 Well, let's go ahead and, and start 702. Thank you all for being here. Please do remember everyone go through and introduce themselves as board members. But as you speak to say your full name for all listeners that would be appreciated and for the record. So Donna Bate, chair of the board and at large, a member of the board. Mel, Mel Chambel, very city board member. Doug, Doug quite popular board. I'll play a representative. Excuse me, Justin, Justin Droschler, Montpelier rep. Kim, Kim, Judy at large. Thank you. And we have two other members, members of the public attending. Would you please identify yourself? Joe, you want to start? Yeah, I'm Interim Chief Joe Alder at the various city fire department. And the phone user, Stephen, is that you? Would you please introduce yourself? Sometimes Stephen calls in and isn't listening, Donna. Okay, possible. That's it. Okay. Well, I'd like to give him a chance. And of course, we have Orca here. Thank you all for being here. First thing on the agenda is approving the agenda. I have one thing that I wanted to mention with Justin. Do you want to add something specific or do you want to talk about the dissolvement within the budget and goals? I think that it makes sense to add some, it could just go in other business. I would like to add the evolution of the authority and potentially bring it up for a vote. My understanding, reading the charter is that we can bring up. We can, if two thirds of the board vote to, to prepare a plan for dissolution, then we prepare a plan, have a special meeting, and then vote as to whether the authority should be dissolved. So I think it should have its own separate section. I think it's going to require a vote. Okay. I would, would you consider that we have it before because of indeed that's where people are going, then the discussions of the other elements could, could be very much lessened. Makes sense to me. Yes. And I too read through that section, 901.408 within our charter. And about whether we dissolve it, the board or a member leaves, votes to leave, and what the board does there too. So if that, I would have the agenda read after the minutes approved, put in a discussion, the future of public safety authority, right before the review of the draft, if that's amendable to people. And if it is, then I would say that the amended agenda agenda is accepted by unanimous consent, unless there's someone counter to that. Okay, I don't see any hands. Great. Him. Do you have a page number for the dissolution issue? I don't. I have the charter number. It's the 901. It's way back. It's 901.48. I think it's five zero, Donna. It says withdrawal. It starts with the heading of withdrawal of municipal. Page. I think that's different though, Donna. I think the dissolution of the authority is the one we want, 901.50. Well, within that, within that section, it may be, I found it there, C1 in that section, it talks about the board voting to withdraw, but you may have another section. Okay, same principle. Yes. It looks like it's the same principle that's just expressed in different places. Okay. Can you give me the page reference, Justin? 17 and 18. 17 and 18. Thank you. Okay. So next are public comments. The one thing I just remind everybody that the Public Safety Authority Board has been invited to join Berry City Council on December 13th, Montpellier City Council on December 14th. I don't yet know when we're on the agendas in either council, but we'll send that out as soon as we get it. Next is the improvement of the minutes of November 10th. I know I have one amendment. I left out a whole motion. It was a motion made by Jim, second by Mel, to reimburse Donna, the money of 1,300 that was paid to Attorney Webb for our website, and $144.30 paid to Times Argus. And that was approved unanimously. And I forgot to put it in the minutes. So I'd like that added. Donna, can you just say that those numbers to me again, just do it nice and slow so I can add these to the minutes? Sure. So the motion was made by Jim, seconded by Mel, to reimburse Donna Bate for $1,300 that was paid to Attorney Webb and $144.30 to Times Argus for those ads, dealing with the public hearing and the annual meeting. A total of $1,444.30. And both places required credit cards. Neither one takes checks. Okay. Any other amendments? If not, I'll entertain a motion to accept the minutes as amended. So moved. Mel and Doug. Great. Any other comments about the minutes? All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed. Okay. Passes. Thank you. Justin, next item starts out with your bringing up the avenue of which to dissolve and why the Public Safety Authority? Okay, hold on one second. Okay. Just wanted to make sure I got that down. Okay. So I wrote the stuff in the email, but I hadn't had enough hard time being in place for CDPSA anymore, like a really hard time thing where we fit in within the within this entire public safety infrastructure plan. I mean, I've looked at all this stuff. I've been on the board for what a year now, something like that. It doesn't seem that anyone wants CDPSA to be the gym. I'll start over. We're doing gym. We're doing, can you hear me about? Yeah, again. I was just, we just, we modified the agenda to add money dissolution of CDPSA's argument to it and so she's about to make it. So what I was saying is I am having a hard time seeing CDPSA's role going forward when I joined the board a year ago. It was clear like what the role was in the sense that like it was clear that we had the close relationship with Pelevate and that we could leverage that relationship to get a lot of shit done, which the board did, which was really like, I've been really impressive at the time, I was frustrated because I was like, we're not doing what our charter says, but we were still doing a lot and I was convinced that we were doing really good work. Now that all that stuff is done, now that the RFP is done and now that everybody that I have ever talked to, with the exception of Mr. Whitaker and some of the people that he has told me that I need to talk to, has expressed a complete disinterest in CDPSA ever being the governing body of any public, any regional public safety. And, you know, obviously just asking bureaucrats to be the governing body of public safety was probably inappropriate to begin with. These are jobs that require the trust of everyone involved, that where people put their lives on the line, particularly the police and the fire department are constantly putting their lives in line. They trust their chief. I don't see any reason why they would trust us. I think it's totally legitimate and reasonable for them to be very skeptical of CDPSA, not withstanding any, anything that's happened with CDPSA, even if we were starting from scratch. I think it's a bad idea. I think it's a bad idea. And I think we've, I think it's not a good use of money, really not a good use of money anymore. Our budget seems to be quite wasteful and I am concerned not only with just with the financial part of it, but like the human capital part, like how many hours have Donna's week does she have to throw into this thing before we realize that it's throwing good money after bad. And so I think we should dissolve it. And there are some fair criticisms that I've heard from a number of people that are, well, if you dissolve this, then what is there? I don't know if that's our question to answer. I think that's the legislature's question to answer. And yeah, that's my opinion. And that's why I'm not with it. I just don't think it's, I don't think we have a role anymore. I don't think we have buy-in without buy-in. We're lost. Just one comment, Justin, as far as the involvement of the chiefs, some of the original thought was the appointments from all each member had two appointments and they would appoint their chiefs, but none of them chose to do that. So you're right. And that the at large would be more the citizen representation. But others have comments. Please, Doug, do you have your hand up? Oh, yeah. I am particularly interested in Doug's perspective, not for you on the spot, though, just because you've worked in public safety and you've been in a position of leadership where you have to, you know, you have to have buy-in from all your guys that they believe in you. And I mean, do you? So I guess I would be, I guess I'm curious, what do you think the model even works? Okay. Everybody sit back, get your coffee, relax. I'm timing you. Okay. I guess I would ask you all, all of us to stop and think for a minute. How did we get to where we are today? And what was going on? Or in some instances, what was not going and, you know, were it not for back up a little bit more? We first started out public safety authority was its total purpose in the early stages was to convey and determine and work out the plans for having an insolidated dispatch that would take care of all the weak parts in the communication aspect in central Vermont. All the first responders were being directed by different sources, different places and different things. And all of them were being funded in different, different ways. But in my perspective, they were all being underfunded severely. And as a consequence, what has come to a head over the last few months and has been addressed in part by a grant from the Department of Homeland Security and the state would be the beginning of a resolution to that communication. Let's assume for a moment that funding continues and goes forth. The next question you've got to ask yourself and the public safety people have got to ask themselves is what's next? Where is the funding for the other parts of the communication plan going to come? I don't see anybody in city government. I don't see