 I'm sorry, let's call this meeting to order. So additions or changes to the agenda? I have a couple. Does anybody else? Okay, I apologize. I hope this won't keep happening, but these things keep coming in after I have the agenda. So one is the liquor licenses, which were in your packet. And those are six for the Maple Corner Community Store, which would be sale of liquor and tobacco, consumption of those items off-premises, or at least liquor parts, consumption on-premises, and then class two, which is beer and wine, and class one, which is spirits in the bar. And then there's one for Adamant Co-op, which is just sale of liquor and tobacco. So, everybody understand that? No, I think they don't do tobacco. I think theirs is just a class two liquor beer and wine. Okay, I thought it said tobacco in the form, but I don't think it matters. Yeah. So, any questions about that? Oh, sorry, this is additions to the agenda. One other thing, after talking with Toby and with the staff in the office, we were thinking it would be easier for everybody if we changed Toby instead of $30 an hour, which would come out to about $16,000 a year, to just give him $16,000 a year, and he gets a bi-weekly paycheck. No monthly? Oh, he just wanted a monthly paycheck. He would be 12 equal payments of $1,333.34, and that way he doesn't have to keep track of the hours. And we don't have to check them on him and all that sort of thing. So, any? That may be the one aside. Everybody okay with that? Well, heck, let's vote on those two things, then, as since we're moving right along. So, let's see. Let's move that the licorice, that the licorice and tobacco licenses for the Naval Corner Community Store and the Ataman Co-op be approved. So moved. Second, second. More discussion? As the named applicant on the Maple Corner permits, I think I'll abstain from the vote. Okay. Which, does that make sense to people? That would be appreciated. Okay, all in favor? Aye. Okay. And then the second one is, Barbara, you have a contract for Toby? Or did I take that? Oh, I do. So, but I've told you what it would be. It would be an annual salary of 16,000 equal monthly installments of about 1,300. Anybody want to talk more about that? Okay, let's move that we approve this contract and authorize me to sign it. So moved. Second. Okay, more discussion? All in favor? Aye. Remind me to sign that and give it to you. And Jordan, when you finish signing those, just give me the Barbara, if you would. Well, I'll do it. Okay. Anybody here? We are moving right along. We've now reached the public comment portion. Hi, John. Okay. The next one is John McCullough. And he said he was going to come, but he thinks we're not getting to him for another three, another few minutes. Two more folks. That may be John and Donna. No, he's got us. Okay. But John's got, John says, let me see if I can do this. As zoning administrator, he needs a much more, what do I want to say, sophisticated mapping system than what he has, is able to have on his current computer. And he's asking to set up a workstation in the town office, which would include a desktop, some hardware and software. You can take a look at this if you want. And that, there's another, that is a quote for a Dell setup, but the town office prefers that he get the, what's that, or our tech? Arbitech. Arbitech. Because a lot, it would cost probably a little more, maybe a little more than 2,000. And with it comes a warranty that they will fix it and that they'll make it all work with our system and all that sort of thing. So this, am I missing anything, Barbara? If we get this workstation, it all needs to be wired into and connected through our server and so forth. And we just really strongly feel that it's more appropriate to have Arbitech be responsible for all of that. Plus, if any issues down the road, Arbitech will be responsible for it as opposed to a separately purchased, something that we went off and bought on our own and then hope would work. If there are any problems down the road, Arbitech will be responsible. And we, Arbitech gave us a quote about a month ago, I guess. No, it was actually several months ago. Several months ago. Just under, this is what I recall. I sent it to you guys a number, a couple, a month ago. It was a, seems like it was 1900 and something. Seems like it was just under $2,000. So only about $100 more than what John has there. What I don't know is if that quote has already expired and if the cost would might go any higher, Tegan tried to get a response on that and she did not hear by the end of the day-to-day. We, hopefully, we can have an answer for you tomorrow. Well, I would like to suggest that we move that John can spend, I guess, John, can spend up to $2,200 for a workstation and let them work out which one. Thoughts on that? I would just put in, I know that when we first talked about this, the question arose of if it would work for him to use the Lister computer and after talking to him, it's clear that it wouldn't, both timing-wise and hardware-wise. Yeah, and this computer would live at the town office? Yeah. So in theory, were you to retire or choose the name you could be used by the experts? Oh, yes, it would not belong to him. It would belong to the town. And that's one of the goals, I think, is having him be able to work at the town office and transition eventually to somebody else. And at some point soon, we've got to consider an old Janos and has agreed to be assistant zoning administrator. So that will give them both a computer that they can share. We're not gonna appoint Jan tonight, but soon we probably will do that. Yeah, I think, well, so one of the things that's on here is the assumed software for Microsoft Office for $200, which I think is probably just over or just under whatever the annual cost is, but that would be, so zoning admin is one of the accounts that would be added to the email system that we're talking about and would include that. So I wonder if, like, I've worked with RB in another capacity where they're fairly agnostic about where the material comes from. There's a little extra bit about whether or not it's covered under a warranty and whether it's coming through them or not. I would just say it's probably worth just either having them freshen their quote relative to the specs that John has listed. And just I'd be happy to help facilitate that, I guess, since I've already kind of got a dialogue going with them. And whoever's is the most efficient and as long as John is happy with whatever alternative they offer, then I don't think the price point is really at the objection here. It's just a matter of where it comes from. So can it be worth having them just freshen up their quote and give any last? That actual bringing it online isn't hard for them. It's not a bunch of extra work regardless of where