 I'll move the approval of the minutes of the January 2nd, 2024, without any needed approvals or corrections. Are there, is there a second? Second. Okay, page one, page two, page three. I think bullet eight is a little tortured. There was a discussion of forming a TIF district form-based code at TAPS Corners. I think form-based code is just to be struck. I think that makes sense, but defer to smarter people. Anything else on page three? Page four. So with that correction, all those in favor say aye. Aye. I suppose the ayes have it. Public comment. This is a moment where anybody in the audience or anybody participating remotely is free to say make any comment on anything. We do have a number of agenda items where people will be able to speak later, but you don't have to wait until then, but it may make more sense to do that. Is there any public comment? Seeing none. Eric, do we have anybody? No one else. Okay. Next. Common level of appraisal. No. Possible appeal. Next bill. Next bill. Bill's getting connected here. This is each year the state office of property evaluation review completes an analysis of property values across the state to adjust each town's brand with values. The values are based on market value rather than excess value. This is referred to as the common level of appraisal or CLA. Our 2023 study set Williston's just above 69%. It's an 8% reduction in 2022 studies. Reminder of the board, the threshold for reappraisals now based on the coefficient of dispersion of the COD. The COD of over 20% requires reappraisal of Williston's COD in front of our court. Projections being with our assessor as we're likely around five years away from a reappraisal using that methodology now. The CLA calculation still goes into the education tax calculation each year as it affects equalized grantless value. Our assessors suggesting we file a formal appeal petition for this equalization study, which is within our purview. Our thought is there's a couple outliers on the low end bills that we appeal. We may yield making a reduction of 7.5% at 8%. Not a huge difference but given where the education tax is trending, Bill, I've got you connected. You just need to unmute your microphone if you can hear me. Anything to add there? Can you hear me now? Yup, we can hear you. Yes. Yes. So, I talked to a furniture colleague today. Some of you will leave the field. And I feel a little bit of a riddle in the community, but I think that a person's category over a lot of things is being outlier. It wasn't. We didn't have enough evidence to come to a sale. So, we watched out at only three of these. Only three of these. Four of these. In our department, we're going to have an order to stay here. And our two, which is doing control over some seniors. It's still not working. So, we're going to appeal this. So, we're going to keep that renewable. Questions from the board? Can you remind me what time period the data is collected from? Three-year non-financial study, which means they go back three years to sales. And the sales here is 8.1 and 8.1. So, the sales money that we give you guys in the account actually collected those sales from our printouts going from 1.22 to 3.0. And unfortunately, so we're all counting on sleeping. We're kind of over the top of those third-year sales because of the fact that the pandemic started. And that's how the guys started with crazy. So, everybody that's speaking, who essentially ran it off the year before it announced, is effectively not going to work or be visited in the next year based upon the top of the assessment. However, the state changing law, so it's not one of the co-opalations that's disverting, it says that 80% of the spectrum of the law were applies to us. And also, the state is, it's about applying to a free plan here at Ravens. So, we'd be nice to hear when we advance the cycle of the announcement. In fact, we're doing the diagnosis by the House of Representatives here in the state and we can go over the reasons and our facilities are pretty reaction-red and we wouldn't be in the second until a little bit more over the period. So, that led to this accident that's a 2.9 hundred percent. Yeah, so the CLA is more about us versus other towns, right, mostly for education tax equalization. So, that was my question. Yeah, so the CLA is the BQA with X-ray. So, the each town is based upon what the claim is very well, of course, that we said that. And the reason that, you know, we're right now, we're looking at, for the current budget, we're looking at no increase in the grand list, but that is not, that's maybe that would affect next year's CLA. So, generally speaking, the CLA has been impacted by our start-up list at all. So, we have a very small list of one-on-one of that percent in three years. We're looking at taxes. I mean, schools sale a lot of them, except for meters there. We're going to sell them, we're going to pop up a couple of times. And that coaches that CLA would even work right here. Negative tax quarters going selling for a hundred million dollars less so it's got to help your CLA at some point. Right now, we've placed a solo business link on a solo program and all of that. So, like, that part should really be killed right here and basically a certain amount should reach the market. But that's probably a disaster by the time. Are there questions from the board? Any reason not to feel it? No. What do we have time? If there are no further questions or comment, there is a proposed motion. I'll move to authorize the chair of the select board to file a petition with the director of property evaluation and review for a redetermination of the town's equalized education property value. Is there a second? Is there a second? Further discussion on the motion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Thank you. Thank you, Bill. So, this brings us to the middle section of our agenda, which is all about property. So, next item on the agenda, the wastewater allocation request for specific development. I'll turn things over to Matt. Thanks. So, before the select board tonight, we have a request from Snyder Homes to purchase up to 4,230 gallons per day for treatment capacity, also known as sewer allocation in Williston from the encouraged specific development category of allocation that was established for the fiscal year 2024 attachment aid to the sewer allocation ordinance. For FY24, the select board chose to place 10,000 gallons per day in this facility does exist to sell under this encouraging specific development category. The purpose of this allocation would be to facilitate the construction of a new 38-unit apartment building at Finney Crossing. Six of the proposed 38 apartments will be perpetually affordable at 100% of the area median income in compliance with the town's recently adopted inclusionary zoning. There is not currently enough capacity remaining in the new residential development category of allocation to support this development during this fiscal year. Because the apartment construction at Finney would meet several important goals in the Williston comprehensive plan, which I'll go over, we are recommending as staff that the select board consider allowing the sale of capacity from the 2024 encouraging specific development category in attachment aid. Just to bring everybody back to attachment aid, which we'll know in another month or so, each year the select board adopts an attachment to the sewer allocation ordinance identifying various categories of development that will be supported by certain amounts of wastewater treatment capacity. With the exception of the one we're talking about tonight, the encouraging specific development, once that's voted on, those categories can be sold out of by the town manager to the public works director. So we have categories for new commercial, new residential, affordable housing, modifications to existing residential environmental mitigation, etc. And with the exception of this category, once that budget is set, the sale capacity from those categories is handled here in the office administratively. Encouraging specific development is a little different. It's a category that the select board does make a decision to purchase that capacity. So we're talking attachment aid, but any party wishing to purchase capacity from that line in the sewer budget, so to speak, must come to the select board and specifically request to purchase that capacity. And what the ordinance says is this is capacity that should be sold to projects that will achieve goals of the town plan. Which is what the rest of my memo kind of talks about. The construction of this project would support. The first few come from chapter 3, the land use chapter of the bylaw and they speak to the overall goal for tap corners to become a denser, more walkable, mixed use downtown type environment. Particularly that new development in tap corners would be handled with a really careful eye towards building and site design possibly even under a form-based code. And you know this plan was written in 2016 before the form-based code has been adopted. But it sort of anticipates that. So here we have proposed building and site fully in compliance with both the form-based code and the site development standards from both the form-based code and the bylaw. We're under review with this right now. We will have what's called our project review committee meeting on this project. We're under review with this project. This project works probably the first week of February. But my staff has taken it through our review checklist. This project complies with the form-based code. We just need to do the paperwork on that and hold our meeting. Furthermore, we have some discussion in community design that resonates with this project including minimizing the amount of parking. And then we have some statements about avoiding dead walls, which are large blank expanses of wall without windows or doors, especially where they face street. As you can see from the rendering, that's not the case here. We have multiple entrances along the market street frontage, windows along the entire frontage and in compliance with the form-based code more than the minimum number of required units facing the street frontage. We also have some of the design elements of this. Finally, we do have some housing goals in the town plan, including expanding housing opportunities, calling for a diverse type of living arrangements and types of housing. And considering the idea that the town might adopt inclusionary zoning and require some of those new homes to be perpetually affordable. Well, on the whole, Williston has adopted some of the new housing requirements in under that with its 15% of units affordable at 100% AMI. So it aligns quite well with the goals of the town plan. As I said when I introduced this, this encouraging specific development category has 10,000 gallons per day in it. Staff is recommending the select board vote to authorize the sale of up to 4,230 gallons per day. It is a possibility that available capacity could be purchased to support those couple of affordable units out of the affordable category. But because the sale capacity can change day to day, I left it at the full amount requested just in case somebody got in under the wire and bought all the affordable capacity, there would be authorization to buy everything needed for this building out of this encouraging specific development category. So there could be a scenario in which the applicant doesn't need to buy all 4,230 from this category. So that said, again, there's 10,000 there, applicants looking for 4,230 and happy to answer any questions you have. Questions from the board? So anything else on the horizon for that capacity? There could be We haven't had four months now, right? We haven't had any other requests, but the famous 6-story building is in a similar position in which it would need to purchase capacity from the new residential category or this category in order to move forward right now, the only path forward is under encouraging specific development. That hasn't made that request yet. I can't remember the numbers, but are these two-bedroom, three-bedroom or efficiency apartments? The applicants are here tonight and can answer that. I think we have a mix of one and two bedrooms. There's a 12 There are 12 one-bedroom units, 22 bedroom units and then in terms of the affordable, there are three one-bedroom units and three two-bedroom units. Those and those other numbers are on top of those other numbers. Oh, they're not. They're added to the other ones. That's how we get the ones in the memo. Three one-bedroom and how many two-bedroom? Three two-bedroom. So it's a mix of housing types within the market and also and I forget what the how many gallons per day you need for a one-bedroom you had those numbers out at one time. 75 for a one-bedroom 135 for a two-bedroom 75 for a one-bedroom and how many for a two-bedroom? 