 Okay, I'd like to call the select board meeting for Monday, December 19, 2022, to order. First order of business, are there any agenda additions or changes from staff? One request from staff, I'd like to add an executive session to discuss real estate purchase or lease options to give you some updates. Any changes from board members? I would like to request that we move consent item 6E up to the business agenda so that we can talk about potentially appointing a select board member as the alternate. Any other? Okay, so I will go ahead and make the motion that we move consent item 6E up to be business item 5G and then also add an executive session discussion about real estate agenda. Thank you. Thank you, Don. Any further discussion? Those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, please say nay. Okay, motion passes 4-0. Okay, moving on to the public to be heard. Public to be heard is a time on the agenda when members attending can speak to the select board on items of town business that are not on the agenda. If you'd like to speak during public to be heard, you can either raise your hand in the room or use the raise your hand function in the Zoom application to get there. You cover your cursor over the bottom of the screen. There should be a button that pops up that says reactions and then you click on that a raise hand button will also appear. So is there anyone in the room that would like to speak during public to be heard? Betsy, come on up. Introduce yourself. Betsy, don't. Don't move the microphone, please. Go ahead. Don't move. Go ahead. Oh, okay. Just don't move the microphone. Using me already. That's fine. I just wanted to say I wanted to thank you all for what you've done all year long and how we are making this transition and have you happy holidays. Thank you, Betsy. Is there anyone online who would like to speak during public to be heard? I don't see any hands. So let's move on to the first item of business, which is a 5A discussion about proposed charter amendments from charter review committee. We do have a lot of material in the packet, so where should we start here? I can just do a quick little rundown and recap and then turn it over to all of you for questions, comments, and then to a number of people who I'm guessing are here for the charter discussion. Just to recap, in case anyone is new to this, we had a charter review committee that the Select Board appointed over the summer they met weekly from September through November. They put forth a number of changes that the Select Board saw at your last meeting, December 6th. With a number of changes in depth to the changes proposed, the Select Board decided to focus on five of the possible changes. The other ones I think are certainly still on the table for down the road, but looking at town meeting in March, the Select Board voted to warn public hearings on reorganizing the charter, adding a section that would give the town the ability to adopt and enforce ordinances for the purpose of regulating, licensing, and fixing license fees. The addition of a section giving the town the ability to create a just cause eviction ordinance. The addition of a recall provision for Select Board members and the shift from a development review board, excuse me, from a zoning board to a development review board model, which affects the planning commission as well. Staff spent a lot of time the past couple of weeks getting input, getting feedback, trying to do as much research as we could, getting input from the town attorney on each of those sections. That's what's laid out in your charter. I'm happy to walk through any of them in detail, but it's quite a bit in there, so maybe the better option is to just turn it over to you now. If you have any more specific questions or anything you want to focus on, any of those different five items can try to explain that and tell you what we've learned over the past couple of weeks. Great, thanks, Greg. Looking ahead, you'll have tonight, January 3rd, you're going to have to have language finalized and proposed to put forth two voters, then you're going to have two public hearings, one on January 17th, one on January 30th, and then that's when you'll decide for any final changes to finalize and award the ballot for town meeting in March. So that's where you're going after tonight. Thanks. So there's five items here. Should we go through one at a time? Any questions on the reorganization or any comments from Board Members? I agree with staff. That we should complete a legal review to make sure we're not at the... It says the reorganization does not have legal implications, so I think we could still do the wording, changing of any wording that was an issue for, you know, and everything, or anything that those exist or... So the reorganization did not include any of the editing. It just changed. It moves around the sections, right? So we're not... The intent there is to... Because it's... The document is fairly confusing to follow. And if we... The suggestion here is to move the sections into an order that makes more sense. What... And so it doesn't include... So I'm not sure if you were saying that we wanted to include all of the modified languages or languages or just the... I'll have to pull... I'll have to look into the minutes, but I thought that that was included in the motion. No, it was just the reorganization organization. So the Charter Review Committee put it in order so it makes it flow a bit. As long as it doesn't change anything. It didn't change anything other than some spelling and punctuation errors. And then they put it in order where it reads more smoothly than the old one did. That's an easy lift to do. And so with regard to all of that other language that was suggested, what I'd like to propose, and I mentioned this to Greg, was that we... Not just forget about it. I'd like to... And this isn't... This is just a suggestion of how it could be handled is if we approve the reorganization, that would happen to change the location of all the different sections to put in a better flow. And then what I would like to see... And again, maybe it won't be in the CD here for a couple months from now. But that we take a chapter at a time and perhaps have a standing agenda item for a number of meetings to review all the additional language changes that were proposed so that we're not waiting until this time next year to say, oh yeah, we should be looking at it. I'd like to... There's a lot of work that went in there and I don't want to just throw it away. And so I think that's what I... I'm okay with doing the reorganization as long as we also follow through with reviewing all of the proposed language changes as well. You need a motion for that? No, I think, well... I suppose we... No, we need to take public input first. And so I guess, should we... Discuss each of the sections, go to public input on that section and then come back or do... Have our own discussion about... Each section at a time and then have your public. They can be easier. Yeah, have the public at the end there. Yeah, okay. All right, that makes sense to me too. So then the next one was the fees authority proposal. I think the recommendation there is to... This is essentially to copy the South Burlington language. The language is pretty much from South Burlington. I believe there were a few other charters that were referenced. I do see charter committee chair Lauren layman online. So she might be worth chiming in at some point, but I think it was primarily the South Burlington language. This idea started where we tried to update dog licensing fees two or three years ago and found out that we couldn't actually do that. That's set by the state. The reason we had thought about it, getting the idea from South Burlington, realized that they could do that because they have this section in their charter. They have more than just the dog fees. That's what's been proposed in our charter. South Burlington uses some of those options to set fees. Some of them they don't, but it seems like it's one of those things that if you have the option to do it, you can pursue those things. One thing not included, I believe it was in the memo, Susan McNamara Hill, the town clerk suggested that we look at setting fees as well for liquor licensing. We have them for the normal permit spoke. Sometimes if there's special events, the clerk's office has to process those special event requests. They don't get any funding for that or any compensation for that. So that's one that you might want to consider adding beyond what's been proposed by the Charter Review Committee. But apart from that, it doesn't seem like there's any detriment to putting those, that list in there and we would probably take it on a case-by-case basis as to what we would propose setting additional fees for as they come up. I like the idea what Susan came up with about having that. Right, yes. If a liquor license premises is in the town, we do get a fee for it, but if it's out of town caterer working at an event, we still, we have to process an application for that. We don't get any fee for it. We'd have to look at tracking down some language and proposing that for January 3rd. But as long as the select boards on board with that, we'll keep looking into that option. It's my understanding that that fee wouldn't be adopted without a public process and proposal and everything. It would be an ordinance change and go through the ordinance change process. As long as there was a good process before the fees are implemented. Right, so the Charter gives us the ability to set, to establish an ordinance that establishes the fees. It doesn't, the Charter itself doesn't establish the fees. So we'll have to go through our normal ordinance system process to do that. That's Ethan. I like it. You like it? All right, all right. Next one's coming. For the next one's coming, I'll speak. Yeah, yeah, Just Cause. You know, the staff recommendation there is to pause on that. Because it's a, not been approved anywhere or it's been, I guess there's, there was the Burlington Charter proposal was approved by Burlington. The legislature adjusted it, added some additional language. It was vetoed by the governor and then override didn't, didn't succeed. So that's, that's the, I guess the history there. The concerns, some of the concerns that staff have mentioned are of the potential for being named in a lawsuit. Something comes up, somebody challenges the, our ordinance after we establish it. Yeah. And this is one where it, you know, we're not opposed to it per se. We just don't know nearly enough about it to support it at this point. And that's, that's coming from me. That's coming from the police chief. That's coming from your community development staff, the town attorney, it's, it's, it would be the first municipality in the state to have this. If it were to get past our voters, past the legislature, past the governor or an override, the language that's in there now, there's a lot of details about what that ordinance need to look like, the language in that raised a lot of questions about what's the enforceability of it. You know, what is there a couple instances where it talks I think it was reasonable notice or reasonable increases, you know, who, who is the determinate, who determines what's reasonable or unreasonable in some of these instances. I've heard some feedback just since the packet went out from some residents and some people looked into this that it would all be handled by the courts. We haven't had time to confirm that yet. It might very well be true, but it's just a lot of, a lot of questions that we haven't really had a chance to dig into or answer yet. And so it just gives us, myself and a lot of our staff who might get involved with this a lot of pause as to what our role would be, what our involvement would be, what the process would look like, how much time it would take away from other tasks or additional staff needed. And yeah, just, just a lot of questions at this point. My thoughts. I have a lot of thoughts on this topic and I've done a huge amount of research, but I've done some research and I've found the same conclusion. But I lean back to the point that I had heard in the presentation about, you know, the legislative changes in the state of Vermont. And I really think, especially the fact that we have the ability to list each of these items as their own question on the ballot. You know, we're not going to lump them all together and say yes or no. We'll give the option, the residents, if, if, you know, obviously if there's, if there's legality issues, we still have time to look into it before we just say no. And if it can be put in there with wording that we can find that makes it so the town isn't liable and it can be proposed to the community as its own question. I just have a hard time not trying further with the outreach and support that has been given towards this topic. Those are my thoughts. My, my feeling is that we should wait because if the state, this is a hot button topic for the state. So they're apt to enact something through the legislature this year that would be a good blueprint for this and answer a lot of the questions that staff brings up. I would, I would wait with staff's participation. I agree with Ethan. I think the odor should have their say on it. So do you feel comfortable that we can come up with a language, appropriate language by January 3rd? Mm-hmm. You know, it's a holiday season here. If you're going to wait for the legislature, things move so slowly up there. I'm sorry, but they do. I'd rather see us even if we are first and you know it gets people something to model. So the way this proposal is written as it requires, it has very specific language in there that we need to go into an ordinance. Does it, I don't, does it say, I mean, once the, once the, if the charter gets passed and approved, then we are required to, to establish the ordinance. Is that what? No, it's just it gives you the option of establishing it. Doesn't say you have to. And that's only, that's only if it's approved at the state level. Right. I mean, that's where kind of where I was feeling on it was we do everything we can and we come up with a, with a draft that we feel we're confident with and it doesn't put the town on liability and we support our constituents, give it a vote. They pass it. It goes to the state and it gets shut down while we gave our community what they were asking for, you know, and if it goes through even better, maybe we just laid footwork to something bigger. Maybe they'll say, you know, we're working on this this year and, you know, here's some language. I don't know. I haven't had enough time to, to reach out to anybody else, but I wanted to, to talk to. On the other one of them and say, you know, it's got to be conversation about this happening throughout the state. It's not just us. Tonya was at one of our meetings and she does fully support it. She encourages, encouraged us to put it. So any, any thoughts about whether the language has to be as specific as it is. And what, what, what, what we're looking for is the ability to establish an ordinance. This goes and essentially established says what the ordinance has to say. Section A of the, that section gives, gives the select board the authority to establish an ordinance without, and then if you leave out the rest of it, it doesn't have all this, the specificity, the, the, the language that we really need to understand. I would ask Lauren, she did the research on. Yeah. So we can. Great. Great. Great. Yeah. I just, I think jumping on what, what Andy is saying and is that we, we heard from rights to democracy. I think Tonya was from my understanding there as part of that presentation. We really haven't heard from other, other sources on this or other. Perspectives on this, you know, the, the meadow includes some, some different possibilities and ideas of different organizations, people to reach out to, which might help inform the language that goes into the charter. If this is to kind of get included in the charter, but I do think right now it's, there's a lot of specificity amongst the language that's proposed that, you know, you read it and such ordinance shall do this, such ordinance shall do that. And it really tells you what goes exactly into that ordinance. And that's where we haven't really had time to vet it. You may not have time to vet it. You know, never mind the staff level, the attorney level over the next week and a half, but from a whole number of different perspectives on this, whether that's landlords, the Champlain Valley Office of Economic Opportunity, the state agency of commerce, community development, which has a housing division. I just think there's a lot of other perspectives and resources out there that we have not had time to review. You could have the charter review committee meet again and do that for you. They're able to in the next week and a half. Not sure. Yep. And Tonya is here now too. I just think it's an, I think it's important to let the voters have their choice. I just let them at least have their say on it. Can't support pulling it. We did put a lot of time into this as far as the review. Yeah. I'm concerned about the language, though, and that that's, you know, in, and unfortunately it got cut off on my print here. You know, if you, if you take the, you can find it section A, it says the select board shall have the power to provide an ordinance by ordinance protections for resident residential tenants defined by chapter 137, title nine of the Vermont statues annotated from eviction without just cause and ended there. Oh, then it says where just cause shall include, but is not limited to. It goes on after that. It does. But what is it? Why does it need to is my question. I mean, if, if, if what, if the intent is to give the select board the ability to establish an ordinance that protects against eviction without just cause, why do we need the rest of it? It may be. Okay. We asked the question if it gets approved, the legislature may say, well, in order to do that, you have to have all this other detail in there and they can add it in if they want. You know, they'll, they'll have all of the, they know what they've approved before. I think it was to provide a description for you of what just cause is, but I think the