 Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the Bill of Justice Junction Trustee meeting for Tuesday, August 13th. I'll call the meeting to order. Please join me for the Pledge of Allegiance. The Pledge of Allegiance is to the flag of the United States of America, the Institute of Public, for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. All right. Mr. Manager, do we have any agenda additions or changes tonight? Mr. President, we do not. Okay. So hearing none, we don't need to approve the agenda. It's already been done. Moving forward to the public to be heard. So now is the point in time of the meeting where if there's somebody in the public who would like to speak to something that is not on the agenda, now would be a time to do so. If you have something that's on the agenda, please wait until the time and we'll make sure we have time for that. Does anybody from the public have anything? Okay. Seeing none, we shall move forward to the public hearing. So I will open the public hearing for the final public hearing on the proposed amendments to and re-adoption of the Village of Estates Junction's comprehensive plan, the proposed Essex Community Enhanced Energy Plan. So for this one, I'm not sure if Robin, if Melanie, if somebody would like to come on up. Both? Two for one. Thank you for being here. So this is the last hearing for a Village of Estates Junction's comprehensive plan, which includes the Essex Community Enhanced Energy Plan. Because assuming it's a Village of Estates Junction's comprehensive plan, it gives you substantial deference. Yes, at the Public Intelligence Commission. So we thought that was important rather than having to establish a local which would give us substantial deference. I believe the public hearing is on July 12th. So we're hopeful there were a few changes made. Yes. So at the last public hearing. July 23rd. Yes, the trustees agreed to make the updates to two paragraphs in the wastewater section, and those have been included in the draft. So that was the only comments that we heard during the public hearing period, and haven't heard any comments in this next iteration of the public hearing period. What are the next steps after tonight? Just so we, just plainly. So this goes to the RPC, and we, you know, just sort of go over that for everybody too. It's really gone to the Planning Advisory Committee of the RPC. They have a few comments. And those comments have been addressed in earlier drafts of the Comprehensive Plan, and they've made a recommendation to the CCRPC Board to consider the plan for adoption. And so at the September CCRPC Board meeting, the Board will consider the plan for... Could you CCRPC for the people who may not know what the happened? Oh, sorry. Yes, the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission Board. So the Planning Advisory Committee, which is a subcommittee of the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission Board, has made a recommendation to the Board to consider it for adoption at their September Board meeting. And the Planning Advisory Committee has made a call to directors of planning for the municipality of Chittenden County. And they have, I mean, the PAC, which is the Planning Advisory Committee, has also recommended a determination of energy compliance, which the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission gives to any enhanced energy plan. So that will, too, be up on the Regional Planning Commission Board agenda in September. Thanks. Sorry to make your life difficult. No, that's okay. I appreciate your nudge. Every once in a while, people say, yeah, you said all those letters. Right. We don't know what you're talking about. There's a lot of letters. And the point of it going to the CCRPC, now that we know what that stands for, is to help make sure that there's coordination among the communities within the county, correct? And that it's not one community going rogue doing its own thing while others are having more of a cohesive plan. Yes. Correct? Yes, the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission looks at the plan and evaluates it against state statutes, the planning elements to make sure that the municipality is following the planning elements. As well as the energy planning requirements as determined by the Department of Public Service. And the CCRPC staff have reviewed this as well as the county advisory committee. So it's had two or three levels of review already. And it's passed all the things. Not to mention the public hearing that happened at the Village Planning Commission. No, it's not true. Just maybe for the audience, what are the main highlights of what got touched on and their importance? So a few areas of the plan needed to be updated to meet state statute. So since the plan was last adopted in, I guess it was 2000, maybe it was 2016. Sorry, I'm getting my dates wrong. But the municipality needed to add a flood resiliency plan and add language from reporters to be consistent with the agency of natural resources, flood resiliency requirements. The municipality also needed to be consistent with Act 171 talking about forest integrity and strengthening the language, talking about the ecological importance of areas identified in the Vermont Conservation Design Project. And that's referenced in the natural resources section. There's also a flood resiliency section in the document itself. All the data has been updated extensively. Any local land use or transportation plans that has been developed since the last approval of the plan that has been incorporated by reference, mainly talking about the Crescent Connector and Design Five Corners. All the maps have been updated. So the focus has been updating the data and bringing