 On our agenda. Okay. So we have a quorum at 702 and I asked, are there any additions to the agenda? I know I need to add a pay bills. There's a website and some ads for Times Argus. So I'll be adding, I'd like to add that. And I would put the discussion of the department public safety dispatch funds under other business. So that we'll do it after the public hearing. That's, if everyone's agreed, agreeable to that. You're splitting them, the meeting on both sides of the public hearing. Well, we, yes, we have other business after the public hearing. The public hearing deal, deal specifically with our three year budget. Oh, that public hearing. Oh, I'm sorry. I was thinking of the great public comment, public hearing. Yeah. But isn't there a hearing also on a complaint? Not, not that I know of right now. Okay. Good. Good. No, I don't want to bring it up. I thought there was one every week actually. I could come up under other business, but right now I'm not that I know of. Okay, with those two modifications agenda will be approved by unanimous consent. Public comments. I know we have one user by phone. Stephen, is that you muted. Yeah, I muted him. Okay. It probably is. Okay, so we're going to go around and everybody's please say your name and the town you're from, since this board is meeting remotely. So I'm Donna B. Every time I have to mute myself, you mute me. So I'm, I'm pretty frustrated every, you know, we're playing a game either leave my controls. No, Stephen, Stephen, it's just that people, particularly people with earphones complain about the, the squelch from your phone. So unless you're speaking, we ask everybody to mute themselves. So, if you would identify yourself when you get your chance after the board identifies themselves, that would be great. Thank you. So, Donna Bate, I live in Montpelier. I'm a board member. Mel. Mel, John Bell, Barry, and I'm a board member. Jim. Ward, Barry, city of Barry pointed rep. Kim. James. Jim. That's large member a Doug. Doug Hoyt city of Montpelier representative, board member, term limited until March. Okay. And we do have other people present. And so when you speak, if you would identify yourself, that would be helpful. Stephen. I'm a B-O-R-E-D member. Is this the public comment period? Yes. Well, we still have other people to identify. She falls. Okay, we only really have to identify all the board members that are participating, unless you speak. Okay, but we do have some guests, so let's just do that, Jim. That's great. Jake, you want to introduce yourself? Everyone, Jake Kimmerich, Mayor of Berry City. Yes, thank you for being here. Deputy Chief Joe, we're supposed to use your last name now, your official, huh? Good evening. My name's Joe Walzer. I'm the Intern Chief for the Berry City Fire Department. Thank you, Carrie. Good evening, Carrie McCool, Dispatch Supervisor, Montpelier Police. Thank you for being here. David, I don't know if he's listening live or recording. Then we have Orca and Stephen. You want to introduce yourself? Thank you. All right, so public comment. Stephen, do you have any public comment? Well, I get another chance when you open the public hearing, right? Public hearing is specifically about the budget. This is public comments about things that are not on the agenda. Well, you've, in what have you added to the agenda? You've added the, that reached the state grants. We added to pay the bills and talk about the dispatch funds. Well, I want to talk about the governance issue because that's why that relates to the state grants, but no, it was about that last night. So if you want to talk about, I'm sorry, Stephen, if you want to talk about the public safety dispatch funds and when you say that, when it gets in the agenda later under other business, it's not related to public safety dispatch funds. It's related to governance in the region. I'm sorry. I thought you were bringing it up through the dispatch discussion with the Department of Public Safety. No, I'm saying that this, okay, the, okay, I just want to put on the record that your manner of rear-roading the conversation and muting me almost every chance you get really discourages public comment. Okay. So noted. Any, any other public comment from anyone else? Okay, the minutes of October 13th, they're here for approval. I'm open for a motion to approve the minutes. Second. I'll second. Thank you. We have a motion and a second to approve the minutes from the October 13th board meeting. Any further discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Good. Thank you. Now I've distributed draft for a three year budget. Oh, let's do the bills, bills, sorry, bills first before we get involved in the budget discussion. So there are two, two individual companies that I've had to pay bills for on my credit card. One is the Times Argus for the ads to ads. There were a sensation of several ads for the public hearing and likewise for the annual meeting. Each are 72 15 for the public hearing. 72 15 was the cost for the annual meeting. The other bills were from Eternity Web. It happens every time this time of year. There it was an increase of $100. It's a total of $1300. That's the website, the domain, the security and some monetary some some assistance, not full supportive staff, but some assistance. I entertain a motion to accept paying those bills or a reversing me for paying those bills would be more accurate. I move that we reimburse the chair for expenditures that she did on our behalf on a credit card. Second, you second. Are you both comfortable? I prefer to put them in specifically $1300 for Eternity Web and $144 and 30 cents for the Times Argus, both being reimbursed to me. And each of these invoices, which I've already sent to Justin, unfortunately, who's ill and not here will be attached to the warrant. So you'll see the invoices when you sign them, whether that's electronically or in person. Okay, a motion and a second to pay these two bills. Yes, Kim. The bill I have is for $1250. Yes, there's a second one that I sent. That's for just the $50 for the domain name that I paid in August. All right, I didn't see that bill. Go ahead. Again. Yeah. Okay. Any further discussion on the bills? All in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed. Passes. Thank you. Now we can talk about the three-year budget. So I may, I went away from the last meeting in October with the instructions to add enough money to pay an executive director or someone in a position that wasn't an employee, but would help promote public safety authorities mission and jobs that they're wanting to do this coming year. And we had paid Paco, we started with Paco at 60. So this was several years later, I started at 70. But, you know, you all can decide a different number. Just what the, it depends on what the level of staffing, if you really want an executive director or an administrative assistant. But that's what I put in. I also sent it as an Excel sheet so you could change it. And I put money in the first year of FY24 so that you'd have consulting money to help form what you wanted to do with the CAD, the computer aida dispatch system, because you can't just go forth. You've got to have someone to help you decide exactly what you need and then go after the funding. So any questions about those? I also sent you an email sort of explaining some of those numbers. Anybody want to talk about the budget? I do. OK, Kim. I understand from last night's council meeting that there will be a meeting with councils above Barry and Pealier to discuss our budget. Yes, that usually happens because we usually ask for their support when we put something on the ballot. And those dates are December 13th and December 14th. It's going to be shared later, but we can talk about that now. Well, my point was usually we have some preliminary discussion of the council before we propose a budget. And this year, it's not the way it's come down. So it seems to me that this is a pro forma budget and we should be prepared to listen to council. Two councils are coming back to back and then make whatever changes we think are advisable. I think the I watched the read the YouTube of last night's my Pealier hearing and there's a great deal of confusion about what's going on in the CVPSA in the city. And we have some time to try to clear that up. So I think we could have a more productive budget discussion. OK, it definitely has been the board's decision to do it the way we've done it. And we have to have it within our charter. We we need to have our preliminary budget now. But again, it's just a preliminary budget. Yeah, you have a discussions with the city. We have discussions from the public and we have until