the machine comes from generally speaking. So you suggest we not vote on it tonight? I think your recommendation of approving either entity to procure something for this purpose, not to exceed $2,300 I think to be safe would be fine. And if we can find a way to come underneath that by a few hundred dollars, it sounds like we should be able to then either party can move forward with an acquisition. Okay, would you like to put that in the form of a motion? Sure. I would move that we authorize either RV technologies or John McCullough to purchase a dedicated computer to reside at the town office for the purpose of conducting work relative to the zoning administrator not to exceed $2,300 and that that should either go through John McCullough for reimbursement or RV technology or I guess we could buy it. The town would buy it directly, right? On the town regards. Yeah, I think you would probably do the purchase, wouldn't you, Barbara? Yeah. I'll second that. All right, discussion. I would just add in addition to the computer there's some accessories there too. So he needs to purchase an entire work station. Is that how you would say it? An entire work station, yeah. You got that, Ann. Mm-hmm. Okay, everybody understand what we're doing? All in favor? Aye. Aye. Okay, and the motion passes. And we're all ready to court his pond. Yes. I just want to make sure I just stood that at this point, Tegan came back out of communicating with RB Tech and that George and you volunteered to coordinate with John and or RB Tech whichever direction you guys decide to go, is that correct? Yeah. Okay. All right, thank you. Sure. So we're actually already to court his pond, but we're awfully early and your folks aren't all here yet, I presume. Well, let me just do one more thing. It's not on the agenda, but there's no action needed. We've received our annual equalization study. Do you guys know what that is? Equalization of property taxes. Not specifically. Yeah, okay. So every year we have to pay the state a percentage of our property taxes for schools. Yep. And the state in order to make sure that we're not way undervaluing our property, for example, and sending them what they would consider less than our share, they come in and they do not an appraisal, but I think what they do is they look at properties that have sold and compare them to how the listers have listed them. And then they give us a common level of appraisal by which we have to change the percentage of our property taxes for purposes of calculating what the statewide taxes. And not too surprisingly, this year we're way under and the way we're listing them because of course prices have been shooting up. So our common level of appraisal this year is 80%. So we will be multiplying our grand list by 20% in order to figure out our property tax share, but pretty much every town in the state is probably in the same boat, so it probably comes out about the same anyway. So that's just a four year information. Does anybody wanna see this or ask any questions about that? Okay. Good. Curtis Pondam, are you ready to go? Yes, Barbara. I'm gonna excuse myself. If I can get all the paperwork inside my sign so I can take it back to town office. And can I hold this as a reminder? That's your copy unless it's Ann's copy. He can have it. Okay, thank you. You're welcome. Great. I've been keeping status of where we are on them and I updated today and I wanted to hand out. This is terrific to have this thing. I'd love this. I can keep it, remember, I don't wanna remember anything. So if that's on your face. That's the purpose of it, it's good for you. And I didn't, do you have an extra one on her? For me to go along? Do you have a line? Somebody, I have access to it, so I can share. It would be helpful. Thanks, come on. And so I wanted to kind of jump ahead and ask a question about something else about the dam, but Mark said it was gonna be here at 6.15. I was wondering if, Jamie, if you had the last meeting I gave a letter of support to be signed by the select board for a grant through the Rural Economic Development Initiative. Did you guys do anything about that? That doesn't sound familiar to me, Marge. Oh, I sent you the. I remember seeing it, but I don't think it made it to a meeting. No, I remember you bringing it up, Marge, and to be sent to Jamie. Which I did. Yeah, and so I don't think that that was circulated. Okay. That was just a good mark there. Yeah. What I'm gonna have to do for each, any time we have a grant, we'll probably need a letter of support from the town. And I can't remember who it was last meeting said, wanted to know what the requirements were for recording and all that. And so I am asking that question every, from each one. And I haven't gotten a response back yet from the Rural Economic Development Initiative. Yeah. I think it would kind of streamline that a little bit, Marge, I think as we kind of formalize the partnership, it would be worth also formalizing how that works. So that, you know, we're generating the letter of support and then there's our, that was certainly a concern the last time was, you know, who's gonna be responsible for administering and I think, or matching and how that all works out. Yeah, and so I just want to bring it up. Yeah, yeah. Yeah. This is for a very small grant. Yeah. 100, 700, 500, but if we ever, if we do get something large, then definitely. But if you want, I'll nag the person to see if they can give me what the process will be for administering. And then I'll send that to you, Jamie, and then it's the next meeting if you guys can. And that letter is in the Curtis Pond folder for the next meeting. Okay. Okay. Are you suggesting that be part of the MOU that we rewrite the MOU to formalize how we would work on that or? Yes. Yeah. So I guess I had a conversation today which I guess I can speak to since it's related to the Curtis dam, so I reached out to the town attorney and had a pretty productive conversation about next steps. And one of the recommendations is to formalize the MOU into an agreement that kind of hashes out who's responsible for what happens in one order. And so they are going to be taking a stab at a first draft and trying to get us that. Is that Bob Fletcher? Is it Bob? And Joe? Joe. Yeah. So I had a conversation with the two of them. Did they say anything about the fact that the MOU was signed by the last board and you're now at all new board? No. No, I think that idea based on kind of what we discussed was picking up the honoring the MOU. There's no specific conversation about changing those conditions, but adding certain conditions that really formalize a number of the issues and concerns that have been addressed or brought up since the signing of that and the bond vote and everything else just try to bring everything into one document that is