the demand into compliance with recent state statutes. And also developing the Enhanced Energy Plan for Ascension and Essex Town so that the village can get substantial difference at the Public Utilities Commission. Do you have anything to add, Robin? I think it's also important we adopted tonight because the existing plan expires first. Great. So, with this being the final public hearing, this is the last chance that the public and trustees, we have an opportunity to provide input on the comprehensive plan. So again, I'll just open it up. Is there anybody else in the public who would like to speak to the comprehensive plan? Any concerns? Okay. Trustees as well to exclude. Okay. One change, if I could ask, do you want to wait for it, Lynn? Okay. So the one change I would ask for is that I see somebody put me as the trustee and then the left me in as Planning Commission. I take me out of Planning Commission just to create, you know, avoid any confusion that I did both of those things at the same time. And because it's as of the time we adopted. It says. Hopefully, if I can change. Yeah, that's not a substantial change. It's not going to require you to. I didn't think so. I didn't think so. Thank you. I'm fine with that friendly change. So hearing no other comments, questions or concerns, I would now close the public hearing on the comprehensive plan. And that will move us on to business item 6A where we will have an opportunity to adopt the Bill of Justice Junction Copy as a Plan, the Essex Community Enhance Energy Plan. Okay, so I will make a motion and I think I don't know if we have two separate motions that we adopt. Do we need to adopt the amendments to the energy plan or by just adopting the municipal plan as amended? Do we have a sense of that? I would say the municipal plan is a job because the energy plan is incorporated. I didn't know if we had to make two motions to move that we adopt the municipal plan which includes the Essex Community Enhanced Energy Plan as presented at tonight's meeting. Second. Is there any further discussion? All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Anybody opposed? Great. Thank you very much. Thank you both. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Thank you. And so we can now go on. Oh, we also need to thank the planning commissioners who have spent a fair amount of time on this as well. And also thank the planning commissioners and those from the public who came out to help inform the process. So moving forward to 6B, the Village Road and Bridge Standards. Greg's not here, so I'm going to assume that that's what you teach. Sure. We'll move to that. Very much an a lot less fanfare than the Village Comprehensive Plan at an annual basis. The state wants you to adopt the road standards. The town works with the village to help put these together and they're in your agenda for approval. The couple things a lot of their changes were mainly in unpaved road areas class 4 and where FEMA comes in when you have a storm or a event. If it gets to a classification where there is disaster relief funds you submit a lot of paperwork to the state who then goes on to FEMA but you have to be in compliance with your road standards to be eligible for those funds. So this is another reason why we go through this process every year and make sure that our road standards meet those requirements for the village that's not terribly hard because about 99% of your roads if not 100% are paved. I was noticing in the document itself that it was handed in that there are no roads in the village. So I will make a motion that we adopt and sign the new road and bridge standards. Second. Dan got it. Alright, so any further discussion on the motion? All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. So now we can move along to business item 16, the approval use of the infographic about the infomerger. I can do this if you want. Would that be good? I wasn't sure who was doing this. I know I'm doing the governance subcommittee update. Yeah, I mean I don't but if you want to take it away. The governance as part of the public outreach we're doing the focus groups it was felt that if there was something which is going to sound odd that is easier for people to understand, you know, people, one of the ideas of this focus group and the people that were selected is we weren't looking for people with an extensive knowledge of local government, people that had served on boards. So they were looking for people that were interested in the community, interested in the topic, but they may want to have something handy for some of those questions. Then the idea of putting that together and trying to get in as much information into a one pager both sides was our task. This is what's before you. We've got two different things. We've got the infographic which is going to go on the website that Anne and Jan is working on. And then the focus group. Okay, so you're doing the focus group first. So this is in your packet. It went to the select board last week. They had made some corrections, some additions and changes to try to make sure that we're being more balanced with the presentation of what is at hand. And so in your packet you will see the edited version. And they would then go to the focus groups and I believe the first ones tomorrow night. One question is can you go over the intent? Is this to give to the focus group or is the intent for this to really be a one pager if you will? So that way people in the community can understand what this is. Well, first it's for the focus groups and then if the village and the town want this to go on their website, I mean you certainly... Right, I think the thing that's going to go to the focus groups is if you look down