 We are going to call our regular meeting to order and I was going to ask if we have additions and changes to the agenda, but I have a couple of notes here, one on two items. One is an update on ARPA funds and then a Peltchuk letter from today. No, they sent it yesterday. So I wanted to add those two items. I think the Peltchuk letter is just to make it so that it's in the record. Okay, so it's a quick item. And the ARPA funds update. So these are together like five minutes. Well, and also the ARPA funds, I want to talk about the ARPA funds and we get to the agenda item where we're looking to approve a couple more requests so I can give an update. On that then. Okay, that sounds good. The warrants are here and circulating? No, not today. I have to just go back and pick them up. And then how are we going to get them signed? Well, I was going to ask the board if they would authorize me to review them as I always do and sign off on them and we'll have to leave it at the town office. People have to stop by. Or I can scan the signature page and send it, but that means you haven't looked at them. We all pay with that, John? I wasn't paying attention. All right, so to summarize, we don't have the warrants to sign tonight. Denise will review them in the town office and then we can each stop by to sign them. I'll just send you an email that's done ready to be done. And then obviously we all, that's our chance to, each of us look at them. Right. All right, so everyone's good with that approach. Okay, so public comment for items not on the agenda. Any public comment for items not on the agenda? Okay. Is there, so we have several items on the consent agenda. We have a series of minutes that we are caught up on and ready to approve. We have a letter to the champ trans, which is just a clarification on the recent town highway seven decision. It doesn't change anything. And finally ratifying this was based on the conversation at our last meeting, but ratifying Denise and Rick to sign a purchase order, a change order request on a new truck that we are buying. Is there a motion to approve the consent agenda? So moved. Second. Any questions? All in favor, please say aye. Okay, I'll send. Aye. Letter around approving this too? Yes. I'll send this around for us all to sign. Okay. Linda. Linda sheets. You are next, my friend. Oh, wait a minute. No, I'm sorry. I skipped public comment. I'm sorry, you guys. No, you didn't. We did public comment. There wasn't any. There wasn't any. Gosh, I was expecting there must be some. Why are all these people here? But I know why. Okay. Linda, your turn. We're ready for you to talk about the swim access. Come on up. Yeah. Okay. So Linda is here. Based on a conversation we had in the fall. Where Linda said, could we please have a swim railing? And we said, sure. Can you do the legwork to make that happen? And she did. Oh, so there's a picture. There. I have it. Oh, you have it. So that's our railing. And that we, Josh did. The man who did this. Okay. So just so you can see the simplicity and the strength of it and come into stone. And so where I, how, how this came about is that I had an injury and never could get into, um, Chris pond, which I'm an avid swimmer of Chris pond this past year, because there was no way I could get in and, um, feel safe and get out. And then I found there was many older people like me who also had to find ways to get into Curtis pond. I mean, number 10, Han has those issues too. But, um, when it came that there could be, so that's how the idea came up is like, why can't we have some railings? Well, I think it would help people who are disabled as well. Exactly. And it may help some kids if we made it simple enough. So we're talking about both the grassy areas and the stone steps in that estimate. Right. And, um, he is really willing to work with how, you know, I was saying we would get together a small group of people who use it. We may need a designer, you know, who knows the codes of this codes that could be. But we would get somebody like John Calla who's here. You know, what's John? I'm just going to, um, I printed a copy and there's one circulating. Oh, I have other ones. Yeah, that's great. Here, Linda, take my extra one too. Just so people can, more people looking at it faster doesn't help, doesn't hurt. Thank you, Rick. So, so, so, so, so Linda, do you just want to like summarize what we all have in writing? Just so we're all like, so everyone can hear. Yeah, so we're actually saying out loud what we are. So on the stone steps, um, it's very, when you're coming up the steps from the water, there's no place to go and have an injury. You know, you can't, there's no tree, there's nothing to hang on to. And so you don't go that way. So you find other ways to get down and those are very steep too. So the idea was the first railing would go on the side of the stone steps going up and probably would have to have a curve around because that, there's some way that once you're on the landing of the earth that you can stand on. And so the safety issue is, it's both, it's a accessibility and a safety. On the grassy area, there's two entrances on the grassy area. You know what I mean by grassy area? Okay. That is one that has a lawn, that one's going to be just left the way it is. But the one that Heik talks about is the boat. And that's just because people sometimes bring their kayaks up there. Sometimes they bring their canoe up there. They're not supposed to, but they do it. But that's, it's going down into the water. And again, there's nothing to hang onto to get out and in. And, um, and the rock there is very sharp too. And, um, Eric Ober actually told me that he had, um, this is on the side. This is a freebie that he could actually, um, make that rock to move it for people to stop. So, I mean, it's not just, I mean, there's other improvements we can do once we get people in and out of the water safely. So that's what this is all about. And, and asking the town if there's some monies to improve the accessibility of curves. So that's why I'm here. That's great. Thank you, Linda. Are, I'm going to ask one at a time if there are questions from the board. And then I will turn to the citizens who are here and ask if there are questions from this group. Rick, do you have questions? What I'd like to see us do is to hear from Linda and the audience talk about the town hall request and go over where we're at with ARPA funding before we make a motion for anything. Right. I was, I agree with that. We'll talk about how this could be funded. I don't have any questions. We'll talk about how it could be funded before we actually vote on it. John, any questions? Yeah, well, no, there, there are a couple of mechanisms we could use to fund it. So I just, we can talk about it. Yeah, that we'll talk about, that we will talk about. I appreciate that you're interested in this project. Well, I love that you brought it up and you did, you did the lay work and research so that all we, all we have to do is say, look at this awesome proposal and the work that Linda did. And, and then it's really helpful. Yeah, it's really helpful. And, and he is, he says that there's, you know, it's like, this is the idea, but it can be, it can be adjusted if there's better ideas. Okay. Yeah. And he would incorporate that way. He's willing to do the work and he's, he's good. That's great. Linda, thank you. Are there any questions or comments from folks who are here with us on this? This is on the swim rail, of course. Matt. Matt, I remember a number of years ago, there was talk of putting in a parking area, next to a pile of hices and kind of a warm, hot, warm, hot, and sandy air. And that would be completely leveled the whole way. And I don't know if, you know, obviously people are expensive and it's a