 Actually, I can sing. All righty. OK. So I will call the meeting to order. It is 7 o'clock. First thing on the agenda are the minutes of April 2, 2019. Is there a motion? I move to approve the minutes of April 2, 2019 with any amendments or additions there, too. Is there a second? I'll second. Page one. Terry, one thing under number six from the previous page, line property management plan. Under discussion, it reads Jeff Fares confirmed the conservation commission is blah, blah, blah. And I suggest that it read Jeff Fares asked for confirmation that. Yes, you did. And it was received. Yes. It's just that I felt awkward. Yeah, I confirmed that the conservation commission. That was impressive. Yes. I called them beforehand. Under number eight, the second third sentence. It mentions the residents noted a survey of neighborhood residents. Actually, the survey was more than just neighborhood residents. So I think it should noted a survey. And it showed the majority of respondents are not in support. Just a strike of neighborhood residents. OK. And page three, during no more corrections or comments, all those in favor of approving the minutes for the second 2019 say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? And one abstention. Joy. Thank you. And moving on to public comments. Anyone in the audience who has any comment on anything on the agenda or not on the agenda? Yes. If you just identify yourself. Ron Bummer. I'm the vice president of the Hamlet Homeowners Association. And we have a letter we want to give to the board. Go ahead. Dear select board, we represent the 45 property owners in the Hamlet adjacent to the northwest quadrant of Finney Crossing at a December 18, 2000, excuse me, 18 select board budget meeting. We presented our collective view to the board regarding our concerns with the winter sidewalk maintenance policy. And while requesting plowing of our sidewalks, the select board instructed the town manager and his town staff to involve us in the update of the town's policy. We appeal to the board or we appealed to the board not to forget us. We told you we feel we have been paying property taxes for over 14 years and money should have been budgeted 15 years ago. We left the meeting anticipating follow-up contact with town staff. No contact occurred. Therefore, the notice of April 2, the last select board policy vote and approval surprised our group. We collectively spent over 20 hours to prepare for a 15-minute opportunity before your panel in December. As the item bounced during your last meeting, the town's presentation to the board became disjointed in its delivery, so we refer to the draft minutes of that meeting now. We support the town taking responsibility for all town sidewalks. However, we continue to ask to be involved in the development of an updated sidewalk maintenance and plowing policies for the town while developing the budget for next year. We have input to give from our experience here in the Hamlet with plowing services from both the town and private vendors. Our experience points to deficits in the town's operational plans in the development of the Hamlet and in the maintenance of the subdivisions assets. We would respectfully request the select board not to take action on the sidewalk maintenance policy until we have the opportunity to provide input as decided upon in the special meeting in December. Thank you. And we did take up the issue of plowing all sidewalks in town last at the last select board. And that will be a topic of discussion as we look at the budget for next year. But we encourage you to be in touch with Rick and with Bruce regarding your request. Okay. And we ask the town to keep us informed the same direction. We did get some information about the cost of plowing all of the sidewalks, the public sidewalks that exist in town. And it was a little daunting. But that's why we need to look at it when the budget. Yeah. We had wanted to, prior to the meeting, give input into it. And we felt like we weren't given access back. And we want to, before the budget cycle comes again, we want to be involved. Yes. Before we start the budget process, which will be next fall, November. But the town will be, the staff will be putting together their thoughts before that. So, yes. Okay. And then along those, and this is as a resident and not as part of the homeowners association, I want to reach out and say I support the select board joining in the appeal that the south rich residents have presented. I personally have issues over a plat that gets changed. And when I went and saw the actual location, it's a beautiful rock fall down the hill. And it seems just like as we've got lost in getting to the sidewalk, I think other entities like the developer view board sometimes forgets about the residential input. And we, we disrespectfully asked to be her. Thank you. Any other public comment from anyone in the audience on any subject tonight? So no hands raised and we'll move on to the general fund loan to the storm. So Eric, you're going to leave this off and James, I presume you're going to be involved in this discussion. Perhaps early. I'm right in front of me. Good evening, everyone. So this was a concept that was approved by the board back in January for staff to pursue further and drop the legal documents and bring back to the board tonight. So a little bit of background. The town's storm water loan program for neighborhoods, making major changes in storm water systems made its first loans in 2018. To date, $770,000 has been loaned out. The program has been a major success. Neighborhoods have undertaken required improvements faster than the town anticipated. So as a result, the reserve in the storm water utility to make loans has run low. Matter which phase two, which the board will be asked to approve the loan tonight following this item, and Wilson comments have loan crests to only $436,000. The loan fund doesn't have nearly enough on hand to make these loans. So a solution we can look at is an inner fund loan as a tool to be used here. Conditions for it are for public benefit and lost opportunity of projects deferred because the loan isn't made. So this instance checks these boxes. Both neighborhoods have bids received and are ready to contract the work out this year in 2019. So staff recommends making a $390,000 inner fund loan from the general fund to the storm water utility. There's fund balance available to make this loan in the general fund. Looking at a five year loan term at a $1.9, 2% interest rate. Interest is paid so the town doesn't lose money since these funds would otherwise be invested in a CD. This rate was derived from the town treasurer with consultation. So tonight the board is being asked to approve the declaration of intent resolution included in your agenda packet and authorize staff to sign the loan agreement and promissory note. All have been approved. It's really good outlucky to find us directors on hand here. In your packet there's a cash flow analysis memo surely put up with the number for the inner fund loan. She's here to answer any questions to the board. Have those on that item. James Sarar storm our coordinators also here. He can speak to the program in general and he'll speak to the metal ridge loan more specifically when we get to that item. So open for questions. So the floor is open for questions from the board. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Just two quick ones hopefully Eric. I'm on your memo and the amount needed you mentioned is 436. The amount is requested is 390. I assume that's because that difference. There's enough funds in the in the stormwater coffers. Forget what the what the fund is actually called. I'm on the memo from surely and it's just a quick thing and it totally could be I'm just not understanding. But there's a line in it that reads estimated cash balance without without consideration of new projects and it mentions 83792 and then down below I'm trying to I'm trying to compare that to a number that reads application of current cash balance and load fund and it says 50,000 and I would have thought those two numbers should have been the same. Does that make sense first of all? So we didn't want to rob the stormwater fund of all of its cash because there are so as you know we go through the process and apply for state grants and then as projects become approved we have to pay out those grants so we didn't want to have no funds left in the stormwater fund to not to be pay out those grants. So we said okay at 83 that leaves us like 33,000 cushions so let's use 50 of that balance and leaves ourselves some money for other costs. So if I could repeat what I just said, there's a very defensible