rest of that. But my concern is though having it in the charter and if you got something that's wrong, you've got to go through a charter change process to get it out again. Otherwise, you know, if all we do is give ourselves the, if the, if the town gives us the authority, the legislature gives us the authority to establish an ordinance, the ordinance process will define the language that goes in there rather than having it explicitly stated in the, in the charter. So you would have just leave the just cause part in, but take out. The entire rest of the section of BC and D. Also. Because those, those are very explicit as to what needs to be put in the ordinance. I can support that as long as the ordinance stays. I mean, as long as that quote stays and we could then develop the ordinance. Yeah, we would have, I mean, we'd have to develop an ordinance and that's where, I mean, this would totally constrain the ordinance is if you've got it in the charter. I just don't want to lose this because it's so important. Right. Yeah, I understand that. I just, I just, you know, I worry about the, you know, as we've said, that there's staff has recommended that it's just not comfortable with all of it yet. Ethan. We leave it in there and then. Yeah, ordinance after. I agree with that. And I, when we were talking about this, more of thoughts that I've had are probably in my head, but I had a conversation with somebody about enforcement. And. To my understanding, it wouldn't have to involve the police department. Does it be through the judicial system? So like, you know, police officer or the chief wouldn't have to respond or, or even serve, if there was any paperwork to be served to a landlord, it probably fall on the sheriff's office. I heard the same thing from a resident, but again, I don't disagree with it. I've not had, I've not had time. No, I think it's, it's direction for us to look into. Right. No, I agree. The town's liability is definitely on my mind, but like Don, and if that is the easiest way to do it, I don't know. I haven't looked into what that statue that referred. The statue that's referred. That's the game. That's what is in the original proposal. I haven't. I don't know that statue. But if that's, I mean, we're going to hear from, from the minute that's acceptable for the charter committee. It may not be enough. You know, I mean, if it's not, then, you know, we might have to address there. So that's, those are my thoughts. So then let's see the next one was. The recall. So the recall proposal that came from the. Charter. Committee included a 15% threshold for. Petition to initiate the process. It also includes a, that the. Petition petition would go to the BCA, which is different than. Any other. Charter that has this provision in it. And then the. There's no timeline defined anywhere in the chart, in the charter proposal. Many of them have a 45 to 60 day. To have a vote. So that's a little unusual there. There's no timeline. Any other. Is that it doesn't specify whether the. Individual recall is actually, I guess it does. It says that state that, that law. Makes precedent. Oh, you know, for. Replacing the individual. And so the select board could choose to appoint someone. Than having another vote. I think is also. Not typical. Other recall. And also, it also allows a select board to reappoint the person who was just recalled. But. Our time believing that could happen. But it doesn't. Doesn't. Doesn't. Prohibited. Miss anything in there. I thought they were going to put a 45 day. Yeah, cause I was asking why it wasn't. It was. 45 and not 60. Like the. 60 or. The amount to. Appoint after resignation. Alexis. Do you remember? No. That was. Sorry to interrupt. That was for a different provision. That was for any vacancies left on the board. Yeah, there's no timeline specified. There's a couple of timelines that that that's are sometimes considered. One is how long are you allowed to collect. Petition or signatures for a petition. I mean, you could, you could do it over a period of years. If you, you know, that's, that's a little bit of an unusual. There's, that there's no limit there. And then there is no, you know, there's no timeline in here for when a. The recall vote. Has to happen. Which I think. It'd be a miss. That could still be added. It can be added. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I'm just just bringing up. And I have, I have absolutely, you know, I have no objections to put in a recall and. Anybody have any. I just had one of the things that I brought up. Was the language of. Who interprets. The crimes that were listed in there. They're very big words that were that were used in there. And then I. Kind of. Didn't understand how. Well, I got not how, but why we're allowed to a point. For a vacancy. We, but we wouldn't want to be able to for this. I'm not saying. You can. I know, but we don't have the option. Or do we have to allow a vote for a vacancy. The way the charter is currently written. It says that the select board. Yeah. The point. But it does say that though, that if the select board doesn't. Can't come to agreement, then. It's a very big word that says that. Or sooth or for forthwith. But yeah, that a election will be held forthwith. But doesn't say anything about what forthwith means. So if the select board doesn't come to agreement. On an appointment, then you have to call on election. And it's, it's a, it's an odd situation. And I, you know, this may be a point of discussion is if the. Electorate is voting to remove someone. Should we also then allow them to vote to replace that person. It's a little. I think. It thought provoking to me, I guess, whether. Five members of a select board. Should then pick the replacement if. Two should not meet based on what we've seen in Vermont happen. In some cases with boards. Have resigned or had very contentious. I think the two should be separate. That if there's a, if there's a recall, then there should be a vote to replace that person and not an appointment. And that's, that's, that's kind of what I'm thinking too. The challenge with that is it, it adds two elections to that. There's the vote to do the recall and there's a vote to replace too, which becomes expensive. I don't know what other. Well, the only suggestion I would have is if. If we were to go that route. I would. And if you don't use the wording, the select board shall. Then I would suggest that we change. The resignation. Portion as well. Is we can't decide. So many resigns that we're going to appoint somebody. But if somebody gets. Found. The. Recall that we're going to allow them. Doesn't make any sense. There's a difference though, Ethan. I totally agree. But either way, you're pointing an official to represent the town. Which is part of the authority granted by our charter to the select board. Right. But. Is, I mean, because there's a huge difference if somebody is, is recalled because they stole or they kill whatever they committed a crime. Right. Versus somebody is moving out of town and has to resign. I mean, there's a huge difference there. It's not the same process at all. Or the same reasoning behind it. Excuse me. And. I would just add that looking at that, that doesn't seem very controversial. Something like that. But there's have to be situations that come up that are very controversial. Where you might need to have a vote. I mean, some are very cut and dried, like a crime like that. But what if it's just a major policy? Or what happened in one of the surrounding towns where there was just a general dislike to it? So. But the wording that I had brought up before it says, and this is just how it's written. I know it can be changed, but it says the allowable grounds for removal. Disconduct. I'm sorry. I'm going to say this word totally wrong. But it's out now. Pheasants. Right. Non-Pheasants. Crimes in office gross. Incompensancy. Corruption or theft. And my original. Ask of when this was presented was. Where are the definitions for those words? Who defines them? Yeah. You know, at what point do we put in the words that are. You know, those were just the first is really the first. Three forward. I mean, crimes in office. Gross and competency could be. Another one that's. All in the eyes of the beholder corruption and theft are pretty. Pretty straightforward. I'm personally, I have concern with having that. Those criteria in there as well, because. Who's right? Who defines them and who decides whether or not. They apply. Could we be. Sude to say that, no, this, this action didn't fall into any of those categories or. Or. I don't know. And it's in, I think it's more common, much more common than not. Other charters don't have specific words in it. Would be inclined to take out. Take that out. I mean, if it, you know, the hurdle of getting 15%. Of the vote, people to sign a petition. I think. There would have to be some. Some reason that that that may not number of people would sign. So then what would they use for a basis of recall? Whatever the public deans is appropriate. Also, the first sentence and be after those words. Is the board of civil authority shall certify if the. Affirmation grounds for removal have been met. So how does the board of civil authority? What, what are you guys going off? That's what I'm saying. You know, tell me what you're we're looking for. The board has never. My next objection is having it go to the having the BCA involved. That's totally unusual relative to any other. Recall provisions and charters. And, and again, you know, we're all members of that. That body. It becomes a little awkward that the select board then gets to participate in that discussion and in determination. Presumably the person who's involved. Would recuse themselves, but I don't know. You can't force somebody to recuse themselves. That was another thing that was in the recommendation. Not recommendation, but in the packet tonight was. About how do you act. Before this person. Is found guilty or not guilty. Can they be a member of the board? Can they. Meetings, you know, at what point. Oh, a member of the select board is a member of the select board until they're recalled. Right. And so that they. Yeah. And we. There's no way for the board to prevent a. An individual board member from attending any meetings. It's like we're members of beholden to the voters only. We can't force each other to have an opinion or behave in a certain way or. Well, if we don't, we've all signed. Our oath to start with, and if we don't meet those obligations and yes, I think we can be asked to leave. No, you can't. Only the voters only the voters can remove somebody. If there's a recall process, or if there's a recall process, only the voters only the voters can remove somebody. If there's a recall process or the next election when the next time they're up for election, they can get voted out. That's that's really that's the, that's the case. That's how it works in Vermont. So yeah, I'm. So the, the, the, the, I guess that the two things that I would change here is to take out the list of criteria and take out the BCI interaction. I don't agree with either of those. I think it makes it very, I understand the intent was to avoid frivolous. Recall attempts. Then who's going to make the decision? Whoever signs the petition, the people that's in the voters who sign the petition are making the decision on each of them are making the decision whether or not it's appropriate to recall somebody. And, and, or then there's a vote, right? There's a vote. A town-wide vote. A town-wide vote, right? And so each of the voters will be making that decision. So. The. Idea would be to. Remove the board of civil authority. And have the petition forwarded to the court to then give to the select or to then. Or in a vote. Yep. It would be forced to do that. If that just as, as any other, you know, petition. And. And also in there. Well, the last. Sentence in each section D. Was the select board. Member or member shall be removed from office immediately. And then the select board shall then name a successor in accordance with the replacement provisions in the charter and this charter. So I don't know if that's. Where you want. Just leave it like that. So that there's, there's, there's two questions there. One is right. It's in section D. It says only if at least as many registered voters of the town. Vote as voted in the. Election where the officer was elected. That's one question that we haven't talked about yet. The replacement provisions means we could have. The select board could appoint somebody. That's the other question. Do we want to continue? Do we want to allow the select board after a recall to have an ability to appoint or do we want to. Force another election to elect. Replacement for the individual who was the voters voted to remain. It also goes on to say or at least one third of the registered voters in the town vote, whichever is greater. Yeah. So there's, there's really two questions in that section that we need to talk about. And I think we touched down the other one first. And I think Don, I heard a lot of her. You say leave it the way it is where we can't appoint. Leave it so you can appoint because we can't afford to do two elections. Yeah. Expensive. It makes it expensive. It also, it also right. Maybe a disincentive to do a recall, right? Cause it's going to cost you two elections to do it. Yeah. Okay. Yep. Get that. So then they write the other one is how many votes do you need to actually recall somebody. And the way this is written, you have to have. As many people vote in a special election as voted at town meeting. Which is potentially challenging. Or at least one third of the voters. Which ever is greater. Oh, right. Which ever is great. Right. Right. Right. Right. Yeah. Well, that, that takes care of your frivolous recall. I mean, People would have to come out and actually vote. That's a good point too. You couldn't recall somebody unless you've got a, a huge turnout of vote. And then it, then it would be a definitely be a groundswell. And I, you know, it, you know, there's a part of me that says, maybe I'm talking too much here tonight. Part of me says that if a certain number of people vote somebody in, you should need at least that many people to vote them out. I, I feel pretty, actually feel pretty good about leaving this provision in there the way it's written. Yeah. The whole section. Section D. Yeah. And then just change C to say the town clerk instead of the BCA. Well, it wouldn't even be if the, Oh, Certifies that the petition meets the grounds. Just be certified that the petition meets the requirements and whatever requirements will be listed out. I think you, I think you the, the wording should say that the, you know, it goes to the town clerk and the town clerk certifies the validity of the, of the petition. They have to verify the signatures. They verify the signatures. Right. And to, to whatever requirement we, we're going to do 15% or. Right. Right. All right. Is that, is that, I guess that's a question, but is that, is this, I know there's not many out there, but it's. So it ranges from 15 to 30%. 15 to 30%. So 15 is the lowest. Yeah. I'm fine with that. You're going to have to have a turnout. Yeah. I mean, realistically, if there's every situation like this that arises, the town is going to know about it. You know what I mean? If there's been a crime or, or reason to recall, they're going to have the turnout. Yeah. If there's ever needed to be implemented, it probably usually could be. In the requirements. So. A lot of questions, I guess. There's only ever been one recall in the history of the Vermont. Right. So. Last year. Not a common thing. Right. So that was. Did I say anything, Greg? I think that's it. I caught. I captured. Get rid of the, the list of allowable grounds. Get rid of the BCAs involvement. And keep the rest of it the same. Change seat. Instead of the board of civil service. Instead of meets the grounds for dismissal just certifies the petition meets the requirements. Yep. Hey, go to public comment. You're going to do DBA. Oh, I missed one. You're right. So. Staff position on this one. Yes. This was actually. One that. I and. Community development director Catherine Sonic. Both suggested that. So. So. One that I and community development director Catherine Sonic. Both suggested that the charter review committee take a look at. Moving to a DRB at some point. I think it went. The language that's proposed is that it happened by. No later than July 1st of 2024. It's a conversation that the town is. Kind of had in the context of consolidation and merger, but not. Just as the town itself. So Catherine and I were putting it out there of take a look at it. I think it's worth. And staff thinks it's worth having a broader conversation. Getting the planning commissioners involved. The zoning board members involved. Figuring out what the transition would look like. You know, the benefits to the town, the potential negative effects for the town. I think when the charter review committee did it, they, they were taking on a lot. So they hadn't. Had the opportunity to go back to staff to get some of the details. They hadn't had a chance to go through that process. I think there's value to it. I do think it's worth. And staff thinks it's worth having a broader conversation. I think if you were to look at some of the. The details, I hadn't had a chance to interact with planning commissioner zoning board. If the town attorney, actually Catherine had the idea than the town attorney. Agreed with it, that it could just be a simple as. The select board. Change of language to, to save the select virtual appoint to zoning board. Or development review board. And that leaves. The time to go through the transition process. Have those conversations figure out what it might look like. process would be Greg because that was the purpose of the date is because we're forever say we'll look into it we'll get it done and then things get but we'll get to it we'll get to it and that's why we gave that's why we put a specific date in here because Catherine said in her letter to us we couldn't do it right off we would need time and we figured the two-year you know here until then was why we put the date in it might it might be that time but no honesty and you know and we are the only town in Chittenden