little swampy there, but the idea was that even people with wheelchairs and stuff would have access and it would be flat. Okay. And that was, you know, 20 years ago, and I don't think I ever went anywhere, but, you know, we really want access for everybody. But it seems to me that we're getting away from all the street facts and stuff, is by going along the field. I'm not sure exactly what property lines are, what kind of things. There is a telephone port, you know, but there is an area where they'll be deprived of the kind of roadblock that will go out. Matt, those are lower people with hearings. And actually, I'm not sure Mark can hear you. Matt, can you just come a little bit forward, maybe stand in the little nip between the two? Sure, I can hear you. You can hear. So how many years ago was this room? Yeah, we built the stone wall. I didn't hear anything. Yeah, so it was wrong. You know, that area going in is an entirely different field than the swim area. There's not a lot that you can swim. You have to go through all the water and the lake and everything. I was wondering how the boardwalk that would take you out to the same area that's right there. You know, actually, Josh talked about doing a ramp into the grassy area, but that was going to be too expensive. But that idea is good one way or the other. It's good. It would be substantially more than $4,500 to walk in like that. Right. It would be around there for a parking area and then make it wide enough so you could have a vehicle there or something like that. Yeah. Is it fair for me to say not mutually exclusive from what Linda's proposing? And short-term, long-term? Yeah, I mean, I think tonight we're going to... There's no long-term plan. Right. Well, yeah. This is just giving you a little background. Yeah, so Linda suggests a swim rail and Max says, well, how about we... How about a boardwalk? How about a boardwalk? Yeah. Actually, Josh, the person who did the estimate, he also said, you know, well, maybe we can get, you know, a ramp into the water that people could go into the water. Yeah. One thing does lead to the other. You know, I mean, that's not so far off. Except you have to get down the hill with Don's area. You don't have to go down there. So, yeah. So the proposal tonight is for the swim rail, yes or no. Just so we can stay a little bit confined. And, you know, we could whiteboard another time. But that's not what we're doing tonight. Cindy? I just was going to clarify that it's between Don and Ices and the steep bank part. So it really would be pretty low. There's a little question there. I'm going to pull up. I'm going to back it up. Linda, I'll let you answer the question because I'm... It isn't a question. I'm just clarifying that it's not... It's between Don and Ices, like, little shed he has there and the bank part. It's not in front of Don's house or anything like that. Oh, it's not where they congregate. It's not across the dam or any of that. No, it's not where people congregate. That's not what you're talking about. I mean, I'm not sure where people congregate, but... No, people don't congregate. That's right. But this is... That's verge. But it's not a conversation. I mean, I think what we're talking about tonight is just this handrail thing, because it's a really interesting idea. I like that idea. And so the idea of the ramp going in where you're talking about, that wasn't practical, because building steps would not have let my mother get into the pond after she had her stroke. Years later she might have been able to, but going down steps was completely impossible for her. Well, that's why the grassy area, that's why we have two handrails. One is where there's no steps, and the other is none of the steps. Are there other questions or comments on the handrails? Jamie? I just want to say I fully support this, and thank you for working on it, and thank you for bringing it. I've done home care work with a lot of different clients over the last 10 or 15 years, and I've had several who, if that railing had been there, I probably would have taken them swimming regularly, and we couldn't swim in Curtis, so we had to go to other ponds that had easier access. So I think this is a great thing that a lot of people would benefit from. Thank you. Any other questions or comments before we bring it back to talk about funding? I just want to thank Linda for her hard work, and I think it's great. Thank you. Yeah, thanks, Mark. Mark, I'm sorry you're sick. Yeah, I will. So is he. So far, not too much in the way of symptoms, although it seems to be getting worse. So that's the way it works, Mark. Thanks for not being here, Mark. Yeah, I'm glad I'm not there waiting on you. So are we. So, Denise, you want to talk about the thought of using some ARPA funds for this proposal? Right, she wants to. I wanted to bring up the Friends Request, and then go back to where we're at with funding. Okay, so we're going to interject. And it interjects an ARPA update. Right, because the ARPA update is continuing on us being able to grant these requests. So, right. So I'm going to leave, right? Yeah. But I just want to say thank you for being on the select board for all the years that you all have done. This is your last meeting. How many years have you been on? Just two. Two. Denise? I think it's either 18 or 20. Okay. Sharon? Six. It's six. But you know, Denise is being humble. I counted one time, and she's over 20 years. Twenty-three or 25 is my guess. Really? I had no idea. I lost count. Mark, how long? I think one and a half or two. Thank you. No, Denise has been on for 20, 23 or 25. Rose, I looked at it with you one time. You were there when we got our stoneboard department in 99. Yeah. That's right. It was. And before that. My head's going to explode with all the knowledge. Yes, right. Don't let it out, Denise. Keep it in there. Is this one of the few appropriate to clap? I'd say thank you all for doing that. If you want, go ahead. We might, at different points, through the rest of the meeting, ask if you'd like to clap again. Clapping is always welcome. All right. Where are we? Town Hall. The Town Hall friends are requesting $5,000 to go toward upgrades to the upstairs of the building. They've done some work in preliminary estimates to renovate the upstairs and convert it into a year round space suitable for municipal and non-minicipal activities are in excess of $60,000. This does not include the purchase and installation of sound and light equipment for which the friends have already secured funding. So they're looking, I mean, they're asking for a very minimal amount. It would be used to help offset the cost of installing insulation, upgrading the heating, electrical wiring to meet current code standards, painting the room and putting in ceiling tiles for sound absorption. So that's what... That's Artie or me. Oh, Artie's here. Okay. Artie, come. David, forward. Oh, here. Here. Thank you. Can I just make one note of caution, which is... We do have it on here. Let's just say it's not worn. But it is. Never mind. Carry on. So we, upon discuss, I believe Cliff Emmons, who is our chair, submitted the letter that you're reading from. And in a conversation with you yesterday, we're... Saturday. He's submitted a new request. Is that correct? Right. Your first request didn't have an amount or what it would be used for, towards. So now you've submitted one today at like one o'clock or two o'clock? Right. For $5,000. And that would be from that same list. In other words, what we believe roughly will cost $60,000. We would just determine what the most... What the quickest thing or the most urgent thing for $5,000 would be, which I'm not sure we can answer that question today. So we've generated through donations enough money to install good lighting, good sound