►
From YouTube: Plan Commission Meeting 5-12-2021
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
B
C
Okay,
I
think
the
first
order
of
business
says
a
motion
to
suspend
the
rules
to
allow
the
meeting
to
be
conducted
via
zoom.
I
have
a
motion
from
someone.
B
A
F
C
All
right
next
would
be
approval
of
the
mid
april
minutes,
but
I
understand
those
will
be
provided
for
the
next
meeting.
A
C
Okay,
great
and
then
under
new
business.
We
have
changes
to
the
plan,
commission,
administrative
rules
and
procedures.
So
ms
jones,
would
you
like
to
kind
of
should
be
fairly
simple,
but
would
you
like
to
kind
of
walk
us
through.
A
Sure
so
I
don't
have
a
presentation,
but
I
will
share
my
screen
because
I'll
pull
up
the
rules
and
procedures
themselves.
A
Okay,
so
first
I
want
to.
I
don't
know:
if
anyone
looked
at
these
side
by
side,
there
is
a
page
difference,
and
that
is
because
I
immediately
went
in
and
changed
the
margins.
There's
a
lot
of
available
space
on
each
of
the
pages.
So
there
there
was
not
substantive
anything
taken
out
just
simply
a
matter
of
changing
the
margin.
So
it's
a
about
a
page
and
a
half
or
two
pages
shorter.
So
that's.
A
Of
your
business
they're
for
that
just
to
briefly
walk
through
what's
proposed,
there
are
some
general
minor
grammatical,
edits
and
edits,
such
as.
What's
on
the
first
page,
with
deleting
some
of
the
past
dates,
the
two
items
that
you
may
want
to
discuss
a
little
bit
further
were
one
of
the
items
that
was
brought
up
for
discussion
at
the
previous
meeting
regarding
implementing
a
vote
to
continue
to
conduct
business
past
11
p.m.
A
This
was
discussed
briefly
at
the
last
meeting
and
it
seemed
like
there
was
a
general
consensus
that
this
would
be
a
good
idea
to
add
into
the
rules.
So
generally
would
just
be
once
we
see
the
time
getting
close
to
11.
We
pause
and
majority
of
the
members
vote
either
way
to
continue
business
or
to
for
that
evening
or
to
continue
the
business
to
a
separate
date.
That
would
be
a
majority
vote.
A
So
that
is
the
first
item
and
we've
got
a
changing
of
some
of
the
lettering
here,
and
the
next
item
that
is
proposed
was
to,
if
needed,
stated
here
to
combine
the
public
question
questioning
of
the
petitioner
and
the
public
testimony.
This
isn't
deleting
either
one
it's
just
essentially
combining
those
two.
If,
for
whatever
reason
the
chair
thinks
this
may
be
something
that
we
want
to
do.
A
If
there's
only
one
or
two
people
who
have
something
to
say,
and
one
has
a
question,
one
has
a
comment:
you
can
combine
the
two
or
if
there
are
a
number
of
people
who
wish
to
speak
or
ask
questions
regarding
an
item,
this
could
be
something
that
is
combined
just
noticing
a
lot
of
the
past
meetings
this
from
time
to
time.
Time,
depending
on
the
item
is
already
done,
especially
if
it's
something
that's
got
a
lighter
audience,
but
also
for
instances
where
we
have
a
lot
of
people.
A
D
D
You
know
they
don't
come
to
these
meetings,
understanding
that
and
we
we've
we've
gotten
into
so
much.
You
know
regulation
we're!
Oh
sorry,
that
is
that
a
question
or
is
that
a
comment,
or
you
know
it
just
seems
so
awkward
to
me.
I
just
wondered:
why
was
it?
Why
is
it
that
way
now?
Why
is
it
separated?
Was
there
a
good
reason
for
doing
that.
A
You
know
I
wish
I
could
say
for
certain
these
have
been
in
place
for
some
time.
I
think
it
was
more
so
trying
to
make
things
as
formal
the
process
as
possible
for
public
hearing
and
make
it
very
clear
where
the
delineation
was
again.
I
think
over
time,
there's
probably
been
a
blurring
of
that
line
and
seeing
as
how
often
times
testimony
comes
immediately
following
the
questions.
B
C
C
You
know
because
because
really
it's
it's
it's
an
opportunity
for
the
public
to
actually
ask
questions
about
the
proposal,
and
you
know,
and
and
I
agree
it's-
it
gets
awkward
when
they.