reason to do this. There is. Okay. And then my last question is so the concept is you're going to charge the stormwater fund an interest rate of 1.92%. The concept there being is that the folks who benefit from the general fund will not incur a cost. The other side is that 1.92% that is charged. Who incurs that cost? What group of entity incurs that cost? Just to make sure I understand. Does that make sense that question first? It does. So anyone who pays who pays into the stormwater loan fund so really all residents because all residents have a piece of information. So that will be a cost that needs to come out of that fund and thus will need to be made up if it needs to be made up depending on how fees come in. I just want to make sure I understood that. That's it for me. Are there questions or comments? We actually do a promissory note from ourselves to ourselves. That's part of the public works director sign on behalf of the stormwater utility so we weren't having the town manager sign on both ends of it. So that's part of the three things that we're looking at tonight. Yes. So I'd be looking for a motion regarding the loan to the stormwater fund. To adopt the resolution authorizing an interfund loan from the general committee to the stormwater fund as presented and authorized the town manager and public works director to sign the required legal documentation. Second. That's for discussion on the motion. Hearing none. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Any opposed? No abstentions. So we'll move on then to the approving a loan to the stormwater utility. Yes. I can kick it up briefly. The board member call last year about this time the Meadow Ridge project was split into two phases. It's the largest project in stormwater project in town. So phase one is almost completed. James can speak to that and they're preparing to do phase two coming up. So everything is in place to approve that loan. And James is here and he can do a brief overview of where Meadow Ridge is and answer any questions the board has. Thanks for having me. I think I'll take just one brief step back. We're all doing this for the Allenbrook floor restoration plan. The town has put together some unique programs including this loan policy to encourage and incentivize these neighborhoods to get back into compliance faster than they could if they were funding it just on their own. And if all the loans are approved tonight we will have loaned out about $1.2 million in the last few years to help with this project. In addition to that town staff has written and received almost $700,000 with the grant funds from the state. So in combination with the writing and these loans that we've been pulling together 12 of the 18 residential systems are going to be complete by the end of this year. Which is roughly 80% of all the residential ones that we needed to do by the year 2032. So we're doing a good job. That's my step back reminder of kind of why we're tackling it this way. Meadow Ridge as Eric talked about is in two phases that phase one is ponds two and ponds three and phase two is pond one. So I can say that faster if you want me to. Phase one is substantially complete. There's very little work to do. One of the reasons projects linger in the substantially complete phase for a while is if they're completed in early winter and vegetation doesn't establish itself we need to wait until the next growing season to make sure that vegetation is there and there's no erosion that popped up. Phase one is pretty much done with that exception. Phase one was also covered by a grant. Phase two has had a grant submitted by town staff in mid-March. We won't know if a grant is awarded for a few months. But if that happens we'll just have more funds to redistribute to the rest of the neighborhoods and that's something I can talk about more if anyone's interested. And so phase two is actually a pretty big pond. It's going to be probably the single most expensive pond that we're building and that's scheduled to be completed by this fall regardless of if we get a grant or not and that's what this loan would be funding. Once phase two is done that will enable the town of Wilson to formally accept the entire storm water system. We've currently accepted six of them. We're definitely going to accept a couple more at least this year. And if Metteridge finishes on time we'll accept them and then we'll own those permit requirements. Here are our comments. No, I keep on keeping on. So I'd be looking for a motion on this the loan agreement. I had moved to approve a loan to the Metteridge community association for phase two of its storm water improvement project and then authorize the town manager to sign any legal documents required. Is there a second? A second. There's a discussion on the motion. Hearing no discussion. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Any opposed? No extensions. And then the last one we have to deal with then is the approving the agreement. Our development bylaw requires a 10% financial security for a project like Metteridge. Board may recall in May 2018 for phase one of the Metteridge project, the town policy was amended so the town could cover the required financial security and place the required funds in an escrow on the HOA's behalf. This allows the HOA to not have to put up the cash requirement. Metteridge is the only circumstance where this occurs. So this is by splitting the projects we have to readdress this escrow requirement now in phase two. The escrow agreement included in the packet serves a document the financial security has been met for the zoning administrator provides that if additional funds are needed to complete the project it will be added to HOA's loan for what was placed in escrow. So I'm asking the board tonight to designate these escrow funds and have staff sign the escrow agreement. Just to double check, we did this once before and this is doing exactly the same thing again. So for all extensive purposes, the money that we assigned in the stormwater fund for phase one is going to be released per say back into the fund when it's substantially complete, then about the same amount of money is going to be reassigned for this purpose. So there's adequate funds on hand and it's just a lot of administrative. Okay. Further questions or comments? If not, I'd be looking for a motion. I would like to transfer 33,100 from the stormwater fund to service funds in escrow to meet the financial security requirement for phase two of the Meadow Ridge stormwater project and authorize the town manager to sign the escrow agreement with the Meadow Ridge Community Association. Second. I motion made and seconded. Is there any discussion on the motion? If not, all those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Any opposed? The motion is adjourned. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. So we'll move it on to the request to participate in the act 250 appeal regarding the North Ridge. And what I'd like to do tonight since we took extensive testimony on this to Easter. If anyone has any new information to bring forward tonight, I'd be happy to hear that after Eric gives a brief overview of where we're at tonight. As you said, Mr. Chair of the April 2nd meeting board heard testimony or request from residents to ask the town to join an appeal the act 250 permit for the North Ridge development. The residents have filed an act 250 appeal in state superior court on April 3rd. Including the packet was the notice of appeal. In addition, the testimony on April 2nd was unable to make tonight's meeting. So if you have anyone in the audience has any new information to present that we did not hear last week, this is an opportunity for you to do so. If you do, please identify yourself. So the only thing I have to say is that I hope the select board does not support fighting the act 250. I think that the city approved it. And my tax payers should not be going towards fighting something that you've already approved. Any questions? Thank you. Yes. Please identify yourself. Longtime president Wilson. I'm encouraging the town to not go against the permit. As we see the town grow we have seen land all around us. And deer herds have wandered in and out. And to be specific where the solar panels are that was a deer magnet. But that didn't stop solar panels from coming in. But what I'm trying to say is some of the people that do talk against this project actually moved in close by knowing that there was going to be further development coming in. So that's about it. Like I said, I encourage you to deny the appeal. Thank you. So now we'll go into the board deliberation as to whether we should do the request and