systems, things to make it a real theater. But it doesn't address the situation of it's still only a three-season space. So we thought, with this art money, we were requesting a larger amount, initially, which would be towards putting a heater in the space upstairs, possibly doing some sound proofing in the room, which is a problem, and making it a usable four-season space. When I talked to Cliff, it was kind of like the art money should be used for the building. It's going to be carried on into the future, like insulation, heating, not stuff for plays or things like that. The money should be used because it's town... Municipal. Yeah, municipal use. It makes the municipal use better. And there are a number of people who would love to see town meeting come back. I think everybody would. And that's municipal and non-municipal use of the upstairs. Depends on insulation and heat being restored. I mean, once there was a wood stove up here, the wood stove is no longer there. There was a wood stove here until very recently. So we've taken care of the downstairs, but we have done very little to the upper floor. And it would be a mistake, in our opinion, for us to go forward with all of the lighting and the sound systems that are necessary for using space without getting the insulation, the ceiling, all of these things are pretty basic to ongoing use upstairs. And if we don't take care of that, then it would be a mistake to go forward with all of the equipment and the ready to install. A lot of the soundletting gets attached to the walls, too, because that's what we thought it would hold off. See about the art funds before we went on with that project. So I'm going to stop you guys there, because I thank you very much. That's really helpful. And I want to circle back just to the numbers, because I'm noticing that... Did you print out the searches? Is this the right one? Yeah, so what I wanted to say is, in order for us to approve the handrails and the Friends of Town Hall request, we've got to make some cuts. Well, yeah. And also, we were negligent in voting $100,000 for the Curious Pawn Association because we didn't have enough money left to do it. Well, we knew. No, we didn't. We did not, because we had already approved the traffic study. We approved well before January 23rd. So with the traffic study, we approved and we approved use of ARPA funds before the 23rd of January. Right. And so now we're stuck in a position where when we approved on the 23rd of January, if that dates correct, we then we went past our budget. Before that we were doing fine. Well, the traffic study, I spoke with Rick about it, and I was going to bring it up tonight. It's not really something we have to do. None of these things are things we have to do. So, right. But if there's one project that we don't need to do, it could be the traffic study. That was just my suggestion. Yeah. I would say on the traffic study, the best thing to do is not to do a big general to the wide, the way these are scoping studies. They're usually project oriented. It's better for us to just work on getting our traffic data. We'll use the signs we've got. Identify our spots where we have problems and we actually do these studies in very localized areas. So the best way to approve that, that was a great idea. That was a great thing for us to be spending money on. And we voted to do it. And we voted to spend 30,000 of our money doing it. And now all of a sudden it's a bad use of our money. Well, I brought that up at night. I thought I'd be good with it. Well. Do you know that? A traffic study, there's funding through grants, through CVRPC. Or we could cut the, I don't know that $30,000. That seems like a lot of money to me for a traffic study. So the question is if we do the, we could do one or the other or part of the ARPA funds for the railings and town friends. We could cut the money for the invasive species study that we don't have to do. It's just being provocative. I don't think that's a good idea either. And I don't really want to do it. I'm just frustrated that we didn't, that we had, that we didn't have accurate numbers in front of us when we approved $100,000 for the Curtis County Association because that's, that was the point in time at which we went over our entire budget. We were fine until then. We are, if you, if you take out the third, if you assume, as Denise has done, that we're not going to fund the traffic study after all. And I didn't assume, I just suggested, just crossed it out and put it in the bottom. This is a suggestion. Okay. Then with that on the table, then. There's 4,000 left. There's only 4,000 left if we approve the hand, the handrails, which we had talked about but it hadn't seen a number before. And the Friends of Town Hall proposal, which is a new one. So, until, with those two things not in, when we, 4, 7, 4, 7, 5, 4, 8, 5. 8, 5. But we add back in 9,500. And we add back in $30,000. I did something wrong there. Nope. Okay. Help me. 4, 7, 5. 3, 9, 5. 4, 8, 5. Plus 9,500. Plus 3,000. So then after, after we approved everything before tonight, we were at 5, 14, 9, 8, 5, where we actually only had 4, 7, 9, 5, 90 and 36 cents. So we were $35,000 over once we approved 100,000 for the Curtis Town Association. Right. So. Just eliminating traffic study. We're still. We're still fine. Well, we are eliminating the traffic study. And if we, if we do that was just a suggestion. Or reduce it. I think we would get rid of that. I agree with Denise that the regional URPCs, on a regular basis, on an annual basis, they gave AOT grant monies to perform those studies. Yeah. I don't remember voting on that. We absolutely. Old brain syndrome. We absolutely. I went back through all the minutes and checked them. Yeah. I'm sure I did. We did vote on it. We absolutely voted on it. Sure I did. And it was before January 23rd. It was sometime in the fall. We did it. So why don't we scrap the traffic study? That's not an imperative. It was just something. We thought we had extra dollars I'm assuming. We still have a huge, we have a huge traffic calming traffic. The point of that study, and there are three people here. So I'm just going to get up on my soapbox. You guys won't get your vote. But the point of that study was to bring better minds. And we have to traffic calming design. Oh, was traffic calming. Traffic calming design. That's what it was about. Okay. So it was about recognizing that all the flashing, remember this now? All the flashing lights and all the speed signs you want. And speed bumps. And speed bumps is not what makes people slow down. I think we might have done this the same night we said, hang on, let's take a breath on the speed bumps. It's about how do you design the roads visually and otherwise so that people don't feel like they're driving in a straightaway. So it was about traffic. Visual constraints. Traffic calming that we have talked about over and over. And then we said, well, I don't remember. Well, I guess I remember what most of us do about the conversation. But it was about putting some money into traffic calming. We had on our agenda for, you know, the future item and kept sitting there. So how do we get outside of that? Well, we've got some money here. Well, you know, the other thing I was going to suggest just come back to this is that the budgetary items being brought up by David and Artie and Linda, they can all be voted. We can, we propose a budget to the voters. It's our best guest budgets are our best guest folks. We might come out short, often do during crazy times like right now. But they're a best guess of what it's going to cost to run the town, respectively. And we can get close, but we don't always get it right and generally don't. But the voters at the end of the day, it's up to them to approve the budget and