anybody in any of the, you know, organizations. Joe and I guess, Joe, you can direct are their budgets being considered to continue forth with that? Um, funding. No, I'm not part and parcel to any of those discussions, but I don't hear them. And if it stops of just the communication part that is being funded, the rest of it will not get funded. And as a consequence, a lot of things are not going to happen. I hear what I haven't seen and that indicates that the state wants to know if the city of Barry will take on more. Say that again, they want to take on more. Sikes for dispatch. I would not be opposed to that. But the problem that the state is having in terms of its dispatchers. And the person held to do that. They are there and they're in a crisis mode. And I'm not sure why we would want to take that crisis mode and shift it over. Now, is it going to hit Barry? They don't have enough people. Yeah. Will it hit Montpelier? Only a very amount there. Put together some sort of agreement where they're going to continue to try to cover. But way back when. The authority did put together a fairly extensive proposal to join the two systems together. And the administration of both organizations. And perhaps even the members of the respective city councils did not feel very good about that. And to make matters worse, the unions representing the rank and file in terms of law enforcement and dispatchers will fought it all the way. So it's a long way around getting to your question, Justin. You know, what are we doing? But we just spent a fair amount of money. I think that we've got to the point where we've got something that we can look at and say, yes, we accomplish this. But in my humble opinion, there's a lot left to be done. If we leave, if we leave the discussion and it's going to be left to those organizations to do it. And maybe that's the right thing. But if it's left to those organizations to deal with it. Again, I don't hear or either Barry or my player is going to spend any money on this. And they get rid of what little bit of funding we have for sure, nothing will happen. And if the public safety authority is happy with that, then so be it. But you're going to need to wake up some day and say, I think we blew it. We left them all hanging. And I would suggest that you want to dissolve the public safety authority and go ahead and do so. But in the process of doing that, make sure you have a path with some bread come as to how the two main public safety organizations are able to provide the services to the residents of such a democracy. I'll be quiet for a few minutes. Thank you, Doug. Appreciate those comments. Someone else? Jim. Well, yeah. There's just a lot of thoughts running through my mind. They just read Justin's email yesterday. And I have to be quite honest. But, you know, right from the very, very beginning, when I was interested in getting on the board back when I ran for it or did a rating campaign. And even since then, you know, part of my goal, goals, not the right word, part of my thinking was the first opportunity I would get would be to motion to dissolve the public safety authority. And it wasn't because that I was against it. I was worried about where it was going. And it's only been since it's kind of fallen flat on its face that my interest has been kind of renewed. And that is that I think there is a direction that would be acceptable to me. And I'm no longer afraid that they're going to go ahead and just combine all of police and fire into one unit and, you know, just move on without any real direction from the public safety people. I continue to say to myself, the voters in both cities overwhelmingly from the beginning sanctioned our existence and has funded us to various levels of proficiency to go forward with some kind of regionalization and public safety. I was on the school board for nine years. I'm not a huge fan of regionalization in general. Bigger is never better than me. I always say big is bad and it doesn't matter whether it's governments or banks or insurance companies or whatever it is, biggest seems to get out of control. And certainly from a local perspective, bigger is never in the best interest of local interest. But in this particular case, and I can only speak from the fire standpoint and in the dispatch dispatch aspect of that as it as it affects fire. Everywhere I've ever been, even even on the Cape, which is considerably larger than here where I grew up. Regionalization and fire service just functions better. Large cities tend to function within themselves and in rural areas have to have multiple communities to function like one city fire department would. And that being the different levels of response, the different levels of response to emergencies from multiple different locations and different levels of personnel. Rural areas can't do that without employing multiple communities on even the smallest of incidents sometimes. But that requires that there be coordination of it. And, you know, I say this all the time in very city. You know, there can be, I don't know how many people are down there right now. There's someone, some people are out there and there's some open positions. So they may have as few as three people on duty. I was just watching the news about double fatal line of duty death in Pennsylvania today. Two firefighters went in looking for someone that already crawled out the back door. Two firefighters were killed. When three guys in Barry City and Montpelier, I believe is pretty similar, Doug. I think they've got four people on shift, but they probably don't fill the open shift when someone's sick. We always say, we don't know where the water's coming from. The second engine in brings the water. They make the hydrant and so forth. And the guys are heading inside with. Thousand gallons of water, five hundred gallons of water, whatever they happen to have in that particular truck. And when it's out of water, they're out of water. And they're relying on a second group showing up that they really don't know if they even exist yet. And I've said for a long time and Joe Osworth will kind of verify this, that to a great extent, Montpelier and Barry City are already doing this. But it's referred to as automatic mutual aid. I think Barry City and Montpelier right now should be functioning as one department, not governmentally, but operationally. You get a reported first alarm structure fire in any city. They both roll. Now, the way it works now is when they confirm fire, they both roll or if they really think they have something, they both roll. But if someone's asleep at the switch and doesn't get Montpelier rolling at three o'clock in the morning, you could have three guys heading into a building, one guy on the pump and get, you know, have a flash over, get caught with the pants down, so to speak. And Montpelier is just getting started at that point. And that's what's kind of scary about it. So I'm going off on a tangent. So and I'm sure Joe Osworth is probably ready to shoot me right now, because anyway, I won't go there, but he's he struggles with with the role of CBPSA is as well as I do. But I continue to think that there is some role for a catalyst to keep moving a regional approach to public safety forward. I'm not in favor of combining police and fire. That was something that was big in the 70s and we were all petrified of it. It's called the public safety model. You know, firefighters carry guns and police officers had funky gear in their trunk, and it just doesn't work. Firefighters think differently than police officers. And I'm sure Doug will. Yeah, can we get focused a little bit more, too? I guess what I'm trying to say is that I struggle with the idea of just thrown in the towel. I will say that what I've been thinking of since I read Justin's emails, something that I've done, thought of before. And that's I think it ought to just go dormant. You know, trying to put together this structure again in the future would be a tremendous amount of work in terms of getting the legal structure entity put together in the legislative approval, so forth. If we change the bylaws that we. Meet once a year, it could, it could. Put the organization on mouthballs and have it there in the event that there is some interesting going forward, but I'll, I'll shut up. That's, you know, I am completely. Undecided as to where I think it should go. I think there's an opportunity, but I certainly don't have the time to, to shepard it along. Okay. Okay. Thank you. So, Kim, your hand up was next. Can you keep it under five minutes? I'm doing my best. I think Doug and Jim have said some very sensible things. I think we have very little buy-in from the, I'm going to call them for short, the professionals. And that is disturbing. But on the other hand, out of the six years or so, I've been on this board. The fact that we've been here has resulted in better communication between the cities, better communication with the, with the towns and overall I think improvement in the system. And what it's both Doug and Jim have pointed out is the same thing I have in essence, that we really should agree amongst all the potential members. And that includes the towns. In some way by contract or something else. On a way to fund the future. And no one of those entities are going to do it. And that's what I've been insisting that there's more work to be done. And we do have a structure which is quite malleable. There's nothing that's not, we can't amend the charter to serve better the needs of our groups. And I've given some examples and I don't know if anybody's looked at them, but I think there are ways to increase the ability of people to work together. And finally, I think we can separate