 meeting given the fact that both Liz and Peter are remote. It's five o'clock. I'd like to call the select board meeting to order. Looks like we've got some guests here. We'd just like to ask the guests that when they speak, just announce who you are. And that way Sarah can get into the meeting minutes and record any kind of interaction that we have. First item on the agenda is just to amend the agenda. Sarah, do we have any other amendments other than what is sitting in front of us? Right here we're going to amend it because of the request from Andrea Meghida regarding the emergency watershed program about remediation. If the town would be interested in completing some of the lower cost remediation strategies such as debris removal. And I'm suggesting, depending on the time, if we can do an executive session with personnel matters, I can do an expectation in contracts at the end of the meeting. Okay. On your proposal and doing that for all of the other business. Okay. Can I also add maybe this is just under other business to mention that we're doing a town hall walkthrough presentation on the warning question next Tuesday. You're warning that, aren't you, Sarah? Okay. That it for amendments. Jeff, Victor, you guys have anything? Do we have a motion to accept this agenda as amended? Yes. I vote. Do we have to approve the meeting so 123-24 first? Yeah, I'll circle back to that. I got ahead of myself. Okay. Do we have a second? Better than behind. Do we have a second for the agenda? Victor, seconds that. All in favor of approving the agenda as amended? Say aye. Aye. Any who oppose? Please say nay. Approving minutes of the 123-24 special select board meeting action likely. Myself and Peter, I believe, are not able to vote on this because we didn't attend. Right. I can make the motion. Okay. Approving the minutes of the 123-24 special select board meeting. Do we have a second? Second. And all those who would like to approve the minutes as they sit, please say aye. Aye. And that's all members voting aye, Sarah. Welch Park Drive public hearing. There was a site visit at Welch Park Drive pursuant to Title 19, Chapter 7. Liz, myself, Victor, Eric, and Carl Baylin attended. I don't know what else you need as far as on the record for that, Sarah. There were no public attendees. So it says that we'll reconvene here to conduct the public hearing of accepting the 1,019 feet plus or minus of Welch Park Drive, currently a private road as a Class 3 town road. This hearing may be delayed. It's not delayed because of the site visit. And the select board is tasked with determining whether or not the public good necessity and convenience of the inhabitants of middle sex require this change per procedure specified 19 VSA subsection 711. Public and interested parties are invited to attend and participate in this public hearing with no action. Next item is accepting the Welch Park Drive as a Class 3 town road. Does anybody have any comments, questions, concerns? Mind everyone that the whole reason we are doing this is to precipitate the dissolution of Welch Park, which has been a project we've been working on for for a year. So this is this is our part of the deal. We will give up all responsibility for for water systems and other things, but we will assume a responsibility for the road, which seems like a fair trade off. We have been plowing the road anyway to get access to our fire station. So I obviously strongly recommend that we that we take this action. Any of the other board members have comments, questions, concerns? The only question that I didn't didn't quite follow was the trade off is we're going to take and make the road a Class 3 and maintain it. I understand that. But what was the trade off about the water? No response above no responsibility for that. For that right now, we have a prorated responsibility for that pumping station, the pond, the other infrastructure that has to do with Welch Park, which we don't use and don't expect to ever ever use. Well, is that is that accurate? Don't we use it to for our fire truck to fill? Didn't you say that in a private conversation here? You're talking about the potable water? What I'm concerned about is that we we discussed? Well, isn't the potable water isn't that in well over in the woods? It doesn't have anything to do with the pond, does it? No, each each lot based on the explanations I've received thus far, have their own well system. And currently the town is responsible, shared responsibility for all of the potable waters at the site, even though they're individually supplied to the buildings. And this act would essentially remove our responsibility from the potable water, but we would remain having access to the pond itself. Is that correct, Peter? Yes. And the pond, I mean, we, we get access to the pond for fire control for charging, for charging those hydrants, which are going to be now within our right of way. But we have no responsibility for the for the fire pump itself or any of the infrastructure, which has to do with the sprinkler system at the, at the, I call a telephone building. The other issue is, by giving up the potable water problem, we give up all the inspections and certifications and other things which have to be done every year, because that is technically a public water supply. And I think one other piece of the puzzle, at least as I understand it, is that part of moving towards this, you know, moving away from the partnership is currently currently right. Currently, we pay all of the bills for this and then have to go get reimbursed for the funds that we expend, which has been an ongoing issue. Some may pay on time and others may not. You've been an ongoing issue and it's also an annoyance and we don't get compensated for it. We've got, we've got plenty to do without doing that. I'm quite, quite frankly, that the town residents shouldn't be having to front the money for other entities and paying those bills up front. We shouldn't be burdened with that. So with that, if it's, if it's, well, we concluded the public hearing and now we're ready for the motion. I was just going to ask any of the guests, if anybody had any questions, comments, concerns that they wanted to bring to the board. It doesn't, it doesn't look so. So yeah, I think we're, I think we're at a point where we can discuss action. The action is just, just approving a motion to, to accept the road and then there's some work to be done. We have filings to do with the state and whatever we will get, we will get some participation from the state to help us maintain that road. It comes to class three road. Make the motion. There'll be a lot. It's a pretty short road, but every little bit else. Do we have a motion to go ahead? I was just going to say, do we have a motion to accept Welch Park Drive as a class three town road? I make the motion that we accept. I got it, Peter. I got it. You want to second? Make a motion that we, we make Welch Park Drive a class three road in the town of Middlesex. Did you, and you're good with seconding that, Peter? Sure. Thank you. You got that, Sarah? Great. Making progress on Welch Park. Next item on the agenda. Oh, sorry. Do you want to ask your question before we vote? OK. All those in favor of accepting Welch Park Drive as a class three town road, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none. The ayes have it. Yeah, that's next on the agenda. OK, so those are two separate documents, then not just one. OK. And do you need a separate motion for that? Or is that, should that be included in the other? We didn't include it. So I have here in front of me a certificate of completion and opening of a highway for public travel in regards to the Welch Park action that we just took. Everybody's approved that. I guess we can sign that here. We've got three here, Sarah. That works for you. OK. Next item on the agenda. Approving the certificate of highway mileage with Welch Park Drive added action likely. So in front of me, I have a certificate of highway mileage for year ending February 10th, 2024. It