135. It's astonishingly not. I don't have any other questions. You took my call. The question is that you're probably saving up for late. So if there are no other questions or conversation, there is a proposed motion. So I'd move to sell up to 4,230 gallons per day of wastewater capacity to state or homes under the incurred specific development category for the wastewater allocation ordinance attachment A. Is there a second? Thank you. Further discussion on the motion? All those in favor say aye. All those opposed nay. The ayes have it. Thank you very much. Next on the agenda unified planning work plan. So I'll give a brief overview of this and then if there's questions, Matt's here but this is something the board the town does every year. This plan summarizes transportation land use planning activities for the regional planning commission staff that's member agencies for work in the region. It's updated annually. They take requests from municipalities and have a committee that decides how to fund these programs within this work plan. This is receiving state, local and federal funding and how it's allocated at the regional level. So every year we prepare project requests. Planning office and public works department prepare the requests. Those are included in your agenda. Matt Blanche I'll give a brief overview of those over. We can take any questions on the request if the board has them. Not there's a there's a motion. Questions for from the board for either Eric or Matt. I was happy to see South Brown Ellen Marshall Avenue on the list because I've had actually people reach out to me about weights at that intersection and I'm stuck in it myself a few times. It's kind of discouraging when you're sitting at the Kia dealer. So that's great to see that. I think it's a really good tool for looking into things that we may need to deal with in the future. It's a good opportunity to leverage all these different sources of funding that the regional planning controls. It's our opportunity to advocate for how to get those things up in the work plan for the year ahead. Based on past years approval of different projects that we put forward what do we think the likelihood is that the CCRPC will fund these. Prioritize these. We usually do pretty well with our requests and we do interact with CCRP staff and leadership ahead of this to make sure that what we're requesting is in the right category that it makes sense within their work plan and which items get federal transportation, dollar matching items don't. We have conversations about what their capacity is going to be. Ultimately it's a decision by the actual regional planning commission, which is a appointed board. It's not the staff but our track record here has been good. We do hear more and more that more Chittenden County communities are asking for more help from the regional planning commission every year. So that said, I still think we're competitive and really appreciate on our end having the staff capacity available to make these requests. It does take a bit of work on the back end just for us to be in a place to even go ask for help. So appreciate being able to do that. Other questions from the board? If not, there is a proposed motion. Move to approve the projects proposed for inclusion in the regional annual unified planning work program fiscal year 2025. Is there a second? Further discussion on the motion? All those in favor say aye. It goes nay, the ayes have it. Thank you. That brings us up to our 7.30 start time for the public hearing. So we'll open the hearing by reading the obligatory portion of the notice and then I'm going to turn it over to Emily. The Williston select board will hold a public hearing to receive comment on proposed changes to the existing Williston 2016-2024 comprehensive plan town plan pursuant to 24 VSA section 43-84 and the Williston development bylaw pursuant to 24 VSA 44-42. The public hearing will take place on Tuesday, January 16, 2024 at 7.30 p.m. in the Becket McGuire meeting room of the Williston town hall located at 7900 Williston road. The remote participation is also offered. With that, the meeting, the hearing has been commenced and Emily, you have a bit of information for us. Yes, thank you. This is a public hearing on town plan and bylaw amendments in support of the Glazer specific plan. Specific plan is a unique zoning tool and it's codified in Chapter 9 of the bylaws. This option exists because it's impossible for conventional zoning to anticipate all possibilities for achieving town plan goals and objectives. A specific plan is a guideline for the development of site presented in the form of proposed amendments to the town plan and zoning bylaw. If the development proposed by the applicants is not made, the underlying zoning remains in place. A specific plan process cannot begin without a formal finding by the planning commission that a substantial benefit could result. So the Glazer specific plan proposes an approximately 109 unit residential development with documentation of public open space to the town. Total of about 50 acres including 15 acres of Viewshed along Mountain View Road and Old Stage Road. This is a view that specifically mentioned as well as 35 acres of pasture wetland and forests including lands that are at least to Windswept Farm, the neighboring property. Currently the land is undeveloped and it's located in the residential zoning district and municipal water and sewer service area. So substantial benefit the applicant has proposed an open space substantial benefit. Viewshed, pastures, wetlands, forests are all open space types that are encouraged in the town plan and incentivized to be protected in the zoning bylaw. As part of the planning commission process there was an appraisal done where the land was appraised the viewshed of about $1.85 million and the 35 acres of pasture wetland and forests at about $1,000. Mere compliance with the bylaw is not a substantial benefit. The substantial benefit must be an action above and beyond the requirements of the bylaw. The planning commission identified two ways in which the Glazer specific plan goes above and beyond. It's donating land to the town where the bylaw incentivizes permanent protection via an easement or a site plan designation. A second way it goes above and beyond is by conserving viewshed land that is minimally protected by the open space development standards. So a conventional subdivision would not be required to donate land to the town and would probably see this viewshed land more impacted by development. Lastly, planning staff identified third way the specific plan goes above and beyond and that's by conserving requirements of local importance by minimizing encroachment and clustering development. A conventional subdivision would probably see more of the pasture lands developed. What follows is the viewshed rendering that shows how this development would preserve the views of the green mountains. Page three of the memo outlines the town plan and bylaw amendments that you would be voting on. Three of them are clerical. So chapter 13 in the town plan where the views are listed as unprotected would be now recognized as a protected view as well as recognizing the other open space land that would be donated to the town. That's the only town plan amendment proposed. There's three bylaw amendments. The first one is the substantive amendment to chapter 11. That chapter is called including affordable homes and residential growth management. So the growth management process for the Glazer-specific plan they would have to achieve a score of 50 points that's higher than the typical minimum score for a project. And they would also not be permitted to build more than 18 dwelling units per year well limited to the number of administrative permits that could be allocated in a fiscal year. And this would be a separate process from the newly adopted inclusionary zoning or the residential growth management process. They would still need to achieve a score but they would have their defined allocation schedule. Chapter 26 street trees clarifying that the exemption from street trees to preserve a scenic vista applies in this case it applies to the frontage along Mountain View Road and Old Stage Road. In chapter 39 this recognizes the existence of the substantive plan and codifies its required substantial benefit as well as includes some of the mechanisms that would be needed at discretionary permit like an irrevocable offer to the town for the land floating easements for the paths and trails. And lastly appendix K so this would be a new appendix in the bylaw the site plan, the growth management questionnaire, every document through the select board process planning commission and advisory committee process will all be bundled up if the specific plan is approved this must go forward to the development review board and the DRB would then have all of these documents available if any questions come up in their public hearing and their site plan review process they can refer back, they can refer back to the site plan that would be adopted into the bylaw to make sure that the discretionary permit fully complies with the goals and intent of the specific plan. And I will pause there for talking about the planning commission's new recommendation. So are there questions so far? There is the planning commission recommendation to something that we should take up and explore. Just a question. The DRB's role would be their normal role of reviewing the design and then also ensuring that the design meets what we based our decision. That correct? Yep, that's correct. I didn't mean to brush people. You have more questions? You should always wrestle me Ted. I always have questions. You were saving up. So the planning commission recommendation, the boundary line can you walk us through that? Yes. I want to talk about the planning commission. I'm going to go through page 4 of your memo. Tonight the select board is folding a public hearing on amendments including a site plan that described 50 acres of open space including 15 acres of viewshed and 35 acres of pasture wetland forest. A configuration that would exclude about 2.5 acres of forest from town owned by the planning commission. Which is figure 3 below where there would be about 53 acres of open space including 38 acres of this forested wetland area. The land in question is the lowest valued open space in the substantial benefit. It appraised at less than $1,000 per acre whereas the viewshed land value is about $123,000 per acre. To note 15 acres of viewshed is not changing here. This pond boundary line adjustment was discussed at the informational session on November 21. Throughout the specific plan process with the advisory committee and the planning commission we knew that the pond should not be donated to the town because it's a liability for the town and it also goes with the house next door that was formerly owned by the glazers and is now owned by the county. Ultimately the goal for talking about this pond boundary line adjustment is to ensure that the layout approved by the select board aligns as closely as possible to the layout that would be submitted to the development review board during permitting. It is better for the DRB to review a site plant or open space acreage rather than less. It makes sense to though this pond would be a good idea to review the plan. It's important to make sure that it goes through public process. On January 2 the planning commission made a recommendation to you guys for a different configuration where the town would retain acreage of the 2.5 acres of forest. Their version is shown in figure 5 on the right. They also recommended adding a notation to the site plan that would require a floating path or trail easement near the pond. I would like to note that the property owner Jack laser has not had an opportunity to comment on this at the planning commission meeting so it would be appropriate this evening for him to talk with you guys about the pond VLA. At the very bottom I propose an option for your consideration tonight. You could move forward as things have been warned the 50 acres. That path trail easement would be required through conventional bylaw process and the applicant could still voluntarily meet the planning commission's recommendation when they move forward to a pond VLA application. The other option for your consideration would be to accept the planning commission's recommendation. You would close the hearing this evening and open a new one on February 6. This would give us time to re-warn the acreage listed in the bylaw amendments. Bumping it from 50 to 51 and also that notation it would create some redundancies where that path trail easement would be required in addition to the standard bylaw requirements. Thank you. Sorry to be confused. The warning that we are working with tonight is figure 4 and the new recommendation is figure 5 and figure 5 would probably require a new postponement in the hearing. A new hearing. A new hearing. That is what the planning commission recommends. The planning commission recommends figure 5. By doing that and by putting in the trail you know that's my thought is making sure the land is conserved not just given to the town but as you explained month ago it is conserved the town can't do anything with that property which is given to the town correct? For the open space the town can only do things with the land that upholds substantial benefits. Farming, forestry, the view shed could probably do some limited things in terms of park amenities. The path and trail easements come from town plan and official map goals including the trail connectivity. The desire for this additional easement would give the town options to create a path connection towards coyote run or north ridge between north ridge and martel. These floating easements would give the town options to achieve connectivity goals across the open space. The glaciers and the developers feel about all this. I suppose we should ask that question. Ken, do you want to come up and Mr. Glazer? Nice to get their opinion on it. Thank you. For the record, Ken Beliveau 683 Mable street water bridge center representing the applicant. I just got in. I don't know if I would like to move on. Yes, Mike. It would be good to get the opinion of the property owner. The property owner not only didn't get a chance to give his opinion about the process that the planning commission used to make the recommendation, we weren't even notified that the process by which that recommendation was derived and articulated is flawed at some point in understatement. So we were asked to map out the pond. That's what we tried to do. And the only specific instructions that we got was talking to Emily, she said appropriately, we want to make it so that when this goes to the DRB, the DRB can figure out really clearly where exactly the lines are supposed to be. So you want to make it as easy for them as possible so that they're not having a big long debate about what did the select board actually approve or not approve. So our engineer and surveyor, the way they drew the line was to have a shape that would be easily recognizable to anybody out in the field, which is something that you want to do when you do survey anymore. So they started from what's essentially a corner pin at Northridge, which is easy to identify and then draw a line down to map out that area. Now in terms of the impact of this area on the substantial public benefit, the open space and all the things that we've been talking about with the planning commission and the committee and all that over the past year or so, this area was of the lowest value and received the least amount of attention because it doesn't affect the view shed, as Emily stated. It has no bearing on the operation of Winswept Bar, which was also a big