 Well, Greg, Steve, if you can sort that out, I will call the Essex Town Select Board meeting for Monday, March 28th, 2022 to order. I will call the Board of Trustees for much more space to be in order. Okay, thank you. Andrew, first item on the agenda or next item on the agenda is additions or changes. Any changes from Townstaff? No additions from Townstaff. You know, the trustees had, and Village Co-Manager had sent over some updated comments to the shared service agreements over the weekend, but I can let them speak to that. Any, sorry, any select board member changes? Andrew, is anything from the trustees? Or? So I don't know if it, here's a dynamic to the agenda. The comments that have an email over on Friday evening from myself is printed upon by Brad. I assume those have been as to the rest of the transport. No, they have not. I think the York, I think your email was forwarded, but the documents that came from Brad over the weekend have not been distributed. So the, if I remember correctly, the documents that Brad provided were basically the same content that was within what I had provided was organized differently within the agreements. I did not cross-reference them, but that I think believe was the intent, yes. As far as I'm concerned, it's just accepting of the email that I have sent. I think that covers. I don't actually have that email. I don't think I do either. I can't from Greg forwarded. Greg forwarded. I sent it on Saturday morning. Yeah, it's the challenge, Andrew, here, is that the select burden often chooses not to discuss material that didn't make it into the packet because the public hasn't had an opportunity to review it in parallel with us, which, yeah, I understand makes this meeting a little challenging. I mean, how do you all get the package to go to you? So, yeah, I don't know what does the board feel about adding and the select board feel about it? What? Accepting material that was put in after the packet went out. As Andrew says, you can discuss the content of it. The question is whether we make it part of the agenda, but it's, again, it's, technically, that's what number five is a discussion. So, we can do the discussion then. And it's nothing new that wasn't already in the packet. The additional information. It includes more detail about the, it includes some detail about the trustee's response to our last iteration of them, but I guess that can be discussed. Yeah, and my overall point is the actual agreements were in the packet, so it's not like we're discussing something that the public doesn't know and was on the agenda. So, I'm fine with it. Okay, so do we want to add material to the agenda or just have a discussion when we get there? Discussion? Discussion? I see a lot of nodding. So, I'm not hearing any agenda additions or changes. You okay with that, Andrew? Is there anything else from Phillip's talk? Okay, then let's move on to public to be heard. Public to be heard is the point of the agenda where participants can address the boards on topics that are not on the agenda. If you'd like to speak during public to be heard, you can either raise your hand in the room or use the raise your hand feature in the Zoom application. If you're on the phone, we will allow opportunity for you to speak at an appropriate time. If you'd like to speak to the board, please keep your comments brief. Please be civil. Please refrain from using inappropriate language. Please don't attack other members of the public or staff of either municipality. Also, if you are attending remotely, please keep yourself muted and your camera off unless you're the recognized speaker who avoid distraction. I did that without my notes. Did I miss anything? I think I got it all. Okay. All right, so anybody wishing to speak during public to be heard? Don't see any hands in the room. Irene Renner. Thank you. I believe this is the last week for Sue Cook and I wanted to thank her for stepping up serving since the fall. It's just a huge time commitment and it was a pleasure serving with her when I served with her on the board and I'm sure that he has made like easier for all the rest of you who stand beside her last six months or so. And once again, just huge thanks to her for stepping up. Her voice has been very important. Thank you. All right, thank you, Irene. Anyone else? Okay, I'm not seeing any other hands. If you're on the phone and would like to speak, please do so now. Okay, I'm not hearing any comments. Margaret Smith, could you mute yourself please? All right, thank you. Okay, so then moving on to the first and only business item discussion and potential action on tentative agreements about shared services between town of Essex and independent city of Essex Junction. Now, the documents that were in the packet include the changes that the select board had posed at our last meeting. There were some responses from the trustees. So this may be a little challenging to cross-reference both of these. So looking at the clerk and treasurer agreement Andrew, were there any concerns with the changes that the select board had posed? I don't see any comments on that one. No, there were no concerns from us with the changes. It's a placeholder or later, the pocket relation about this agreement's relation to the MOU. That might be a good point, regardless of the point. Okay, so you're okay with the content of it. Okay, any select board want to make any other comments on the clerk-treasurer? Right. No, just that one in terms of the US district work that there was in the email with the updates that the trustees had accepted that in all the documents that that is in. That was the one item that was provided to me. Right, right, right. So let's see, let me see if I can. No number eight. Yeah, all right. So Andrew, yeah, number eight in the dispute section, the select board had asked to add an additional phrase referencing the United States District Court. And the trustees are okay with that? Yeah. Okay, all right. So what we had discussed is that if there is ever a dispute that needs to go to the courts, the courts will put it where it needs to go. It needs to go to the US district's court and it will get there. That's acceptable. Yep, all right. Thank you. Then moving on to the shared financial services agreement. And I'm trying to cross-reference to two sets of documents. I think it was called finance in the response. So there was the comment about changing the word will to may with regard to operating out of 81 Main Street. I think that's acceptable from both sides. We're okay with, and thank you for the opportunity or possibility of that being a two-way discussion. That happens a couple of times in there. And then during, in the termination section, the select board preferred to keep the language in there, referencing transitioning the village finance department out of 81 Main Street. We wanted to leave that phrase in there to be explicit that it needed to be included in any plan to end the agreement. Looking at my notes, I believe, and we were ultimately okay with this. With the select board at their last meeting asked for the reasoning for removing this. And so the reasoning was sent over, just number six has to do with termination and the village department may move out of 81 Main Street and over to Lincoln. But the finance agreement may need to continue because other things may be tied in the background through Nemerker or other things. So that was the explanation for it, but I pretty entered that the trustees were fine with leaving it in. Okay. All right, great. Thanks, any concerns or thoughts? Select board, cool, cool. All right. And then the same phrase with regard to reference to the courts, I think that applies to all of the documents that was added to, you're okay with that? Okay, yeah. All right. And then into the Indian recreation, Indian