looks like we have a total of 64.89 miles with and this includes Welch Park Drive. There's a dozen show a change here, Sarah. Is that what you would expect? Yeah, what we do is we submit this to the state. And just to get this into the record, the state filled out this top part. I see this, right? But no, we don't. So even though there's no change from previous mileage, I will do that later. OK. But I just also want to say that this is the town. I think I think you all know that the state is adding new roads to the interstate where it connects with Center Road. We have to do right. So that's what that other part is there. Everybody understands that. You're cool with that, because you're going to sign off on that. Yes, it's the approaches to Route 2. Yes. Are there any other changes other than those two? I don't think so. We haven't discontinued or downgraded any roads yet. Right. OK, thank you. So do we have a motion to approve the signing of this certificate of highway mileage? Make a motion that we approve the certificate of highway mileage. Do we have a second? No. Second. OK. OK. All those in favor of the approval of the certificate of highway mileage, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Please say nay. The ayes have it. Gangs. Two for two. Sorry, Victor. I don't need the exercise, no problem. Question, yes. Now that this is not a private road, are we going to need to change that sign because it says private on it? Yeah. At the junction of two? Yep. And it's PVT on it? Yep. OK, I will get one. It's a little duct tape. Yes, green tape. Regardless, I would just say, regardless of the sign, everybody's thought that's been a town road. The ones that didn't reach. All right, moving along, we have the highway report. Updates on road conditions, action possible. We have everything running. Did what? Knock on wood. We don't have any equipment now. It's all running. It's all running. Yes, it is. Well, that's really something. It is. Yeah, looking good, as far as equipment-wise roads. Yeah, we're still rutted up and frozen, so be mindful of that until we can do something different and weather changes, but. Looked like you'd been out doing something, and I saw a portal. We're trying to, yeah. Craters were much better. Yeah, trying. And you're stocking up on inch-and-a-half stone? Yes, for mud-season. Mud-season? Yes. I figured it was a good week for it, being the weather was decent. Could everybody hear that? Stocking up on stone? Yes, inch-and-a-half clean stone, yes. And then we have a change order for the work to be done on Davey Road and Upper Sunnybrook Road for next summer that we had written up for all seasons, since they were doing the work anyway. And I don't know if you guys were able to see a copy of that. Yeah, I think everybody has a copy. I've seen it. I don't believe that this is something that we can just give to all seasons. I think it's gotta be put out to bid to take any other work through the appropriate procurement process. Okay. You know, the addition of the work, it's essentially a different project. Well, okay. That's my take on it. I don't think we're following procurement by creating additional work and just including in the previous RFP. Can I just ask a port of order clarification? Is this for the Davey Road project that was already bid? This is an extension. Yes. Why would this be next summer? Because that was supposed to be done by November of 2023. I'm very confused and I need to keep it straight in the minutes. Well, it was discovered during the... I see. During the work that was done on Upward Sunnybrook and Davey Road, it was discovered that it was needed. I see, okay. And I mean, I understand what you're saying about FEMA, but I think this came this agreement or addendum is, I think it's the normal way of doing extra work that is required or seen on any project that's already left. I think the issue that I'm looking at with this, I mean, part of it's the timeframe difference between the emergency work that's already been completed and it's not like they're there and it was found and then it was, it's just added to through a typical change order. So we're gonna be six plus months in between when they did this other work and when this would potentially take place. So for me, that's a clear separation of project. I, you know, it, don't get me wrong. I'm not, I understand where you're coming from. I'm just trying to explain. I mean, obviously I, you know, I looked at it. I think you're gonna see that I don't know is that, that whole phase is done. There's no way that they could finish it. We, and we stopped it, basically told them that come back in the summer and finish it for spring. I also think from experience that if you ask another contractor to come in and do that little bit of work, which I guess we don't care how much it costs. I mean, we're paying 25% but it would be much more money. And usually you just, you give it to the guy that's already got the contract. And that, I think that's, if it comes in that the others are that much more money. I mean, that's going through that process. I mean, these guys would be awarded, awarded to Dave. Anyway, I got to him. Yeah. I guess I don't have a whole lot to say that's my, my take on this and open it up to others to, to provide feedback. Peter. My real question and concern about this is if we're presuming that this is gonna be FEMA eligible, which I believe we would be, I just want to be sure we're following the FEMA rules. And if they require us to put it out to bed, we should put it out to bed. On the other hand, if they say it's a change to it, change to an existing project, then I could go either way on it. I mean, if we had the approval from FEMA and they said that we met their procurement guidelines, I would support that as well as long as we had their go ahead. Liz, did you have comment? Yeah, I just wanted to say my only concern with that is that the contract was, it had a specific date to it, the end of 1231, 2023. And so that's the attached thing we're looking at. Yeah. I'm sorry. Part of this would be extending the data. I mean, we need to extend the data, the contract anyway, because the work is not completed. But certainly if we accept this change order, we definitely need to extend the data to the contract. Yurena? Is this D-work or C-work? This was the original contract that we had to do for Davey Road and other Sunny Road. Was that the same D-work? That was not the same D-work. It's not the same. So this was all C-work. This was all C-work. Okay. We did the East-Helden Center Road as we made that D-work. And that was the only contract that was B-work. That was my understanding. So this is permanent work, right? This is permanent. This is C-work permanent. It is, it couldn't be wrong, but it is my understanding that Steve, didn't Steve say when we met with him that he'd passed that by FEMA or a jury and that they were okay with it? And that's, I think that's why he went. I mean, I'm not speaking for Steve, but I think that's why he went ahead and made this. Yeah, I think speaking of our FEMA project manager, there's a transition there. I think we would wanna pass that by the new, our new representative there and make sure that they're clear on that as well and have them respond through email or something giving us written approval for that. I think that's, that would be fine. Yeah. We met with him, what, Monday? Not a week ago. Steve, not the answer. Steve, and he had said that he met with a new guy or had a conversation with him. I was on the, we can ask him, we can ask Steve. Yeah, I would say just let's go back to the new representative and have them give us something saying that they approve it. And if that's the case, then I would change my stance. We'll table this for tonight then. Yeah, Peter? I was just gonna say I've been going back and forth with our new representative and my appraisal of him is he's a brand new green bean and he doesn't know where the restroom is yet, let alone how to deal with any of these problems. I mean, I was asking him for