they can do the line item beat up from the floor. It's the wonderful thing about town meeting. And so another course would be for, it's too late for us to amend the budget. That's already been warned. But it can, you know, propose on the floor of town meeting to amend the budget to include these two items. I don't think it's a big heavy lift. I think it would be, I'm conjecturing, but I think it would be very well supported by the folks on the floor. And then, you know, these requests came in right at the end of when we had put in for the money. Well, we goofed up. We goofed up. Now, you were there. Yeah, we should have had you come back in time for us to have your number for the budget. Yeah, you did. You're very obedient. And in terms of actually getting ahead of summer, February was great. It's not great in terms of having a budget. So, I mean, the first problem we have is that we're over on our, we're over. What we've approved so far, and I don't know, the dates are not correct because we didn't even have a meeting on January 23rd. So, I think I got the minutes for that. I think we met on the 25th. No, it's like having a credit card in a little while on the shopping sprees over spent. We, oh, it was the 23rd. So that means that the 25th and the minutes is, that's the wrong date earlier. That's a detail. So that to me is the first problem is that we are over on our, as we stand now, without this conversation, we are over on our ARPA funds. And so that's the first conversation this board or a board needs to have, is how do we bring it back in line? I didn't bring my calculator. If we leave the, take the curse upon and the friends out, where are we at? Five what? We were already, with everything we've already approved, we are already $514,985 allocated, which is $35,394.64 over what we actually have to spend. How much? $35,394.64 over. And so what we, so the only thing we would be positioned to do is actually take some things off, pursuant to a vote, which we did not warn. Right. So I am going to say we don't, we can't take any vote to reduce and we're going to have to leave that for another meeting to decide how do you bring $514,985 down to 479, not 590 and 36 cents. Right. That's where we are. Well, and this is just the current board's position on how ARPA money should be spent. Right. So that, the incoming board has a flexibility post town meeting to adjust these numbers. Unless we want to do a special meeting between now. Or we can just say, you know, you're welcome. We gave you a chance to revisit the ARPA allocations. Well, we can continue to, I don't know what everybody's schedule is tomorrow night. You know, I think it's best to do it after town meeting because if the bond issue doesn't pass, then there won't be a problem. If it does, there will. The new board can deal with it. Yep. I kind of agree with that. That's true. Well, I honestly do. And for the new board's sake, I mean, the traffic study really can. About their alternative funding sources, that is. So it's not. Apparently, I know what traffic study means, but it was a road design for traffic calming. It was a traffic calming road design initiative. Yeah, but that's what I'm talking about today. That's fine. It's a snow bin. But that, I understand right when I clarified because apparently it was a snow bin. So if we're not going to meet as Mark suggests, I'm going to tell you folks as a member of the electorate at town meeting, I'm going to move that we fund these two items from the floor by adjusting the budget and cure most of this problem. But it won't cure all of it. It doesn't cure at all. We can leave the rest in the $5,000 discrepancy plus or minus for the next select to make adjustments to. Well, on the next select board's going to be responsible for the funds. Right. Right. You know, which, you know, actually is authority they have anyway to change our minds. Okay. Well, that was fun. Who brings up the vibe? So there'll be a discussion of the budget in town meeting. We'll be back and forth and Gus will be moderating. We hope that's the plan. And, you know, you can raise your hand and say this, this is what or I can, anyone can. Because I'm going to be in the kitchen. You're going to be in the kitchen. Well, David Sheets could do it. He's going to be in the kitchen. David's going to, well, I can raise the railing thing and I can explain what happened here. Anybody can do it. And anybody, if you want some help writing what the motion would look like. I think that's true for anybody. If you want to raise something at town meeting, people who lots of people are available to help write the motion. We are, as a select board, are not going to make the motion. But yeah, we'll expect it coming. Sage, I'll take your question and then we're going to move on. Sure. I'm sorry. I know you have David and Ari's time. But you guys want Anna. So, I was remarkably here where Linda asked for the railing. It felt humble and easy. And now they're, so that's our PA. Airplug. What? Airplug. Airplug? You're excited? I love that. And so now there's also the town hall was 16. But I was hearing the traffic study for 30, which we have had some traffic studies at some parts and is that scrapped? Are you voting for that? So, Sage, let me just recap. Like I just felt like I heard that you had you would overspent and actually correspond to not have the 100 that was promised. And there's no other. So let me, no, no, no, no, it's okay. This is a wish list. Let me clarify. I'm sorry, Sharon. No, we have not overspent at all. That's the good news. We have, merely in our enthusiasm for all of the great ideas, we have overpromised. That's what we've done, overpromised, not overspent. I don't know which is worse. No, I don't know. It might be better if we spent the money and then had to go on. I know that Humboldt-Traver study that's been probably on for a really long time or so. Absolutely, which is why we- Thank you for advocating for it, so. Yes. In no sense. This is brought up at a town meeting, and we, as friends with Rebecca, can ask at a town meeting. Is that decided then? Or you had said there's something about the future select board also has something. So yes, let's break that out. So the 470, the ARPA funds are $479,590.36. Have we spent any of that yet? The, yes, the amount that we have spent is for CV fiber. Okay. And the removable highway signs that we approve 55,004, and the invoice came in at 49.5. So we have- The other ones have been put in the works. Right. And like I said, the new select board can do whatever they want. They can get all new- With what remains. Right. So let me answer Artie's question. So we have spent of the $479,590.36. We have spent $249,522, leaving the remainder, whatever it is, to which we have allocated and promised. That's the over-promising. We've promised more than we have left in the bucket. That money is separate from what happens at town meeting. So any motions made and to increase the budget for particular purposes at town meeting that pass are outside of the ARPA funds and they just get added to the town budget for the ensuing budget year, which begins July one. And it doesn't mean the select board has to spend that money, but you're set up very nicely if you raise it and it gets approved. Okay. So even at town meeting, so it's not definitive at town meeting, is it? No, it is. I think it's approved. It's pretty, I mean- It's in the budget. It's in the budget. And it's identified for those projects and they can only be used for those projects. If the projects cost less, we don't have to spend it. Okay, so in preparation for that, what do we do to bring that up at town meetings? You prepare- I didn't say I'd like to make a motion. Mr. Moderate, I'd like to make a motion of amendment to the town budget as follows. It's