 I'm just going to write it down so I do it next time. All in favor and passing the minutes of May 13th. Say yay. Yay. Yay. Yay. Oppose, nay. Okay, minutes passes. And we have next the update. Poco update. But before we let Poco talk, I just want to apologize that your checks are really in the mail. They're really, really in the mail. We got the signatures on the warrant. We got the checks signed and they're in the mail. I'm really sorry. Thanks you for your patience. That's all right. Thank you for the update. And you can now do your update. Well, to a lot of you, this may be a little redundant, but you're just going to have to bear with me. I did prepare a written report and gave it to Donna. I don't know if it was sent out ahead of time. Otherwise, Donna, you can do with it as appropriate. First of all, this summary includes a time period from between May 13th, the last board meeting, and June 10th this evening. There was a lot of, in my perspective, a lot of liaison work with Tel Aviv and some of the stakeholders, numerous phone calls and emails. I talk with Rick and Don often, especially as we were preparing for the site visit. And I might add, I'll skip right to the end just to let everybody know that we are on track for a delivery by Tel Aviv for the next meeting of at least their recommendations and hopefully a near finished report. So the project is wrapping up. The project is wrapping up within the scope that was contracted within the budget that was agreed upon and the timeframe that was agreed upon with the one hiccup that we identified and all agreed to give, Tel Aviv a month's extension for the delivery of their final recommendations. So that's kind of the end goal. July 8th, well, I think it's July 8th is the next meeting. Whenever the meeting is in July, we'll get to hear from Tel Aviv with their presentation on what they've found. So other than coordinating and participating in the site visit, I put together two grant proposals that we'll talk about later and set up a meeting that was held today with Washington Electric Co-op WEC and perhaps Don, I can speak to that in a minute. But I do wanna talk about the site visit. First and foremost, I need to give a tremendous amount of credit and those of us who participated in the site visit would agree that a lot of credit goes to both Doug Brent and Joe Aldsworth but in large part, a tremendous amount of credit goes to Joe Aldsworth who coordinated the site visit to the towers on Tuesday. So Dom Acrury arrived in the state on Monday, May 17th. He checked into his hotel and Doug, Kim, myself, Joe, and Dom, I think that was all from CVPSA, met with Central Vermont Medical Center's staff. We met with the director of security, a nurse manager, director, and the ER nurse manager. I thought it was a very, very informative discussion and I think Kim would back me up and perhaps Joe and Doug would as well. But I don't think it was new news to either Joe or Doug relative to the problems that exist with communicating with the hospital from EMS staff. To put it in perspective, the hospital serves a population of about 70,000 people within a 50-mile radius. The RF capabilities from the hospital to the EMS incoming units is only within a 25-mile radius. They also rely heavily on cell phones and actually said that it's better for them to use cellular phones than actually RF communications because they don't have to worry about privacy or HIPAA issues while delivering personal identifying information over the cell phone or over the RF. It's more private on the cell phone than the radio frequency to land mobile radio system. We found that only four of the total EMS units responding in and out of the hospital have digital capabilities to deliver EKG strips to the hospital on patients coming into the hospital. That is a problem that would only be corrected by increasing the cellular coverage, specifically I think the FirstNet AT&T coverage in the greater Washington County, greater central Vermont area. And there's no point in getting the equipment and the other ambulances or EMS providers because of the poor cell coverage. The hospital feels that they could really provide a higher level of care, a higher capability for triage, proper triage, if they had better communications with incoming EMS units. And so that was really, I think, enlightening to all of us. They did agree while we were there, and I know that Doug and Joe are still working on this. They agreed to put another antenna on top of their roof that would improve radio communications. And so I'm going to stop there and ask Joe and Doug if I said anything that misrepresented the conversation or if you want to add anything about the communications issues that fire and EMS face with them. I think you did pretty good, Paco. Can you hear me? Yeah, yeah, you're good. Yeah, I think you did pretty good. In fact, I'm pretty proud of you, actually, for the way you delivered that. You did good. Yeah, so the only clarification I would make would be to the last sentence you said. They did agree at the hospital to allow us to position a radio or antenna there on the roof of the hospital. That's if we get a new CVPSA or capital mutual aid radio system, that would be an ideal location due to its height and proximity to the departments within the radio range of that building. So that would be a added site for any future radio work that's done to the capital mutual aid system or a Barry Montpelier radio system or anything, not an additional antenna to help the hospital communications. So Doug, it's a really a communications, increased communications capability between Montpelier, Barry City, and Capital Fire, EMS units, correct? Correct. That has identified a number of different people as being a really good site to provide better coverage in the area, especially when we get into a repeater network type of a system. Okay. Moving on from the hospital visit, we had dinner, several of us. Paco, I would like to add to the hospital. Okay, Kim. I'm sorry. You were there. Go ahead. I was indeed. I think the hospital people made it isn't just triage. Patient care can be dramatically improved if they have communications with EMS people as either at the site of a problem or as they transport. And triage is important, which is to say, if you have an accident with multiple injuries, they can organize the emergency room to take care of that. They may have to move people out of the emergency room and put them somewhere else to take care of these things. And it isn't just convenience. It's vital to patient care. And they made that very plain their desire to serve the patient and do better. So I just want to emphasize that. And I think what I understood and correct me if I'm wrong about this, that LMR has better security than cell phones. And you said the opposite. So they can put strips on four people, can put strips via LMR. No, I don't think so. Just the opposite. Kim. Okay. Tell me where I'm wrong. Strips go in over the cellular phone network. Strips don't go over LMR. It's a very Byzantine method to send them over LMR. And we've fast moved away from that technology completely. The other thing is, if you call LMR and tell them that we're bringing Kim Cheney into the hospital, everybody that has a scanner in their house hears it. If we say it over a cellular phone, nobody hears it except the hospital. All right. But it's not encrypted. It's not encrypted, but no more encrypted than your cell phone is encrypted now. You can't pick up a cell phone on the scanner. It doesn't make the... Thanks for the correction. What I was concerned about was the system didn't meet confidentiality requirements. So you get on the cell phone and say, JoJo's, my hypothetical heart attack on the way to the hospital. The whole world can know about that. There's no secrecy to it. And I think that needs to be remedied in what we're doing. Well, cellular phones can't be picked up on a scanner. LMR can be. Yeah. I mean, the hospital wrote a letter of support for improved cellular, for our earmark applications, because they felt cellular was more secure and where they wanted to go with data transferral. I think Jo corrected me by saying the LTE network was the way to go. Okay. LTE. Lots of words you can find. Donna, if I may. Yes. So right now, their limitation with LMR is the 25 miles. So what they want is early notification, and they're having issues with those services that are outside of that 25 miles. And so they're not getting early enough, alerting to the critical patient, or multiple patients so that they can get them in. So from what I was talking with Jen and the nurse manager is that they like to improve the LMR to at least get the early alerting in, and then they know that there's a limitation for the LTE, the cellular. So they like to crawl before they walk, and that's something that, that's what they were, the gold standard or the Cadillac standard is the LTE, but we just don't have the infrastructure to it. And I believe that it's probably beyond this board's capabilities to