part of what it was we were trying to achieve as part of the specific plan, that there had been some discussion about a possible trail that might connect through Northridge and that might connect across to Coyote Run. Yes, that was talked about. For you to approve the plan as we've submitted it with the boundary line as we submitted it, that doesn't preclude any of that. What you can't see on that graphic is how much area is still available as part of the open space that would still allow a potential connection. A connection that, as Emily mentioned in the official map, is actually not a high priority status. It's a relatively low priority status. So it's on the official map, but it's not high priority. There have been members of at least one member, perhaps others on the planning commission, have tried to elevate that. It doesn't square completely with adopted town policy. So for you to approve the plan with the boundary line adjustment as we've proposed, it would not preclude any of that. That a trail might go through there is also not a foregone conclusion. So that there might be an easement for a trail doesn't necessarily mean that there would be a trail. This whole part of town is wet. So to get approval from the state of Vermont to locate whether it's a primitive trail or a paved path or something like that, you should not assume that that is going to occur because it may in fact never occur. I'm not saying it won't, but the reality is that the nature of the land in that area is wet. So that's, Jack, I don't know if you would like to add anything to that. Yeah, just two points. The first point is because we were given the instruction from the town staff that we should do what we could in order to exclude the pond from the land that we would donate to the town. We worked with our neighbor, the knuckle noise. Bark is actually here today because when he saw what the planning commission had proposed, he was quite upset. So we worked out a plan for us to transmit the land to them. And I will just, so that's one, we've already worked out a deal which seemed like it was going to be fine for all of the landholders and all the parties involved. And two, we thought earlier that we had basically completed the process, submitted our proposal to the town, and we were going to hold a hearing today. And what we learned very late last week was that that wasn't the case, that there may be additional constraints already one was put in a memo to the select board by the planning commission. And frankly, I don't have any faith at this point that there won't be yet another memo between now and a future hearing that might come up. So to me, it just caused them to question the whole integrity of the process. I think I've heard it said that a flawed process will produce a flawed result. And I think that's what we made out here. So those to the change that was proposed by the planning commission. Thank you. Questions. So Emily, the planning commission really wants this for the future, a potential future path, is that they're not here to speak for themselves. So don't go too far, gentlemen. Could you re-ask the question, please? The planning commission is suggesting this because of a potential future path. Is there any other reason that they want to make this one acre change that they've expressed? I think just retaining as much of the forested land as possible and then keeping auctions open for the path connectivity, even though the existing back law standards would get that floating path or trail easement through the standard BLA process. Actually, I was going to ask that. I didn't quite understand the difference between figure four and figure five. What the path difference between the two of them are? The path difference wouldn't be the same or would be the path would be the same. We would still get a floating easement in either scenario. The site plan change would be more forest would stay in town ownership. But in either scenario, it would still pretty much be open space because that forested land probably has wetland. So whether it's the town or owned by a private landowner, they wouldn't be able to develop it or not very easily because of possible wetland constraints and habitat area. I think we're all learning here as we go through this process. But I've learned a lot. I don't know everything. The integrity means a lot to me. I think in the future, it would be nice to see more energy efficiency homes and things being more part of the process than just wastewater and town paths and conservation. I think the future and energy efficiency is very important. Some of that's part of that 50 points they have to make, right? Yeah, Mike, that's a great point. And thank you for reminding me. So that was something the Planning Commission felt very strongly about as well. And the way the growth management statement is worded, the project can score points in the energy efficiency category based on the old version of that chapter or the recently adopted one where there's far more options to get energy points and better incentives for energy. Or if it gets amended in the future and there's more incentives added, they have flexibility to achieve that 50 point score. The new energy efficiency standard is a lot more enticing and has better options. Yeah, thank you. I think that's an important thing going forward. I believe that as they explained, they did what they're supposed to do originally, what they were asked to do. So Mr. Chair, do we have to decide which one of these we want to hear public hearing on or are we making the decision to see if we're going to hold a public hearing? We can only hold a public hearing on the plan that was actually won. And so at the risk of demonstrating my ignorance, my understanding is that that would comport to figure four. Site plan is worn by the select board for public hearing November 2023. So should we decide if that's what we want to do now before we let folks have an opportunity to speak? Well, we kind of wargamed this out a little bit. And there are difficulties with both approaches. If we just say, okay, you know what, no hearing tonight. Thanks for coming. In the snow. That's not good. On the other hand, though, if we take hearing, if we take one of us the evidence, if we input from people tonight, in anticipation that we're actually going to have another hearing in February, then is that information that we hear tonight also do people have to come back and repeat themselves in February? So that that can be part of the official record in February. And I think the answer to that would be no, if our minutes are very good, and we just take them and plug them into any decision that we made in February. Yeah, we could even have a transcript. Sure. So that that would be if if this is if this new boundary is something that we would consider, then my thought would be that we keep the hearing on for today. Let people have their say and get input from everybody. And then we have then we would have to have another duly warrant hearing in February where that information would hopefully be fresh in our minds and weigh in on our decisions. That would be if we decide it. That's if it right. So procedurally, we're going to do the public hearing regardless today. But do we make the decision to warrant a second public hearing prior so that folks can have the knowledge like are we going to we as a group, you know, decide that before they speak, because then that may impact what they say, or do we, I don't know. You will absolutely have that but give us a second. Okay, we're still we're still ruminating. This is a unique situation. So could we have the hearing and then as a board, we would move to voting on a specific specific plan. And if we wanted to go with the new one, we would vote to not go for the specific plan or hold it and have the hearing does not have a vote at all. True. We can postpone whatever table it whatever, right. Yeah. Yeah. If I may what you could do is, you know, you what's been presented from the planning commission transmit on January 2nd is the substantive change for what you warned. So if you were to decide you hold hearing tonight, you close the hearing and then you could consider action of what you warned to accept the specific plan as it is proposed. If you got if you close the hearing and get to discussion and you decide you want to warn a new hearing with that substantive change, it would be a matter of we would warn that for February the 6th to do that. No formal actions required on the plan itself this evening. It's it's more of with any bylaw amendment if you have a substantive change that you want to amend as part of your hearing process. For example, we did with form based code a couple years ago. So one pathway is you hold the hearing, receive comments, you close the hearing and then you can make a decision point. If you want to consider the plan as warned tonight or if you have incurred the testimony and the planning commission's transmission and comments from the applicant and other folks if you want to decide whether or not you want to warn that new hearing that might change as part of this project. So if we don't if we decided that we were not going to warn a second public hearing now and we're not going to accept the planning commission's recommended change to the BLA the bottom BLA. We don't we still don't have to vote tonight though on this specific plan if we could table that decision. It's up to you. You have an agenda item to consider action. Isn't that number nine on our agenda? Yeah, you can consider action. The only vote we can take tonight is whether to approve this as transmitted right in November. But we could but we could also just table it for whatever we're sure if we did. Yeah, that's your purview. Yeah. But if we if we did not schedule another hearing in February, then I'm not sure why we wouldn't right. I just yep. Yep. So can I ask a substantive question about the the change that I can easily wrap my head around the fact that there's a different boundary that is coming in and the reasons for that but the the plan the site plan that is officially one for hearing tonight. What what does that what is the difference between what we could vote on tonight versus what the planning commission has now submitted relative to ads, floating easements, etc. What what is the difference in terms of past nothing. They're the same easement. So the the specific plan we're getting a couple different floating easements in different locations. Those would stay the same where this pond be a light to move forward. It would go through the development review board as well. And that's where the connectivity standards and official map would come into play. So having it as a notation on the specific plan is you know a second level of assurances that's already stated in the bylaw but it's you know highlighting it once again for the specific spot but a conventional BLA application here we would get that floating easement. So in terms that's that row in the table it's pretty much the same for the path and trail you either get it by the bylaws or you get it by a special note but that path or floating trail easement would still be the same. Would it be more set in stone if we if we went with the most recent planning commission proposal because it would be a notation and therefore it would tell the DRB with more specificity what they are supposed to factor in. Yes but so but what but only only marginally so it is more of an insurance but it's not I still think the standards in the bylaw are strong. Yeah and those standards in the bylaw are something that everybody was had in mind when this original plan was submitted to us and that we're here to talk about tonight the November plan. Okay well so the change the motive behind this the planning commission's change doesn't sound like it doesn't sound like the floating easement is really the driving force behind it. It's mainly driven by a particular planning commission member who's been very vocal about this path and floating trail and this desired connectivity. I do want to echo what Ken said about the physical challenges of probably making this connection a reality due to state wetland regulations and when you do look at this broader area with wetlands on planter bridge and martel a more realistic path alignment might be a long mountain view road and then coming down through the gulf course where summer field is proposed or coming down through martel to coyote run. The conservation commission did not recommend that this path easement they the conservation commission and the specific plan advisory committee both felt that the forested and wetland area should stay that way. We should get the floating easements but the path connectivity they're not so sold on this location for actually building something. Who knew this would be the most controversial part of this development? So and Ken and Mr. Glazer the overforded applicant you're you're opposed to the newest proposal from the planning commission. I know I understand that your concerns about process and I very deeply share them but substantively what is what is the objection? Don't incur the wrath of Scott. After a few years away I've got out of the habit of all the things I'm supposed to do. Well you know if for nothing else there's a there's a temporal aspect here. You know we were really hoping that we would get a decision from the board tonight and maybe that's asking for a lot but you know we've spent well over a year working on this tending you know various means with the planning commission and the committee and tried to work through all of the issues and you know as I said earlier we were just trying to do what we were told to do and to do it you know using sound engineering and surveying practices it's you know Emily had told us you know we we would like to have something then it goes to the DRB they can figure it out really easily so that's what we tried to do. Mr. Glazer has worked with Mr. McElroy to try to work out a deal because if this pond gets mapped out it's got to go somewhere right so where does it go? It goes to the neighboring property so they reach some kind of an agreement on that and I know Mr. McElroy has some words that he's going to want to share with you so we felt like we were doing what we were supposed to do. Mr. Glazer was was trying to work through this as a way of well the pond's