Brook, senior center and senior bus. So I think, yeah, there's discussion there about the select board was trying to establish some sense of continuity with regard to the senior center. And I know the trustees, you're expressing concern about the fact that you're expecting to be doing some renovation to the building and you wanted to make more comment about availability of that space. Right. So with the senior center, I think I want to be clear on this again that trustees are absolutely committed to ensuring that we can provide services for our seniors in case like the programs and the lunch, the reality comes in that there is so much that is unknown with a renovation to Lincoln street that we can't honestly promise lunch. The phrase that was used at the select board meeting was adequate and appropriate or terrible. We would like to be able to do that, but there isn't an available space that is terrible to that space into Lincoln. Did that need to close for some period of time because of the vegetation? But I'm not saying we're going to need to close it, but it is a possibility that we may need to close it. And so if that happens, we don't have an adequate space or really a comparable space to allow for things like drop. There may be a point in time where dropping services from H4 would not be available for the team. We do have space for plans program. You have space for their lunch. But other than that, you do not believe at this point in time that we have to. We may be able to work with another entity in terms of being able to provide a space, but as of today, we don't have that space. So decided agreeing that we still provide that space with that space. But what I think it comes down to for our conversation tonight is, is the select artists selected for any of the trustees, okay, and we're just going to agree that we really can't guarantee the drop in numbers, meaning that we would have to take out towards life appropriate, comparable, or we don't, or we're not okay having that handy. And if we're not, then I think we're going to end up at that point where we're not going to be caring to teams. So there's a proposal to change the language that the whereas clause that talks about the senior center to say, whereas the Essex area senior center is currently located at two Lincoln street, the city will continue to provide space for the senior center at two Lincoln street. The city is planning to do renovations to the building during the term of this agreement. The trustees will endeavor to provide space at two Lincoln street for the senior center and or provide alternative space for senior programs and lunches while the building is under construction. I think it goes under item number three, not me, awareness. Well, the way the document and I guess I'm referencing the document that came from Brad that maybe was modified differently than then that's why I said, Andrew, I didn't have a chance to cross reference these things. There's also a change right in section three, the final paragraph of section three as proposed to read the city shall continue to provide space for the senior center at two Lincoln street and during construction the trustees will endeavor to provide space at two Lincoln street for the senior center and or provide alternative space for senior programs and lunches. So the clarity here is as Andrew referenced, they don't want to guarantee drop-in space during daytime hours or whatever. When I have a specifically for programs and lunches, things that are scheduled. So Patrick, you had. Thanks, Andy. I would agree with that. I mean, we ourselves had to close down the staffing that we had for the senior center during COVID. We know that life happens and certainly the renovation of a substantial material building that the senior center is out of. I mean, I think I said at last meeting as well is that both of us are endeavoring and working to make sure that this happens. No one is here to try to game the system on our seniors. So, we know construction's happening. If you guys are willing to say like it sounds you are that you're going to endeavor to try to keep that space then I'm okay with it. Thanks Matt, Sue. I would just think, why don't we spell that out explicitly like it is the intention to provide adequate or comparable space. However, during construction there may be a need to temporarily not have space available for drop-ins but we'll continue to provide space for the programs. Are there whereas that they're proposing? Well, the whereas doesn't they, the document doesn't make your reference no drop-ins but the right Andrew, do you have something to comment? No, I thought I heard a rumble. No, sorry, I am. So, it doesn't explicitly say that it's explicit about the things that will continue to be supported. It doesn't mention that drop-in space may not be available. Which seems to be what we're talking about, right? I mean, I think what I'm hearing is that there would still be space made available for programs. It's that daily drop-in space that may be temporarily unavailable. And I do think it needs to go not just in the whereas but also in the F3. Yeah, yeah, there is a F3. Yeah, unfortunately, this document's not available. It wasn't in the packet and it hasn't, we haven't had a chance to, as I said, to cross-reference it to the email either. New hands up with George. Okay, let me go back to the meeting here so I can see what's going on. Oh, where is it? Yeah, I was assuming, here we are, go ahead, George. We're as motivated as anyone to provide drop-in space if we have to move to senior center. There's no reason for us not to want that. Something can't guarantee, but we are highly motivated. It's not that we wouldn't want it. We want all the best for our seniors just to do this. I'm just gonna add steps. Not trying to get off from under something that has passed. Right. Thanks, George. Raj, Raj, you're muted. Thanks, George, for adding that. I was gonna basically like the one that had the, you know, I think we run the risk of getting too specific if we start adding drop-in space, what are the programs we're getting? I think what we've got here is what we're asking for. So I'm comfortable committing to finding space for it because it's just, you know, we're gonna open up that building. We're not gonna, you know, know what we're gonna find. As George said, we're gonna do everything possible to make sure that our seniors are well-taken care of. We started specifying which services after this that we kind of can't do in a room because we're too far from the risks over-promising potentially or under. It seems that these are the things that we talked about being able to find space for the show-through to time for a few weeks to maybe a couple of months of all the renovations happening. That's all I have to add. All right, thanks, Raj. I think I saw Sue's hand before I saw Andrew's. Yeah, I mean, I understand. I think it's just a little bit hard for us because we don't have the wording for review to know. So that's why I think we're just trying to piece together what the wording is. But I- Does anybody mind if I share my screen with this document? This is a function post. Remind, can you guys do it in the room? Try to pull it up. I have it too, Greg. If you'd like to put it up. Yeah, go for it. Right now, Brad. Is it working for me? I got it up. I got it. As Anthony as me. All right, so again, here we are reviewing content that's not in the packet. So this is... So as I mentioned, within the whereas is there was a change. Well, that's a different change that we'll get to too, that's different, okay? Which was new, which wasn't something at all that we had talked about before. This is a re-wording. Andy, my eyes are not good enough. Yeah, I know. I have no idea what that says. Right, I'm not sure. It's a good point. Raj, I think