 for those who aren't aware, won't be here tonight. It's having a health emergency in his family. So I will, since as Sumitra, we do have a quorum. I will call the joint meeting, this joint meeting of the Essex Select Board to order. I will go ahead and call the meeting for the Village Board of Trustees from Monday, January 24th to order. Great, thank you, Andrew. Let me get my packet up. Okay, staff, do we have any agenda changes or let's see, any additions tonight? I'll take it from staff. Okay, great. Select Board, any agenda additions or changes? There was one that was referenced, possibly moving 5D below the reading file so that if the trustees could wrap up at that point, they don't have to stay on for that additional item. That's right, Sue. Thank you very much for the reminder. Did see that email earlier today. So if you would like to make the motion, we can absolutely do that. We'll be moving business item 5D down towards the end of the session after the, excuse me, immediately following the reading file just to make sure that the trustees can get out of here in time. So moved. Yeah, I'll make the motion that we move agenda item 5D below agenda item seven. Great, thank you, Sue. Second? Second. Thank you, Tracy. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. All right, great. We are all set there, Andrew. Trustees, I would entertain a similar motion. So moved. Thank you, George. Can I get a second? Second. Thank you, Amber. Any further discussion on that motion? No, I just want to say thank you for being so considerate. Thank you, Sue, and select board. All those in favor of the motion, be signified by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Anybody oppose? Great, that's Nancy. Thank you. Okay, awesome. So apologies had a little bit of a short amount of time to go over running the meeting tonight and it's also in the middle of a busy work shift. So Andrew and I did touch base very briefly. So I will run the first two sections of this meeting and then Andrew will take over for the third business item. Now we've approved the agenda though. We will hear from public to be heard. If you have anything that you would like to bring to the attention of the select board or the trustees that is not on the agenda tonight, you may raise your hand and we will call on you as they come in. Friendly reminder, as Andrew mentioned, please keep yourself on mute and your camera off until it's time to speak. We ask that everyone be kind, refrain from any foul language. And we ask that you refrain from attacking staff. Please direct all of your attention to either myself filling in as chair tonight or to Andrew Brown. That said, I will open it up to the public. Betsy Dunn, please go ahead. Thank you, Andrew. I would like to thank the select board members for voting to allow the extra three position, well, the extra two positions on the conservation and trails committee and for accepting the three candidates who were up for office for members of the committee. Thank you very much. Great, thank you, Betsy. Anyone else like to speak? Okay, I'm not seeing anyone. Greg, I don't know. You're very small for me today for some reason. Is there anyone in the room? I can't make out anybody there except for you. Oh, it's just me that. Okay, great. Well, then I only need to ask that question once. Go first. Ms. Render, did you have something you wanted to say? No, thank you. Okay. All right, then we will move on to the business items. First item five a discussion and potential action on tentative agreements about shared services between the town of Essex and the village slash city of Essex Junction. Now to kind of set the base for this while the select board was due to review these at our last meeting during executive session, we ran long. So we have not had a chance to review these as a full board together yet. That being the case, it's been the practice of the select board to typically talk amongst ourselves and to kind of review these before we bring them before the joint boards. We do have a possible work around that I would consider, though admittedly it will probably take a bit of people's times. So just putting it out there and then we can open the floor to talk more about it as needed. But we could theoretically recess the meeting and go into executive session, the select board to talk over these since we did not have time to do so last meeting. It required the indulgence of the trustees to give us 30 minutes to an hour. It would be my guess to go over these. You know, it's just, it was trying to come up different ways that we could conceivably tackle this without needing to push it off for another month basically before our next joint meeting. But obviously, people don't feel comfortable with that, then they wanna know. So I'd like to hear from the trustees and the select board both about possible opportunity for that. Otherwise, I'm afraid we might need to just move on from this agenda session until we can meet as a select board in executive session. Thoughts, Andrew? Yeah, thanks, Patrick. I'm totally fine if the select board feels that you need to take some time in executive session to talk about it. We can absolutely recess as a board of trustees for a certain period of time. My request would be though that we just keep it to that time so that way it doesn't go longer than necessary. I would also offer if the select board has questions and you'd like to hear our thoughts on some of these things beforehand, happy to have some initial conversation. And then if you all want to meet privately, that's your choice. Okay, select board. Thoughts, questions, again, apologies. This is very last minute. I know just trying to think of some way that we could consider moving on this tonight. So I don't wanna do anything that anyone's uncomfortable with, but I didn't wanna present it as an option. Don? Patrick, I'd like to hear what they're looking for and then maybe after we can go into executive session because we have a very large audience this evening. So it's not really fair to ask them to wait another hour. But I would like to hear what the trustees are looking for. Okay, great. Thank you, Don. Any other thoughts from the select board? Yeah. Sorry, I raised my hand, I thought. Oh, sorry. I can't see it. No trouble. It's your background, my bad Sue. No trouble. I was thinking we could set a specific time to go into executive session and start with one of the agreements. And if we only get through one of them and then we can go back and talk about that. I think we set a specific boundary and then whatever we're prepared to talk about, we're prepared to talk about and the others we may need to push out. But rather than kind of making it unbounded, I think that that's a reasonable approach. Okay, great. Tracy, your thoughts come from a level? I did ask some questions on a last meeting agenda that this was on. And there are some questions that I would like to ask in executive session, specifically to Bill and staff. With that said, I'm fine with also hearing sort of rationale overview. I have the trustees walk us through it. And then possibly even if we could just go into executive session, just throw that all at the end so that we're not going in coming back out, going in coming back out. I think that's more confusing for the public than it is just to save it till the end. Okay. All right, so what I'm hearing is some discussion in questions first that the select board members may have. And then if the trustees and I don't know, I don't see Brad, but if he's willing to answer them as we go, then we could take some time. And then if we run out of questions, we'll check in with the select board and see if we wanna adjourn at that point. But let's get the discussions out of the way first. Patrick, along the lines, if I can interrupt real quick. Yeah, please. I wonder if it would make more sense if what we do is maybe move this agenda item for after we talk about item C. So then that way, what could happen then is we could discuss it and then you guys can go into executive session. Instead of we talk about it, we then handle other business items. Then you all go into executive session a little later on. Just in terms of if memory is maybe shorter, that may be an easier flow for the conversation. Okay. I think the concern would be if we go into executive session later, then if we have something that comes from that, we might not be able to bring it back if we've already adjourned and you guys are on your way. But I think let's start with the questions that the select board members certainly have and then we'll proceed from