more than just an MOU and officially designates the status of the parties involved. And then part of that conversation is also or doing that is to bring both groups under just kind of one roof so that we can have much more collaborative, transparent conversations. So that's kind of what we're saying. Who pays for that? Is that coming out of our funds? I mean, it's our funds. Is it coming out of? It's a whole one thing now. It's going to happen. No, but I mean specifically, does it come out of the dam project funds that we're raising? What is it? Well, they're having the attorneys. Yes. Both Joe and Bob do more work on the MOU. I'm just curious. I mean, it has to be done. I'm just, are we... Is that town? Is that the town? Yeah. Well, it seems to me they're representing us in this case. So I think we pick that one up. Yeah. Yeah, okay. What were you concerned about when you said, what did they say about the old select board having signed it? Are you concerned it must be redone? No, I just was curious whether they thought your five people that didn't sign that the, no one sitting signed it. So what kind of legality is that? I think it's... Doesn't matter. The town doesn't, you're free to disavow it, but... Yeah. The conversation today was intended to be a very candid one. You know, we as a group have in the last meeting, I believe, kind of made a statement affirming the last MOU and a desire to collaborate and move things forward to the best of our ability. And so that was part of the conversation. It's just like we all have an interest in doing it. You know, quite literally, how do we have much better conversations and much more efficient conversations and what need to be put in place to kind of facilitate those conversations? And it was good, it was a good productive conversation. So we can only move as fast as we move on these things, but within a couple of weeks, they're hoping to get us a draft of that agreement and a punch list that we can kind of consider. So did you talk about the other agreements that we need to have? Not the other agreements, but the good-planned deals? Yep, those are all part of it. And to the best of my understanding today, there's a willingness to help find a way for, you know, there's not a strong objection to those. Okay. Some of those conversations, I think, are going to have to be had in the executive session because they're gonna involve negotiations with other parties, even outside of these two parties. So, and making sure that certain risks and liabilities are covered, but there is not a strong resistance to finding something, or finding a way forward that aligned with everything that's been discussed so far, certainly with this group, that's about as much as I can share with that conversation for now, I guess. Curtis, Pondam Association, how do you want to proceed? I had listed three, four items that I was hoping we would cover. We can go through, I mean, we talked about them on the first one. Yes, that one's done. Plus, you want to walk us through the timeline. So, why do you guys- Well, I wanted there for purposes in our discussion. So, I'm thinking we should go with the agenda item. Fine. And then we can come back to this if we, you know, provide the information. And being careful to leave enough time, I think we all want to go into executive session together to talk about the RFP. Okay. So, I think the second thing, including, excuse me, are you Mr. Tucker? Oh, I thought you must be. Okay. Yeah, go ahead, introduce us, Marge. I was gonna say, this is Jeff Tucker, who's the engineer on the Du Bois and King contract. And he's come out to give background information on different liability insurances that he's seen in the past as well as to kind of talk about the legal actions so that our legal documents, this is a good time. Jeff said that he would come out tonight and I really appreciate it. But if we can pull out as much as we need to, so he doesn't have to come back again. So, I don't know if you guys want to ask questions of Jeff. Did he want to meet the Du Bois? And this, do you want to introduce Ann? Yeah. Or Jamie, why don't you do it, Jamie? I'm Jamie, I'm sure we've met. I'm part of the, yes. You have two aunts, sorry. You have two aunts here. I'm Ann Winchester, and this is Ann Toulon, who we call Ann Toulon. I'm Jordan McKee's. Let me just interrupt because John just came in. John, we already did yours. Pardon me? We already did yours. I'm sorry. We already did yours. We authorized the money and Jordan will be in touch. Thanks, guys. We're over here. Before John wants that, I'd like to introduce him to Jeff because John's the zoning administrator and we have, and Jeff submitted the permit application for the callus zoning. So just, so I don't know if you guys know each other already, but Jeff Walker, John McCulloch. So we're on the Curtis pod, no. Okay, I'm going to sit around for a bit. Hey, sure. Okay, why don't you guys go ahead? Well, do you, I don't know if Jeff prepared anything. Who wants to? Liability coverage, did you, I mean, I think, as you know about the passive insurance. I'm not sure we all do. The passive will, the passive from the dam is constructed in state standards. Passive will, passive is the entity that's associated with the League of Cities and Towns that insures the town. Passive has special insurance for dams to the tune of one million. They have many dams that they insure, by the way. France, I think, is the head of the part of the, he's not the head, I guess, he's one of the top people in the passive bureaucracy. Fred has been here, worked with us, worked with you. The last time I was here, Fred spoke about the possibility of supplemental insurance, but I have not talked to him. So I spoke to him today. The last select board had asked him to look into whether or not there was supplemental, what they offer for all of the, I think, 63 or so, municipal or utility-owned dams that they insure, they offer one million dollars in downstream liability. And that is specifically downstream liability and not coverage for the dam itself. It doesn't cover the replacement cost. That's not a problem. Right. And so the last select board asked him to look into if there was insurance for replacement cost, if there was insurance during construction phase, and if there was the ability to raise the million dollar downstream liability to a higher policy. So I spoke to him today to find out if he'd made progress. And he said that more or less the answers to all the questions are probably not. He said all of the dams they insure have the same million dollar downstream liability. He doesn't know of others that have, you know, balked at that and found additional coverage. He did say they're still talking with the, his, maybe you know more, he called it re-insurance, re-insurer. So they're still talking