I already read it earlier. I did read it earlier. You did, but we didn't. But yeah, I'm trying to make it bigger. You can close that toolbar on the top with the arrow all the way around on the right. Oh, that's good. To the little up arrow. I can hide the participants. Yeah, well, you know, you can hide the toolbar that's at the top. There we go. This is the language in the whereas where it references explicitly, explicitly your references to senior programs and lunches and similar language down in section three. The paragraph about existing space is struck and the other one is added. Now Raj, I see your hand is up. Are you wanting to comment? Do we want to wordsmith this? Do we, are we okay with it? What's the, what's that? Right now, Star, I'm fine with it. I think it gets to the intent and I think we all know what we're talking about. I think the actual meat, if you will, of item three should be more verbose as the whereas is. It almost seems like they should be flipped. It seems like the whereas provides more details than the actual agreement. That actually mentions the revenue renovations. Oh, okay. I see what you're saying. Yeah. That makes more sense. So I think you mentioned that earlier. So do you want to ask to go ahead? Yeah. I mean, I agree with Tracy. I think if that content was in the actual meat of the document, I think it would be a little more satisfying than the way it is right now. And I think if it flip flops, then you take what's in the whereas and you put it in the actual clause and you put what's in the actual clause in the whereas. I think we're good. Andrew, you trust he's okay with that? I think one of the main differences between the two is with the first version of the whereas, with the signing call, I believe, that is more so the difference to say that it's really absolutely concrete. Frankly, the intent is there. I don't see the harm in copying and pasting, having it say the exact same thing in both places. So we just want to take what's in that whereas, put that down below. Personally, I'm fine with that. David, trustee's agreed. I've always viewed it as the whereas as sort of the overarching goal as to the details in the agreement. You could meet the same goal with whereas the Essex area senior center is currently located at two Lincoln Street and the city is planning to do renovations to the building during the term of this agreement period and then the details are at number three. I just did, I have a personal issue with redundancies and in documents, it just leads to more confusion in my world, but is it going to hurt anything? Probably not. So are you suggesting that we come back with proposed different language? I mean, where do we want to put Smith at tonight? Or how do you want to? I would like more succinct language. It just seems like one big run on sentence. But again, this is the first time I'm really seeing this language. So it may be over thinking it because of that. I don't know. So yeah, Andrew, we're struggling with the fact that this is the first time some that we're seeing this document. And so you do have a meeting, another meeting a week from tonight where we could analyze this. If all due respect, the intention and the hope from the trustees is to resolve these tonight. If they can't resolve some of these tonight, I'm not sure if the trustees are gonna want to continue to negotiate some of these contracts. So I understand that this may be the first time some individuals may be seeing these statements as emails may not have been checked over the weekend. But we have a few hours. But I would ask for patience if we could work through those enforcement. So Andrew, it was a known thing that we had a meeting tonight and then a packet needed to go out on Friday. I'd be happy to read these off as there are new suggestions by the trustees, which is my understanding of what we were gonna try to do tonight. Except new suggestions back and forth, which is no different from what we're discussing. Gracie, if you want to, you would you suggest that a few minutes ago would you stop with where we're at? If you leave in number three, and I'll agree that that gets to what we're trying to do. I don't think that's a big deal. I think this is something we just agreed 10 minutes ago that we understand. In fact, this isn't, for certain, this isn't the biggest concept we've had to personally, individually comfortable with what we said. I think that's a career senior center that's currently located with the Olympian Street. And the city is planning to do renovations to the building during the term of this event and then putting the meat of the warehouse for free. We could. We could. Certainly in the next five minutes, we'll work out what three seconds it will be comfortable. Certainly beats the alternative. Let me bring the screen back down so we can see it. Not seeing what you're talking about in your screen. I'm sorry, you went. Oh, sorry, wrong section. Yeah, because this section here is pretty bizarre, too, but we'll get to that one. The other ones are. So, this isn't the only section that we're gonna have concerns with wording. There's some brand new changes that weren't related to anything that we wrote back that were included in this document, which are very confusing and seem to be written. They're difficult to parse out. So. I'm sure we can get to those in a minute. Yeah, we will get to them, but the other thing that the select board is gonna want is to allow public comment on all of these. So, this is, you know, we can certainly. Yeah, we'll get to that, so. Sure. Do. Let us make a proposal for how we move forward, and that's that we let the trustees explain all of the changes that they discussed after we discussed on Monday. And then. Take public comment. Take public comment, and then. Decide what we wanna do. Possibly go into executive session so that we can have a conversation about them. And then we convene. I'm happy to go in and discuss it some more, but I'm honestly struggling. I think we're honestly, we're all pulling it leaves here when we should be looking at trees. Tracy gave a suggestion, the trustees seem to accept it. Honestly, I'm okay with us worth smithing it to exactly that. And I think Dawn was she nodding her head up and down. That's three of us on the select board. And if we can do that and move on to whatever the next contentious point is, then I would prefer to just do that. That way we're not going into executive session out discussing it, not discussing it. I mean, we all talked about or not all of correct myself. I think the majority of the select board gave a proposal. The trustees seem to accept it. Let's leave it at that. And move on to the next point. Now all we need is someone to type the words. Right, so we have just the understanding of what's intended in this section. I'm going to scroll back up to this other section, which I really, it's, can you explain this one? It says, whereas city residents will not share equal access to sandhill public outdoor pool and their programs or for town park and facility rentals as such time as the residents of the city are not paying taxes, town taxes, town residents will not share equal access to S6 junction recreation and parks preschool or the Mabel street pool and their programs or for city park and facility rentals. Can expand on that. So the essence of what the first portion is saying is that during the transition year, so from July 1st of 2022 to June 30th of 2023 at that point in time, city residents will still have or still be paying town taxes as we had just voted on the town budget. And to pass any tax payer should have access to the amenities thereof. And then when we are not paying taxes to the town then we would not have those program entities. And that same philosophy of the second portion of town outside filled residents