty thank you mr mayor so the recommendation before council tonight is that council give fourth and final reading to the downtown core revitalization tax exemption by law number three four six six twenty twenty and that uh bylaw was included with your package so the recommendations that council give fourth and final reading to the downtown core revitalization taxes empty program by law number four three four six six twenty twenty move by uh any further discussion uh from our previous meeting i believe all the changes have been incorporated now it looks like all the changes uh reflect the spirit and tone of the conversation that we had so thanks very much to staff for their hard work on this any other comments yeah accounts on youtube i just i'm looking forward to hopefully a lot of people a lot of developers and and local owners uh taking advantage of this opportunity for for the next three years to to uh revitalize our downtown and i and i this is a hopefully a big moment and i hope this this program will work any other comments so just so council's aware too that after adoption here tonight which it sounds like where we're going there's about 102 letters that are ready uh to be sent to all the business owners in town and anyone within this area two letters one letter is going to be regarding the program and the opportunities available and another letter is the what council directed earlier which was to send an enforcement letter that it's time to start cleaning up properties it's time to clean up the unsightly premises or this is the year where we're going to start to enforce so it's time for us to take action it's time for us to clean up the town and i think uh this strategy that we're employing here the two-prong approach uh i believe is gonna is gonna get some traction so if there's no other further comments uh is there any unopposed okay motion's carried great looking forward to getting that moving forward as well uh mr bucking are you on the line with us yes sir great so the next report we have is from iplan limited regarding the official community plan bylaw number three four six zero and zoe bylaw number three four six two uh perhaps you can go through some of the changes that we discussed last time and maybe some any new implementations that you're looking at as well yes thank you mr mayor as you may recall when this was last before council uh council had a number of questions about the official community plan um and wanted some uh us to make sure that we uh either did have policy or included policy so we've made a number of changes to the text to address what council wanted including making sure we included the proposed bypass route in the language of the new ocp that was done um and that's the the the language uh is included in penick d to the uh stafford report to council that you have there's also language included regarding the airport access um there was a more significant uh language added about the the landfill that's attached as well um and we um you wanted to make sure that uh the mcbride uh uh entry gateway was uh included and it is already in in the ocp appropriately with respect to the zoning bylaw you want to just to make sure that secondary suites um and the principal dwelling in a in a building with secondary suites could both be um rented out in order to help address the the local housing demand situation so that was changed and and we also made a change that you wanted with respect to uh shipping containers um adding to them the m1 zone as a place that they could be located um i think that's largely the changes that we made that were discussed at the time in addition to that um we undertook a review of the parking standards that are located within the zoning bylaw as well and the reason why we did this pretty thorough review of parking standards comparing prince rupert's standards to the standards that are in six comparable northern bc municipalities is because we were reviewing um a development inquiry discussing and development potential development in the downtown um and a development that was actually in part inspired by the new revitalization tax exemption that council just adopted um and when we were looking at the at the parking you know with the parking standard for commercial appeared to be high and and council had had a discussion with with staff about the importance of having sufficient parking but you know appropriate parking standards so we undertook to do this review to make sure that our standards are comparable um and not out of the line with other uh um uh municipalities in the north uh and that resulted in a reduction in the number of parking standards um some we try to make language consistent so there's a number of different ways of describing the parking there's a few where we've increased uh parking standard but they're principally more institutional not downtown uses so we we we did that made those changes uh we've also included some parking bicycle parking and some electric vehicle parking standards uh we think conservatively uh compared to some other municipalities but uh and with respect to the the approach that we took overall with this parking standard is we wanted to make sure that we were not over uh demanding parking we you know we wanted to have a policy that was inc consistent with the new official community plans uh direction for sustainable complete walkable downtowns which you know rely in part on on active transportation so we went lean on parking standards uh and and that also has a benefit of encouraging um business but there needs to be enough parking uh for businesses to be viable so we tried to strike a balance with that so that's that that stan that uh report is attached january 14th report is attached to the to the package um and where the the recommendations are to adopt those uh new standards uh based on that review as a part of the uh the zoning bylaw update so the the draft zoning bylaw has