County that I'm aware of that still has Planning Commission and Zoning Board and not a DRB right I'm sure you'll hear from planning commissioners that there's some value to having it that way I think there's also some value to having it the other way but I think putting in the charter that it will happen it's gonna have to happen and that you know if you do they wanted the other it gives you the time to do that gives it select for the chance to set priorities as you do each year I think when it's been said and hadn't happened in the past there's various reasons again it was happening the context of consolidation merger there were other things that came up the first time it was that was gonna be the goal and then the recreation districts took precedence because the school district unified and the school district recreation department had to go somewhere so that kicked it to this you know this to the back burner it got written into the merger charter as part of that process and then that didn't happen so I think there's been legitimate reasons for why it hasn't been taken up yet and I again it's gonna be up to the select board and future iterations of the select board as to what the right timing is gonna be but I think I do think the interest is there I think it's been building the momentum has been building but just to make sure that we we go through the right steps as far as some of the specifics that were proposed the charter review committee made some suggestions that the the members be five member boards staff recommendations you take that out state state laws as a committee were from five to seven you leave it up to the select board to decide what it's gonna be I think having that flexibility is worthwhile and I think one of the other suggestions from the charter review committee was that the planning commissioners can hold no other office I'd recommend taking that out Catherine's on the same pages with me as well of part of the big part of what she'll hear some of the potential downsides of going to this model is that right now the planning commission does planning and they do the development review so they can kind of see how they go hand-in-hand and implications and cause and effects of one on the other if you separate that then the planning commission is doing planning development review door development review board is doing development I think if you have some cross-pollination of you know giving the option of a planning commissioner to be on the development review board invites versa you can get through some of that staff will obviously be a huge part of that as well and having those making sure those conversations happen but I think again giving some more flexibility giving some more options for what that membership looks like and and who populates those board I think that is a good thing but the simple simplest recommendation is that the Charter said this like board appoints a zoning board or development review board and just to clarify that for those who may not know that the state allows towns to have a development review board or a zoning board but not both it has to be one or the other I think Greg has summed it up perfectly just looking at the comments and stuff there is going to be a lot of discussion about it so I like the approach to keep the options open and use the flexibility going forward that'd be my two cents. Ethan? I have mixed feelings mostly because you can still have a planning commissioner employed by the town and have a DRP. Well planning commissioners are appointed so they're not town staff supports them but that's a nice and right word help me out Don. You're always going to have a planning commission it's whether or not planning commission it's counterpart but we have I don't know the word. We have Catherine. Catherine is the community development director. She supports the planning commission as does the thing I like about the board. Cross-pollinating thing. I feel like that's what we're trying to get away from. I don't know. I wish I had the answer but I've been so vocal about a DRP. So when Greg asked us not too long ago to come up with our priorities for the coming year nobody brought up let's go to a DRB so I'm just suddenly anxious now. That was on my list. Was it? Okay. A lot of the things that we brought up didn't make it to our board either. There was like 20 items that yeah there's a lot. We're on a piece of paper that's a lot. And I'll explain why I'm in favor of developer review board and people apply and I don't like this but it tends to be that with planning they give their permit and the person goes out and does their thing but if they don't follow the plan then there's no follow-up or the development review board they would follow it all the way through. There would be no place for an error or for that person with a permit having to come back and ask for a waiver. Well I mean that's my understanding. No. Be wrong but. The development review process is pretty much the same. It's just there's different boards doing it. Whether you're doing a site plan for a new office building going up or subdivision to create new lots and put in new homes the process is going to be the same. They're going to have to go through and hit the zoning regulations or the subdivision regulations and make sure they meet the criteria and right now the planning commission makes sure they meet that criteria through each step. If you go to a DRB model the development review board does all those things and they also here request for variances that right now go to the zoning board. Staff also tracks that all the way through. The zoning administrator, public works, fire, everyone has their hand at inspections and making sure it's done properly and if something is not done properly then it goes back to the planning commission or would go back to the development review board to figure out what what happens. Is it a find? Is it a tear down? Is it a waiver? But as far as the process is going to be the same. It's just a different body doing it. The DRB has more enforcement powers. Is that correct? I don't think so, no. And that's what was explained by another DRB group. But anyway, yeah, I I would defer to our community development director to confirm that. But from my understanding now it's the there's no difference. And the other thing I want to say and this is probably not going to overwhelm is that the comments that we've received where people said they did not have input. That committee met nine times and eight of those nine times they took public in all that. We never heard. Other than Catherine who was awesome. She helped us through it. And I think the difference there is staff was aware this was happening. Staff put the idea out there to look into it. But it didn't turn in. This is no fault or blame of anybody. It was a tight timeline of the Charter Review Committee did as much as they could to vet all these things and put forth recommendations on the timeline. They were asked to do that. But I think that timeline didn't allow for the Charter Review Committee to meet with the Planning Commission to meet with the zoning board. I don't believe I could be wrong, but I don't believe invitations were sent out to those boards and committees to invite them in to have that conversation. And I guess I just assume they're part of the public. I'm sorry. Maybe that was. No, they are. But it's just it wasn't. I don't think it was a formal invitation or a formal request to have the conversation around it. But again, there's no fault. It was just it was a tight timeline and people did as much as they could. In this discussion just shows that keep it simple, put some language in there. They give the option to do either one and then have a discussion and implement it. Make it make it a priority, man. Okay, did I miss anything else here? Excuse me. Alright, so that was those were all the the five items. So do we want to take public comment on each of them individually or just don't go wide open and say anybody can talk about any time any of the five topics? You've got to be more orderly to do it. At the time. I mean, alright, so I guess let me let me go back to the screen where I can see people put their hands up. I think it'd be easier if you allowed them to speak to all the topics that they wish that way. We could the challenge maybe if somebody wants to talk about if you've got disjointed conversation, I think it'd be better to. Thanks. I think that one thing is the one at a time. Yeah. Okay, is there anybody who would like to talk about the reordering? Anybody in the room reordering besties at your hand up? Can we bring the screen back up so we can see who's on? So I think the reorganization of the charter is a good idea to have it flow easily. And even though that means you have to take the existing charter and kind of patchwork it together so it does that the people can read through it and make sense. And the new things can be highlighted so that they can see this is everything else is the same. This is just the new thing that's there and you could have what it previously was or there was nothing there. I think that's a really healthy thing for people to have so that they can see what is going on and the direction that we're moving this town because that reorganization will do that. Right. Thanks Betsy. Anybody else? Anybody online? Okay then let's move to fees. Do you have any comments about giving ourselves the ability to establish fees on top of what's already allowed by statute? I don't see any hands. All right. Just cause. Take a couple hands. I saw Tanya Vyhovsky's hand go up first. So Tanya. Awesome. Thank you. So I do want to be available to answer any questions because the Burlington Charter did come through government operations so I'm pretty well versed in this but I also read sort of the concerns coming into this and I want to make it clear that evictions would continue exactly as they have now through civil court. It would not be an additional burden on the select board to now manage evictions. It would simply make a landlord have to have a reason for evicting someone and the charter language is permissive. So a lot of the questions about details and logistics would be defined in ordinance. CVOEO has already publicly stated their support for a just cause eviction charter specifically the Burlington one which is where a lot of this language comes from and the American Bar Association has also now come out saying that just cause eviction standards are what we should all be doing. So I think that that is really important. The Burlington Charter will be reintroduced in the General Assembly and six other towns are now having conversation around this. I also think it's important to note that no cause eviction has gone up significantly in the last year. It was no cause evictions accounted for 19% of evictions in 2020 and over 50% in 2021. So this is definitely something that is increasing and in committee we heard from people who had been evicted for asking for reasonable accommodations in their apartment. People who had just you know this is a way around the fair housing act really. I mean if someone asks I'm a renter I have mold damage in my house and a doctor's note and I'm afraid to ask my landlord to fix it because I might be evicted and so that's the space we're putting renters in. So I think it's really important that we with the housing crisis that we're in that we make sure that we are protecting our renters and making sure that that renters are not simply evicted for no cause. There's no way to cure a no cause eviction. So if someone is being evicted for non-payment they can pay their rent and stay. If someone's being evicted for no cause it's simply because the landlord wants to and there's no way to fix that. So I do think it's really important that we include this in our charter to particularly in the housing crisis that we're in in this moment. So that's my comment and again I'm happy to answer questions as they might come up in terms of the process having having gone through it with Burlington last year. So Tanya I'm going to ask you a question then the we we had talked about a proposal to to simplify what goes into our charter just to give us the authority to establish a just an ordinance without all of the other detail in it. Any any thoughts on whether that is a reasonable approach? Certainly a reasonable approach I think some of the detail is as was said sort of like a guideline of what are some of the the basics to cause you know non-payment of rent breaking the law are some of the things I know are in their you know breach of the lease. I don't think it is out of the realm of acceptability to sort of remove that. I do think that was sort of guiding language but ultimately those fine details can be worked out in ordinance. Okay thanks Tanya. Okay did I see I thought I saw hands in the room. I think Beth see I saw your hand before. Alexis okay go ahead whoever you can teach you to keep that I guess. Hi uh Alexis Dubief I was a member of the committee and I'm just here to speak up in support of Just Cause. I appreciate and hear what I'm what I'm gathering is that there's just really limited resource and we have to be judicious about where we're going to put our staff and our research efforts and I know there's a lot on your plate and I would just like to suggest that we prioritize this I know there's a lot of things that we are spread thin on here but when we look at what's going to impact members of our community the most significantly of all of the changes the charter committee has suggested this is the one right and something that I noticed in our committee and I suspect is true in this room as well is that most of the time the people who are making the decisions own their homes so we are not the people who have mold that we cannot have fixed or are potentially dealing with you know landlords who may want to double the rent because they can. I wanted to share a few pieces of information that might be interesting for you to understand in terms of the Vermont rental market. In Vermont 25 percent of households are considered low income where their cost of housing may include up to 50 percent of their income which is again as myself is staggering amount of money to pay on housing. So nationally this is an issue this is not just Vermont but that is the statistic here. The best data we have available suggests that the vacancy rate in Chittenden County is 1 percent that means the percent of all rental properties that are available for people who need housing. Nationally it's 5.6 percent I have a degree in finance and specialized in real estate finance. A healthy real estate vacancy rate is six to eight percent so we are not a healthy real estate market it is very very tight and of course it is the tightest for low income people. A national study of children and poverty and homelessness found that eviction is the primary cause of homelessness and no cause evictions in Vermont make up 20 percent of our evictions. So this is a significant burden on lower income families in our state. There are five states there are no federal protections for families from no cause eviction. There are five states who have passed just cause eviction. New Jersey, California, New Hampshire, Oregon, and Washington all of these state policies started locally. So the idea that we can just sort of hope that the legislature will take care of this ideally that would be wonderful but experience suggests that's just not realistic. We locally have the power to do that. I know that again there's a lot going on and a lot of research that has to be done but I would really encourage you to prioritize this one and I would I agree that it's probably fine to eliminate a lot of the language. I do worry a little bit that some voters might feel uneasy if they don't quite know what they're voting for and there might be like a skeleton that could be kept in just so people can feel confident that they're not you know voting for something that they don't understand but I do think the more I look into this the more powerfully it is clear that this is how we keep families housed in Essex and this is our only opportunity to make this change because the state legislature is not going to fix this for us. Thank you. Thank you Alexis. Betsy, come on up. Okay, I'm Betsy Dunn, Essex resident. I firmly believe that we need to have just cause. As a union person just cause is important even for when you're going to be fired and these people are being fired from their homes per se and I think having the reasons that they can be that what constitute just cause and having them listed is their objective. You make them objective so it's not a subjective thing that they don't like this guy and they're going to get them out. You need to have objective criteria and just as she was saying that the local level pushes the state level just like state levels push the federal level and things happen and change at the state level and the federal government goes along and we have now six other places that Tanya said not naming them but that are going for just cause. We need to give pressure to our state legislature to do this and that would be great and I think we should go for this and arbitration is always something that can happen when you're talking about just cause and how does it go doesn't have to go to a court you know when they come down to them the guy goes okay this is what it says it didn't say that and the arbitrator says okay I'm finding in favor of this guy you don't want to go to a bca you know or anything of that nature and I think that we do the voters in Essex should be able to vote on each of these topics individually so that we can do that and if you explain it well enough at the informational meetings I think that that is the right thing thank you thanks Betsy Lorraine Lorraine Zaloon with center road in Essex I'm in support of this I helped work on it as well I understand the concerns of the staff because you're a victim of a very highly engaged community so in terms of the timeline and be able to get the information because I don't think you guys expected this much out of the charter review committee I think you guys might have expected that it was just language change or whatever but I think some of us have been waiting for a long time to have input to to make