flex. And I mean, you can put in letters of concern, you can ring a lot of bells, but until the public safety board makes AT&T get off their butts, that's where the limitations come. Okay, I'll consult that one tonight, but yes. Kim, thank you for mentioning the patient care and the issue of triage. Perhaps I used triage in the long context, but what I was trying to refer to was that the hospital can make routing decisions for patients if they have enough advanced warning and enough advanced information, and they could conceivably bypass CBMC and send them right to UVM Burlington if they had the right information, which is what I meant for the term triage. But regardless, Kim was absolutely right, patient care could drastically be improved by improving communication. Doug? Doug Hoyt? I was, I was giving Kim the thumbs up for what a good job he did to remind us of that. Yeah, and Doug Hoyt put his hand up. Yeah, it's just a point of education for me. Dart must communicate with the hospital at some point in time that I assume that's all radio. Joe? Doug? Valley's naughty. So, yes, they do. The pilot will call back on the cell phone if they have cell service to give them an update and give them this, you know, the stats on the fuel level, the patient weight, and other such. But once they get in the air, it's all, it's all by their radio system, the LMR. Right, which is not a secure. Can I ask a question here, Madam Chair? Yes, Stephen? Is the limitation on the footprint of the hospital's radio due to towers, or is it the licensing? Is it possible to allow CVPSAs, I mean CVPSAs or see FMAS new towers to expand the range of the hospital's frequency as well as part of the system design? I could answer that if you want, Donna. Yeah, please. So the hear radio frequency, which is what all ambulances communicate with all hospitals on, it would be limited, it can't be a repeated network, it can't have multiple towers because then it broadens the footprint of the LMR and then bleeds over into other hospital catchment areas. So it's really tough for the hospital right now. They still, they get bleed over from Fletcher Allen, they get bleed over from Randolph, because once again, most hospitals are high on hills or their radio towers are. So it would not be allowed on the frequency that they're on now for that, it would have to require a frequency change in order to put a radio out there that they could use to answer Stephen's question. The other thing is that I think would be possible. And I just have a very smidgen of information about this, having done it before. I believe that were we to, and I know Stephen often talks about redundancy and backup and so forth with the new consoles that have been specced for Montpelier at Capital Fire, and we've also tried to get in on that purchase deal if it should happen in Berry City. Those consoles are so flexible now that I believe that we could contact an ambulance on the capital frequency, and if needed to as a backup to a backup, be tied in through the telephone, through the hard wire telephone, through the hospital, through the console, but we need to ask the actual radio technology or Dom, or Rick might know the answer to that, but there's a couple of different ways around that. But his first question about whether the hospital frequency network could be expanded, it cannot be on the radio frequency that they're on now. But what you're saying is that if they could be patched through, the hospital could be patched through the consoles to a broader range than their radios can currently reach. They could, but you wouldn't want to do it every time because there's just so much traffic on capital frequency anyways, but if the crap was really hitting the fan and you had to do something like that and there was no other possible way to contact the hospital, I believe that you could be patched through the new console make-ups. Yeah, I mean, I don't see it as a frequent thing. I see it as re-routing somebody from Matt River to Burlington rather than making, going out of their way and finding that the person died because they didn't know that we weren't able to communicate that sooner. Thanks. Okay. Moving along. Well, Paco, sorry to interrupt, but I'm pretty sure Televate has, they got a sinister report on just what Doug Brett said on the ability of those consoles to have that communication. I think that's, I think it's in their scope, but I would ask you to make sure it is. I believe you're right. It is in their scope, clearly in their scope, and I'll certainly make sure that they capture all the information needed to improve communications with the hospital. Thank you. Tuesday we spent visiting tower sites, three tower sites, Mount Irish, Mount Pleasant, and Woodbury. I'm going to leave the technical discussion, if you will, on the individual sites to Televate to write up in their report. I will say that getting to at least two of the sites, Mount Irish and Woodbury, was relatively difficult, and this is where I've got to give a lot of credit, and thanks to Joe Aldsworth. He set up the tours for us, and he used his personal vehicle, and more importantly, he used his personal utility vehicle to get us up to Mount Irish. I thought once we were up there that Mount Irish did appear to be a stable sound, structurally sound tower. Beyond that, I can't comment, and I'll leave the comments to Televate. Mount Pleasant was, we were able to walk in, fine, and again it seemed to be a structurally sound site. Woodbury was, I would say a good hike. We could, I think you could get an ATV or utility vehicle up there if you had to. The one observation we all made was that the generator at the Woodbury site is not connected to the radio radios. That is a problem. Capital fire, Capital West is well aware of that lack of redundancy and is working on it. I guess I'd ask if Kim, who was with us on all three sites and or Joe, wanted to comment on the sites at all? I do. Go ahead, Kim. My comments aren't technical. Like you, I got a lot of admiration for Joe Aldsworth, not just because he can drive an all-wheel drive vehicle to impossible heights, but I learned so much just being with him for that day about what he does and the type of work he does, and I've told him this to his face, but admiration as well. But equally importantly, when we had a chance to talk with Paul Saruti and Joe at the bottom of one of our site visits, we had a very productive discussion about the possibility of integrating the CFMAS towels into CBPSA. It's premature to get into any details, but once again, Joe Aldsworth had some very creative ideas. As a result of that, I contacted Lakes Region, which is the model that capital fire people have been following, and I got their documents and again, without going into detail, they're facing many of the same problems we're facing. They built their system with earmark money, and they're really struggling to figure out how to pay for it, and they have the same problems, attempts, complaining about paying too much or not getting right services. But Don and I and Doug, and I don't think anybody else on this call went there to a visit, what was it, five, six years ago. It's an impressive organization and it has some good modeling for us. So, I was encouraged by the site visit for many reasons, but finally, I think I saw some avenues for how we can work together, and once we get Televates report, we can talk about them in more detail. Yeah, I would concur. That conversation that ended at the bottom of Woodbury was very important with regards to the future of building any type of shared radio system or a shared project with all of the three different components connected with it, and you'll find from the Televates report that governance will, I think, will be a very, very big piece of their report. In the beginning, Doug mentioned it with regards to the tower on the top of the hospital. You would think that just putting a tower with a radio would be a simple solution, and I think that it is a simple solution in terms of improving the LMR capabilities in the area, but it's who owns it, who maintains it, who makes the decisions, and so an MOU or a round governance and a structure probably is, well, it's got to be in place. The hospital is going to want to see an MOU, but how you get there and what are the elements of that memorandum of understanding, what are the elements of governance is going to be important. So regardless of how everybody moves forward, everybody being all the entities involved, you know, how you pay for things, how you maintain them, what's the life cycle cost, et cetera, will have to be resolved. Anyway, Tuesday night was another dinner with a lot of the board members and Dom. I didn't attend that, but I understand everybody had a good time, and it was educational. At these dinners, Dom got to brief all of the board members that attended and what he observed from his perspective of the site visits, so they were very important. Wednesday morning was a meeting in Montpelier talking with Chief Pete and also