been updated with these recommendations uh yeah with the uh the and uh hope that council agrees with these if council wants to see changes these they can certainly be made at this stage okay maybe we'll open up for discussion from council um are you inviting discussion specifically about the parking piece or any other aspect of the yes i was gonna say since we're having uh we have the ocp we have this only bylaw i think we should have a discussion about um the um about all of it so whatever part i would say is of interest to you and then because if there's amendments to we can we can make a motion to that even though i know we should be having a motion on the floor but i think we should have a discussion here and if there's any questions we should chat with the planner about it now so go ahead council ready okay i i had a question about the rm2 zoning description um just correct me if i'm wrong is it is it the case that the height requirements for buildings in rm2 have been changed from a height of 9 meters to a new height of 13 meters yes um so i i have a couple of questions about that then uh first of all um if you could clarify the reasoning behind it uh maybe uh you can do that first and then i have a follow-up question yes absolutely and we our attention was turned to this in reviewing a development application um that was proposing to go to rm2 from from rm1 um and they were as a part of that they were uh applying for a significant height there actually i think to 15 meters and the reason is you know the arm ii zone is significantly more denser than the arm1 but but the height is not so the intent of uh sorry the height is not higher uh than rm1 so the intent here was to enable uh the density contemplated in rm uh two to be realized without variances um and it seemed to us that you know 15 meters perhaps is too high but uh 13 meters would be uh more reasonable uh so so that that was the the purpose of of that particular change so um as a follow-up then um after i looked at that i looked at the zoning map and i see that most of the designated rm2 zones our locations of if my geographic knowledge of the town is correct uh are actually apartment buildings that exist already um and that presumably they conform to the the original height restrict requirements which is nine meters so my question is if we were to pass this change and include the language to increase the height could the owners of those buildings that are already in place make their buildings higher without having to go to go through a public process um so the answer is it depends uh if if the building is structurally sound for for an addition to be made to it that's one thing that would need to be checked and confirmed um if there's no variances required no other variances required uh you know for with the current bylaw then then it wouldn't be necessary to be going to council uh it could be that it's just comply with count the council's current development permit guidelines and and that means then it could be if the council proceeds with the development procedures by law could be dealt with administratively much like a building permit and it's part of that experience sorry go ahead you'll go ahead and finish your thoughts you know we'd be doing a thorough review of all the zoning aspects involved like is there sufficient parking and so forth so if there's a variance any variance involved that that is required that it would be back to council and in the public process okay i i guess it might be a moot point in the sense that maybe there's not going to be a lot of uptake on that but i do think that that's a fairly significant change in the height and depending on where the building's located that that could certainly have a create some some opinion um in whatever area of town that's in so i'm not sure that i want to remove the ability for the public to have input or maybe i'm seeking some guidance on how we might deal with the fact that some of those changes if they did not come before council would still provoke quite a public reaction so if i may um there's there's two things to to um advise on this first when the uh public hearing notice goes out for the new zoning bylaw um we we will attempt to summarize uh you know the the range of changes especially the ones that are more uh salient or or or insignificant uh so in that description we would make a specific note of of the change to of the height in the rm1 zone or the rm2 zone so so public will be advised and have ability in general to speak about that change to the zoning bylaw um second you know council sets its guidelines for for development permits for multi-family through its development permit guidelines and and the public have the ability to you know review those and and comment about those as well at this point in addition to that if the in the downtown uh the city core there are um there's a height um a height concept sold framework so you know the any application down there would need to comply with that that's as set out in the new official community plan as well so that there's it's not that the public won't have any opportunity um but it would be focused during this particular period of time with the the adoption the public hearing and adoption process for the bylaws okay um so then maybe my third question and then i'll uh i'll i'll give up the uh space to others who may have other questions so if if clearly the third recommendation is that we're going to go to a public consultation and i've often said and i believe that we need to make sure that that consultation is a real and robust opportunity for residents to speak up and i i know that you are you're acknowledging that here and if they want that public consultation i would assume could produce changes in the bylaw before the final approval so the question then is [Music] and this is my own inexperience i guess if we go to public consultation and discover that there is a particular