after the infographic you'll see municipal governments model options. Option one unified charter, option two. So it's just three boxes. Keep flipping down and you'll get to it in our agenda. Yeah, there you go. So this is the thing that's going to that the focus groups are going to have. And I only know this Evan because we, the government subcommittee, I'm going to be updating this. I may as well just combine the two. This is what we worked on initially and then it went to the boards for approval and some revision. And the idea was to really provide as simple as possible a stimulus for conversation. We're not trying to get specific answers. We're not trying to direct anybody towards a specific thing. We're just trying to stimulate the conversation around governance and potential merger. And so we had those three, those sort of personify the three options that we had governance options and then we broke it down. The boxes underneath it that talk about representation. Again, there's no correlation between the above three and the bottom three. Each one of those could be separate. But we're just trying to explain what's the difference graphically between at large versus a voting that might have two or more wards or districts and then some combination. If you don't mind if we can just pause on that one just to go with the infographic for now. Yeah, if you want to go with the infographic because I think the infographic is the thing. That's what's going on the website as well. And I think it's, I'm not sure if it's up there. I haven't seen if it's up there yet or not. I've not been on the site today. So we haven't seen it. So maybe it's not going yet. So the intent is that should the two boards approve of this, this is then a public facing document to talk about what is this process that we're talking about in Greater I6 2020? Right. So the select board discussed this. Yeah. And I understand that there were some requests. Did they make any changes? So the second one in your packet is with the changes. So there's two. So we're not going to use it. Not using the first one and looking at the second one. Unless we change that. Unless we change that. I'm going to mix them up. Were there any substantive changes? It looks more like they're just kind of changing the way things are laid out. Formatting issues versus... I think one of the things you'll note, well you could, we've added and puffed up a little bit more key challenges, which is taxation, governing board structure and elections, community identity. We moved some things around to be able to fit that in. That's on the cover page. Yep. I don't want to blow this up. Was there any discussion? Because it seems like there's a lot of... Not much on the back. Okay. There's a lot of folks coming into the process now. Or maybe a month ago and there will be some folks coming into the process three months from now. And the impression it seems that's left with them is that this is starting the minute they get into it. And that's understandable. But this has been going on for a long time. These governance meetings, these governing subcommittee meetings, the select board and trustees working together on this purposefully has been going on for a very long time. Oh yeah. And so it just seems to me looking at the timeline that, again, I realize having done this kind of work before, I'm not going to be very popular at suggesting this, but pushing it back to at least when the subcommittee was made, was formed so that folks know that there was a purposeful process to vet very many options and that trustees and the select can all describe what they thought it meant. Just at least saying that it didn't start in June and August for this summer. I agree. There is a little bullet point about that. The governance subcommittee was established in 2018. I mean, it's just not on the timeline. Yeah. So let's just totally agree. I agree. I think that's very important because it looks like it just jump-started all of the sun where it didn't really start in back in 2016 or 2017. And definitely 2017 will really get underway through last year. And I want to kind of pin it down. I mean this hasn't been going on for decades. There's various attempts have started and stopped. And this is starting up again. It's started up in full force. Right. So that's kind of good. Yeah. Because I know one of the questions that has come up is why are we doing this in the first place? And the meeting that we had back in, I believe it was 2018 at a previous select board configuration at that time where we went around the room and joined me. And we said, we all want one board. We want one community. And so to do that, we have to merge. So at that point in time, coming to an agreement of this is where we're going. Right, right. That fact and what you're talking about, it didn't just start a few weeks ago, but it hasn't been going on for a period of time. It does make a lot of sense. Yeah, that's a very good point. I think that's a very good point. So I mean, this is like, I think they're considering this as a work in progress. And they're looking for just exactly this kind of feedback. Okay. You know, they're building the skeleton, but they want the boards to be telling them what they expect to see and not to see. I think that's good feedback. The other thing I would say is that we've got some key challenges now, but after the focus groups, we may have other key challenges. We may have some new key challenges may arise that we've worked. We didn't think we're big deals, but maybe things on people's minds. So I would look to probably amend that as well. So we can consider this sort of a living document that will get updated for people. Right. So we'll have to keep versions, but you