join the appeal or whether we should not. I need to ask if I should be part of this discussion because I'm a Southridge resident and I've been approached by this on numerous occasions both as a resident and as a select board member which I disclosed to Rick early on. So it's your call whether you think I should be part of it or not. Thank you. I trust and respect your opinion. So from that standpoint I'm not worried but it may make sense just from that wanting to have that separation. Good. Thank you. So we have a board of four. We need three votes to do anything if we wish to have a motion. So are there comments regarding the information that's been presented to us? Let me cut to the chase. I don't support joining the appeal. And this is one of the hardest things about being on the select board is that we're disappointing bunches of people. I don't like that. It's not a good place for I just don't it still affects me. But the reason that I'm not in favor of it is a whole bunch of basically three and the fourth motivation that I have I don't think I actually should be considered and that's it. I really wish this project was not going in at all anyway. I don't like it. It's not just that it's going to add volume to my own street it will. But I I don't I think there are a couple of different reasons why I wish it were not happening but that being said the developer followed the rules that we laid down as a select board. And I'm not quite sure how we're supposed to try to put them at the state level when they followed our town rules. That is not to say that the act 250 appeal could not be successful. It could be. But I just don't think that it's the town's fight to to pick. This is one of those issues where we have the interests of the whole town or maybe even say the lack of interest of the whole town versus very focused of a neighborhood. And so I I don't think it's a good use of taxpayer money. It's not just that it's unprecedented we could always break precedent but I think it's not a good idea to join in on this because it's not the town government's fight. And again I think the developer followed the process. If the process the development review board wasn't done to the satisfaction of some people there was a legal avenue that they should have taken. And I'm not judging or criticizing anybody but that's the there is a process for that too and that does not involve coming to the select board and saying could you could you join us on the state level. Again I don't enjoy taking that position but I think that's the only one that I can logically take. Any further comments? I would agree as well. I think this is a very hard decision. I've been a lifelong resident of Williston myself and I know development's going to happen. I think it needs to be planned and well thought out but I do agree with Ted that there's guidelines and policies that were made that the developer did follow. It's unfortunate that we are disappointing a lot of neighborhood residents and friends of the town. I love my wildlife just as much as anybody else but again I think as the process unfolds they did meet the requirements that were set forth and to come in kind of at the end and try to go backwards is not the protocol that we set forth as a select board. New to the board but I did hear both sides I think both sides presented some very convincing arguments but again at the end of the day I think that they did follow protocol and it's unfortunate that we have to make a tough decision like this for the town but I can't vote to join the appeal process at this time. I don't have much else to add I think we're actually all three feeling very similar. I struggle with this because I think as Ted pointed out from the town's process nothing was flawed I'm just not sure in terms of if we're looking at the Act 250 permit which is different than the town permit but at the Act 250 permit what aspect of it based on the decision the town made or the process it followed are we finding is flawed in the Act 250 permit and that's where I can't draw out this is where and without being able to do that I think it would be inappropriate for me to support joining the lawsuit or the appeal I'm sorry joining the appeal yes so does that make sense by the way is my thinking flawed certainly the residents of the area have the right to appeal which they have done but would agree with the comments that have been mentioned tonight that we have a very good process in town that's been followed and I would not not agree to joining in the appeal either so I think in order to make it clear that we should have a motion either to approve or not to approve and it sounds like we would need a motion not to approve I'll go back before you came in I asked if there was any new information to be presented tonight and if there is we'd be happy to hear that sure but if you have anything new to add I apologize just a quick statement and I hope maybe to shed some light and to help some decision I respect all of your opinions and I'm not sure that it's going to sway anything too far from where it lies but if I may identify yourself. Sure. My name is Laurie Marino. I'm a resident and I'm a I have party status on the land use permit appeal and I wanted to sign you the appeal so I do have a couple of other sorry for the paper and I'm sorry for your time because I know you just want to wrap this up but for what it's for I feel like it's worth being heard Are you going to read this? I'll summarize it I'll read quickly. My point is I want to make sure I understand it follow along the Friday's plan and if you want to join me I can give you a copy as well this is Pete Watson so to the members of the Williston I would like to select for it on behalf of the many residents of Williston that Brian and I represent my name is Laurie Marino I would like to thank you for your time and consideration of the town of Williston joining in on the appeal of land use permit 4C1315 granted to black rock construction for the development of the Northridge property as a collaborative representation of many residents of Williston are able to be listed on the appeal as we hold legal party status on this permit we felt it necessary to appeal this permit after we, along with other residents of Southridge and Williston exhausted our efforts participating in the town permitting process we have come forward with the utmost respect for the process and all involved in it we have dedicated countless hours of time and have been present at many hearings and as many meetings as possible in an effort to proceed correctly knowing that the cause behind this appeal is so important to us to clarify a statement by Ben Avery with documents that he submitted for today's agenda packet request for review of the permit that quote-unquote have been found to have no merit in the attached to 50 decision and A&R correspondence are referencing a motion to alter the statement of questions for the current appeal and there is a new appeal docket number 47-4-19 has not yet been submitted and therefore has no standing judgment either for or against so please note that a legal motion to alter and a statement of questions are two different documents and are submitted with two different purposes and outcomes in mind we are appealing at the state level after attempting several times to have our concerns heard at the regional and or town level we are encouraged or were encouraged to appeal at the state level by the act 250 commission after stating our original concerns and I ask that the attached email is not present that I've referenced here I apologize for that I do have it if you'd like to see that we question not that permitting and mitigations were granted without due process but that the process was not receptive to major concerns voiced during the process and that the permitting and mitigations do not thoroughly satisfy the depth of the concerns specifically Bobo links and they should be Woodland Bowls, Bald Eagles and Black Bear are not listed on the wildlife assessment and yet there are multiple witnesses to these species thriving in this delicate ecosystem as per conversations with the Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife biologist Chris Bernier scientists at the University of Vermont who have done extensive studies on the wetlands here in Williston waterways and riparian buffer zones in this area during the 1990s the majority of wildlife assessment assessments are done based on data gathered years ago and need more current data to verify what in fact exists today within that ecosystem so the permitting usually happens I'm going to amend that and just add to that permitting usually happens based on data that they have