 Good evening everyone. I'd like to call the first public hearing to order for the chatter changes. Chatter changes are local options tax, changing it from elected to appointed clerk in addition of personal property inventory taxation waiver. Vince, local options tax. Okay. Well, wait a minute. Yeah. With us tonight are David Sawyer, Blohm Smith is on video, and Kyle Parton and Joe Stoff. Okay, Vince. Okay, so the way the charter change reads and I'll read it directly from the amended charter is on page two, a new paragraph D that says upon resolution of the select board or upon receipt of a petition signed by 5% of the registered voters of the town at an annual or special meeting warned for the purpose. The voters of the town may vote by a majority of those present and voting to assess any or all of the following a 1% sales tax, a 1% rooms tax, a 1% meals and alcohol beverage tax was on to read paragraph D point to a tax imposed under the authority of this section shall be collected and administered by the department of taxes in accordance with 24 VSA section 138 was on to read D period three revenues received through the imposition of a tax imposed under this section shall be designated for capital projects within the town in your packet you'll find this document as well as a presentation that I won't go through tonight but this just basically tells you that the 70% of the 1% for the last year that the state had online which was 2020 one the Berlin had they implemented just the sales tax we would have received $558,580 just on the sales tax just as an example and again in your package is a number of towns that already participate in the local option tax and which ones they participate in there's a list of towns there and then the the powerpoint presentation and one summary document that talks about the local option tax or as we call it our capital improvement funding and so when you say capital improvements you're talking infrastructure and also equipment infrastructure yep projects like bridge roads culverts repairs capital investments like highway equipment as well yeah and Tim you were saying we needed what well we have a dump truck that's coming up in the next year and a half to be replaced loaders getting out to its end of lifespan as an example non what Tim had given us for information before was the loader that he priced went from $180,000 18 months ago to $240,000 this year so 18 months it went up by 60 grand for just the cost of the loader to replace the one we currently have same specs yeah just a slight bit larger yeah i think it'll be better for a loader we pile all our own material out there so just a slight bit larger piece of machinery won't have to labor so hard to pile material and how many trucks are up for replacement well we're doing one this year but that was for last year budget and then so in order to not stack everything up and kind of separate things out slowly because the six-wheeler should be replaced in two years and then the loader is going to be about that time for its lifespan and due to the fact that it's taking up to almost a year now to either purchase a truck and go through the process between building it and everything else and the same thing with equipment they're telling everybody if you order something it's it's going to be a year before you see it so just the kind of we're going to have to start thinking ahead of year to keep on schedule otherwise we're going to start while the loader is not under warranty but the trucks will start running out of warranty and then we're going to start you know breakdowns will be out of pocket and you see anything else on this no i think uh again in the in the summary sheet that's in your package when this was prepared originally right if just just to give a ballpark for how it could impact taxes on the residents you know if a hundred percent of the lot revenue is dedicated to property tax relief through this right a two hundred thousand dollar house would see about a 17 to 18 percent or 170 reduction in property taxes um so to make up for that with the increased local option tax they need to spend like 17 000 on talks taxable items in brunette again it's a lot of this revenue is going to come from you know bond residents as well shopping in town just to put it in perspective from the numbers any other discussion on this okay hearing none um close the hearing for the local options tax and open the hearing on the elected elected to appointed we have a hand up from mr belchardt yeah go ahead Dave question it's the first time that i sort of look at the language closely um so it sounds like if this when you put this on the ballot and it's approved it would have to be on the ballot again um before anything was implemented the process is we have hearings then it goes to a vote before the hopefully in november before the town and residents and then it has to go to legislature to be approved by the legislature right but the way i'm reading the language it sounds like what you're what you're getting is is language in the charter that allows you to either on your own resolution or by petition ask the voters to approve the local option taxes that you list and i'm not sure that's what you want to do it creates another step it's not the way barrier mobbillier did it um so you might want to look at that language and unless you want to create that extra hurdle and say hey you know let's first say are we willing to put the language in the charter and if it's there you know do we want to have to go back