the budget issue from the dissolution issue. At this point, I don't see I had hoped maybe to get some agreement amongst our members and Cap West that if we could, Cap West that if we got some money and it pushed it fairly amongst all the users, we could we could hire a manager, assuming we got the five or six million that's going to be needed to put the system together. And it would be our manager. But we're we're a long way from that. I so I said in the last meeting, I think the legislature had itself tied in knots last year and I don't think those knots have come undone. There's just a huge debate about how local dispatching is going to work and funding. And I think it's getting to the point where it will get resolved. We may not like the answer completely, but there'd be some resolution. And I think Commissioner Morrison is wise to say I don't think we should impose a one way to do it for everybody, but we got to use the local strengths that everybody has and fit a government structure so that it can work better. So my bottom line is I would pass. This is a two part thing. I would not ask for a bunch of money this time because I agree. We don't have a way to spend it wisely in 23. But I can see putting some placeholders in for 24 and 25 and we can wait and see what it will work. And in the meantime, I guess Donna and Doug are going to leave. And I think Jim is also term limited, which means the whole organization has to be reconsidered and re-stamped. And I've talked to people about it and said, why do I want to work for that? They don't know what the hell they're doing. And I agree with that. But there is room for new blood and new thinking. And Jim Ward is absolutely right. The voters have always submitted and supported working together. So I'm more on the let's slow it down, see what developments. We're going to need to come up with some new members, board members in March. Maybe we may not get them by then, but we're going to have a lot of vacancies. And if we can't find the people that's going to die on its own, but I think we need the opportunity to do it. And I don't think the books are closed on how this is all going to sugar out. As you know, I'm not in favor of the so-called teams approach because it doesn't mean it keeps the whole thing secret and there's no force of public meetings and public records. So we've got a lot more work to do. And I would separate out the big money and support Jim. And I think what Doug was saying is just put it on life support and see what can develop. You're muted. Thank you. Mel, would you like to say something? Yeah. And at this point, I don't know what. I'm the last one who's ended up on this committee. Thank you, Justin, for laughing. And I've been along the way confused much at the time. I've tried to follow where it's all going. And I mean, so a few things I need to check. When I, when you were talking, Doug, it sounded like you were saying that if this gets dissolved, that the televate money might not come through. Did you say that? No. Okay. Okay. Then I'm sorry, what televate money? You mean the state money? Yeah, the grant. Okay. Okay. The Department of Public Safety grant. Yes. Okay. But that one is there, but then there's the future of the public safety. And I think it's important to report that. Right. Okay. And that's what this committee was set up for. This authority, so to speak. Well, it's initial intention was to actually become an existing public safety entity regionally. That housed all the public safety. And we were then taking it a piece at a time. And the first piece was dispatch and communications. And the second piece of the report was that ultimately FAR EMS and police would be under this entity. And they would have professional staff. But the board would be a governing body with input from all the municipals and their public safety personnel, as well as their select boards and city councils. But the only two entities are Barry and Montpelier. And that was prior to that. Correct. When we were working on it, we started out with the main four. Yes. And we had Berlin and Berrytown. Okay. Because it seems to me, you know, especially sitting on council, unreasonable for the two towns. To be picking up the tab that hard. I mean, it's a, it's a big ask, I think. And, and I do agree there needs to be some umbrella so that all the groups are working together. I don't know if this is working though, because you know, when Jim came last year, I, I wasn't part of this then, but when you came to the council last year asking for money, I know it was a it was a difficult conversation that there is a lot of wondering why and how and everything else. And you know, looking at a bigger budget at a time that communities don't have the money. I mean, clear and simple, everything has gone up so astronomically. I don't know how the budget could even go through quite honestly. And then and then there's the, you know, I heard somebody say now that it's fallen flat on its face. This that the other thing there's this feeling that everybody's just kind of treading water trying to figure out where to go. And I don't know if I'm just being too daft in this. I don't know. But it seems like there's a lot of just people's, some people working against one another. You know, unpredictability in terms of what's the central goal and then seeing it get kind of cut off at the knees. I think, you know, I don't know. Really? I mean, my instinct is to say, let it go. But then hearing that it took so much to put it together to make it even have any structure or authority. Well, maybe it isn't the wisest thing to let us let it go. Although. I don't know. I'm rambling and I'm saying nothing. Well, no, that's, that's not true. But you have that dilemma. So, so Doug, I just want to make sure all the board members got to say something I haven't yet. So can I talk before you, Doug, and you're responding to something Mel said. Okay. So I have my, when I have my city council had on, I would probably vote to withdraw. And that's because of the heavy controversy that has been raised with the City of Vermont Public Safety Authority. I do disagree with Jim or anyone else who says we fall flat in our face. I've never felt that way. And I was five years on the committee to get this Charter through to develop the Charter, get it through the legislation. And I feel it's been worth it. I've seen Barry Montpelier change in how they relate change in their opinion of one another. I've seen the dispatchers gain the training and if, Maximizes personnel. We're not fighting over police officers and dispatchers. We're sharing. We're giving employees a chance to promote get better. We're minimizing how much we duplicate the equipment. We're using existing firehouses that are well placed. But it's also the fact that we have a different mindset that no matter where you live, it's the closest to you. Everyone says, don't go around a city to get someplace far station. You know, you go to that house where the need is closest to the truck closest to the people. And that that to me is really important that safety comes before boundaries of towns. And so I really like us to get over that. And I'd like to know that it's not competing with my other city council things. It's really public safety, and it goes on the ballot that way and people support it that way. Whereas the city council, we're all worrying about that property tax. Well, if the voters are going to support it, then they're going to pay for it. So I like that I like that priority that funding push that I think is also what Doug was saying it's not anywhere else. It's here. But when we fight among ourselves and we damage our reputation, then I feel we've we've done ourselves a disservice. And I feel that this organization under this name would have to totally rebrand itself. And not only with the legislators with capital West with a lot of local fire departments, towns, we would really have to. And I don't want to spend any money on an executive director, and I'll tell you it takes a lot of labor as a volunteer to keep this going. And unfortunately a lot, it's hard to spread it over the board have boards really be active besides just coming up and having an opinion at meetings. There's background that we need from people. And we're losing people were losing important people and so I don't see the existing function of the current board and the board this next year to be strong enough to overcome it. So, I would say a very minimum but budget, that's a very least, if anything on the ballot. I do feel we have some funding requests that's going to come up later. And so when we consider our budget request, if indeed it's going to stay alive, even dormant a year or two. Do you keep the website. So you have a place for the records. I mean that's where our expenses are I mean we've had minimal expenses, except for our consultant work which is great. We can, and the organization can continue to do that. But it's still going to take some money so going to have to go through all those official requirements with meetings annual meetings going on the budget, all those steps have to be done by someone. So you have to have a real attentive volunteer board. Okay, that's all I guess I have to say Doug. I guess I'm going to pass. Okay, Jim's waving. Yeah, I just, I wanted to respond to my use of the term flat fall flat in her face. That was perhaps a harsh way of putting it but in contrast to the original goal and also speaking to Mel. The initial goal of the authority was to create a regional fire police and EMS dispatch, governed by this board. And as Doug was saying we decided the board decided to initially start with dispatch and then go to fire and so forth. It put the fear of