in their data banks and they pull up what the reports say and most or a lot of that data is dated and it's not current included in the agenda packet for this evening select board meeting is documentation of an email from Richard McGuire to Robert Fletcher seeking legal advice on an inter fund loan to help neighbors expedite the completion of stormwater renovations by Richard McGuire speaking in reference to money's loan for the purpose of rejuvenating the Alecbrook he says we have developed a loan program for neighborhoods neighborhoods who are undertaking major improvements to their neighborhood stormwater system this is part of a larger program to meet state clean water requirements to date we have loaned out $770,000 in related memo within the same agenda packet Eric Wells states that the loan program for neighborhoods who are undertaking major improvements to their stormwater systems made its first loans in 2018 to date the town has loaned in fact $770,000 in total to six neighborhoods followed later in the memo by this by this in the statement an inter fund loan is a tool that can be used by municipalities in circumstances like this where public benefit is the outcome and there exists a lost opportunity if projects are deferred because the inter fund loan is not made and quote for the board to authorize the inter fund loan it would need to approve a declaration about resolution and authorized to a loan agreement and promissory note to be executed these documents have been reviewed by the town attorney each included in the agenda packet for this meeting staff recommends making this inter fund loan since the establishment of the Northridge property for development in between 1987 and 1989 as per the town maps we have realized and watched the decline of the health of a vital waterway in Williston the Allen Park the pollution erosion sediment loading caused by development and disregard is being rejuvenated thanks to this awareness we collaboratively continue to invest taxpayer grant town and state monies and energy into cleaning it up today in 2019 the Northridge land set aside for the development sits north of one of the most impaired and vital portions of that waterway we need to modify our planning and alignment with our conservation awareness in order to continue the successful cleanup of this waterway finally in your considerations please see the impact of this high density living proposal and commercial traffic on our current low density living in Southridge traffic impact studies were done with mitigations for future adjustments to high volume traffic situations this was necessitated due to property ownership issues that the developer was not able to alter by purchasing more land children riding bikes bicycles and walking to school deserve more than mitigation fee allowance for a traffic light our children safety freedom to play and aesthetic expectations of neighbors who lived here for more than 25 years deserves reassessment to assure safety is the first concern and not convenience there are moments in history when we have the opportunity to improve systems for the greater good we believe that this land use permit appeal presents one of these opportunities we ask that the town of Williston join the appeal in order to carefully consider the process in which this permit was granted and whether or not the process was thorough and fair in light of the families being impacted in an established Williston neighborhood in light of the waterways and inevitable monetary impact on the town and its taxpayers and the irreversible impact on wildlife and ecosystems unique to this area which were not sufficiently investigated nor an issue of concern more than 30 years ago related to be developed we have support from the Department of Fish and Wildlife scientists at the University of Vermont the Audubon Society environmental firms in Montpelier former commissioner of corrections Joe Patrici and countless regional civilian supporters referenced in our survey and beyond by your consideration of joining this land use permit appeal we have a pause and an opportunity as a community to look deeper into the current process that so many residents are raising their arms to in surrender because they feel their voice does not matter when speaking in opposition to development in Williston we hope to change this mindset and create a stronger community unifying developers and citizens so that all feel heard respected and equitably equitably considered I can't thank you enough for your time and consideration respect Felicia if I may add Pete Watson you know I really appreciate the process we go through in town because I sat through a lot of the meetings my problem is I never get responses and so I don't feel the process is clean there's a fairly significant issue here we're talking about wildlife habitat the conservation committee never even responded back to me so it's the process really working that's why I think I'm questioning DRB other than an acknowledgement that my letter was received I never received a response so I'm suspecting something's breaking down here something in the process that says we should be receiving responses at least saying we appreciate your input however this is the outcome of that I never even got that so I'm questioning our process and I think I agree with Lori here we have to do this in a more unified approach between the developers and the community at large anybody who wants to build a new home I think we just have to have it cleaned up so again our only avenue or tool right now is the Act 250 process and that's why we're doing that because as I had said I didn't feel I was heard and so I wasn't willing to go appeal to DRB because I wasn't heard multiple times beforehand something's broken there not only not heard but made to feel foolish in your own town in front of your own peers there's something wrong with that there's a reason why there's two or maybe three of us appearing in front of you people are afraid and or intimidated it's not a just process there's something broken as Pete said I also I hesitated to do this and we had this before during the last meeting but I am including this it's a letter from Chris Roy that the other appellants although I admit and I'm not an expert at this and I'm doing my best so this was justly sent as an awareness by Chris Roy that there were appellants inappropriately listed on our first appeal and that's totally justifiable however the final paragraph if you read it says my client and this is from Chris Roy the attorney for BlackRock my client views the pending appeal as being invalidly filed otherwise lacking in merit as you evaluate your potential role going forward you should know that my client intends to take all steps necessary to protect its legal rights in response to any parties to continue pressing forward with this matter if you desire to withdraw from this proceeding you should contact the court directly to let them know and they can instruct you on how best to formally withdraw we lost most everybody when they received this letter at their door and so I don't know how tactful it was for me to include that but we've been as respectful as we can to this process and our feeling is really intimidated but feeling that there's there's some injustice going on in the process the pictures at the end of the packet that I included I drove by today I don't know what the rights are legally again I'm not a lawyer this permit the land use permit is under appeal there's obviously some clear cutting going on already this is where the you can see the third picture is the waterway that's adjacent to these trees being downed this is an example of where no erosion control was in place and there's a wetland impacted here and a waterway this permit is under appeal so I intend to seek some further guidance on this legal guidance but I wanted you to be aware that this has happened within the last couple of days and I feel that that's disrespectful to disrespectful to the process again I'm not a lawyer so I'm not sure of the legalities of it I felt like it was crossing a line second time that this has occurred that there's been development related activity on the property that is currently under appeal so it should not be occurring so two instances now I know you're in favor of development and developing Williston but let's do it in a good way these lands that were permitted 30 years ago were mapped out 30 years ago have changed and the waterways that are being impacted have changed because of what's going on in the town we need to really seriously look at that and the monies that were dumping into this we need your support we would benefit from your support I