with that other insurer to see if there's an additional liability policy to get above the million, but he wasn't super optimistic about it. And he felt that the other municipalities he works with have not really questioned that policy substantially. He also said that typically the coverage during construction is borne by the contractor. And I know that one of the contractor we've been talking to the most over the last year or two has, is it two million? I spoke with him Saturday about this very good thing. And it's one million is typical and two million during the construction. I think it costs a little more, but there is no, I mean, I worded it like an act of God that takes it down. He said, well, we're not touching the dam. So you're in the exact same boat as if, as we are right this second, right? And like he used the example, he's done all the little dams fairly, which is four times the body of water and a town, a real town right there. The damage would be, you know, factors of 10 more. Then they just all find it acceptable. It's just sort of standard dictated by the state. And so all of that's, so basically no, there's no act of God coverage that he could pay more for and he gets covered for more or so. But I liked his point, his stress was, well, that's the same as today, if it goes today. Maybe Jeff might be able to speak to some of that too. Now really, Marge, I think what Colleen just articulated was consistent in my experience as well. Will it be possible during construction to ask the, what would you say, the person who's building it, the construction person, to increase their liability to cover us? Yeah, and they can. And it's, you know, X dollars per million. He said he's never been asked to be increased more than two, ever. Or that any else that he knows of. And that will cost us more, is that right? That will increase our cost. If it comes out of, I mean, it costs the budget of the project, right? So we could put that into the RFP. Yes, we can put that into the RFP. We can make that a condition. It will cost more, but keeping in mind that what they're describing is what's typical. You know, we'd be going. Anything more than, we'd like to advocate for what all the other towns have done. I think if you put in the RFP, you'd want to make it an option. You know, what if the town wants extra coverage? What would you charge for it? So they'll just build it into the bank. But wait, there's two pieces. There's after construction, then we have the one million liability. And then there's during construction. Yeah, they're only covering during, and you can put in the RFP, just like you said. But I want to understand what Colleen just said. You're saying one million would be typical for a during construction policy as well? Yes. But then we would, would we have the liability on top of that, that we get from passive? No, because our... No, it doesn't even start till it's completely done. Passive doesn't start till it's completely managed, sealed by the state, that it's a 100-year dam or whatever. What you said was that one million is for downstream damages. What about the dam just washed out and we have to start again? Why wouldn't we want to have... Well, one million's not gonna cover both. Wait, wait, slow down for a minute. There are three different types of insurance we're talking about here. One is, the dam is built and done. Passive will ensure you for downstream liability for a million dollars, not until, okay? So the town, of course, shouldn't accept the irrevocable offers of dedication on the dam until passive can ensure it, okay? The second type of insurance is insurance that the contractor carries for liability for their negligence. It's for their negligence that occurs during construction. That's completely separate. And that's, a standard is a million dollars. So if the coffer dam breaks or something weird happens, it's hard to imagine. It's a pretty simple project as dams go, but something bad happens. They have a million dollars that, if it's, you know, would cover downstream liability. And I think probably the dam itself, probably everything that flows from the negligence. But that's just during construction. So if you want, you can ask, as in the RFP, we can ask for optional additional coverage and, you know, a separate price for that. And then when we negotiate the contract with them, we negotiate the contract with them. We would decide, you know, do we want to pay if it's cheap and we do, if it's expensive and we pay. So let me understand though, if the dam washes out during construction for some reason, then we've got to go back and spend another 700,000 or whatever it's going to cost. Plus we'll have the downstream liability. So I'm having trouble with why we wouldn't want 1,700,000 dollars of coverage. Or too many, well then we could, probably we could ask for it. But you can decide that then. You can decide it when we negotiate the contract. Of course, but I'm going to understand. Go ahead, Joanne. I think it's also, we're understanding what that insurance covers to mark the point, you know, if the cofferdam fails as the result of poor construction or something like that. But if there is like a significant storm event, you know, that would be an act of God. And then who owns the liability of active God type? Situations that wouldn't necessarily be covered by either of these insurances. And so there's a certain amount of calculus that needs to be put into that or a decision around what mechanism is going to sufficiently mitigate that risk. And my understanding is that's the bigger question. Isn't so much, you know, whether the insurance is adequate for the construction phase, whether the insurance is adequate for the post-construction phase. And because there's already mechanisms for each of the bodies that are willing to ensure those. It's the, what about, you know, what is the actual risk? And can we put some calculus around what the downstream risk is for an active God type failure that wouldn't be covered by these things? I can talk a little bit about that if you want. Sure, sure. Okay, so we're talking about a situation where there's a huge rainstorm or a hurricane and a dam's overtopped into boxes, right? And it really doesn't matter very much whether that happens now, during construction, or after, excuse me, later, okay? It's pretty much the same. So what is the calculus there, the risk calculus? One of the things that you need to, anyone who's good at risk analysis does is you have to weigh different risks. So one option is we go ahead and we issue the bonds, we start construction. This town still doesn't own the dam, but it's issued the bonds. And the dam collapses and there's downstream damage. Let's say the damages are $3 million. I'm just picking them up, okay? You know, the store, it's gone, nine houses, maybe