God in many of the departments around here. Berlin was just jumping up and down hoping that the Berlin fire, hoping that the select will was not going to eliminate them because the center of public safety authority was going to take over everything and then ultimately they both. No, we tried to deal with that overreaction Jim and never really convince people but it was never the attention. It's like we, our goal was also to maintain people and not get rid of staff but people never. No, I thought they completely overreacted it at the time I think that was back it didn't each town vote in Berlin voted not to do it and very town voted not to do it. No, no, the select boards never let us get it to the voters. I don't know that history. I just. Just trying to explain to email that the initial concept of where we were going is very different than where we are right now. That's all and in terms of our original goals. We haven't attained them by any stretch and fall flat in the face. Actually, I had said before something about when we're talking about the training equipment, put some put some score on the school scoreboard. That was a little harsh because I do think that that the public safety authority has accomplished a lot with moving this radio communication systems forward even though this there was a governance issue on it. Perhaps wouldn't have happened if this board didn't exist. So I don't want to say that it hasn't had any accomplishments. But in terms of that initial goal, it was two grandiose to begin with perhaps and maybe that's why we never got there. The initial goal. I thought and I many of people thought was to try to consolidate to save money and that was that was and you may disagree with this Donna but that was a perception everyone had. And it's going to be done just the way it's happening and steps to you take the dispatch you take this piece. But it was never going to save money because there are too many operational needs. No intention, no intention to save money. It was to make better service. But. But anyway, what I wanted to say was that maybe we're at a point where we can push the reset button and create some sort of a. You know, reinvent ourselves committee or some committee to come up with a restructuring of the membership there has got to be a buy in by the existing public safety people. The notion earlier that Justin was talking about about us governing safety people. I agree that there's got to be expertise involved in that but every government service is governed by a citizen board somewhere, whether it be a select board or school board or whatever. And I think that's what this board was intended to be but but you certainly don't have the school board running the schools without having a superintendent having the expertise at the on the ground level. So, somehow, we've got to be the catalyst of we've got to get it to a discussion back to. How can the public safety agencies structure something that will benefit them all and not have the focus beyond saving money because that's that I think that was the. I'm sorry, I'm going to cut you off Jim. It's never been the focus to save money. It's another thing we've never been able to convince people, but I do want Justin do you want to make a motion or have we discussed this enough to them to go into budget and goals for the next year. It doesn't sound like there's any support for dissolution son at the point in making a motion. I guess we could, you know what, you know what, I believe in it, but I'm going to make a motion and people can vote over the one I would move that we vote on preparing a dissolution plan for CBT essay. Okay. Is there a second to fall and let me just get the thing right in there, pursuant to 901 dash 50 of the charter. Okay. I won't be offended if there's no second. Don't worry guys. I'll second it. Okay, male second it. Just to be clear, this is a vote. The way it works is you, there's a vote to prepare a plan. And there's a vote on the plan. So to prepare a plan to just vote to prepare a plan to dissolve we can't prepare for a plan without a vote of a sufficient number. Okay. So the vote prepare a plan. It will carry if at least two thirds of the members vote. Yes. And then that's not a vote to actually develop. Anyway. Okay, so when the plan comes up, you get another vote. We can amend it and such. Okay. And we have a second on that any further discussion Kim. As I read the charter. If you prepare the plan that's that's submitted to the voters, which is, you know, the voters of Barry and my appeal here to combine. I think Kim, I actually think that's referring to us. Because it says if the voters would be authority present and voting at such special meeting of the authority vote to dissolve the authority. Those are, those are not board members. Those are people that decide to come and vote. Well, we think that those are people that show up to the special meeting to vote. Yes. Well, that's what the charter says. Well, I interpret it to mean us because it's just because of the absurdity of like what if well people showing up to a special meeting they get to decide whether the PSA dissolve. Members are communities, not the board. And so it's a little clearer when you read that 48 section withdrawal of the municipal, you vote to leave the same way you voted to join. And it talks about if you and which we haven't if three years passes, and the authority has not voted to bond or construct, or to improve, then you don't have that year lapse your. It's a little bit different. And then after a member votes to withdraw the board then gives notice to remain to the remaining members I say, my payer voted to leave, then the board would notify Barry this happen. And then the board would discuss what is the best interest of the authority to continue or not. If you only have two members and young one goes you more or less dissolve, but normally that's how it works when you have multi members, but members are our voters are towns. So you interpret this Donna word says voters in 901 dash 50 to mean members of the authority. Yes, it's it's voters. Yes, voters are voters are members of the authority. That's how I read it. And speaking the electorate votes on the budget that proves the budget or turns it down. Yeah, that's, yeah, that makes sense. The only thing that doesn't make sense here is like, it's at a special meeting like, they can't mean the body politic they can't mean all voters are going to come to a special meeting and vote on the budget and the authority I don't think that makes sense. I thought that board votes after the members members but see I don't have 50 the 901.5 in front of me I only wrote notes from the point. So, if you hold on, I'm just going to screenshot it and let me see if I can share it screenshot it. Donna, can you let me share screen or control this. Sorry, sorry. Hold on let's do this. Let's see if I can strap this in the chat. Negative cannot drop in the chat. All right, so I'll just share screen. So it's this. Well, you know, me it's Can make that a little bigger Justin. Yeah, old eyes. It's gigantic on my screen. That's better. Thank you. Thank you so much. Well, that talks that section is talking about vote of directors. Yeah, that would be part of it. Yeah, a to is what Kim's talking about which is right it is it definitely seems like it's voters of the municipalities, but that doesn't make any sense to me. Well you have a special meeting looks like you have designated general election town meeting but the town can have a special meeting to have a vote all by itself on one thing. So schools can have a vote a special meeting for a vote, Montpelier can have a special vote because it needs bonding done on something. So it's, it is a community special meeting. Okay. Okay, so sounds to me like that's it then comes right. Okay, so just getting clarity if we vote. Yes to dissolve tonight. This still has to go to the voters of Barry and Montpelier. Yes, to decide whether they want it to dissolve. Yes, it can come from, I understood it can come from us as a board or from each city council. Okay. But I think the. I can't see if it's well it has to be a plan. Two thirds of the board of directors would need to approve to draw up a plan. And I suppose, ultimately, once we got to look at the plan board would have to say yeah that's our plan. And that then goes to the electorate. So it's a multi step process. Yeah, I'm sorry to reread yourself at the very least. I'm sorry there's there's no plan actually really much needed it's very simple states because we have no capital we're sharing. That's true. No, and that's what it has this dilation in the one section about if you if there's no construction or improvement capital wise, it's much simpler. Yes, I would like to at least have a vote of interest in pursuing this at this point. And those who aren't interested in pursuing it. How about, I think, does that change the motion. I'm just a motion. Okay, so why don't we just change the motion to a non binding vote about an interest in pursuing the solution under 90 or under section 901 50. Okay, Mel, you still second it. I will. So the motion is are we interested in pursuing the steps and plan to dissolve. Okay, all in favor, raise your hand. We're going to read them off to me Donna. Pardon. Yeah, can you read them off to me because I'm looking at my roll call because it's not unanimous. Okay, so we'll do the vote by roll call. I'll just start on my screen Doug. Yes or no. No. Myself. Yes. Mel. Yes. Mel. Yes. Justin. Yes. Kim. No. Jim. Yes. Okay, that's two nos and four yeses. It passes. So Justin, you're willing to pursue that. Yeah, I'm, it's not like it's going to be hard. All we need to do is say, where's the money going