help finding someone who could potentially help us with this paperwork and take the pressure off our clerk and treasurer and he made this big deal of bucking it up the ladder and two days later he got back to me and said, FEMA didn't have anybody that they worked with, which I know for a fact is not true. And I found out later is definitely not true. So we need to be careful with him. Well, with that said, we'll have to check with, have Steve check with him? Yeah. And we'll just hold off on this until I guess the next meeting? Is that the consensus of the board? It sounds like it is. Okay, treasurer's, oh, I'm sorry. Did the highway department have any other? I think that was it. I think, yeah, I think it is. Treasurer's report, Welch Park insurance questions and how volunteer firefighters are paid. Okay, let's start with Welch Park. I have several bills here. One is for the commercial lines policy for Welch Park that begins 315. So it's for $2,323. So based on us, I mean, where do we stand as far as the association? Is that gone as of yet? Or do we have to? Dealing with the road was the first step. My understanding is we have a draft dissolution agreement which we should have to review. Not as soon as the meeting's over, but that's a good goal would be to finish this up before we need to renew that policy. Which is 315. So that would have to be. Oh. Your first reading in March. Yeah, okay. Yeah. All right. We also just received yesterday three bills from the Watershed Consulting Associates out of Burlington for the billing period that ran through from November to December 31st. And it's for a total of $791. It's for professional fees, water resource, subcontractors for a general permit for a renewal, and storm water inspection and reporting. Canning and sending me a copy of that. I believe the, oh Christ, I can't think of their name. The company that owns the telephone building has agreed to take care of that, but I'm not certain of that. And since Welch Park still existed on those dates, it may be that that's the last bill we have to pay. I don't know, but let me make sure. This sounds like it's part of the transition that, I mean, for them to go in and do this, I haven't seen bills from Watershed Consulting before. So that's why I'm a little, I don't recall ever seeing this company in the past, but I'll scan them and send them. I'm couldn't have worried more. I don't know, but I will find out, and I'll get back to you. Okay. You can just see it over to me, or? Yep. One of those two? That's great. Thank you. These are due, let's see, due date three one and three one. Okay, that's what we've got a lot of time. And then we also did receive our annual bill from the agency of natural resources for Welch Park Access Road Stormwater Operating Fee. And that's, so is that one something that we will pay? And what's the date on that? Three one. Due date three one. I think the answer is we're gonna have to pay that this year. The process as it was explained to me was that they wanna keep that as a separate, because I asked the question, I said, why isn't that just automatically included in our town overall permit? Why is it a separate thing? And they said for one year, it needs to remain a separate thing. But again, let me follow up on that also. Didn't we send in, I thought we signed some kind of paperwork not too long ago to combine them or something like that. We were gonna be combining them into one permit. Right, and they got back to us and said, we couldn't do it. Oh, okay. Anyway, that's all part of this lovely process we're going through, but we've jumped the big hurdle tonight. So. So this one should be pay. No, I'm not saying that. Please send that to me also. This one to you too. Okay. All right, that works for me. Thank you. It takes care of that one. In case you guys didn't see the note on it, the bond bank said they had requests for 35 million. So we haven't heard how they were gonna go to the state and all, but to see how that's all gonna work, but we still don't have any idea of how much we will get. So I just wanted to make sure you were up to date on that. The other thing is APA. I just wanted to give you a reminder that we have to do our annual reporting by April 1st for any money that we're allocating between April of last year and March 13th. March 31st of this current year. The Vermont League of Cities and Towns has sent out some information recommending that we obligate all of our ARPA funds before March 31st, if possible. They think we're better off trying to get this reported in this period as opposed to next period and then expend all the remaining ARPA funds as soon as possible. And that's just their recommendations. You can go on their website and read all their reasoning to it. There's, we can use the revenue for flood damage. We can just use it as services to the town. There's a lot of different ways you can report it, so. But I wanted to just put that in the back of your heads that maybe you wanna be making a decision on this sooner than later. And originally we had talked and it was approved to use as, because we were under the threshold for money, we could do it for general expenses. Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's, I mean, there is some limitations, but as long as it goes for services, I think I can't remember the actual verge now, but as long as it's a service, like our roads it could go for, it could go for mitigation, it can go for water supplies, it can go for, I mean. Yeah, I mean, one of my knee-jerk reactions is, we still have FEMA match to think about all the money that we've put into the roads and whatnot. So like, I'd need more time to think about it, but just a knee-jerk reaction that maybe that's a, we've used the ARPA money for cash flow for just that reason and maybe this is the time to say, that's what we dedicate it to. Peter, you've got your hand up and then Liz, you've got your hand up as well. The obvious is that we had that list that we generated for use at the ARPA money and before we just throw it all into the flood, we should at least look over that list and make sure that's what we want to do. So I would propose that we put that on for the next meeting possibly. Can you add that? They make sense just to throw it all into the flood stuff and have it over with, but I just wanna, I'd like to look at that list one more time before we do that is what I'm saying. They also said you can transfer it to your general fund as long as you're formally designated in a regular meeting to pay for municipal personal expenses to create a fund balance. So it sounds like we might be able to put it into a fund balance. But they are, the other thing you might wanna consider is, I mean, you're talking about a $200,000 expense for a greater, you know, if you, trying to avoid future debt service is always been one of my goals. And I think we've done well by doing that, especially looking at what the interest rates are compared to just having this money sit in a fund. So that's something you may wanna consider as well, just a parting recommendation. Spend Excavator, didn't you? Excavator, sorry, did I say great? Excavator, whatever, it's all equipment. Liz, all big, expensive things, yeah. Liz, you had your hand up. Yes, so just quickly, didn't we actually spend the ARPA money and we're talking about, at some point, getting reimbursed for it and then spending it? Right, we've borrowed the ARPA money, is what we've done to keep, instead of having to borrow the full $2 million on our line of credit, we used all of our fund balance and our ARPA fund to pay for $500,000 worth of the flood expenses. Okay, so it sounds like we will add that to the agenda of the next meeting and dig up the list of wish list items for ARPA and have that discussion. Victor? Of course. Derended, when you said that about the Excavator, does that mean that we could put that money towards the purchase of this one here, would that be down the road for next time? No, I think it, I mean, I just didn't understand which way it'd go. No, it would be