will not be paying taxes for those entities or have they paid for the bond pool and such would not have access to the government. Part of the rationale for this was termination date was aligned and with the Indian road passes. So that way there wouldn't be a six month pass that would terminate on July 1st between three. And so this is just to align that that entities as tax payers to be allowed for for the duration it would be paying taxes. I'm trying to understand how city residents are not sharing something that city residents are not sharing equal access. I mean, they will not have equal access. Is it, the language seems kind of awkward here, but I don't know. I'd be very happy to replace the chair. Whereas the municipalities. I'm trying to learn, I'm looking at the language that was crossed out and how this is different from that. And this is something Andy that I brought up in our trustee meeting, the language that existed before at the signing of this agreement that indicate that village residents do not have access any longer to inhale pool and parks, ODI rental. Even though for most of this agreement, the thirds of the agreement, they would have still paid taxes for them. So for FY23, the village residents are paying town taxes. So for the portion of this agreement. Ah, okay. Of which the residents have paid town taxes. They'll enjoy those benefits, that access. Once that FY23 expires for the last six months of this agreement, those to December 34th, they will know. I'll grant you, it is awkwardly. I didn't write it. That's the intent. And that's not so much an effort to introduce something new. It was just, I saw at the last minute that we were meeting and said, wait a second, this would seem to cut us off. No, we paid for those services. So, Rajini, I think you've looked in context with the whereas as a bother, as a certain sentence to find the low. This is whereas that you guys have been struck out to find the exception. So, whereas that residents in speedyness have had the same access, they have the same ability to register for programs. Access to Indian Brook, access to the senior center, eligibility to senior bus through the termination date of this program, which is the end of December of 2023. And this whereas was intended to define the exceptions. Being the two pools and the village preschool. It excluded us in a sense where it excludes residents and no public outdoor pools, the programs, or the playgrounds. That negates what's about, right? So, Maple Street and Santa public outdoor pools. Okay, you're right. Yeah, so, so I think, I think you're right. I don't think there was a, yeah. That's kind of how I'm thinking of it. And I think this was just an intent to basically say, while the residents in town taxes for 0.23, they'll continue to do as it is now. Once that fiscal year ends, those town taxes are no longer being printed, then that access to the town facilities has eliminated there with it, except for maybe whatever's called that, which was I was thinking it would be in New York rate for six months. And it doesn't really do anything for town residents. There's nothing different than what it was. I don't think there was a difference in this, but it doesn't change that relationship. Just making sure that nothing changes for the village residents while they're, while they've hardened people. Yeah, I think that may have been a mistake to include Sand Hill pool in this, this whereas, because... Yeah, then I guess we could probably accomplish the same thing than taking Sand Hill out to a full program as part of Silly Reynolds Out. That would seem to extend through that extra six months that you all put in for December 31st, 2003. So if you're okay with that, then that's an easier way to do it. Oh, I see. I see, I see, I see. Right, right, right. We've asked for the continuation of six months difference, so we're trying to accommodate that. Okay, suit. We're trying to meet you. Yeah, yeah. That's actually where I was going, Raj, is it cleaner if you just take Sand Hill pool and the rentals out of the exception list and then in the termination, where we have December 31st, add in an additional, I don't know, I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know how to say it, but basically add in, in the case of Sand Hill pool and rentals, the termination will be through. FY 20th, end of FY 23, right, right, right. I think it accomplishes the same thing. Yep. I think I have the other trustees for. I'll have to wait for this. A little cleaner. Hold on, Raj, thank you. Yeah, that makes a lot more sense to me and thank you, Raj, for the explanation. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah. And again, it was a late notice. You know, it wasn't trying to change the language. Okay, all right. Any other comments or concerns on this one? All right, thank you for the explanation. That definitely makes it clearer. We already talked about that one. This is the similar thing. This one actually is clearer than the other one. It's moot now. I mean, we're just gonna remove Sand Hill pool from the exceptions. I'm sorry, I don't understand why. What's, what's. The new language doesn't really matter anymore if we're gonna update the strikeout language to remove Sand Hill. Oh, I see. That makes it clearer, accomplishes the same goal and is more easily understood. Right, so you're suggesting go back to the language that wasn't, that was struck out here, change the ending, but include. Remove Sand Hill and then just get rid of the new proposed language because altering the strikeout language is clearer, it's more concise and it meets the need. With the one caveat is making sure that there's an end date associated with that, that aligns with. Right, so we need to understand, let's see where it actually is the termination date defined in here. Item number five. Item number five. What did you see? Have you already talked about that? I don't know if I'm. So you could add the sentence in the letter C there, which would say, city residents will not share equal access just to be on public health or fuel and their programs for the town park and city rentals. At such time as the residents of the city are not going to access floor. Item 30. Okay, makes much more sense with the explanation. Oh, thank you. Yeah, go ahead, Andrew. Right, maybe taking notes as we go along in our viewing. So we're looking for reviewing the team language if you could share it's free, you may be able to help add some clarity. Okay, so are you asking me to stop sharing? Actually, do we want to go to public, well, do we want to go through all the changes and go to public comment, then come back and make review, said changes, path we should take? So maybe we take public comment now, trying to figure out that maybe. Yep, so let me, how do I stop sharing? Oh, I stopped sharing. Did it escape? Stop here, there it is. Sorry, didn't mean to. All right, okay. Okay, so boom. And then there's the MOU was included in the packet. I believe there's some requests from the trustees with regard to some modifications to it. Andrew is there. Yeah. So with that MOU, one of the requests for regardless of what happens with separation, this, this agreements should be codified. And so from our perspective, we would propose that the pleasure be taken out of the MOU. Same thing with the shared financial services. And the trustees also at this time would not like to continue with sharing of boards, commissions and committees beyond, beyond this fiscal year. So we would also take that off. Sorry, you're suggesting to remove the clerk, treasurer agreement and the finance agreement. No, shared boards, commissions and committees. And shared committees. Those three. So I think the select board is an agreement about the committees and commissions. But in our discussions, we were wanting to