to go? Well, just reread it and make sure that we're not confused. I disagree with that. It's kind of, you've got to read a one over close. So upon a permanent vote. I'm listening to Doug. Gonna have two thirds of the directors. You've got to have this, you've got to have that. Okay. I'm a short timer. Go ahead and do what you want. Affirmative vote of the directors representing at least two thirds of all votes entitled to be cast on behalf of all members. And comprising at least two thirds of all of the directors present. So two thirds of the directors present. Two thirds of all representing two thirds of all votes entitled to be cat. On behalf of all members. Well, that's a weird sentence. Yeah. So just, anyway, study it and come back with one, your interpretation and all of us read it with our interpretation. But I think it's going to take a whole nother discussion. Yeah. Okay. So it's almost eight o'clock. I would like to get on to the other pieces. So we're going to move on to the three year draft. That I sent out. I apologize that the format of the Excel sheet. Didn't wasn't very neat. The borders were different sizes and all, but I hope you were able to read it. And I put out there in the right hand side. All the different percentages we'd be asking money from Barry from Montpellier and I even included the 300,000 that we put in there for potential CAD system. And the budget for the coming year, I only put the consultant to work on the CAD system. And developing that RFP, etc. And then the next year, the actual request of money. Any changes or modifications to that. Could you just tell me what the bottom line for 23 would be. What you mean by bottom line for FY 23 this year this year is FY 23 ends in June 30 2023. Okay, six months. What do you want to vote on in March and for 24. If March if indeed we accepted this budget we'd be asking for 30,000. 13,900 from Barry 14,100 from Montpellier 30,000 the same as we asked last year. Okay, trying to find where those numbers are but all right. Okay, where which numbers up in the revenue you have an allotment for Barry you have allotment for Montpellier. 15,900. 14,100. So the balance carried over from this year, unless we allocated out there are some needs that we wanted to talk about. We might not have that balance there, but then we would do less consultant work. Well, I see 50,000 there is that what you would say that we would put on the budget for March. The total revenue for FY 24 included a carryover of $20,000. Actual ballot request was $30,000. Okay. That's modest. What I would suggest. I agree with you that. Maybe not an executive director but I think a competent administrator did to do the paperwork and get things where they need to go would be helpful. I don't know what that would cost but I think it would want a competent administrative administrator. Secretary in law if this gets them. Well, we have no administrative money in there now you'd have to give some amounts and make a motion to add it. Right. This reflects what was motioned last November 10th meeting was to put in to remove the executive director related expenses, and we put in specific projects we had money to hire someone to do specific projects we wanted one we were thinking was the CAD. It could be something else but we have money we have $40,000 for FY 24 for consultant project manager kind of work. And that's not necessarily one project it could be five it could be whatever. But right now there's no administrative money. Well that could be administration. Yep, you possibly could do it that way. Yeah. Okay. So I would move that just be administrative or consultant support. Okay. Justin you have your hand up. Oh, I don't think we should ask for anything. I just wanted to be able to put it on the record because I'm when I vote no I don't want to have a weird discussion later. Yep. Yep. Okay. Anyone else. All right so anyone going to camera made a motion was that motion seconded. I'm sorry. I'll make a formal motion that we support the proposed budget for fiscal year 24. Okay. Mel you were saying something, or trying to say something. I've completely forgot. Okay. So there's a second to Kim's motion. Except the budget as proposed. Okay. I got comments. Comments Donna. Identify yourself please sir. All right. Just let me anyone else on the board. All right Steve go ahead. Okay. I'm not sure this board can but you could theoretically take action to amend the charter. You can't ignore the charter the charter requires that you hire a director like it just like it requires that you get an audit. You can't ignore the charter especially if you're lame duck people who are getting off the board in March. You know slim pick and drive the nuclear bomb down. So it's reckless it's irresponsible it's illegal for you to ignore the charter. You need to build a budget that adheres to your charter, even if the next board chooses to, you know, deep six the organization. But the flagrant disrespect of the charter is part of the reason why this organization is in the ditch. So I look forward to the new blood. I don't have much hope in the meantime, but you can't ignore the charter. You do need to build a budget that includes the executive director. And there is this may be the only way to get the revenue. The governance meet the governance requirements of the state which are still in the evolution. You know, hopes and dreams among capital fire and Montpelier that they're going to get a bunch of contracts with all these towns binding contracts and 10 year capital projects, etc. But there's several three two or $3 million short of even the radio system. So there is a role for CDPS a just probably not with this crew. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, the motion before us is to accept the budget as presented, ask you to end up asking the towns, a total of $30,000 split between Barry and Montpelier. Mel. Just a question of information. If we just voted to, and I'm going to get the wrong words to consider to dissolve. Because it wasn't to dissolve it was. Okay. Still why would we be voting on a budget then. Just curiosity or right voting. No, no, it, I mean, I was, if it had been a unanimous, then we would not not do it and people gladly challenge me. My assumption is, is that because we're still working on a plan and it's going to come back to us to vote on that this was not a formal statement such as binding of absolutely dissolving but to examine the language help us all better understand it. And meanwhile, we have legal steps we have to go through and have a budget that we're going to present at our annual meeting December 19. If indeed we plan not to dissolve, then we also keep need to keep moving on the official timelines to get ready for the ballot. Got it. So it's, yeah, it's a dual track. It's different levels of whatever. Yeah, some of us may still vote no because we feel that's the way we should go. So we may vote the budget down and others will support it saying because maybe we'll go forward. So I'm going to take a roll call just right off the bat. I know there's going to be differences of votes. So again, starting in the corner Doug. Yes. Okay, Donna, no, Jim. I don't know why your name is there. You're out of order but Jim you're next. I know you're in the middle of open class request. If we decide to continue and not dissolve. That would be the reason we'd probably have to have some kind of a budget but do we do we have a budget that does not require requesting any money from the cities. I mean, do we do do we do a budget for the existing money that we have. Yes, we have like $31,000. Okay, so we also have some requests becoming before us related to the public safety application. I'm going to vote no on the current budget because it's going to. All right, now operate budget. Donna, can we, Donna, I'm sorry. That's a item realized but a good point Jim was going to bring up. So if we want to. Like what do we do with the status quo so we so we don't prepare a budget is zero we just say that our money carried over. If we like if the budget gets voted down. Right this proposed budget, then we just carry over the money that we had. Anytime. Yes. Okay. All right, cool. All right. I'm sorry about that. Also don't I need to know who seconded that I didn't write it down. I thought Doug seconded. Doug seconded. Okay, sorry. And so far I have Doug voting for Donna and Jim voting against. Yeah, and now I'm going to vote now. Okay, Justin. No. Kim. Yes. Yes. Okay, so we have four nos to yeses the budget doesn't pass. We have a budget that doesn't pass. And at this point, not passing is not necessarily meaning we have no item. We want to go as a valid item. This budget didn't pass. Is there a motion of what budget we want to pass and a budget could be. I make a motion that the budget is just the remaining money from this year and that we don't make a request from any of the towns that could be a motion. But we need some motion of some kind of a budget to go into our annual meeting with. I'll second what you just said. Oh, okay, that we use to carry over money, but not make a request. Right. Okay, that makes sense as a motion secretary, Justin. Yes. So Donna makes a motion to use current capital. The budget for next year with no request for the city. And Jim seconded. Yeah. Yeah. Great. Okay. I'm going to do the same vote. Doug. Oops, he's up the way. Jim. Yes. Mel. Yes. Justin. Yes. Kim. Yes. Doug. I have a question. Yeah, go ahead. If the vote is to present. No budget. No, the motion is the budget will carry forth the revenue left over from this year, but no requests from the towns. So we'll make the expenditures without. To cover the. The budget will be covered by the revenue left over. We won't