for this one that you're talking about, you know, if you don't want, I know it's on the warning to have it approved, but nothing says you have to spend it or you don't even, maybe you only wanna borrow 100,000 and put 100,000 towards the lower the debt service. I'm just saying, I'd be pretty creative with this money. Yeah, I just didn't quite understand which way they're called, thank you. And the last thing was after last week's talk briefly about the fire department's pay or stipends or whatever you wanted to call it, that they are essentially, I sent out the letter to everybody, they are essentially operating under our federal ID, so they are technically employees, despite what they're not, we were told last week that they're not employees. So I just need to get it clear. I want everybody to realize they are going to be paid by a W-2 this year. And as of right now, they're gonna be paid based on the stipends that were submitted, unless you guys advise differently. And can you refresh my memory as far as how those stipends are determining? Because I did read in there that they can't be paid on an hourly basis. It's not on a full basis, but it can be for training and things like that. Hold on, Jeff, I'll get right to you here in a minute. I'd have to pull up the other stuff, this one isn't that, but... The current situation with those is it's an hourly stipend. Is that how that's set up now? It's our part thereof, it's mainly my call. Okay, so they get a base fee per call. Well, yes, it's our or part thereof, so it's not like exact our pay. Does that make sense? Okay, yeah. So once you're into the next hour, you get the next increment thereof, okay. Yeah, that was one of the things that caught my eye. I don't know if anybody else caught that. I saw that, but there was other things that led to, that you read into that, it's like, okay, that really is kind of null and void, because of the way we're set up. Right. Jeff, you had your hand up? Yeah, so I read through this stuff last night and today, and I disagree with that we're employees of the town. Number one, it was agreed on when we made this, that the members would be separate from the town. The only thing on membership-wise was the select board would approve the fire chief that we elected. As far as I know, that's gone for the last two years. I haven't heard for sure that you guys have voted on that. And the other thing too is I also, in all the references that I read, one of which being from South Carolina, which I don't know really how it applies to Vermont. I don't either, but it was sent to us from the Department of Labor. That I don't see anywhere in there if your fire departments, fire fighters are considered employees, that they don't have to be paid minimum wage. And I'm not pushing for minimum wage this year on the budget, because we didn't plan on that. It was just a suggestion that when I had a meeting with Berlin, they said, you guys should be, if you're part of the town, you should be at least getting minimum wage. So that's why I brought that up. I'm not pushing for that now, but I don't see how in the state of Vermont, you could be considered an employee and not be getting at least a minimum wage. I just, that will boggle my mind in this state, in this day and age. So it falls under the federal labor volunteer exemption and essentially that exempt public employers from paying minimum wage and overtone to individuals who qualify as volunteers, motivated to contribute services for civic, charitable, or humanitarian reasons. An individual who performs services for a public agency qualifies as a volunteer if the individual receives no compensation or has paid expenses, reasonable benefits, or a nominal fee to perform the services for which the individual volunteered for. But it says there that the firefighters and employees when they are subject to the will and control of the person or entity for whom they perform the services. Well, that's why I'm bringing it to the board because we do have, I think we need to be clear as to how, you know, have a clear understanding because they are being paid, they've always been paid a 1099 in the past because they were a separate entity. Now, a W-2 is issued for all employees and we're being told we have to issue it as a W-2. Jeff, the last time you were here and we started talking about this, you were looking at what the stipend met it out with the hours that you paid or we paid. Right, and Jared ran the numbers and it would go over well. Yeah, it would go over what our new budget would be but I don't remember what the numbers were. So once I heard it, it went over. It's like, okay, we're not pushing it for this one. And it's also, by doing W-2s, that we are then picking up the employer's portion of taxes, payroll taxes as well, which current in the past, the members were having to pay the employer's portion in the full amount. Liz, how's it going? Liz? God, I'm sorry, I'm forgetting my question. It's about the- Oh, right on COVID symptoms. I know, it's about the, oh, I know what it is. The budget that the fire department came up with that we've already approved and are presenting to the voters, is that, that was based on the regular old stipend, wasn't it? This year's stipend, 1087. Yes. So if this were something that we needed to change, we may have to do that on the floor at the town meeting because we've already come up with the number. Yeah, that's why I said we're not pushing to do it, but if we're being pushed that we're employees and I interpret, I have a different interpretation of this that we're employees and we don't have to be paid a minimum wage, but for the budget proposal for town meeting, we're not pushing for the minimum wage stipend at this point. So one of the- That's just so far away. I mean, that's like, you know, July, 2026 would be the next opportunity. Okay, I'm sorry, 2025. There's gotta be an answer to this of what's the correct way to do it. And for us to sit here and read rules and regulations and interpret them, I think it's a mistake. I think we should find out what the correct way is and whether that's from the League of Cities and Towns or whether it's from the State Department of Labor or whoever it is. If that exemption that you brought up during the applies, I think we're all set the way we are. If it doesn't, then we probably have to transition into the minimum wage. I mean, maybe we need to be W-2, but not be subject to minimum wage. I don't know the answer, but we wish you ought to be able to find out. The guidance that was included in this email specifically states that the W-2 is a requirement. It's illegal to pay the volunteers on an hourly basis. And this line item here says once a firefighter is no longer a volunteer, so this is the key, then the Fair Labor Standards Act rules on minimum wage and overtime apply. But as long as they are volunteer firefighters, those rules do not apply. That's clearly outlined in this guidance. And this came from- I think that read to us sounded like they are still volunteers, even though they get a W-2. Correct. Yeah, maybe that's the answer. I don't know. We're comfortable, that's the answer, that that's the way we should go. If we're not, we should find out. I mean, this, for me, this is the guide to me. I'm not trying to cause a problem, but I'm just saying, what are all the other fire departments doing? What's the guidance? If that's the guidance, and we can say based on this, we're saying that they're still volunteers, therefore we're not subject to minimum wage, but we do give them a W-2. We're gonna pick up half the FICA, whatever that is, 7.4%. They're also gonna be eligible for the retirement system too, right, Dorinda? No. They're not? No, you have to work at least 24 hours a week and 1,040 hours a year. Okay, good. And what about unemployment and all that? Who are we? They're, we're already paying like workers comp and all that through our passive program. Right, right. That's already being included. Right, we've been paying that. Right, so this is just, and this did