think it's on behalf of the town itself would make a great statement in support of the residents that are frustrated and concerned for the environmental, wildlife aesthetic and honestly safety of kids in the neighborhood basically I mean that's most important in my heart and more important than building houses we can find other lands to buy and build apartments or houses these are not the correct lands for that we've mitigated other venues for travel out of this neighborhood and the construction company itself was trying so diligently to use other outlets and could it so then at some point maybe this isn't the right piece of property even though it was slated 30 years ago there's all these impacting factors that just don't add up development is important but it doesn't override the lives of citizens wildlife and the impact that we're having on the waterways in negative ways I'm putting my tax paying dollars into cleaning up this waterway so I really implore you to reconsider I heard what your thoughts were and I respect those and I understand that you're in a position that you need legal backing I will do whatever I can with all of my energy to help find that case law that legal recourse needs I will put all of my efforts into and whatever I have I find it's that important and I know Brian feels the same he was unable to be here because he's with his children so before we continue our deliberation are there any questions you have for Laura I hope Laura on page one third paragraph there's a sentence that reads we were encouraged to appeal at the state level by the act 250 commission after stating our original concerns and then you reference an email right and then I didn't include it and then you didn't include it my question is under what context was that statement that the commission made what was the context of their making that statement they were directing me to take my concerns my reconsiderations my thoughts to apply it into an appeal of the decision itself so I guess part of my question was along the lines of it wasn't based on what they viewed as the merits of your concerns it was just that if you have concerns you have this process and we encourage you to use it well if I could forward you the email I would like to when I received the email bring your statement forward please speak in front of the act 250 commission so I was surprised to get that email it was one of those where yes I listed some concerns brought them forward to the right people I felt and then received that email and I can bring it up if you would like I can try to find it it's in my email box I'm sorry then my second question we're from Chris Roy to Katherine I'm going to pronounce this last name wrong so I'm going to yep beuno and then there's the highlighted section in purple and you made a comment about this cause people I think you made a comment along the lines of this cause people to retract from participating I just want to verify that do you know how many people received this letter I believe it was everybody that there was 8 or 9 people that were originally listed on the appeal rightly or wrongly the way we did it in the process I think every name was hit with one of those to their door kind of thing the point is I mean I can't understand I'm not a lawyer so I can't look at this language so is it what's the word threatening or not but I assume that people took it as being threatening which is why they I mean I want to say that is of concern to me was taken that way by a lot of people I received many emails I can't go forward with this anymore I can't go through being sued I don't want to be part of the process anymore I guess my point is whether the town participates in this or not residents have the right to participate in the process without feeling threatened assuming that they're acting in a legal and responsible way it sounds to me like that's the argument being made here and if there is something that you're starting to sway me on it might be on that point right there okay he's justified in saying this was incorrectly done I had their names on the appeal and I was they needed to submit a self representation form so we kind of were rolling with it as we went we'd never done this before this the current docket number 47 dash four dash 19 the current appeal is filed correctly with only Brian and myself represented on there we both have self representation form submitted so I appreciate that he was just notifying everybody that that last paragraph I felt was unnecessary and there were many people who were very upset by that so do I have this there's only two people that are actually asking for the select board to help you to support you there are two people listed on the land use permit appeal itself there are several people that are supporting us but from the rears they're not their names are not mentioned anymore they don't want their names mentioned further questions for Lori for the members of the board just a comment Lori I articulated my reasons before you got here I'm sorry you weren't here for that and I want to be as transparent as I can I'm not in favor of joining the appeal and that is hard for me to say I don't want this development to happen either but I do want to make a couple of other comments real quick I don't think Chris Roy's statement here was appropriate it seems to me that it's a threat it is and his statement at the meeting before saying that you had put people's names down and you didn't have authority to do that but it didn't move the ball forward at all and I'm sorry that that is happening and I wish it wasn't and you may have noticed I was a bit bothered by him at the last meeting that being said it gives me no pleasure to actually support the position that he's advocating but I feel like there's a matter of policy I do the reason I'm saying anything right now is I want you to know I did hear you and I listened and I I hope you go on with your appeal but I just don't think it's a matter of policy that the town can join it can I ask do you question and or hear our concern about the town process I do and let me comment on that real quick because we're kind of tilling over the same ground over and over here at this point but the appeal that would have been taken from the town's development review board would not have gone to the development review board and I get the impression that maybe that was the thought of an environmental judge so if you felt like you weren't heard by the DRB the appeal to the environmental court would have been a completely separate person it would have been a judge and it would have been what would be referred to as a de novo appeal meaning you could have presented evidence and done the whole thing over again it wouldn't have been talking to the same people that already disagreed with you and so that's the process that is in place and I don't know what would have happened with that but again let me just say the idea of that's probably the process of coming to the select board and saying can you join us in an appeal under the state laws is just I don't I don't think there's as a matter of policy that that's something I know it's something that I can't support as much as I would want to and I'm sorry okay, I appreciate that I appreciate that you had your hands up, sir yeah, I'm Jerry Margelli I'm here with Margelli and we went through the process with Coyoteeron we went through all the books and the town signed it off I don't think the town got right to back up and go against its own permit you know you can't say I give you the permit now I'm going to fight you it can individually as a town I don't think you got the right to go against your own permit process you know because I'm able to be coming back I'm kind of curious if you got the right to do that so that's what we're about to decide tonight when I come back I don't know if I'm going to have to fight instead of one people are talking about land that's not theirs it's ours we know what's on that property you don't unless you trust us right? let's not get into anything okay right, that's it 30 years ago I was born here 75 years ago so I know what the line looks like so I think it's time for us now to finish the deliberation thank you all appreciate it so I make our decision any further comments or questions take a motion chair entertainer motion with reluctance I move that we not join the act 250 appeal of the Northridge project is there a second I'm sorry to make sure I understood so your motion is is it a motion to not join the appeal I will second that is there a discussion then on the motion hearing no discussion all those in favor of the motion say aye aye no abstentions so we appreciate all of your hard