have, we only have 10,000 consultant money. We won't have 40,000. We're taking away $30,000 from the budget. Not essentially mean that you're. Solving the organization. No more than other years. We didn't ask. We just do what we're going to do with the money we have. All right, we'll see. So that is a yes or no. So do you want an official abstaining? Sure. Okay. And I vote yes. So it's five yeses and one abstention. All right. Jim, Jim wants to talk. Oh, sorry, Jim. Go ahead. You're muted. Jim, you're like me. You forget you're muted and start talking. What I was thinking is that. If we made a request. For a certain amount of money. And at the same time, we were making a vote to consider a dissolution. The voters, if I was a voter. Looking at that, I would say no to the budget. And we were going to end up in the same spot. So that's why I supported the idea of just staying where we are. Because that's where we would end up if we went in looking for $30,000. At the same time. So we're going to try to dissolve. So. That makes any sense to anyone. We would have been in this spot. Either way. Possibly. Yes. Okay. So next agenda item. And I'm going to. Turn this section over to vice chair Doug point. This is an appeal to the head of the agency. Without an executive director, you don't have a head of an agency. I would like to ask the visitor, would you identify yourself? Doug, are you going to be able to take over the meeting? I'm sorry. Bad timing. You're eating dinner. Just trying to get the paperwork up. What do you want to do? Can you hear me now? Yes. So what I'm asking. Vice chair Hoyt is. That the board is responsible for their elective officials responding. To the records request. I made a record request. And very clearly public safety authority board. Is covered. To be obligated. That any time they have any communication written or electronic. That relates to any topic before the public safety authority board. That has come that will come that might come. And that is not considered personal and private. And Mr. Keeney. Kim's response to my request was that. His communications were all personal. He didn't have anything that I didn't have a copy of. No, that wasn't my response. And I sent in, in the attachment. My, my requests, Kim's response. And then my appeal. And actually, I mean, Justin, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, it involves you too as a custodian, you oversee all those responses within the board. What do, what do you need from me. Regarding that. Well, I guess your, your attention or direction of helping the board decide. To direct a member of their board to respond to the record request. You know, the. In turn, just so that I, I know it. So your position is that if someone is communicating with CVPS, a see yet, they board member about CVPS a business, then that is the public record. Yes. Absolutely. And as a city council member, if I don't respond to a public record, the city manager very clearly directs me and then the council, because it's their responsibility. I'm one of their members and I'm not following. where do we draw the line like if I'm so like if my wife emails me about something this is the problem that I have I know that I'm doing like a stupid slippery slope yeah but I've asked specific you think we need to have I didn't say request talk to anybody I named specific people and with those specific people on specific topics related to public safety authority well yeah yeah I guess my question is like more generally like like what is the breadth of what you're what one is able to request from one of us because there is a I just don't want to I wouldn't want to be in a position where someone is requesting my conversations with outsiders about CVPSA that are really just like my personal conversation do you know what I mean that we're on where I'm speaking not as a CVPSA board member I guess that's the distinction we're drawing like where someone is speaking as a TVPSA board member versus as a member of the public if I talked to anybody about city business it is a public record and so like when I got a request about dogs because I put a dog item on the ballot of Hubbard Park and I had to turn over every conversation I had about dogs to anybody in the state out of the state anything related to dogs and parks that was really yes yes that was related to that ordinance or whatever year that request you know what I mean like what I mean obviously it wasn't anything related to dogs you didn't talk to me like I attended public commission meetings about dogs for two years they all went in all the nodes all the comments anything that was a communication that dealt with that topic of dogs in Hubbard Park dogs a month of your city streets anything dog related to those I talked about dogs in Alaska that wasn't included but anything about dogs in Montpelier was included you're going to delete some tax Jim I'd like to ask Donna what you're citing on that interpretation that's a pretty broad it's a broader interpretation that I've ever seen in the past that if someone contacted me on the school board about an issue that's as broad as it could be but I'm not asking for every communication in my request here with miss with Kim it's very specific any written material related to public safety authority or individuals within the board legislation allocation of funds it's all things that I've heard from people that say they've had conversations with Kim that give them a negative impression about public safety authority about our application about our requested for funding it's very specific are these public officials that that have spoken to him they're public officials who quote him but doesn't matter if they quoted me or not I guess what I'm thinking is that a state official communicates with a citizen that becomes public record an elected official communicates with the constituent I don't think that I've never heard yes it is oh yes we had in fact we had a yeah I mean I guess what's the citing I had to jump through hoops to provide Steve Whitaker with everything that I've ever done texts included on public safety authority and none of you have been touched on so you haven't lived Doug has Doug's had to go through all his stuff and turn it over but yes if you the broadest is very broad my request is not that broad okay it is though that's the one thing about the open meeting law it is very demanding you can't talk about city business and and even make a request in of asking can I talk about this that becomes part of the record that I made a request about something it's it's everything there's no exclusion I can't where do you draw the line well he set me nothing so he has a pretty high line wait a minute I gave you know you haven't well I answered you every paper that I've ever written to board members I've sent you a copy and you have it and the one correspondence I made to the joint fiscal committee I sent a copy of that to Doug and I presume he gave it to you because it's public knowledge that I'm sorry that's not part of the record just like Steven has lots and lots of copies but I had to send them all anyways nope sorry we can bring the lig in here I've offered and wanted the board to have training on this because you all don't seem to really understand it but I'm sorry I mean we had that meeting with you keep with Bill Frazier and Joe Allsworth and deputy chief north nortonson and you know it took a long conversation for you to finally say oh yes I've had conversations with so-and-so and so-and-so and yet what do you mean I was asked if I had conversations I said I had public records I feel you've really undermined it is about allocation you've undermined it this public safety application because of conversations and communications you've had with people I'm told you look okay what I mean I can't recreate my conversations you asked for written records and I've told you what I've done okay you've done nothing in writing electronics okay well I don't believe that okay of course but it's not just bored as accountable for its members to be in compliance that's all okay on the other hand the CBPSA is no longer part of the great application that's the city's job so I can talk about oh no we're huge I can talk about the city's job we're not a member you wrote that yourself no no no senator Sears brought up public safety authority because of things he heard all right the board doesn't feel they have any responsibility all right I'll take my stuff and I haven't so I have not made a decision on this yet Donna I don't want to believe her it's been out there since the 14th no I guess the this discussion I think it's useful for me I still don't think we've drawn a line so we're not drawing a line we're just saying that the that any communications are subject to it our subjects disclosure the position that I would take I guess the position I would take you can you can talk in a minute there where is he I can't find him he's gone he just my position is that any communications with any government officials are most certainly public records and should be closed at an absolute minimum would be my position I don't know what everyone else position can I just ask you a question on that a member of the board having a discussion with with a public official you say that's automatically public I think regarding CVPS a business I think it is yeah I think it is don't you well I do but I think I think it is because it's the the state official of you that there's a written communication the state officials papers become public record all government documents of public records I'm just not certain if it goes the other way but if there's written communication between anyone public and a public official a state