You
know
when
the.
D
I
just
wonder
if,
if
you
know
how
we
how
we
determine
what
which
meetings
to
to
separate
them
and
which
meetings
to
combine
the
questions
and
the
comments?
Why
don't?
What's
the?
What
would
be
the
reason
for
doing
one
or
the
other.
A
That
that
can
be
difficult
to
say
for
certain,
because
in
thinking
of
how
this
goes,
I
can
think
of
instances
where,
during
a
text
amendment,
for
example,
you
may
have
one
or
two
people
who
are
there
and
it's
a
relatively
quick
process,
but
combining
the
two
maybe
made
sense
just
to
move
things
along.
A
A
D
We
could
we
add
that
to
the
sign
up
and
may
maybe
it
is
already.
I
don't
think
so,
but
is
it
already
that
they
have
to
sign
up
and
they
say
I
have
a
question
or
a
comment
or
both.
A
E
E
I
mean
my
feeling
on
this
really
is
I
mean
when
I
was
on
zba?
We
didn't.
We
didn't
separate
and
differentiate
the
two.
There
was
no
problem
in
that
people
could
either
comment
on
it
or
question
on
it.
We
didn't
have
a
lot
of
confusion
about
that.
I
think
if
we
start
saying
that-
and
sometimes
it
will
be
a
question
and
comment
separation
and
sometimes
it
will
be
combined.
E
E
D
Yeah,
I'm
I'm
with
matt.
I
I
totally
agree
with
what
what
what
you
just
said.
C
E
E
We
did
we
didn't
we
didn't
limit
people
speaking,
I
politely
would
move
them
along
when
they
got
long-winded,
but
I
mean
you
know
I
would
right
now
with
with
people
moving
back
and
forth.
I
would
much
rather
say
you
get
three
minutes
to
come
up
and
ask
questions
comments
do
whatever,
but
it's
that
one
time
frame
that
you
have
to
do
it
and
it's
it's
not.
You
know
two
minutes
here.
If
you're
part
of
a
committee
or
part
of
a
group,
it's
five
minutes
there.
E
D
B
B
I
guess
the
timeline,
I
think,
is
a
good
question.
If
you
combine
it,
should
we
get
rid
of
a
time
limit
or
it's
three
minutes
make
sense.
I
mean
I
really
feel
like
you
could
say
anything
you
wanted
in
three
minutes
and
it
should
be
adequate.
C
Well,
we've
got
two
minutes
and
I
mean
I
yeah.
I
think
that
it
you
know,
since
this
is
kind
of
an
optional
sort
of
process,
we
could
keep
the
two
minutes
and
say
you
know
if
you
have
a
you
know,
question
ask
your
question:
we'll
get
the
answer
and
then
you
know,
but
you
basically
only
have
two
minutes
to
comment
to
make
it.
D
D
I
I
personally
don't
like
the
optional
part,
because
I'm
not
sure
how
we
even
make
that
decision.
B
Yeah,
I
was
thinking
it'd,
be,
maybe
it'd
be
like
how
each
chair
would
take
it
over.
You
know
if
you,
if
you
feel
like
it's
important,
then
the
chair
does
it
every
time,
and
maybe
the
next
chair
doesn't
want
to
do
it
that
way
or
something
along
those
lines,
but
I
agree,
the
ambiguity
is
confusing
to
be
like.
I
think
this
is
a
decision
where
we
should
combine
them.
Let's
have
a
vote.
A
A
Right,
it
does
really
boil
down
to
the
enforcement
aspect
and
then-
and
another
option
could
be
possibly
thinking
about
how
council
does
it
and
have
a
very
specific
set
aside
time
for
public
questions
and
comment.
So
regardless
it's
45
minutes
for
the
public
to
come,
and,
however
many
people
to
say
their
piece
and
depending
on
how
many
people
we
have,
they
may
get
a
minute
or
they
may
get
two
minutes
or
three
minutes
depending
on.
A
C
You
know,
and
you
know
which
is
different
than
what
the
the
citizen
comment
is
at
the
city
council
meetings
I
can
see.
You
know.
I
think,
that
for
plan
development
applications
where
there
is
an
applicant-
and
there
may
be
questions-
you
know
you
you,
you
know
there
is
some
utility
in
having
people,
ask
their
questions
first
and
getting
answers,
but
for
something
like
a
text
amendment.