come from the League of Cities and Towns and the Wage and Labor Board, and Cheryl was the one that reached out and got all this information. Does anybody else have comment on that before we move on? Okay. Rhonda, do you still have anything regarding the Treasurer's Report? Let's see, that, put it on the bank, okay. Nope, those were the only ones. Okay. So I believe all of the Board members have some email communication regarding the emergency watershed from Adrienne Megida. It looks like they're looking for some input from the Board and have a couple of clarifying questions so that they can, they're looking at some language choices. So the questions are, is it possible that the town of Middlesex would be interested in completing some of the lower cost remediation strategies such as debris removal? This could count as an in-kind contribution towards the 25% project sponsor match. And if so, the selected engineer consultant would need to prepare a plan of operations for the town to supply construction services. The second question is, they wanna confirm that this is a contract will be between the town of Middlesex and the selected engineering consultant and also between the town and the selected construction company. It's their understanding that CBRPC is helping facilitate the process but would not be handling actual grant funds. Anybody have any feedback or comments on that? Peter? Let's think until we get to the end of the flood recovery that we've already got our hands on we shouldn't be taking on any other additional expenses. And I would, I mean, in a perfect world it would be great for us to help to give rid of some of that debris. But I think we've got enough on our play right now without taking that on. That's just my feeling. My feeling. Liz, do you have any comments? Yes. Is this the same thing that Adrian has been working on? Correct. So I thought first of all it was a 75% municipal match and then we get reimbursed or is this something different related to that? That the town people, the town's covered 75% and the homeowner pays 25%. Am I talking about something different? I thought that was the watershed. Is this something different? So Liz, I think the town's gonna get reimbursed 75%. The question that you had earlier was the town is gonna have to pay for this stuff and then get reimbursed. That's one of the big issues but you'll be reimbursed at 75%. Then there's this remaining 25% that the homeowners are responsible for. And I think that what this is trying to do is cut in to that 25% match that the homeowners are responsible for. Okay, it doesn't say that though. So that's what I'd want to be clear about. And also I really am, the whole point of this rant, we have not decided that we're not gonna support this. The whole point of this rant is to prevent worse things happening. It just happened to coincide with a terrible flood and we've had to spend all our money on it. And I'm not saying that we have to do this but not doing this is gonna cause us more grief down the road because we will have more flooding. The roads will have damage, et cetera, et cetera. So I don't think we're ready to just turn in and say, no, we're not doing this. And I don't know as if that's what's on the table but Peter, you got a question and comment? Well, so as I understand this, the purpose of this is that they are afraid that a number of the homeowners who are in this situation are not gonna be able to come up with a 25%. So what they're saying is, to make these projects go forward, if the town agrees to pay some of that or all of it, that would allow these projects to go forward. And my only concern is Liz, I think it would be great if we could do it but where's a lot of money gonna come from? Oh, no, we must not gonna be taking care of us every time there's a damage. That's all I'm saying is that this could, that the whole point of this is to avoid costly or... I get it, I get it. And it's not just about our roads, it's about losing the homes, right? Like this is a much bigger problem as we know. And I don't think we've made a decision that we're just not doing this because we don't have the money right now. That's all I'm saying. I don't think that this is a matter of money. They're actually asking that the question as I read it is would the town be interested in dedicating in kind resources so the road crew going out using town equipment to clear debris. The concern that I have with that is, as much as it's gonna be useful, we've got so many other things on the plate for the town road crew that, and I excuse the way I'm gonna frame this, but it's another distraction from what we need to be doing. We have to be doing these other things and the more we overfill their plate and while it's all good and well, I support the effort, I just don't think we can do that to the road crew or to the rest of the residents and say, hey, we want you to go clean up this debris to help this issue and forget about everything else you've got to do. That's my concern. So, is there anything with that? The question is, is this something we have to decide tonight or can we wait and see how many people apply for these grants, what we're really looking at? I'm not saying necessarily that we say no, no, no now. I think maybe what we say is maybe, but if they need an answer now, my answer would be no. I don't know, but I think that they need an answer now. Did you hear that? Sarah said, she's not certain, but she feels like they do need an answer now. My understanding is that this only involves, what did they tell us, 10 people? Sarah? It was something like that. Yeah, it was only nine or 10 people that this involved and the total cost was $460,000 for the cost of the project. Well, the next piece of that that I have concerned with is let's say we had time to do a little bit. How do you pick and choose which residence projects you go and you help complete debris removal on and you're helping one, but not all of them? For me, it's like if you say yes to one, you've got to dedicate yourself to every project that gets approved. And I just, again, I think we've got too many other things on our plate. Victor? Yeah, I've talked to, Eric and I've talked about this in more specifically, which is we can't even get a handle on down at the bottom of McCulloch Hill on Great Brook where it goes underneath our bridge and supposedly, supposedly we had permission to go 200 feet either way. We don't even have an excavator to go dig that out. And I don't think that this is, if we're going to do this kind of stuff, I don't think that maybe this group has a good handle on how much time that's going to take. It's like down there, where do you put that material? How do you haul that material off? How do you do it in the wintertime? You know, and I mean, I'd love to help them all and I'd like to do the bridge down there, but right now it's not getting done. Liz, you have your hand up as well? Yeah, I just want to say back to this watershed grant. I did reach out to Sarah Waring from the USDA just to tell her the conundrum of the cost associated with it, you know, that we would be required to up front the money and whether, you know, was there any way around that? And anyway, she said, even though it says USDA, it's really not her, but that this Michael point guy that you've been working with, you know, blah, blah, blah. But then she said, we're not the only town to worry about this. And she does know of a program that I called the flood mitigation swift current, which is bedroll. Anyway, I passed that along to Adrienne and I said, this might be something to at least look into this to see what this is called flood mitigation swift current. And so this is another, and Stephanie Smith from the state hazard mitigation office is able to answer some questions about that. So Adrienne has this information because we've, she's been helpful in making this not our project per se. And, but anyway, as I said, I would be the contact from the select board on this, I went ahead and did that. So anyway, I think we're not at a point