keep the other two in. Have any other. I think the, with regard to at least from my perspective for the clerk, treasurer agreement, I mean, that was, I had from the start been asking for a timeline for that. And I think that this unequivocally establishes that we stop sharing clerk treasurer on a specific date. And I think that definitely is included as there is part of separation because we're, that's why we're doing it. I suppose, you know, heretically we could still, since we can appoint whoever, whoever we won't choose to be treasurer, we could, or clerk, we could continue, but. No. The comments are not to undo the agreements that we're just working on or cannot approve of those agreements, but rather it's more so as you're saying, regardless of whether the legislature approves of separation, we need to have these agreements because we've already started down the path of separating these out. So that's, that's really what it's about. Because that MOU refers to the legislature approving of separation, which ultimately that does not happen. And we're in a pretty pretty place. Okay. So you're, you're right. So. You're saying that these two documents are a result of discontinuing of shared management and not related to separation. Directly. I don't see financial services in here anymore. So I have a feeling that was previously. Was not in the MOU anywhere anyway. Not jumping out at me. I think we're really just talking about that. Thank you for that student. They said a lot easier. Unless I'm missing something. I'm seeing it either word search and I don't. I just did the same thing. Nope. Not in there. It's not in there to begin. It's not already already been removed. Probably had the same discussion where we were like, the financial part of it is going to happen regardless. So it's most likely not appropriate for this document. Right. How do, how do. Board members feel select board members feel about removing the. The. Look treasure. Anything in there that we really need to have. We have an end date. We need to have clarity about who collects which fees, which I think we, we were, we left ambiguous and we left that up to the. The two financier to the, the, the. The clerk and the finance directors to sort it out. Is that right? With where we left that. Right. Just. Correct. There was still that escalation of if they can't come to an agreement and the managers get involved. There is that hierarchy. Right. Third. Just for two. Just for clarity, though. The question is about taking. Bullet currently see. Off of section one in the MOU. It's not about the contents of what's in the treasure. Okay. So you're okay. So you're just saying you're, you're still on to have the agreements. You just don't want to have the reference in the MOU. Correct. We absolutely want the agreements because that's what's ensuring that we're going to be separating. Of the. The clerk treasurer, the delineation responsibilities, the financial portion that you were just referencing. And all of that would continue. It's just it would be its own separate agreement between two governing bodies instead of being tied to the overall passage of separation legislature. All right. All right. I have, I have, I personally haven't looked at it with the intent of considering whether or not anything in here references separation. Probably doesn't. Thoughts. Anybody. Does it matter? I think like that. I feel like it's written more in the frame of. The change in management structure. It's only. June 30th. 2023. No. It's only through June 30th. Right. Right. Right. And it's, it's supported by the, the town budget that's been approved. So. All right. There's another possible change. We want to do that. Yeah. Basically just codified current state. That would be okay. I'm with that. All right. Sounds like we're in agreement with that, but we, we will. Open things up to public comment before we. Do anything formal. Any other select board comments or trustee comments on any of this before we open the public. Okay. I see two hands up. I see Margaret Smith. Hi. Thank you, Andy. And I wanted to thank George for his. Comments supporting the seniors. I noticed there's nothing in the. Language that says that after renovations, the seniors will move back into. To Lincoln. Whoa. I thought that was an audience. Now I'm getting back to the senior center. When I was in the Junior University of. The City of Lincoln. Street and wondered if that was something that. Should maybe be included. Thank you. Thanks. Margaret. Patty Davis. Yeah, I think it. I agree with Margaret. I was going to say something about the senior center that. If Andrew wants everything spelled out so we can have these agreements. We need dates. We need what's promise. Not just lunch. be included during the renovations that it's up to them to find the space, but we need to have that documentation. The other thing I wanted to say, Andy is many, many people wanted to listen in on this meeting, and no one could get on this meeting. You're making it more and more difficult to get on these meetings, and we're very upset about that. So I wanted to bring it to your attention, Andy, because the public, especially seniors, want to hear about this, that they want dates and specifics written out. Don't sign anything until you have that agreement. Thank you. So Patty, I'm going to comment just a little bit there that the construction plan is nowhere near, my understanding is that their renovation plan is nowhere near solid enough to make specific dates, to commit to specific dates about anything, and thank you for- They owe us a space. They owe us a space for the seniors. And the reason I say this is maybe I misheard Andrew. I thought he said, well, I don't know if we can guarantee more than luncheons. So that stuff just needs to be in writing, and then you need to decide maybe at a later meeting, do you really want that before having to make a decision reading their notes for the first time tonight. It's a big decision. Thanks. We'll consider whether the language there is adequate to the need. And with regard to access, yeah, I don't know how to answer that one. I know it's easy for me. I just click on a button and I get in. But yeah, I don't know. Patty, I'll have to follow up with you tomorrow and try to figure out what the problem is. Okay, Lorraine, Zulum. Hi, thank you, Andy. Quick question, are we going to have Bill review these before you agree tonight? And also, I'm just a little bit confused about the difference between an MOU and separation. And if the separation in terms of it not being tied to the MOU or the legislative decision about separation, how long is that agreement for? Is it just a year? Is it what are the end dates for something like that? And also, can you reassure us that we're not going to sign anything necessarily until the legislation makes the decision? Thank you. Thanks, Lorraine. I will make a quick comment there, I guess. The agreements that we're talking about removing from the MOU are related to the fact that we have already decided not to continue with joint management regardless of whether separation occurs. And so the finance departments are being separated and the clerk and treasurer positions will very likely be separated as well. And those are tied to the FY23 budget year, which ends June 30 of 2023. Actually, they're not. Sorry, the finance agreement likely is going to take longer. And only the clerk's one is the shorter term one. And the MOU is really only a document that says we are agreeing to have agreements. And that's what we're working on, is those agreements. So basically, you're saying the end date is kind of, it is in there in a way in terms of, because we're separating anyway. So my question is in terms of the end date, because once the taxes, and if we do separate before that, and if there are