point or a number of points where there is there's um a real pushback from the public what is the process then since we're we would be between third reading and fourth reading um what is the process for um responding in practice to the concerns that get raised okay so uh if after the public hearing um and if you just if you determine during that process that there is significant pushback on on an aspect of the bylaw council has the ability to uh make the change at third reading whether or not that precipitates a new bylaw i'm sorry a new public hearing depends may depend on on the the nature of the change the the advice that i've had in the past and that is if if it's a change in use or if it's a chain an increase in density then you probably have to go back to public hearing if it's not an increase in density um and if it's some other aspect a more minor aspect you you may not necessarily need to go back to public hearing but we would need to to look at the you know the specific change and then advise council as to whether or not we'd be going back to uh to a public hearing or not okay thank you it's barry here so my understanding is on rm2 that we're restricted to the number of units per hectare i think it is of 70 something now uh by this increase in height you're almost adding an extra floor to the unit i think that uh our that so our density would still stay the same and where they'd have to to uh go before uh uh you know i i can't see the density changing at all the density will not be changing will not be changing uh nor the set back uh so everything remains the same uh but you know we we think that the nine meters is artificially low for the density of the zone uh so that's why we're basically suggesting to increase it by about a floor a story okay yeah i know that that makes sense i was just concerned a little bit about the density but if the density is staying the same then then it's not a problem and yeah we don't have any rm2 in residential areas that i know of so it wouldn't shouldn't impact anyone else thank you other comments from council [Music] okay so perhaps we'll put the recommendation on the floor so the recommendations that council accept by resolution to include the recommended amendments to the official community plan bylaw number three four six zero as reflected in an attached report and that council accept by resolution to include the recommended amendments to the zoning bylaw number 3462 as reflected in the attached report and that council direct staff and i plan limited to proceed to public hearing following guidelines and recommendations set out by public provincial health orders so move by move my council around how a second to buy niche niche okay further discussions yep i i just want to commend uh staff and uh and i plan on the work on this file i know it's not easy when we ask for parking to be included halfway through the process but i think we all saw that particularly with our downtown incentive uh package that parking could potentially be a big potential hiccup so um i am really happy to see a lot of these changes uh specific to parking whether or not that's relaxing some of the requirements or even for me the one thing i don't think that a lot of people realize but even just changing some of the metrics from you know gross floor area to the number of seats in a restaurant for example that's much more indicative of the type of parking that we need so um and i think reducing the number of spaces per square foot for retail is going to be um a helpful change as well so with all that said i think we're we're addressing an issue here that has we've heard consistently from the small business community and and i'm excited to see that this new policy will hopefully pay some dividends and i'm really looking forward to moving it to public hearing to get feedback 80. yeah i mean i would echo the the the um commendation in terms of the the scope and the detail and the quality of the work that's been been done it's uh when you look at the package um on math it you know there's just a whole lot of really i think forward looking concepts in there so i'm i'm very supportive of it and i'm i would hope that the public process that follows will allow the public access to also appreciate the the scope and the comprehensiveness of the plan um i guess the the only question i have then around that though is given that we're under some limitations because of the covet um what then do we know about what that public consultation process will look like at the moment um if i may um mr mayor the we think that the public process on the ocp part has been robust and comprehensive um but we do think that you know and and there's only violence where uh perhaps we should be doing a little bit more before we get to public hearing it has been uh put up on the website um i i think that we we could uh together with staff to determine you know how else we can push this information out for additional public comment so you know we'll we'll look at at that and report back on you know what what is decided if that's acceptable yeah and i think i'll just comment too i think ideally obviously given the current orders i think you know one will have to see how things play out here in february but i know that the previous phase before this current order was in place that we were allowed up to 50 people uh in a place and i remember that our plan was to potentially use the civic center to accommodate up to 50 people in space area to try to do the public hearing i think ideally council would be in favor of doing something like that to make sure that people can physically show up to comment on this i do agree that i think that was only bylaw in particular probably needs another layer of communication and explanation to the public potentially before the public hearing so that that information is is available whether it's an information session or something to that effect i agree