under the article- You could do it as a two-part. Denise will tell us, she has the report. We were voting on the town budget, which includes highway and general government. That item is where we vote to more money for the food shelf, more money for circle, less money for other things. Yeah, so it would be under starting article fours where we vote the highway and general fund. But for special articles that we do every year, which is all the, you know, 200 and whatever dollar one, that's article seven. So you would do it sometime, you know, around there. Under article seven, right? We want to vote article seven as amended. Well, you could do that under article seven or it could just be a separate article. Or it could be separate, okay. So, all right. So you raise your hand, you get recognized, you make the motion, you're looking for a second. Maybe Mr. Sheets with the seconder from the kitchen with the spatula. And then there's discussion and then there's the vote. Okay. I'm going to move us along guys. Thank you very much. Thank you. The question's, the next item is, is there, well, let me give, no, I don't even, I don't think it's need to have any explanation. Is there a motion to appoint Denise and John to continue as liaisons to the CPA dam project until a new board appoints a liaison? Or liaisons? Who would make that motion? I'll second that. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Mark, did you vote? Yes, aye. Thank you. Oh, yeah. Okay. All right, now we are going to talk about the proposed by ordinance, which I think I brought in. Hopefully. Well, anybody's doing that. Can you assign this to article seven, please? Oh, that's for you. So, hey guys in the corner, we're going to carry on until, believe it or not, it gets a little hard to focus when there's other conversation. So the next topic is the curb cut ordinance. So this is an item as we explained at our last meeting that we have had on our future items for a while. I think we might have talked about it. We have talked about curb cuts at different points in the context of improving our processes around them. And the conservation, and we actually did have a proposed, some, a form that went with them. The conservation committee noticed that we were getting ready to work on it and asked if they could propose some, offer some input. And we of course said yes, because one of the things we really like to do is delegate to other people with some expertise. And so Stephanie and the conservation commission did a lot of work on an ordinance for us. And then let us know that they were ready to present it. I think it was two meetings ago. Stephanie, you let us know that you were ready. That you were ready. You presented it at the last meeting. So this is the third meeting where we've had some substantive conversation about a curb cut ordinance. And by the way, we already have an ordinance. Our current curb cut ordinance is on the website. If you've had a chance to look at it, you know it's out there. It's 19 years old. It is grossly out of date. So we already have a curb cut ordinance for anybody who's worried that this is a new ordinance. It's not, this is an update to an existing one. I'm gonna ask the board, maybe Stephanie, I'm gonna ask you if you want to, you spoke with us last time. You've done a lot of work on this. Do you have any comments you wanna offer before? I probably asked folks in the audience if they're here to make comments about this ordinance. Is there anything you wanna say, Stephanie, that you didn't say to us last time or the time before? Yeah, I wanna say as a comment. You wanna join us? I've said it before, because I've met with you. This is probably the fourth or fifth time that I've met with you about this curb cut ordinance as it was being developed and as it was finished. That, I've explained this. It's more than the ordinance that is, now the 19 year old one. It's, as far as I'm concerned, it's much clearer. It's got a process in there that is clear to everybody with the standards are as clear. And not only did, it's not just because we did a lot of work. You know, we did a lot of work. I did a lot of work. The conservation commission did a lot of work. The town attorney did. The town attorney's associate. You guys did. But it's not just that a lot of work was done. It's because it's a really good ordinance. You know, it's really good. It's a good ordinance because a lot of work was done. Right. And it should be, in my opinion, it should be adopted and then it'll be adopted. And then, you know, you all know what the process is for adopting ordinances. You know, there's a certain period of time, people, petition, you can object to it. Right. So I'm just going to amplify your point. The first step of an ordinance becoming fully entrenched as town law, the first step is for a select board to endorse it. Okay, I'm Stephanie. I am going to ask if other people want to make comments. And then the other thing I forgot to mention is that we have an attorney client privilege memo communication from our attorneys. The board is going to go into executive session for a few minutes to talk about that as it relates to this proposed ordinance. So, Stephanie, thank you. Notwithstanding your point that it's not because it's hard work, I do want to thank you and the commission for the hard work because it's an impressive thorough document that you've presented to us. So one other thing I wanted to say is that last time I met with you two weeks ago and we were talking about the ordinance and I think you were actually waiting to vote for you. But what it was missing was an opportunity for the public to participate. Interested, not the public, but people who have a legal interest, that is. Not an adoption of the ordinance, it wasn't fully reflected in the ordinance. That's in there now. And that's also, Joe McLean, the town attorney, wrote that and he put that in an opportunity. And as you know, he did that because there had been a case where there was no plea process and somebody appealed the curb cut permit that had been issued by a select board. And I went to the court, there's all this brouhaha on the court, the court determined yes, it was quasi-judicial, which means it's appealable, but there should be a process. Which we don't, by the way, have in our current ordinance. So that's, that's exactly it. Exactly, there's no process in there at all. Doesn't even say who the application goes to. Well, the public process is a huge improvement. Yeah, so yeah, Stephanie, thank you. I do want to make sure that we have time to hear from some other folks. No, absolutely. I just wanted to make sure. That's the one piece that you didn't review before. Right, right, so inside the ordinance is now language that recognizes that a curb cut, where it's positioned, and other things relating to it, is something that the neighbors, if you will, should have an opportunity to be. If they have an interest, they can prove that there's an effect on them, a personal effect on them from it. And I just also wanted to say one more thing, that it's, there are lots of curb cut ordinances issued. As you know, I mean, curb cut permits issued, as you know, because you issue them. Very, very few would ever become controversial. Right. Okay, so, you know, it's not like it's gonna be a big deal every time. It's just that it's a clear process that's set out with standards. So everybody knows what it is they have to comply with. Right, couldn't be. Denise, do you have a clarifying question for, and the new, this new ordinance with public notification, also requires adjoiners, adjacent property owners, to be notified. Yes. Which we didn't have before. So it's a way better public process. There's more transparency. Okay, thank you. So I just need a clarification. So the posted ordinance now on our website is the one that we would vote on tonight. This one. The one that we got it on. Yeah, Jamie posted. 