C
I
think
that
combining
you
know
certainly
makes
more
sense,
because
you
know
there's,
there's
not
really
a
petitioner
other
than
usually
the
city
and
city
staff
to
question.
D
D
F
C
You
ask
questions
first
and
then
after
you've
gotten
you
know
and
and
there's
some
advantage
of
having
the
questions
grouped
together.
So
you
don't
go,
you
know
five
speak.
You
know
somebody
has
a
question,
then
you
go
five
more
speakers
and
somebody
else
has
another
question.
So
in
that
respect
I
think
it's.
C
So
I
don't
know
if
we
have
anybody
who
can
weigh
in
on
the
kind
of
the
rationale
as
to
why.
F
I
mean
I
think
you
can
go
either
way.
I
do
think
that
you
just
have
to
make
it
clear
to
the
public.
What's
expected,
we'll
always
have
people
who
will
blow
through
time
limits.
I
do
think
it's
important
to
have
the
time
limits,
but
I
could
see
you
know.
Maybe
you
do
group
the
questions
and
the
comments
together,
and
at
least
you
don't
have
this
constant
juggling
back
and
forth,
which
does
take
time,
but
I
do
think
you
need
time
limits
for
anyone.
Who's
speaking.
C
D
I
think
I
don't
know
if
we
could.
We
could
do
this
as
a
trial,
but
I
believe
that
if
we
combine
the
questions
and
comments
these
these,
these
meetings
will
move
along,
move
along
and
and
a
time
limit.
I
think
they
will
move
along
faster.
I
just
well.
C
You
know
if
we
adopt
the
the
you
know,
the
proposal
as
staff
is
is
suggesting
we
certainly
I'm
certainly
happy
to
you
know,
try
that,
but
for
the
next
couple
of
hearings
and
we
can
see
how
we
like
it
and
then
we
can.
You
know
if
we
don't
like
that
approach,
we
can
go
back
to
the
you
know
the
questions
and
the
you
know
and
the
and
the
comments
separated.
You
know
I'm
pretty
new
to
this.
This
whole
commission
thing,
so
I
don't
have
a
strong
preference
one
way
or
the.
D
Other
well,
then,
maybe
I'd
I'd
like
to
move
that
we
on
on
a
well,
I
don't
know
on
a
trial
basis.
We
we
combine
the
questions
and
the
comments
and
we
limit.
We
limit
the
speaking
to
two
minutes
like
it
is,
and
we
we
try
that
out,
see
see
how
it
goes
and
if
there's
problems,
then
we
can
revisit
it.
E
E
A
E
C
E
I
think
I
think
the
way
that
the
best
that
would
best
handle
it
would
be
to
let
them
ask
their
questions
in
their
two
minute
period
and
then
turn
it
over
to
the
petitioner
to
respond
to
that
and
not
make
that
part
of
their
two
minutes
where
you're
going
back
and
forth
and
then
you're
always
like
okay,
well,
that
took
30
seconds.
Let's
grant
them
30
seconds.
C
A
C
A
E
I
heard
someone
else
start
to
speak
and
I
didn't
want
to
interrupt
somebody
else
if
they
were
speaking
so
I
feel
it's
a
little
odd
to
hold
a
vote
in
the
middle
of
the
meeting
about
whether
we're
going
to
continue
on
with
something
traditionally
the
way
we
we
had
addressed
it
at
zba
was
that
any
any
new
case
that
had
we
had
not
started
hearing
after
10
o'clock
was
not
heard
that
night.
E
So
I
would
rather,
we
look
sort
of
at
how
zba
has
handled
this
with
setting
a
time
for
any
cases
that
have
not
been
begun
by
said
time
will
automatically
be
continued
by
the
chair
at
that
time.
But
then,
when
we
hit
that
11
o'clock
witching
hour,
we
sort
of
take
a
feel
for
where
we
are
but
not
be
mandated
to
tie
into
a
vote.
E
But
instead
somebody
could
say
it
looks
like
we're
going
to
be
here
for
another
hour
or
two.
Let's
continue
this
or
someone
can
say
it
looks
like
we're
kind
of
wrapping
up
here.
We
don't
have
to
interrupt
things
with
a
vote
to
continue
meeting.
So
let's
just
go
ahead
and
keep
running
with
things.
C
I
think
this
this
recommendation
kind
of
grew
out
of
a
hearing
that
started
at
what
seven
or
six.