where we're, you know, probably I would agree with you, Randy, that we don't know. We don't, we can't, we can't, they're too busy. The road crews too busy. Let's just say no to that 20 helping with the 25% manage. That would be my recommendation. Okay. I want to be conscious of time. We're at six o'clock now. The question number two, you know, it would be my understanding that as town sponsor, if they did decide to move forward with this, the answer to the second question would be that they would be engaging with the town and we would be the ones having the contract with the contractor and not, and the engineering council. Does everybody, you know, agree with it there? So as far as that Sarah goes, it looks like everybody was nodding their heads. Moving on, Liz, do you want to just mention your town hall walkthrough for next Tuesday that we added to the agenda? Yep. So we are just going to have a sort of open house at six PM, I believe, to just invite the public to see the presentation that we gave at the select board meeting the other day. We'll have sort of poster board of the drawings that VIA has done and Dave, Makita will be giving tours of the building to point out the issues that the building is dealing with right now. And then there'll be time for questions and then we'll be available on town meeting day as well in the hallway with the poster board and answering questions that people may have. So it's basically just, we're going to explain if people are curious about what this question is and want to hear about it before they come to town meeting. This is an opportunity. Okay. Do you guys have the dog complaint? Yeah, I've got that next. Before I get there, Sarah, I don't see in front of us the access permit for portal road and Eric's already left the meeting. So I don't know if we want to pass over that or the rest of the board, okay, with passing over the access permit for a portal road North Branch vineyards till next meeting. Cognitive problems for that. Sarah does not think so. And Eric's not here to speak to it. Okay. And the letter from Zach, is that just the email that was sent? I think I can pull that up quickly. Can you read in the dog one while I, do you mind doing that? Nope, thank you, sorry. So we have a dog situation. I think I sent you guys the email, but it's from Heather McClay. And this is the first formal complaint I've received, although we've received a lot of rumors and conversations about these dogs at 99 French Road. We think they're at 99 French Road. They keep being aggressive and chasing after runners. And one time Cheryl was driving by and she said she saw them chewing on a deer, which is really bad. We don't know who the owners are, but we think they're coming from 99. So what I'm asking the Heather has said, I would like to log a complaint about a scary dog encounter on Sunday, January 28th. I was running on French Road around eight or eight 30. Could have been a bit earlier later. And the dog from house 99 chased me as I ran by. It was running right next to me, barking and growling in a really scary way. It was close enough to bite my hand or any other part of my body. I don't know where the property lines are, but I got to where I thought the property ended and it hesitated for a second, then continued chasing me for another 25 yards or so. As this was happening, the man who owns the dog was occasionally yelling for it to come back, but the dog completely ignored the owner. The dog was a typical dog size of white or cream colored or brown black spots. Might have been par pit bull, but I really don't know dog breed. So take that with a grain of salt. At this point, no one I know feels safe running or walking on French Road after six a.m. because this kind of encounter happens so often and it is so scary. As you know, the challenge is that French Road to Culver Hill is the flattest route around. So in the slippery winter or when recovering from illness or injuries, there are no other options if you want to go more than a mile. We would really appreciate the ability to run and walk there without getting chased. Thank you for your help on this. So I wondered if I could ask the select board for you to authorize me to send a letter on behalf of the board saying that we have received a formal dog complaint. These are, this is the procedure. Keep your dogs through strain. If we will be monitoring the situation and if we get another, and if it gets too bad, we're gonna have to have the dog owner and the animal control confiscate the dogs because I do not have a license for anybody at 99 French Road and I never have. That's my question. Dogs, dogs, dogs. Is the dog from 99 French Road? We think it is. And the guy from 99 was calling it back. But you know, you never, we don't have, I don't have a dog, I don't have a license so I don't know. I don't know where the dog owns. They could call, they should be able to contact me and say, that's not my dog. It's my neighbor's dog or it's a visiting dog or whatever, something like that. Does Erica still do anything? Yeah, she and I were, well, we're, she's, yes, she's having, she hasn't had much success. So we're hoping that maybe a select board letter would get those guys' attention and ask them for a response and what they're going to do to restrain the dogs and when they're gonna license those dogs. Does the dog actually leave their property? Apparently so, it's on French Road. I live right up around the corner and I think I know which house that is. We walk with our dog on a leash all the time and we've interacted with a dog there but it's old and it does come up and he's always yelling at it but I'm not sure it's the same critter. That's the problem. We just don't know whose dog it is. Could be Charlie's visiting from him. How the town? Yeah, I don't, I know that house too and those dogs have never been, they might have new dogs now because I don't remember them really being annoying like scary. They must have new dogs if they're chasing. Yeah, I give you, I think we should have authority to write the letter and ask them to get their dogs licensed. Get the dogs licensed and explain to them if they are chasing the animals or if they are chasing and stop doing it. Yeah, identify that it's not their dog. We'll work from there. Okay, that's it, thank you. Okay, other correspondence I have in front of me, the letter sent to the board from Zach, Zachary French, 58th Road, Middlesex Light Board members based on the advice from my attorney, I will not take the board up on its offer to have me appear before it to discuss my unknown problems with my neighbors. Should the town choose to take further action related to the letter sent from Main Street Law LLP on behalf of the town, please refer all correspondence to my attorney, Norman Blaze at 802-865-0095, 1233 Shelburne Road, Suite C4 South Burlington, Vermont, sincerely Zach French of 58th Road. That is it for correspondence. Are there any other matters that come before the board? Is that correspondence? I got that in an email. Is that the same one you got? Yes, that's the one I just read. That's the one, you sent it out? Yes. So what about the one Evelyn Prim sent out? I mean, if we're supposed to put out all the correspondence, put out all the correspondence. Yeah, that's the same yesterday, right? I think I read it yesterday, yeah. Yeah, it was yesterday. You've got it right here. It says to get your offer, do you want to get it? I've got it right here, I can just read it from here. That's fine. It's a correspondence from Evelyn French Prim. Good afternoon, middle sex elect board. I trust that you received the letter from my husband Zach French, declining the board's offer to speak at the two-six meeting regarding the continued issues with our neighbor. We both hope the town discontinues to entertain these untruthful baseless and defamatory allegations against us. As we've said before, you are welcome to visit the road anytime you'd like. All we want is to live in peace and for our neighbors to find a new hobby other than watching us through