there. Don't want to call on anyone specifically first, but Tracy did mention that you had some. Would you like to start us off and then measure how best to handle the answering? Andrew, do you and Brad want to take them or should I just leave it open as a round table and call on people? I think between Brad and I, we can probably figure it out. But if not, certainly, I would encourage others to jump in. Okay, great. Do you want me to just start right with the clerk-treasurer? Yeah, we might as well just get right into it at the start. That'd be great. Thank you, Tracy. Okay, yeah. I mean, for clerk-treasurer, immediately my reaction is that the five years seems a little bit too long. So I'm curious about the rationale behind that timeframe. That was offering a starting place. I just have to start with the number. Okay, and also, let's see here, I wanted to save that one. I guess, Patrick, do you want me to still continue or do we just want to go through each one individually? Honestly, I'm okay if you want to go through the full slate of them now. I think we're being more casual about talking. It was certainly not going to vote on any solid agreements tonight, but since we do get together as a board, we might as well toss all of our questions out there at once and then we'll get together later. And this way, at least any of the obvious questions we have can get answered right now. We don't have to worry about miscommunication later. Okay, so moving on to shared financial services, I'm in number three. I'm curious if vendors can bill the two entities separate for the cost of licensing and say essentially will be two separate departments just working together. I'll pause there. I can take that, Andrew, if you want. Yeah, that's a great point, Tracy. I think the finance, I think the important piece here is that we kind of leave it up to the finance directors. It gets, so yes, I think the finance directors would request that if possible. And when they can't parse those things out, what this kind of is talking about is that there are just a lot of different ways to break those costs down. Sometimes it's by the number of users. So it's really easy to separate. Sometimes it's by the number of invoices or copies. And so using some of the metrics we've used in other agreements like the 42 58 split or 50 50 just doesn't make sense as a whole for these. But yes, I think what this is getting at is that if the finance directors can do that, they would. And also in number three, was any thought given to whether the town could be provided reimbursement for outside consulting costs? Thinking specifically about Sarah Macy with all of her historical knowledge, if we do need to consult for specific services, if that would be, the trustees would be amenable to that being a billback, or if that would be included in the language that's already there, if that's the intent. Is that included in the professional service fees just in the examples section? Yeah, I just wanted to make sure that that was the idea there. Also curious about a set timeframe. Right now it's determination is very open-ended from how I read it. Wondering if a set timeframe with an option to extend. Obviously at the request or direction at both finance directors, if that would be appropriate or agreeable. Just the current, I think the current goal or the way it's set up is to be separate by June 30, 2025. But if you're looking, I think there's flexibility there if you have other suggestions of how to approach that. Yeah, and the last question I had on that in number six, essentially we're saying that both board 100% need to agree to terminate the agreement. I think in other agreements, we've sort of said that can be extended by either party or essentially we're beholden ourselves to we both have to agree to exit the agreement. I don't think either one of us is gonna do so against the advice of our finance staff, management staff. So I was curious about the rationale behind that. Yeah, I mean, I think the challenge or the difference of finance is that it kind of has to be this way in terms of working together to untangle things, there's not really another path forward. And the intent here in terms of this termination is that one board can't all of a sudden stop things while they're midstream of disentangling that this is a process that everybody needs to agree we're gonna enter into and we're committed to it until we actually can be successfully separate. So I guess that's kind of the rationale behind it. And my last question, in the recreation, et cetera, agreement number three, just wanna clarify that the space at two Lincoln is being provided until, like while city residents would still be town taxes, how it reads is that the space will be provided after city residents no longer pay town taxes. So I just wanna make sure that timeframe until that happens that it seems like the last sentence should be split into two in order to clarify that to Lincoln will be the home. Does that make sense? I see Sue nodding. So I don't think I'm the only one that was read that little wonky. Yeah, I had the same, I made the same note that that should be it was kind of like an add-on that didn't belong. It was like it's a separate thought or separate point. So you're suggesting that the portion after, and so the and shall provide space if that be its own sentence? Correct. Yeah, the intention is to, yes, that sounds fine. Great, awesome. Thank you, Tracy, for the questions. Dawn, Sue, did you have any general questions that you'd like to ask of the trustees while we have them and Brad here before we decide if we wanna break now or fold it into later tonight? Tracy had my questions covered, so I'm good. Yeah, and I don't think I have any additional questions. I do think there's some conversations that will maybe flesh out some of the uncertainty that I have. So I think if we can have a discussion that would be helpful. Okay. Yeah, I think the same thing. I don't have any specific questions, but I do have some things I'd like to discuss with the rest of the select board. So it's 6.52 right now. I'd like to make the proposal that we, for the sake of time and expediency, we can go into executive session for half one half hour, 30 minutes from now, we'll come back. That way we know we're not gonna extend through the night and the select board can get through what we get through. And then we can move on with this process, hopefully take a look at something in a more substantial way tonight. Actually, do we wanna hear from the public before we do this? It's what I was just thinking about. So yeah, let's, if we're otherwise done here, except for that, let's go ahead and open it to the public. Again, I love to hear feedback and I appreciate everyone's flexibility on a little bit of an unusual night tonight. Members of the public, I see Betsy, your hand up. Go ahead. Okay, thank you very much. You know, all of these MOUs that we're doing with them were shared agreements. Where is the separation really happened? It makes no sense to me, especially since when they had the vote, they had an advisory statement saying that we advise that the new charter shall not have any union municipal districts, inter-local contracts, special districts, or other relationships with the town of Essex for provision of village services. Only exception, maybe the police services. So why are we doing this? The people of Essex of the village, when they voted for this, this was their advisory. So they thought they were gonna be separated. We, I don't feel like we're being separated at all. This makes no sense to me. And why are we paying for their finance director? Okay, thank you, Betsy. Anyone else? Okay. Not seeing any hands. We know we don't have anyone in the room. So... There are two people in the room now. Oh, okay, great. If there's anyone in the room at 81 Main, if they'd like to speak. Looks like no. Okay. Very good. Then I will entertain a motion for us to, for the select board to enter into... Real quick, Patrick. Real quick before you jump in. Mm-hmm. One thing I just wanted to make clear that wasn't in the memo is before you all go into that conversation. I really wanted to just highlight the point that with the clerk-treasurer agreement and the finance agreement, that the intent behind these two are really to memorialize the current practice and that these two really should be memorialized regardless of what happened to separation. So the intent would be to also pull those two out from the overarching MOU and to really have these just be, they're two separate own unique agreements because as we've, while