to the voters to ask them to do what they already said that we could do sort of uh you know but i mean maybe you want the two votes but it seems like it reads that way now that there would be a voting november and then before you ever had the any local option tax the voters would have to approve which one and that would be at a subsequent election um and i'm not sure that's what you what you what you want but maybe it is um and i don't care um but that's that's all i got yeah i'm just going through this so as i read this vince the the since we have no local options tax now the way this would be implemented after the legislature approved it would be that the select board could implement them or we could have a petition signed by five percent of the registered voters in town to implement or to request us to implement them i see dave's point with the with an annual or special meeting worn for the purpose i'll uh i can follow up on the language with that but this is the recommended language from the league of cities and towns okay that that's that's where i got this from again i i like to plagiarize with pride if something's already working somewhere um why reinvent the wheel but i'll follow up and i'll even run it by our town attorney again for for clarity on it i would ask the league is so they're reasoning on it yeah because you know it wasn't i didn't understand it that way from the from the league in this wording but i'll go back and ask this very specific question in regards to that and then i'll bring it back yeah just the way that the way the sentence is structured it makes it sound like either by your own resolution or by petition you have to go back to the voters um and the or is what's pivotal there it doesn't say you can do it on your own um which it sounds like you're wanting the voter you know my guess is you want the voters to to say and and um you know it's uh it does seem repetitious it creates an extra it potentially creates an extra step so so so it passes in november in order for the change to even be effective it's got to get through the legislature and then you're like next summer and if the way the language is worded somebody could point to you and say hey you know what we approved was you coming back to ask us if you're ever going to do this um and now you're doing it on your own and and i wonder whether that wouldn't create some you know problem for the town and and gov ops would probably catch that and say hey what is it you really want to do here but it'd be too late because you'd already have voted it and people would who would read it with different opinions and you know and you know clearing up the confusion in advance would be a good idea well if you're confused Dave anything else on this so you'll look into that then i will yeah okay to look into that yes sir if nothing else on this we'll close the local option tax uh hearing and open the one from elected to appointed clerk again Vince okay so again uh how it looks in the charter there will be under sub chapter four town officers under section four point two elected officers item two a town clerk for a term of three years will be taken out and then in section 4.4 section b there'll be a line item number five added uh that says town clerk under um appointed which is what section b is discussion on this hearing none so moved okay uh we'll close the you know hearing on the elected to appointed clerk do we have to have a vote on that i'm kind of confused now well the board's already voted on these changes yeah so we're just talking about closing the hearing for just that one closing yeah yeah well we do let's go back to the first one local option sacks i have a motion to close the hearing second i have a motion first so moved second any discussion all those in favor fine okay motions closed uh um now we open the second one now uh okay elected to appointed clerk any discussion have a motion to close the hearing i make the motion to close the hearing second any discussion all those in favor hi hi and now we'll open the addition to personal property inventory tax waiver okay so on that what i am saying and it says um under sub chapter second seven section seven three addition of penalty for delinquent installments which is already there add following and personal property tax inventory taxation add paragraph c when the total assessed value of personal property tax property inventory taxation is equal to or less than sixteen hundred fifty dollars the town treasurer may um after approval of the slot board way the personal property inventory taxation and what that means is that sixteen hundred fifty dollars is actually divided by one hundred dollars okay because all of our taxes like if your house is worth two hundred thousand is divided by one hundred okay so that would be like sixteen fifty and once you for the tax rate against that it's like under ten dollars i have over forty accounts for under ten dollars and a lot of them are under one dollar and it costs the town a lot of money to for me to try to collect that one dollar okay and i'm looking at a loss like two hundred fifty three dollars revenue but it costs me a lot more than that to send out the envelopes and to follow up because those are the ones that tend not to be paid so that is my reasoning for that any other discussion on this hearing done um motion to close the hearing on addition of proper personal property inventory taxation labor i make a motion to close the hearing on the personal property tax inventory taxation labor