23rd, I guess we got it. No, I'm sorry, the, you had a 23rd. I emailed it around to everybody and then Jamie put it on the website. Yeah. Okay, so I do wanna make sure that anybody who has a comment or a question has a chance to offer it. Yes. Are you sure? Yeah. Are there other comments you wanna make? Actually, that's a good question. How many people wanna speak on the curb cut ordinance? Jamie? Yes? Okay. Go ahead. Okay, if I say it. Yes, please do. Okay, I'm not sure. Thank you. Thank you. So I recognize you. Thank you, Richard. And I wanna begin by echoing the thanks that you heard earlier. You know, it's a lot of work being on this life board. And you all have dedicated a ton of your time to the town. And I really appreciate it. I think you deserve to be applauded for that as you were earlier tonight. And I just wanna start by saying that. I also have to say I don't, I really don't wanna be here right now. Because I know that a lot of terrific people put a lot of time into trying to write this ordinance. And I think it still needs a lot of work. And I think you should not pass it tonight. You should take more public comment and make some improvements to it and table it for tonight. That's my recommendation. Well, what areas need work, Richard? So the first thing I wanna say is that the first time this ordinance in its present form was made available to the public. It was last night. It was not posted on Saturday, I checked. It was posted yesterday. So it's really only been available to the public for one day. And you all have heard that this is an important ordinance. It makes important changes. And it makes changes that affect the development rights or the property rights of every landowner in town because getting a curb cut is essential to building anything. And this ordinance says you go through this process for any change of use. And any change of use, I'm not sure what that means because it's not defined. If you wanna put an in-law apartment on your house that's increasing or changing the use of your driveway and therefore your curb cut, if you wanna build a barn in the back acres, you now have an agricultural use that is being added to your driveway. And the ordinance says explicitly that a change from commercial to residential but is a change of use. But it says any change of use included. But not limited to. So we don't know what triggers this ordinance. We do know that in some respects it's overly inclusive. It says basically if you wanna take a load of gravel and put it on your driveway, you have to get this permit. And the permit requires a process which might be appropriate for a major development. It's certainly not appropriate for putting an ADU on a house or building a barn or putting gravel on your driveway. 45 days of advance notice, three different people come and look at your driveway. They debate and tell you whether you can do it or not. Select Board has to sign off on your load of gravel. Just to be clear, it's only where it enters the right of way at that point. It's not you working on your driveway in the back 40. It's at that access point. That's what we're regulating the access point. Okay, I wanna be clear about the next point, which is the point of it. It's unclear from reading this ordinance actually the physical territory that it applies because the ordinance clearly discusses the access. But then it also discusses something called the approach. And it doesn't define approach except to say it's the land nearby. And then later it refers to the adjacent land. And I actually don't know and I asked myself the question. So just so there's some history here just so you can have a little of the benefit of history and you know this, but our first curb cut or one of the iterations after a first curb cut, actually at the advocacy of our road commissioners, they requested that the approach to the curb cut be more or less level within a certain percent grade because we had folks requesting driveways that came in and that's a safety issue in the winter of course, I see times, but it's also a drainage issue. It's harder to control the drainage into the road. In fact, we had a problem over by number 10 pond and we were assured by the engineers and this summons is born out of that experience. Engineers assured us that everything would be good. Trust us, we didn't have the teeth to say in a curb cut permit, no, no, this is what you need to do. We did try to, but we had a major water quality violation and the state came out and threatened and forced. We had dirt and soil running right down that hill right into number 10 pond. So that's just so you know, just to inform you better. Believe me, I kind of appreciate it. I mean, I'm a land use plan. I used to teach land use law. I've read a lot of curb cut ordinances. Many of them define what is the approach. This ordinance doesn't accept to say it's the land somehow nearby. Did you bring some language that you've seen in other ordinances for us to consider? I did not, I only saw this ordinance for the first time yesterday. That language was there in the beginning. Well, but I guess that in particular. The ordinance that was presented to you at the select board was never posted on the town website. Nor was it ever posted in the minutes of the conservation. And I checked the minutes going back to August to see whether I could get a hold of the language that was under consideration. Because I thought maybe I could help. And it was never posted. So the first one was actually posted where the public was posted yesterday. So to continue. The other serious concern that I just want to alert you to is that I think the standards that an ordinance should have are actually not here. Some of them are, some of them aren't. There's a reference to the state of Vermont. Driveway standards or something like that is. V71. V71, V71. V71, V71. V71, V71. V71, V71. V71, V71. V71, V71. V71, V71. V71, V71. And I want to be really clear that I am very strongly supportive of good ordinance that would protect public safety. And the site distance, many ordinances are very clear about site distance. And they don't have a lot of these other issues addressed in. The part that's not clear is the part about this ordinance that says that the applicant is responsible for filling out an application that identifies within some undefined proximity all of the natural and historic resources that could be affected by the curve cut. And there is reference to the down plan. And there is reference to the AGD natural resources maps. But I have gone and checked those maps. And I can tell you that what they are is an inventory of pretty much everything under the sun. And you can click on a parcel, or your neighbor's parcel. And a big blob of color will come up on the map to say, oh, this is an aquifer recharge area. This is something else. This is a large standard forest. Well, and this is a wildlife connectivity block, some of which are really big. And so it's easy to sort of click on all those things and say, well, the land in some undefined proximity to my curve cut has different resources. And I don't know what that tells you for trying to figure out, is this curve cut reasonable and sensible? I mean, the ordinance, too, is on the good side. Now, instead of saying adverse effect, no adverse effect, it says no undue adverse effect. But the maps that the ordinance directs the applicant to look at are really broad. And there are so many different resources mapped there, it's almost impossible to know. What am I supposed to do with this information? Can I put a curve cut where there's trees? Or not? Can I put a curve cut where there's grass? Can I put a curve