the supervisor, dispatch supervisor, Kerry McCool and Larry Eastman, the deputy chief from Berry City joined the group as well. And then after that, they went and toured, I did not go to Berry City, but they went and toured the Berry City Police Department Dispatch Center. I don't know if anybody would want to comment on those visits. I have one. Go ahead. I think there's life in the idea of a unified single dispatcher site. I don't want to be too optimistic, but the discussions and there's problems to be solved, but it's not a dead idea. I'm going to leave it at that. Yeah, I don't think it is. More importantly, certainly better communications, working with the two centers seems to be something that they're both open to. So I'll leave that there. Moving on, as everybody knows, we did file two applications for the congressional district spending request. I think I got that right, CDS request. Those are direct earmarks that both senators put out a solicitation for. We filed one for $2.4 million with Sanders and followed that up with a $5.4 million request to Senator Laihi. The $5.4 million request is much more comprehensive than the Sanders request and really includes everything in it that I have heard people express an interest in. I'm not going to go because of the hour unless you want me to line for line as to what is in the grant or the application. I think Donna has distributed those. Yes, everyone's got a copy and everyone here has gotten a copy of your report. Okay, good. And I will send it out to all the other stakeholders. I was just doing it from my iPad and I didn't have everybody's easy email there, but everybody will get it. I will say, again, kudos to Donna, Kim, and Dan Richardson. Donna, I absolutely couldn't believe it, but Donna was able and what I thought was such a quick amount of time to get letters of support from all our interested stakeholder communities. It was something that was absolutely needed for us to submit the request, but it was also very, very comprehensive. The two cities, Capitol Fire and the hospital was included in the Laihi request. So kudos to Donna and Kim and Dan Richardson did a great job helping me edit the documents that went in there. So thank you to them. We talked about, well, before I mentioned Washington, electronic surveys. As of June 9th, Televate has received 30 surveys, 15 from members of Capitol Fire, three from Berry City, two from Montpelier, six from other agencies, EMS units and Capitol Police, and four from other municipalities. I thought 30 was a very good number. Televate is analyzing them now and will be included in their final report. And you're going to talk about the state telecommunications plan. So I'm not going to talk about it other than to say that how this got, I think how this was sparked was that Rick Burke notified me that he saw a section in the PowerPoint presentation that called, that said that public safety communications was in good shape. And he spoke to me about that. I reached out to Corey Chase from the Department of Public Service, asked for some clarification. We sent him some language. They came back with some different language. The bottom line is, I don't think whatever we have, whatever gets published is in conflict with anything that's involved with this project, which was my role and my involvement with the telecommunications plan. And then finally, Washington Electric, Donna, you want to speak about that meeting today? Yes, it was very brief, but to the point of Patty Richards, who I believe is the CEO there, met with us and how much she didn't know was like how I started here. So we did finally get some information about the towers. Rick sent me an email, Kim, Paco, and myself saying that a Washington County Electric co-op actually has supposedly a six tower network. It's a VHF radio network. And they have about 30 to 40 trucks who have radios in them, and they're all as old as ours. And so they have some of the same problems. And very much interested in anything that we might do and propose, integrating not only mobile hand mobile radios, but also any kind of LTE broadband. They've been talking to Central Vermont Fiber. And she was really pleased that we reached out. So I think nothing else will be in thinking about one another as we both move forward because they are having some major changes there. In fact, she came to our meeting from a broadband meeting. So that was very good. And she recommended that we reach out to Green Mountain Power, because Green Mountain Power serves some of the houses in the very towns that Washington Electric co-op serves some of the houses. I didn't realize how integrated they were in within the communities. So Paco was going to reach out to Green Mountain Power, set up another little chat. I mean, it took like 35 minutes, but it was really worthwhile. And they really appreciated us calling. So that's always a good feeling. So that's all I had to add to that piece. If there's nothing else, Paco will go into the 10-year plan. Anyone else on Paco's report? I just want to add one. Go ahead. Kim Cheney, you clicked on mute. Sorry, I wasn't able to get to the meeting. But Rick says the cooperation between utilities and public safety people is a national phenomenon. And it makes an enormous amount of sense. I was on the board of WEC for some years. And one of the problems they have is wires go down, power storms come. They have to send people across Farmer's Field five mile hike to find out what's wrong and what they can do to fix it. And they need radio. So I think my conversation with Rick says it's good to think in the future. He didn't have any immediate problems, but the idea of any solutions, but the idea that we could find public-private partnerships to work towards common needs. I'm really excited by that. I think it's really a great move. Yeah, as are they. They're very much aware of that. It was good. Anything else? Can I speak? Yeah, briefly. Yeah, the discussion about the antenna on Central Vermont Hospital, that's going to be, you know, I didn't hear anything yet. And I hope it'll be in the television report about the grade, the stability, the structural integrity of these towers. But we need to be planning for hurricane-type events. And of course, CVA shall be the quickest and easiest site to restore from a proximity point of view. It might take days to get up to the top of Mount Irish, depending on how many trees are down. So we need to be thinking about that kind of diversity and resiliency planning. Similarly, Washington Electric is in the process of negotiating, as we speak, to build fiber along every pole they own, which will be leased to CV fiber. So presuming there's electricity in many of the simulcast, proposed simulcast locations provided by Washington Electric Co-op, that's going to give us a fiber alternative, either a diverse route or a primary fiber connectivity to those sites that we didn't have before. So this might have been, you know, this might be feed the next meeting with Washington Electric or with CV fiber. But they are in the process of raising the money through an RUS rural utility service funding 23 million to build fiber along every Washington Electric right away. And if it's solidated already to some of them, or is planning to build with some of them, that might give us, you know, diversity. So those are things that I'm thinking about. Thanks. Yes, they did talk about that. They're very much at the first stage, but they are very much open to us joining some of that. And vice versa. Yes. I just wanted to make a comment on Paco's report. Paco is really pleased to see the mention of a fire ground monitoring in your clay heap proposal. It may only be seed planting at this point, but I was just I was very pleased to see it in there. And I intended to get an email out, thanking you for it, but didn't get there. But I just wanted to tell you it's appreciated. Well, thanks. As I as I mentioned, we did try to include every everybody's concern in that grant proposal up to and including if anybody noticed that there's an extra hundred thousand dollars in the project management, for lack of a better term, category which was included was intended to include the potential for engineering studies if necessary. So the lay heap proposal really is a is is a soup to nuts project proposal that includes I think everything that I certainly have heard people ask for. And it was one of the comments that Rick talked about from the Montpelier dispatcher, Kerry, who's the new supervisor there, that she also was concerned about. And she didn't use the worm far ground far, but it was something about being able to record things to go back and check on it, which is what you talked about, right? That as something is happening, you get a recording and then you can check it. Instant playback. It's like five seconds. Instant playback. Thank you. She talked about that need more than anyone else. And Rick was appreciative of that. All right, 10 year plan. Thank you, Paco. And anything you have to add? Well, I just