that the ocp part was you know through redesign through the um you know the planning initiative that we did in 2019 you know you know thousands of touch points surveys we did the in-person meetings uh in september here with community reps i think there's been a lot of engagement there but yes i think that uh you're correct um mr buckin about the zonibala but it may be that that might take a little bit of time too so ideally in my in my view i'd really like to be able to try to see if we can do the 50-person thing in the civic center to make sure that people can show up and actually voice themselves i'm not too keen on doing a zoom public hearing even though yes we technically could do it that way so perhaps maybe throughout the month of february we can play it out by ear to see where the regulations are going to go given the status of of the pandemic but i think i speak for council when we're all kind of wanting to ensure that this gets the attention it needs and deserves and that people have the opportunity to comment so uh i don't know how much of a rush we're in to have this all fully completed but in the meantime obviously we should start with the zoning bylaw engagement just get some more information out there and then maybe play it out by ear and then maybe report back to council sometime in one of our february meetings to see how the public hearing is going to play out would that be a fair assessment mr buckin yes that sounds quite reasonable to me so i will we'll follow up and um and and see you know what we can do in terms of online and and look towards the possibility of having at least a pre-public hearing civic center event okay other comments from council okay hearing none is there anybody opposed motions carried okay thank you for that uh next we're moving on to the developmental uh approval information bylaw off to you again there mr buckin thank you mr mayor this bylaw has been previously discussed with council and this we've we've reworked the the current development approval by law with the view to making uh it's more efficient more i i guess more but more of an incursion for developers through through more uh more timely permit processing uh through clarity um oh sorry did you say development approval uh development approval information by law is the first one number three four six eight thank you very much here i am gabrielle about the wrong bylaws well i apologize if i was not clear on the item agenda but yeah it's number three four six eight uh approval information bylaw and then the next one's the development procedures by law number three four six nine thank you my my mistake if you wanna speak to both of them at the same time go ahead i i won't do that because there there's something of a of different um tools so the development approval information by law is is really uh the way that you ask it's the biology you have to have in place to be able to legitimately ask uh developers for supporting reports uh you know if if you don't have this in place uh it's there there could be some question about the legitimacy of a request for a traffic impact study uh for example you know the the province has laid out a process to set a by-law in place for asking for development approval information um and so in order to be able to establish the process and the procedure for that uh the local government act requires a biological established it also requires the official committee plan to address development approval information as well so we we have included development approval information in the draft official community plan this bylaw is what you need in order to comply with the legislation for for when you want to have additional information provided just because you have a byline place doesn't mean that you ask for the information it should be you know a good reason for wanting to have a traffic impact study for example you know if there's an application that doesn't really change density significantly and we wouldn't recently uh question uh you know traffic impact we we probably wouldn't ask for that information the bylaw sets out who can ask for it uh and it it so it's basically it's a process oriented uh bylaw that allows uh council and and staff to some staff to uh request this information okay uh so the recommendation that council give first second and third readings to the development um procedures by law number three four six eight twenty twenty one so move by counselor randall seconded by counselor 80. so discussion comments questions i have a question mr meredith councilman that's all right go ahead mr buckingham you just did a good description there of you know who's equipped to to to ask for these types of information and the types of information that we can require for specific development i'm wondering if you can just comment a little bit obviously there's you know huge differences in scope and scale of you know different zoning amendments and development permits can you talk a little bit about what the threshold to trigger this type of development information would be is it specific types of projects is it specific dollar values on projects um can you can you give a little bit more context to that please yes i'll try there is no quantitative threshold this would be more of a qualitative assessment and it could happen in a number of ways um you know what what would typically happen though is if an application came in um and and we go through the process of discussing the application with the relevant uh departments if we were aware of of an issue with traffic road capacity downstream um or or you know big you know i guess delays at a traffic light or if we were aware of uh you know that a significant amount of new traffic that was to be generated by a project we may ask uh for a transportation impact study we may ask for it if if howie's wants it as well uh so so that that gives us it puts us in a very legitimate way of asking for that if