second any discussion all those in favor the hearing is closed and since we are scheduled to start the select word meeting at six thirty five or six forty five we'll take a recess right now so we're not too far off time entertain a motion to adjourn the hearing entertain the motion to adjourn the hearing i make a motion to adjourn the hearing second all in favor all right hi good evening i'd like to welcome you to the wednesday july 6th regularly scheduled well not regularly scheduled but scheduled um select board meeting for the town of berlin with us tonight my left dave soyer blow smith is in on the video to my right is joe uh carl pardon and on my far right is joe stop with us also is vince connie our town administrator and diane isabel our town treasurer let's see here addition or changes to the agenda yes i have i have two changes one is to um the board to authorize the board secretary carl uh to sign a bank document that diane has that she also has to sign for removal of the retired clerk from check authorization signing and the second one is to move the the interview to executive session okay anything else then um public comment hearing none uh practice farms area association requests for talent to participate as a co-permitee on stormwater permit review and decision yes so there's quite a lengthy package in there um but i'll just direct the board's attention to on the first page paragraph three the last sentence in there says in early april 2022 they learned that the town would need to be a co-permitee on their permitting process going forward on this permitting process going forward now i haven't talked to anybody with regards to this uh tom was he's mentioned in the letter briefly involved in talking with them uh with the engineer that they hired bernie chanette um don't have a lot of detail on this but i'd also like to just draw your attention to the uh first paragraph on the second page that says and the where it just refers to the town again um that the town could apply for final design funding after completion of the initial permitting and 30 design work uh given the time is now the essence notice of is required by november 1st and current permit expires january 1st 2023 and they believe this is our best funding option they're respectfully requesting that the town take the following action acknowledge and accept the requirement to be a co-permitee on the 9050 permit acknowledge that a competitive and fair selection process was followed to retain the services of watershed consulting for this initial phase um my only comment to that is um my recommendation is we need to follow up with tom regarding the conversation that he had with bernie chanette where he did express concern regarding their selection process and i don't know the results of that conversation and then finally the third is uh they're asking the town to fully cooperate and support the efforts of the um partridge firms uh area association and uh rg development to comply with the current storm water requirements and insist them with all funding opportunities going forward so again it's it's uh and then in this package um there is a a copy of the permitting process a letter from the uh peter walt the commissioner of environmental conservation a copy of the permit that will need to be completed and filed um watershed consulting process they're recommending to go through and then at the end also from watershed you know a cost of 19 000 dollars except for design that's yep it's it's my understanding it's for design and uh permitting well it's for basically it's to comply with the storm water requirements and to update their permit that expires i don't want a little bit about this i'm just curious why the town under this previous service uh area it's been designated through the state there's been identified areas that require this storm water runoff and i've been involved in a little bit because of uh western trailer part and there was a mention about partnering with the town in that thing i'm just wondering why why that they feel we got a partner on this is it because the roads that we've adapted and there's a matter of fact that show the roads and that's what they're saying the reason for the partnership is linked to the roads from again from what i have gathered just from reading this because it i'd be curious to know how much in previous service the roads take up in that complex because uh i think it's a three acre or more that requires to have that done and it's quite the design numbers are pretty close but depending on what they have to put in there for the filtration system that can be pretty expensive so i'm just kind of wondering well how why or who's saying that the town has to participate in this didn't see who recommended that in here when i went through that i could have missed it um again so i haven't talked with anybody i know tom he was mentioned in here he has and i haven't talked with tom to see what his discussions were with this as well but he had some he had some question that they stated in here as well concerning regarding the the selection process that they might have missed an opportunity for grant funding as well under that so again i don't believe i have enough information to give the board to make a decision tonight on this as well um yeah i'd just like to know what who's who's if you're just asking us to be a part of it i know early on when this came out and they started uh by these satellite maps identifying parcels that had three acres of previous service that