Rick told me today, and I don't know if anybody else has heard anything that potentially as early as tomorrow, Congress may, I don't know whether they'll be making a decision or whether they're going to start entertaining the specific CDS requests. So things are moving along if what Rick Burke heard is correct. Well, that's good because I was going to ask, I put it actually under other business, whether or not anyone had heard about when we would hear about the earmarks. So that's good to know. It's good to know. And then we'll be busy forming a committee for the interview and all the things that we have to go the next step for. See, everybody stay awake. We're going to need all that expertise again. And that's what made the application get better and better from Sanders to Leahy was all your expertise. Everybody pitched in and shared. It was awesome. Thank you. And Paco, you were the core, put it together. I'm so glad you were in place. Let me tell you about a sad application otherwise. And so this 10-year plan for telecom, believe it or not, I sent it to you without the expectation of you reading it all, but I wanted people to have it should you wanted to skim through it. But I guess being sort of a newcomer to looking at Vermont's Department of Public Safety and Vermont State planning, I was shocked to find that local and regional public safety is not included that the state is planning for only that which the state owns or manages. And I also did a lot of looking at the Department of Public Safety website and found it really lacking in anything related to FAR and EMS as well as anything as far as what the real first responders are doing and how their towns, their local and regional services are doing. So I would like to sort of let them know that we exist and that they might want to consider if not this time, next time including us and how we can take better part of being part of that Vermont Public Safety Department. And if people who are the experts say, oh no, you don't want to shake that tree, I'm all ears. But when I read over like with Terry and Corey, it's like the third document I gave you, their email exchange. And then Kim wrote a long dissertation of why he disagrees with them about why the local and regional public safety services should not be included in their state plan. I just really disagree and hope that maybe we might either as a group decide to make a letter to them but also individually. There's this wonderful survey online and I sent you a copy of that so you could understand it's only like three questions of just saying how you visualize they're focusing on cellular but they're also focusing on public safety. So there's a whole narrative, it's not like just simple questions. So you can write a narrative to customize your goals for statewide public safety. I guess I would encourage us to emphasize including local and regional public safety and state planning and funding. So what are people's opinion on that? Any interest in participating and trying to get more involved in public safety department's 10-year plan? That's what I want to talk to you about. Put your hand up, okay, wait a minute. Kim actually used his button, make sure you take it down. I can't tell if it's been up there all this time. But Kim, go first, but raise your hands and I'll make a list and try to get you in order. Essentially, well, a memo that I threw together about how the 10-year plan has nothing to do with LMR and it's they've just tortured the definition of telecommunications and what's really happening here. I hate to be crude about it but there's a lot of money out there and the bees are flying to the honey and the locals get left out. The locals pay for it out of the property tax, you don't need our help and it's atrocious. It is an incredibly short-sighted interpretation and I think legally incorrect interpretation of what they're supposed to be doing and I would like to ask this body to either send my memo or I think Donna added things to it that I thought were helpful but a motion to tell our legislative directory, our members, not to approve the plan because it's wrong legally and wrong practically for the needs of this organization and central Vermont. If there's any willingness to do that, I can fuss with the motion but that's that's what I wanted to add to the agenda. Okay, other people's comment. I'm asking you to stay at a couple minutes so that everybody get a chance to talk. Joe, I had you down as your hand went up, is that right? Nope. No, I'm good. Thank you though. You have no opinion? Jim? I just wanted to comment on Kim's response. I thought that was commendable. It was really an excellent dissection of the definition of telecommunication so I thought that was very good. I mean, Sally, you've been in this world. What do you think? Do you think you ought to be excluded from the state's 10-year telecommunication plan? No, but I can tell you and I saw Chief Brent shaking his head before that when the money comes down, it seems like the state takes care of themselves and we get the leftovers if we're lucky. That's right. It's kind of a conflict of interest because public safety oversees the dissemination of it and their groups get it. Is that the, what is it, the fox manning the henhouse? Yes. I mean, are people willing to make a bit of noise? I mean, why not? I was talking to Brent Householder earlier about the survey that I found online and there were only 100 people. Actually, it's like 100 people have responded so far when I checked it two days ago. So I thought if we could get 10, 20 of us all to go in and do an individual survey, we could create a real predominant voice because they're all very scattered. I mean, you can read through all the postings that have been done online. That's a really neat service and you don't have to say much to just give your opinion in the little three-point survey. Who's conducting the survey? They have to do the survey, the State Department of Public Safety on the study that I gave you, the 10-year plan draft. So it's part of the 10-year plan requirement? Yes. Can I speak to this, Steve Whitaker? Just a minute, but then the survey is, turns off on June 30th and that's why I wanted to give everybody as much as they might need it to feel comfortable to go in and do this, but you don't even have to read the plan to say what you would like for the broadband policy, the cellular service, public safety. I mean, it's listed there, so you can talk about as much as you want within this little platform of the survey. Okay. Stephen, you wanted to talk two minutes? Just a correction. This is something that I have a lot of background in. I've been working on that to try to get a real telecom plan for 30 freaking years. And so the actual stricter statutory guidelines for what has to be done in the plan, including the references to public safety and first net, that's all legislation that I wrote and got passed a few years ago. So this is going to be the first telecom plan written to the tighter standard of what's supposed to be in it and a tighter public participation, effective public participation process. They have failed miserably on that. It's the Department of Public Service that's doing this, not public safety. But public safety is a statutory party to the process as is the agency of digital services, agency of commerce and community development and transportation agency. All of them are not allowed to speak up and talk about how deficient this plan is. The plan was this is also the first time that the plan was put out to contract because the department has failed to do it completely several times. And according to statute since 2004, the plan is supposed to be totally rewritten every three years. So the 2007 plan was skipped. The 2010 plan was skipped. The 2013 they didn't hold hearings, public hearings on a final draft. In 2018, they finally got wise to being played and the legislature refused to meet jointly in order to allow the department to check off that box and adopt the deficient plan. That's what needs to happen now. And then by next June, we could get a real plan written. The reason the next June is relevant is because consolidated communications incentive regulation plan comes up for renewal next June or July. And that's the leverage that plan has to be found by the public utilities commission to be consistent with the 10 year telecommunications plan. So if we say we need access to their fiber to complete the LTE canopy so that central Vermont hospital can privately secure the communications with the ambulances, that means we see fiber from consolidated where they may not want to in order to put small cells in and fill in the areas that first net refuses to fill in. So I know it's a lot to throw at you at once, but that's how it all fits together. The June 5th was the deadline for statutorily required comments that they have to respond to. The first public comment draft was put out on May 8th and they closed. It was supposed to close on May 30. They extended it to June 5. After