cut where there's grass? Can I put a curve cut where there's grass? Or not? What if there's a stone wall? Or not? There's so much discussion baked into this that I have concerns that you're going to end up with numerous controversies over somebody wanting to just put in a curve cut so they can build a house and somebody else saying, well, sorry, you can't have a curve cut in that location because of some natural resource that they would like to protect. And the standards in this part of the ordinance are very unclear and are highly discretionary. And I actually read the minutes of the Conservation Commission at one point they were discussing this and somebody said, well, shouldn't we have some performance standards? And somebody else said, well, no, it's going to be case by case decision-making. So I'm going to go back to the beginning here and say, I admire the terrific people on the Conservation Commission. I think they're trying to do the right thing. I think this ordinance is too complicated, too inclusive, and too vague for you to adopt it right away. Are you saying inclusive? Do you mean the public inclusive? No, I mean, maybe I should get back to the conversation about gravel on the driveway. It's not clear from the text of the ordinance that all that's being regulated is the access way and maybe the approach because the approach isn't really defined, but it could be fixed. You could fix that, say the approach is, you know, 50 feet before the access or something like that. But the way this ordinance is written, it seems to me that it seems to me that someone could object not just to the location of the exact shortcut, but to the driveway. I see the language you're talking about under Section 4, Number 2. Which one is it, John? Section 4, Number 2, regretting or resurfacing any driveway, entrance, or approach. I mean, if it said driveway, entrance, if I construct the comma, any driveway, entrance, or approach, that would make it a totally different meaning than what Richard has concerned about. So really all I'm saying is I think it needs a careful scrub. And if you mean that this ordinance is only going to be restricting or regulating the 25 feet closest to the road. That's what curb cuts are supposed to regulate. If that's what you mean, then it should say that. It doesn't say that. So if we said, for instance, revised it to say regretting or resurfacing any driveway entrance or approach within 25 feet of the access point to the public highway, that would. That helps. And if your intent is clear, that it isn't, I mean, think about the connections between those. You get a curb cut because you want a driveway. The driveway goes somewhere. Do you want to enable this ordinance to be the kind of bootstrap where somebody says, I don't like where you're going to put your house. So therefore I'm going to... That should be the zoning. That should be the zoning. The curb cut is only for the curb cut. We don't have anything to do with the driveway. That's zoning. I agree with you. It should only be that, unfortunately, the English language up to as it written is to the contrary. When there is a list of items divided by semicolons, each semicolon is read by itself. The first semicolon says regaining or resurfacing any driveway entrance or approach. So somewhere 100 feet up, the plain meaning of the language is what would bind a court. It's the entire driveway. Then it says, or building a fence or building where? Anywhere, I guess. Semicolon or depositing or discharging material of any kind within a highway right-of-way. A normal court will say since the third item says within a highway right-of-way, and they could have said it in the first two, but didn't, the first two are not limited. That would be normal statutory construction, John, et cetera. If you want to limit it to close to the highway right-of-way, you would have to completely rewrite this section. Right, no. And that can be done very easily. Right. Now, approach can easily be edited to say that the approach means the land. Are you looking at the statute, the state statute language? No, we're looking at your... It comes right out of the state statute. This regaining talks about item two under permit required in section four. The statute says driveway entrance is highway-based. It shall be unlawful to develop, construct, recreate or resurface any driveway entrance or approach or build a fence or building or deposit material of any kind within or to any way affect the grade of a highway right-of-way. It goes, this is a ridiculous sentence. We're obstructed ditch, blah, blah, blah. Basically without a permit. So that language comes right out of the state statute. Right, right. But we have another ordinance that deals with that. Yeah. We have the highway right-of-way ordinance. So this is overlapping with that, you know, and developed that with you. I think... Well, hang on. It's probably right out of the state statute. So that... I understand. But that seems to join two different ordinance regulatory areas into one, and that creates confusion. It creates... This is... Well, let's... We can fix that. Let's just... Richard, thank you. I'm going to ask if anybody else has comments that they want to make. Okay. Richard, thank you very much. Thank you. Good. Matt, Phil. No, Jamie, just first. Oh, Jamie. Okay, come on. Thank you. Thank you for inviting me. Thank you. I wanted to just first quickly clarify and apologize for the posting on the website. If I received this ordinance and the traffic ordinance on the same day about five days ago, I posted them both on the calendar event for this meeting and on the ordinance page. And then I also made a public notice for each one, and I put the wrong link to the wrong one. So the traffic one was under the curb cut and the curb cut one was under the traffic. So they were on the website, but there was confusion as to access. I apologize for that. We all made mistakes. Yeah. The comment I wanted to make on the ordinance, which is on the resurfacing grading of a driveway, my only concern is, you know, we put just for myself, I have the Westin's come every couple of years and put a load of gravel on the section of my driveway. And I know that they do, I don't know how many, 25, 30 plus driveways in Calis every summer. And if every one of those driveways that they spread any material for redo the grade of the driveway, you know, that's 30, 35 people a year who get potholes touched up on their driveway who have to go through this whole process. I support the, I support it in general and that to me seems like it's a lot of work for the property owners and a lot of work for the select board and my conservation commission I'm not sure why that needs to be included. No, it's not supposed to be. Well, but apparently it comes from state law, so that's too much for people. Right. Yeah, but there's two conjoiners at the word. We're conjoining two areas that we've broken out regularly in this town. We have a curb at ordinance, and we have a highway right away ordinance where you apply for a permit. Right. So if you want to build a fence in the highway right away, that was the genesis of this, or plan a hedgerow within the highway right of way, you need to get permission to do that. That's what that area of statute talks about. Exactly. And they're too varied to state, right? But the statute also requires that we get permission to access a highway. Well, so if I'm understanding, actually I'm going to stop but I'm going to circle back because I don't want to interrupt Jamie. Go ahead. I mean, I think I'm mostly done. My question really is, you know, if I call up the Westons and say my driveway was hit hard by month season, and they say, oh, we had a cancellation tomorrow. We can bring you a load of slate and fix it. Do I have to