going to go somewhere we've been told get rid of it because we don't want it because it's a liability and so we're trying to do that and we got to put it somewhere so the logical place is to the neighboring property. As I said before this area under discussion in terms of its value as a resource for the town whether it's the bushhead or the operations of windswept quorum or any of that it's it's those are non-issues it's not and in terms of its value to the town in some other way now I would understand it as does it have some resource value because there are trees there and it's a wooded area and it contributes to the ecosystem yes and it becomes part of the McElroy's property it would still do all of those same things. I don't know if it's realistic to say that to go with the proposal that we've submitted if it if it eliminates any real options for the town in terms of potential trail easement you know that that's just the reality whether it's the characteristics of this area of this property or the characteristics of the Northridge property or the characteristics of the Martell property this place this part of town is essentially a large swamp with a lot of trees growing in and that's what it is. It has tremendous value for Wildland, it has tremendous value for the Hemlock Forest those are all things that are there the the potential to get a trail through the you know don't bet the farm on that it's going to happen I think that would be you know that would be ill advised not saying it couldn't happen but I would be very surprised if it did so we think we've achieved what we were asked to do to map it out to find a way to have that pond go to somebody who would want to have it do it in a way that didn't invalidate what we had already proposed and what had already been worked out in the plan do it in a way that wouldn't preclude any of the options these sort of what I would call secondary things about this this potential path that's not a priority status on the town's official map that we could accomplish all of those things and satisfy everything and so you know that's really I guess to get directly to your question that you know Mr. Glazer and Mr. McElroy had something sort of worked out in agreement we didn't think it was going to be a problem because of all the reasons that I just stated we thought we were doing the right thing we thought we could do it in a way that would still uphold all of those other values so we didn't really perceive this as being the stumbling block that it's turned into okay thanks um I think we can come back and ask more questions to everybody and anybody in the room but I did with the board permission like to get like 22 people on the neighbor line so if you can identify yourself please my name is Mark McElroy my wife and I own the house adjacent to the Glazer's land adjacent to the pond and the the changed area of the property boundaries that we're talking about comes up right next to the pond right into our backyard and the the suggestion from the planning commission to have a path easement there is is particularly upsetting because to be right in our backyard very close to our house and I get it it's not our land but nevertheless it would be something we strongly oppose and resist in any way we can for for as long as we live there but as as Ken and Emily have both said it's also a little bit confusing because it seems kind of just generally unnecessary for two reasons one there's been two two assessments on the record that the land is not suitable for a path because it's a wet land from the applicant early on and also from the state of Vermont more recently and two there there already is a path easement the town owns very nearby going in the same direction that this changed boundary is proposed to enable so I'm not sure it's it's useful or productive to continue down that road but again it would be something that we oppose strongly and we encourage the board not to not to pursue thank you thank you so I've got someone on the zoom has to talk to another meeting okay open things up I'd sure ask if I could yeah let's go ahead in person yeah hey John I saw your note you have to jump to a your own board meeting here so let me connect you here just a moment yes I appreciate you very much because baby women's rights to the human beings and of course the state and the Indian people as well. And they, and we're going to talk about that in a minute, but while we're looking to come in and call the camp, which is a five-day inversion of the number of women's law, and here's the young ones, they can say, they give their rights and they'll be down with some verbal abuse. I mean, is there a student who's waiting? Right, this is a student who's working with a cheese company. I brought a friend of mine who's on the spectrum, and he wanted us to meet his own name, and he was there to approve of the order. And then, I don't know, I thought it was a while, he had his own voting name, he had to see the world where a human voting or a vote is coming in your own army, what's in the draw, who are veterinarians, you know, it's easy to explain this all, like the family's government, and it's a place where a lot of people, so we were there to meet a hundred people, and we were there for some of our kids. But I know some of you, this is for a lot of people. And every Monday, there was 19-year-olds, and some of them, every Sunday, here in the North, pretty much there was 19-year-olds. So, from four-year-olds visiting, from a six-year-old, when he came, 19-year-olds, this is a place that is pretty profound, and you may kind of, for a little bit, an attitude to be coming. And, you know, so they have part of the deal, the 35 Bakers would be leased back to the farm, keeps another farm in Williston, there aren't many farms left, as you all know, and it's, you know, a really key thing. The other, I wanted to mention King Street is a center that works with a lot of new Americans, and during Pony Camp, we had a, someone, one of the kids was on scholarship. And the kid's father wrote a letter to Winswept, saying that, you know, this is the first time his daughter's ever encountered something filled with such happiness. And so, Winswept is a place where everybody thrives and excels. And, you know, I looked at a lot of barns where it would be the best home for me, and it's really the best home for this whole community that I've lived with for 14 years. So that's a key part of the substantial benefit, I would say, as well. And I'm sorry I know you're talking about the other part right now. I have to jump to a South Carolina City Council meeting right now, but I appreciate really your due diligence on all this. Thank you very much. Thank you. So there are a number of people obviously still in the room, assuming that you folks are wanting to make a comment and state your piece. So come up, sir, please. Good evening. I'm Mike Moss. My wife Tina and I are the operators of Winswept Farm. We've been in business for over 50 years, and we have, we hope to continue for many more years benefiting the young people of Wilson. We've been gratified to see the number of people, students, parents who have either written letters or participated expressing their support for the farm and their appreciation of the time spent with us. If this proposal is approved, we will continue to provide after school programs, summer camps, all of those things which benefit the children of Willisman. The alternative proposals, which would appeal to a major developer, would force us to cease operation after a 50-plus year span. During that 50-year time, I have experienced the uniqueness of our state and the town, and all of this can only be preserved through careful and well-thought-out development. The Glazer's vision, as embodied in the specific plan, allows a large proportion of the property untouched and, more importantly, its significant views intact. It pays attention to the agricultural history of our community through the continuing operation of Winswept Farm. We in Vermont must take care to preserve that, which makes our state so special. And we must encourage the maintenance of a balance between open space and residential housing to preserve that aesthetic, which we all enjoy. If this parcel were to be developed by a major player whose goal is the maximization of profit, our town could easily resemble many other urban areas with a multitude of poorly sited houses without surrounding opening space and sacrificing the aesthetic for profit, making our town less visually appealing and less people-friendly. The Glazer's are proposing to donate a large portion of the parcel, valued at more than a million dollars to Williston, bringing their vision for the land of fruition and establishing that desirable balance between development and open space. I urge the select board to accept this gift, which will benefit all of us as residents of Williston. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Moss. Yeah, please do. I'm Tina Moss and my wife and I run Winswept. And just wanted to tell you what we do at Winswept and the benefits we have for Williston and the community. My focus as an equine professional is to work with kids and young adults. And through this, working with horses, they learn empowerment, they learn assertiveness, become strong individuals. So many life lessons that they learn. Horses are not easy. They don't do always what you say. You can't just make them do it. You have to learn how to compromise with them. And there's so many life lessons involved with that. I have tried our, as I run Winswept, we make a big community for people to join in with us. I have a big summer camp. I employ the kids in the area so they can have a first job experience. And I'm not an easy boss. I'm fair and I work hard and I expect that from life. We also, so we have like more than 100 kids come to the camp. We have our counselors. And also if there's any neighborhood kids that wants to just join the mass of campers and counselors or whoever's there, I let them. They want to come and help us. They're welcome. I'm going to say this now and I'm going to end up with so many kids. I just really, I think that kids need to have open space, safe environment, be able to be outside, be able to play together. For that, for me, that's very important. We just started a pony party where we're having the little ones come and they're all dressing and meeting ponies and stuff. Just trying to get the people in, give them something to do outside. So the way I see it, if you vote yes to this specific plan you'll allow us to stay in business. You keep the open space where the horses are on old stage road. The heart of the residential development. If you vote no, it will close us down and you'll just have a bunch of houses. Thank you. Thank you very much. Other folks who wish to make comment. All right, so again, my name is Mark McElroy and my wife and I are joining landowners. I'm right behind Winslow Farm actually. And I'm also here to urge approval of the proposal. So like Mike and Tina, we'll potential, we'll see parts of this development every time we look at our window. And so you might ask why I would have strong support for the proposal if that's the case. And the reason the answer to that is because of the nature of the debate on this that I've witnessed over the last year and a half. And I've seen a lot of people, person after person, first react kind of naturally with opposition. And I've seen time and time again over the last year and a half that we had that perspective fade away when the realization comes that the debate we're having is not too developed. The debate we're having is do we want, does the community want 100 homes built there or 200 homes built there? Do we want a situation where Winslow Farm can operate or not operate? Do we want to preserve the aesthetic open space character of the neighborhood, including the view of Camelsump? And do we want the town to receive this land gift that's worth millions of dollars? As a community member and a resident and an adjacent landowner, I believe the smaller footprint is the obvious, better option for the people living right around this location. So what is the cost of all those things? We saw a very detailed, quantified presentation of the build out scenarios in the last meeting a couple months ago. We're talking about an acceleration of build out of a few years. Even if we're, I think the estimates we saw were under five years maybe, but even if it was five years, these time spans are inconsequential and negligible to receive these kinds of benefits that I alluded to a second ago. Basically. So, again, I believe that smaller footprint option, the proposal should be approved and your benefit to all the community members. Thank you. Other folks in the room? Hi. My name is Pam Allen. I am my, me and my family are residents of Williston. My daughter is 10. She goes to Williston Central. And I'm also here in support of Winswept as a benefit to the community. Winswept is a unique community, not just, you know, within Williston, but also, I think, regionally. We've been to several barns. No fault of our own. We've been to several barn communities and Winswept is unique in that it welcomes people of all ages, all experienced levels, you know, and it's, it's been nice because Mike also saved those fields recently. And my daughter got to see where Pony's food came from and all that stuff. And we got to sweat in the summer and help throw the hay in the mow and things like that. Just wonderful character building for a child. You know, and. You can help. She does want to run my chainsaw. My husband run her once. Anyway, I digress. I'm also an electrical engineer. I'm a very pragmatic and logical person. I'd like to thank. And I believe in equity and people being able to afford homes and all that good stuff and energy efficiency. I really think that's important. So I really do believe in, in me, you know, trying to preserve open spaces and, and, but still being able to have affordable housing for people, you know, let's try to have it all. And, you know, as a resident of Williston, I've, I've been proud to see this process. Although this, this whole pond thing just came out of nowhere. And I, I feel that Mr. Glaser having to deal with that out of the blue, but I feel for the most part, the process has really converged on this nice