they have their own provisions for separation, regardless of what happens to separation, this is what's currently occurring that would help to ensure that it's what continues to happen up until separation. Okay. Thank you for the clarification, Andrew. Patrick, Sue Cook has her hand up. I'm sorry to jump in. No, not at all. Yeah, Sue, please feel free to talk. I'm not sure what it is, but on my screen, your hand and the background of your wall are basically- It's similar in color. Yeah, exactly. Just a thought if you bring up the participant list, you can see easily who has their hand up. Thank you. But I only had my hand up because I have the motion in front of me. So if you want, I can get the motion. You are great. Thank you, Sue. And I just want to check who is joining us in executive session. In executive session, we should have both the deputy manager and the manager named, and is Bill here tonight online? I don't see his name. He's not here. You could also include Marguerite Ladd as assistant manager. Okay, great. So did you get that, Sue? I did. Greg, Marguerite, and Evan. And we're not going to bring Bill in. He's not here. Can he be made available, Greg? I can reach out to him. I can't promise anything. Okay. Sue, if you would include him, and we'll try to reach out to him that way if we have any legalese questions. And again, for the sake of just trying to make it quick, we'll adjourn for 30 minutes, returning at 33. So returning at 7.30 p.m. Okay. I'll read them quick. I move that the select board make the specific finding that general public knowledge of contracts would place the town at a substantial disadvantage. I move, oh, thank you. I move that the select board enter into executive session and include the town manager, deputy town manager, assistant town manager, and town attorney to discuss contracts pursuant to one VSA 313A1A. Great. Thank you, Sue. Do I hear a second? I'll second, but do we have to vote on those individually? Yes. Yes, typically we do. Okay. So, Sue, as to Trisha pointed out correctly, and my apologies again for not catching it. So we'll vote on the first motion. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All those against, nay. Okay. And for the second motion, all those in favor, aye. Aye. Aye. And opposed. Okay, great. Then we will adjourn for a 30 minute executive session, meeting back at 7.30. I'm realizing the logistics of doing this on Zoom may be a little tricky. Would it be easiest, Greg, to set up a quick teams meeting and send that out for people to join, or do we have the ability to do a second Zoom session? There is a Zoom second session set up. If you don't have the link, I can email you the link or instead of a team meeting, so your preference. Okay. Yeah, if you want to send out the link to the second Zoom, I think that would be great. Stick with one platform tonight. So we don't have to confuse things on everyone's computer. We'll do an Andrew, if you're all right, I'm gonna try to transfer the host capabilities to use that I can leave this meeting. Enjoy that. That sounds good. Thank you. Yeah. All right, great. Select Board, it will see you in executive session to the public. I thank you for your patience and we will see you at 7.30. Can we get a new link too? So going to be, you stay here, they're going elsewhere and they'll come back when they're done. Okay, thank you. Trustees, so you all, we'll all just take a recess. Betsy, could you meet yourself please? Thank you. We're just going to take a recess until 7.30. Feel free to go do what you gotta do and see you in a half hour. I think I'm still waiting. I'm here, Patrick. Sue. Awesome. I see Tracy and I see Dawn's name. I'm here. Perfect. I'll go ahead and call the trustees back into session. Great. And I'll call the select board back into session. Thank you very much once again. So I guess I'll start Andrew. We did go through the, we had time to get through the first agreement regarding the clerk. I think the general thought and biggest point that I want to touch on is certainly the, is the length of time in the agreement. We're not comfortable necessarily with the five year time frame for that. Our thought was that preference, and this is owing to a couple of different situations. First is that right at present are the clerk's office. Is down an employee. So we don't have necessarily two. So we may need to work out some language as we're trying to hire since it's specific to two town employees. But we're also looking at more of a length to end with the end of fiscal year 2023. Am I remembering that or excuse me? No, ending in 2023, roughly 18 months. Just gives us as a select board, I should say a chance to gather some more, more information as far as the workload of the town clerk office versus a city clerk office, what that might look like, how much of their business is town related, how much of it would be city related. So there's a few questions that were outstanding, but we were comfortable coming to that with the contract effectively as it is, but with a different date. Is that length of time something the trustees would consider? I just want to make sure I'm understanding. So in the second whereas, for instance, whereas if it's saying four or five years, it would say four until the end of calendar year 2023. Excuse me. We wanted to align it with the end of next year's fiscal year. So that would be July 1, 2023. Okay, we're just looking through the rest of it. So then also at the termination in number four, having it say that same thing there. Yes, correct. Yep. And then I think we would also need to look at the change to the number of employees rather than specifying the two again, just because we don't have to maybe having it or stating it to say adequate coverage, adequate employment levels, certainly open to suggestions on the language. You can point to where that is. Yes, let me. It is in number two, the first sentence, the villager employee, one employee, and the town shell employee, two employees. It's also in the fourth whereas. Yeah, thank you, Sue. So instead of saying the town shell employee two, the town shell employee adequate or something like that? Provide adequate, yeah, adequate number, adequate coverage, again, I'm spitting out words. Appropriate staffing. The town shell employee, the other members or the other employees of the clerk treasurer's office. I see you first stand up. Yeah, just real quick. The intent of this also just wasn't to tell you how many people you need to employ. So please, I didn't say that before. Please note that that is never the intent is for us to tell you how many people you all must employ. Right, yeah, no, we just wanted to make sure that we're not setting up a contract that requires two employees when we only have one right now. Not find ourselves immediately in breach. Yeah, sorry about that. So Amber, please. Just wanted to go back to the term conversation because maybe I'm even misunderstanding, but the proposal right now as written is that the agreement goes until the end of the fiscal year following the establishment of the city or five years thereafter. So I think it corrects me if I'm wrong, but isn't the select board just proposing that we eliminate the five year piece and just stopping it at the original proposal of the end of the fiscal year? Is that correct? I think that's basically correct. The one presumption that I certainly did not want to make was following the establishment of the city of Essex Junction or in our case, that would be until July 1, 2023. If we just ended it at the establishment of the city, then obviously if for some reason, the legislature needs to take a couple of years or if they deny it for some reason, this is still in effect until the 18 months roughly is complete with the idea that at that point in the future, the sitting select board is going to be able to take a look at this, decide adequate staffing levels and the new present where there's a town manager where there is a village slash city manager regardless of what happened to separation and the amount of workload coming through the clerk's department at that point. I'm not comfortable sort of setting that right now and not extended out for five years, but the select board as a whole was amenable to looking at something that was shorter in term so that we could provide effectively an ability to revisit the contract towards the end of 2023 when we see what it looks like. You just made a comment about revisiting. I don't think that language is in here right now though, unless. No, it's not. Yeah, I was not specific about that, but obviously the two