work good luck from here on in thank you so let's move on it's 8 o'clock so we're having open to public hearing regarding the sewer allocation ordinance pursuant to 24 vsa chapter 59 in section 4 of the town of Williston sewer allocation ordinance the Williston select word is considering the adoption of amendments to the sewer allocation ordinance referred to as attachment A and existing ordinance pertaining to the allocation of public sewage on adoption this attachment will make the portion of the reserve capacity that will be available for use for the next fiscal year which starts July 2019 so Matt LaLondair is here to give us a very brief overview of what we're hoping to accomplish tonight so Matt so you hopefully have before you either the same memorandum that was prepared by me for the informational meeting or the one I prepared this afternoon with one corrected number in it slight mistake is spotted by chef Jeff thank you for that and I can go over that but very very briefly this is the proposed attachment A to the sewer allocation ordinance the budget for sewer capacity for the town as proposed for fiscal 2020 the memo looks at the overall amount of capacity available to the town at the Essex Junction plant looks at what is already committed to users but is not yet in use what is already in use and what needs to be retained as a reserve and then examining what is left and dividing it out in the 20 year horizon we come to my corrected number so direct your attention to page 4 of the memo I had previously divided the remaining available allocation for Williston 266,941 gallons per day by 20 years and I had a number of 12,347 gallons per year over 20 years and that number is actually 13,347 gallons per day it's a little more and the point of that number is to say that comparing the 13,000 and change gallons per day over 20 years to the amount of allocation that has typically been sold in a fiscal year as evidenced by table 4 on page 7 of the memo you can see that we sell anywhere between 1,500 gallons per day and as little as 3,000 gallons per day in a given fiscal year but that on average something like that over 20 years 13,000 gallons per day should be adequate if the town continues as it has in the past so the other highlight bouncing around a bit in my memo but on page 3 of the memo looking at what the existing utilization of sewer capacity by the town is and I'll note that we're plotting average daily flows by year against the rolling 5 year average this is the second year in a row that the daily average has exceeded the 5 year rolling average and the first time that it's exceeded it 2 years in a row since 2006 and 2007 is that a trend we're not sure yet we would expect that over time with the added users to the system that we would eventually start to see an increase in usage even though the overall trend has been more or less flat since 2006 so that said there appears to be adequate capacity compared to what the town has a history of selling and utilizing to go forward with a recommended allocation schedule in terms of those proposed allocations for fiscal 20 they're broken into categories new commercial, new residential residential additions and minor subdivisions this is when somebody adds a bedroom to an existing house affordable housing encouraging specific development planned public facilities reserve and pollution abatement so those are the categories I will make one other note in the time since this memo was prepared we prepared this memo anticipating a potential purchase in fiscal 20 for a new hotel in the new commercial category and therefore recommended as we did last year the 19,500 gallons per day of allocation since the preparation of this memo that new hotel has come in and purchased their allocation out of the fiscal 19 year so we're not as sure that we're going to see another large user come in in fiscal 20 now needing that it's up to the select board and I can talk you through it if you want to discuss whether that number should still be 19,500 or should be reduced to the more traditional 7,500 if another big purchaser came along it would be there to buy if they didn't it just goes away the next fiscal year and we can consider the number again and we'll consider that number after we close the public hearing okay I'll ask if there's anyone in the audience who has any public comment regarding the attachment A and the sewer allocation program seeing no hands raised that a motion to close the public hearing would be in order to move to close the public hearing on proposed sewer ordinance amendment is there a second motion so briefly we didn't receive anything by email or anything like that all those in favor of the motion to close the public hearing say aye any opposed so now we're into deliberation about sewer allocation ordinance amendment and other questions regarding the things that Matt brought up especially the 19,500 kind of reiterate what I think I already heard you say that 19 number doesn't do anything one way or another I mean if we leave it there and it's not used it goes away if we leave it there it would be there anyway or do you need this to be pushed to the following year did I say that correctly so we thought we needed to push it into fiscal 20 we elevated this category you elevated this category last year in anticipation of a purchase happening in fiscal 19 so when I prepared this memo that purchase hadn't happened yet and we weren't sure if it was going to but we thought the project was still going to move forward just maybe in fiscal 20 instead of 19 since then the project has made the purchase out of the fiscal 19 so they purchased about I think 12,000 gallons per day so we don't anticipate a project that's going to need that larger amount coming in fiscal 20 what you do when you adopt attachment A is most of these categories including new commercial you're authorizing the sale of up to that amount of capacity by the public works director administratively so if the board wanted to dial that back it would mean that Bruce would have less to sell in the fiscal year and it probably would not really impact anybody's ability to do anything because right now we don't see any other large users on the horizon that we think would want to purchase that kind of capacity in fiscal 20 if someone did come along and want to do that what does that leave us in the I mean are we okay or not okay good thing bad thing it's alright you know it's attachment A is about what you make available for sale and then whatever gets sold starts to get used and then we look at that but if everything happened if we left it alone and somebody else comes in and buys that that's quite a bit more than anybody anticipated happening this year could we handle that if in fact it happened you could so let's just say someone did show up in fiscal 20 and they bought 12 or 13,000 gallons out of this category that otherwise would not have been available when I would come back to you next year and we were looking at the remaining available capacity and dividing it out by 20 years instead of saying I had 13,347 gallons per day per year over 20 years I might be saying I had 12,000 gallons per day per year over 20 years or 13 instead of 13 5 so over that long horizon that amount of difference doesn't really matter what would be really important to start tracking is if you started selling 10,000 gallons a day in that category more per year than you thought you were going to year after year after year that's when the board would really need to start assessing how do you want to prioritize what you have left but right now there's plenty left on a one year scale that would have very little impact on overall capacity going forward wouldn't there be other impacts besides capacity wouldn't there be collateral consequences to another major development coming in all the usual impacts of new development would certainly be part of it traffic use of services things like that the town has not really a growth management around residential growth very much thinking about the town's capacity to handle all of the impacts of residential growth we don't really do that for commercial growth we allocate a certain amount of sewer capacity but there's all kinds of commercial growth that can happen in town that might generate a fair amount of demand for services but not necessarily for wastewater large industrial user can generate lots and lots of traffic on the street for example almost no wastewater demand so I would say that the town is well served in its development standards regulating those other impacts as opposed to trying to do it through sewer capacity I totally agree we should not do it through sewer capacity but I think