they had mentioned that maybe we could partner with the town you know at west ends uh it wasn't saying that the town had to join in on this i'm just wondering what amount of impervious surface they may have have up there to put some over the three acres and if it's not put over the three acres and it is because of the town roads and maybe that's why we have to participate but if if they're over that three acre thing now i'm just curious okay it is in here i'm sorry terry percell with the d ec has stated that the town is required to be a co-permitter on this permit due to the presence of town on roads in the subdivision so so we're in compliance with what's currently developed there but with future development we need to be part of it that's my understanding of that i'm not sure if that's correct i can't say that anything that has over three acres has to acquire adhere to this new storm water runoff and it's not about future developments about things that you're in or already developed is my understanding to be involved with so far yeah again the way this reads is partridge farms been identified as a three acre site by the d ec and is required under state storm water permit three dash 905 o to implement additional storm water treatment so they've got to add storm water treatment and to obtain a 9050 permit covering all impervious areas and so that according to terry percell d ec that's uh the towns required to be a co-permitter due to the presence of town on roads in the subdivision what is their solution is it going to be uh a settling pond somewhere or is it i did not that's what the engineers do they got to see what they can do to to retain and so the water doesn't run right off into the watershed yeah so all those culverts they currently just go to the river is that where they go now right tim i think they run out the side of the railroad tracks at the bottom of the hill what is there like a swamp over there tim yeah down the side of the tracks is what my memory is certainly correctly because they know there's one one catch basin over towards well after you just cross the bridge like if you start headed toward partridge farm up into the development there's a catch basin right there that probably goes to the river but that's not part of the development like the development is on the other side of the tracks and as far as i know there's a ravine on one side of the road and then all the culverts from the right right hand side going up drain to the bottom and then there's a culvert to fix it up and bring the little the left hand side as you go up the road then i think it just kind of runs up in the tracks what's their timeline as far as having to have this uh approved they have to have this uh their notice of intent by november 1st so we have a little time yeah yeah it crosses underneath the railroad tracks and then where the parking lot is where capital city used to store their extra cars there's a long ditch it flows down the side of the railroad tracks it kind of just peters out behind the trailer park over there it doesn't it's not directly directed into the river and then you gotta look into this a little bit more yeah i i i need to to get a full understanding i need to speak with tom as well regarding his concern so there's no requirement for an action tonight so any other discussion on this okay we'll move on to the route 302 sewer line replacement discussion do you want to talk to them a little bit from our public lunch meeting i don't know that had we have enough information other than what we we did i was at the at the board meeting where there's i think there's five residents uh on a line there that they're not sure who put it in who owned it it does come into our down at a manhole comes into two hours with this pipe there that one of them's failed completely and the other ones are gonna fail at some point there's a question whether we need easements from the homeowners um the public works board would like the select board to step up and and and fund it which i don't personally feel we should do i think that we should go to the homeowners there and make them aware of the situation they're gonna have failures and whether they you know you know i think at some point we need to help them a little bit but yeah it's it's going to have to be replaced and we've got to find out whether we need easements or if it's in the state 302 easement or not right which Vince was going to check and see you know to replace it um i guess what had happened was somebody put it in connected back prior to what 64 i think you know i'm not something but and one of the residents has uh sewage backing into it and it's uninhabitable right now the i'm gonna say this the line that's failed nobody nobody knows who owns it they don't know who owns the main line they know that the residents where it's failed and they've tried to scope it both ways from the resident down to the line and from the line up they can't see where it's failed but it's the type of pipe it is there's a name for it i don't remember what the name was but uh that it's going to fail i mean it's it's old enough that it's going to collapse yeah it's on the opposite side of the road and what our line is right our lines on on the opposite side of 302 and this goes down to a manhole which is on i think it's within the easement if i understand that correctly uh that crosses and hooks into our line tom felt that we should step up and well should the should the should the town maybe this or should the public service boards pay