boards would need to get together and decide if they're going to continue with this, if they want to separate out the clerk's offices completely at that point, I mean, whatever the future holds, it's just the period, the length of time was really the primary, I think, sticking point. So yes, we would have to include language as well around renegotiating if we want to put it in there, I think it becomes pretty obvious, the boards would have to do something at some point before the end of that, but to have wording in there, I think would be amenable. Tracy, I saw your hand. Yeah, there is, Amber, I didn't know if you were looking for something more specific than just the amendment language that exists in there, do you want language that specifically says we must revisit it? I don't think he's necessarily talking about an amendment, it's basically an extension. So like, I don't know, I mean, I'm fine with either. You know, to me, the wording on it just seemed pretty final and I'm okay with that, I just want to make sure that the select board's okay with the final of this is going to end, and then any extension in the future has to be mutually agreed upon between both parties, and so there is a potential that there might not be an agreement, and then it will end, because that's the way it's currently written. So, understood. You also stick your hand up. Yeah, yeah, I'll raise my hand in addition to the little thing because you can't see it. So I think Patrick, you kind of said this, but this is one of the agreements that regardless of whether there's a separation or not, right? We want to put in place. So I think that it does need to be clearly referenced that the terms are through the end of fiscal year 23 and not just the reference to the end of the fiscal year following the establishment of the city because that's making an assumption there. So, yeah, and I think if it makes, I'm agreeable to if it makes sense to add language and to say that this contract can be, that there's opportunity to discuss it for extension if that is, you know, Amber having her legal background would probably have a better feel for what is possible based on the language in the year, so. Great, thank you, Sue. Yeah. Right, Andrew, I think you've heard what we talked about. I don't know how you guys are feeling about that, but if you're okay with it, then I think we would be okay. You know, just having the language get revised and then we presented to us all and we could check this off a list. What's that happens, Sue? Yeah, sorry, there was under item number 10 as well. There's a reference to should the village of Essex Junction become the city of Essex Junction at any time prior to the expiration of this agreement? This agreement shall remain in effect between the city of Essex Junction and town of Essex, which totally made sense if the agreement was five years, but if it's only through the end of fiscal year 23, does that need to need to be modified in some way? That's probably a good question for Claudine. I'm assuming yes, though. I'm not an attorney. I think it's still relevant, Andrew, because if the city goes through the legislature, the session, the city will form on July 1, 2022. So I think it is still relevant. I don't like the hand raising feature on Zoom. It doesn't, I can't raise it as fast as I can, but I agree with Brad. I think that that language is still relevant. Fine by me to keep it in. And similarly, the other post changes that you mentioned are all fine by me. I would look to other trustees, though, if you disagree. No, I'm good. Okay. Great. Again, we made some progress, which is good. If it would have been tricky, and again, I kind of hated the idea of putting aside this entire thing. So thank you once again for giving us the time to get through it and we'll move on since we do have other agenda items. Appreciate the select points continued participation. Next, consider approval of the upcoming joint meeting schedule. Greg, do you have the ability to bring that up? I do, just to figure out how I do that. No problem, take your time. We can start talking, certainly. I think it was in the packet and we saw the proposed meeting schedule. Andy had emailed a few points before this meeting tonight. One of them I did think was very relevant. I wanted to get staff info about was two of the proposed dates were immediately following Christmas and Thanksgiving. I believe there was only about one day a difference in the proposed schedule. I will not be here for that. So if you guys want to work on those weeks then more power to you. But given the fact that I think a lot of people take vacations or out of state around that time of year, not sure if those would be the best dates to have those. Otherwise, I think that even though the select board and the trustees will officially sit new members and decide their meeting schedules, I think getting some tentative dates down in papers by far the best thing to do now. So if we could be looking at it at that time. Otherwise, those are the two points I had. Sue. Yeah, so just I think the point with those holiday dates that Monday, November 28th and Tuesday, December 27th is being sensitive to the town staff to be able to pull together packets for those, or I guess not just town staff, but the staff in general to be able to pull together packets because it would be, during a holiday that they'd have to be doing that. Yeah, that's a very heavy lift. Don. And his other comment was we don't set our schedule to our meeting in April. Yeah, I just mentioned that I think having, I think these dates at least marginally set, when the select board does set their meeting dates, they can take that into advisement. If these are, if we make this, I think I feel like these are all gonna be tentative meeting dates, regardless, none of us are gonna know where we are eight months from now. So Greg, I think that was a big question I'm hearing. Those dates, the ones immediately after holidays, how tough would that be for staff to get together? Or are there any objections amongst the members of the two boards for those dates if there are plans to travel, anything like that? It'd be easier to figure it out, make the decision rather to change them now instead of getting into the month of November and deciding to do it last minute. If at all possible, I'm gonna jump in for a moment then. If at all possible, I think it may be better off if we could reschedule those to the week before those holidays. Also considering the fact that the weeks they're currently scheduled, I believe are going to be school vacation weeks. So just trying to also keep that in mind as well. I would agree. So- Did we lose Greg? Oh, okay. Oh, okay. Greg, with that possible to do, make those changes. I see Evan, he has your hand up as well. Just make one, maybe leave them as TBD to be determined. We'll figure it out a couple of months. Whatever's going on 11 months from now, we could just TBD it and figure out a date at a future meeting. Just a thought. I'm in favor of TBD. Okay, I'm seeing a lot of head nods. So, Tracy? Yeah, I guess like our purview is through April. Just thinking that we could have an entirely new quorum of the select board elected in March. I don't think I'm comfortable in identifying dates for a new board. So, I'm completely fine with February and March. I will still be here in that capacity. I am fine with the rest of the dates, but I'm not comfortable in making that decision for a board who has the ability to set their own schedule. Okay. Yeah, no, I completely respect that. If we do that, then we can approve the next few dates, as you said, through March. Are there members of the select board or any concerns or problems with that? Dr. if you don't set April and the board won't be seated and you won't have an April meeting, so you should at least set a date in April and then let the next select board and the next, well, and the village board doesn't get seated until May. That's up to all of you guys. I would set at least through April. That's just my recommendation. Yeah, I mean, since the dates are tentative, I'm okay with the full year and leaving November, December TBD, but we'll need to get a motion and a vote regardless. So since Tracy mentioned that, I think it's good to just get the idea, the field of the rest of the select board as well. So that said, select board rather just coming to the chase whole year or through April, what do we feel? I agree with Tracy through April because we don't know if the rest of us will be here. Okay, good. Then sounds like that's the select board. So Andrew, are you okay with April