we have to submit it to the cities in January to make a final decision. I agree. I think it's. But meanwhile, can we talk about the budget? I'm really here. I don't have a problem with the budget. I think it was. A pro form of proposal and with further discussion with the councils and so forth that may change. OK, anybody else, Doug, is your hand up? Joe, you might have some information about I use the number, which is what I told the board when they mentioned putting the cat in. I use the number that was in Tel Aviv. It's no it's not like an end all number. If it's way out of whack, please, you know, tell us. Joe Alger at Barry City Fire. So I don't have the specific numbers. I know that Chief Pete has been in contact with Hartford. I think that the numbers that he has is considerably less than that. But I'm not prepared to speak to that at this point in time. So I do know that he has is let manager Frazier know this. And so I without being misquoted, I'm going to leave that to Chief Pete, too. So if you want to reach out to him, Donna, I would do that. OK, I mean, I guess I'd rather have a high number and and reduce it when we get out. And again, it's a FY 25 number. It's way out there than to have too little. Jim, Mel, any comments? Just a clarification, because what I'm looking at here, I thought was the latest budget. I don't see a CAD system on. So am I looking at. OK, actually, the line item is equipment and it's FY 25. It's seven hundred and fifty dollars. All right, that's fine. I was looking for CAD. Yeah, yeah, well, I couldn't put CAD in the budget, but I did I did explain in the follow up email that the CAD system. I had looked at equipment and saw thirty nine hundred dollars. I said, well, that can't be it. But it jumps up to seven hundred and fifty. That's yeah, the thirty nine is what we get to buried police for this year. Yeah. Yeah. So I have a question now from Barry City. Yeah, just for clarification, part of the reason we've written this grant or the grant was written is to cover part or all of that seven fifty, right? No, the CAD is not in the equipment acquisition because it's so expensive. And it was taken out even when they when the application was at three point five, it didn't have a CAD in it. But it is one of the things of which, through the need assessment, was recommended to have. We know that it's a good piece of equipment to have because of the way it interfaces everything for the dispatchers and for the first responders and as well as collecting data more appropriately. But it's very expensive. I just I, you know, just from a budget, a city budget standpoint, it's going to it's all going to be a hard sell. Well, I don't think it would happen unless a big grant happened. OK. I mean, that's why I have the income under grant. You look at the income, I don't have it coming from the cities. I have it coming from a grant. That's my assumption. OK. Is that you would go out whether that's an earmark, whatever, but you wouldn't do it without major capital grant somewhere. All right. But it's not in the current grant proposal, what you're saying. No, it's not. And I guess just so I'm really surprised. I don't feel the public safety authority is at a place that is worth putting money in an executive director. I was told last night at City Council, but haven't found the legal reference that you cannot have an executive director that is not an employee. They cannot be a vendor, somebody you hire as a consultant. They can be staff. They can be a project manager, but they can't be an executive director. So I don't support this budget. I don't feel it's a good use of money, which is why I've been willing to struggle and pitch in a lot the last four years without an executive director because I just don't see the organization being worthwhile to have an executive director. I see right now until this current grant gets in place and empowers then us to grow on that, that it would not be a good use of money. That's just where I'm at. Cam, you have your hand up. Yes, I want to go back to the CAD for a moment. I had a discussion with Chief Locke who's running the Chinman Public Safety Authority. And at the meeting of the Joint Fiscal Committee and Commissioner Morrison reported on dispatching. I'm going to start with Morrison first and come back to lack, Locke, but in one of the PSAPs to have a 48 percent vacancy rate. And the reason they can't keep anybody is because they're overwhelmed by the complexity of the dispatching operation. That they're dispatching so many people and it's unbelievably difficult to keep track of everybody and people just quit. And what Chief Locke told me. Burlington, I use loosely, it's Chittenden County, really. He regards the CAD systems absolutely essential to keep employees and I don't know if he has 15 agencies or somebody that he dispatches for. And he says, without a CAD system, there's no way it would work. You won't be able to keep people. And I think Carrie McCool, they have something to say about this, but I think our local dispatching is pretty complicated, given the antiquity of our system. But if, in fact, we take on new people, and as I understand that, consoles would allow us to dispatch throughout the state, effectively, not just in our local region. We would need to be prepared to have a CAD system as far as I can see in order to attract people to work for us. So what Chief Locke told me is he got a system for like $60,000, 70, because there was competitive bidding and people wanted to break into Vermont. I asked him about the 750 number. He said, well, I don't think it's unrealistic. So it isn't just a good to have thing. I think if we're really going to have a dispatch infrastructure system to serve people, we might not need it in 25, but we may need it thereafter. I agree with Donna that I think there may be some grants, but it's going to be a zoo next year. I can tell you that because there just isn't enough money for regional systems with what we have now. So I would leave it in the budget as pro forma. I think we should discuss the city councils, why it's important, or importantly, what it is, because I have a few of them know, and then why it's important. So that's I know you wanted to go on to other aspects of the budget. But I think it's useful to have a little discussion about the cat. Well, the cat's part of the budget. That's fine. OK, Brian, I see your hand up. Yes, ma'am, I apologize. Is it appropriate for me to make any comments on this one? Sure. Well, yes, sir. Well, I'm just wondering why is that why were we not talked to about that? You know, we just mentioned Terry McCool, but I don't I don't know how many people in CVPSA really took a formal discussion with her or with Barry City and talking about the cat system. But we're throwing something in that there's some there's some there's some things about the cat system as well. Now, right now, the state police is paying for Valkor. Valkor is developing is working on developing a cat system. If the entire state of Vermont is on Valkor, you know, it's one of those different types of things. Do you is it appropriate to budget for a cast system when we may not be at that decision point as to whether it's a system that it's going to a work or B. That there's there's a lot of moving points going there. So to me, it was seeing a we were never consulted with B. It might be too premature right now that there are other opportunities. There's other ways of funding mechanisms to get a cat system without, you know, one of the things I looked at for was a grant for a spillman system through DHS just to make sure that we have our bank is covered. But I'm not sure if this is something that should be budget for by CVSA, because it's we weren't even consulted. OK, Brian, I'll just just my perspective of how this works within our three year budget is that we did a need assessment. And during that need assessment, the one thing that people wanted that we heard from our public safety personnel that was not continued into the DPS grant was the cat system or something looking like it. So to start putting that in our far out budget of FY 25 means we have a vision that we would want our public safety people to have this kind of updated equipment and that we're putting our communities on notice that, gee, let's go this direction. Let's keep supporting our public safety authority, public safety personnel with constantly looking at new technology. The technology has gotten so old and it's been so neglected. We don't want to do that again. We want to keep we want to keep advancing. So we're looking forward to the Department of Public Safety, giving the area that two point four or