really badly damaged. Attorney's fees, you know, you name it. I mean, I'm deliberately trying the worst case here. So that's $3 million. So let's say option one is the town is connected with this enough and the town is sued and nobody's insurance covers it and there's a $3 million liability. What would the town do? Well, I think the only thing the town could do is issue bonds. In other words, you'd have to borrow that money. You don't have $3 million lying around. So you'd borrow the money and probably would cost you, I'm gonna take a number out of my ear, $200,000 a year to pay off those bonds. Okay. But you can't stop there. That's only half the analysis. The other half is what if you don't do anything? What if you say we're so worried about liability, we're just not gonna do this? We won't issue the bonds. And the same thing happens, okay? The same $3 million. It's arguable that the town, I mean, I know you've probably heard, well, then the town wouldn't be connected with it, wouldn't have any liability. I have to tell you in my professional opinion, I don't think it's black and white like that because the town is so engaged already that the town would be sued. But let's say that the town had no liability. So the only people who had liability are the current owners who don't have any money anyway and so that would just end. But the town would probably lose, we think very conservatively, $20 million in assessed value. And that would probably cost the town something like $200,000 a year. So it's really $200,000 and $200,000. You cannot, when you're analyzing risk, you can't just say, oh, let's be conservative and look at this risk. You have to look at both doing something and doing nothing. The difference, though, is that when anybody who's a good risk analyst looks at comparative risk, they won't apply the dollar risk by the chance of it occurring. So on this side, the side of the dam collapsing because of a weather event during construction and the town being on hook, what is the chance of that happening? Well, of course, who the hell knows, but I would say personally, way north of 1 in 500, but let's just say it's one in 100. Let's be really conservative and say there's literally a 1% chance that that would occur. What is the chance that the town will lose $200,000 a year in tax revenue? 100%. That's what would happen if you do nothing, the dam will eventually collapse and the pond will be gone, et cetera. So you have $200,000 if you do nothing and $20,000 a year if you do involve yourself. In other words, the final, and you can fool with the numbers, see, these are just off the back of the envelope. You can fool with those possibilities all you want. You'll never get to the point where the financial risks to the town are going ahead are greater than the financial risks of the town doing nothing. It's simply impossible. And what I suspect is, you've only heard about that story from your lawyer and it's just dead long. So I think from a liability perspective, so then you might ask, well, that's fine Mark, but how do we attenuate the possibility of a hurricane coming anytime? The answer is, we try to do it this year if we can. I mean, that's the, I can tell you, we can tell you a little bit about timetable and there's an argument that we might not be able to finish it this year if we can't find a contractor who will do the work, but the best solution to the liability from an actor gone is to do nothing. I mean, it's to do, to act as quickly as we can. Mark, I'll take on a little bit of risk and probably say this, but I want to kind of correct the characterization. Certainly based on my conversation today, the brunt of the conversation was not how do we put the town in the position of assuming the most minuscule amount of risk relative to that one, and so there is a, I don't think we'll be, we'll probably see eye to eye on a number of other issues, but that one is not the main driver. And so let's not get too hung up on that particular thing. There are other boxes that the town attorneys would like to see checked that have less to do with what happens if a catastrophic flood arrives. Everybody kind of knows that we'll go around in circles trying to figure out what zero risk looks like or how to achieve that for all the reasons that you've listed there. And so I think we can kind of move beyond that particular issue. Well maybe what we ought to do, because it's important from terms of no point, knowing how to move ahead, is to look at the timeline. Yeah. The timeline, if we want to move this here, is written by one date, May 15th. May 15th is the leg. Sometimes July, the bond bank will issue bonds for all towns that want to participate in, have projects that were approved at town meeting and want to bond them. I think that's late July, they issue the bond, so let's say they'll issue like $90 million worth of bond. The last date to apply to be part of that bond issue is May 15th. And the town, so what the town would do is the town would file an application through its bond council to participate in the bond issue in the amount of X. And I think by the end of May, that application probably would be approved, I mean, if it's gonna be approved, it's very pretty quick timetable. So by the end of May, we would, at that point, when we've applied and they've approved it, it's pretty certain. So at that point, at the end of May, it would be pretty easy for the town to be in a position to negotiate a contract with a builder at that point. Because remember, you don't want to issue a contract, you don't want to enter into a contract with a builder unless you have a pretty good idea about the month. So, but if you work back, part of that application, I think, is an opinion from bond council. And that opinion from bond council has to say that it's legit and legal and that there's nothing wrong with it and that the town approved it and the town, the voters approved it, et cetera. It's an opinion letter from them. And then, when the bonds issue, the town does not issue bonds. The bond bank issues the bonds. The reason that works for everybody is because the state of Vermont has a very good bond, I think, double A. So the bonds are less expensive. So let's say they issue $450,000 worth of bonds for the town. Then what they do is they have the money, they have $450,000, they turn around and loan it to the town. And the town promises to pay the loan back. So we don't actually issue the bonds. Somebody else does and we just pay off the loan via the assessments, you know, our taxes. And that's how the process works. It does mean that it would be good if the RFP, you know, May 15th ain't so far off. It would be good if the RFP went out as soon as we can reasonably get it out so that we have some bids and we have an idea of how many bonds, you know, what the quantity