i feel that the public works board should or they should at least get the other residents involved into it because there's going to be connections you know on their property to the new line i guess that at some point not to say that it was president set but there was another similar situation where the town the select board funded i believe 25 percent of the project not that it set presidents but that they did 25 the public works board did 25 percent and then the residents were basically financed through the public works board over a period of 20 years and build quarterly to pay for those but nobody's approached the other residents to my knowledge at this point i think there's some some groundwork that has to be done first before we could even make a decision or i wouldn't be comfortable making a decision to fund any part of the project until they they've at least contacted all residents and made them aware of the situation only one of the people i believe are aware of the situation at this point and that's the one that's failed so do we know what what part of the line is failed it's it's on the right away it's running parallel let's say with 302 correct they ran they've run scopes as they said earlier from both ends and actually the house on the end that has the failure yeah he's plugged his line so he doesn't have service anymore nothing's backing up but they ran a scope he's replaced his portion of the lines on his property they've run a scope just beyond his property and run into a blockage and from the other end they run up and run into a blockage there just off his property so it's failed in just one spot that's what they believe right now but again as Dave said it's it's been replaced and we have five residents and again it's gonna affect them at some point which this guy hasn't asked for any type of abatement or anything where it's not habitable so it is going to affect things in the long run of the town but we're aware of right the problem is correct again there's no easy answer because the ownership of that line is not clear anywhere there's there's no there's been record searches done I think back to the at least 60s maybe even the 40s on that and there's no record of easement for that line it's also in the state right away so you know my next thought is I need to contact the state right away department and see if they have anything going back that far that shows when that line was put in and who it was put in by right there's no I don't think there's any disagreement about the lines from that to each of the homes like everywhere else those connections are responsible lines of the homeowners it's just there's no clear identification for that main line at this point in time you know the homeowners at least one of them says it's not my line right the one that's got the failure right now and you know if you can show me different you know buy into that but right now there's nothing to show there's any easements on those lines the other side of it though is I believe they've been paying for services right along sure so so on a way I mean the public works board responsible is the town is responsible exactly exactly do we do it does the town and the public works board go in and replace the main part of the line and then as far as a hookup to the house is that on the homeowners that was a question I had for Tom he didn't feel that was the right thing that it be onto onto the works board and or the town I don't know unless they want to be lying from their houses out I think they probably need new lines from the house out why would we put in a new line and have those old you know have a failure it's going to be cheaper to have the contractor while they're there all at work correct and that's why I thought there needed to be a discussion with them homeowners because it would be cheaper at that thing at that time but they are responsible from our line to their house for that portion and there has been no discussion with any of them at this point if the main pipe that we don't know the ownership of is replaced or newer newer pipe the transition from the from the home to that new line that transition point is that I mean that could be difficult because they could be 80 year old pipes from the house to our new one correct you see if if you were if you were to approach approach the homeowners with this and tell them that for x number of dollars it will be replaced from the new line to their seller and that way there you get it get it with the contractor get five houses just do the bath and each one pays equally and get it over with so until we have that discussion with the other homeowners my question is is it the town also or is it the public works board that has that discussion with the homeowners I think it's public works board they've been collecting the fees for the services up to this time but I mean there has to be a discussion it doesn't matter who it is really it has to we have to have a discussion yeah preferably before the construction season goes out yeah before more failures okay we can't really take an action on this we don't have enough information right again my follow-up is my takeaway is going to be that I am going to check with the state or the contact of the state right away department and see if they can find any records for that in their in their right away permitting that goes back that far when that was installed to give us some indication at least if we figure out who put it in we can figure it out ownership from hopefully from that well