some serious charter changes it's historic really what we're doing in terms of some of the concerns coming out of the health officer I'm wondering if it might be helpful or if there's a way that you can get her to get some stats so we can really look at some data what's happening in town because that 50% eviction rate changed from 20% to now 50% in one year is is a crisis I mean that's really a housing crisis and we can see that's a housing crisis because of the stat that we're our vacancy rate is so low so it ends up costing us more if we can't house people right so we really need the help from landlords as well I would like to know from landlords if there's a landlord association I don't know if who has the best access to some of our biggest landlords here boves as well as the Handys but they might be really good resources for us to ask them how many just cause no cause evictions that they have given us over the past year I think it's really important to get hard data in terms of getting this in now I hope you guys don't relegate this to later again there's people that are really hurting now in terms of the language it has been greatly vetted by many legal organizations including Vermont legal has also Vermont legal aid approves of language the state has vetted the language so it is not to me any legal issue around the language again I think this is hopefully not a victim of time because as you know Greg there's a lot of issues with having time for staff I mean it's really it is a tight deadline so I feel for you but it's just very important and also at the state level my understanding is they're not going to take it up legislatively this year what they're looking for is for towns like us to be the leaders so that eventually it does funnel up and then get supported so and and we really that veto we missed by one vote and it really was vetoed by the governor was not the legislation passed it so it's interesting to me that is that controversial what I found in the legislative body unfortunately is that we have many more landlords in our legislative body because they can afford it they can afford to be there and we have I have one or two renters maybe that are representative in the house in the senate so I would appreciate thinking of giving broader context to what we're asking thanks for your time all right thank you LaRain Gina helping Barrett sorry yeah that's okay go ahead I'm going to sound just like that last person that just spoke but it's me I just wanted to support just cause eviction I agree with what Alexis said and Kudos and Tanya and Lorraine and I think it's really important now the people who really need to speak up for this often can't they're scared they don't have as much of a voice as the rest of us I really appreciate Alexis pointing that out and I just wanted to support it and I really like the idea of voting on each item as like a line item because then we'll know we'll get a sense of what the people are for or against but I would love for Essex Town to be a leader we can be the leader in this and we can make a difference it can be us we should step up to play and do it thanks but thanks Gina anybody else on just cause okay next up is your recall yep any public comment on recall Tanya I see your hand back up again yes so I wanted to point to the Wilmington Charter that we did I think two years ago that allowed for removal of seats if they're not meeting the requirements of the select board I also just have concerns with removing provisions around why you can recall someone because my concern is is that a petition could be circulated that would force an expensive special election for all kinds of reasons and while that special election may not bring out the turnout that is required to actually recall someone the cost to the town for that special election could be significant so I do think having some provisions around what's a reasonable reason to actually circulate that petition and move it forward to a special election may be beneficial and may save taxpayer dollars so Tanya do you remember was it 851 last year came out of the senate that had a recall provision and did that include criteria I don't remember I can certainly go look I don't actually there's so many bills like honestly I can't even keep track of the bill numbers it's so funny when I was an advocate I knew all the bill numbers and now I'm in there and I'm like what bill is that they're like oh it's your bill I'm like okay I'm gonna need more information than that but I certainly do some digging I just I worry and certainly I think that having a definition section and really defining what we mean is important but I do worry that if we just leave it up to anyone who wants to circulate a petition that we might find ourselves looking at a lot of really expensive special elections that will ultimately fail in recalling someone but will still be a cost to the town and the taxpayer Thanks Tanya Brad come on I'm Brad Kenison I live in the town of Essex I was not able to attend the last select board meeting when the charter committee presented their proposal but I did listen to the discussion online so I have some comments I'd like to make fill in some gaps and add some context and then if you have some questions feel free to ask them so at the last like board meeting chair layman laid out the charter committee review process over a compressed time frame of a few months with nine meetings that was a tall order and to allow sufficient time to fully digest and adequately address the entire charter let alone the recall process I spent several months researching the recall process across the state prior to presenting my proposal to the select board in 20 in December of 2021 and then to the charter review committee in October of 2022 the charter committee receives similar documentation as that which was previously provided to the select board except for a few revisions now that recalls back in hands of the select board to make an important decision I have updated the documentation with factual data and recommendations which you'll now find in the read file the chair also noted that the committee relied heavily on Colchester's recall language Colchester's recall provision was last amended in January of 2015 that's seven years ago you take a side by side look of Colchester's recall provision and that proposed by the charter committee the thresholds are almost verbatim some of the language is similar to the Windsor whose recall vote failed when they did not get at least one third of registered voters to vote even though 77% of those that voted cast ballots for recall again that was a special election and in all the town clerks that I've spoken to and I spoke to everyone that every town clerk in the towns that have recall language they indicate that in special elections the voter turnout is much less than an annual election and in the case with the proposal by the charter committee in section D where they say the select board shall be shall be a select board member shall be removed only if at least as many registered voters of the town vote as voted in the election wherein the officer was elected well that's an annual election that's not a special election and might have a much higher turnout and at least or at least one third of the registered voters of the town vote so now you're you get 15% of the registered voters to sign a petition and now you're asking for another 18% or need to show up at the polls to vote or or fails most recall charter provisions were adopted many years ago most recent was underhill in 2021 in listening to the deliberations of both the House and Senate Government Operations Committee both passed it out of committee unchanged um and an uphill in the case of underhill the first threshold is 15% of registered voters in this second is a simple majority of ballots cast representative Lajewski's on the House Government Operations Committee and she seconded that that vote where they passed it out of committee according to the town clerk Sherry Moran their successful recall process took two months 60 days to educate and obtain sufficient signatures so they need to get 15% of the town to sign a petition it took them two months the reason may be that underhill is a rural town somewhat like Essex making it more time consuming to obtain necessary signatures unlike Essex Junction that is more urban proximity of housing is in a rural community is because it's a consideration when developing threshold and one of the questions that Ethan had the last week was I believe you asked if there was some significance about 15% generally the range of the recall provisions that's 15 to 30% eight of the 15 pounds that have recall language that use a 15% threshold of registered voters Lately the thought process has changed in the legislature with regard to challenge voters in June of 2021 the legislature adopted statute 17 VSA 2437A which is the mailing of general election ballots general election ballots are only mailed to active registered voters as challenge voters are not allowed to vote and less and until they verify the residency for that reason in the last week in a senate bill S 181 senator white uses 15% of active registered voters as opposed to registered voters that are just on the checklist if people can't if they can't vote then why should they be included in a recall threshold in words if if challenge voters can't vote they can if they certify where they live if they if they if they validate their residency additionally most have changed the residency earned and are not even available to sign petition in the case of the November this last November election in the town of Essex we had roughly 730 challenge voters only six verified their residency so very very few um there's one other item I wanted to address that was in the memorandum that Greg had in the packet where the attorney had questioned about when a special election had to be held both in my proposal and in S 181 it clearly specifies the 60 day window after within 60 days you have to hold this special election unless with the annual election is within that 60 days and then it can coincide with that annual election and the other question that was raised is how many times can you recall a select board member or an elected official and in both my proposal and in S 181 it specifies only once in a 12 month period so I'm happy to answer any questions if you have any based on the information I've provided to you in the read file or thinking about it yeah I would just ask are you suggesting that only 15% of the voters be the determination 15 15% of active registered voters not registered because it registered that are on the voter checklist the challenge voter has to be kept on the voter checklist or two election cycles or four years if they don't verify their residency with the town clerk so they're kept on the vote of the voter registration checklist but they're considered challenge voters and in the last general election the secretary of state never sent ballots to challenge voters because they can't vote unless they verify their their residency so yes 15% of active registered voters not registered voters that are on the checklist okay so not not necessarily up the 30% 15% would be a 15% and the last excuse me the last in the case of underhill that went through the legislative process in 2021 there's a 15% of registered voters but since then you know this change in the legislature the what they're thinking and with this this new statute where they're looking at or considering okay there's a difference between registered voters and active registered I think it's possible the difference there is the postage cost of sending a ballot I'm sorry I think that there may have been a consideration that they're not sending ballots to challenge voters because it could be a waste of money and a stamp and a ballot so it may be may not be that they're I don't agree that a challenge voter cannot vote because if they show up with the polls and they can prove where they live they can vote and that's exactly my point when in the case of Essex six challenge voters did verify their address and so then are you going to are you going to disqualify anybody who signs a petition who is a challenge voter I would suggest that it be 15% that the number of signatures required for petition would be 15% of the active registered voters and most of those most of those challenge voters are not even here they're not even available to sign a petition I mean that's just looking at Essex I mean it's pretty interesting interesting right Ethan I have a question for you what wording do you and I'm sorry if it's if I didn't read it myself what wording is used in in your research speak up what what wording is used in your research for the grounds or for removal like I was do you have grounds for removal listed in your proposal so in my proposal and in what S181 I'll read it here okay so F says a recall petition shall not be brought against an individual more than once within a 12 month period is that what you're no they're criteria for malfeasance oh there's nothing yeah there's nothing in there and my in my proposal or an S181 I think there's as it's as the town attorney found and I remember there's only one town that mentions any of the right anything like that yeah and I can't really up to the voters I mean the voters have the right and the privilege to elect a town official they should have the same right to remove them if for for whatever reason they feel is is justified and to get to educate and to get 15 percent of the signatures is a pretty tall order I mean think about the merger where it's only required five percent you know to to force a re-vote and and then to to follow up on that and again sorry if I if I lost it here but do you have a requirement for the vote itself and your simple majority simple majority so 15 percent of active registered voters right okay and if they're convinced that it's the egregious you know the offense is egregious enough then it should be a simple majority just like any other Australian ballot vote all right thanks Brad okay thank you Lauren I see your hand up thank you I want to speak not on behalf of the committee here but just personally in my views and I you know part of the reason and I can understand wanting to take some of the the conditions for for removal out because they are unique and they haven't been really challenged and and beaten up and given definition however I do think it's very important as you noted earlier that the burden for removing somebody from office be exact when you're overturning the will of the electorate be significant and that there be hills to climb and so with the way that it was originally proposed with just 15 percent of challenge of active voters not even registered voters and then only a majority you're looking at the special elections where we have low turnout you get 15 percent you've climbed that hill and then we have low turnout at a special election and a handful of people are able to theoretically overturn the will of half the town that elected somebody in a previous election so I do think it's important that there be two hills to climb here that one be the 15 percent petition but then there has to be a voice of the people who may not have even had the petition presented to them you know it's been presented to a select portion of the town and now the other 85 percent of the town who elected this individual can have their will overturned by half of the 15 percent who signed a petition it just doesn't square if you do a then diagram of it so I think you know personally that you're looking to overturn the will of the electorate you're looking to undo an election you before the next election you need to climb two hills you need to get the 15 percent and then you need at least a third if not the same number who voted in favor of it last time thank you thank you line Betsy did you talk on this already no come on out come on so um I'll do respect giving the last person Betsy Dunn the um um I think that 50 plus one is adequate if this if a person who is being recalled from their position it's not going to be something that's going to be hidden this fact that it's happening and I think that they people are alerted to the fact that this person that they love and they voted for and they wanted and they still want they will come out and vote for that person and vote for keep them back in if they don't come out to vote maybe they're disgusted with them and they're just they don't want to have anything to do with it and they don't vote at all so I think that 50 plus one is good I think that the town let's say you've had your elections in November this happens in it happens in June and it resolves in August and so this person is out I think that you could have in there instead of having an election right away you will appoint a person to hold the office until the next general election or the midterm election so that that position can be filled and we have you have an adequate number of people on your board but come the next election that person could be gone and someone else will come in and take the office I think that makes sense even if it's not if that person's office has two more years to go but at the next general election you'd have that vote happen at that time right yeah so the way our current process is written on the way this references our current process that that's the case that somebody would be appointed appointed until the next annual meeting and then there would be an election for the remaining portion of that term and the other thing I have to say is that I think that having it come to the BCA and I acknowledge I'm a member of the BCA but having it come to the BCA is just confirming that what they're saying is accurate and shows it that this is the problem that this person has had and we do believe that it's egregious enough to go to a recall it's just other extra eyes it's sort of like a division of power or just separate powers so that you can see that okay not just one person is saying this but we all there are a significant number within the BCA that are looking at this we're elected officials we're not just people off the street when you're in the BCA so I think that would be an adequate way to do it and even though you say it it hasn't done that anywhere else well