your comment about we don't have a growth management system for commercial and institution for non-residential has been something I've just I don't know how to think about that I don't know if it's a good thing or a bad thing we're for with residential we do think it's a good thing to have growth management and I've often wondered if there's a way in which our town plan should sort of specify what should our growth management or what should our growth in commercial non-residential types of development be and there may be a good answer it may be impossible to come up with an answer I don't know but I've wondered that. Joy to your point one thing I do want to bring up is and you're going to see I'm going to be giving two different as we go through this two different they're not used but two different ways to look at the number but we had the hotel come up and we actually ended up using because there wasn't enough capacity under the new commercial industrial we actually ended up going into encouraging specific development and I had trouble with that decision in fact I voted against it and the reason was is because I couldn't see where that hotel really was providing some sort of benefit to a town that was above and beyond what other type commercial and industrial activities were doing so if there's more allocation in this category you know the first category of commercial and industrial it would prevent us from getting into that situation where I felt I had to say no not because I didn't support the project I was fine with the project I just didn't see it brought some sort of enhanced benefit to the town so I couldn't vote for it for that reason even though I had no reason to not support the project so from that standpoint it's good the thing I have difficulty with Matt and this has happened consistently so this is not the first time is we sit there and say well if you do the math we have about 13,000 gallons per year to allocate but when you actually look at what we're allocating we're saying we're going to allocate almost 50,000 gallons and I have a little trouble with that that math does not work out for me I understand we have the history and we have not gotten ourselves into trouble and from that standpoint I can support attachment in fact but I think that's still a troubling that should raise red flags particularly when we know additional capacity at the Essex plant is a diminishing if not already gone resource out there in terms of there may not be any new capacity there so I guess my point is the doomsday type view is we ought to be very careful with how we allocate sewer capacity I agree and I think there are two things a select board might want to ask for sooner rather than later so we could have it ready for you next time around and one would be to think about so if this is all the capacity you have left or it's this plus another 50 or 100,000 gallons something like that what are the land use goals of the town that you would most want to support with that remaining amount of capacity so for example if the design conscious pedestrian friendly downtown like environment future of Taft Corners is seen as highly desirable it's my prediction that that's likely to be much more residential than big box commercial which would mean a big investment of sewer capacity possibly possibly allocating more toward that or hoping to allocate more toward that than some kind of other new commercial development so thinking about you know I unearthed a memo that was over a dozen years old recently that talked about if we're going to build out the growth center the way we say we want to we need hundreds and hundreds of thousands of gallons of additional capacity this was a big long ranging projection that a previous planner had made and I don't know if I agree with those developers today sitting where we sit and seeing what we're seeing for utilization but I do agree with the methodology of saying if there's a build out state that the comprehensive plan says is desirable and if that build out state necessarily needs to be supported by what I would see is probably the town's most limited resource when it comes to supporting new development it's probably worth studying and exploring how aligned those goals can be and informing the attachment A with that I think that would be a great exercise to take a look at that and see what see what kind of decisions we'd have to make about what do we support what do we prioritize versus what do we just simply support yeah that'd be very good yeah we were to have a retreat and look at what should be one of the activities we would like to see done that would probably be high on my list any further questions for Matt before we ask for a motion no good job again and I must admit I do like the 20 year kind of projection I think that's a wise change in sort of the attachment A methodology yeah so I would entertain a motion move to adopt the amendment to the sewer allocation ordinance attachment A as presented is there a second I'll second there's a discussion of the motion you heard my concern and I won't repeat it but I also have to go with we have good history with attachment A so from that standpoint I can support it I do all those in favor of the motion say aye aye any opposed thank you thank you we'll move on to the community development policy updates you've drafted a couple of amendments to the policies and just briefly give us an overview continuation of the discussion on April 2nd we're updating some policies being compliance for community development grant community center from the St. Joseph School so last meeting the Board approved a number of these policies one that I mistakenly forgot to put in your packet that meeting was an equal employment opportunity policy so you'll see a deadline in your packet tonight the former policy as it stands now was very brief and a new language introduced was from the guidance I received from the state of Vermont for planning this policy so that's for consideration tonight and to follow up there's discussion on the use of excessive force policy at the April 2nd meeting there's concern with the language provided by the state prohibits its law enforcement from physically barring entrance to or exit from a facility that is subject to a nonviolent civil rights protest so I consulted with the town attorney on this and the language from the state provided to me beyond the federal HUD requirements language the federal government expects local agencies to enforce applicable state and local laws against physically barring entrance exits to from a facility subject to a nonviolent civil rights protest the state's language is a prohibition against physically barring any entrance or exit so the recommendation from the town attorney was to follow the formation at the federal level which is the revised policy before you tonight questions or comments regarding the revised policies couldn't find that revised policy on Dropbox what's it what's it entitled oh never mind oh yeah it's under you for use that makes sense I hope I've got them all in this that's the program that's not you well actually it's partly it's the naming method that we use we try to generally try to name it the same as the agenda item it appears that our concerns were addressed so is there a motion then I've moved to amend the equal employment opportunity policy and the use of excessive force policy is presented is there a second I'll second that's your discussion on the motion hearing none all those in favor of the motion say aye aye opposed alright move on to manager's report a couple items I wanted to touch on in my written report and a couple items I want to add first the quarterly report is noted and my is not available I think in the future I'm just the first of the month after the quarter ends because I just can't get all the information together some of the information isn't available until mid month at the earliest it's always a tough one rather than have an expectation it'll be mid month following the end of the quarter sorry for the board that'll be first meeting complete month after the end of the quarter of financial report pull that up here I guess on the financial report there isn't any particular noteworthiness other than some of the things we pointed out in the past on the local option tax we've been running ahead we've budgeted for that the next report will be coming about a month from now and so that'll be indication whether those trends are continuing property tax collections are pretty much on target on the expenditure side we continue to lag behind in police fire and public works although I would say fire and public works are pretty much both fully staffed now and so