of bonds we want to issue, I think. In other words, let's say the bids come in at $800,000. Well, we're gonna have to raise a lot more money and we're gonna have to issue the whole 450. If the bids come in at 700,000, maybe we don't have to issue all 450. Or tell them all 450. And I don't know how the mechanics of that work. I just have a feeling that the sooner we get that RFP out of the door, the better, and the more likely that we are gonna get bond counsel to, excuse me, the more likely we are to get contractor if there is a contractor who'll do the work this year to come in and say they'll do it. Questions for Mark on that issue? Moving quickly to get an RFP out is one of the primary concerns at this point. You know, so, because I'm glad we have the engineer here to kind of talk through some of this, but this group particularly hasn't been privy to our, we have the applications that are submitted, seven, I believe, right, six. And Mark, you had mentioned that there's been kind of dialogue, points of clarification, that sort of thing that have come in from those agencies, you know, relative to the design and engineering and kind of getting a better sense of where we stand on those and whether or not there's gonna be like meaningful change orders that are gonna come as a result of some of that dialogue. And yeah, and so it'd be good to just kind get up to speed as possible on what the status of those applications are because it seems pretty hard. And in an ideal scenario, you would have permits in hand before you're engaging and quoting for something that could substantially change in price relative to changes in design or requests from any of these agencies, even if it were just the engineering fees relative to those changes, you know, that moves the needle on what the costs of the project are and getting an updated, refreshed look at what the actual costs, you know, from the perspective of the engineering firm. Are you project managers, I think? I'm not sure what the official term would be for two boys and two girls. No, no, I'm just, I don't want to mince words about what the actual relationship is, I guess, right? Sure, so if I may. Yeah, of course. I think I just wanted to circle back to insurance. Yeah. We have drafted what we refer to front-end bidding documents. Yeah. That if I trust the town will be provided to your attorney, you know, for review. And within those, within our general conditions, there's a lot of contractor-required insurance, this general comprehensive builders risk which goes to flooding and things like that. And certainly, obviously, your counsel will be looking at those and seeing are those limits where you want them to be as I earlier discussion, or if you'd like to increase them with a ride or something like that. I just want to make sure that this board is aware of that and that your attorneys either have it or will be. Secondly, for what it's worth, I certainly would, you know, if attorneys have any technical questions, I'm certainly available a little bit of conversations and fall calls and things like that. So feel free to send my contact information to your attorneys if that would be helpful for the community. You know, in terms of permitting and bidding the project with a request for proposal, we spot on absolutely the lowest risk, if you will, for change orders and things like that. Is everything as a plus and everything is set. The permit still to be acquired for this project, the Vamont Dam Safety Permit. And there is, on the second page. There's a whole list in there. Yes, the list of the sections. We do feel as of today, you know, the issues have largely been identified and resolved. Vamont Safety has already issued their review comments and largely addressed them. We're backing up a few things this week. You know, so is there still risk that something may change? Yes, it's pretty minimal at this point, but it's greater than zero. You know, they may find something else that they've been staggered from on Vamont Safety. Are the threatened and endangered, rare, rare, taking folk are meeting later this month. You know, we don't anticipate anything. We've worked all of that through, but until they do, until conversations, it's the risk is greater than zero, that something will change. So you're absolutely correct. I think it's reasonably low risk, you know, but we're not the ones that issue the permit, so. You've been in conversations with Vamont Safety, right? Yes, yeah. Yeah, and as of last week. So we're pretty clear on what they want, but until, you know, that finalizes. So that's where we stand on the permits, and as Mark said, the list of them. But we don't even have one, yeah. That's correct. So we don't have even one, I'm saying. You know, in your conversations, do you have any ideas to type in? Well, I have to have, yes, it's a short answer Mark to the question. The longer one is when we circle back with Vamont Safety, they're gonna need about six weeks or so to issue. They've done a very comprehensive review, should be an administrative function. So that list is said, we don't need a permit from them. They're rare and endangered. As I said, their committee meets later this month. I'm not quite sure. But there's a difference between them telling us that they don't see anything and yes, getting the approval. I mean, there is, look, Jeff said there is a risk. They could come back, but the fact that there's been so much back and forth. I think a lot of these, Jeff feels pretty secure that he's gotten pretty much all most of the comments back. So that's a risk. We have to decide if we want to issue the... What about the historic preservation or the historic gun? That's a total unknown. Yeah, that one's underway. Well, it's a, yeah, but it's an unknown. That's correct. They can't even drill till in the May. Well, I did ask, I did get at the end of the day today, Katherine Quinn said, can they come out? They were curious what it was like at the dam that could they come out. So I was gonna go down tomorrow and see how much snow is there and how they can come out and do a site visit. So I just got that a couple minutes before I came down. But also, not to sound terribly negative, but when you say it needs six more weeks, but basically dam safety said it would take three to six months and that was in July. So I don't know that I believe six weeks either. Yeah. They, you know, the bed was pretty firm that six months was the outside. There are different kinds of risks here. One is the risk you're alluding to, which is, could there be a change in design, which would change that. And I think there is dam safety. So I think the fact that dam safety is telling an engineer that they've worked with again and again and again, look, we're basically okay with this, attenuates that. But I do think that we would