I think regardless of who owns it or who put it in at some point it's going to have to be a part of the public works board anyways because again I think that may be the decision that I'm looking for if you want me to generate a letter the homeowners okay is it me or it should it be the public works board that's all I'm asking I think the public works board should generate a letter to the letter to them and then at that point it becomes a town issue you know I mean to we'll discuss with the public works board I mean realistically the public works board if they're if they haven't been collecting the fees they should take in generate the letter and at least get the ball rolling we go from there because right now we're not getting much accomplished on that so I would take in I would just take and have a chat with the public works board there have them get the letter out okay I will uh support agrees I'll take action to contact the chair of the public works board and let them know the board would like them to take the action with the with the homeowners to to notify them and and to start discussions about options with them and then bring that information back to the board either directly or through me to the board for a discussion with them on the next steps forward so I'll entertain a motion to have Vince have the board authorized Vince to get a hold of the public's works board to generate a letter to the homeowners so moved second a discussion all those in favor all right those opposed motion carries set fiscal year 23 tax rate yes so you have uh you should have a document that looks like this in your package that's going to give you numbers I know I did not I'm sorry this one has the notes on it you have the I am going to hand you a document yes that looks like this this is just one of the scenarios sorry did you want me to to start with sure so our budget that we voted on for FY23 three million eight hundred and seven thousand eight hundred and ten dollars then we have the article appropriations and the Berlin fire department which is all appropriations the article appropriations are 98333 fire department 365276 and that the appropriations are up by 94000 this year as opposed to last so that's part that's based in your hand okay then we have the budget income items and we have got undesivated funds in there as well I'll explain that a little bit later however what I did want to mention is that um our grand list it did go down a little bit this past year and the reason for that is a lot of it had to do personal property taxes we don't have the inventories for this in the stores are not as great as they were and people are not buying equipment so that's down by like two million dollars okay and then there has been very little change as far as any new buildings or any new construction the only new construction is one that's under the tax stabilization so and they're only paying 20 percent of it this year so that is a change so I do want to say that the grand list is down two million dollars from last year so with that being said I want to explain and designate the funds a little bit so at the end of FY 21 unassigned funds we had 1,344,000 of that we pledged 429,930 to FY 22 okay we don't know obviously that's ended yet so we have a balance of 914,070 dollars in unassigned funds and in um FY 21 we had a surplus of over 500,000 dollars so with that being said what I've done is I've taken some of the undesignated funds and in this first scenario the one that I gave you I'm saying if that we put 400,000 dollars against on the undesignated funds um against the tax rate then the tax rate would go from what right now is 0.5977 it would go to 0.6418 which is a five cent increase or 7.8 percent if we use 450,000 dollars worth of undesignated funds then we would bring the rate down to 6323 which is a four cent increase or 6.4 percent if we use 500,000 of the undesignated funds then we bring it down to 6.6228 which is a three cents and that's a five percent increase well with each of those what does the undesignated fund account look like okay so like I say the undesignated fund account right now we're saying is 914,070 okay and so if you were to you know obviously take out 500,000 then you'd be able to forward some and that's still very healthy because I think last year we were drawing it down to three properties and that's the worst case scenario I was trying to follow your quick numbers there okay and uh it almost sounded like the more we use the the higher the tax rate which didn't make sense to me it should be that yes yes okay can you can you go over just okay yes so 500 it's point is 0.6228 okay which is three cents over this year's um and 450,000 is 0.6323 which is four percent and 400,000 is 0.641 which is five cents you want to go I'd like this little tax rate now the school tax rates are a little bit higher this year you know as low as it were last year they're not tremendous but they are a little higher at what level do you feel comfortable with the undesignated funds I am comfortable with having at least 350 and no matter what we do on this we should have about 400 however I do not know what FY 22 is going to end up because I think we probably overspent and I have no way of knowing that because of the union contract I still don't know what that number is going to be that I'm going to be putting into FY 22 which one would you recommend I guess I'd recommend 450 which is a four cent increase which is 6.4 percent that would need the tax rate at 0.6323 I'm putting you