oh we can start the trend and that's not a bad thing so I just think that it's a good idea thank you thanks Betsy Lorraine he was pointing at you he wasn't raising his hand Lorraine's a loom again I was always of the mind that three years is your recall so I'm not a big fan of recall in terms of cost and time what I liked about the committee work and what the committee did was before each proposal was what is the problem we're trying to solve and that's why I liked the defining of because there's no way to remove someone from office if they steal money from us or there's there's nothing you can do about that so I liked the defining of what the terms were and certainly to your point Ethan I understand your questions but I think there are certainly in the case of law there are legal definitions of those terms and I would think that if it meets that definition court that would be your and your threshold in terms of your question too about challenge voters I have very serious concerns that legally a challenge voter even if it's six that you wouldn't allow them to vote if they illegally can vote I think that's running into some scary legal territory personally and the other thing having lived out of state for a long time we were doing electronic signatures many many years ago and I foresee at some point hopefully in the state of Vermont that we would move toward electronic signatures on petitions and I don't think that we're kind of taking into account some of the things that our hills to climb now may not be such a big hill like 15% for an online petition really wouldn't be that hard to do so me in terms of that hill I don't think that's going to be really that big of a hill in the future so I just want you guys to kind of keep that in mind in terms of the context and that it's 2022 and hopefully we are moving more and more to electronic work as opposed to walking right so thanks thanks Lauren and did you have your hand up can't signorello so Lauren's point is good about the online petitions in the future that that's an interesting point to consider I wanted to just share with you what it's like to gain 15% of voters on a petition since I'm one of the few people who have actually done it in the recent past two people over the course of over three and a half months gained about a thousand signatures that was using the whole town so we have the advantage of the denser area of the town but I personally have the responsibility of the rural part of town so 15% of about 8,000 registered voters is going to be about 1200 signatures that's even more than we had to gain for the 3 plus 3 charger change in the rural part of town since we don't have the city anymore it's it's quite a hurdle actually that's a chore 1200 signatures is a big task that would probably take a handful of people let's say five people a number of months to actually do and if it's over the course of the winter which it likely would be if you were shooting for an annual meeting as opposed to avoid a special election that's a rough time of year to be going around some of these driveways if you know what it's like on Bixby Hill Road Brigham Hill Road and it's pretty scary so I've had that experience and I think 1200 is actually quite reasonable but um Ms. Lume makes a good point in the future that may not be a hurdle at all thanks all right thanks Ken hey anybody else don't see any hands in the room don't see any hands online so DRB you want to comment about DRB yes come on up introduce yourself I'm Jonathan Schumacher I am on the planning commission and I just want to support the language that the Greg was giving to do five or seven and what was the other one that was five or seven and then you were saying you could do ZBA or DRB lead that up to the select board that's all just want to support that language all right thank you thanks Dustin good evening but also like to state that I support the language that staff is presenting with with an additional qualifier or clarifier that I don't believe there should be a time frame attached to this at this point I think the discussion that you had earlier between the select board members is a clear indication that we don't know enough yet to decide DRB or PC and ZBA the fact that there was differing opinions on what it meant I think it's just that's that's a solid statement across the board we discussed this on the planning commission there really wasn't any clear understanding of what one or the other configuration provided what advantages there were to the community what disadvantages there might be to the community so without bringing in you know emotional or personal responses I think that the way that the staff is presenting it is is the best approach at this stage evaluate determine if it's the right option and then determine how to move it forward in the most effective way in the you know for the community my two cents all right thank you Dustin anybody else Betsy come on no no well yeah I didn't want to go jump from one topic to another look what I saw Betsy done so um my biggest thing is is I think that it's a separation of power taking the DRB and the planning commission I think that we have had some egregious things that happened with the buildings that were done and completed and they were too high and that one that's over there on old stage road on as you turn on to it off of 15 and that that apartment complex that's there that was no one was looking at that one how did that get I think that we do need to have that and if I had my and I don't but I would like to even see it environmental impact study done prior to do any work that's being done because we've had some people's homes that have been impacted when people took out a whole bunch of trees so we're we're talking about the question of the DRB this is the DRB but I think that that's the thing I think about the DRB and planning commission is it's a separation of power you wouldn't have the same people on each of those boards and you would I think it would be healthy for the thank you Betsy anybody else okay I'll bring it back to the board so I think on the discussion about reordering I think there was there was no public comment on that I think my sense is that we're all in agreement that we can shuffle the sections around as long as we don't cause any legal conflicts that we might miss otherwise so I think we're good with that one on the fees one it sounds like we're okay with the addition of some language that talks about special events and catering permits I miss anything there just cause I had posed that we shortened it up to just the short section that gives us the authority to do it and then we can work out the details of an ordinance later I think one of the advantages of possibly doing that is others may may go before us and do that and have the language and it might get the I guess I guess I'm not intending to suggest there that we would wait until somebody else had an ordinance in place but I guess trying to think don't want to imply anything there my concern is putting all of the ordinance detail in the charter I think that's the way to go and you could start it right after town meeting if it's approved you could focus on that one issue with the language that's in there and work it through if it was priority I say we put it in as it's presented by the presenters who have the experience and knowledge on it and if it doesn't go through it doesn't go through I don't think that our change of removing half of what they recommended language is will decide whether the state legislator approves it or not or have any implication of how it's enacted once we have an ordinance that that breaks it down you know what I mean but if it's in the charter you have to it specifies explicitly what one has to go in the ordinance the way I'm reading it explicitly says what has to go in that and so you'd have to do a charter change if you find something that has a situation a problem right you have to go back and do a charter change couldn't just do an ordinance change but if that was the case that you think the legislative body would approve it right well I asked Tanya that she said it's a reasonable approach to yeah I mean what if that's if that's the detail out that's what they what what we you don't think that will go through I just don't want to take anything out that's going to be unhelpful just because we want to shorten it up to not be including language that's going to be then redefined in an ordinance as long as the language doesn't break it down too specifically and just is wording it's in the charter we can't change it we have to do with the charter and all these things have been bedded by legal resources that they've already that they've just explained to us so if it's not something that there are other entities that can also review that I'm sorry I mean or I'm sorry no you're good but if it's not something that's up being able to be upheld the legislative won't won't they can't approve it Tanya's hand is up Tanya's waving to you okay I'm going to go to you first since you did you want to talk refer to Tanya right now as you haven't said okay Tanya go ahead so the legislature has approved this language in the Burlington Charter Change we already moved this forward and while the governor did veto it and we missed that veto override by one vote we I think have full ability to over we have a much stronger veto proof majority so I think the governor's veto is less of a danger this time but this explicit language was in the Burlington Charter and has been approved by the legislature and it is not binding to only these things but I do well I think if the only way we can move forward is by removing it that's a way forward I do think having some guidance to voters as to what we mean by just cause is helpful because I do think there has been a lot of misinformation put out there about what we mean by just cause and that means you can't evict and that and so I think that giving some guidance to like this is actually some examples of cause is helpful to voters and is helpful to the larger conversation and I can't imagine a world in which things like non-payment of rent would suddenly not be cause for eviction so I do think that there's that some of that clarifying language whether it's in the charter or in some other space is helpful to sort of counter some of the misinformation around what it means to have a for cause eviction All right thanks Tanya that reminded me of something I actually wrote down here I wrote skeleton language somebody said use that phrase and I think it triggered me to think that maybe we need to ask town staff and or I know our legal council has not reviewed this proposal to shorten it up dramatically if there's other language that would be helpful to have in there I think that yeah I'd support that but I'm a little leery of having essentially the entire ordinance in the charter without you know I completely get that this is an important thing and I'm not trying to say let's not do it I'm trying to figure out a way to do it that doesn't tie our hands in a way that we don't want to be tied on something that we don't have enforcing what are you thinking there needs to be an explanation attached so people the voters understand what it is yeah yeah yeah and I understand that but I would also like to see some of the a little bit of the language maybe used in the description of what just caused the fiction is okay but when we get the ordinance time I want all of it in the ordinance yeah yeah yeah I had fully support that yeah yeah yeah yeah and I'm I am glad you spoke up and waved your hand frantically because you reminded me it's written right here a skeleton language that yeah if there's something in there that makes it a little clearer makes it a little more pal makes it right so that people understand what it is you're right because if all they look is at the question and it says just you know what does it mean yeah that's a good that's a very good point and then I can I can do so is that a reasonable request to look for some skeleton language that yeah yeah I think we can put something together for consideration on the third okay okay you okay with that Ethan or do you want to I just have I just have to ask this question and I will be okay if you give me a good answer I do what what what in there well there's you what words it's wordy Ethan wording wordy I get that but I mean yeah I don't know I can't say a specific word or set of words because I read it and it doesn't you know it it flows and I don't know I yeah I totally get that but that should all be in our ordinance not in our charter that's that's the concern I have it's if it's and I understand that yes it's much harder to change and there's there's there's probably pros to that and there's counts to that right if you put it in your charter it's a much more difficult process to change if you give yourself the authority to establish an ordinance and then put the detail on the ordinance then it's something that's more flexible to the to the needs that we run into follow-up for you just quickly yeah but if if as we had as we were talking about it says to provide by ordinance projections for residents residential tenants as defined in chapter 137 of title nine from on statues and then it goes on to to list things that are there and are as I understand we were saying we wanted to leave that first section so I'm asked I've asked Greg if he could come back with a recommendation of what language would be because I just wanted to put in there that doesn't restrict us to then you know be free in the future to have the ordinance look like what we want it to look like or what the select board I shouldn't say you weak because it might not be me right okay so I just wanted to add that and maybe Anya can clarify if I'm not making sense but if we include that first sentence and say we remove the other words because we don't want it to be too specific everything in chapter 137 title nine will be included in the charter regardless if we put the words in there there's a reference to it yeah the reference to it yeah so that's so that's that's the style where I was like it doesn't as established law so remove words but it's still so that'll be part of your description it's the same title yeah so that was I guess to clarify a little bit better because I'm sorry that's just kind of scattering but if we are okay with saying chapter 137 title nine I believe that all the material in chapter 137 title nine shall be included in the charter because we're referencing the statue anyways when I when I looked up maybe Tonya can clarify this but when I checked chapter 137 title nine that's the definition so that's defining what a residential tenant is and then from there it says residential tenants can't be evicted without just cause but that chapter 137 title nine that's that defines what residential tenants cannot be evicted without cause that's how I wrote yes so the title you're pointing to does define what a residential tenant is in Vermont state law and generally speaking if a charter doesn't state law applies unless a charter goes beyond that or changes that so in most instances we don't actually have to reference like oh this state law applies because the charter supersedes state law and if there's no charter space in place then state law presides that's the whole point of the charter and so again I do think it's important to you know yes there are some listed things there but it's not it's shall include this but not limited to um so it's it doesn't limit the ordinance to looking at more just cause it just sort of names like these are some just causes like breaking the law or violating the lease or not paying rent so again I I think yes Greg you're correct the the title we're pointing to defines what a what a resident is what a tenant is in any instance where a charter doesn't go outside of state law then state law just automatically applies and state law applies whether it's in our charter or whether we reference it in our charter or not yeah unless we're modifying that state law and that's the purpose of the charter yeah didn't have time to look up the 137-9 I just didn't know if that had anything to do with just cause the picture no there is no just cause statute I didn't okay I didn't know if there was a definition of just cause but there's not not in state law the american bar association and some other organizations have like put out legal opinions on what that definition is which was how a lot of this burling this charter language was crafted but in state law there is no definition I just wanted to reiterate that a skeleton language to start it you can put in all the extra you could put in the ordinance as proposed if you wanted in your information for that particular vote but it's not a popular position but there are a lot of landlords out there and it may have been vetted on one end legally but they'll be prepared on the other end and just don't want to open the town up to be the first to be legally challenged for something so I think that the just the skeleton language and provide all the information of what it could go from there do a verbatim if you want but do that after it's approved by the voters as you can put out whatever information you want and information for your voting on this and here's all the information for every article that you vote on I guess I just don't understand how we give them something to vote on that we don't tell them what it is there's going to be a description of what it is okay like a clear it has to be it right a clear definitive this is what we mean so there'll be a question not about it's going to be this or this or this yeah the language of the charter change all has to be provided they have to have that but we will also provide information about what it really means okay it's like it's like there's a question on that it says you know do you approve the ballot of that the budget of this amount and then we have a whole booklet with all the budget of the ballot so yeah we'll also be having two hearings that right correct so they can ask at that point too yeah yeah I feel more comfortable after that conversation I just think it's very important that we have a hip definitive direction that we go towards all right any more on that okay recall we have a you know where you want to go on that so okay