for now? I think all of these dates are tentative and that they can be changed at any future meeting. So if you don't want to go for it, that's fine. That's Tracy. Perfect. Okay. Then Tracy, would you like to make the motion? My brain just totally zoomed out. I got it. No worries, thank you. I make the motion that we approve the proposed select board trustees meeting schedule for 2022 up to April 25th. Great, thank you, Don. Second. And thank you, Sue. All those in favor on the select board, say aye. Aye. Great, and motion passes. Andrew. Trustees, entertain a similar motion. All right, I'll make a motion that the trustees approve the proposed select board and trustee meeting schedule for 2022 to April. Thank you, Dan. Can I get a second? I'll second. Thank you, George. Any further discussion on that motion? Hearing none, all in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Anybody opposed? Hearing none, pass the unanimously. Thank you. All right, Evan and Greg have some dates. And Andrew, I believe the next part of the meeting is yours. Takes us into five C, the discussion and potential action on a request from the trustees to the select board for payment for finance director costs. So when this first discussed, this came from staff that had a different amount. Since then, we've had some data presented on actual costs and actual time spent and actual pieces of information to add to this conversation. So we've since revised the request. And just as a reminder, the request comes from the decision to no longer have shared management, no longer have shared finance. And as such, village taxpayers have already been taxed and the money has already been or will be sent to the town funds for these purposes. And so this is to reimburse the taxpayers for services that they will not be receiving. If the select board would like, I'm happy to go through the spreadsheets in any other details and then once in the memo, but otherwise that's the proposal. I'm sorry, Patrick, go ahead. No problem. I would appreciate, certainly as I have to be in depth, but just going through the numbers really quickly so that people can get a feel for where this is coming from. That would be great. Sure. Greg, do you mind putting this up on the screen? Do you have the memo Andrew or the spreadsheet? I think the spreadsheet, that's where my brain works. Thank you, Greg, I appreciate that. So what we have is a spreadsheet that came from town staff or came from our staff. In this first column where you see total cost that is during the entire fiscal year with the total cost is for the finance director. And where those sources come from, then in the column that is spent in fiscal year 22, that is how much time has been spent and thus how much salary benefits has been expended already up until I believe it was from February 7th that is a start date for the village's finance director. So then the remaining in fiscal year 22 is the difference in that math. So what was the total cost? Take away how much was spent and this is how much is budgeted to come from bills or to come from taxpayers. Next column of village taxes, that is the portion of town taxes that are paid by village residents which using the 42% of the town's grain list of village properties. So that's the math of 42% of that 32,000. Half of the finance director's time was spent towards village operations. And so that village operations column is 50% of that 13,000. The due to the village you will see is the 10,000 from the village water sewer and those should go to the village rate payers for water sewer and then the 6,800 plus. That's that portion of the village finance operations to go back to the taxpayers. And the total in the lower rate is just the addition of the 10,000 and that's 6,000. Great. Thank you, Andrew. I just wanted to kind of get the numbers and see the logic for everyone including the public and where that was coming from. Yeah. Sue, go ahead. Yeah. So I just want to make sure it's super clear. Like when we talked, I think it was December 13th, there was the agenda item about a request for $60,000. So this is totally in replacement of that. It's not in addition or that's not gonna come back, I guess is okay. And then just, I just didn't quite understand why the start date of February 7th for that chart. Yeah, thank you. And I forgot the original number was 60,000. That's why I didn't mention that. So thank you for bringing that back up. Yeah, that came from staff as an initial proposal. So the February 7th is a start date of the new village's finance director. And so at that point in time, then the services from the towns, those services would be overseen by the village's finance director. Yeah, I guess I understood the logic up to that point and then I don't understand why that's entirely relevant for the ask. Basically the former towns finance director oversaw the finances of the town and the village. As of February 7th, the town's finance director will oversee the finances of the town and the villages out the town and the village's finance director will oversee the financial operations for the village. So those village financial operations would have been overseen by the town's finance director that is no longer necessary until those services would not be provided. Okay, let me just digest why, I guess I understood the ask because I thought it was driven by the fact that Sarah Macy had left, which, let me digest, thanks. Yeah, and just happy to add on to that. It is not driven by Sarah Macy leaving, but rather that's the financial operations of our communities will be overseen by different people now. Go ahead, Tracy. Yeah, so I'm having trouble wrapping my brain around this as well. So quick question, do you currently have someone who is managing the village-only finances currently? Unless I am wrong and I would look to Evan or Brad to correct me, my understanding is that person starts on February 7th. So not until February 7th. Okay, and to bring that person up to speed, I'm assuming that Courtney or a combination of Sarah, Courtney will need to basically help out to bring that person up to speed and until they can get working in that capacity, is that correct? As far as an onboarding and training plan, it's honestly a level of logistics that I don't know. And so we need to go to Evan or Brad who will be closer to that than I. Okay, and the last question, this is the one that's kind of making my brain go a wonky, isn't, yeah, anyway, in the memo, it says, and I quote, the finance director's position, salary and benefits had no village general fund contribution, end quote. So I'm curious what we're refunding if the village wasn't contributing to that portion for the memo, that that's where my brain is just really going off the rails here. Yeah, so the village general fund would be a village only tax that would only be burdened by those village residents. The way that villagers are paying for this is through our portion of town taxes. So similar to how we get a bill from, it's not one bill, but we get a line item from the town. We get one line item from the village. The one that's being referenced is the one from the town. Okay, but those members are still members of the town and the finance director is still managing the town budget on behalf of those members of the town and that capacity. So that's the part that's kind of just not clicking for me. And so that's why, so back at that spreadsheet, the line of town taxes, that's why that total amount was reduced by 50% because according to staff, 50% of the town's finance director time was spent overseeing the village's financial operations. And so that's why it's only half of what those residents have paid. It's not the whole amount. There is a recognition that, yes, half of what should be paid should continue to be paid because we are still town residents. Is that helping or is that more confusing? It's not really helping because if there was no village-only contribution toward that position, so that negates all of that 50% that that position would be spending on village-only items. So if it's only being paid for from the town budget, regardless of the 50-50 workload, those services for the town budget seem to still be being provided. Greg, could you bring that spreadsheet back up? Thank you. So that column of village taxes, that's the 42%, so that's the village's portion of all of the town's general fund taxes that go to support the finance director. The finance director then takes 50% of their time and directs it towards town entity, town government's financial business. Another 50% of that person's time goes