highways wants it um it also puts us in a position of being able to ask for it if there is considerable public interest and question about traffic so it's a way of addressing public concern uh similarly with local infrastructure if staff are aware of servicing issues and we and we you know have a question about capacity this allows us to have them engage a civil engineer to address you know a capacity issue and if if there's a a reasonable question about natural environments or hazardous conditions you know the geotechnical assessment may be required again it comes down to um you know reasoned assessment as to whether or not we need additional information and so that occurs at a staff level it can occur when it goes to council and it can occur with public input you know even though staff may not think it's necessary if there's a significant public uh um concern expressed it puts the municipality the city in the position of being able to ask the developer to to do that uh and and that would probably be in the developer's interest if there is unresolved question and concern about an application in that regard i i completely agree with you on that front yeah thank you very much for providing that context um my only follow-up is just so let's say um this bylaws triggered staff requests additional information i'm looking specifically now at section 4.2 it's just around um that the city can require essentially a peer review of any of the reports that are submitted at the applicant's expense and so what i just want clarity on is basically you've said if the initial report does not meet satisfaction and standard guideline policy or the bylaw um but you've also done a pretty good job of putting the qualified professionals let's use the traffic study as an example because you mentioned that one so an applicant goes out the city requires a detailed transportation study or traffic study they some the applicant goes out hires a traffic engineer and for some reason um even though that's you know they're qualified they've got their their um engineering degree and they develop a report if i understand this correctly the city could go back and say the report that you submitted uh doesn't meet the standards within this bylaw therefore we're going to go out and hire our own like a separate and distinct traffic engineer to give us our own report and it's going to be at your expense am i reading that correctly or is it essentially that we would be sending the report back to the applicant's uh consultant to basically revise their report for the city's uh or to address the city's concerns well the the the bylaw contemplates that that uh it it would be a peer review so that that's not necessarily a brand new assessment that's that that could be uh one one consultant qualified consultant looking at the methodology and the assumptions and the and the work of the report and then commenting on whether or not it's it you know it's it meets industry standard is is it's acceptable um and to go to that uh step there would need to be you know good reason to do that uh a good reason could be a review by the city staff uh and and seeing that you know some some issues potential issues or having some significant uh you know challenge to what's being done um and rather than staff having to to be the the arbiter of that um and and it's it's sent out to basically a third party but but it's done in a way that that that third-party uh qualified third party is is agreed to by both the applicant and and the city so if this this would be an i think a rare and exceptional action um it could be that that you you get members of the public that are reading it and asking challenging it because sometimes you get members of the public that have you know significant knowledge and they're able to read those reports in detail and and you know raise questions about methodology and so this this allows us to get past an impasse or at least a way forward to try to get past an impasse that answers my question yeah i'm always just i recognize that this would likely well hardly if ever be be triggered i just i'm always the kind of person that approaches things where you want to hope for the best but you want to plan for the worst so you have answered my question if it's mutually agreeable then i think you're right that'll overcome an impasse so um with those two questions answered all i would say is again great work on this file this is something that i think has has become top of mind for us particularly in the height of all of the uh liquefied natural gas speculation where there was a number of speculative proposals that it was incredibly difficult for the city to really to weigh or judge effectively without having enough information at our fingertips so i i think this is a great step forward and again great work thanks very much we thank you other comments about this from council okay hearing none anybody opposed motions carried okay we'll move on to the development procedures bylaw number three four six nine twenty twenty one okay mr mayor um this i've already spoke a little bit about this one so i'll try to be brief um this bylaw um it proposes to replace the the current development procedures by law um and the spirit uh the intent behind this is to make developments uh processing more ex expeditious more efficient um and to improve timelines um and also part of the the intent here is to be able to enable referrals to go earlier and public consultation to proceed more quickly there is an additional section in this bylaw compared to the current one in terms of that we've laid out a number of uh flow charts that provide a visual of the pro the main steps in the process uh including some important statutory uh considerations another major aspect to this bylaw is the delegation of development all development permits except for those with variances that are required and the the logic behind that that is it is the delegation