influence of things that benefit everybody. And, you know, I, my daughter, you know, up until recently, we, we were boarding my horse and my daughter's pony at the barn. And sadly, my daughter's pony, he was 35 years old and he passed recently. And it just devastated my daughter and me. And he was in great shape towards the end. He's just this scruffy little kid's pony, but Tina took great care of him. And everybody really helped support us through losing him. And it was, you know, he was, he was a great guy. Anyway, I'm, I'm good. I'm done. Thank you. Other folks in the room. I'm Robin Young, resident of Williston. And I will dispose that I am part of the Winsap community. I have a couple of horses there. And many years. But I also have a couple of horses there. Many, many years. But I also want to speak just as a community resident. I value everything that has been said about Winsapton. I don't want to see the business, that business disappear. But as a community member, I support the specific plan greatly. I mean, the land here is zoned for development. So it is, it will be developed. And the value of the specific plan. Is that there'll be fewer houses. And also the view shed of the mountains. I greatly appreciate every day I drive down the road. And I every day I look at that mountain or snow mountain because of the clouds. I look at where the mountain should be. But I really value. Just gives me a sense of peace. Helps me relax, take a deep breath. As I turn the wheel. Never know what my horse is going to be up to. The other thing is that in addition to being a member of Winswept, I use the path that goes north ghost and road, mountain view, old stage, main street. I use that bike path as a walker, jogger, a biker. And I've used it for many, many years. And over the years, I've seen all the open land. I've seen all the open land. Just be swallowed up by development. And housing going in. And here's an opportunity to keep a large portion of the land along that path open. And I would very much like to see it open and remain so. So it's both as a Winswept and a community member at large. I urge you to please support the specific. Thank you. Other folks in the room. Please come up. Hi, my name is. I am a resident of Williston and another member of Winswept community. I started there as a seven year old camp kit. I became a camp counselor. I started doing barn chores. I leased a horse. I own a horse. I am still there. I'm 23. I went to college and I've come back. I have achieved success. I have achieved success. I have achieved success. I have achieved success. I have achieved success. I have achieved success that my education and in jobs that I've had because of the lessons I have learned, so I'm not going to elaborate too much longer, but I am evidence of how Winswept is creating people like me in this community. I'm also someone who studied environmental science, and I'm passionate about thoughtfully developing land in a way that benefits ecosystems and benefits as humans living on this planet. Um, and I see this plan as a way to allow winds up to continue, but also a way to reduce the number of houses we're putting on land that is, as my mother just pointed out, um, zoned for development. And I think that this specific plan is an opportunity for us to really think about using this land to benefit us as people and for the ecosystems. Um, and I'm very much in support of it. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else? Eric, are there people online who wish to participate? Yeah, I've got a, I think about a half dozen folks that are hands raised. Okay, I put in the chat everyone, but I'm writing down names as soon as I see hands. So we'll make sure we get to everybody here. So, um, first person I have is Terry, Marin, uh, Terry, I'm going to connect you right now. Okay. Can, can folks hear me? Yes. Great. So my name is Terry, Marin, and I'm a Williston resident. Recording in progress. Okay, okay. So here we go. We're recording. So my name is Terry, Marin, and I'm a Williston resident and I'm also a member of the conservation commission. And I was, I guess, prepared to share with you what I shared with the planning commission a month or so, maybe two months ago now. Um, but this whole issue of this boundary line adjustment, I sort of knew this was kind of coming up, but I didn't realize the implications, um, that it would be a stumbling block for the process to move forward. Um, and I must say, I just think, just listening to Emily and, um, you know, other members and Ken and the glaciers, you know, that this really is shouldn't put this shouldn't hold this up. This really should be moved through as the November recommendation from the planning commission. Um, you know, there, there's a floating easement. It doesn't sound like there's going to be any change in making this boundary adjustment. So I just want to say I'm, I do support that this be approved tonight and we move forward. Um, what I shared with the folks at the planning commission, um, was that, you know, five years ago, when I heard that this parcel was possibly going to be developed, um, that I was not in favor of any kind of development there, and that it should only be conserved the whole hundred acres. Uh, but as I was attending many of these meetings, um, with the, the committee that was formed for the specific plan, I learned a lot about the process and the, and this particular project. I feel this is the best outcome for this parcel. If we were to let it go to another developer in the future, it will, would have 200 plus houses as opposed to the 100 being proposed. This would have even a bigger impact on the roads, the schools, the police, the fire and everything that goes along with development. There are two very important benefits from this project. First is the preservation of the view shed with the fabulous views of the mountains, which folks have commented about. The second is maintaining the working landscape for windswept farm and other similar operations in the future, you know, whether windswept by hope windswept farm continues for, you know, another 50 or 100 years. But there'll be other, you know, once this the specific project program goes through, you know, it will be available for, you know, working landscapes. And the other benefits that are, are protecting the wildlife habitat, corridors, wildlife corridors and future potential uses on this open space, land and wetlands, educational water quality and trails. There, there's so many, you know, opportunity, things that could happen on that piece of land. And in closing, I wonder what residents would be saying, I said last time in 2050, and we're working on this project about what, what is Williston going to look in 2050. And what would they think about this parcel. And the first option would be if it did not go through. People would be saying why didn't the town take the opportunity when they were offered this parcel to save the views and the working landscape for windswept farm. And if the town does go through with approving this specific plan tonight as as the November 27 or whatever. People would be saying, I am just so happy that the town and the residents voted to protect the views and the farms for us enjoy today. Because once the development is built. You can never get it back. Thank you. Next on my list is Kara. I'm going to connect you Kara. You'll see the unmute Kara. Can you hear me. Yep. Okay, thanks. Hi, I'm Kara. I'm originally a resident of Richmond and I'm currently a resident of Cambridge. I'm here to urge you to vote in favor of this proposition. I'm also a member of the windswept community. I started there taking lessons working in the barn, all that sort of good stuff. I'm turning 41 next week or in a couple weeks. So I've been affiliated with windswept. I didn't get my first horse until about a little over 10 years ago. My husband is an active duty Marine. He's currently stationed on unaccompanied orders in Japan. I am Okinawa. I got my horse Calvin who still lives at windswept today. He's 24, which is quite old for a horse. He's been there since for almost around 10 years now. My first moved him there when we moved from North Carolina, which is where my husband was originally stationed. Then we moved to Philadelphia. And then three years later, my husband got orders to Seoul, South Korea. So obviously I couldn't bring my horse with me there. So I sent him to the one person I knew that would take care of him. Even if I wasn't there, that he would be well looked after no matter what in that place was windswept. So he lived there while I was overseas and that three years overseas turned into six years overseas when we got orders to Iwakuni, Japan. And it was in Japan where I woke up to the worst nightmare any horse owner can ever experience. A ton of missed calls and my parents and Tina were trying to get a hold of me. Calvin was very sick and he almost died that night. And I firmly believe because of Tina and her experience is the reason why he's still alive and thriving today. Like I said, he's 24 and the only reason he's still going as well as he is is because of the level of care that he has received at windswept. And it's not only Tina and Mike, it's the entire community, as others have mentioned, after he called and was very sick. Other people were walking him for me since I wasn't there taking care of him in my absence. He was there basically nine years without me. I only moved back to Vermont over this summer and I could finally join him here in person. I'm not just the absentee owner anymore and I go to windswept almost every day. I try to go every day. And the barn community there is just so strong and welcoming. I've been to other barns and other places in other states and I always compare the back to windswept because it's incredibly hard to find that type of community anywhere else. And I've heard everyone's horror stories about barns and barn drama and all that. So I'm incredibly thankful to have this wonderful place that is not only so welcoming and a sanctuary against the world, which is what all of our horses are really sanctuaries for us to escape from whatever problems or bad days we're having, and equally as a place to celebrate triumphs with our friends and those we care about the most. So all this to say, it's an incredibly important place and I encourage you to vote yes. Thank you. Next I have Olivia. I'm going to connect you now, Olivia. Hi. Can everybody hear me? Yes. Okay. Hi, my name is Olivia Siri. I'm 14 and a freshman at CBU High School. I have been going to windswept farms since I was six or seven. And before that I was always, you know, kind of drawn to the place, just kind of has a magical aura. I know there's been a lot of this, but I'd really like to talk about windswept and just its importance to the community and also to myself. For me, windswept is one of the most important places in the world. Throughout my time at windswept, I've learned more about myself and others than I think I could have anywhere else. I've been able to engage with other youth from around the state. I've also been able to work at their summer camp, which has given me skills with children that could be useful to me later in life and just come in handy in general. The camp is also an enormous benefit to the community. I've seen hundreds of kids go through the camp and each one leaves with a lesson learned and a smile on their faces. I also started as a seven year old camper and I've now continued to learn both about horses and about principles from Mike and Tina. Mike has taught me that hard work always pays off and Tina has shown me how to always laugh at a situation, even if it feels stressful or impossible. Windswept has taught me how to work with other people in a professional setting and has showed me how important perseverance and dedication are. I hope that all of these lessons can be passed on to the next generation of kids as they were passed on to me. Windswept is also one of the only places left in the county that has been operating for as long as it has and has supported the youth and adults around them for as long as it has. Windswept is home to countless animals. It's like a second home to me and it's also home to countless friendships. I've met my closest friends there and people at this barn have become my community, my support system and my family. For me, Windswept isn't just about the horses or the job. It's about the people and how they've impacted our community. I think that we should do whatever we can to protect Windswept and it would be doing a favor to everyone in Chittenden County and its youth. Thank you. Eric, anybody else? Next to Kyle Sawa, I'll connect you now Kyle. Thank you. Can you hear me okay? Yes. Perfect. Yeah, I'll be brief. My name is Kyle Sawa. I'm an budding property owner to the specific plan and I was also a member of the specific plan advisory committee. In general, I think this is a good long-term outcome for the town. As we think, not just 10 years from now, 20 years from now, 50 years from now, I echo what Terry shared in that regard. You know, it protects the view shed, which I think future residents and people passing through will appreciate. Even considering if this was to not go through the specific plan and go through growth management five, 10 years from now, I think that this plan that town has in front of them is would still be a better outcome than any other regular plan that goes through. I really think as it's presented, you know, we had this whole thing with the boundary line. I think as the applicant presented it probably seems like the right approach. That was interesting. And yeah, so again, I think this is kind of a no-brainer. Winswept, you know, we've heard a lot of great stories about that, so I don't need to say anything else about that, but thank you. That's all. Thank you. Let's see. Ruben, I'll get you up next. I'll connect you in just a moment. Hi there. Can people hear me? Yes. Yes, we can. Yeah, hi. Thank you for the opportunity. First, I'd like to applaud the town for ensuring that steps are established and followed systematically. To ensure that a topic like this is status of substantial and public nature, engages the people of realism for the good realism. I'd just like to make note that on November 14, 2023, a pre-app review of the post of the vision was submitted to the DRB. So the