their surveillance cameras. Sincerely, Evelyn French Prim. Were there any other communications regarding this? Not that I know of. I don't, I didn't have any other. Peter has the same though. Peter? I'm sick of those people down there. And I don't know who's right and who's right. If they've hired an attorney, I think we need to spend a little of our money and hopefully it's very little and have our attorney correspond with their attorney and try and get some kind of written agreement that everybody can live with. I'm not interested. I mean, one of these days, one of these days we're gonna get a writ requiring us to show up in court. I mean, we can't just, you know, we said if these things continued, we would issue tickets. We would do this and that. I looked at those photos. It didn't look like anything to me, but you know, we've gotta resolve this. They've chosen to retain legal counsel. I think we should, this is a situation where we should use our legal counsel and believe me, I don't wanna spend a lot of money but it's worth him having a couple of conversations or a conversation with their attorney and just see if they can't work something out. That's my opinion. In regards to this communication or in regards to our attempt to ask him to come to the select board with his denial of that, I mean, what are you thinking here? Just the whole problem that obviously, you know, we've got a neighborhood dispute. We've tried to mediate it the best we could. It hasn't worked. We're not willing or at least I don't believe we're willing to issue tickets based on the information I've seen. I'm not certainly not willing to issue a ticket. I mean, drive around town after a snowstorm. There's snowballs all over the place in the road, you know, from plows and driveway plows and snow blowers and everything under the sun. They didn't look like big chunks of ice to me. Now I didn't go down there and inspect them. All I did was look at the photos. But for some reason, for some reason these people can't get along and I'm sick of it. And I think they're trying to put the town in the middle of this and I don't like it. Same. So this, I don't agree with this being a neighborhood dispute. So I can tell you there are issues outside of the town that I'm not bringing to the town. It is the town's responsibility with the roadway. I mean, there's legislation on it. You know, we've had meetings, you guys have physically come out and said, this is the road, 22 feet. I didn't realize it was that wide, but that was what you guys decided. 22 feet, you defined it, everyone agreed to it. You asked us not to put anything in it, no obstructions. Everyone agreed. Then a rock was thrown in there. Much smaller than this ice chunk that was not a snowball. Much smaller and probably the same position in the road. And then that's what triggered the legal letter. The legal letter is going out from legislation. It's the law. You can't pay subscriptions in a roadway. I just, I don't really understand why it's taking so long for there to be action and why action is not being done. Like this is a law. You know, you can see it from the, this cease and desist letter that came from the lawyer. You know, it's, we plow the road. In the video, and I can show you, I bought a magnified glass if you guys need it, if you can't zoom in on your computers, that is evidence. So I have two videos. One of him putting an ice chunk that's probably a foot tall into the roadway. I have another one with him using his hands. And then I have a video showing it on my way home. I just don't understand. Like to me, that seems intentional. If it wasn't, why wasn't it moved after it happened? It's, it's not a snowball. It's an obstruction in the roadway. You know, this isn't a hobby. We hate coming here. We don't get good results. I absolutely hate coming to you guys for help. But, but as the left board members, this is your responsibility. That's why I keep coming to you guys, asking for help. Anybody else have anything to say on this matter? With this moves? Well, I mean, I think we did give Zach an opportunity to come and explain himself as to why he had a watering can out on the road, watering the side of the road. And he did and, and about the snowball, the snow chunk. And he has, he declined. And so, you know, my recommendation is that our next step was going to be that we find him. And so we send a letter and a fine to his lawyer. I mean, if he's not going to explain it and there's evidence that he's, he's doing things in the roadway that we asked him not to do, then we just send them a fine. Any other board members? Yeah. No, I don't, you know, I don't, I'd like to resolve this, but I don't, I agree with Peter and stuff. I mean, I don't see that, you know, there was a big issue when I say that about the snowball or whatever it was. I mean, and it's not anything against either, any of these, any of you, I just don't see it. And I, you know, I mean, if happened on my road, I wouldn't worry about it. Go ahead. So you wouldn't mind obstructions being placed in the roadway that you have to travel home? Or someone placing water. No, because it's happened, I've been here 50 years and it's happened for 50 years. And no, as long as I can drive around it, I don't let it bother me. So that's not the law, like the actual law. It's not like, so, so with flood damage, I'm sure you guys are bombarded with phone calls, right? With, with the road eroding. Now, is your response to them, it's not the middle of the road, so we're not concerned? Or is that just a response to me? Because you would advise that Mead Road should be 22 feet wide. That's a one-laid road currently. So as things are being placed in the road, I don't have a second lane. You know, can I go around it, yes. Well, you said that yourself, that's what I'm drawing on, exactly what you said. Yes, I can go around it, but it's illegal. I mean, I've read the statute before. I mean, Steve probably has as well. It's in the letter from the lawyer, you know, it's illegal. So I just want a point of clarification here. The roadway versus right-of-way, and I think those terms are used interchangeably through this conversation, and I just want to be clear that the roadway was not identified as the 22 feet, it was the right-of-way at the 22 feet. And that, is that correct? That's not, that was not my understanding. So I believe Vic said the roadway was 22 feet. The right-of-way is 50 feet. 49.5 feet. Yeah, about 50 feet wide. 49.6 feet, yeah. This specific obstruction is far, likely like it's on the traveled portion of the road, and which is probably like, the traveled portion is maybe what, 12 feet wide, somewhere right there? 11 and 11, it's 22. It's not currently, though. For this road, I would plow in 22 feet. We're not currently doing that. For this roadway, without being completely obnoxious about it. Yeah, and that's not what's happening here. So you would come out and measure, it said 22 feet, keep everything out of there. Also, it was said last year, you guys were supposed to come out, have the road crew redefine grade wide in the road. Well, that had never happened. And then in July, obviously we had the flood, you guys have been busy. So it still currently has not happened. That was supposed to happen, though. But you would define it as 22 feet. What I'm talking about is not up to like the 22 feet. It's on the drivable portion that's currently there, that's one lane. Okay, I haven't seen a video, I saw a video where there was, a chunk of ice, a snowball, whatever people want to call it. I wasn't there, I don't know what it is, but the video that I saw was literally on the edge of a driveway that was being kicked. I didn't see anything placed out in the middle of the roadway. So maybe I missed the video that you sent of that. I can show you. If that's what it is, but- Like I talked to Liz last time. If that's the case, then I would absolutely support our, if it's our lawyer or us sending a letter to, with a fine attached to it, per the discussions that we've had as a board up to