more million dollars to update equipment, but we don't want to stop there. So in that way, that's what we're doing now is we're gathering comments. Well, yes, ma'am, but I don't recall necessarily being formally consulted on it. So I don't know if, you know, while I do respect, you know, like reaching out to the dispatchers and everything, but I'm kind of the head of the organization. And the other part of it is a cat system. When I priced it out for the DHS brand, I put it for was nowhere near seven hundred thousand dollars. Great. It was half that price. Great. Again, when when we did the need assessment and all this public safety personnel was involved, Barry, Montpelier, Capital West, as well as the consultants. That was one of many pieces as long with simulcasts that was listed. And that's the price we have in our need assessment. So we just that's what we used. It's wrong. Give us another number. No, no, I totally understand that. But is there a way we can find out who was consulted with from Montpelier and when this came up in the October meeting and we brought it up in our discussion that we wanted to move forward with equipment that we were told was was something people wanted. I don't want to belabor it, but my my dispatch is telling me we've never been they've never been talked to. So OK, I'm OK. No, I'm sure there were. I mean, I I'm the people who brought it up. I'm sure it didn't go to you today, yesterday or last month. It was on our schedule within our need assessment of equipment to look towards. Don, I want to see Whitaker. I want to comment just a moment. There's two board members with hands up. So I think Doug might be Jim, Doug, your hand is up and then Jim. Hi, Brian. How are you doing? Good, sir, yourself. Not too bad for an old guy. Thank you. I'm not at least don't take this as being sarcastic. Suggesting that the board did not reach out to anybody about the concept of records. Dad. You could turn that around and say that the board didn't hear anything directly, necessarily from you or anybody else in the organization. Members of the board did hear from other people that are participating in this grant process, and that was one of the items that came up. Now, having been involved in records management and so-called CAD. I need to be very clear that that concept encompasses a large number of things. Some of these so-called CADs are nothing more than glorified records. Managements need to be clear that we're getting something that will assist find people like Carrie and the people like she works with in guiding various people to situations in which there needs to be emergency services provided. So I don't think we're trying to step on anybody's toes. I don't think we're trying to take away anybody. We just want to respond to what we hear that is needed. And seven fifty could be way over the top and needs to be something that we work to determine what it is what's going on. Obviously, if you don't want any assistance, by all means, pick up and won't hurt my feelings. We'll take it off the budget. OK. I'm going to go into Jim, Doug. If you're done. I'm done. Let me lower Jim. You had your hand up next. Yeah, I was pretty much going to say at least partly what Doug just said. Um, there's a significant difference between a record management system, which Velcro was and a CAD system, particularly in the fire service. But the point that I wanted to make to to the chief was that I haven't been on this board more than I think in a half now, but I've been involved in it intimately for since the beginning five years ago, whatever it was. And the CAD system was discussed from the beginning that that was essential and went part and parcel with changing the hardware in the console. So it's it has been talked about considerably. The chief may be right that no one was recently consulted on it. But at this point, we're talking about the concept of having a CAD system. As opposed to not having one is multiple different brands out there and the different components. There's it's going to be a project in itself, getting everyone on the same page of what the system needs. But just the idea of having one is kind of as essential as having a microphone. From my perspective, I've been kind of harping from the beginning that the fire dispatching needs to get more involved in the management of incidents from a fire perspective. And I'm consistently being told when we get the CAD system, that's going to that's going to help the dispatchers. I don't disagree with that. It's going to come up and tell them you've got to do a 15 minute lap time announcement and so forth. But I want to just emphasize that a CAD system or any computer system doesn't replace skilled dispatch and and having to learn you know, the protocols for the police side and the fire side are equally, if not more important than following a computer prompt. So anyway, the CAD system is a key part to moving forward with the modernization of the communications dispatch. Donna, Donna, could you kill me? Yeah, I'm sorry. Yeah, I'm fortunate I don't hear that that static. Stephen, Jim, if you're done, it's Stephen's turn. And Stephen, when you get done talking, please mute yourself. That's fine. I don't mind meeting myself and do it. I prefer it. My turn now. Yes, sir. So, Steve Whitaker, Montpelier, I think that this discussion is absolutely upside down without having a definition of the role that CDPSA is playing. It's totally inappropriate for CDPSA to try to be the piggy bank for a dispatch center, which we don't own or govern. And if Montpelier police, you know, changes their model and becomes a regional facility governed by the Served Towns, then it might be appropriate for the Served Towns Governing Board to be insisting on a CAD system and paying for it. But to just be using CDPSA as a piggy bank to write, to pay, to elevate, to write a grant for Montpelier is wholly inappropriate. But without defining what role CDPSA is going to have in planning, in training, in implementation of a radio system, we're just flopping around. It's nonsense. You know, there's a five million dollar contract between the Department of Public Safety and Crosswinds, the developer of Valkor, to create a CAD system. I'm very skeptical that it'll ever happen. And there are dispatchers walking out the door who were trained and familiar with Spillman. And it's an insult to their talent and their workload and their stress to ask them to work with Valkor pretending to be a CAD system. So yes, a CAD system is necessary. I'm glad that Brian Pete is looking at Spillman because you would need something like Spillman to attract dispatchers to fill all these seats of an increased workload. But that's not our fight to fight. You know, that's really an example of how misguided and how lacking a direction and how lacking a focus. You can't really put a budget together until you put a work plan together. And I'm annoyed or insulted that we can be so diligent about the charter requiring a notice to get reimbursed for an advertisement when the charter requires a public safety director and you're more than willing to throw the public safety director overboard. So an organization without a staff, a leader who knows how to serve the needs of public safety and bring the parties together is is is flapping in the breeze. OK, thank you. Please mute. I had another hand go up. I don't see it now. Joe, your hand was up at one point. Do you want to speak, chief? That Madam Chair, that's the back feed that we can hear over here. And it's really it drowns out the other speakers. OK, he's muted now. Are you hearing it? Nope, it's done. Thank you. OK, sorry about that. Do you have any comments you want to make? Joe, the only thing that I just want to echo Chief Pete, I think that any movement towards the CAD really needs to be in concert with the chiefs and you really need to solicit both public safety chiefs and both communities input, please. So that's the only thing I have. OK. All right, Jim, more. Yeah, just just quickly, I find myself in the unique position of agreeing with Stephen Whitaker. But what I was relating to or relating to referring to earlier was I am very confused of what our role is in this whole scheme of things. The budget, the grant, the grant is all in the city, Montpeliers. Name, I'm not sure what our role is. But that being said, I think a CAD system is essential. And if we can be the vehicle to make that happen, I'm in favor of trying to pursue that to whatever extent that we can. But it is still very confusing. What is our role? We don't own the radio system. We don't have the grant coming to us. We don't have any authority over the dispersal