pre-app included three concept layouts. You know, the first plan was 130 dwelling units. The second plan was 180 dwelling units. And the third plan is this specific plan with 109 dwelling units. Now, this specific plan has its pros and cons in serving what constitutes a substantial public interest. And there is a reason why a specific plan takes time, and that is because it has consequence of the growth management plan of the town, which should be a matter important to all Williston residents. I believe there is public benefit to the open space that is being offered to the town, i.e. 15 acres of viewshed, but I respectfully would say it does not rise to the level of being substantial. The plan is not sufficiently substantial to grant exemption to the growth management plan of the town because it was established that a town for a simple reason of managing the growth that is proportionate to the infrastructure and services that can be served well and reasonably by the town to ignore issues that have been brought forward for public discussions such as traffic, wildlife, public service in schools is poor foresight. The town serves the entire public community of Williston. The old-stage road, as everyone knows, is a critical quarter for traffic both for humans and wildlife. The consequence of this massive development off Mountain View, and particularly old-stage road, will no doubt affect the surrounding neighborhoods between Allenbrook School and Central School as it will drag construction for many years to come. However, the impact of an exemption to the growth management plan is far reaching from infrastructure to services. People will say that, well, we can do something now, what we may not be able to do 10 years or so from today. But I would counter that people in government change. The way of governance can change. Communities can change. Policies and regulations can change. And lastly, my statement has nothing against the landowner or the horse farm, and of course all the well-intended causes that they all share. But rather just to ensure that we have a pace of development that runs hand in hand and commensurate with the infrastructure and services for all people of Williston. Thank you. Hello, everyone. I am a very long-term windswept member, I will say, of the windswept community. And I simply want to echo what others have said about preserving the nature of Williston. I'm actually a Jericho community member as well, but I live in Jericho, but I go to the farm four or five times a week. I've been riding there for probably 25 years or so. And I think I can sum it up. No more beer beautifully than Alice Walker who wrote a poem called Horses Make the Landscape Look More Beautiful. And I think that those of us living in Vermont appreciate the aesthetic of this state and the nature of a horse farm in the middle of what is otherwise a fairly well-developed area that really provides an aesthetic that really can't be described. It has to be felt. So I'll leave it at that. Thank you. Thank you, Alice. Then last person I have is Kathy. Kathy will connect you right now. Looks like you just need to unmute Kathy. If you can hear me, Kathy, it looks like you'll just need to unmute your audio to speak right now. I'm going to call an issue, I guess. Okay, so we think she's... Kathy, if you can hear me, would you type something in the chat? I'm not going to say anything. It kind of reminded me of a seance right there. Oh, Kathy can hear me. Kathy, looks like you just need to unmute on your end. If you're having a microphone problem, let's see, I'm not sure. If you want to type your comment in the chat, be happy to read it. It sounds like microphone is not working. So let's give it a second. One more thing to say. Sure. Should we wait another minute? No, go ahead. Okay. I really wanted to express my appreciation for so many of the people who spoke on behalf of the specific plan. And it reminded me of the intention that my wife and I had when we originally wanted to go this route. And it was to create something for generations that would be a benefit to the town. And I can say that the process that we've worked with through the town has actually made me very proud with the Planning Commission, the advisory board that was convened. There was so much thought and so much so much so many details that will work through so many perspectives and opinions that were expressed. And then they came together to form what we eventually turned into our proposal. I was very proud to be part of it because I think what we submitted at the end was much greater than what my wife and I had conceived individually. And that brings me to the reason I'm speaking now is again to ask you to disregard the most recent transmittable by the Planning Commission, because I don't think it falls in that category. I don't think it was well thought through. I think in the long run of you, if I step back to see what was our vision, it was to make something clean and a benefit to the town. And I saw with the crazy boundary line adjustment, I'll call it half-baked, maybe not crazy. It doesn't really accord with the spirit that my wife and I had intended to convey the land to the town. And I just, I'm a little bit concerned because to me I hate to have like this spur in, sorry for the use of spur. I'll call it a burp. It's like a burp under my skin. It's not right. I think that that last boundary adjustment does not sit well with me. So again, I'm just asking you to disregard that and look at the all the positives that have come out of our long work and our proposal. Thank you. Thank you very much. Eric, did we get a comment? Kathy rebooted, so we're going to try again here. We should also probably acknowledge the letters that are we've received. Hello, can you hear me? Yeah, we can hear you, Kat. All right. Finally, I had to reboot. I apologize for the earlier problem. I'm a resident of Williston and have been for quite a while. We do have a horse at Winswept. Winswept has been a great learning center for my children and my family. I think the biggest lesson that they have put out there is respect. The land has been respected. The glazers have done a great job working with Winswept over the years. The land is beautiful. I think to the points made earlier when we looked 20, 30, 50 years down the road. It's this plan shows the balance of the need for housing, but it respects the land and preserves a beautiful piece of the land for the community. So I support this plan and hope that it moves forward. Thank you. Thank you. Is that everybody on this? Everyone. Okay. So given that, I think the public hearing has served its purpose. And I think the motion would be in order to close the public hearing. I move to close the public hearing on a specific plan of the Glazer property. Is there a second? Second. Further discussion on the motion? All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? The ayes have it. The hearing is closed. So I think the first order of business would seem to be whether we vote on the plan that was presented and duly warned or whether we preserve the testimony that was taken today and then warrant another hearing on the planning commission's most recent submission. So if we could. Talk about that and reach a decision. I'm all for connectivity. I think that that needs to be a priority in our town. Connecting neighborhoods connecting communities. And in achieving our energy and environmental goals. And making this a walkable community. From what I'm hearing from, you know, Emily and our own planning office. Changing this pond BLA boundary is not going to substantially impact. The walkability is not going to substantially impact the connectivity. And those goals will be achieved. In the same way with the boundary in its existing location. So. I would be in favor of leaving the boundaries in the November proposal that we're discussing. Planning commission has done a wonderful job. Presenting all the facts over the course of a year and all the things that went. With their deliberations. But I think they aired in this last part. Usually when things things come from a commission or committee or board. There's been an effort to. Come to an agreement with all parties and that didn't appear to happen. So I would. I'll be voting to. Adopt what is been heard. What's been warned tonight. With Greta and Terry. I think it's time to just move on. I think Mike and Tina for what you've done with your farm. It's wonderful. I never. I'm amazed what you've done. It's great. You've really done a lot for this community. Thank you very much. Jack and Caitlin. Thank you for your thoughtfulness. I share. I joined the consensus. I think we should go forward with the. Vote on the. The specific plan as warned. Not make modifications to it for the reasons that everybody else said. So if that's the situation, then let's talk about the specific plan and. Whether or not that would be voted up or down. And I. So the floor is open for. Select board members to weigh in on that. Do we have a motion that we're discussing or are we just deciding if we want to have a motion? Well, there was. There was. There was no motion to. Postpone or continue our discussion and then rewarn a meeting. Rewarn a hearing. So the discussion now is whether or not we. Whether or not. We. Adopt the specific plan that is. That is really warm. And. You are. You are pointing out a long and. you are you are pointing out a long and historical probably flaw in the select board and how we do things didn't mean to miss it well and that's that we we almost 99.9% of the time we have discussions before we make a motion and then ask if there's further discussion on the motion which I just want to know what I'm commenting on you know do I want to vote or what I'm how I'm but you know that that flaw in select board procedure is not destroyed the town yet so so what we'd be talking about now is whether or not to adopt the specific plan as more thoughts I'll go first I think I I think it's a great plan I think this is important I think it is a model for balancing growth and preservation and public input and I think it's it's great the the added benefit to windswept is also a significant factor I will disclose that I've ridden a horse twice in my life and one time was up a mountain in the seer in Nevada's and I was put on a very old horse that tried to scrape me off trees and the cowboy who was running the thing said yeah he does that so anyway but that being said I will put that that trauma-inducing memory behind and think that this is a good plan so that's that's my two cents I will I will disclose I might might do have a child who actually used to ride horses at windswept my and loved windswept very much stuff but as children are fickle she is full oh please she's not watching trust me she's not she's no faster bedtime my initial only hesitation with the specific plan was really that the the public benefit would be equitable you know that you know I wanted to to ensure that you know this would be a benefit to our whole community and not just a specific subset of our community as much as I love windswept I was I was concerned that you know this but in through this process I really feel that that has been shown that the benefit is beyond just the farm which again I do really value is very important but it is I do see the benefit to our community at large and so you know I'm the support of the plan as proposed so I'm not a horse person either I do live in that part of town I've raised my children in this part of town the sewer district outside the growth center fancy it's got to be an algorithm you know a number there I value I value working landscapes like the horse farm and Adams and and other working landscapes in that part of town even if it is really zoned for for growth there's it's so I value the working landscape the viewscape I appreciate that it is mentioned in the town plan I don't think I'm under no illusions that we would the town would ever buy it for two million dollars for a landscape but I think for a viewscape but I think since it is mentioned the town plan it clearly has value to people who live here and I value maintaining some open space long mountain view really helps sort of maintain at least the illusion of a rural character to have 15 acres instead of having houses bump up right against the road so that that I value though I do I do respect the comments of people saying is that a substantial enough benefit to to to count 18 houses a year I that doesn't feel like some that feels something that feels like an amount that we can absorb that's one of my bigger concerns if we're put in the hundred houses in in 2026 I'd be a concerned but 18 a year I think is reasonable I appreciate the smaller scale of 109 units versus 130 or 180 I think that's another thing that would be valued by folks in this town and I respect the time and energy at the planning commission the specific plan advisory and the town staff a lot of people have put a lot of time and energy into being very thoughtful about this and I respect that and I'll support their recommendation to move it I agree with everybody here and I appreciate all the comments that people wrote wrote in on the screen I read them all so if there is no further deliberation there there's not an actual proposed motion wording but okay I'm going to move to adopt the Glacier specific plan proposal as transmitted also is there further discussion on the motion all those in favor say aye aye all those opposed me the eyes have it the specific plan is sure if if you're quick we actually have to do the budget I'll give you a coffee when I'm done and you know this is I just thought it would be appropriate to say thank you thank you especially to the select board I think you've made a very wise decision that will support the community now and far into the future far beyond our lifetime so thank you for that and I really want to express my gratitude to the town staff for helping us in this process you've conveyed so many very factual and important concepts and you've been very rigorous in your application of rules and and your judgment and I also want to thank all of the committee members who volunteered and really put a lot of energy and especially I want to thank Mike and Tina for being very supportive of this project and you know delivering really amazing an amazing environment for people and