on the spot here but what would what would that mean to a you mentioned a 200,000 property like 0.6228 from 0.6333 of course this is just the municipal rate I'm not calculating in which the majority of the rate is the school taxes obviously so I'd be showing a difference on that I believe so it would be just on the municipal portion would be 81 dollars and 20 cents increase but that's on the municipal portion about every 50,000 that is around 80 dollars here in motion and how the board feels here and you would say you're comfortable at 450,000 like I said I don't know what FY 22 is going to do I guess I'd be willing to make a motion to do the undesignated funds at 450 making the tax rate at 0.6323 for a second second any further discussion all those in favor aye it wouldn't allow me to unmute but I am saying aye as well thank you motion carries so I'll set there Diane a paving bid opening an award you have the three of them in your package there should be three one lagging two smaller pick one which is this paving for what's the paving for here for the there's three streets four four paving of wine street bottom of cross town on the riverton side this bid is from a johnson paving company 126 tons of base 440 tons of top 566 tons total at a cost of 122 71 per ton total bid of 69455 from johnson paving it's from price industries looks like a 605 ton at a unit price of 172 total bid price of 104,060 104,064 $60 it's quite a bit of difference in tonnage wasn't it yes what was the total tonnage on yours 566 this job will be paved with two and a half inches type two base inch and a half type three top cope approximately 340 feet of wine street the second portion of the bid is 740 feet of cross down road third portion of the bid is approximately 660 feet of air street the fourth part of the bid is 312 feet of school street all three overlays should be an inch and a half top cope so the third one is from st paving their estimate total tonnage is 555 tons cost per ton is 148 dollars total job is 82,140 because nothing as far as amounts thicknesses those two tonnages are a lot closer together they were yeah tim how many of these visited talk to you and visited the site what's your aware of all three of them visited the sites i spoke directly with two of them we did a site visit with st and i spoke with mike over the phone did you give them they all had specifications yeah same specs as far as so in the back of in the back of dave's is the the burlin letterhead part that they all received that the specs of so it's all been they all received the same spec of what the base had to be what the what the top coat had to with the wear coat had to be an estimated footage there was measured it there was on the written on the outside envelope i believe of st paving they're also they also when they delivered that they requested the option of having a price adjustment price adjustment based on current current rate at the time the work is done it should fuel continue to rise so it's normally in pike normally puts that in there as well i think there's a letter in there with the scope of their work they use a foot in an ac 69,454 i'd like to make a motion to accept uh johnson paven's bid for low bid at 69,455 second any further discussion who makes who makes sure that uh the scope of work is that here to this i do the gas there no one to make sure that it's done to what we what we presented to them they have to buy buy it yeah would it be 104,060 they're about 82,140 kind of all over the board yeah but those two are similar in the tonnage right yeah right johnson had a higher tonnage and a lower price all those in favor of awarding the contract to johnson paven hi hi hi motion carries can i add something sure so with it being roughly half of what their budget is there was some questions about we have some more smaller work that some aprons and a few intersections that need to be addressed because we were a little concerned about the cost of everything earlier this spring and not didn't want to go branch out too much so we stayed kind of with these smaller roads this year versus what we've been staying we've been sticking with some larger roads the last few years because the price has gone up so much so if you guys are all right with it i'd like to approach them to see if if they'd be interested in doing some smaller some of our aprons like the dog river road the apron on the fall side is pretty pretty tore up what do you expect the cost would be i think we would ask for i for them to keep the same i think yeah we would we would ask them to keep the same tonnage price and give us that's all right with you guys it's just going to be more in the mobilization of equipment yeah you know i mean they would have to give us projects they'd have to give us well they had quite a bit under anybody else i'm just worried about the about the over the five five thousand dollar for different actually it's a different job really it's not the same job we can always put it out the bed too yeah but you put together a list for us of the i mean would that be difficult to uh kind of what your thoughts are for oh right now dog not not right now i know exactly what the dog river road and the three mile bridge road and uh junction road intersection at the the bridge down there that intersection is hard to maintain it's a funky intersection and if we pave out from the bridge to pave that intersection when we grade down there we just grade up to a straight piece of asphalt and not try to do a you're down there