well in the year probably underspent we are fully staffed so that is what's driving our being underspent in those particular departments on the police side though we expect to be way underspent we are now officially down three officers we started a few weeks ago we were only down one and we've lost two officers in the past several weeks one went to another municipality in Vermont another decided to move to Florida so that's going to drastically affect budget and also obviously affect our service levels being three officers down so I don't have anything else on the financial report I just asked one question under expenditure highlights on the last bullet there appears to be a word missing there's no other unplanned expenses have been incurred at this time and there are material variances from the budget so I think there should be no material variances oh I see yes yes that would be correct it's like there's an extra space that's where it belongs exactly the next thing I want to touch on and my written report is substance use and prevention forum that we held just a week ago on Wednesday we had an excellent turnout we had 130 people at the forum we had four of the five board members I think were there we had two at least two of our legislators yes and we asked for those in attendance if they were interested in continuing the discussion actively to fill out a little form and we had close to 70 people fill out those forms so we're in the process now trying to figure out what's next I'm having someone kind of pick all the notes that were made at the various tables and type those up and I'm having someone enter in all the names of people fill out the cards into a database and we're working to figure out the last way I had a meeting this morning with representatives of the Rotary Club who were actors and sponsors this Catherine Antley who is a person who was really pushing prevention programs throughout the state and she met with us and had some ideas and how we may want to proceed so we're proceeding that I don't know if any of the attendees want to add anything to that but we're hearing very positive comments from lots of people the best thing I thought was the number of kids that were there that shared their experiences with us it's really my table benefited from that from old guys like me so as part of the next step we really need to include them and draw them into the conversation perhaps even more so the eighth grader at our table said that she thought that the videos were interesting the presentations were interesting but the conversation at the end was really really boring was this someone that might be related? I might know quite well but I would say this is super important I had the duty to talk to DEA special agents today and they told me that they have seen absolutely no reduction in the amount of heroin or other opiates coming into the state and in fact crack cocaine is making a comeback and meth is beginning to show up so I found it interesting that it was crack cocaine that's coming back not just regular cocaine anyway we gotta keep working I will keep moving on here one other item I want to touch on is the water tank project you heard a report fairly recently from the water district saying that the project was completed it was under budget and that was all great news well we even got better news the state state was the water district rather was going to be borrowing money from the state revolving loan fund to help pay for the project and then versus the town I think we own about 60% of the project so we would each year we would be paying the water district back for our portion of that loan but the state has decided to do what they call a forgiveness component to this loan but essentially what it means is a grant that amounts to $170,000 of the project and Wilson's share of that is about a little over $100,000 so that's the substantial savings of the town well I should say the water users of the town and that does not include savings over the life of the borrowing because that obviously reduced them up the has to be borrowed so the savings will exceed $170,000 so that's good news two other items I want to touch on this afternoon I had a meeting with the community outreach program people it's a program where we have people who are hired by the Howard center working through the police departments to provide services and referrals to people who have the need for their services often they're people with mental health conditions and it's been extremely useful program and there are six communities currently participating in it we have decided to hire a fifth person and the fact that person has just been hired so they'll be on board after they get some training probably sometime this summer and I think that'll help the service levels because there's been a real demand in addition to adding a fifth person we're also adding a seventh community the town of Richmond has asked to participate and have budgeted money so the cost of that all five will be distributed among seven communities rather than six and we're also getting some grant monies and everything to help lower the town share but it's been a very successful program one Eric had one topic but before that I wanted to mention the word retreat this time of year we usually start talking about having a slide board retreat I was trying to think of what the board might want to do and I just want to throw out one idea and if you want I can do a survey but the one thought I had is the board back in February asked to have a discussion about economic development and what towns should do if we faced a major economic challenge and I'm thinking that that might be a good topic we can get we've talked about getting several panel members in who are experts in economic development and that type of topic and have a good discussion around that but we're open obviously for any ideas you're to retreat so what you want to talk about is really up to the board so I don't need a reaction right now I just wanted to start thinking about that and you had something to report? Yeah I had a call today from the state of Vermont I might recall the town submitted a grant on behalf of resource for VCDP funding to help purchase their building on harvest lane fortunately the town is not being awarded those funds this round I heard from the state that it was a very competitive grant round a lot of strong applications and they felt that the timeline for this project wasn't as truncated as some other projects they were considering so they've encouraged re-application and the June or November round they've reached out to Tom at resource and I'll touch-face with him and talk about next steps on that one. Let me recall that the North End Community Center project was rejected the first time around and the second time around it was approved but for far less than what they were asking for so it is a very competitive process so that concludes so we have other business we do have a catering permit I'm told yes we do this is for a retirement party being held at Northfield Savings Bag at Sixty Wright Avenue on May 1st and the caterer is doing let's see corporate name is Quarterstone Burger Company and it has no objections to this inside event motion will be in order if you have any other business I just have a couple of small things so our H540 which is our charter bill was approved without any amendments last Friday by the House sent to us by the House and it was approved by the House last Friday by the House sent to the Senate and it should have arrived in the Senate today and they sent to the Senate Government Operations Committee so I would expect that within the next couple of weeks it will be out of there and hopefully without any amendments and off to the Governor and the last thing we mentioned you mentioned the St. Joseph School they purchased there it's been completed and the closing on that is going to happen I believe so that's all I have for other business we do have one other item of business that's the Essex Alliance Church Recreation Path Discussion and it's been recommended to go into executive session to discuss that as we may wish to do some negotiations so there is a motion recommended I'd move that we go into executive session relative to the Essex Alliance issue that we find the premature public knowledge regarding a possible agreement for settlement with the Essex Alliance Church would place the town at a substantial disadvantage and further move to enter into executive session under the provision of 1VSA section 313A1A and invite Mr. McGuire and Mr. Wilson second motion made and seconded discussion on the motion favour the motion say aye aye any opposed we'll give that a