funds. But if we can be the idea generator, that's better than nothing and that's still needed. Yes, yes. Thank you, Jim. I think that training and equipment is something we have been able to do and bringing people together to talk more. So. All right, anyone else who hasn't spoke on the budget? All right, Kim, your hands back up. Kim, we can't hear you. You're still muted. And then I got now I agree with Steve and Jim. The next. This agenda item is updated on the DPS application. But I'm going to want to know. What planning has been done by the city? In. Governance. Because somebody needs to do governance. There was some mention. Last night. This CVPS a charter is a governance formula. I think there are amendments that should be made to it. And I've sent them all around to you. But it's true, unless we know who is actually going to get this grant and what the governance process is, the budget is somewhat irrelevant. And I think what we're trying to do, at least at the October meeting, was say, look, if we actually get. Two and a half million, and we get a process for raising the next million or so that will take to build a system. Then we need to work plan and we need to know who is going to own it. Who's going to maintain it and how to allocate those expenses. And I think that's really the next agenda item. OK, we're now in the budget. Mel, you want to talk about the budget? Please, your turn. Well, I guess at this point, I'm kind of confused because. It has seemed for the small amount of time I've been on this with this group that this is something that we had. I don't know, not permission, but we had been charged to be looking at this and charged to make it happen. And that the Televate Study was part of that. And I know since I've been on council, people have been talking about the CAD system. However, when I hear that we really. What was your thing, Stephen, flopping in the breeze or something like that, that that we don't have any control over it or any. Whatever. Then I wonder why we have an executive director put in there, etc. And I mean, at the end of the day, I think that I think that we're kind of staring reality in the face that the world is just moving forward technologically and we can either join it or not. And it might be who of us to join it. So from that standpoint, I I support this, but I'm I'm just trying to understand where if we are being premature because I'm hearing so much hedging from people who've been working on this now. I'm getting a little nervous. That's understatement. OK, I've got another comment. All right, go ahead, Stephen. So the the issue with writing a work plan and and governing a multi town dispatch authority has to do with who's going to put the technology plan together. It it took two years of my efforts to finally get the needs assessment voted by the board, you know, everyone pushed back. We don't need the needs assessment. We know what we're doing. We want just the simulcast system. The simulcast system, that idea is already obsolete. We need a trunk radio system, which means going back to the radio design phase. And I would encourage it, despite Brian Pete's ignorance about LTE, that we need to design cellular broadband into the dead zones wherever we're putting radio coverage for for public safety, LMR. And that what we have is a fractionated turf war going on between a non-organization called Capitol Fire that happened to own the system from 30 years ago. Stephen, Stephen, I'm sorry, you're off. I feel you're off topic. We know I'm on topic because the budget has to have funding to implement a work plan and the work plan has to be defined as to what Capitol Fire is going to do, not going to do or pretend to do and what CDPSA is going to be established to do or authorized to do by the member towns. I'm sorry that those those areas are really outside of this Pacific budget like the trunk system was discussed within the needs assessment and the area decided not to do that. They went with the simulcast. So the discussion now is dealing with the budgets which have an executive director in it and has money for some type of a computer aided dispatch system. But you also need a design of a radio system that incorporates cellular broadband and you also need an executive director project manager. That's a lot of equipment discussion that we've had before and we'll have again. And by the way, CAD system is not equipment. It's a piece of software that rides on the regular computers at the desk. You have to write. Yes, it's the systems computer aided dispatch system. I call it equipment because you pay through the same sort of grants for software hardware. All right, anyone else on the board, Steve, please mute yourself. If you don't, then I will. OK. So what is the board's pleasure to keep the numbers that are in the budget with an executive director unhoused and a future of some major equipment to help acute computer aided dispatch system. Joe, I see your hand, but I was asking the board to take a lead. Doug Hoyt, I would like to suggest that the. Public safety authorities sit down with Brian Pete and. I guess, Joe, all's worth it. And get some sort of understanding of what kind of assistance they assistance they would like to see from public safety authority with regard to. Cat. And we should take our lead from them in terms of what it is they want. They need how can we best assist them or maybe not. We thought we did that within the need assessment. But yes, OK. But meanwhile, we have a budget that the draft budget that needs to be presented at our public hearing when it opens in the later portion of this meeting. That then will ultimately lead to more discussion. I'm OK with leaving that particular line item in. But I think we need to take care of the. Right. So so am I asking of whether the board wanted to keep this budget isn't excluding meeting with any personnel, anybody, any discussion on modifying it for the next portion of the draft, but for tonight, as far as the budget that goes into the public hearing as our draft budget for the three year budget that were required to do, I'm asking the board are there any modifications? We've talked about it. Is there any number modifications? Mel, your hands up. Yeah, I do have a question about when you started, when we started the meeting, you made the comment that you wouldn't support the budget. Is that because of note that I heard that wrong or note that you won't support it? No, I don't support it. I don't feel we should be putting money out to an executive director. OK, and can this be done without an executive director? I feel that we should do what we did before as project managers, that when we are defined like we've we wanted the need assessment, despite what Stephen said, I disagree. We've wanted a need assessment way, way back to 2016, 2018. And we had some push and pull with some public safety staff individuals who thought they could do it within the two cities, but we eventually hard and we did that need assessment. And I feel we need to keep moving because the one thing we can do since the cities are not succeeding any authorizing operating powers to us is we can do training and we can do equipment and that we can do that in a lead way that helps our budget items not compete with other city budget items. So I think that's it's not the biggest role, but it's an important role. And it's one we've done well in the past. So I feel like using our own need assessment and going to that and saying, what's the next equipment level that we can go after? That's how I would approach it. And if you do hire a project director, who's paying for that? Does that need to go into this budget? Well, I mean, you you can't pay for anything unless you have it on the ballot and you can't have it on the ballot unless you have it in your budget. Right. I understand that. But if you. So. I can. I'm sorry, Mel, you at least on my computer, you usually cut off. So maybe try that again. I said, if you take the executive director out and substitute in a project manager, do you have who's going to pay for the project manager? We are. We have to put that in our budget. Anything in our budget has to be funded through a ballot item of the two cities. I. So I get that part. So we're going to have to put something in. It's what I'm hearing. Yes, but I feel it can be very specific instead of a broad person as an executive director, you can decide, come together, do a real solicitation and update with all the public safety personnel and the cities and say, OK, as our members, how's the what's the best next level of equipment? It's not the CAD. What is it? And then let's hire a project person to help us investigate