June 5th, they don't have to respond to your comments. But the power was in getting comments in before June 5th and I filed four sets of them. And they're required to either incorporate those comments into the plan or explain why they did not incorporate those comments into the plan. So we're going to find a grossly deficient plan that doesn't provide guidance on how LTE and LMR are to be deployed on a regional level and integrate and fail over to the state level. I'm going to need to sort of redirect you. You've got some wonderful comments there. In fact, one of the documents attached to the agenda, the email I sent out, is exactly a copy of the title 30. In your right, it says public service, not safety. And it talks about the fact that it's a state policy and it talks about the 10-year plan. It talks about what you talk about every three years. There's supposed to be another plan. But they did change the survey date to June 30th. So it's online until then. You're right. They may not respond to them, although this is an extension because everything else turned out much later than they initially planned. They had been slow in getting responses from the two public hearings that they had, the two sessions that they initially had. The first was on broadband. The second was on cellular public safety and public access TV. So they have done an extension. Now, maybe you're saying they don't have to integrate this, but I don't think it'll hurt us to do it. My issue right now is I would love for you to write out your comments. And if there's a way that we can integrate some of that technical language in any letter we might write, that would be great. But I'm overloaded with what you've shared already. So I think it's maybe other people can redefine what you said, so I can better understand it. But you had some great points. I particularly on the technical, like how it goes back to that letter we wrote the Senate Committee on Financing, that we want them to look at broadband that also serves public safety, land, mobile, radios. Is there anybody you could write some of that out for me, Stephen? I can send you the copies of what I filed with the department. But here's what I've learned recent since then, is that the department intends to adopt this plan on June 1st. They're going to, the last box that they have to check is to jointly meet, they have to have four public hearings this month in the last two weeks of this month. And they're going to do them via Zoom, even if the pandemic emergency response is lifted. Then they also have to have one public hearing jointly with the Energy and Tech Committee and the Senate Finance Committee, which is chaired by Senator Cummings, our Senator. So if this group were to get its head together, understand and support what Kim has said, that this is not a plan that meets the statutory definitions or requirements or meets our needs. The only tool we have to keep this plan for being adopted and being the law of the land for the next three years is for them not to meet jointly. Because the department intends to adopt this plan on June 1st. The statute requires them to adopt it on, I mean, July, June 30th. June 30th. So the only tool we, the only tool we have is to prevent that joint hearing with Senate Finance and Energy and Tech. And that will then force the legislature to readdress it in January and get another contract to get it done right. All right. So I think, again, we have a friend and Anne Cummings, at least someone who we can get access to. If we use Kim's letter as a basis, but broaden it out to not just the legal, but the fact that it doesn't really serve the need of first responders. That's I'll help you frame that piece of it, or you can pull it from the testimony I've already filed. But a motion that based on Kim's finding tonight from CVPSA would be useful in persuading Cummings. I'll make a motion that the chair prepare a memo to our, I wanted to go to the legislative delegation, not just the departments. No, I mean, it's Anne Cummings is both our legislative delegate, but also the committee this goes before. So. Yeah. So I don't know what the timeframe is, but if you can take, I move that you take my memo and add the items that Donna mentioned to show the need and the impact on the local community and send that to our congressional, central amount congressional delegation and the Department of Public Service. Yes. And you know, I guess I would ask that they follow up with a meeting with us. We can do a short remote meeting with people from our board that have the expertise to explain this. That's fine. So is there a second to Kim's motion? Jim? I'll second it because I wanted to ask you a question. Okay. Question. Just for clarification. So what what you're saying is that if we can get the Public Service Board to recognize that LMR is legally part of the definition of telecommunications, is money immediately available or they're going to put us in a long-term plan? I'm not exactly sure the consequences are winning that battle. Well, for me, one, you can't get any money if you're not in the plan that justifies and funding you under this definition. So what's the pull of money different from the Leahy and Sanders money, right? I have no idea all the money that's coming down, but any money that comes down, we will be shut out of. Okay. The letter we did to the finance committee because they were looking at a bill that has such a narrow definition of broadband that they didn't include the need that overlaps with LMRs. And so we were saying, hey folks, not only now do we need this, such as we talked about with the EMS and the hospital, but we know in the future we're going to have some more uses for LTE. So that's the whole thing is to open. We need to keep our position open. Keep that option open that we're we're considered part of that. So I would certainly support sending Kim's. I would rephrase that. We need to put our foot in the door because they have not let us come into the room yet. So what's any other comments here, folks? Where are you? If you're already in a vote, that's fine with me, but you've got more comments. Let's hear from you. Sally, Paul, anybody? Doug Point? I've already indicated to Kim that his assessment of the issue is correct. This is not new news to anybody that's been involved in dealing with the state in terms of communications. The state will take care of the state and it may allow municipal and county organizations to get a little bit of the crumbs, but this whole plan is really not at all going to be of any real benefit to any municipal or regional, especially regional efforts. And I suspect that Steven is very much correct that if you don't do anything now, then you won't be able to do anything for at least three years. Three years is a long time. Three years will allow everything to get behind by another 10 years. So it's important to make a stop to this as best we can. It should go to not only Ann, but all of our senators and representatives are within the region and they should all know what's going on. Right. All the regional legislatures. Yes. Good point. Yes. Okay. Joe? Can I make a brief answer to a question? Joe's hands went up. Okay. Then we'll go to you. Joe? A preview comment I made about educating the... You're going to need to come closer to the mic, Joe. I'm having trouble hearing you. Sorry. I think this goes back to my original comment, Topako, about educating the legislatures to this project and then ramping up what you guys want to do with the LTE and the broadband end of it. But they really need to know the everything that we have that's in front of us and then that way they're informed. Yes. Okay. Doug Brent? Doug Brent, you can go ahead. Can you hear me? No. He's frozen. I'm so asleep. Is it remote wonderful? Sally, did you put your hand up? Okay. Let's even go ahead and maybe Doug will click in and come back in. Stephen, you had a question or answer to a question? Yeah. Just regarding the money, somebody asked about the money. There's up to 150 million in broadband funding. Most of it's limited to fiber, but that can be fibric and apply to our tower sites. There's also two million in a fund for what's called line extensions, which will be either used by cable companies to build out more Comcast or because LTE broadband can fit within the speeds, the 25 megabits down, three megabits up. LTE could access some of that two million, but that has to be spent before the end of this year. So there's two pots of money that we should be targeting locally that are part of this legislation that will rely on having this plan integrated. Thank you. Doug Brent, your hand went up and then you froze. Do you have something you'd like to say? I was wondering where can I get a copy of Kim's letter. It sounds very good and I'd like to read it. Yes, I will send it out. I thought it had been sent to a few. I don't know who all you sent it to, Kim, but I will send it to the board. I'll send Doug and Joe a copy. Okay, but it should be distributed. Thanks, Kim. So we'll