I'll I'll I'll I'll go ahead and start I'm supportive of the 15 percent of registered voters and I'm supportive of the the need to have at least as many voters as voted in the original election to because I think you need to have the same number at least the same number of people voting somebody out as voting them in and I'm not in favor of having the BCA in the middle of it and I also like to see the list of reasons removed because I think those could be challenged and and I and I really think that the voters should be able to for whatever the reason they choose remove somebody and and I will and I do support the appointment of somebody to replace the recalled one rather than having forcing two elections for any recall are you okay with that yeah I just like to add the 60 days and the recall provision about once in 12 months those are the two things that I think need to be in there yeah yeah I agree agree yeah for the sake of the town's $20,000 of whack and maybe one member that they're specifically after that may or may not have actually done anything because you could have a vote and then they could have a new petition next day per se I know it's unlikely but you could be in a vicious cycle of they happen all the time in California continue those three recalls all right can I just make sure I have that yeah 15% for the petition and it's registered voters registered voters active registered registered registered voters because active because not active registered voters generally voters can vote no list of reasons no board of civil authority involvement 60 days to hold the vote after the petition is verified and it can happen once for 12 months per select board member 60 days to receive the signatures for the petition oh that's the right that's a good clarification to make which 60 days are you talking about so that's what I mean don't we have a don't we have a date after the petition right now after the petition and the petition because the time clerk needs to have time to verify the signature right so we need to yeah but so that brings me to ask a question do we have a requirement for is there a due process for a petition right now on a time requirement to so so you start and finish the so you mean you're talking about the collection of the signatures yeah no we don't no that could go however long it takes them no I thought you were talking about once the once the well that was certified how quickly you know when did you have to have the election that too yeah that was the 60 days I thought you were talking right but you want to limit I don't know I was I was when he said that clarification I was like yeah yeah for other parts so well I mean can't explain how long it takes to collect signatures for moral ethics so I wouldn't there it may take that's why I was just curious if we had any other provision for petition yeah because if we did I would expect it to be the same but if we don't then I would also expect it to be the same yeah there is none no there's none okay you take all the time you want to collect the signatures yep good point great thanks for asking okay let's and then and then we leave in the the the ability of the select board or that the language about following law for replacing the person which is our charter so okay all right all right BRB again I'll start I guess I'm I'm in support of in the section this gives the select board the authority to appoint a zoning review board add the phrase or BRB you mean planning or planning and BRB versus no it's zoning or so that's the situation that you have a planning commission in both scenarios great the our charter currently allows us yes I did turn the heat up a bit when I came in the charter now allows us to have a a zrb don't zone zb what is it zba zoning board zoning board yeah so if you put or db db design review board we can do either and I you know I fully support if you if if it's if it's something that that the and yeah I should I should have kept that list of 40 things that we had that we asked town staff to do and we've done a fair amount we have we have yeah and uh you know yeah if it's if it's needs to be our priority to make it happen and I understand we've been talking it's been talked about for a long time but and as Greg said there was context there that that uh you know it was t gia was 2016 yeah yeah at least and I can support the suggestion of changing the five to the seven or or or leaving it out because it because statute allows I have just said the state lets you allow allows you to have five to nine time to select board can choose anywhere within five to nine depending on the needs of the town that it might change depending on needs the population the desires whereas if it says five it has to be five and only five which makes quorum three okay I get that but I do think it should be I don't know I have mixed feelings about the separation and I really thought about it I thought they should be two separate entities but I also understand the need to communicate between the two and staff would have a big part of that it's going to be the same community development staff supporting both boards but it could be one extra layer if you have members who serve on both not saying that they will or that it'll be required but leaving open that possibility that would be open at after they've passed the forming of DRP that right I mean you don't have to where we put the number in that doesn't necessarily mean that's what would end up that way if we just leave it as creation of the DRP right I mean if we were specific we could actually take that part out of what I'm saying the number of members yeah appreciate it wasn't it yeah I mean recommendation from from staff from the town attorney that changed it just defer to statute and statute says it can be anywhere from five to nine and then when you create the development review board you can choose the planning commission right now is seven but there's nothing to say at some point you could move them up to nine or down to five or and and the select board can decide to separate the separate that to to make an incompatible offices doesn't have to be in the charter to do that okay I've been reading the statute all night because of Google that earlier but it does say not fewer than three nor more than nine persons not fewer than three can be as well as three there's some other stuff in here but I'll save that for another day as long as we get to have the creation of a DRB on the ballot okay I think the staff nailed the recommendation perfectly and all right so we need to at our next meeting January 3rd finalized the language we did ask staff to come back with some language language proposal for just cause and then so we need for next next meeting yeah we'll um and then some of those some for closing we'll clean out some of the others there yeah right all right okay all right you need anything else from us on this right now I think I'm all set thank you okay all right that was business item a yes all right so moving on to 5b presentation and proposed fiscal year 2024 capital budget and five-year plan so you were Aaron Aaron and Dan are both working on this and Catherine I believe is still online she is um I'll I'll kick it off but um yeah so this year staff presents the select board in the community with a capital budget for the upcoming fiscal year and a five-year plan largely it it has lived with Dennis in the past Sarah Macy also got quite involved in the past few years and now neither one of them are really here on a regular basis so myself Aaron Dan and Catherine kind of well we collected all the input for the carbon heads so we we sent out to department heads as we do every year asking them for their capital request um we then had the task of sifting through all those adjusting the capital plan for us I guess it was probably two main things we were trying to look at one was just that Aaron and I in particular we've been involved with the capital plan but we haven't built it we haven't taken the lead on it Dan is fairly new to his position Catherine's fairly new to her position so we kind of had four new sets of eyes on this thing and we're trying to take a look at it understand what's been done in the past understand how it's been built and presented in the past so that we can then you know take it forward so I'd say we don't really have any huge changes to the plan itself but we spent a lot of time trying to make sure we understand what's there so Andy you've talked before one of the back to the select board's list of goals one of the things that the select board had identified is really having a a more fleshed out five-year plan we've started to try to do that but we're not fully there yet I think that's part of the time consuming process of just making sure we understand it I'm attached in the packet here there's the public works vehicle replacement plan there's the fire vehicle replacement plan Parks and Rec has Parks and Rec has an asset replacement plan so we're trying to look at those and we haven't completely matched them up yet but that's part of where we're trying to go so making sure we have a good comprehensive plan in place is part of what we're trying to get started at and can keep working at the other big challenge we had is that we're losing about $200,000 worth of capital revenue so that's with the loss of go ahead we're just going to ask a question about that if they if we approve or vote is put forward to increase the capital on this coming town meeting you would not lose any capital money right because that would go into effect July 1st depends how it's proposed but if if um yeah I'll touch on I'll come back to that thank you so we we came at it and um you know we know that we're going to have a two cent capital tax that's been in place we can we can bank on that that's going to generate about three hundred and twenty two thousand dollars based on the projected grand list that's what we went off of that's the money that we tried to assign and tried to build out the capital budget we can we can get through this year with that we can do that we uh different examples we went through and we found some areas requests uh like the highway um excuse me not the highway the parks maintenance garage there was a request submitted to do some energy efficiency upgrades to the garage for a few thousand dollars there's also a energy efficiency line that we fund every single year that's been funded at a a few thousand dollars each year we took a look at that there's some money in that energy efficiency line and we said we're gonna not fund the the parks maintenance request we're gonna not fully fund the energy efficiency requests but we're gonna take some of the money that's in that energy efficiency line and apply it towards that capital project of improving the lighting and the efficiency at the parks parks garage so that was one way to you know reduce bring that bring that money down to some extent we did that in a few other instances we we pushed off on some of the stormwater replacement some of the road maintenance in some cases and including those areas we're gonna draw down the undesignated capital so we can only do that for so long and then undesignated is gonna be gone so part of what we're gonna present to you and what's being presented and requested here is to how do we get that additional funding we would need to raise the capital tax to about three point four cents to replenish that $200,000 or so so kind of yes if we have that is approved if that goes to voters if it gets approved and yes we would we would have another $200,000 or so in the capital budget to do this our recommendation was three and a half percent partially it's around number it's close to that three point four and it's also looking down the road and Aaron can speak to this stormwater alone and highway alone and are basically 300 and I think it was $310,000 was the original request just for those two items so just to keep up with those two items we're gonna need more so giving that three point five cents as opposed to the three point four cents it gets us that much closer to staying on top of those things so as you've seen with the general general fund budget costs are increasing inflation is going up every single year that's our roads our equipment everything so that's the reasoning behind that to try to get ahead a little bit we've talked a little bit in the past about should we update our vehicle replacement schedule right now it's at 12 years for most of our vehicles that's really getting towards the end of life span in the last you know year or two in particular if not year three four at the end is when the vehicle starts to break down see more maintenance so we'd like to eventually shift gradually to a a shorter replacement lifespan for these vehicles that extra point one cents will kind of it would put us in that direction so that's kind of the overview Catherine Dan Aaron are all here we can try to speak to it if there's more questions but that's kind of where we're coming from and what we're presenting you with tonight and my first question is is the capital budget funded based on what is approved and in the budget or is the money that is put in here based on what you need for all of your capital improvements you know what I mean is it is it funded from the sense where okay you have 535,000 so you fit that into whatever you need to or can do with your capital or do you have the data that says we need this much money for our capital equipment yeah trucks all over stormwater or the whole nine years I'm just curious I'd say it's a bit of both and Aaron might be able to speak to this as well as me I think it's we've always known we've had that five hundred and thirty thousand so we try to assign it where we best need it but we've also not done we're kind of aware and Dennis has done some work Aaron's done some work of that's not enough but we haven't put everything else that we've had going on and other costs that we've been facing through merger and then separation it was sort of a lower priority issue as to present to full-blown here's what we really need I think we're getting to that point pretty soon we're not quite there right now not going to be enough going forward I just wanted to bring that up because a lot of towns they give a capital budget and say we have eighty thousand and then the staff has to fit in well okay wherever our priorities and I just my personal feeling is I think Essex is kind of there because since in a short time I've been here you've had buildings that you've had to do emergency replacements you've had lines you've had trucks, vehicles, roads there's a lot of things so I was just curious that if your capital budget requires more that should be the number that you base your capital budgeting on and that that can go up and down as you replace stuff versus just saying okay you've got five hundred thousand do what you can with it to patch the holes yeah and just that's my two cents I do have a reaction to that but no Aaron's got some stuff I think on the capital plan and we definitely try to identify projects that are needed within the community and as Greg spoke we try to rank them accordingly which ones we have available funding this year is that odd year where we're down it's a little amount of money we had to we had to adjust a lot of these specific projects and try to reassign funds to the ones that we felt were or took priority a lot of those were some of the infrastructure projects but yeah is there a need for more funding for this I think Greg gave the three and a half cents is that would take us where we were correct yeah is there a need for more and for what you're asking I think that's where we want to go and when I said you know Dan Aaron Catherine myself we're trying to wrap our heads around it and figure out how it's been done in the past so that we can be confident how we want to do it in the future I think that's paired part of where we want to go in the future is really nailing down what those needs are and at least putting a price tag on and if if not you know to at least say this is what we need you may not be able to fund it this is what we need and have that conversation yeah Ethan I have a question suggestion idea hear me out right but I I have done it in the previous time almost all my life I got the boat there the first couple years before I moved here um I have a question it's kind of an idea I'm gonna give it to you if you had the ability and I know we have the ability say let's just I'm gonna use the the greater as an example I know we just replaced it and it's a beautiful piece of machinery and I'm very appreciative for it but in in this scenario where I was before right and and we voted and this this was approved for a greater if you come up on a capital plan especially this year in your short money right and you can say and I see in here for your sub total equipment we got $25,000 which I know is not enough to replace anything but if you had a piece of equipment you had a plow truck if you had an excavator if you had a greater we isn't a greater for an example here and you put it as a ballot item and it could be unbalanced or it could come out of the budget or whatever and you said do the voters of Essex Junction or Essex Junction Essex Town approve this item then that frees up money out of your capital plan and gives you something that you need rather than keeping money for year after year which $25,000 isn't going to save up so when I see this that was the first question I had was what is your equipment plan with $25,000 a year how do you plan on buying anything quick clarification there yes there's $25,000 in equipment proposed from capital most of the equipment comes from operating transfers so there's a hundred and some odd $150 out of the general budget just check it $200 for public works $2,000 so that's where a lot of the equipment replacement cost gets built in but beyond as far as a bond question because I was reading that I was like man I hope he's counting for more than that it's doesn't buy a truck no it doesn't buy fuel for the truck how do they come inside of the operating transfer but then that that's yeah yeah okay and my idea is still valid though for future so so though we have always interpreted the language in our charter to say that from a from a budget standpoint