want to build into the project budget contingency to deal with the inevitability of something. I mean, it's pretty simple project compared to the store, for example, but it's still, I think things change, things change, and so we would want to build in a contingency. And that could even happen after approval, something as Joe said before, something could come up that they weren't aware of and that might change things. I also think that you could enter into a contract with a builder, pay the builder and enter into it. He's contingent upon receiving the permits. So that you're not in a situation where you have to pay. But I'm not sure of that. And I think that's one of the things that we would want to, we talked about in a little bit, we're unsure of, you know, with that. Well, in my limited experience with that, that largely comes down to whatever the risk of the, whatever the appetite is for the builder, for the builder to assume that kind of risk. And you know, these are, well, this might be like a simple dam project. Dam projects aren't simple projects. So, you know, that's their own calculus and do we narrow the pool by not having those things, by making that a condition of the RFP? It doesn't have to be a condition of the RFP, it could be in the contract. All right, I'm sorry, a condition of the contract. Well, I think that that's the kind of thing where you'd have to see, we don't all have to see where we are. In other words, if all the permit people are saying, it's done, it's just, we're just doing the paperwork. That's one thing, if we're on the other end, and full of uncertainty, it's another. Can we start all back on the historic, because you had mentioned that that might be a situation where there could be significant changes to either what they'd like to see done to the existing one or characteristics of the new one. I'd like to just speak to that too. Sure. The historical society has to, or whatever historical preservation has to say that it's being done in a historical way. And they did talk about there are opportunities for mitigation between like dam safety, you know. They want the dam to be safe. Sure. And so there can be discussions. And obviously the sooner they weigh in to the Army Corps of Engineers, the quicker we can come to a decision. And I know you spoke more on the technical and I was, as far as that whole, you know, the back and forth and stuff. So if you wanna. Sure. It all comes down to the Army Corps of Engineers permit. Yeah. There's a condition within that permit that says, is there an adverse impact to the historical resource? Yes or no. And that decision has to be concurred upon by SHIPO, the State Historic Preservation Office. And so Curtis Pines Association has retained a archeology historian, Catherine Quinn, and they're gonna be out doing their work here imminently. And they're the ones who's gonna be computing and making a recommendation to SHIPO on whether or not the project as proposed would have an adverse impact or not. If it has an adverse impact, then there's mitigation that would need to be completed. If there's not adverse impact or no adverse impact, then that's gonna largely satisfy the Army Corps' criterion and then that permit by default will be issued because it's already issued in the country of large. So we had a very detailed conversation with both the SHIPO people on the phone, with the archeologist consultant, Catherine Quinn, Curtis Ponfolk, four, five weeks ago, three weeks ago, something like that. So they're doing their thing. And I think the general assessment is everybody concurs the design that we've proposed maintains a historical integrity of the dam. We're leaving the existing dam in place. We're not taking it out. We're strengthening it so it sticks. The top of the dam with the little bridge spans across and we have proposed a modification. She's really gonna be focusing, I believe, on that and saying does that rise to a certain threshold to whether or not to turn to that. We have said if it does, let us know and perhaps we might be able to mitigate that design so we can avoid the adverse impact conclusion. So I'm optimistic if they're gonna conclude there's no adverse impact because if they're conclusive, SHIPO will agree with that and then that will complete the anti-core process. But we won't know until Ms. Quinn has her report done, which is, I mean, there's too few to snow out there. I was hoping for it earlier at the dam just now. But we hope to have at least a preliminary one of the month perhaps, something like that. Well, it's so much she had told me is it probably wouldn't be the actual drill at the end of April. And then they need to have time, I mean, realistically. I'm just surprised that they said, can we come out Friday into a site visit? And I was gonna check tomorrow to see what kind of a steeper down the dam. About the Army Corps of Engineers, you're saying we've got the permit from the Army Corps of Engineers except for this one piece? No, the Army Corps issues these permits for the nation at large. It's not an individual permit, a general permit. GP1, a general permit too. For this case, the dam to be eligible for that permit, you have to satisfy these different criteria. So if we satisfy really the only one here is whether there's a historical or archeology adverse impact, if it's concluded no if not, then the permit is issued. Okay, so that would really be fine. So it's really the Army Corps, this is not a project that needs in and of itself an individual Army Corps permit, it just doesn't. But there is this historic requirement. And luckily for us from the beginning, we have been favoring the design that leaves the dam, the historic dam there. Jordan, how are you doing? You done for now? I think a list of things that discussed it I think would be better. Oh, I meant on this issue. On this one, yeah. Sorry, I wasn't wrapping up the discussion on it. Do you want to wait until executive session or leave till later at the legal documents? No, I was gonna bring that one up next if you're ready. I imagine you know as much as I do if you've had those conversations, but as far as I can tell, I can only think, well for now, we need draft. We need, I think Joe prefers not to put plain deeds but to use irrevocable offers of dedication, which I think he could draft in an hour or even 10 minutes. But there's also the access ones in. I think the lay down is the contractor or he deals with the lay down, he's just straight. So then, and there is an easement probably of access since Camp Road is private. You probably need an easement from the father gills for repairing the dam and you probably need escrow. I don't know what happens with those irrevocable, I mean the physical irrevocable offers of dedication. Whether they just given to the, I think they just be given to your