it's it's something that inspires me and I do hope that it will continue into the future and I and I also want to thank the staff Ken and Brian who have been really instrumental in taking us from the beginning when it was just an idea to this final conclusion so thank you all very much thank you thank you so you know it is thank you folks it is it is 9 15 would would people be okay with the five minute stretch breaks before we let's let's take a short adjournment and we'll be back in five or ten minutes yeah my dad is the one you know it's community members there's just constantly sugar everywhere the K-2 school like every time walk by the table and Lucy says the same thing that people bring treats in for the doctors somebody brought in cookies I love coming in to see you Ted so Scott are you everybody ready yep okay so let's let's go back into session hit the next item on our agenda which is operating in capital budget work session Eric can you take us into that yep switch gears so revisiting the budget originally we envisioned possibly approvals tonight but I tried it with Ted and shared the with the board the end of last week recommending kind of go through the final steps tonight and then we can have a I anticipate a brief meeting next Tuesday to do the final legal motions to get everything approved for town meeting so where we left it with the budget at your last meeting was looking at in the capital especially the question of the lease for the police body cameras and tasers for the first year of a five-year lease program given the board's feedback and further discussion Shirley and I had we had this in the capital budget for the equipment but we feel this is really an operating expense for the lease payment so it's a $30,000 item and what we did is we did a final scrape through the budget number of categories and we feel we've identified $30,000 in reductions to offset the addition of this so it be a cost-neutral addition I spoke with the chief more last week and it's reiterating every agency in the county has these these two items and they feel it's certainly a very high priority and I agree with that so since the board this evening as a way to make this a cost-neutral addition to the budget given where we are the items we looked at we took down these training slightly police overtime slightly blisters tax maps can use the reappraisal fund that's $25 taking down the building contingency a little from traffic signal replacement $5,000 from police cruiser replacement $1,500 for document scanning from the planning office $2,500 for professional service from the town manager and $3,500 from a technology budget to get to the $30,000 so I will pause there first because I was the only oh one other thing for the capital budget as we're there we'd come back and forth on the potential bonding note for the brick church fire protection project we had last week I shared I thought this might be upwards of $5,000 this is good news so we got an update from the engineer today and they feel up $400,000 is a good number here not to exceed so in the column of I'm looking at this bridge this summary sheet if you just cross out the 475 and make it $400,000 for the brick church fire protection that's the the most up-to-date number I can provide for so I'll pause there on on that and the 700 on the town hall parking lot does not include getting the grant money correct and I'll have a resolution for you on Tuesday just to support the project that we're applying for for the grant so when we had we looked at it last week that the bond potential interest payments did we factor in the 475 or was it 400 that we factored in I mean I know it's not going to be a substantive change if it's 400 or 475 but it would be something right yeah I was trying to remember we just thought it's not much of a change but well don't hold on go to your next question and I'll pull up the two schedule yeah the 700 yeah so I'll go to the workspace so my larger spreadsheet I sent to everyone yeah just how the all the money's moving here so we built in the environmental reserve fund $30,000 that was the last entry from last meeting then the things I just mentioned are all shaded in yellow including the $30,000 for the body cameras tasers that offsets so below that you'll see the next column is how we've calculated so the new expenses to add 155,000 and change identified another 5,000 in revenue from the education tax collection service fee 5,000 for additional recreation revenue and then we come up subtole of 145 I'll pause below that you'll see there's $30,000 use of fund balance to offset E.R.F. addition then above that we reviewed the fund balance analysis to consider another $20,000 of fund balance and when that 50 of fund balance is used the remaining amount of money would be what's to raise additional by taxes from what we originally transferred so if you go to the bottom the first box is what's we transmitted in December that was a 0.3716 tax rate so you see additional property taxes to raise January 2024 the 95,000 to get our bottom line of taxes to raise of $8,080,000 that creates that tax rate of 0.3760 you'll see in the yellow shading what's transmitted in December was just over a three and a half cent projected rate increase this is just under a 4% projected rate increase with the inclusion of the additional $20,000 of fund balance reduction with our analysis of the fund balance updating the our view is should the additional $20,000 be used it would it would put the fund balance that are these are certainly a rough estimate because of trying to predict 18 months in the future here would be just over 2.4 million dollars or about 15.84 of that updated bottom line per fiscal year 2025 falls between your policy of 10 to 20 percent of operating if thinking about that tax rate addition where it would be it means about for the median home assessed at $300,000 additional of 119 50 in taxes per year or about 996 per month 39 84 per $100,000 of assessed value if the board work should discuss that kind of calculations here and the policy decisions for you are you know expense bottom line revenue bottom line tax rate projection if you are want to discuss buying down that potential rate further your buckets to look at our fund balance and ARPA money with a caveat you only you have one time still so those are the three decision points thoughts well I really really appreciate that you that the work that the town staff has done to do yet another like real final scrub to just pinch every penny and and allow for what I agree is a really big necessity for a police suburban in these body cameras and making it so it is net zero and that you know something that is a perpetual cost is not going to be you know coming out of our funds which is you know something again we've worked hard to do so thank you very much though to everybody involved for really really working on the you know this is I think everybody knows I feel the using more fund balance at this point really I mean I think the 20,000 makes sense going and dipping into that you know 16 feels like a big big step but I think that you know an additional 20,000 and that that small dip is not huge and and so I would support it but I would not ideally want to take more of a balance so to answer your question the interest on the $400,000 loan as a shorter life on it is $13,430 and these schedules did come from Vermont Bond Bank but the schedule they ran for the Old Rick Church was for the full 900,000 which is 9,200 so that's going to be a little bit less I mean depending which way we go with our but it'll be a little bit less but with just those numbers it's $23,600 for interest so it's actually a little bit more than what we have here but it's not quite the 23 but I can roughly recalculate it so it's wrong direction wrong direction but with some set of savings yeah yeah these two we don't know what the coupon rate or interest rates right we can leave it where it is now and yeah well I don't think anybody likes a 12% increase wouldn't do it if we could I I can tell you that I've tortured Shirley on this budget and great detail and I don't see any fat so if we don't want to use fund balance and we don't want to start applying ARPA funds to ongoing costs our our opportunity to reduce that number is to cut services I don't I would be unwilling to do that without having the community tell us to do that I guess is where I'm parked and this is my first town budget so I have to take that with a grain of salt but I I don't see any way to take anything meaningful out of this budget without taking out publicly public safety staff which is going the wrong direction my support you know the library I think its current location is not you know forward thinking for the future and the parking there is is not going to ever be supportive of it but I'm not for that you know I'm not for the community center if we're struggling this much now trying to do this spending another hundred thousand dollars or more to study the community center we're talking about a fifty million dollar building with potentially five million dollars a year and operating expenses no we can't afford to buy we're struggling to find money for tasers and video for the police officers and hiring more police officers I don't see how we can justify spending any money on you know the community center in the future so I correct me if I'm wrong Eric but I think that that hundred fifty thousand is not in this budget it's in the ARPA yeah part of we parked it in the capital budget as part of part of an ARPA allocation but you could if you decided not to do any that it wouldn't change this it wouldn't change the operating right well I couldn't go towards all the fire suppression or go towards another police officer well so the fire suppression that's a legit question we could have a conversation about apply that would make the bond smaller I guess right instead of having a 1.1 million dollar bond you could have a one million dollar bond that that's reasonable I think what the discussion we've been having about ARPA funds is that they run out so if you pay for a police officer with that money this year you know let them go next year but how are we gonna afford a fifty million dollar building and how are we gonna afford five million dollars a year operating costs just have the numbers what we looked at in the preliminary analysis the rough number would be it's still a big number but twenty million dollar for the way it's designed for the communities on the initial scoping the library addition around ten million dollar project those are big numbers you know this this proposal takes that project a bit further it takes for a schematic design for the library addition and it also looks at a site analysis for potential where to locate a future community center and answers for those questions were designed as well so to me it's not even money that work you know if I was spending my budget in my house I wouldn't be spending money on something like that wasn't gonna be paying for something me that's not paying for anything some year community was gonna have to figure out whether they're willing to finance it or not and it's not this year yeah I mean ultimately it will go to I mean it will be a matter of a bond vote to pay for the library expansion to pay for a community center and so the the community will have the opportunity to weigh in further I think for me I think you know the community has really overwhelmingly said that this is something they want whether or not they want to go to the next step and pay for it later on is another thing but I think that you know based on the feedback that that's been provided and the information that's been provided the community has has wanted this and so taking the next step and using ARPA funds at least you know from my perspective makes sense to do I kind of disagreed with the community feedback because I didn't take that interview because I didn't agree with any other questions I know a lot of people didn't agree with any other questions questions were what do you want we're what do you need you know they had nothing about you feel it's necessary I thought it was it was a it was a loaded interview loaded questionnaire it wasn't an accurate it was based you know so somebody spun it for that positive feedback we got a lot of people saying that they didn't want it too you know and and so but yes I so the interest of time for this purpose I think the only intersection between that discussion and getting the budget put to bed is to say we want to apply some of the two million dollars of ARPA funds that we have available to buy down the budget right it could we're gonna decide what to do with our funds later I guess it's only million we've already kind of promised a million of it right we have a million dollars left is is it is there some way we want to buy more down and I guess I'm struggling with how much we would have to apply to make a substantial difference you know because we because we would be giving up we haven't decided if we want to spend 150 on that for that purpose we didn't put it in the budget but we haven't well we will you could tonight if you want so how I set this up to consider is to you know consider approving the capital budget as as presented we parked that in the capital budget then a motion to allocate the unassigned fund balance as reflected in the capital budget then a motion to assign the ARPA funds as reflected in the capital budget recognizing that these are FY 25 capital projects that will continue in FY 25 we could start potentially that community center library project earlier if it's ARPA allocated right the board want to pull out any of these ARPA projects for further discussion they could get pulled out of this capital budget and continue discussion at your pet pet over a meeting for our okay so that is that number 11 is that where we make that decision that our agenda item 11 capital budget program so number 10 so it's in 10 oh yeah so I thought structurally you're adopting your budget first and then you are assigning the funds towards that budget the board adopts the capital budget the voters approve as part of the general fund was going to transfer it to that first call of the capital budget so I guess I'm a little bit confused now and I admit I spent like four hours trying to understand the capital budget I'm not sure there