that and move forward to find funding for it. And in this budget, I have 30 put 35,000 in as a consultant. That project manager to me was going to be diving into whether it was the CAD or what else was next for the FY 25 budget. OK, so I would take out the executive director and the staff expenses and the staff liability insurance. It's about seventy five hundred dollars from the budget. OK, for FY 24. All right, all right. I think that answers my question for this moment. OK, OK. All right, Kim. And I can ask Brian Pete if he's still. Available in Joe Waltsworth. If they're willing to meet with this board. Or some, I think the whole board or those who want to attend to have a thorough discussion of the interaction between the two. The cities and us, I don't see how we can proceed rationally without that discussion. Well, we have to proceed without that discussion as far as we need to leave tonight with a budget that we presented at our public hearing. No, I understand. And so, of course, we can support them. They in the cities have invited us to come and do that. So it's just a matter of making those appointments. So is there anything within the budget? Anybody want to make a motion on the budget? I'll move would be approved. OK, as as was sent out. Yes, 120,000 FY 24, 875,000 FY 25. Yes, that motion with the understanding that it'll be reviewed next month. Absolutely. OK, anyone for a second? No second. You I'll second, I'll second. OK, among the discussion, Joe's had his hand up. I'm going to let him talk and then the board can have further discussion about the motion, Joe. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to point out that the board has a luxury tonight that Rick Burke from Tel Aviv is here that I think that there's pointed questions about the study or the CAT system that you rely on. Rick's expertise to answer that. But I also think that Brian in the chat also mentioned something that's worth discussing, too. So I think it's important both using both of those resources and it's pertinent to this discussion now. I'm sorry, I'm too busy tonight to pay attention to the chat and I should have turned it off. Can you tell me what's in the chat? Because I really I'm manning the zoom as well as taking minutes. So yes. If you would recognize Chief Pete, I think he could address that. Well, we tried, but it suddenly disappeared. OK, and then, Rick, I'm sorry, I barely noticed you were there. Chief Pete, do you have comments? Well, yes, ma'am. So that's where my concern came in. It's not necessarily that I'm disputing a CAT system because I have my doubts with Valkor, too, and I've been actively looking for other CAT systems. So so there's no argument there. But my my my concern comes in with the fact, again, that we haven't been haven't been talked to about this, because I would have been able to tell you that significantly even less than three hundred thousand dollars is there's a possibility to, for lack of a better term, tag on to other systems with other with other agencies for for fractions of that. And and so my concern is to to put the taxpayers on the hook for eight hundred and seventy five thousand dollars when you may only need less than ten thousand for it is is is is just a little it's concerning for me. OK, but just so you know, it's in the budget, it's in a budget. It wouldn't be on the ballot until even if it was accepted until March of twenty four. So this is a future item. It's nothing to go in the budget this upcoming March just so you know that. OK, Rick, do you want to make a comment? I'm glad to change a number if the board would accept it for the CAT system. Just tell me one. Oh, well, I appreciate the opportunity as always to be here and to point you for this. I'm I'm as you indicated, I'm happy to be a resource to you. Rick, you're really chopping up. I can't hear you. Maybe other people now. I get closer. It's just a lot of bubbles. I can't understand you. Yes, it's like you just let me go off. You don't go to my phone. I'm not going to leave, but I'm going to not speak over this my computer. It'll take me a few minutes, so give me a second. We can hear you right pretty good now. All right, well, let me turn my video off. Maybe my video was taken away all my bandwidth. I'm just offering to be of, you know, a contribution wherever. I mean, clearly, you know, many, many years have been doing this work. And and we had the CAD, you know, the CAD was a recommendation. It was, you know, we had to prioritize in order to manage our budget. So certainly a CAD, the fact that you operate, you know, you do public safety dispatching and you don't have a CAD is a concern. It's just not the norm. But we work in a number of markets, you know, where they don't have a cat. So it's whatever. However, if you do a CAD, you do need to do requirements gathering on it. What are they? So whatever budget we originally came up with was based on, you know, our experience with a variety of different systems, because we hadn't defined if we'll be a cat, a cat in RMS, didn't have any positions. But we were I'm sure we were looking at a budget that would would support both Barry City and Montpelier, so you would need cat at both. So we're looking at multiple CADs there or or CAD systems for both of those operations. But that's beside the point. I'm happy to answer any questions you have about what we've done to date and what other markets are doing and in response to any comments that have. Well, Rick. OK, my core question is, would you substitute a different number than the seven hundred and fifty thousand that's in our need assessment? I I don't the only way I can answer that is that we'd have to, you know, you would want to do a requirements, a formal requirements gathering, like as the chief has stated, you know, we we would really need to do a little bit more work for that. I'm not opposed to putting a larger number than a smaller number, but we shouldn't be requesting more money than we need. And, you know, but I don't really have any other comment on that. I don't think I have a position to say whether or not that number is a great number, one number based on what we've heard already. OK, so what but I understand. I mean, I understand how much work has to be done to just scope out the potential CAD system and hence in the twenty five twenty four budget, there's thirty five thousand dollars for a consultant to do that. Meanwhile, do we just put two hundred thousand dollars there, five hundred thousand dollars there? I mean, what makes people comfortable? I mean, it's just a number for a future budget. I don't mean to, that that was the number in the study. So I mean, I don't know. Three hundred thousand. OK. Second, to make that change in the budget. As a question, are we talking about only from Montpelier or are we talking about from Barristery as well? Both. Again, it's how many features, what vendor, there's so there's too many, there's a lot of variables that affect it. Yes, totally understand. It's a very changeable number. Donna, Steve Whitaker here. Just a moment, Steve, we got a tenant of a motion, Doug, a motion to put three hundred thousand in for the cad instead of the seventy five thousand. Anyone want to second on that? I'll second that. And Kim seconded it. OK, further discussion on the motion by the board. Steven, mute yourself even terrible. Wait a minute. OK, so I had Doug for the motion and Kim for a second discussion now. Yeah, so you're proposing to take the seven fifty and put it down to three hundred. Yes, correct. And what about the executive director? I heard no motion to change that. But you can make one after this motion. OK, I might do that. OK. So the motion we have before us is to reduce the amount that we put in the FY twenty five draft budget from seven hundred and fifty thousand to three hundred thousand. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? OK, passes. Mel, you want to propose a motion about something else? Yeah, I'm going to make a motion that we let go of the executive director. OK, to remove the executive director and related expenses that are in the budget. That would be good, too. OK, is there a second to that? I'll second that. OK, Doug, seconds. Further discussion. Yes, Kim. Look, what we don't know. Is what role CVPSA is going to play in the future? And if the key to this whole problem is what we're going to do about governance in order to get any grant money. And I think the city has to decide whether they want our help or not. So I'm budgeting on the assumption. That they have made no concrete proposal for a government's proposal. And yet our charter is one. I would recommend some changes to it, as I would vote you all. OK, so am I hearing you're saying that the executive director and related expenses need to stay because you feel governance needs work and this person could help with that? Absolutely. OK, there's another governance proposal we'll do. That's another proposal. All right. Anyone else want to make a comment about the motion? Yes, I do. No, you're not part of the board. Sorry, Steve. Anybody on the board who wants to talk about this motion, Jim? Yeah, just clarification. At one point, it seemed as though you had competing ideas of a executive director and project management consulting fees. The consulting and project management fee that's in there is thirty five thousand. So if that's eliminated, the executive director is completely eliminated. What did you have in mind for the project managers or how many that would be or what was that like one project? I'm just trying to figure out. Manager, the only reason I put it in there was related to what we were planning for FY twenty five. And so that in FY twenty three, we lay the foundation to move forward to get funds and more information about the CAD system. That's what we put in our budget for twenty five. You can add more to that. You can take it away. And what I'm just trying to figure out my mind is that this board needs to have someone that can take the ball and run with it when an idea is being worked on. And that was what Paco did till he left. And, you know, and then we brought Rick in and it's the consulting side of things. I'm just wanting to see something in there that if we did research a CAD system, that there'd be someone that could spearhead that enough money to fund them. That was part of my concern. My other concern is I think we really have to come up with a better definition or define in a better way what our role is. I don't want to go to the governor's end of it. I want to go to, you know, what are we trying to accomplish? And the executive director can be a great administrative person. But if they don't have any subject matter expertise, we're all kind of floundering. And to some extent, there's not a lot of real subject matter expertise, current subject matter expertise on the board itself. So maybe we should be looking. And I would say that this year is just too premature to do it. But at some point in the future, maybe what we need to have is the project manager that's on an executive director. But this is someone that has expertise. And it's extremely difficult to find someone with expertise in fire and police. It, you know, it ends up being a very unusual project to try to accomplish. But but anyway, I would say I would go along with taking the executive director out this year. So as long as that 35,000, I just want a few who had an earmark for something specific. So that's up in the air for what we need it for, the 35,000. And you may choose to increase it. Any of these numbers can be changed. And now is the time to start trying to do that. I just want to make sure it wasn't already earmarked for something. So there is some money in there for as needed ad hoc management is what I'm getting at. Yes, and I really would like to plant the seed of trying to figure out how we can get this authority, this board, not necessarily with people, but with the whole idea of the regional approach to it. We need some expertise that can guide where we're going in concert with with the public safety officials that we have right now, somehow they need to get on the board in my estimation. But that's a different subject. OK, Mel, your hand went back up. And then it went back down. OK, I wasn't sure if it was just hard. OK, so the motion before us is to remove the executive director related expenses out of the budget. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. And Kim. Opposed. You're opposed. OK, so we're going to do a roll call. And because we need four votes in order for to be a majority quorum, then I will have to vote. Doug, is your hand up for something? No, OK, so I'm going to do a roll call. Doug. Yes or no. Yes. OK, Jim. Yes. Mel. Yes. And Kim. No. And I'll vote yes. All right, so the motion passes. Now, in doing that, do you feel the need to increase the amount under Project Manager? It's got thirty five thousand there now. Given some of the things that Jim's talked about would be more comfortable to make it 50. Then you could do two things, more than one thing. If not, we'll just leave it. That's fine. Seeing that we we don't even have anything on the table right now that we want to use it for. I think thirty five thousand might be enough. We may find that we cut ourselves short, but we may also end up at the end of the year and still have thirty five thousand because we couldn't agree on what to hire someone to do. Right. And again, we will do some tweaking of this budget as we meet with people between now and our annual meeting December 19th, as well as the meetings in January prior to submitting our ballot. OK, ballot items to the city. All right. So I'm going to close the discussion of the three year budget and go into the discussion of the March two thousand twenty three town meeting ballot request. And that's just to remind us of what we're asking. We'll be asking the cities to go on their ballot items. I'm just going to do a little mathematical things here real quick so I can give you a number of what that would be. We're going to take out so that brings us. So we have two, oh, oh, oh, oh, minus seven, five, four, four. Oh, my little hand calculator is not working. I apologize. I'm getting like one, twelve, four, five, six. I'm going to maybe somebody else has a better calculator. Mine is just not working. May I do it by hand? Maybe that's the way to do it. Are there formula plugged into the spreadsheet? Well, yeah, it will probably be, you know. Well, the formulas that I have, I don't have that up on my computer. OK, but at this point, I what I'll do is I'll be leaving this meeting and I'll be before the annual meeting, I'll be sending out a draft item of what the ballots would look like. But we'll make that request that will be minus the seventy five some thousand that we're taking out. OK, OK. I just some of these numbers don't look right. So I'm now challenging whether or not the spreadsheet was added upright. But while we remove those items, I'll redistribute the budgets and do the percentages so you'll know Berry City and Montpilier's allocation. Forty three and seventy five will be applied. OK. So under the next other business is the Department of Public Safety Dispatch Funds. You were how many received? I forwarded the report from the commissioner, Morrison, presented to the Legislative Joint Committee on Wednesday. Did you all get that able to open it? OK, so that when you look at that, particularly on the page which has the five that are funded, page two. And and you see Montpilier sitting there as in rank number five, but yet put into phase two, you can better understand it when you listen to commissioner talk about that they were really wanting to use this first phase to remove the free agencies from the state piece apps and get them into local dispatching through a regional system. And that they are understaffed and one is to sheer staff shortage. Not related to equipment, just personnel shortage that then makes everyone overloaded and working long hours. So she was really clear about that. And in her chart, she says, you know, these are the number of agencies that move and that, unfortunately, even though the city of Montpilier coalition, they have four agents, agencies that would be removed from the PSAP free service into one of these regional dispatch centers. It was it was too costly. It wouldn't fit in the amount of money that they wanted to spend in the first half. So we were the Montpilier application is still approved. She's saying it's just not now, it's later. Now, she did talk quite a bit and Doug, I know, listened to the presentation. And maybe some of you, some others, Kim did. But I what I picked up in her personal comments was that there was some discomfort with the equipment being recommended and they felt like they didn't have the expertise within the Department of Public Safety to look at an application that was so equipment driven and so they asked for some extra money from the State Joint Committee, which they were granted two hundred and sixty thousand dollars for a project manager and some technical assistance to better assess what was listed within the applications. And she said that governance was not an issue, that there were all these different models and that that really was up to the locals to define the models. So I really disagree with