taxes that are no longer going to the town, there, you know, if there's a gap in between there, how is that handled in terms of costs that might be incurred by the town for some of these things that are separating out if it's beyond that date? So the agreements of all of the agreements we've put together have end dates in them and in any case where the agreement extends beyond the end of FY23, we've also included terms for how the cost will be shared. Thank you. Ethan. Wait, you didn't answer, you didn't answer whether the bill was going to review what went to you guys tonight? Bill is not on tonight. We will be part of our discussion as to whether we're comfortable with signing any changes that we're looking at. We will have a discussion about whether it's necessary. Thank you. Hi, my name is Ethan Lawrence. At the beginning of the review for these agreements, it was stated that if the changes to the agreement were not accepted tonight, then they may be off the table. And that concerns me as a resident and to be a new sitting board member on April 4th. If there's any perceived ill intent that the new select board is unable to make decisions for the good of the community, working with the trustees, I think it's something really to consider why the language proposed tonight is under any sort of attack from the new board or any other community members in one week's time. I think it's important that everybody reviews the documents and understands the wording fully for anybody signs or, you know, completes these agreements. And I just, I found that threatening and I just hope that we all take that into consideration tonight. Thank you. Thanks, Ethan. Hey, any other comments? There is someone who's participating on the phone. If you have comments, go ahead. Okay, I'm not seeing any other comments. Select board members want to make any comments based on comments from the public. Okay, that's not the trustees. Any comments you want to make? And then I think- The only comment I would- Go ahead, Andrew. The only comment I want to make is my continued appreciation to the select board for having worked with us on these agreements since I believe it was made of this past year. So it has been almost a year we've been discussing this and really appreciate the time and dedication. And I mean, no ill will when I say, I look forward to talking about something else besides that when we meet. All right, so the, I think the hope was that we could review modified documents at this point. Is there, that's something that we're going to be able to do? I could, you want to see the changes to the recreation IB and senior agreement? Yes, please. That was the only one that we had concerns about, right? Yep. Yeah. Okay, so the first we'll take the senior center space issue up. So here I believe is what Tracy was suggesting the other be in the whereas. Are you okay with that? Yep. All right. So I'll go back now down to number three where it should mirror- The building is under construction, which I take to mean when the building is not under construction, when construction is completed, they move back into to Lincoln. Yeah, I think that's implied there as well. The first sentence. Does continue to provide space at to Lincoln? Yeah. You okay with that? Okay. Thanks, Brad. Okay. Hi. So numbers we talked about for the other component about Sandhill pool about putting it into the termination piece. And when I did, I was concerned about how it was reading since the start of the termination clause says this, the agreement shall terminate. And then we were going to add a part C that was talking about a specific portion of the agreement, which seemed a little strange to me. So I worked the language to hopefully reflect what it is you all were talking about. And it's in this whereas. Does that also exist? Yep. If you're ready to move, I can move down to the number one. Just a question. Brad, can you go back up? Please. Was there always language about the village park and facility rentals? It was both the town park. It just said park and facility rentals previously because it was referencing both municipalities. Okay. So previously it said Sandhill pool, outdoor pool and Maple Street pool and their programs or for park and facility rentals. So it was addressing both. So if you're okay, I'll go down to number one and it's just broken into, it can be all one paragraph or it's right now two. You hear that? I thought we were doing the effective date to tying it into the Indian Brook Pass. So that was, yeah. And so. I got lost there so much. This is, this, this, I'm trying to figure out where to, where to, this ties into the fact that we currently don't have, we town outside the village residents don't have access to Maple Street pool at resident rates. And so from our, well, while the village residents have access to the Sandhill pool at residence rates through the time period where they're paying taxes on that facility. So that's what that's, we're not, we're not offering access to Sandhill pool for the July 1st through the end of the pool season the village residents because they're no longer paying taxes on that. We are however, offering them access to Indian Brook to the end of the calendar year next year because of the way the rate structure works at this point rather than having to redo a new rate structure before then. Okay, I get that then. This also implies that there's a reciprocity which isn't explicitly mentioned in these sections. There's a reciprocity for programs through the end of calendar year as well. This is listing the exceptions. That's the paragraph right above the first yellow highlight. Yeah, yeah. Sorry, it lost me on that last piece because it does say. It does say it's programs. Yeah, the last paragraph. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay, it does mention, right, perhaps think about the highlighted ones. But yeah, right up about there, there is in the prior paragraph, yeah. Technically they'll share summer programs this summer and then it'll be done with the passage of separation. Through the, well, it'll be. It's open Memorial Day, right? So Memorial Day through, well, I first, whatever the. For access to the Sand Hill Pool, but they will have, well, they will have Parks and Rec program access through the end of the calendar year. That's not what that's saying. Yeah, so it's town, city and town residents we charge the same fees for use and have the ability to register the same time for recreation programs. Under termination that specifies December 31st, 2023. Oh, all right. Okay. Oh, now. Okay. Yeah. All right. Thank you. All right. So what we have done with the other agreements is we have approved them. And in our last discussion, we were, I know Andrew, you were wanting us to sign them also. Our, we, the select board's position has always been that we would not sign until that position our consensus has been that we wouldn't sign until after the legislature and the governor approve your new charter. So I believe, unless other others can comment, we're willing to approve each of these agreements. I don't believe we're gonna be willing to sign them. And it sounds like agreement with removing the references and the changes that you asked for as well. If the, if I may, Andy. Yep, go ahead. If the select board is not willing to sign, but approve if the select board would be willing to make a motion that would say something to the effect of approve of these agreements and the MOU and sign set documents upon governor signing of H-491. I don't think we can commit a future select board to take action. So let me ask for clarity. What is the difference between approving and signing? I could ask the same question. Why do you need both, right? Mr. Chair, can I ask a question about a shared board though? Yes. We currently share our board of civil