there's only one number that the voters approve and that we don't do line items at time meeting you don't you don't have a specific dollar amount of things I don't get to pick and choose don't get to pick it's just one number and so unless it's a bond I don't know we would bond for one vehicle we never do that it has to be buried in the budget and that's that's a 100% the biggest standpoint of our charter the way we've always interpreted it as far as the questions yeah that's how we've always done it I think the the question of whether or not bond or not bond or you know do we do we fund stuff through bonds or we fund stuff through capital the questions come up we've had conversations as staff before it I guess I'd say there's probably no right answer Essex has tried to typically avoid bonding except for you know the new police station those big building type needs maybe Indianbrook as before my time but so there's two in far between we've gone out to bonds and it's kind of a question of how much do you put on the current taxpayers versus future taxpayers how much do you want to pay interest on something versus set money aside and collect interest on that and be ready for when the the need comes up if you're if you had to have a rolling replacement schedule and you're funding appropriately to have that vehicles it's you know it's probably close to six of one half dozen the other you get a little bit into interest you know earning interest versus paying interest but you kind of have a consistent amount of money going towards these things that's my managerial understanding and there might be a different financial understanding or or better explanation as you know bonding versus saving I think that's pretty spot on Greg I mean we're just trying to find ways to smooth out spending patterns from year to year sort of toward these long-term costs or whether it be vehicles or if it's a replacing a bill right yeah this I'm not talking about a bond I mean the specific question was do the voters approve the purchase of a $250,000 voter at the time that it went through and it passed because you know to your point you want to avoid long-term costs but at the same sense that there's not enough money that's continually going in there and we run a greater for about seven years past its life expectancy and we dump more money into it than it was to invest into a new one we're losing money but we can't continue to underfund and this is you know maybe I'm going off from the capital but I believe this is capital to me we can't continue to underfund especially public works especially equipment I understand storm water and things like that but if you have a ditch that needs some gravel it's not a piece of equipment that prepares the ditch that needs to gravel so I just wanted to make sure that we were on track with equipment it says in here there's an attempt to go to a or a proposal to go to a eight-year life-cycle yeah I'd say we're on track for that 12-year replacement schedule but that won't be for that won't be for a road grader I mean the road grader was previously about 27 years in the town's possession I don't think it was that long 24 operator told me in one day at my house and I it was an old piece of iron and it definitely saw better days but and I think that's that's the point that Greg's trying to make and we're trying to make is some of these time frames need to be shrunk down right because on those outer years they do get quite pricey and it's better savings for us and it's a better use of taxpayers money to drink that time frame in which we use our vehicles and you get more value out of when you create a man well yeah I right now we're on our current plan 12 years for our trucks but we would like to get that shrinking down quite a bit over the next few years but that does take more money you know all this discussion shows me that staff and boards and Essex you're 90% there the only thing I think might be missing is that if you if you need more sometimes and you need less there should be the option to ask for more and ask for less because once you get caught up to that point with capital where you don't have these it will naturally come down because everything will be you'll be getting better values for your equipment your pipes won't be breaking stuff so I would just urge the board to really consider this year bite the bullet and fund the capital budget what it needs for funding you get your biggest bang out of your capital and I would just add that if we're looking at a 20 percent plus increase a few more percentages to increase the capital tax isn't really going to make a big difference but it can make a big difference in the future going forward anything else I just have a question for on the storm water the property owners of the shared maintenance you said there was seven have they been approached about sharing the cost repairs any repairs or which it's that at at the end of your report on the storm water it's that and I'm not going to find Oh is that the the memo print a little whatever yes you're telling about all the costs and all the projects and at the end you stated that under the towns MS for permit the town is responsible or partially responsible for the maintenance of the 34 storm water thing anyway it says that seven of those are shared agreement shared maintenance agreement and I'm curious if those seven shared maintenance agreements have been approached about sharing in the cost so when we do go after or we need to improve or do any maintenance work on any of those where we do have shared maintenance agreements most of those are through HSAs we we would be looking for at least proportionately our flows to it and then their flows I don't know the exact language in those agreements but there would be a cost sharing for or at least those that where we have the others we don't have any maintenance agreements in there since we've taken them over we will be responsible and I'm sorry what does an HSA homeowners association oh okay okay thank you health savings account yeah oh you did and I was like I know what an HOA is but I did not know what an HSA is that's a a charter thing really it's a for the wind at me sorry yeah I can imagine what it did to you get folks yeah that's so so Greg you said that the there was a 322 thousand number that you you put out there that's the number we're getting from the two cent tax on the reduced grand list is that what correct okay and we're we're pretty much keeping operating transfers about level with last year correct we yeah we level funded all operating transfers except buyer was one exception but we took we basically shifted a radial line from the cost into capital so it was really a net zero but that's basically yes for the level funding all and transfers to capital so the suggestion of the proposal that you're likely going to come to us with to propose a capital tax increase is not a common for in this plan correct correct yeah okay so that gets to some I think what you're saying is if if the voters approve that that capital increase then it does more fully fund because it would be it would be we're talking doesn't go till next year though if it's that's what says that this the well we're talking about next year right I mean the what I'm saying is that if they vote on it it's not an does it immediately go into effect or is it following we've already got to take effect with the fiscal 24 tax rate so it would kick in July 1st of the 24 September September tax bill would reflect you already have your March tax bill right okay you can affect that one so yeah and so the the budget that will that will be go before the voters on town meeting day includes capital transfers of 466 or 470,000 and then there's the the 322 that we're getting from the two cents we'll get an additional and do the math yet if the the other capital tax if the the additional capital tax approves and so it's probably better planning to not plan on it until you have it right and and you know if you look at the charts in there about what was requested versus what was funded the request came in at about $530,000 so if that was replenished our first starting point we would need to go back and say okay where did we cut let's replace some of that stuff for me you know something like the so yeah so what would the impact on that we took you took the $40,000 out of part facility so what was what's the impact going to be with that you know um part of you know that's that's that's one where there's some money in wreck impact fees that are available so we can get through a year maybe two I forget how much is in rep impact fees but it was it was enough to yeah I think it's in the year or two range Greg where it's yep 70 80 maybe yep mm-hmm who doesn't affect the spend the money's just coming from somewhere else okay in that in that case there are I think there are there are sure there are others that we're not going to be spending those yep wait have a question we have a two cent actually if you propose more than that and it doesn't pass you still have the two cents right right well there's no downside to asking for more than your bare bones just what we need what we have would you be able to come up with a number in a short period of time before you needed to approve this as far as what you would need to fully fund the capital beyond what you have in here because you've already got the budget all set up where if you don't change the two cents you've already taken care of where you would cut where you would move it but if you got more just just for a better number because you've proposed the 3.39 I believe it is but I'm curious what would be the tax number that would fully fund the capital budget yeah I'd love to say we could I think to really do do diligence and make that public works replacement schedule make that fire replacement schedule make that park assets replacement schedule the it one and to put it in Aaron and Ann you're going to be talking about stormwater looking ahead towards stormwater which is doing analysis of our systems figuring out some of the state requirements coming down for phosphorus I I don't know that we're going to get you an accurate number the next three to four weeks and feel free to disagree with me if you one thing to keep in mind is that we've got a reassessment starting so when that happens that capital tax number becomes bigger because it's likely that folks assessments are going to go up yeah and if you had the number though what you actually needed you would be able to reduce that I mean if it went up beyond what you needed for your capital you could always reduce the capital tax well the other thing we've talked about is some of these operating transfers do at some point we raise the capital tax and raise that you know lower the general fund by the same amount so you're shifting more of the capital into capital is it more transparent is it yeah it just you know it makes it very transparent because for the lay person like me you look at capitals like well they're they're going to place the they're going to replace this this this this this but then when you look at it's like well they didn't replace these because they had this went and we didn't have the money to do that so now these are out and now you've got a greater that's 15 years old and it's brand new or you know so so I'm just saying that if you had that you could raise that capital tax needed up and down as an item now meeting if you if you didn't need the four cents you only needed three cents to fully fund your capital you could reduce it the three cents just a thought yeah yeah either I just have a question but I might be jumping ahead to the next item is a hundred thousand dollars still one percent probably yeah it was like nine yeah 90 to 100 yeah 90 to 100 range is still one percent for the operating budget I guess I have to save it for the next item okay so yeah right so yeah just a question fund balances is a factor in this as well are you looking for action on this or is this just the presentation this is just presentation we'll bring it back again we typically warrant a public hearing for capital and got a question of whether or not to put a question on the ballot to increase the capital tax that'll have to be part of your discussions as you finalize the town meeting ballot okay so it did go back and look I think I sent you all the information that I collected about what was on previous town meetings and the last time the capital tax was changed it was not a floor vote it was a ballot vote so I think that makes sense to do that question I have though is we still have a highway tax we just set the tax rate at zero correct might be a I don't know if we can just turn the highway tax back on so one percent it was eight percent eight percent and we we traded a lot of it away during consolidation right and we were talking and you know as we got closer and closer to merger it went to zero and I think perhaps we could justify bringing it back by the fact that we all those things that went into merger are gone now and we still have a need we actually could say we still have a need for highway tax which doesn't require a vote we just set the rate where it's needed which might be a may not be it'd be frowned upon and then the highway tax was used for public works road repairs and I never understood it truthfully and we had it but I'm not sure what it all went towards towards public works budget road repair what does it go towards I believe it did yeah I'm not I'm not too up on the the highway tax no we had it and I know there was some issues with regards to which town there was that there was a question about it was only it was time it was town outside the village only and Greg and I were talking about this a while back and then I've I've got to go back I'm a lousy researcher because I don't document where I find things but there it's my understanding from what I've been able to collect that in 1917 this the legislature established a highway district in the village which de facto established a highway district outside the village and that's what gave us the authority to to have a town outside the village only highway tax and it has if you look at the history of it it's gone from 1 cent to 2 cents to 5 cents to 8 cents to 16 to 32 cents I think it was it was 32 cents they made that 32 it's at least 16 cents for a while they had a new grader back then and so that's what I feel when it paves the envelope it's been it's been all over the place it was a horse most recently it was at 8 percent and then we traded we traded it when when the town or when the village highway budget was added into the town budget the the tax was the town I said the village tax was reduced to offset some of the impact of that yeah that's what I would know and then within the last couple years we traded it away completely when they put their rolling stock we put we put village rolling stock into the town budget that was when the last penny went away of the but now that that's all gone back there but next year I don't know whether we want to consider bringing that highway tax that mechanism still in place or is it think probably too but we'd have to yeah do some more digging it's worth investigating and taking a look at it I don't think it was never voted out so it would still be there it would have to be funny it would have to be a charge and and when the the tax rate was changed it was a just no it was voted on as part of the budget wasn't it that's right it was voted as part of the budget because we included it because it was a revenue source in the budget that's that's how I think that's how the the change the numbers were changed now that I think about it could be so I don't know if it would it would it would I don't know if it I don't know if it's a it's just it was a reasonable strategy or not just I'm going to bring it back because we still technically on the books it was looking into yeah and and and just to just to continue on of this to kind of I did put that memo in the back there just to kind of give some of the gravity of which we're trying to address some of the the problems we do have in our infrastructure last year really hurt us pretty bad for four hundred thousand dollars try to come up with that even out of any type of even out of our undesignated it's substantial amount of money we're the amounts that we we did cut from at least I was speaking to stormwater and and highway they hurt but they're doable but it's not something we can sustain so if you have another major break or if there's another sinkhole forming somewhere that we just haven't seen you know I would just say that the highway tax is 20th century technology you're 21st is capital tax and that's basically trying to do what they needed in highway and you obviously increased it and stuff but if you get your capital number then you can then you know that you're funding your capital but you're still going to have years where you'll spend too much but you'll still get the amount that you'll need based on how you shuffle your items so they used a more transparent way to do it probably it's very much transparent because for the layman you look there's capital transfers into operating budget and then there's a capital budget but the capital budget is not fully funded because it gets operating transfer it's very confusing I know that I can say that Essex is the envy of a lot of towns because you guys have a capital tax that every taxpayer pays into your capital to be used for all the town so there's there's no separation between whether it goes to stormwater or highway or a building and there's a lot of towns that have really tried to get to that point so and as a taxpayer you know that that two cents is funding your infrastructure you're hired your buildings everything in the town everybody's paying it and everything costs one percent more if you run it through the general fund because we add one percent for the human services funding so the any of those capital transfers plus one percent more because of the bogey we add the one percent we add for the human services so and the human services is great it is yeah i'm not saying it's a bad thing but it's it's a reality that if there's four hundred and sixty six four hundred seventy thousand dollars of of capital transfers in our coming budget then forty seven hundred