employee in an official capacity that's public record I just but I just want to throw out there that I am completely just totally disenchanted with the undercurrents that have gone on publicly privately or whatever that have undermined the met the efforts of this board I think they're completely detrimental to our mission and detrimental to our being able to function I'm just not sure that this rises to the level of records man I'm not doing a very good job here running much of anything I the interim I was going through my files and try to find what it is that them have responded to you Donna and I can't find it you can't find what I'm sorry Doug did not find what him had responded to you in terms of it's directly under my appeal in the same document I put it all in one document okay so I'm not good that's okay I'm not surprised I mean it's okay okay they're not surprised then I just I'm all done you want me to leave now no no I mean it as far as the confusion I mean I understand that it's confusing and it's really not all I'm choosing I just couldn't find I apologize I'm gonna leave now I can do with this as you want Mr. Hoyt Doug Hoyt are you chairing can I speak on this topic sure Steven I love hearing what you have to say well I hear a little sarcasm there but I am pretty I didn't say that was sarcasm okay I'm pretty familiar with public I'm pretty familiar with public records law I use it routinely to shine light on government there is a lot of misunderstandings and misinformation flying here and there are there I find it supremely ironic that I actually use the charter provision to get this issue on the agenda of the city council and it was just swept under the rug with no support from Donna or anybody else all the missing records of the point that this body without an exception without executive director there is no head of this agency and the board doesn't serve as the head of the agency so Donna's choice is to take it to court just like she tells me she can't try to turn this body into a court not going to be a court or wanting to find out what was going on so whenever Donna whenever Steven has asked for head of agency he informs me as chair I'm not that the board is so that's why I've used the board as the head of the agency I'm okay with that we're a small group Donna in the in the process of doing this did you receive any information from Reed and or the secretary of states regarding this particular issue well because I did this personally there wasn't a meeting to ask if the board was also concerned about these other correspondence happening between a board member and other people I did it for me and so I can't call the league only the public safety authority wanting to do and have a request about this so you could call them and ask what the state is on the board in relationship to my request the board wants to do that I would certainly entertain that Jim is far and I'm not sure I'm on really solid ground in terms of asking you but getting by all this stuff and wanted to get to the crux of the issue in the interim did you happen to have any conversations with any legislators about the application for funding from that originated out of the public safety authority in other words the city's the city's application yeah of course that's not CBPS a business and yes I did I I had an oral conversation with the names are about senators years senator from Bennington yeah six years and I wrote a letter to the joint fiscal committee and I think I wrote a letter to a Mandy mooster who's at that time was working with the working group but those are city businesses CBPS a is not part of that application did you sign the letter as an individual or as a member of the sport and probably I can't recall I probably remember I probably didn't indicate that I remember as a member of the board I think a minute makes it our business well except that we're not a party to the application I understand that but when you send a communication in various ways indicated represent you're represented with this board that kind of makes it this board's business I think I'm just going to ask you personally Kim why not just give the letter to Donna if that's what you're entering she's interested in it. I have not sent the copy of the letter I sent Mandy and I that's the only one I can recall at the moment that I sent you say you did send it to Donna or didn't that one I did not but would you send it to her Mandy I think we're missing the principles it's not a directive on each individual it's at least for what I'm appealing is that just to follow the request there's explicit details in this letter about the type of communication and to whom that I'm asking for letters both on the legislative allocation that was damaged back in January February as well as this application it means very detailed and that's what I'm asking Mel's Mel's got a question go ahead Mel so Donna are you looking for our group to support you in the request from Kim my interpretation of other councils and commissions I'm on is that when you are a member of that whether you're writing officially on behalf of that body that as that appointed elected official you are vulnerable to a records request of any topic that that body has ever dealt with or would deal with so I feel this body has a member who is denying this request for records and since that is a member of this body it reflects on this body when I say I'm complied with it except the one letter you reminded me I'm happy to provide and so Donna just pursuing the question on I understand that when you are on entities like this everything you say and write is liable how do you want us to proceed or what are you asking us specifically well I was hoping that you would Kim he has a responsibility to respond and it involves much more than one letter but I understand that I would hope they'd ask him to respond because he felt whatever he had was private and didn't have to share it with me that's what he said in his that indicates there were some written communications sitting out there that he didn't want he didn't want to share and I agree it should be shared I'm at a place in time that I would like to have the opportunity to have the vice the league and or the secretary states office if Kim's position is that what he does as a board member as it relates only to the city of Montpellier's activity and therefore the old meeting lot does not apply I'm not so sure that's correct but I don't know that so I'd like to have some assistance for I think we should all have assistance as the women that is true you can postpone this to the next meeting I wouldn't do it on the annual meeting I'll waive the time requirements we can take it up in January I think that's a good solution I might give Kim the opportunity to review his records and see what it is that he is sent to if any to any of the legislative members of the fiscal committee Kim you're sending me stuff that kind of spells out your position on governance it's just that explaining your position on governance it's not what you told me well that's what that's all the things I've written on my position on governance well I guess I'd like to see well I've sent it to you and there's at least that one letter I recall okay I mean there may be others that I don't keep the very best records but I certainly look for them I sort of sort of understand that with all apologies to Donna but yes I didn't see that stuff from the bottom of your email so I apologize I kind of get the consensus is that I'm going to postpone this particular issue and okay till the January 12th meeting yeah move on right I apologize thank you it's an awkward situation I apologize that I felt it was necessary I don't disagree that it was necessary yes I apologize in terms of my preparation we need a motion to vote to table it or there was no motion on the floor anyway no no so just close the meeting then Doug we got a waiver here Justin we got to do wait do we do CVPSA charges for public records was that at the last meeting I think we need to do that I think we need to do that Donna we kick that we keep the can on that like eight times it should be done it won't take but a couple minutes yep in my humble opinion yeah Donna you got it the public records charges I I'm sorry oh we need to discuss charges for public yeah we kicked that one down the road a few times I totally forgot that one and I don't have a copy of it but I sent it out everyone it was a mirror of using Montpeliers of what the public safety authority charges when people ask us copies Justin you're muted sorry I would move without discussion to adopt the the proposed model sent out by Donna to mirror what Montpeliers uses Montpeliers existing policy for the CVPSA policy a second that oh I'd like to speak on this no I'm no longer in charge so go ahead Donna okay all right Steve brief please well I don't have a copy of this thing it wasn't on the website it wasn't sent out with the email so I don't have a copy of the proposed charges but I will note that the Montpeliers charges were adopted just as rapidly and hastily and specifically targeted and impeding my requests and the charge per minute is four times what the Secretary of State charges for so this is just pure obstructionism and you're setting yourselves up for litigation over it so I think this takes more discussion it takes a broader circulation prior to the meeting prior to the motion being made I think it's just reckless and punitive and I hope that Kim Chaney raises charging Donna for these records at $2 a minute Steve hold on Steve what is the what does the Secretary of State charge per minute of order okay Cameron did these and I can send you her emails of how she calculated them using the