authority. I need to know if this, if they effectively become a city on July 1st or wherever it's passed, if they would be willing to continue to share the BCA through the November elections, that would save the town from having to find, I don't know, 10 new people in the village would have to find 10 new people and set up separate elections and oversee separate elections. Because what happens is you submit these names into the governor and it could take two to three months and at that point we would not have BCA to run the elections for August or November. It's just a concern. It's just, I didn't know if you'd be willing to share. I mean, right now currently the majority of the BCA is village residents, so. I think we need to understand whether statute allows that. I'm not sure how that would work, but it's just something I need to have on everybody's radar because it doesn't sound like a big thing, but it really is, so. And Dawn, just for clarity, the reference to not sharing boards and committees is as of July 1st of 2023. Okay. Oh, I thought you were looking to stop on the first when you became a city on the 22nd. Yeah, so do I. Yeah, we're a little confused, Andrew, when you said no more shared boards, we thought it was when you became a city. So since we're paying taxes, we're as a town residents, my assumption was is that those shared boards, committees and commissions would continue through that time. If, yeah, so that was my assumption. And I believe the assumption of the other trustees, that's why we were saying as of July 1st, 2023. Well, then if that's the case and we would be all right because the board doesn't run again till November and they begin the fall, yeah, that would be, okay. So. Is that a reason to put that assumption in the MOU though? Well, I still think we need the Secretary of State's office to comment on whether or not just as JPs who are now town JPs, still be JPs after the city is formed, they may not. They might not have any JPs though, which isn't necessarily our problem. But our problem is that we would only have six JPs because eight of the 15 live in the village and one of our other JPs moved out of town. We're down to six JPs, but the BCA also includes all select board members. Some select board members are JPs also, so there's a little less than a handful more there, yeah. It's just something to bring forward because that is a concern. Yeah. I just meant to codify what Andrew just said, which is that we had a interpretation, we had interpreted differently that, right, that the shared boards. So maybe we, I'm concerned. Shared boards, commissions, committees run through at the end of the fiscal year, right? Versus when the city is formed. Andy, can I get my hand up over here for a second? Can I jump in? Yeah, go ahead. It's hard to. So a couple of things. I don't recall Board of Civil Authority being in our list of appointed, mutually, board appointed committees and whatnot. So I think we're talking about two different things. I think we're talking about things like the Essex Energy Commission, economic development, housing and whatnot. Second thing is, we're gonna be sharing a clerk. Right now, all of us JPs who live in a village are part of a village board of civil authority that's been operating. I see no reason why, regardless of what happens, sharing a clerk and the same elections and school district that that cooperation wouldn't continue. And I, going back to the first point, I think since all of those currently created and appointed committees that are shared will continue through the fiscal year that town taxes are being paid. Again, I think we're talking about two different things when, for discussing the Board of Civil Authority. So does that make sense? I mean, I totally hear what you're saying and I'm also concerned that there's enough people to manage the elections. But I think, again, since we're gonna be already sharing a clerk through FY23, that I think that that will be taken care of most likely at least till next spring by the very same folks. They might be on two different boards of civil authority, but they're gonna be doing the same work. I hope that makes sense. I hope I was hearing you right. Thanks, Raj. Gracie. I was just gonna make the comment that it really doesn't matter what we agree to. BCA and Board of Abatement are defined in statute and in charter, so we can make all the agreements we want, but unless it's updated in those places, it doesn't hold any water. It was my understanding from the charter discussions in the legislature that, yes, as of July 1st, the village seats, the village residents who hold town BCA seats would then be vacant, but the sort of assumption, if you will, would be that those names would be forwarded to the governor for appointments so that they're essentially the same people fulfilling the same duties until November elections. So I think we've got that covered in other areas. I think that we need an agreement. I don't think we can have an agreement between the two boards that would have authority over those two bodies. Right, yeah, they're right. The select board has no jurisdiction over the BCA, right? And Raj just came up a long time ago, but it's not a select board issue. If you don't have a board of civil authority, it's not the select board's issue. That's the concern is that unless a specific action is taken, I believe, and I agree with what Tracy's interpretation of what she's heard, that you will no longer have any JPs once on July 1st. If you become a city, you have to get yourself reappointed to continue. Or you'll still be JPs at the town because I guess reading the JP handbook, I don't think you, even if you move out of town, you actually have to physically resign, specifically resign, you don't automatically lose your seat. You have to resign from it. But they may still be town JPs, but that works. But yeah, BCA is not part of this. So anyway, so I think what I'd like to, maybe the select board needs to have a quick discussion about are we okay with just letting the committees run through the FY23? I think it makes sense to do that. And Andrew, I'm glad you brought that up because it makes it much clearer. I'm glad we came to recognize that misunderstanding. And it makes a lot of sense to have it continue that way. So, let's see, so what does the select board want to do? Do we want to, and so, yeah, right. Do we want to approve these agreements and the modification of the MOU? Do we want to do something else? Yeah, go first. I guess we've worked on this a long time and this is my last meeting here. So I have to admit, I'm eager to approve something that has had so much, you know, kind of sweat and overtime hours into it. I think that these changes that we dealt with tonight were relatively minor, mostly, you know, wording or word smithing changes. I don't think there's anything of major substantive change. So I'm not terribly concerned since we went point by point in a public meeting over the minor word smithing changes. I'm okay approving tonight. Obviously, you know, let's select board. I agree, but this part as well is that our legal counsels advise us, I think, not to sign until after the legislature. So that's not something I'm willing to consider doing, but I will happily approve these tonight to kind of cap off all of this work on these agreements. That's where I am with it. I've been roughly the same spot, but anytime we're adding or changing language, I think that we need to do our due diligence and at least pass it through our attorney just for a once over to make sure that we're not missing something as laypersons. Okay, Gracie, you could, yeah, right. You can approve pending. Pending a review, a legal counsel review. I think that makes, to me, that makes the most sense. I think just having Bill's eyes on it, but I agree that