dollars is added to that yeah that we can give away so it costs one percent more and I would say the one exception to that should be the police which we should keep in the police budget so that we can properly account for the cost-sharing one thousand six dollars yeah yeah because you have a special deal but for everything else all your buildings your it the highway equipment stormwater especially I mean if you have and that makes it very easy for the taxpayer look say oh you've got your capital plans as this year you need six hundred ninety thousand dollars so your tax your capital tax is point three eight two and this year we didn't have a bunch we save some money we didn't have to spend a lot our balance is where we want it we'll set it at two cents it'll flux just like your highway tax I think your highway tax kind of went up and just stayed up it stayed it stayed at eight cents for a long long time and then we whittled it away to the zero yeah it didn't it didn't move around and that's for just highway though right in it specific for right or anything else need anything else for me anything it's just it's informational thank you thank you awesome thanks for all your hard work yeah is it a hand up no I was just gonna tell me could stay for an exciting it's okay we'll move on to the yeah the 5d the general fund balance so we'd hope to make some recommendations for you but the the audit didn't come in until well we got the draft version on just this past Thursday so Dan and I wanted to spend some more time really digesting that making sure we had grasp on it before we came forward with with specific recommendations you can have that by January 3rd we're I think we're in much better shape today than we were on Friday as we were putting the packet together yes yeah so but did want to keep it on the packet just kind of give you our preliminary thoughts which are to take the fund balance and that we're going to that we think we're going to have confident that we do have and apply it to two main areas which are reducing future tax rates we already have some money set aside to reduce future tax rates we'd like to keep doing that and capital needs because the other big one we just had that conversation that's probably firstly where you were going Ethan a couple other ones that we came up with talking that were not made it that did not make it in the memo the fire department had an instance where they bought a bunch of equipment towards the end of the fiscal year didn't get delivered until this fiscal year and best accounting practices you want to bill it to the year that is received not the year that it's ordered so so that they don't take a big hit to their budget this year we'd like to assign some money there it's about forty forty six forty seven thousand a thousand dollars and then there's some other money we have a health and wellness account that each each employee has access to a little bit of funding a few hundred dollars each year if that doesn't get spent by individual employees we're proposing taking that which is another four five thousand dollars yeah forty eight hundred and using it towards organizational health and wellness events so that's been everything from financial literacy in the past to we used to bring in somebody from PLCT to do some health screening so something like along those lines but those are the two big ones are tax reduction and capital what happened to the money that was initially set aside for the radios or equipment or whatever it was I'm saying they ordered it they had the money then it went into our it didn't get spent so basically it's savings and so rather rather than making them spend that money now and and either go over budget or have to defer another year on the another equipment this is kind of a you know they budget each year to buy some uniforms buy some radios wait no yeah I understand so we'd like to take the money they saved that they didn't spend last year and apply it towards that approach okay okay got it yes here I have an idea oh no be mad at me but I think we should put a hundred thousand dollars in the public works transfer capital transfer because if we're down two hundred thousand dollars and we have a year like this year we're going to be down four hundred thousand dollars next year am I wrong about that if things continue to happen the way that they're happening at the rate that they are right now how bad of a position will we be in next year in the public works standpoint for storm Ethan I don't have a good answer for you I would like to think nothing is going to break or fail next year or this year I'd like to have and that would be the perfect year for me but that's not reality at times it's quite honestly at the memo I put it we had two big ones last year but I also wanted to point out we had a lot of small ones right the twenty five thousand the thirty thousand the forty thousand that really eat up our operating budget capital is a way where we can take a big dent and at some of these future sinkholes or our conditions or issues we have with our existing infrastructure that we're finding when we're televising our system at this point we can start prioritizing those a little sooner and then get in the work done on those so do I think there's going to be another big one I don't know I can't answer that is there a possibility there's always a possibility of something like that happening again for our next meeting we'll get a list of what's available for for fund balance I think that's the time that we you can make those recommendations we can yeah and I would contend that you know rather than saying 100,000 to public works 50,000 here you know it could be one number just saying we're going to set aside fund balance and use it for capital transfer you know maybe it's 250k maybe it's 300k right something at your discretion so along with what you already have listed out we could say an additional amount right yeah I think part of what we'll discuss and what you'll have the decision on is out of that chunk of money do we put it all into undesignated capital and therefore as needed to rise over the course of the year we can pull from that we can replenish some of the undesignated we know we're going to dip into right or does it make more sense to say this is going to be for stormwater this is going to be for vehicle replacements I think that's part of what we'll be talking about presenting to you yeah yeah I mean my biggest concern is last year was 400,000 I imagine we're over we're over 100 this year probably in the bank of an eye right for 23 you know it's too alone had to well those are those those were sewer amount of our enterprise funds yeah but here's another water capital yeah it's to a certain extent I mean there's there's a cost to the to the to the to the town to the town to the town to the town to the town to the town to the town if it's fully 100% funded what's that there's no no one penny spent by the town on any of those the water the water rates the water sewer cover that fully yeah yeah yeah that's good you're welcome my well-failed and it was $12,000 out of my pocket the next day so just know that but residents I do say thank you Don because that's a common misconstrued argument because my kids go to public school and the firefighters take water from those hydrants and I use restrooms in this building and in many other places so I want to just throw that out there that we all be thankful for the water sewer department we do right there was actually I had a question about the the check board I did I didn't understand but now I do so I'm so yeah this you know I'm part of our general fund accounts for buildings we pay for water and sewer yep so yep we're our own customers yeah I didn't know that until I saw the war in the tri-city isn't it like a tri-city that owns the water sewer tri-town so tri-town Essex Junction owns the plant Willis and Essex Junction and Essex I'll have but we're all share involved with it to some extent and somebody else's name completely is on the bond right Bradford or Bradford yeah oh really he's picked up a leftover bond I already had a name on it because it's weird that was odd all right anything else that was was that fund balance where we just did yep all right so now we're moving on to the general fund budget work session minor updates from our last meeting see looking at the memo Dan Travis who's the HR director and I met with Passif about a week ago a week and a half ago no real changes to the budget it was very helpful in understanding how they set those credits how they come up with those each year but we still don't think we should budget any differently it fluctuates year to year there's not really a pattern to it capital we just discussed personnel Travis updated we'd filled some positions since we first presented the budget so we have a better sense of what they're going to be the wages and the benefits are going to come in at next year had a minor impact to the budget but those those changes were made I think it went dropped it down by about 10th of a percentage point yeah small but something Ethan and I have a meeting tomorrow about Essex Rescue with some of the other certain towns trying to come up with a response there senior vans still no word from Essex Junction as to whether or not they want to continue that at this point I would say let's just move forward with the expectation that it doesn't happen I guess we have another month or so if if something does change if we do hear something we can adjust it that way but at this point I would just say let's stop waiting and move forward on that and fun balance we just talked about we'll have have some more recommendations and thoughts on that for January 3rd did we find out insurance in the tree farm yes so the tree farm situation oh boy yeah so you have to think about it a little bit so we're tenants in common so it's a shared responsibility I don't remember them saying whether it was specifically on a certain amount of land like the tenant in common relationship just takes charge over it the dollar amount I don't remember being significant for that that coverage that we're sharing that was my concern about well yeah but is the town currently paying the the full fare for it no no it is no right I don't think it is yeah but we're we're paying yeah okay so it's shared that's your shared cost as well correct and it's it's minor because it's basically just on land at that point yeah but okay and how do we without hearing about the ethics rescue situation how can we warn a on a matter and we don't know what we're doing with fun balance yet either so I think right I don't think right the next two agenda items we won't move forward on is that the intent yeah we put it on there if you wanted to you can but at this point we have still a few questions as far as I'll have the meeting tomorrow before I say anything about ethics rescue yeah yeah so currently we're at 22 and a half percent yes tax rate increase as the as the current things are currently proposed right so that's that settles e and f we moved the CUD thank you guys thank you so much thank you before you do CUD I found my answer to the refund in my notes so basically they don't look at the split the town versus versus the city because it all is that tenants in common but they use basic expenditures for their rating whatever that means but today they look at it and then they they come up with the a standard of what it should be at the end of the day it's $60 a year toward $60 okay okay the truth okay okay that's fine yep okay use too much premium stage department and buildings wherever it goes the insurance premiums sorry say it you have the insurance premium all split out so that you know what everywhere what goes to public works what goes to finance space the entire insurance apart from workers comp we split out workers comp for fire and police all other insurance is processed through finance we do have the the schedule of you know what each building is and and those types of things but it's all paid through the finance department okay and they give you the opportunity to go through there and look at everything that you have that they're insuring yep because there have been discrepancies found occasionally a building that maybe isn't there or a piece of equipment that was sold or or something I just I'm sure you're on top of that I just would mention that you asked Dan asked a lot of questions ahead of time and they answered them all I think it's yeah we go through the annual process so in November we submitted our updated lists so that's the to assess you know our bill in comparison with other units I just I know that you guys do that sometimes what you get back from your insurance they may not have it they fail that occasionally to update their lists where you have even though you submit the list I just and like I said I'm sure you're all set but it never hurts to look again thanks Jeffs all right CUD okay so the there was a recommendation there's a recommendation from staff that we appoint Marguerite as the representative to the communications union district Greg is actually very busy is there is there anybody on the board who wants to would like to be the communications union district wrapped I'll give you a clue that I might raise my hand on this one but I'll defer somebody else really wants to do it I was going to say I would if nobody wants to do it but if you want to do it you have more time than I do my my most my most recent job at global foundries was involved with fiber with the optical fiber so some experience in it there's no problem Andy with that I have a conflict of interest and my father when I worked for Brown can talk to him so yeah so Andy somebody want to make a motion to want to make the motion we appoint Marguerite as a representative and Andy as the alternate alternate to the new CECC it's chinning county communications union district thank you thank you Don thank you Kendall any further discussion those in favor please say aye aye aye opposed say nay okay motion passes 4-0 first meeting is next week you know January 5th January 5th then Mary's not back by then probably not okay so I guess that might be all right we'll we'll come back to executive session discussion in a minute but consent agenda make the motion we accept the consent agenda as presented thank you Don thank you Ethan any further discussion probably do I'm not down yet what I said I probably have a comment but my computer is scrolling down through the stuff there's a check warrant saying it was a bit of approval and help off so and you pulled the communication on yep pull that one out I'm good all right all those in favor please say aye aye aye opposed say nay if I've corrected my my language here because you asked that question motion passes 4-0 reading file any question would have been that the excavation came in quite a bit lower that's great that's good thank you okay for reading file board member comment board member comments I asked this question about this dark preservation thing and it's it's for the water tower it doesn't actually say in there anywhere but it's for the the restoration of the roof of the water tower over in that but we did get one we did yes awesome so it's denied your yeah see the first time I probably was denied and this is their second time around that's um yeah Ann Gray deserves a ton of credit from the Historical Society she's been tracking down every available grant and putting in tons of applications and so major kudos to her for for getting this one well worth the effort thank you that's great any other comments I have comment I really like thank all the town's staff and employees and wish them a merry Christmas and happy new year and thank them for their hard work this year on behalf of these employees thank you and back at you Ethan I like that Don thank you for saying that and I made another trip down the road my tractor and then I about our discussion there and that it is Irene Irene Drive yep so this baffles me right because I've driven by there a million times I've never paid attention enough to see this until I'm in my tractor and there's people trying to cross the road well when you approach that crosswalk that's not being on the road there's crosswalk ahead signs and no crosswalk signs at all just crosswalk ahead so no lines I had that on the agenda to to have a letter from the select board go to V-trans it ran out of time no it's fine I just so it's it's there Aaron's Aaron's done a little bit of prep work on it already we are going to have to go to V-trans it's a state highway we're going to have to request permission to do that that's going to come from the select board that's the letter that has to get drafted up so that's what you'll see hopefully at your next meeting of you know requesting flashing beacons the crosswalk in the in the road to try to pursue that but it does have to go through V-trans and it's going to be a request from the select board to make that happen but is it is it a key thing that point out to them that there's actually a signs that say crosswalk ahead yeah that'd be a good crosswalk yeah there's no there's no sign there's no marking it's just crosswalk ahead yeah and who I mean maybe it was there and it got faded and nobody repainted I don't know so maybe it's easy I looked for broken poles or anything like that there's nothing because I was like I was like how did I never notice that's amazing fine yeah I'm gonna look for that when I as I've driven by every two days twice a day all right so let's any other comments if anybody off anybody somebody got the I make the motion select board enter executive session to discuss the negotiation or hearing a real estate purchase or lease options in accordance with one VSA section 313 A2 and to include the town manager thank you Don do I have a second second thank you Ethan any further discussion any discussion at all we will not be coming back after this other than to adjourn do we need to come back here to adjourn no we can adjourn up there so there's there's no more additional Scott you can leave and and we're not going to make any more definitely hang around and warn that we're going to do anything so we won't night Gina and so all those in favor we say aye aye aye opposed say nay okay motion passes four zero we'll adjourn upstairs