towards the village's financial operations. So this 50% over here is now going to be done and funded for by village taxes in the village-only tax area, completely outside the town's tax base. That is at $6,000. That other half here is still there, that's not going anywhere. We're still gonna pay that because we are part of the town and as such, that's what we should do. But this portion over here, we're paying for something that isn't going to be provided to our residents or to the taxpayers through the town finance director. I'm not sure how else I can explain it. And so I'm wondering if another trustee or if Evan or Brad, if one of you may also be able to explain it in a different way if there is still confusion. George, why don't you give it a shot? Thanks, Andrew. Can you hear me okay? Yeah, I mean, I'm just sort of speaking sort of analogously, it's not really specific, but it's imagine if we, the currently the Essex Police Department is paid for by the entire community, village and town. And so those funds from that portion of the police department's funds that come from the village have now been paid into the town general fund. And imagine as of February 1st, the village was now going to have its own police department and Essex Police would no longer be providing any police service in the village. And so we're saying that portion of the police that would have been provided to the village had we not gotten our own or whatever had this not happened, we're asking that that's essentially the portion we're asking to be returned because of the circumstances now we have to fund our own police department. I don't know if that makes sense. Maybe that wasn't a good analogy. Take my hand down while you're plundering. No, I'm understanding the logic behind what you're saying. I just, I don't necessarily agree that that's what's happening because to call it village taxes, there is no village specific tax that's going from the village budget to the town. It's all being paid to the town as townspeople to pay for the management of the town budget. Right, but it was a service that the town basically was going was would have or was supposed to be providing to the village that the town is not going to provide even though they got funding from the village to provide that service. I'll stop because I don't want to make matters worse. I think George, I think that was a good way to put it. You know, these other agreements that exist between the village and the town have they've all been funded differently as they've arisen over time. And for finance, it's just, it was done differently. There's not a line item that comes from the village budget that goes into the town budget. The mechanism for the town being the provider of financial services has been that it's just through the taxes that the village residents pay. And so I think your reference as a service, George, that service is no longer being provided. The village didn't budget for a finance director because we've always paid for our finance director through our town taxes. And so because that service is no longer being provided the village now needs to hire a finance director. And so what they're asking for is to have that money back that's paying for a service that's no longer being provided. And if I could, I'm gonna advocate for both sides here because one argument that you could maybe consider from the select board's perspective and maybe I should keep my mouth this is where I get myself into trouble. But you know, you could say, well, yes, but it wasn't actions taken on behalf of the town select board took that brought about this circumstance. It was actions that were done. So then we get into a more philosophical area. So it's, I don't think there's any legal obligation I'll put it this way. I don't think that there's some very clear legal line that says the town is obligated to pay this back. I think it's just a sort of a, I don't know, I don't wanna put it like ethical but a relationship kind of thing. I mean, I think what we're saying is that we paid the village paid for service that's not gonna be provided and why this came about it would take us so probably a very long time to figure that out and we probably wouldn't be able to come to a resolution. But I don't think that there's a real hard firm legal issue here where by some contract you owe us money. I think it's the idea that tax payers in the village paid the town for this service and now that service is not gonna be provided by the town. Yeah, and I guess in that spirit of working together and mutually beneficial, I have to ask the question since the town finance department will be assisting bringing new village eventually city finance director up to speed. They're working with the village's finance department. Do you feel that that time between now and July 1st would be worth $6,800? I guess that's sort of the overall question I have is, is it negligible? Would it work out evenly? Because at the end of the day, I think the village will still be receiving that service in support, in training, in making sure that your finance department is up to speed. So it seems as though it would just be six or one half dozen of the other at the end of the day. Andrea, I can just speak to the new finance director. Has been a finance director for the last five years. She won't need training. She will work side by side with the town department, but in terms of the village hiring a finance director, this is somebody who will step into this capacity and on day one, completely understand what the role and responsibilities are. So will there be conversation back and forth? That's the whole idea of the agreement, right? Is that for the next several years, we're going to have to unravel and work with each other. But in terms of bringing somebody on and training them on how municipal finance works and how to be a finance director, that's really not at all the relationship that we're anticipating happening. Thank you, Brad. I was going to say something fairly similar to that, but instead of much more eloquently than I. So thank you. Don, you had your hand up earlier. Did you want to address? Did you want to speak now? Well, Tracy sort of asked part of it. My other one is, have you also included in your money is the fact that you'll be using 81 Main Street and their equipment and their facilities and things like that? No, we didn't go through all of that. And I would highly doubt that it would get to the 16,000 that's or 17,000. That's in that moment. And my other question is, are you going to be asking us for any other assistance with any other employees? No, not as of this time. There is nothing else that has been discussed between our boards. Staff have not discussed anything else with us. So no, this is closing that loop on the earlier conversation from months ago. Patrick. Thanks, Andrew. I struggled a bit with this. Myself, but then honestly, I think this is kind of the understanding of when the select board first looked at the request, when it was 60,000 or right around then. Similar ask. This seems to me like it's much more specified out into the exact, the exacting amount of work that's going to be done, as far as pulling only the village budget aside, setting up the village budget for the village vote, things that the town staff won't be doing for this new person was. And I feel at the time that the ask was kind of made that, if this was going to be 60,000, we would prefer to see something that was a little bit more in line with what we thought the actual workload was going to be. I feel like this request is more in line with that. So I'm amenable to it myself. I'm not necessarily sure that I'm gonna convince everyone, but that was kind of how I approached it and look at it. It was an original ask, this one's much more narrow in scope and I understand where it's coming from. So I would say yes for it. That's just where I got to in my head with it. Did either board need any other discussion at this point or are we ready to turn it over for public comment and then bring it back to the board for a final decision? I'm good with public comment. I'm not seeing any other board member hands up. So we can go ahead and turn it over for public comment. First hand I saw was Betsy Dunn. Go ahead, floor is yours. Oh, okay, great. Thank you. So first, this budget was voted on by us all. That's the first thing. And the second part of that is that if I pay my taxes and then I move to another town in Vermont or out of state, I don't get my taxes back in a way. And that your premise is that it's no longer provided. It's not any longer