with Patrick, we haven't made any huge substantive changes tonight. And I think we've been able to at least have the conversation and understand where everyone's coming from. I'm fine with approving with that caveat of thing, Bill, just put his eyes on it. All right. Any other comments, Don? Had nodding over there, okay. Yep. All right, so yeah, yeah, I think the work we did tonight clarified a couple of things. I think that was a good discussion. I'm glad we did it. And I think it doesn't meet the intent of what we had discussed previously. So, do we want to do this in four different motions or put it all in, lump it all together in one? Somebody wanna? We need to hear from the public first. We did hear from the public. We're all set there. Yeah. Let me take a crack at the, let's go ahead. Go ahead, Chase. Go ahead at the select board. I move that the select board approve the tentative agreements for clerk finance, recreation, Indianbrook, senior center, senior bus, and the amended MOU agreement pending legal review. Well, second. Thank you, Tracy. Thank you, Pat. Any further discussions? Two. Was there another? Finance. The finance one was there too, right? She said finance. Third finance and then recreation, Indianbrook, senior center, senior bus. I miss finance, okay. So Greg, I haven't looked this way at all. You okay? Yes. Anyway. Shit. Bad time for him to look that way. All right, all right, all right. Okay, any other discussion? Okay, hearing none. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay, motion passes 5-0. Let's move on to the... To the trustees meeting. Hang on. The trustees meeting to make the same, similar or different, or whatever motion they want to make, right? I would entertain a similar motion. Trustees? Sure. I'll move the trustees approve intended agreements for clerk, for finance, Indianbrook Recreation and Senior Center and a modified MOU based on changes for this evening. Thank you, Rog. Is there a second? And I think, thank you, Dan. Trustees, is there any further discussion? Okay, Andrew, just due diligence, we already approved the police agreement, correct? Correct. Hearing no other discussion, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. So, opposed? Please say nay. Pass unanimously. Thank you. Again, select board. Thank you. It's been a long time coming. I can't express my appreciation enough. Alrighty, let's move on to the consent agenda. And that's trustees only. Trustees? Yes. Entertain a motion to approve the consent agenda. I moved. I think Rog had that. Dan seconded. Any further discussion? Hearing none of those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Just opposed, say nay. Okay. Let's see again. Thank you. Okay, moving on to reading file. Any board member comments? Andrew? I don't know if a select board member wants to go first. Well, I'll just take it anyway, since I'm on the floor. I was just gonna say, again, I appreciate the time from the select board for the months getting to where we are, but also just wanting to recognize that this is Pat Murray's last meeting. Greatly have appreciated working with you, Patrick, for the past three years, I believe that you've been on the select board. Really appreciate your cooperation, the mindset you bring to these meetings that we've had jointly. So I really appreciate your time, Sue. I also appreciate your months on the board, both elected and appointed now. Look forward to seeing you both in the community. All right. Thank you. You're here. Thank you, Andrew. Any other, Tracy? Just a general reminder, I know I still need to get mine done, but dog licenses are due on Friday. Right? Ah. I mean, Andrew and Rosale, you know, thank you, Pat and Sue. But my other thing is, is if anybody from the trustees, or the select board, or the BCA, or the Essex School Board is interested in helping with ballots, opening envelopes and alphabetizing them, I would appreciate some help and just let me know if you're interested because they're piling up and. Will Diane send me an email? I was very impressed with the return, especially from the village gentlemen, here, returns are coming in awesomely. So. Great. Thank you. All right. Any other comments? I've got a couple of, Pat, go ahead. I'll go. I mean, it's been an honor, first started serving on these boards when my kiddo was in kindergarten, starting at the Hiawatha Prudential Committee before there was even a unified Essex Westford School District. And now here, just taking a little break and very glad to do so. It's been a lot of years of regular weekly, bi-weekly meetings. So, and it's been an honor to serve this community. It's really, truly having lived in multiple places in Vermont as far backwards as you could possibly get. And then here, you know, downtown Burlington on Pine Street, there is no better place to live than Essex, but just simply is not. So thank you all. Thank you for letting me serve. It's been a pleasure. Sue. Yeah, I mean, obviously this stint was just a six month filling, but I appreciated the opportunity to participate again. And I just want to say that the community is in very good hands with the remaining select board members who are continuing to serve and are putting an awful lot of effort and thought into making sure that our community is healthy, moving forward and taking care of them. Thank you. OK, a couple of comments. Just wanted to say, yeah, thanks for the service, Pat. I think it's been, especially thank you, Pat, for stepping up, sometimes on short notice when I've had personal issues going on. That was why there's a vice chair. And Sue, I appreciate you stepping up for getting us through the budget, the current budget, and also getting us to this point with these agreements. And it's been a pleasure having you both on the board. And we'll see where things go from here. With that in mind, our next meeting is our organizational meeting. This is just a reminder that we will have our election for officers and also set the calendar for the coming year. So bring your calendar so we can figure out what days we want to meet. I also wanted to comment kind of about joint meetings. We only have one more on the calendar that was proposed. I guess that potentially will be discussed next week and be official, possibly. But the question that I have is when we were under joint management, it was obvious who organized the agenda and got the packets together. Now that we don't have joint management, it's a little ambiguous. And I think given some of the material came late, maybe I don't know if there's some coordination that needs to be worked out between you and Brad or whomever to figure out how to move that forward. So it felt, I'm not trying to point any blame because it was just because we all, I don't think anybody thought about it. How do you put together a joint agenda without a joint manager? We had met on the agenda in the packet and we'll try to dial it in for future meetings as well. Yep, this was the first attempt. Yep, yep, yep. All right, Andrew. Just on that note, I want to make sure that any and all potential blame is placed where it should be. I'm the one who sent the email with our edits on Friday. So if anybody does have any dissatisfaction or displeasure with how that went, please point them in my direction as I am the culprit. All right, thanks, Andrew. Anybody else? I'm going to drag this meeting on as long as you can, Pat. I'm OK. I make the motion that we adjourn. Thank you, Don. Thank you, Sue. It's non-debatable. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Aye. All right. OK, motion passes 4-1. He's made three years to serve. Of course he is. Well done, Pat. Trustees? Yeah. Move, we adjourned. Second. Thank you, Dan. Thank you, Raj. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Anybody oppose? Thank you as always. Thanks, all.