get that sent out. All right, so we have a motion on the floor. Yes, Doug, point. Sorry to ask another question. When Steve Whitaker talks about funding and everything else, this funding is approved by the Legislature, I presume, and that's already in this year's budget. Federal money, correct. You say it's federal money, not state money. Well, it's now state money. The state accepted this money under the broad umbrella, mostly a broadband. All right, just to clarify, so this money is in there and it's in a budget. The budget's been approved, so therefore the expenditures have been pre-approved. Yes, no? No, no. Most of the expenditures will be approved by a broadband board that is going to be convened in the next 60 days. The broad line extensions can be approved by the department. The two million I mentioned, those can be approved by the department under a prior program with CRF funds that were approved by Congress last year. All right, one more question. Who has the authority over these boards in terms of what it is that they do? Are they on their own? Do as a please. Legislator appointed, are they not? The board you're asking about? Broadband board. That's going to be one member from the House, one member from the Senate, one member recommended by the communications union districts and two more members appointed by the governor and the executive director appointed by the governor. The fiber union districts? The community, yes, communications union. Okay, yes. So we should talk to the fiber. Okay, so we have a motion on the on the floor and a second. Any more discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Wave and all those opposed. Terrific, unanimous. All right. So Paco, how are we doing in your hours? You're going to be available to do any kind of run by of editing, whatever between Kim and I, we put together. Donna, he's already said he doesn't want to be involved in this one. I talked to him before the meeting. I can speak for myself. Thank you very much. I can certainly speak for myself. But I am my opinion on this is completely opposite of where you have you have gone with this. I didn't think it was my role to weigh in. I mean, I can take a look at anything you want me to take a look at, but I I'm in staunch disagreement with getting involved in the state's telecommunication plan. Would you mind sharing why it might be helpful for us to know? I will try to articulate it. First of all, you have to understand that it's the state's plan put together by the Department of Public Service. It is heavily focused on broadband cellular service and computer otherwise computer services within the within that definition of telecommunications. But at the end of the day, the plan shall be for a 10 year period and shall serve as a basis for state telecommunication policy. That is the extent of what this plan is designed for. So there's no point in having an exhaustive analysis of all the iterations of a planning cycle with regards to how you're going to build something in my humble opinion. Because you need policy statements in here that will somehow get factored into the state's telecommunication policy. Now I will tell you that I have a little more information under my belt that leads to my bias because of my years with the state. The state has never the state being the executive branch of government has always deferred to the Department of Public Safety for any land mobile radio infrastructure. The Department of General Services, Public Service, all the predecessors to the Agency of Digital Services have never wanted to take on either the microwave infrastructure or the LMR issues of the state police. And so it's not surprising to me that they make a statement that LMR in their opinion, that's public service, doesn't think that it fits into their definition of telecommunications and also public safety with their public safety communications interoperability plan does address how local agencies will build replace their LMR systems. And I think to go deeply into trying to articulate local issues with regards to communications is something that I don't think we want the state involved with. We do want the state to be and I'm sorry I'm using we, Central Vermont Public Safety Authority should be involved with. I do want statements that perhaps would be included that are global of global interests, bullet statements that are highly level strategic policy decisions. But anyway to go into an exhaustive planning process for this document I think is not in keeping with the document, especially seeing us out of all of section title 30202D only paragraph 8 deals with emergency communications. And that's all about FirstNet. So there I said my piece. You already voted so it's not relevant to your discussions at this point. It's very helpful to know though and it also helps to frame some statements that we may need to make within the letter. So thank you. Doug Hoyt. While it's true we've already already voted there is a process in which you can unvote if you want to. But I appreciate your comments Paco and I totally respect where you're coming from and where you were working before and where you are now. So I for one certainly consider your opinion to be very valid. But in offering those opinions up it raises a big question in my mind. If it's a planning document and the effort is to come up with a communications plan, why is there such a paltry 2 million or whatever 100 million dollars set aside? That's more like building not planning. That's hitting the nail on the head. That's where I was coming from. Is this just a document or is it money attached? The planning document has existed. In fact if you look at the actual from the statute that I sent you this started in this document started in 1987 and has different additions all the way through to 2020. So the document is a planning document that needs to be done. The federal over here is bringing in money because they see the need particularly when it comes to broadband. My goal is to connect the two in a way that also includes the MRR and local and regional public safety services whether they're fiber and non-fiber. They're about the communication system. Donna can I make a synthesizing comment? You feel short. Yeah it is. Our Senator Alina is Vice Chair of Senate Gov Ops. When these issues came before Gov Ops at the end of the session, Jeanette White, the chair of that committee from Wyndham County which is also working on a regional dispatch because they're being dispatched out of Keene still in New Hampshire, pledged to take up telecom governance and that will affect who distributes what board. It's been an old boy network in public safety that's been making the decisions of who gets the public safety money out of from Homeland Security and that's not a transparent process. It's not even an official body that's met and kept in it since 2008. So this is an area influx that the governance will change. It's a macro level of what we're dealing with here at the micro level and it's high time to get eyes on it and get participation in it and get it done right. Thank you. Okay. Can we close the 10-year plan and move on? Donna, I'll take a look at anything you would like to take a look at. I'll help you in any way I can. Okay. You're a good editor. All right. Thank you. Can I ask one last question to Paco? Paco, I'm with Doug on this. I completely respect your opinion on this and just troubled me actually but do you see any immediate downside to us sending this letter? There's no downside as long as you keep it expressing friendly and with strategic bullet points. But I do not want to... My recommendation would not be to get too far down in the weeds. My recommendation would be to recognize what this document is and it's an effort by the Department of Public Service to put together a plan that's heavily focused on broadband and cellular capabilities. There's no money attached to this plan. Will the telecommunications policy issues that come out of this plan have some bearing on future fundings? Maybe. But to my knowledge, there's no money that's here. There is a lot of money coming into the state. So I don't know if that answered your question. That's good. So you don't see any immediate downfall? Well, there could be an immediate downfall if you choose to take on the Department of Public Service and attempt to discredit anybody. But that's why I said if you keep it friendly, keep it at high level bullet points to make sure that Central Vermont Public Safety Authority and the communications issues in Central Vermont are heard, then it's positive. Thank you. Okay. Good question. Thank you. Thank you, Paco, for sharing. The next item is like Tronic Signature for Warrants. For right now, I'm proposing that we stay on remote as we want more regional participation from our capital. Far members, as well as all of you, it seems the way to go. Besides that right now, we don't have a physical home. So along those lines, I wanted to find some way to have signatures for warrants more quickly, more structured. And