yet but sometimes we're just putting money aside and sometimes we're actually buying things but I so I'm working on it I'll get there but but the 150 if we decided yes or no on the 150,000 of ARPA funds for the library would that affect these numbers no it would know okay so so we could we could vote to approve the operating budget but then we would have a capital budget we'd have to we could have a discussion about that yep and and you don't have to vote to approve the operating budget tonight what we want to do is get your final direction on where the number should land we'll get the final one be ready I know I mean I mean but yeah if it's plus or minus 150 we have to have the warnings done next week right so a lot of time to think that the 150 won't be part of the warning right so okay as the it's a unique situation here we have these ARPAs its own pool of money which plays into the capital budget the board doesn't have to adopt the capital budget tonight either if there was you know if there was something in here you wanted me to pull out or you could amend it and say you know for that project for example take the 150 out of the capital budget right now we want to discuss that further during the ARPA discussions we could go that way too got it so so one for if so in this agenda item we're approving we're not proving we are what are we doing we're just discussing we just discussing the number nine where we are you know we're discussing both and then at number 10 you could consider adopting the capital budget tonight I tried to make it with all these moving pieces put it all on the cover sheet as the reference point all right well personally I'm okay with the operating budget and I don't think I have any more questions on the operating but operating budget and I think Mike your question is on the capital budget so a little bit I mean I'm gonna inexperience my first time sometimes I don't know when to speak up it's better to do it too early than too late that's what I feel sometimes right so we kind of say that we're yeah I the only I'm probably an outlier on this but the unassigned fund balance I'm never been as concerned about spending that a little bit more than kind of staff is and I'm wondering if it's not a strong I'm not making a recommendation it's it's just a question is like would this be the year to spend more of that because we have we do have a substantial increase in our budget there has been a wave of inflation that is reducing now but we're dealing with that same time we're dealing with increasing services with fire and police paying the police more so they wouldn't keep getting poached and paying more firefighters because we needed them it's not a it's not a long term solution in any way but it might take a little bit of the sting out but that being said you know you'd have to really invade it to a degree I'm not willing to invade it to make a significant difference is it fair to say like you'd have to you could take a point off the tax rate for a hundred thousand dollars we added that last week right we did that calculation surely remember we worked with how much money we would need to take the 95 look like it added a little over a point one is 215,000 yeah yeah God forbid if the budget is defeated we have nowhere to go that's another good point so again I'm yeah I would describe my comments as musings well I'm kind of I'm kind of with you Ted because it always kind of struck me is that if we had some kind of a disaster that required a million dollars we'd probably come with either insurance or FEMA money so might be a cash flow issue but or you go and ask the town if you can borrow money you know so what so I'm a little I'm kind of with you in concept is I'm not that squeamish about taking more out but I that's a good point Terry that we've kind of squeeze this squeeze the juice out of this pretty tight so so maybe it would make sense to leave it as is and then if we have to revisit this issue in March we'll have something else to consider as is but the other I think everybody's in agreement with the budget numbers that Eric presented in his January 16 memo am I right about that the body cameras over time yep Lister assessor tax maps that's the one if the budget's gonna go down it's because we didn't spend enough on that so now that's going to the reappraisal fund we're gonna drop the reappraisal fund maintenance the grand list and interestingly enough the state moves to statewide reappraisal system and we have I think almost half a million dollars in our local reappraisal fund comes with how do we spend that money and over time we could use it to offset the cost of the assessor's office budget but that's down the road here but ultimately I feel the town should be giving that money to so given that are we ready to move on from our operating in capital budget work session do we talk about capital I think just yeah but we're next to be capital budget oh I thought that was this it's just reading that is reading the title of item nine are we are we are we set with the operating budget and feel like we can come back next week and that would prove today we'll have the actual numbers and you can just give it our blessing we'll do it and we'll do our final double check scrub this week which we like to do to we need to insert in the warning the expense bottom-lining the amount raised by taxes those are set numbers there so good numbers so next we read the capital budget yep so that's summary sheet so this is reflective of everything in the so the columns here again so the operating column that's everything that's funded through the operating budget that's the 493 300 at the bottom then we have some projects that are funded through impact fees and that's a separate fund then we have the fund balance column that was built into these and then I I parked the ARPA projects here to try to put it all together with some of these projects has come some are split between ARPA and others so my suggestion for the board is to consider adopting this capital plan and program as presented with with the one change of the $400,000 number for the fire suppression but it's up to you if you want to change any numbers here I would say since you're good with the operating budget the numbers for operating and fund balance and impact fee columns you probably don't really want to look at those too much it's mainly how we park the ARPA numbers and the debt numbers which could be related to ARPA you could certainly we've treated ARPA as its own fund so we're funding projects from ARPA as the board makes those allocations so that money is available to spend today so if and the plan is more discussion in February to round out the rest of that 2 million that was available so there's something the board wants to pull out of this capital plan for further discussion with just ARPA separately if it's just an if ARPA is the only line that's funding it I'd suggest that would be a direction to go in so the fire protection is for 701 instead of 475 4-0-0 or 0-0 0 that was the change we learned today I'm okay with everything on here and Mike I totally I totally understand your thought that we shouldn't that you that you're convinced that the town can afford a community center so why are we spending money up front I while I understand the concept I personally would like to have more information about some options on that community center and and I do think that this point I don't feel ready to make a decision for the town on that so I would like to have I would like to spend the ARPA money definitely the part that's for the library to get that to a bond a place where we can consider a bond for the library expansion and the community center I have a lot of questions about the community center and I think this money going towards clarifying some of those questions is what I would is why I would support leaving it me too so other questions or comments on the capital budget if not move to adopt the fiscal year 2025 to 2030 capital plan and program as presented is there a second second for the discussion on the motion all those in favor say aye all those opposed may the eyes have it unassigned fund balance assignment for capital projects so this is a question then assigned this might from the fund balance and this plan you've adopted so pre your policy the board is the authority to set aside funds may assign fund balance for a specific purpose capital budget identified several projects utilize the fund balance to assist in completion to assign a portion of the unassigned fund balance these projects has outlined in this budget document there's a motion suggested for the 167 to 50 number questions comments and considerations I have to just say I'm really uncomfortable with this process okay that we're spending fund balance money without it being part of the budget just I can see in an emergency situation you might want to do that but to have to be spending what could be substantial amounts of money outside of any public vote to Terry's point doesn't feel very transparent so I'm not gonna I mean this if our lawyers and our auditors say that this is all above board then let's move forward with it for this year but in the future I'd kind of like to have some conversation about whether that's good public policy anything on the substance of the numbers I'm okay with all the issues that they're all here I mean we're all good projects that we need to do so yep yeah I share your concerns my I guess my thought back on it is that again this sounds grandi more grandiose than I than I mean it to be but it is you know we are the representatives we all won election people chose us to make decisions about this kind of stuff and in this kind of unique year I don't assess the elected officials making this election making this choice but I agree with you that you know overall this could be seen to be slightly less transparent than then otherwise and you know we can revisit it next year but if there are no other questions or comments there is a motion I'll move to a sign 167 250 dollars of the unassigned fund balance to the capital fund for projects as identified in this full year 2025 capital budget is there a second second further discussion on the motion all those in favor say aye all those opposed nay the eyes have it moving along ARPA fund allocations so in a similar model on this ask the board if you want to assign ARPA funds to the 696,000 as reflected on the on the software sheet questions or discussion so we approve the capital planet didn't include those columns or we're just kind of being redundant we're being redundant okay yeah as trying to decipher this approve the plan then approve the you know the different money trousers within that plan there are no further questions there is a proposed motion I'll move to allocate 696,000 of America rescue play and act funds for projects as identified in the fiscal year 2025 capital budget is there a second any further discussion all those in favor say aye all those opposed nay okay brings us to managers report there's one last thing to bring up regarding bonds and budgets and things that I didn't mention yet so we had a discussion about the ambulance so I chatted with the town attorney today we changed the messages on that his suggestion is to hold off on that as a bond question until we're closer to purchase perhaps the board wanted to warn us special meeting in November this year it's an interesting spot because talk about deputy chief today this is gonna be the new normal we used to be able to order something we'd have it delivered within 270 to 360 days so we get it approved get the bond approved at town meeting go to bond sale it's a letter we pay for it now it's taking three years or more and that will continue for many years so we need to order things they're gonna when they're due to be replaced it's gonna take the reserves are spot in line and then it takes multiple years for it to get built to deliver to us so we're following up with a company this week to see you know process wise what can we do to reserve that spot and what's what's the options if we changed our mind and you know worst-case scenario I thought we couldn't get from a process standpoint because attorneys telling us you know it's really not great to ask for bonding authority we're gonna go to bond sale like three years later so we'll get more information on that but I think for the purposes of town meeting here given you have two other bonds on warning we'll get more come up with a pathway to deal with these things we have an engine that's due to be replacing I think four or five years so similar conundrum here it's probably gonna cost over a million dollars to replace it how do we want to reserve our spot in line to get this built and replaced and paid for so say it's just gonna be with us for a while here that we see the work for a solution it seems that legally all you're really on the hook for is whatever should you decide to cancel so they keep $50,000 yeah yeah they're looking for a purchase order and I got the board's authority before this will probably be over a half million dollars for the ambulance now it's gone up crazy quite a bit so this might we'll have a brief meeting then next Tuesday I'll have a series of motions to approve the operating budget approve the bond resolutions and approve the warning so we'll get that wrapped up this week then we get a week off yep then no meeting till February 6th we'll we'll pivot into outreach for the budget because early voting are like in early February I think so but we typically do the last few years is do a full page budget infographic on the back of the observer so we're gonna get that design the next few weeks we'll have to have the warning in the observer three weeks in a row with a bond no on on the warning for town meeting then we'll just go forward the process was pivot after the money are decided here and then quickly might notice the flags are not on the flagpole anymore it's because the rope was broken in the windstorm and the flags that's blown away a couple were found out the street wow yeah we've recovered a couple flags so we're just waiting to get the parts to fix the flagpole so if anyone asks you yeah it's getting worked up that's all I have a slate other business not for me any final thoughts on agenda items from this meeting that being said I will declare us to be adjourned thank you