then go through, do I have to say no, I have to wait three weeks to go through a curb cut application because some of the potholes are within 100 feet of the road. Thank you for your question. Yeah. So what I, so I think, actually I'm not going to do this. Mack, check myself. Yeah, Mack, I had a similar question to Jamie. I mean, we have a culvert that's had full of silt and stuff because the town never clears out. The drainage. So do I have to get a town permit or, you know, a permit, you know, wait 45 days, notify, I have 11 budding landowners and all that across the road from me. Do I have to notify all those people, get a permit just to dig out the ditch and clear my culvert out? And I mean, we replaced the culvert before and we never got a permit. And I called Doug Lilly, I'm not Doug Lilly, the road commissioner before the road commissioner. Why didn't you call Doug? He said, you know, you know, it's a hamper. Go ahead and shovel it up. Okay. So I mean, it's to me is, I mean, we have three log landings. Do I need a permit for every log landing? Every time we're going to put, you know, pull logs off our property. Do I need to get a permit? We have access to our fields for mowing and hanging. I mean, I, I, Those are pre-existing. Right. And those are agriculture. So, so, Well, there's been some questions. I know Nick Emlin applied for a curb cut and this for his short-term logging thing. And I said to the select board, I don't think he needs one. It's exempt regulatory. But we said, well, Nick's applying for it. And we'll just grant it. And I think that's a bad precedent. And I don't think it is required, particularly because of its temporary nature. But we're kind of learning all the while. Well, so back through the question, I'm going to ask Stephanie to read. So here's what's going to happen next. I'm going to ask Stephanie a clarifying question or two. Others of the board may want to do that. Then we are going to go into executive session because we have, we have, we have attorney, client communication that we will discuss privately as it relates to the curb cut ordinance. And then we will come back out. And when we go into executive session, I think we will retreat rather than asking all of you to, to go outside where it's cold. We discovered there's a secret hiding highway back there that we can go to a few weeks ago. Okay, Stephanie, would you mind rejoining us? I'm just going to put it here so I can hear you. Yeah. So my understanding is that in fact, state law does envision everything that's here. Don't let me put words in your mouth and correct me where I'm wrong. And I think, so to the extent that this feels new, it's not really new. It's that it's new for it to be in a curb cut ordinance. And how I have explained this to myself, I'm going to say it out loud in case it's helpful or in case I'm wrong. How I've explained this to myself is it's an opportunity to do exactly what we've been talking about for at least the six years that I've been on the board, which is break down the silos between, you know, things that have perhaps historically been thought of as separately, highly maintenance. A lot of people have had the point of view that maintaining the highway has absolutely nothing to do with mowing the invasives. And we have learned otherwise. Of course, it has something to do with highway. How we maintain our highways has everything to do with environmental stewardship, which is why we have culvert sizes and all the things that we've accepted as relating to highway because they did that in the 70s. So, you know, we've all kind of grown up with that. But now there along comes a bunch of new things that relate to the environment. And we're not even making it up. It's already envisioned. It's just envisioned in silos. And silos that are within the town's control. And what the Conservation Commission has done, again, this is how I explain it to myself and I'm putting it out there so people can say, that's wrong, you're just wrong. But this conservation has done what we have said as a board that we want to do, which is break down those silos and integrate function in a way that makes sense. And so it doesn't mean that it all is entirely clear because we all, anybody, I was going to say, there's a bunch of lawyers in the room. Even all the people who are not lawyers also know. The statutory language doesn't always make sense. So, Stephanie, am I way off base in how I am explaining this to myself? No, in fact, I think that, I don't know if it's a problem, I think it's clear that people have not read the existing ordinance because the existing ordinance says things like, any change of use of an existing curb cut, whether previously permitted or not, shall require a curb cut permit. Now, it says that in the existing ordinance. Right. Whether it should continue saying that, I don't know, we just lifted it from there and put it in, a lot of this language in here was just lifted from the existing ordinance. Right. I think what you guys did was just elaborate on so that there's a, looking at the bigger picture. Yeah. Yeah. Looking at the conservation issues. Breaking down the silence. Change of use is important because that is, it turns into traffic generation. I mean, that's a really important thing. If there's a change of use on a drive and it's a residential drive, much different than somebody who starts, say, a fence business on their property with an access, they're generating a lot of in and out traffic. So you're, you know, there are issues around that. I do, I do get worried. I mean, somehow we have to be careful. There's like a, a practical, just as Jamie and Richard said, too, there's, we have, I say, I say the last meaning, I think we have to have enough specificity. We can't let this turn into an end, a nimby kind of thing. I don't really be crisp and clear about what we're regulating and then what those constraints are going to be. And then, you know, that to me is, is the word. I really believe in this, too. This is, you know, it's one, if they're spending a lot of years in transportation, we didn't do this well. And you can see it all across our road system. But at the same time, there's a double-edged sword. You have to, you have to really be careful about how and what you say or measure it. So there's a degree of fairness, being a real fairness to this. And, I mean, Jamie's point was a really good one. You know, this can bog down and process. So, I mean, how do we navigate that piece? I mean, we don't always follow, you know, the Ashto standards in this state. We don't follow the Vermont standards all the time. That's what our road standards do in this town. You know, we really bring them to a level that is appropriate to our local needs. So I think here, we want to be careful. I'm not saying that we just allow anything to be done. I think we just need real clarity. It's not regulating driveways. It's regulating the access point. Right, it's the access point. So, if you want to have your driveway resurfaced, that's not affecting your curb cut. Right, but the language in it wasn't the intent. That may agree. But by just grabbing the language in the statute, which is broader than the curb cut interest here, it appears to regulate right up to your door yard. So, that's easily fixed. I just fixed it, you know. I was, okay, I was just going to ask. This is not impossibility arguments that aren't valid here. Right. That's easily done. Mark's concern and Richard's concern in that regard are easily addressed. I was going to invite Stephanie to tinker with it when we go into executive session. Do you want to, do you guys, do you want to share? Yeah, just, I mean, I just kind of did what Rich and I just, Rich and Mark and I discussed publicly here. Rich's larger concern that's presented tonight.