I've talked to a Brent householder who's willing to take that on and he's going to share some information that we have. Anything that you don't know that I have, just tell me. We had that conversation and we talked about pricing. I've noted that down, Brent, but I would like you to take the lead in this discussion if you would. Yeah, no problem. Yeah, so Don and I were chatting about this yesterday and I think probably the best way to go forth is to figure out a more simple way to have warrants signed instead of all of us having to send emails and the fact that we're wanting to keep, as Donna said, something to be a little bit more remote as we're doing now, staying this way since we don't have our physical location. So I had looked into DocuSign, which is a general document, electronic document signature solution, as well as what the city of Montpelier has been using, which is SOHO. Is that what it is? Yeah, and from what I gather, both of them provide kind of the same functionality. Essentially, we could get one account to send documents from and then everybody would apply their digital signature when they receive the documents. The people receiving documents wouldn't have to have an account themselves. They would just, things would be sent to your emails. You would sign them digitally and then once everyone's signed, it would get sent back to whoever sent it and we could go from there. In terms of cost, right now, depending on what solution we went with, the cheapest that I was able to find was through SOHO and that was, I believe, $10 a month. I think we ought to ask for like $150 to give us some leeway. Yeah, I mean, I think the $10 is if we purchased it a year, a whole year at a time, and then it's $12 a month if we did a month-by-month solution. But I would, at this point, I would, I think that would be a good expenditure. It would increase efficiency quite a bit. I don't know if you have anything to add, Donna, but if anybody has any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. I'd just like to describe it because every time you mentioned to me before I use this system at City Council, you said electronic signature. I think, oh, I have to do that. Well, this is a case where you go and your name pops up and then you select whatever kind of font you want and then you go down and you click the spot that's all yellowed where you're supposed to sign and your electric signature appears there. So it's not your true signature, but you have signed an agreement as you go in that becomes your signature. And then you just go through each page and highlight and click it. Yes, and your signature appears, appears, and then you say finished and it's done. It's real slick. Yeah, so you don't even have to have any type of tablet or you don't need to physically sign anything. You can use any computer and just click it and it'll apply your signature. Yeah, it's real good. And the other thing we talked about is Zoom. And I went in to look at that. I would like the Public Safety Authority to have its own Zoom, one that Brent as secretary could manage. Therefore, when we have the recordings, he has the familiarity with the technology to help Orca get it in the right format and get it posted. I do it, but Orca has to sort of walk me through it every time. So Zoom is right now, there's a special, it's like 130, but usually it's like 179, 99. So I'm looking at up to $200 for Zoom and up to 150 for the electronic signature, it would be 350. Now this board gave Brent and I permission to spend up to 350 to work with Eternity Web and we haven't had to spend it. So we could just ask the board to vote to reallocate that 350 for the electronic signature and the Zoom account. And then we're done. It's not really any more money than you've allocated the two of us to spend around the website. So moved. Can I speak to Ms. Donna? Okay, Stephen. Yeah, Zoom has been fined by the Federal Trade Commission for misrepresenting their encryption capabilities. They're passing security keys out of a server in China. The Department of Public Service is using Microsoft Meets. CV fiber is using a similar American-based software application. I think Zoom is overrated and is insecure. I think we should look at our alternatives and not just defaulted to Zoom. I won't load Zoom on it. I'm a computer professional and I won't load Zoom on any of my machines. So I just ask that you consider Microsoft Meets, go to Meeting or Teams alternatives to that. And then the question is, is the signature, is that a per person? Steve? Yeah, I said is that per, is the pricing for digital signatures per user or per organization? It's user within the organization. Brent, maybe you can explain it. Right, yeah. It's per user. However, it's for the sending, the person that's sending the document. So if I were acting on behalf of the CVPSA and I was sending a document for all the board members to sign, you don't have to have an account to sign. You just have to have an account to prepare a document and send it. So it would be just for the one user. All right, so it's not 60 or 80 bucks a month with all the signers. Okay. So it's 10 to 12. Board members, I'd like to hear from you. I personally have just, I've used Team Micro and I've used Go Together or Meet Together, Go Together. Yeah. Family changed. I don't like any of them as well. Don't find them as friendly as Zoom. And so I would prefer to stay with Zoom. But if you want us to research it before we do that, we can do that. Right now, you're using my Zoom. Any opinions about Zoom? Jim and then Paul. I think both of them are non-starters. I mean, when COVID's over, both are going to be gone. And I recognize you want to continue it for a while. But I think Zoom is fine. And I think sending the emails will be fine. It's not a matter of having a lot of a top secret information that we're doing. So anyway, I would suggest we spend our time on one of the other things. So you spend, I don't know the summation, spend time on other things that we not do Zoom and not do electronic signatures? Or we just... No, what I'm saying is everything's fine the way we're doing it right now and just continue with Zoom and continue with the emails. And I have a question on the emails. I didn't send it in because I assume you had all you need is a majority, right? Well, ideally you get everybody to sign a warrant. Yes. That's why they keep going around the city council until they all get everybody's signature. To actually move on and do the payment, you can do it with just the quorum. But it's a real pain in the butt. And for Bev particularly to have everybody's email collected, then she makes copies and she attaches it to the warrant. I'm sorry, it's just... Her and it's complicated. So, you know, for $12 a month, that seems like a simple solution. It's all going to go away when we go back to regular in-person meetings. I think Zoom is... Maybe. Maybe. I'll tell you that electronic signature can still go because people don't come to all the meetings. Paul, you had your hand up next. Yeah, I personally don't think that Zoom meetings are going away. I think the world will never be quite the same again. Now, we use MS Teams at work. And it's nice in that I can contact you and send you right through Teams a message. And there's also a general chat section. Now, I don't know what the difference in price between Zoom and MS Teams is. But as far as the confidentiality, these are open meetings. They're on TV. I don't care if somebody hacks into it. As long as they don't show up nude on our screen, right? Anyone else comment about this? All right. So, I guess I'm going to make a motion that the board modifies the $350 authorized to spend for website expertise. And we apply it to the electronic signature and Zoom account for one-year service of each. Like a second? We're specifically wanting Zoom then. So, we're not, we're defining it that we're going with the Zoom account. Is that correct? I did in my motion. Yeah, I guess it is. Yeah. Okay. And you can say dock sign. That's the one that you prefer, right? Dock sign is fine with me. For the motion, we'll just say electronic signature and electronic teleconferencing. And we'll let you decide. Second? I'll second. Okay. Questions about that from anybody? Board member? All right. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Good. Thank you. Thank you. It'll really be helpful to all of us. Bev Hill and Chris will also appreciate it. I know that there might not be really have any major reports, but indeed I want to get in a habit of every board meeting having a brief time for committees to say we're doing something or I'm planning to do something just so we keep in touch. So, I'm going to start out with Kim. I guess we have had a big update from Paco. So, maybe you don't have too much to say, but anything you'd like to add very briefly to a committee report about the contract with Tel Aviv? No, I think it's been covered. Okay. Jim, charter change? You probably haven't heard from anybody. Well, we haven't. Well, we haven't heard from anyone, but we haven't met. And I think it's something we'll get into down the road, but we haven't done anything yet. Okay. I would like to comment on the charter thing. I think we're going to need some major changes if we take CFMAS and so it's premature to think of what we need to do with the charter, but it's just it's a more complicated issue to get the 20 towns are so involved. Well, I mean, meanwhile we exist and as we exist now, the charter doesn't work for me, just sheer due dates of things and how we schedule our annual meeting versus our financial year. So, I have charter changes I'd like to see even if everything's date status quo, if we make a bigger change, then we adapt to that. But what we have now is very hard to stay in compliance with. Well, Donna, I actually disagree with you on that. Yeah. I think the timing was set up to coincide with the March budget year, just as the cities do. And the reason for having the public meeting in January. We're not going to discuss the charter changes. Well, are we? Okay. I'll just say I disagree with you. Yeah. Okay. Yes, Jim. I have a question for Kim probably because he's the one who brought this up. You had indicated earlier that the process to change the charter can be somewhat cumbersome and involves a legislature, of course. Is there a downside to doing a little at a time and going back to them several times? So, should we have one felt swoop? We have our one shot at it or how does that work? Well, I think the realistic deadline is sometime in January. And I hope we'll have what we need to do by then. At the very least, we've got to make some arrangements for bringing the towns and the CVPSA and a more proportional representation. And so it requires the consent of the member legislative bodies and the consent, I think, of the voters of each member. And then it requires the consent of the legislature and the governor. So it is a fairly tedious process. And, you know, if everything went together in good shape, we could do it by March. And there would still be time in the 22 Legislature to get it done. But that's the kind of timeframe I'm thinking we're dealing with. I guess my question would be if we did the immediate changes, housekeeping changes that Donna wants or would like to see and get that rolling and then start working on the other one. If it's done in time and it's done in time, but it's not, if it's not, hers would still go through. Would that be over the legislative section? I'd hate to put everybody all through it again. The towns go through it all the time. You think it's come up and you put it through the voters on town meeting day and then you send it off to the legislators. You know, you find something that you need changed. So I mean, you either do it or don't do it. You don't get penalized because you do one every year. Either you disagree with what you're asking, like we've had the mayor just vetoed Montpellier's application for the voting of non-citizens on local matters. That was, oops, my battery. One of those charter changes that the legislators supported, but the governor didn't. So you just never know. You just answered my question, Donna, because now that I think of it, we've had several charter changes over the years here. They didn't kick us out of there. Yeah, yeah. And so get in touch with me, Jim, because I can use my Zoom for our meeting. Just send me some dates when you want to meet your chair. A website, Brent. Yeah, so a couple of things real quick. I have a meeting with the eternity on June 22nd to go over some of the quirks that Don and I were looking at on the website. And once that happens, then I'll have a little bit of a little better idea of how the proceed forward. So that's on the books right now. As of today, there's also a new address, our new address and phone number and everything are updated on the website. So Paco won't have to potentially take any calls related to the CVPSA anymore. So that's always a win. And then I will, and then also, otherwise not a whole lot else, I will, I'm going to send out an email to the folks that the board members that have not sent me their bio yet for the website. And so we've all be following up with that. Otherwise, that's it for now. Yeah, you at one point talked about sending a survey monkey out to get that bio because the other thing we need, we need everybody's mailing address and we need a cell phone, especially during remote meetings, there are times when I need to text somebody something like, oh, I can hear your dog. Please mute yourself or some other thing that might happen like, oh, my, my Wi-Fi has gone weak and I disappear. I might ask someone to take over. So having everybody's cell phone is really helpful. And so we don't have that yet. So if you would do that monkey survey that would then get the bio information and the contact information that would be helpful to me. Right. And it'll help, but it'll help me prepare a contact contact list for the board. So yeah, that's something I can send that out as well. So all the board members should look for that in their email and they can just fill that out and send it back. And then I can compile a list for Donna and the rest of the board. And we know that there's some information on the website that's old, but we can't get rid of it. That's what he has to meet with eternity. Well, we got to figure out what widgets are controlling them because what he's got working on other places aren't working in some places. And so there is some data that needs to go away that we just can't deal with right away. Just with the most important getting that contact information, getting the minutes, agenda, attachments, that's really key. So thank you for getting those done. Any other questions about a website? Outreach, Doug and Sally. I know. Don't you just love being reminded? No, I thought about it today. But until we kind of know what direction we're going, I don't, there's not a lot of outreach. I don't think to happen right yet. I'm not sure what Doug thinks, but. I agree with what she said. Well, other than we, we still want to stay active with capital far. And I really appreciated attending their meeting last month. That was good. I did talk about 10 point didn't get any takers yet, but at least I had time on the agenda. I appreciated that. So yes, as particularly when the study comes out, I think we'll keep you too busy. I think we're going to get busy when the stuff is out and we start moving down that road. So yeah. Okay. Just one more thing then on as far as keeping in the loop with capital fire. Just so you guys know, we are still currently moving forward working on the Elon lines for all of our towers and still currently working on moving the Waterbury tower. And do I know where you're moving it? I'm sorry. It doesn't bring a bell. The Waterbury tower is just going from somebody's inside somebody's barn on off from Loomis Hill to one of the WDV towers on Blush Hill. Oh, okay. Yes. I remember Rick talking about that. Yes. Yes. Okay. Madam chair, can I ask a question? Are they signing long term contracts for those e-lines or might Washington Electric provide a less expensive option going forward? I honestly don't know for sure on the contracts. That's something I would have to ask Scott about unless Joe knows. I'm not sure. WDV is kind of just an open-ended book for us to use that. I'm okay not having an answer. I just planted the seed to be aware of those other options. Thanks. Okay. Anything else from committees? Terrific. Thank you all. We're a little over time. You've all been patient under other business. Just want to put a heads up. I'm actually going to do a pinpoint query on front porch form and maybe some other social medias. Seeing if there are people out there who just for the heck of it would like to put the app on their phone and gather data for us. I haven't gotten any takers from anyone within public safety authority. So I'm going to re-send that out to everybody including Capitol Far. But I'm also going to brought it out to the community to see if we can get people who are just interested in it. I wished I had an Android phone. I would do it. So don't be surprised if you see that out there or and maybe you know friends, neighbors who just have that interest that might enjoy doing a Sunday drive every week, pick up data. Okay. Anything else should come before this body before I adjourn? Donna, I think we can get Android phones for volunteers. I think public service may have phones for this purpose. All right. I think you somebody mentioned that before. Okay. I write that down and follow up there. Android phones, public service. Maybe I'll get to do it. Cool. Yeah. I'll take a drive. Yeah. Yeah. You can get me a phone. Okay. I'll go all the way to bury one day. Okay. Well, thank you all for your attention and due diligence here. And we'll be working on this letter to get out and send you all a finer copy when we get it done. By unanimous consent, I adjourn the meeting. Thank you. Goodbye, all. Bye. Good night.