trying to do a triangle in that in the guardrail and uh you're not about a through well bridge yeah right yeah and you've got to get a hold of the state sometimes see why that keeps caving in well it needs to be paved is what it is it's just to keep throw cold patch in we've been back and forth middle sex does it sometimes we do it sometimes it's just it gets water underneath it and pulls cold patch right back out and then it's just there it's just it's the joint it's where the pavement meets up to the embotement so you kind of get a pothole in there and see how it goes down to the point where it needs to be i was always under the impression that we own the abutment and middle sex owned the bridge i don't that's one of them fine line harry harry spot but then again the town line is i mean without being surveyed exactly it was well we've been told from what i was told when i started was the bridge was all middle sexes after you come off the bridge that's a weak maintain middle sex plows over to that intersection and then it goes back across the bridge we always but still i didn't have a short apron on it anyways yeah but it still would be good to know just why the why that keeps falling down through whenever we used to do that started up what five six years ago does the state send out a bridge inspector for that kind of work typically i believe they know yeah they normally yeah i'm not sure what their schedule is but they have like they're doing on a rotation i'm pretty sure they don't know at all every year it's no i mean i just make a request to them and uh to find out what the problem is so we don't keep cold patching it okay um all in favor of awarding the to be already done that you know approval of minutes meeting of April 4th 2022 take the motion to approve the minutes of the meeting from April 4th 2022 as presented second the discussion you're all in favor and motion carries approval of minutes from April 18th 2022 your motion we approve the minutes for April 18th 2022 second April the discussion all those in favor all right motion carries second of May 2022 make a motion to approve the minutes as presented for May 2nd 2022 second any further discussion all those in favor hi all right motion carries and minutes from uh for uh for May 16th 2022 make the motion to approve the minutes from May 16th 2022 second any further discussion all those in favor hi hi my motion carries uh approval of licenses permits vouchers and applications payroll warrants i make the motion to approve payroll warrant 23-01 for payroll from June 19th of this year to July 2nd of same year to be paid on July 6th 2022 in the amount of 47153 dollars and 88 cents also payable warrant 22g 25 with checks 22097 to 22131 for fiscal year 22 payables in the amount of 27414 dollars and 22 cents also payable warrant 22g 01 with checks 22133 to 22138 for fiscal year 23 payables in the amount of 48226 dollars and 72 cents and the June 2022 reconcile bank statements for the general fund and also the sewer water division the second any discussion all those in favor hi motion carries roundtable Dave hello no thank you Farrell yeah i'm just uh we have new voting tabulation machines and it was uh not advertised by the state at all but there was a new contract bit awarded for voting machines in every um every town that doesn't hand count got the new machines they're from indirectly the dominion machines which have been controversial if you follow news and election news around the country some miscounts or reversals in wisconsin and miscounts in new Hampshire with the dominion so i just wanted to bring that up as something that although we're a bit of flux with our election certainly uh i'd really like to consider um at least the first use of those in a general election at least spot hand count verification of of what they give us as a report rather than just accepting what they print out on the first tabulation anyway i think Carl are you referring to the primary election or the general no the first general election i think would make sense and just as a point of no in interest there was no press release there was no advertising of the decision made to purchase these by the outgoing secretary of state so i thought it was pretty interesting that with all the turmoil around the last two presidential elections both you know the 2016 and 2020 people had issues with that this wasn't this was kind of slipped slipped through quietly under the radar Joe i'm good thank you and that concludes the signature or something that we added to the agenda oh yes yeah i need a signature um since the town clerk retired um i need the secretary select board to sign this this is the dot an authorization from the bank so that i can already sign this but that this can be the second sign right up there glad you were hanging on to that i am yeah i have to do money carl i don't want to sign your name again right should i print here here okay um that includes the bills of the select board uh i'll entertain a motion going to the executive session for personnel i make the motion that we enter into executive session to discuss personnel issues i second that all those in favor all right we're in executive session okay um a motion to offer callie streeter the job is assistant treasurer for 22 an hour so moved second any further discussion flow i'm in favor yeah well all those signifiers saying all right all right thank you flow thank you yeah i will entertain a motion to adjourn make a motion to adjourn second all those in favor all right