for uh fully compliant development permit guidelines um will provide the past or service but it also um meets the the spirit of of the legislation where if if an application complies with the guidelines it has to be approved even if the city said no an application the applicant could bring it to court and a judge uh can issue the permit and that has been done the city of district assange's was the first place that was done so it's it's intended to be an administrative technical assessment for compliance uh so for those that comply you know they would they would have the benefit of an expeditious uh process i think that's the main changes that we've addressed in this by-law we put a little bit of clarification about scale of application and and the sk the scale of consultation so minor applications wouldn't requires as much consultation and consultation effort from applicants we're happy to answer any questions if there are any the only comment i'll make on this and what i think will be a good change is that is the opportunity to send applications right off the bat to a public consultation i think we've had a lot of developments that have you know people start to hear about them before it even comes to council's agenda usually we do a couple readings first and then it goes to an information session and the public has no opportunity yet to even hear or see the about the development so i think on the discretion of the planner being able to say look you know what go out engage the community about what you want to do i think that's a great change to the to the procedure by law agreed other comments from council councillor 80 here i'm looking at the flow charts um section five there um i i think i think you know they're really useful and and i think that it really sort of helps clarify a lot of things i i do have a question and again maybe it's my own ignorance but could you clarify clarify for me the difference between the um the process for developing development permits with a variance which appears on the right-hand side of the first page compared to the process for development variance permits and the reason i ask is that i note that there is a difference there in terms of the commitment to notification of the public uh yes it's there's a difference there um and the other main difference is if if if it has a variance uh there's a report that'll go to cal uh the committee the whole or to council depending on on what's recommended at the time so if the development of the variance is the council process uh because of the variance uh that and without the variance it's just done by staff and it can be done more quickly because obviously there's no staff report that that done up to council and and the time waiting for that so it's it's more more efficient in that way and in either of those there's no there's no public uh process for uh development permits um then that's then that's by legislation basically okay thank you any other questions or comments okay hearing none anybody opposed motions carried thank you mr buck and that's been some great work lots of uh heavy lifting there for this council and we really appreciate uh all the time you and your son have put into uh and to helping the community move forward so we'll be seeing you soon at the next meeting terrific okay moving on uh any reports or questions uh from uh members of council did i hear somebody there yeah do you have any update on airport anything people keep on asking on the airport yeah like airlines like anything so you have any update on that can let people know please do we have any the the only thing we've had is from what the notice we received from last week or the week before and i know that we're working with the chamber right now and they're conducting the survey and we've been in contact with our airport manager who's working with the airlines and talking to the federal government about the airline so and once there's an update we'll definitely notify the community thank you other questions or reports from council yeah council ready um it's been kind of an up and down week i suppose for a month for the city that's been excuse me some good news and some bad news the bad news being i think uh the airport and the um what appears to be an uptick in covet cases on the other hand there's been the good news of a commitment from the provincial government to support the port expansion to the tune of i think 25 million dollars there is a good and bad on on the support for the port i think that more of comment really it sort of renews the need to undertake ways to ensure that the housing supply that prince rupert can offer can support the expansion that arises as a result of the port expanding i just think that you know at all levels of government we need to really see those things in lockstep that you know you can't have uh an expansion on one hand and not address what that implies on the uh on the issue of housing i i offer that just as a comment no it's that's a great point and uh we did a good portion of uh our our part tonight by passing that development uh procedure or the the tax incentive by law so that we can start moving forward with um development in the downtown particularly with multi-family so and we put a large update out to the community on housing i don't have that in front of me at this moment otherwise we go through some of the projects that we're doing and maybe i'll do that for the next council meeting but housing is number one for sure hands down and child care on top of that as well so those two particular issues go hand in hand to be able to expand the community and i think this year we're going to see a lot of traction on the housing front so those are very good points council 80. other reports or questions from members of council okay hearing none i'd entertain a motion to adjourn thank you very much everyone you guys have a great evening thanks everybody good night good everyone