Stephen and Kim on that. She made clear statements. The governance structure was really about local control and the contract study status worked fine in many areas. Other areas had different kind of governance. And so I felt I heard a real comfortability with having contracts with towns to do dispatching. And that the thing that did bother me a little bit was I also heard that. She she had not heard any statewide cry for statewide equity because some of the members of the committee compared this grant system for this regional dispatch centers like regional schools. And there should be equity what's given to each center. And she felt that they were being driven by what people asked for, such as if you look at that chart, Rutland is a very small amount and they couldn't figure out why they would ask for so little. They're they're absorbing 32 agencies that now the state does for free. And they have a relatively small amount. And she admitted that she didn't really know the content or why. That's what they asked for. And so she was trusting them. And like Colchester, ultimately, they reduce Colchester. And I guess Colchester can decide whether they so far they've given the nod that will work for them. But any one of these top five has to implement this within 12 months. And if they can't do that, then whatever amount that has been allotted to them will fall to those below the red line. Those that were placed in the sixth or below priorities. And so that's helpful to know, too, that they realize that they're asking these top five to implement everything within 12 months. And if they can't, then they will try to move on so another place can have an opportunity to start forming. Doug, do you want to make any comments on what you heard from Morris? So sorry, I caught you when you got you were gone. No, it's perfectly OK. I think you covered it very well. OK. Kim, you have your hand up. Yeah, I. Think what the commissioner was saying is she doesn't care. What the government's model is that there has to be one. She didn't backtrack from the RFP requirement. That there be contracts with all the towns, not just for dispatching, but who's going to own the system and maintain it and how's how's it going to run? That's that's in the brand. That can be done through a public safety authority. It can be done through the way Chittenden does it with multiple contracts in many towns. And it can be done that way. And Shelburne does it with specific contracts with towns. For dispatching and they have sort of an agreement that if something goes wrong in your town with your tower, you fix it. But it's it's pretty vague. And but those all have to be written out and the grant. Was approved, conditioned on a government system being done. And I haven't heard from. Anybody locally that there is a. A government system that's being offered by either city. Or I have to say, Kim, I've heard more about governance from you than anything the commissioner said. So it's a matter of how you feel about it. There's nothing she wrote or said that interprets it the same way you do. Well, no, we often disagree. I don't think she. Backpedaled from the. Requirements that there be a. A governance thing or grant condition was approved on a governance thing. And I haven't. I don't know why nobody wants to discuss that. Well, I do know why because nobody wants to do it. But I think it has to be done. And I'd like to hear from Chief Pete and Joe Walzer, if they're still here, what they're thinking about. As far as the governance model, sir. Yes. I think that the current model right now is is working itself through through having project working groups from representatives from all the from the respective primary stakeholders through cap fire, through Barry, through MPD, and then looking at what that what that governance will be. My what has been misconstrued with with me saying CVPSA would be. I think with the governance model like this, it's more essential that folks who are on the ground and doing this stuff from a day to day basis need to make the decisions. And so when I mentioned CVPSA with all due respect, I was considering that since it's already a recognized entity by by voting law would be a restructure that would put on the subject matter experts who are doing the job day to day to to do any governance models that that may be required. But it's from from my understanding of what's going on to include our working group and making recommendations to the governor and the legislation. We're not looking to get into the weeds with a recommendation of what a governance model should look like. We're only just saying that it should just be unique to the needs of the community. At least this is my understanding of what the pulse is, but not reckon so. So I'm confused when when I hear things like the governance models affecting the grant, that's the furthest thing from the truth. It's it's it's not that it's just that more people are just more susceptible to leave that in local control. But if anything would be just to make sure that whatever the governance model is at a minimum looks at this, this and that. I don't think that we're going to recommend anything that's going to be specific in chief. OK, just a minute, Kim, Brian, I just want to clarify. You use the term project working group. You were on the actual working group for the Department of Public Safety reviewing all these applications, right? No, not for that one. I'm part of the part of the working group that's looking at what the recommendation so when the legislature allotted that money to go towards the infrastructure, they made up a working group and this working group is spearheaded by Paul White. Mandy is on there. Several other people, members from small towns, members from the from Bacop, which is where where I am. So it's a legislative working group on this project. Correct. And that's the group that I'm on. I saw it on the website and I wasn't sure if it was legislative quote appointed or DPS department appointed. So thank you. Yes, ma'am. Chief. Joe, Joe, you asked Brian and Joe, Joe, you want to say something? I want to hear from Joe. So I was part of the working group that was appointed by DPS in Captain Burnham about formulating the application for this. And one of the things that people have to understand is that there are a lot of people that were affected that had no plans at all in place, that they had no forms of governance structures at all. And that that statement was made so that people were forced to look at it and to identify which way they were going to go, either by a board oversight or by contractual. And so that's why that was stated in there so that that was not missed. And so I think people are looking at it. And I believe the commissioner actually went on record saying that a contractual end of the governance is a legitimate governance scheme. And so that's why when we when I when I was talking with Televate, Rick and Dom and and and Chief Pete. That's why we chose to go with the existing contractual agreements that were already in place historically. And so I think that's what people are missing is that we have some history getting back all the way to Chief Hoyt with the existing contracts that are in place in both Montpelier and Berry City. So I think to confuse what they're trying to guide the other services, mainly Rutland County, that really has been left in a lurch that had nothing developed. And so when just a little background on that, when they were coming to the table trying to figure out what was going on, they were actually supplied with the bylaws, the contracts and everything else from Montpelier to help them develop their own forms of governance. Yes. Thank you for thank you for clarifying that. Anything else, Joe, before I go to Doug? OK, Doug, your hands up. You're muted. It was before me. Oh, I'm sorry. He's got a harder hand to see. All right, Kim. Well, I'm just wondering. Is there anything I'm sorry, Jim, I called on Kim. It's Kim and then you. I'm sorry. Look, I've read the reaction to our grant was conditionally approved. And black letter statement is you have to meet the eligibility requirements. And the eligibility requirements are not. What you folks have been doing. You need individual contracts with each town. Not some collective contract with. You know, it's been going on in the past. As far as I'm concerned, that idea was disapproved of. And that's why we didn't get the money. I've heard nobody backtracking from that. I think you folks heard something prior to the RFPs being proposed. And I think something changed when the RFP came out. Because those are the things that Homeland Security requires in every