I
don't
even
remember,
but
you
know
at
11
and
midnight
we
were
still
hearing
that
same
case,
so
we
often
will
have
the
planned
development
cases
tend
to
run
pretty
long.
So
I
think
that
the
you
know
the
stopping
you
know
it.
C
D
The
only
the
only
concern
I
have
about
that
taking
a
vote
is
that
it's
it's
subjective
and
and
if
we
do
it
for
if
we
stop
it
for
one
party
and
continue
it
for
another,
you
know-
and
maybe
I'm
just
tired
that
day,
so
I
vote
to
stop
it.
You
know
it
just
becomes
very.
I
think
we
could
be
accused
of
being
favorites
or
not
favorites
toward
something
I
don't
know
do.
F
I
mean
I
would
tend
to
argue
for
that,
although
I
guess
it
depends
on
whether
that
works
for
the
city
of
the
staff
and
whether
that's
good
for
for
what
the
city
is
looking
at
in
terms
of
transparency.
But
there
is
a
point
in
which
at
11
o'clock,
after
five
hours
on
a
zoom
call
or
even
in
person,
you
know
I,
your
your
ability
to
really
come
up
with
coherent
statements
is
somewhat
limited.
D
D
And
I,
and
I
think
saying,
11
o'clock
doesn't
preclude
the
the
option
of
continuing,
but
I'd
rather
have
it
that
way
than
then,
because
everybody
understands
it's
11
o'clock,
that's
a
reasonable
time.
Let's
get
it
done
and
move
on.
So
I
guess.
B
F
B
E
E
B
E
E
We
should
feel
the
sense
of
urgency
at
seven
o'clock,
not
at
10
45.
C
Yeah
and
perhaps
the
you
know,
the
notion
of
combining
the
the
you
know,
comments
and
questions
may
help,
rather
than
than
stopping
the
meeting
at
11,
because
one
of
the
issues
is
whether
or
not
we're
fresh
enough
to
deliberate
properly.
So
you
may
want
to
end
public
comment
at
10
and
the
meeting
at
11.
E
The
other
concern
that
I
would
have
is
in
terms
of
if
we
don't
get
through
business
on
a
certain
meeting,
are
we
pushing
people
back
another
month.
F
E
And,
and
so
so
that
becomes
problematic,
then
you
know
with
zba:
we
met
twice
a
month,
so
we
were
pushing
people
back,
maybe
two
weeks,
but
we
weren't
pushing
people
back
a
month
and
those
were
a
lot
of
smaller
projects
where
you
weren't
coordinating
a
team.
You
know
if
I'm
putting
in
an
air
conditioning
condenser
I've
got
basically
maybe
one
or
two
people,
I'm
coordinating,
but
if
I'm
building
a
17-story
building,
I've
got
a
whole
team
that
I'm
pushing
back
a
month
each
time
yeah,
maybe.
C
That's
a
concern
that
I
have
maybe
instead
of
wording
it
the
way
it's
worded
it's.
You
know
that
the
commission
will
end
deliberations
at
11
o'clock
unless
we
vote
to
continue
so.
C
F
C
A
So
question
regarding
that
this
would
essentially
be
assuming
that
it's
just
that
larger
item
on
the
agenda,
so
it
would
be
this.
It
seems
like
we're,
assuming
that
the
meeting
for
that
particular
item
or
maybe
any
particular
item,
starts
exactly
at
seven
and
that
there
aren't
multiple
things
on
that
agenda,
which
could
change
the
start
time
from
seven
to
say
eight
on
occasion.
So
that
might
be
something
else
to
consider
as
well
or
maybe
you've.
B
A
We
try
to
especially
if
it's
a
larger
project
that's
being
introduced.
We
try
to
kind
of
keep
that
by
itself.
I
know,
there's
been
a
lot
going
on
so
there's
been
occasions
where
there's
multiple
things
on
the
agenda
and
we
have
been
meeting
more
often
because
of
this
it's
it
could
be
the
case
where
we
try
to
set
out
to
have
if
it
is
a
larger
development
or
something
that
we
think
might
need
a
lot
of
time,
that
that
be
the
main
item
on
the
agenda
that
that
be
heard.
First,.
A
We
actually
do
not,
because
we
typically
don't
have
that
many
items
that
need
to
be
on
the
agenda
the
amount
of
times
I
think
you've
had,
like
maybe
four
items,
maybe
a
handful
of
times.
It's
typically
like
maybe
two
or
three
items.