provided. We're still providing it, but you've decided to leave. We didn't ask you to leave, but you chose to leave. So that's not something I think that we have to give you back. That's crazy. I don't understand that at all. Thank you. Very close. Hi, am I unmuted? You're all set. Oh, okay. Yeah, I'm sorry to waste your time, but I have to say I totally agree with Betsy. That's what I was gonna say. If I decided to move tomorrow to South Burlington, I can't go back and ask you for money back that I have already paid in taxes because I'm leaving. Thank you. I see no other hands up. So we'll go ahead and bring it back to the board. Couple of quick things from boards. Couple of quick things. When you move your property, it continues to stay there. Those taxes go to support that property. If that property itself were to be completely taken off of the grand list and be served by another community, that is what we were talking about here. And when you vote for a service, yes, that is true. You vote for a service. And the question would go to the board of if that service is no longer being provided, then what is the explanation to those who pay the taxes for that service when they ask for, why am I not getting the money back for service that I never received? So I guess those are where it comes down to. Patrick, unless there's anything else that you'd like to add or board members or just anything else, I think this is really in your hands in terms of the first vote. Suka. Yeah, I was just gonna ask if from a staff perspective, if anybody had any, if they wanted to weigh in, because that's really what we're talking about is the impact of the staff and asking for some refund. So I mean, if you don't, that's fine, but I'm just curious if Evan or Greg or Marguerite have any input? It's an, I'll go first. It's an ask by the village. It has some logic behind it. It's really a matter of principle and other issues of the separation of our operations and how both parties feel about it. It's happening at about the seven month mark of a fiscal year. And I don't have a yay or nay for you on this one. One of the things that you have heard me say over a while now is I think you all should be considering your relationship, not only today, but moving forward and what you want that relationship to be, not only just in dollars and cents, but in how you work, gather back and forth. And maybe that relationship is till the end of fiscal 23 and maybe it's not and it goes longer. I think you all should decide how you want, have some consideration of how you want that relationship. That's what I have to say. I will let go happen as far as the relationship piece and thinking about what kind of relationship you want the two municipalities to have going forward. We, George had his hand up first and then Tracy. Thank you, Andrew. I don't have anything specific to contribute to the conversation, but I am sensing some a little bit of, I don't want to say confusion, but sort of discomfort and the option to table since there's no pressing need on our part right now for an answer or for these funds, this could always be tabled if people need a little more time to ponder it than the weightier issues that relate to it. I just wanted to point that out, that's an option. All right, Tracy. So is there a request for the 6829.85? No, it's, sorry, I pressed the wrong button. Now I'm in the wrong part of our package. It's the bottom right corner. So it's the 17, 670 and 88 cents. So it's the portion of town taxes as well as the amount of time and effort that went to the village's water sewer funds. Okay, cause I thought the last time we heard from Sarah and Courtney that the water sewer funds that that would just be taken care of behind the scenes that there was no need to transfer from town to village that that could all be handled within the fund. My understanding is different. What I thought was said is that I thought that was the first part was like maybe it could be handled behind the scenes but then I thought it was said as well since it does go from village ratepayers from the village to then being transferred to the town that there needed to be a decision from the board. That was my recollection. I don't know staff recall it differently. I wasn't in that, in that particular discussion. Yeah, and on that note, I would have to agree with George that I think it would be appropriate to hold off until we can get that level of detail for the water sewer funds. Patrick? Thank you, Andrew. So I was actually going to, for the sake of time just from the select board, we do have a couple of different options. We could vote to move on this tonight or we could table digest it for a few weeks and then see where we are. I think I saw some heads nodding for tabling this but I wanna be sure before I would be willing to accept the motion. So am I correct? Just show of heads nodding. Would we prefer to table this for now? Get some more answers. So if I ask for a motion, I'm not gonna get it. No worries. Okay, Andrew, I think that's where we are. If I could though, what I'd love to do is that so we don't end up in a similar position. If there's any specific questions or if we want some exact specificity around any particular issue or the funds where it gets transferred from and to, if you could just shoot an email to Andrew and town staff and then probably Andy as well, just so that they're clued in. That would be great and make sure we do that before this comes up again for another meeting. So if I can just ask a quick question. I see the, I hear the hesitation on the water sewer line. Is there the hesitation to not make a decision on the row of town taxes? I think that it's probably the totality of it. I'm going to guess that and I'm happy to get that with some head nods as well. But if people, if the rest of the board is amenable to breaking it down, I'm certainly willing. But my guess would be that we would prefer to table the whole thing for now. Yeah, I'm seeing some nodding heads. So then there's not going to be a motion or a decision on that. Then that would end this agenda item and take us to the, there is no consent. So the reading file, the board member comments. Board members, anything you want to say? It may be premature, but just a reminder that dog licenses are due April 1st. Go ahead too. I just had a, can I ask a question on the reading or is it just comments? So it's Brad's on in your summary from charter to city, the timeline in the city collects city and town taxes section. I was just, it references July 1st. I'm assuming you're talking about July 1st, 2023, but I wasn't 100% sure. I'm sorry, could you just tell me again what part are you looking at too? I'm on page four of your timeline summary, city collects city and town taxes. And then you have two bullets and they both reference once as prior to July 1st. The other says after July 1st. Yep. Yep, that's July 1, 2022. 2022, okay. Yep. Oh, that's my question. So I don't know if you're gonna admit it, like if you could add that in, that would be helpful to have that clarified. Thanks. I think the intention is everything under the underlying period is the underlying date for the transition period, everything until the next underline is relevant to that, but I can try and make that clearer for you. Okay, it's under the section is through June 30th, 2023. So that's why I was interpreting July 1st, 2023. But anyway, you've clarified, thank you. Any other board member comments? Seeing and hearing nothing else, like when you're gonna stick around trustees, we have no other business tonight. As such, I would entertain a motion to adjourn. Some of them. Thank you, Amber. Can I get a second? Second. Thank you, Dan. Any further discussion on that motion? Hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Everybody opposed? All right. Thank you all. Have a good night. Good night. Thank you, trustees. Have a good night. And select board. Our last item, we have consider adoption of the annual town meeting warning. Evan, do you have the summary on that? Yeah, let me just pull it up. Let's go over in there. Okay. It's gonna pull it up before you. So as I'm talking, or as I'm pulling it up, I'll keep talking. So per Vermont law, you need to warn the town meeting 30 to 40 days before it happens. That is this week. We've covered pretty much everything that it's gonna be on the warning. The select board has adopted its budget. There was talk last week about adding a question for retail cannabis. And apart from that, it's just your elections. For moderator, there's three select board seats and a Champlain Water District