attorney and they'll just sit with the attorney and be reported when the town is ready to report it. Then there's the, but that's the only ones I know of. And just in terms of current property owners. So I do wanna just mention that I've had this last week, I had direct communication with the ISIS, the father gills and the Miller group. And they are still in support of the project. They wanted to happen. The father gills did acknowledge that they own the Camp Road. So that's, there's no issues there. The, they have, the heises have expressed concern about if there's a permanent, when they are concerned about public access to be the dam after it's fixed. Like they don't wanna see, they don't wanna have people swimming on the dam and boating and from the dam. So I think that's something we have to kind of be aware of that if we have, that the town has access that it'd be kind of limited to emergencies and maintenance. So this, you guys have to decide that, but it's a consideration. Cause I think for safety reasons anyways, you wouldn't want anybody swimming from there or boating from there. We have a boat access, we have a swimming access. So that was some of the concerns that they had. I just wanted to talk about a process for getting these done. Jordan, I assume you're not clear. You can't call Joe tomorrow and say these are the things we need yet. Is that correct? We, we need to talk to him about today. Oh, so, so are you confident you've got all of, all the ones we need and all the information you need? Not entirely, but I think that, that we've been kind of going through this list and part of quite literally today's conversation was what makes sense for having a more direct conversation with all parties involved so that those things can start to be drafted. I mean, I think that it's frankly, I think it's a little bit of a shame that that portion of it hasn't, hasn't moved faster because those aren't the most important parts of a lot of this. And so we're trying to play a little bit of catch up. And there's, there are elements of that conversation that I think would be best to kind of discuss as a group in an executive session because it'll also involve negotiations with our outside parties. Okay. We also, now of course you have the classic construction documents, which would be the RFP, the contract. And those, there's not quite the pressure. I mean, I think the pressure is on, is getting the RFP out. And the pressure is pushing the permit tours as much hard as we can. And the pressure, you know, those, and getting the bond documents process moving so that we don't miss that deadline. Yeah, and there's also a concern about the authority basically to do that without figuring out the other elements, or at least having the other elements sorted out in advance, whether they're held in escrow, et cetera, et cetera. But that's really kind of the gaming out that you were discussing today. And making sure that we're in like the best legal standing to actually have an authority. And then who is the final deciding body between all of this needs to happen one way versus another way, who gets to make that decision. We can, I guess you'll just want to discuss that in any second session, or open, are you not sure? I'm not sure that we'd be quite there yet, but I think that there are still things that the board and the CPA would like should discussion in that executive session, if that makes sense. Got it. But I do think, things like, I think the irrevocable office and made escrow instructions with business program, that's pretty straightforward stuff. Yep. Okay. Are we ready to go into executive session or are there other things you want to talk about out here? You've kind of gone through my list. Marge, you talked about going through the timeline. Well, I think, I know, but I was using it that we needed a mechanism to get talking. But we did, I mean, we talked about that. You think we've covered it? What do you guys think? All right, if I'm understanding correctly, we're going to go into executive session to discuss the legal documents that need to be drawn up, plus, well, the RFP, I guess, is a legal document and the RFP. Is there anything else? We're not gonna really discuss the contract tonight, are we? Which, the construction? Yeah. That's really part of the RFP. That's after the RFP. Yeah, yeah. Okay. Well, later. Yeah. The items in the bid document that does discuss the contract. Oh, sure. Sure. So, yeah. I think what we're saying is the, I think in the bid documents, it says in there, this is what we think a contract is gonna be like. Okay. In that case, it sounds to me like we are ready to go into executive session. So, shall we make, let's make a motion. Well, just, we're gonna make a finding and I've written it down and Rose, it's handwritten but I can give it to you. I would like to make a motion that the select board finds that public viewing of a draft of an RFP, and I'll add, or other legal documents, that an RFP forbids for construction of the Curtis Pond Dam or other legal documents would place some potential bidders at a disadvantage and that the document should only be made available to the public until it is final and ready to be released to potential bidders or shown to the people who might sign the document. And therefore, we should go into executive session under one VSA 313-6. I'll get this to you, Rose. Okay, thanks. Did that make sense? Do I need to say it again? No, it makes sense. I think we got it. Okay, I made a motion. So, second. Any further discussion on that? Okay, all in favor? Jamie, yes, you wanna say something? I just wonder if, I don't know what it is. It's gonna be the second part. If that's the majority of the meeting, if we wanna take a break. Oh, yes, I was going to suggest that because then our ORCA guy can just pack up and go home. Anne, are you inviting anyone else? Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't say that. We would like to invite the members of the CPA and their engineer into executive session with us. Pardon me, that was part of the motion. Is that okay with you guys? Yeah, thank you. And I'm sorry, the others of you are here. It's an early, I assume you don't wanna wait till we come out. We're unlikely to have anything to report. So. Did you vote on the motion? No, we didn't. We're still in discussions. Is this? You want me to leave the recorder on sitting there? Oh, geez. The thing is Gabrielle will wanna hear it. Can we record an executive session just for her? We can't even do that. Oh, just for Gabrielle? Just for Gabrielle. So, all right. We've admitted to it, I can be discovered, so. Oh, really? All right, the motion has been moved and seconded. All in favor? Aye. Okay. So we're gonna take a short break. Well, we pack up and then we'll reconfirm. And we still have to make the app.