E
Because
that
may
be
another
way
to
sort
of
manage
the
time
is
that
you
know
if
we
know
it's
going
to
be
a
huge
controversial
project
that
we
don't
have
multiple
things
on
the
agenda
that
evening,
and
so
that
sets
an
expectation
with
people
who
are
coming,
because
I
really
hate
for
people
to
come
and
sit
and
wait
and
then
all
of
a
sudden
be
told.
Oh
you've
got
to
come
back
and
do
the
whole
thing
again.
Next
time.
E
E
A
E
A
Been
a
number
of
things
that
were
quote
unquote:
emergencies
are
kind
of
fast-tracked
right,
but
typically
we
like
to
if
it's
a
large
development,
say
or
text
movement.
That's
got
a
lot
of
moving
pieces.
We
try
to
give
that
its
own
thing
unless
there's
just
some
extra
business
like
approving
the
calendar
for
the
next
year
or
something
really
small
right,
yeah.
F
C
Just
fyi
yes,
not
on
our
agenda
for
tonight,
but
yeah.
I
think
the
other
thing
we
we
just
you
know
and
besides
being
cognizant
of
the
the
time
limits
for
for
comment
and
questions,
there's
also
we
do
have
it
in
the
rules.
I
think
that
the
the
applicant's
supposed
to
be
limited
to
20
minutes
for
their
presentation.
C
C
D
C
D
A
Yeah
we
try
to
set
that
expectation
and
say
15
20
minutes
if
you
can
make
it
shorter
than
that.
Wonderful,
but
again,
once
people
start
talking
and
giving
information
and
passing
the
the
mic
to
other
members
of
the
team,
they.
C
C
Where
we're
asking
questions,
so
I
mean
there's
there's
for
a
controversial
item.
I
don't
see
that
you
can
do
it
in
much
less
than
three
or
four
hours
it.
Just
that's
just
the
nature
of
the
of
the
of
the
beast,
I'm
afraid
you
know,
because
you've
gotta,
you
know
again
we're
building
the
public
record
for
the
city
council.
So
we
really,
you
know
we're
the
ones
who
kind
of
have
to
err
on
the
side
of
letting
the
public
and
the
applicant
make
their
cases.
F
I
think
managing
that
time
is
critical,
as
you
say,
and-
and
you
know
at
a
certain
point
it.
It
also
seems
as
if
we
get
to
the
end
of
the
evening
and
we're
our
deliberations
are
about
five
minutes.
That's
what
we
get.
You
know
five
minutes
for
all
commissioners
to
speak
and
frankly,
I'd
like
to
have
a
little
more
time
to
hear
from
people
on
the
commission
and
understand
their
perspectives
before
we
come
to
an
agreement.
So
I
think
that's
kind
of
key
to
give
us
some
time
on
that.
C
Oh,
if
I
can
remember
it,
I
believe
it's
the
deliberate.
The
commission
meeting
will
end
at
11
p.m
unless
extended
by
the
majority
majority
vote
of
the
commissioners.
C
D
D
Can
we
just
add
to
that
that
that
the
presentation
will
end
at
I
don't
know,
pick
a
time,
10
30.,
because
that
can
be
extended
too
I
mean
so.
The
extension
part
applies
to
presentation
at
an
end
at
10,
30
and
the
the
whole
thing
ends
at
11..
Does
that
make
sense.
D
Yeah
yeah
public
comment,
questions
yeah
ends
at
10,
30.,
I'm
just
adding
adding
to
gene's
the
you
know
proposed
language.
D
E
F
F
C
C
C
E
I
would
just
like
to
make
a
request
to
staff
that
we
look
at
how
all
of
our
our
land
use
since
that's
what
you
have
control
over
commissions
and
boards
work
and
trying
to
bring
us
into
some
form
of
alignment
in
terms
of
our
rules
and
regulations,
our
administrative
rules,
because
they
seem
to
be
kind
of
all
over
the
place.
E
I
would
also
like
to
make
a
recommendation
that
we
begin
our
meetings
with
an
explanation
as
to
the
process
to
inform
the
public
at
that
time
as
to
how
the
meeting
will
be
run,
because
I
think
a
lot
of
things
are
are
kind
of
catch
people
off
guard.
E
So
I
think,
if
there's
a
comment
up
front,
I
used
to
have
a
little
speech
that
I
gave
that
said:
here's
our
procedure,
here's
what
you
do
you
get
this
is
this
is
how
it's
going
to
work
and
it
kind
of
moves
people
through.