this point. You know, if it's moving the one video that I saw, which was like kicking a snowball and it stayed in its place at the edge of the roadway, then I don't know as if I do support that effort, but. So Peter, hold on one second. Steve's got a comment and I'll come back to you. All right, so we'd all agree that a snowball is something children throw at each other, right? Would you like me to take what's in that video and chuck it at either one of you? Sure, sure. Really? Okay, yeah. Yeah, go ahead. Noted. Peter. Hello, guys. Every time we start talking about this, we have disputes about the facts we have, you know, it sounds like deja vu all over again, groundhog day, whatever you want to call it. The French has have retained an attorney. They've told us they will not talk to us, except through the attorney. I recommend we have our attorney talk to their attorney. And if there's no satisfactory resolution to this, then we go ahead with the finding process. The finding process, and I remember we looked at this way back when, I can't remember the facts, but it's not as simple as us just finding them. We have to go through this municipal process to do it. And I don't know what that entails. We've never done it. I'm not saying we can't do it. Our attorney can take a look at it, but I'm ready to say I'm through talking about this. I mean, these folks are never going to be happy with each other. And nothing we can do is going to make them happy, as far as I can tell. So I think we turn it over to our attorney, and yes, it's going to cost us a little money, but that's what attorneys are for. And then we've taken the affirmative action that these folks are looking for, and we'll see where it goes. Okay, last comment, Shelley. It just, I didn't know, because I plowed the road too, and we're not plowing 22, but I had them take over with their tractor, because I almost went off the road because it's icy where he waters the road. So I stopped doing it with our tractor, but it's more like 12 foot. That's plowed, so it's like one lane. But what I'm seeing is by the slight force in action, this escalates every time. These two ice chunks, I drove by and were big, but this had been going on with other stuff being thrown in the middle of the road, and they're trying to just not do anything hoping it stops. So I agree with Peter. I think maybe if our attorney for the town gets involved and just say, stop, don't touch the road. Regardless of anything else going on, don't touch the road. You know what I mean? I think that's all everybody's asking, and hopefully he could get results. Well, we did do that. And it didn't work. Right. So what, my question to you is, and it sounds like I've been taunted for being a guy, I'm not against anything. But basically, what do you want us to do? What, Samantha, if you were in our shoes, what would you suggest we do? Honestly, so I mean, I would suggest that you do what you say you're going to. The last leg we're meeting, you said if he didn't come in, you were gonna give him a fine. In August 2022, you said you were gonna put a bridge out sign on the end of the road, on Mead Road. I followed up with you a couple of times that just never happened. So I feel like I keep coming to you guys and I'm getting no results. So if, yeah, you asked him a couple of times to stop, I have brought you enough evidence to show that's not happening. So, I mean, you guys have resources. You have the Vermont Leagues of Cities and Towns. You have other towns you can contact. You have a town lawyer. You know, I know you keep saying that you don't know what to do. You haven't experienced this, but it's happening. I have the evidence. You know, I'm coming to you and I feel like you should be taking steps to figure out. Like I've brought like legislation to you. You know, I've talked to police. Like I've done all my homework to figure out that this is something you guys need to handle. You know, and it's been over a year. So I understand not knowing initially how to handle it and what to do. But I mean, I feel like there needs to be some accountability here. You know, like, yeah, you say it's never going to stop, but yeah, if you keep allowing it, of course it's not going to stop, you know? Okay. Got it. Make a motion that somebody here approaches our lawyer to get a hold of, you have a lawyer too that we can get a hold of? No. You don't have a lawyer on retain. We're just going to talk about it. Not for town issues, no. There are other issues here besides that. Yes, I have a lawyer for separate personal issues, yes. Okay. That doesn't enter into any of this. There's nothing, this doesn't sway your thinking or anything towards this. No, everything I'm coming to you, I mean, you can go through, I have a ton of notes if you want me to really, you know, read what I've come to you on. I know, I know. It's all been regarding the roadway. Right. You know, yes, I've mentioned there have been personal issues, you know, but that's, you want to know the whole story. I'm not giving you the whole story, you know, but I am mentioning there is other personal issues and I feel like, you know, this is a way that I'm being harassed, that's my opinion, you know, but the facts of the matter is we have policies, we have laws and they're being broken, you know, I have the evidence that that's the facts and I'm trying to come to you with only what pertains to you as select board members or the road commissioner. And, you know, and I'll do respect. I mean, there's been more than one select board member that say, you know, you see the evidence, but... Yeah, and I don't... Even if I said he doesn't see it, I think... So I'm just gonna bring this to this item to close and if somebody wants to take action at this point, I would suggest that they make a motion and other than that, I would suggest that we just, we move on from this. We were taking our legal counsel to contact the Frenchies and also deal with, deal with all the neighbors in an effort to resolve this, whether they were represented by legal counsel or not. If he makes an agreement and then he violates the agreement, then we should find them, but let our attorney deal with it, not us. We've proven that we're unable to deal with this. We've tried to deal with it in good faith, we've tried to deal with it, but it's not working. And I understand the frustration. Do you have a second floor? I have a second. Jeff seconds, Sarah. And this is basically to our legal counsel contacts, the French legal counsel, correct? Yes. Okay. All those in favor of motion as presented, do you say aye? Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. That's an aye for you, Liz. That's unanimous, Sarah. Okay, great. Okay, at this point, there's been a proposed executive session. I have this citation. Yeah, Sarah's gonna give me the citation so I can actually. Okay. The citation is one VSA 313 executive session, one after making a specific fine that premature general public knowledge would clearly place the public body or a person involved in a substantial disadvantage having to do with contracts, labor relations, agreements with employees, arbitration, mediation, grievances. I'm gonna say that we need to discuss the contract that we have with our current FEMA coordinator. And that is section one. And I don't think it would be a disadvantage to him to have that conversation. Anybody wanna follow through with that motion? And also, you'd have to allow to read the meeting because both of us have something to say. Okay. Do we have to read out the, can we just rely on what you read? Yeah. Okay. Anybody willing to make a motion to enter into the executive session per Sarah's instruction? Make a motion that we enter into the executive session per Sarah's. You're willing to include your written name? She said. You're willing to include Dorenda and Sarah? I am willing to include Dorenda and Sarah because it's been requested. And do we have a second for that? Liz, Sarah? Okay. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Are any opposed? No opposed.