Commissioner. It's the only remaining question is for the warning. I'll give a question that I have for the select board. You may have questions of me. As far as for the town of Essex authorized cannabis, right now, it's phrased as one question. So the town of Essex authorized cannabis retailers and retail portions of integrated license establishments. You could also do one or the other or break that into two questions as far as authorizing cannabis retailers and authorizing retail portions of integrated licenses. We didn't get into the details of that last week. And as I was looking at the guidance from BLCT, those are the three options. Great, thank you, Greg. Select board members, both questions about the warning and also by asking opinions on the cannabis question. I know Sue was not at our last meeting. So this might be the first time that you're looking at that. I do think that... I'm prepared to be at the meeting. I just... No, absolutely. Yeah. Yeah, understandable. So if actually Sue, I see your hand raised. If you want to start with you, please. Yeah, I just, I'm curious. I did see Robin's email talking about that the municipality doesn't have jurisdiction over the integrated licensees. So are we really asking the community to vote on opt-in for that? And I know it's the retail portion of the community that's going to vote on that. And I know it's the retail portion of the integrated licensees, but I don't know, his email seemed to indicate that that didn't belong there. And I was curious if anyone had a better handle on that. Yeah, I can take that. So yeah, Robin and I spoke this morning. We double-checked the guidance on the statute. The town controls the retail portion of integrated licenses. And for people who may not know, an integrated license is one to think it's manufacturer, produce, wholesale. It's just, it's everything but the retail component of cannabis. So the state does everything but the retail portion of it. So there could be integrated licensees in Essex. They would only be allowed to sell retail portion if the town votes to allow them to do so. Okay. So you spoke after he sent that email. Greg, you and Robin spoke after he sent that email? Yes. Yes. Okay. Thank you. That helps. Okay. Thank you, Sue. Tracy or Dawn. Any comments or questions? Any particular phrasing you'd like to see as it is on the warning now, I think does allow the retail for both. And then I think that's my preference. So I'm okay with the warning as it is. If everyone else is. I'll open it up to the public for comment. I want to make sure everyone has a chance though. Tracy for you. Yeah, I just had one question the, and I just lost it. Oh, there we go. So the wording on. Is it integrated licensee established or is it integrated license establishment. Is it integrated license. Licensee just sounds. A bit awkward. I'm sorry, go ahead. See this licensee. I took this language from the LCT, but I will double check that I did not make it. Yeah, I do not have. Question. I think it's licensee because it's, it's issued to the individual person and not a company or group. Sue. Yeah, I would, I'm just, I would support the. The language has as it's written being on the ballot. Awesome. Okay, great. Then, yeah, at this point, I will open it up to the public for comment. Okay. Seeing none, then I will accept the motion. Don, please. I make the motion that we approve the warning for the 2022 town meeting as presented. Thank you, Don. And I believe I was Tracy the second. All right. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed. Okay. Great. Then we have a town meeting warning. Thank you, everyone. Thank you. I just wanted to draw up people's attentions. If they hadn't noticed it or over here last week, that the town meeting is going to be held remotely this year. Ballots will be mailed out with the questions there. Here will be an informational meeting on Monday, the 28th at 7.30 p.m. But there will not be in person voting at town meeting this year. And that's again due to COVID and just want to make sure that we're not going into town meeting. Great. Thank you very much, Greg. And I'm assuming that you have plans to. Front porch forum and make sure that that gets spread. Through the community. Yes. Great. Okay. Well, since we have adopted the, or excuse me, since we have handled the town meeting warning, bring us to. Yeah. I do. I have my, I just as Greg was saying that it leaves. So we're going, there's, there's going to be other information. We've got, I assume we're going to have other informational sessions because if. I'm assuming if people. Hold off on mailing there. When, when do the ballots need to be mailed in? What's the. What's a timeline. They have to be there. Probably by five o'clock. Prior to the voting. So that means it's not. You wouldn't have enough time to attend the information session. And then. Vote on your ballot and move it, mail it in. Is that true? Well, it's true. I don't know how that would work then. Evan. Or Greg. I would still be able to take your ballot to the polling place and drop it off. So that's true. We definitely did it last year. The select board also set up some. Online informational informal meetings last year. I would talk about doing that again this year. They were not very well attended, but they will be an option. And yeah, that this doesn't prevent people from going to the polls on, on Tuesday. They can get still wait to hear town meeting. They can get still wait to hear the informational meeting on Monday night before casting the ballots at the polls. But if people are mailing their ballots back, yes, they will have to do it before the informational meeting. Yes. And just to, just to be clear, every year. You can drop your ballot off up until the night before the date. Anything on the day has to go to the polls. Okay. Great. Okay. This is not a time for public comment. It's just a question to Dawn as a BCA member. When does the public get the ballot? Because when can they send it in is what I think Sue is asking. Because they should have an informational meeting before they receive the ballot. Because people will get their ballot and hand it in earlier than the 28th of the 29th before the day of the vote, so they can do it as soon as they get the ballot without an informational meeting. That's true. Mr. Chair, that's anybody could if they make their decision. Why do they need an informational meeting? If they're like a decision. Now we'd like to do that in a proper time. But I also caution all of you. The U.S. mail is. I don't know when they're going to receive their ballots. I think you need to schedule when your information is going to be available. Great. Yes, Sue. Yeah, just to clarify, my question was really more. I wanted to make sure that people had time to attend an information session in the timeline so that they could mail back their ballot. If that's what they needed to do. So. Yeah, no, thank you for the question. We'll just have to make sure that we, we consider that. Yeah. Yeah. If you didn't want to wait until the 28th, then you will. We will mention at the meeting, I'm sure. You will have to drop your ballots off. So let's move on to the consent. Agenda. Yeah, there is none. Oh, really? My bad. I was looking at the agenda items and I was probably thinking of something in the reading file. Well, if we have no consent agenda, we have already discussed the reading file and correct me if I'm wrong. We don't have any reason to go into exact agenda. Yeah. We have already discussed the reading file and correct me if I'm wrong. We don't have any reason to go into executive session anymore. Do we. Staff. Do you need us for executive session for anything? No, I don't believe so. You went into your. Great. I don't believe so, right? No, unless you want to talk more about shared services. But you don't need to. Okay. Yeah, let's not get into the specifics of that tonight. I think we've all got shared services and meetings on the brain. We made some progress tonight so we can safely postpone. Looking at the other stuff as a group until our next scheduled meeting. So with that, I don't see anything else. So I will accept a motion to adjourn. I will make the motion to adjourn. Oh, second. Thank you. I heard Tracy and then I heard Dawn first. Yeah, that's fine. Okay. Thank you very much. All in favor say aye. Aye. And a post. Thank you very much, everyone. I appreciate your patience with me as we went through the meeting was not prepared to run it, but we got there in the end. Thank you very much. Thank you. Have a good night, everyone. I'll see you next meeting. Good night.