grant is a governor's proposal. That has contractual relationships. With all the stakeholders. And we don't have that. And that's why, as far as I'm concerned, we didn't get the money. And that we won't get the money unless we do it. OK, Doug and then Jim and then Brian. If Pete, I guess I'd like to put you on the spot here and maybe even include. Chief Olsworth. Have either of you received any word from the Department of Public Safety that your application has been rejected because of a lack of. Governments. The answer to that was no, that that didn't happen. The only reason the money was quote unquote not allocated. It's not a matter of no, it's a matter of when. And we got that clarification from the commissioner. And it's basically they're looking at a strategic approach in how they're doing it. One of the things is what they did get from the Joint Fiscal Committee was authorization to go out there and get a program manager, subject matter experts. And the subject we have a significant dollar amount we're requesting. So before they're going to give us almost three million dollars, they want to make sure that what we propose to them will in fact actually work. And it's a lower dollar figure than somebody who they are well aware. If somebody like, for example, Orange County is saying, we're going to take 19 people, we only need $150,000 to do it. That doesn't pass the pass the sniff test. So and especially now that they have a new sheriff. So so it's not we weren't denied the grant. It's not a matter of specifically to quote her. It's not a matter of no it or if it's a matter of when. And so they are taking a strategic approach at how they're implementing and giving out the money. Yeah, that's what I heard, too. Thank you for clarifying that. Anything else, Doug, before I go to Jim, Ward, do you still have a question? Yeah, I'm kind of sitting here listening to this and just wondering keeps question keeps coming back. Is there anything that this body could do tonight or at any time that can have any effect positive or negative on that grant? And I don't think there is. I think we're prognosticating about what the decision makers might do. But we don't have any influence over over changing that. So I'm not really sure why we're trying to guess what they might do. Yes, that's a very good point. OK, Joe, yours is up and then Brian. So I think that that's that that's a good point, Jim, that at this point in time with the interpretation that we received directly from Commissioner Morrison that at this point in time, there's nothing that this board can do. And we would certainly and I'm not going to speak for the managers, but if we had something that the board needed to do to take action, we would definitely come forward. But at this point in time, I think with the interpretation we got from Commissioner Morrison today, I think we just let it go. Let lie, let the consultant confirm what you guys pay good money for to tell of eight to say yes. One of the things I also have to urge you is that the study that was paid for by CBPSA was second to none throughout all the applications and so is very comprehensive study that was supported by by what we have. So just, you know, there are a lot of people in throughout the state playing catch up right now that we were so far ahead that now with some outside influences, the legislatures are now saying, OK, listen, we want to make sure that the system that's proposed is solid, that is has longevity and that it will actually work as proposed. And so to be honest with you, I think that's great oversight by the state to spend that money wisely and make sure that each of the proposals that come across their their their process, it follows that level. So I'll defer to Chief Pete now. All right, Brian, you're on. Yes, ma'am. And if I may, again, like piggyback off what Joe said, just to give you an example, Mark Anderson in Wyndham County asked me just asked to see what we were submitting and I sent it to him because we have been a lot again with what Joe had put together and Dom and Rick had put together, it was being referred to as well, you should reach. Have you talked to what central Vermont's doing consecutively? And as far as Mr. Ward's question about what we can do as a body or what you can do as a body here, if anything, what they're hearing from the board is entirely different than what we've put into the grants and that increased the level of scrutiny. And in my mind, excuse me, I didn't hear from the board. I'm sorry. The board has sent support letters. I sent one to the committee on Wednesday. The board has supported. Yes, ma'am. And I apologize about that. Yes, not the but but there the interpretation that I'm understanding. And this is this is my summary conclusion is they're hearing entirely different things coming out of different voices within central Vermont and that is causing more scrutiny to us. And if I think anything, that's what probably delayed any chance of us getting this and this money initially this fast, whereas other people did. So so to me, when they're hearing the board as a whole, sending out a letter of support and they're hearing Barry and Montpelier saying this and then they see the grant proposals that we put in and then they're getting emails or phone calls or conversations saying that we should not get the grant money. They're probably going to want to wait. It makes the most sense to wait to see of a subject matter expert is going to say, yes, what they put in is going to do what they said it's going to do. Yes. I have a question. Really, I mean, we've given the update on this. There isn't any as Jim pointed out, there isn't anything else we can do at this point on the application. I don't see any reason to belabor this. We're already past our meeting time at eight thirty six. I have a simple question for Joe. OK, Kim, quick. Joe, you said you heard from Morrison today. Is that have you got anything in writing about this? Yes, Chief Pete received an email from Commissioner Morrison. I'd like to see that, please. I will send it out to the board now. OK, thank you. But I'd like to echo that it's very frustrating putting all the work into this and then turn around and know that, you know, that Madam Chair is in support and the support we've gotten from the other members and then to find out that there are individuals that are in assets saying don't find it. It's not worth it. And they've been good faith voted to to commission the study with elevate and they paid good money to do that and they turn around in the torpedo the whole action and, like I said, it's very frustrating. I put a lot of hours into this. And to be honest with you, I think it's very disjointed and that it really affects the reputation of your board. And so I'm just going to leave it at that. Look, if that's what it means, it's OK. Brian, do you really have your hand up? And then Doug had your hand up. Oh, sorry about that, ma'am. I will lower it. OK, so Doug, do you want to say one more thing? Oh, your hands up, you're muted. Yeah, it's hitting the right button. I know I'm muted. That's not. That was the thumbs up. Oh, oh, I messed up. Oh, gotcha. OK, it's obviously my mind has not paid attention to the symbols there. Thank you. All right. So thumbs up for Joe and Brian for their comments. Yes. I wanted to remind the board before we close tonight that Barry City Council has invited the Public Safety Authority Board to bring the common talk about our budget, our plans and attend the December 13th meeting. It's a Tuesday, December 13th. Montpelier has invited us to come on December 14th, Wednesday. As I find out more where we're placed on the agenda and I'll send you links if you wanted to do it remote and that the annual meeting is December 19th. Justin sat down and went through with me with a charter, getting all the dates arranged accordingly and December 19th work the best to be a bit out of the holidays, but also backed into all the other dates and all the other advertising we had to do. So the December 19th annual meeting on a Monday will all these meetings will be remote. So mark your calendars. Now, if we're having that December 19th meeting, do you still want to have the regular meeting on the 8th? I would suggest that we do that if we're fooling around with our budget. OK, so we'll still go ahead and plan the meeting on the 8th. I'll send out an agenda. All right. We only meet for five minutes, so we'll see each other very Christmas and fine. Well, and likewise, we'll have a chance maybe to talk about our meetings with the two city councils so that could be helpful. Well, all right. Meeting is adjourned. I thank everyone for being here.