Secretary of States but I mean the only one I care about is I'm out 45 bucks paying for Steve's DVDs that we get from Orca and so I send it all the way and it's it's really the DVD that I was concerned about I would like to get some reimbursement on that and if the public safety authority wants to pay the full 15 bucks because we not only do a DVD but we move it to the format and they move it to the format of an MP4 then that's the only piece I guess I'm asking for right now but I give you the more complete policy to look at 30 seconds can you tell us what reasonable Steve can you just tell us what reasonable numbers would be in your opinion in 20 seconds well the charge per minute for searching and finding records above 30 minutes on the Secretary of States is 55 cents a minute that turns into you know $30 an hour but if we if you were only hitting the record button on zoom and then putting it on the website for download you wouldn't have any charge for make people accessing these meetings so this is the obstruction that Donna has created to not want to manage the recording that she's trying to now she deserves to be out 45 bucks she created this mess it's longer than 20 seconds brother all right I'm my motion stands with the way I would like to I'd like to move to change the dollar per minute after the first 30 minutes cost to 55 cents per minute after the first 30 minutes and otherwise adopt adopt Donna's request in full with the option that the PSA can waive the fee for anyone or pay the fee for anyone that's a that's a nice amendment second the amendment any further discussion on the motion in the amendment the amended motion all in favor say I I anybody opposed okay passes anything else under other business thank you for reminding me of that yes Jim yeah for all done I wanted to just kind of quickly explain my vote on the pursuing dissolution and primarily to plan to see I voted in favor of it because I wanted to be in a position to reconsider it later on if I come up with some viable alternative approach but at this point I'm not sure if I have one but I wanted to keep that door open so I will leave it at that okay okay well Doug comment Joe also had his hand up for a while oh Joe I didn't see your hand oh yes oh for heaven's sakes yes Joe other business thank you Donna I forgot you Joe not much thanks sorry about that we Barry Montpelier would like to come before the board tonight to request to spend up to $25,000 and do a impact study in both dissbat centers I believe that this would be beneficial to really assess the capabilities and the either you know positive and negatives of the both dissbat centers we would like to get improvements in strengths and weaknesses in this and I asked the board on behalf of both Barry Montpelier I have talked to both city managers and they know tonight that I am coming before you to request this so how much do you want Joe I would like to spend up to 25,000 on a consultant to do that so we'd have to amend our budget to do that I would support that did you get some estimate numbers on that that included both cities yeah we have some preliminary stuff we don't have anything concrete on the full evaluation of both dissbat centers and a timeline on it Joe if we waited into January or meeting on the 19th we'd like to get it started immediately and have it completed in the next 45 days and that's a guesstimate that is not infirm we're still trying to work out exactly the scope of the evaluation but we're looking to have a both dissbat centers to be evaluated in and recommendations well if indeed we move forward on dissolving then that would be a place to put our funds but if indeed there's some amendment on that out of the some 31,000 we have now that would leave five about five six thousand so Joe have you picked a vendor yet we have reached out to the vendor yes just for to get some numbers yes who is it we actually talk to tell of eight who does have experts on staff that can do that very operationally the study operationally they would look at the both operations they would actually see the impacts on the current situation and potential for future expansion which I think is important to do to be prepared to move into the future and I think that's something that we're in a good spot right now to look at so that's looking at office space personnel equipment across the board very good to look at operationally how do we deliver services is it functional is it dysfunctional you know what's their recommendations the whole line there with the thinking towards a combined dispatching operation in separate locations chief I think everything is on the table at this point we wanted to have a comprehensive look at the delivery of how we are doing dispatch so we're assessing both and maybe combination okay good would you consider would you consider additional vendors different vendors I definitely could bring that back to the managers and the chiefs and see what they say but yeah because I certainly would support this on something that I've actually promoted in the past was do an operational assessment I think I'd use a different vendor but there's one down in Rhode Island that did Providence it's very fire dispatch oriented I tell me I think was terrific and what they do with the hard I'm not sure if they have the expertise in the operational end of it they have a therapy that they do when we wouldn't have the money until we voted and we are well we have the money it would leave us with $6,000 if we did it if it actually went up to 25 and it might be less than that but if it went up to the max of 25 then we'd have like $6,000 left well if we're dissolving is not an issue but if we don't then it is does what you want me to stop by your office for Joe so what if we thought about this and made the decision on the 19th you're going into the holidays or people can make a motion now you're going into the holidays or people can make a motion now I mean I I would like to I would like to pose to taking what little money we have because I think we have other needs but I would certainly support adding it to our budget this assessment is in conjunction with the application for the grant money Doug you were next I think talking then Mel Doug go ahead I'd like to see something in writing formal request yep chief we'll make sure that you have that it'll be both from both city managers not just to me but to the board yep absolutely chief so our feelings people want to wait on this and come back to it on the 19th with more information okay yes okay Joe so if you get that information out then the annual meetings on the 19th of Monday yes Jim okay I was sorry deadline on the budget if we have opportunity to maybe revise our budget for next year we have it on Monday we have it in January we have it up until the protein of the ballot because if we're going to airmark our current money for this then maybe we should put something in that but that's worth reconsidering later on okay so I'm out of chair I'd like to speak on this topic see Whitaker I want to see Joe so you're going to get a stuff out I will I'd actually like to ask the chair if she could pull the board to see if there was any support for this okay so just a general senses of support for it not non-committal hands up generally support the idea of adding this money to help the application process and the implementation of the application cost okay so you've got I'd like to speak on this topic okay Steven but just remember as we do not have to have public comment on every topic so just it's important that the board gets its discussion done go ahead so I could just bring a $25,000 request on you at the last minute I mean CVPSA is not the applicant for the Twin Cities group that operates in behind secret meetings that asking for the 2.4 million or the 3.6 million why are they using CVPSA as a piggy bank to do their homework to make evidence that they don't have a plan that plan should have been there before they made an application for the funds this is reckless irresponsible and you know negligence on your part to even entertain this motion okay thank you Steven all the work has blocked the request for records since last April okay thank you Steven that's all I just want to say in case you got missed in the communication this really changed because the Department of Public Safety has asked the cities to take on more towns it's not so they've expanded the service potential for Barry and Montpelier Central Vermont and hence they want to look at the impact should the cities take these on it's not something lacking in the application this is because the state is asking the cities to take on these towns I think that's really important Joe Madam Chair I'd like to add to that because I think it's responsible on our end not to overextend what we currently have I think it's responsible on both municipalities to actually assess and to see if we can responsibly pick on these customers and I think that's why we're coming forward to this this is currently unbudgeted in both municipalities and I do think this furthers CVPSA's niche I know there was a lot of conversations that happened and unfortunately I've sat here for most of the time that CVPSA has been birthed and matured and I think I'm just going to leave it at that this is what it's about bringing towns into the centralized dispatching I think it's great okay I'm going to close the meeting is it really important? okay Kim well I think it's a great idea I just don't think we can take it out of the money we already have because we won't be able to function yep got that okay okay thank you everyone thank you thank you have a good evening we'll see you on the 19th if you can't make it let me know please 19th Monday