So
they
have
an
expectation
so
that
we
aren't
constantly
stopping
a
meeting
to
explain
to
people.
Oh,
you
only
got
two
minutes.
E
If
they
kind
of
know
that
up
front,
they
can
plan
their
comments
up
front
if
they
know
that
there's
a
chance
for
them
to
ask
their
questions
after
somebody
completes
their
presentation
and
they
will
get
answers
to
those
questions
from
that
that
applicant
as
well.
I
think
that
will
help
to
move
things
along
during
the
meeting.
C
I
think
the
former
chair,
you
know
basically
usually
did
that,
but
I
think
it
would
be
good
to
kind
of
come
up
with
a
new
script,
given
our
our
changed
rules.
A
Yeah
we
we
do
have
a
script,
and
I
can
they've
been
somewhat
changed
due
to
our
current
circumstances
being
on
zoom,
and
I
can
take
a
look
at
that
again
yeah.
So
yeah
that
definitely
makes
sense
and
we've
actually
been
having
conversations
the
staff
about
our
bcc's
needing
to
be
in
further
alignment
with
some
some
tweaks
that
speak
specifically
to
what
each
does
so
so
that
suggestion
falls
right
in
line
of
what
we've
been
talking
about,
something
yeah.
C
And
and
in
reading
the
the
rules,
I
just
had
a
question,
I
don't
remember
us
with
the
zoom
hearings,
have
we
been
administering
the
you
know,
putting
the
the
speakers
under
oath
the
people
giving
testimony?
I
mean.
I
know
that
that's
supposed
to
happen,
and
I
remember
that
happening
in
in-person
meetings,
but
I
and
I
just
may
have
I
just-
may-
have
missed
it,
but
I
just
don't
remember
that
recently.
C
C
B
On
that,
you
know
how
some
people
join
late
in
a
meeting
and
then
they'll
say
like
if
everyone's
already
signed
up
and
then
they'll
like
raise
their
hand
and
they
can
just
join
in.
Is
that
really
allowed,
or
should
they
be
on
the
list
from
the
start
of
the
meeting,
because
they've
gotten
the
oath
or
something.
E
That's
that's
at
the
discretion
of
the
chair
really
as
to
how
they
would
like
to
handle
it.
C
A
B
C
B
C
A
F
C
C
It's
a
little
bit,
you
know
not
not
as
formal
but
as
it
might
be
of
in.
E
Person,
okay,
one
other
thing:
is
it
possible
for
the
city
to
look
into
getting
a
timer
clock
as
part
of
zoom?
E
I
know
there
are.
I
know
there
are
apps
that
do
this,
where
literally
you
have
a
countdown
clock
going.
So
when
someone
starts
speaking,
they
can
see
a
reference
point
for
I'm
now
a
minute
45
into
my
two
minutes,
because
a
lot
of
people,
I
don't
think,
are
timing
themselves,
and
so
they
just
kind
of
talk
until
you
tell
them
to
be
quiet
and
so
that
that
may
help
in
our
time
regulation.
E
If
that's
something
the
city
would
look
into
that
could
be
used
for
you
know
again,
a
number
of
you
know,
even
if
just
cd
looks
into
it,
and
so
it's
used
for
the
three
major
boards
that
they
have.
E
E
And
it
literally
gives
you
a
countdown
clock
in
the
corner
yeah
that
lets
people
know
where
they
are,
so
you
just
have
to
reset
it
each
time,
but
it
would.
I
think
that
would
help,
because
a
lot
of
people
don't
know
what
two
minutes
is,
and
so
they
just
kind
of
talk
and
all
of
a
sudden
they've
been
talking
for
three
and
a
half
minutes
and
unless
somebody
says
you've
been
talking
for
three
and
a
half
minutes,
they
have
no
idea.
C
A
I
I
think
there
may
have
been
a
meeting
or
two
that's
kind
of
played
around
with
that
option,
but
I
think
we're
finding
that
having
things
done
remotely
is
actually
helping
to
get
more
engagement.
A
C
No,
I
think
that
they
should
be
either
in
person
or
or
so.
That's
I
think,
it's
easier
to
manage.
It's
I've
participated
in
a
couple
of
meetings
where
it's
been
both.
You
know,
you
know,
like
the
whole
board
has
been
on
zoom
and
the
consultant
and
the
staff
has
been
in
person,
and
it's
very
it's
very
strange.