know. What do you think about saying that, I mean, do they want to put, so they haven't, she hasn't posted this yet? No. No. Okay. So the idea is do we, do we see misinformation here that we do want to post it and then we want to keep editing it, adding onto it, or do you want to just, do you want to say, let's not post it until we get it right? What should we do? I don't have a problem with it being a living document that is posted. And then if the boards agree to then change, we then change as conversations evolve. I would, go ahead, sorry. No, sorry. I just put a revised date on it too. So we know when, you know, and it makes it clear. Make sure the other ones are available. Yeah. But maybe before they post it, do what, do your suggestion, go back and get, you know, pin down the actual dates when we start really subject to police talking about this and extend that little, the little, it reminds me of like a board game. I want to roll the dice. No, I don't know. I'm sorry. Maybe that's silly, but. Hopefully there's no ladder. Yeah, yeah. All the way back to the beginning. Can we just make the change or ask the change we made and then go back to the government's son committee as opposed to coming back to both of us and then it can be posted? Because I think it's going to delay. So this is part of the problem. Trying to do something with 10 people is impossible. And public input, it's impossible. Somebody wants a little tweak, a little this, a little that. Can we all agree that merging two communities just isn't easy? And really cannot, everyone just cannot be happy. So I think one of the things that we would like is if you like this product and we make the one or two changes and get it going and we only change it because we really made an error. Something is not correct versus not quite the way somebody would think it should look. Personally, I hear what you're saying. In some ways, I would say that the timeline did start before June and August between 19. So with that one, yeah, I think that that would be something that I'd like to see changed. If you were only to look at this starting today, you would think, oh, they started this in June. How far could they possibly be? This has been going on for a few weeks. I can get you. Is there any discussion around the key benefits that you carry out in this level? One of the things we, what we did with this is we didn't want to get specific. These are just what was out there and also every time we tried to get specific, we get long. Yeah. And we just get rambling like me right now. And we just, I think some of that will get teased out much more in the coming stuff we're also going to do and started to do FAQs. And we're going to do more than just these outreach forums. We're going to go out to the public and do face-to-faces with people. You're still working on sort of honing in from the public. What are those key points and honing that into less ramble, more sizzle? Yeah. And the stuff that doesn't, stuff that's not positive or may not be positive to one segment of the community but is to the other. You just have to be honest about what it is, who gets affected, when you get affected, and how much you get affected if it costs money, and then what you get out of it. But that's the way this merger is going to have to be dealt with. I mean, you're going to, this is going to be on the website. It's going to be, if someone wants to go in, I think you probably, there's going to be some keywords that you went and there's going to be text and it's seven seven FAQs. So they can go more heavily into, this just is, just visually, there'll be a lot more information. And I think the plan is just to keep building more FAQs and other information as we go along. Our hope is by the time if you still agree that you want to do this vote in November 2020, by that time, hopefully a vast majority of people's questions will have been asked and answered. There may still be some things out there, but we've got a year and a couple months before that date. But that's all you have if you want to keep that date. Well, at the same time, one of the things I'd love about this is that it shows for one, when we talk about a merger plan, it isn't final. And that there is so much that is still unknown. So that's why we are really doing the public outreach at this point to make sure that we're going down the right path to our concerns. Let's learn from that. For the people at home, one of the main reasons for the outreach is while you all work at this and are here every two weeks and you have the benefit of the staff and the people at home don't. And while we think we know a lot about what they may want in this merger, we aren't 100% sure. So to go out to the public, do a survey, do focus groups, do a resurvey and then take all of that and still go out for more is the process of merger and a process of what should be in the document that people have to vote on and it is a new charter for the community and a charter being what was, you know, it's a legal document that sets the framework for the powers of that municipality. I will add one thing. If we look at this, you're going to have a dramatic change. If we stick to this plan, we say in November, December, probably more like December, develop a preferred governance model of the merger plan. Well, then you're going to really have to start focusing on the details of that specific plan and why it works and then there's probably going to be a whole big revision of this. So I think that's going to be a major thing. Just add my two cents and say developing the second resident survey by September we'll be lucky if we get that, if it's not in October, because it just seems to take a lot of time. But that's, we shoot for goals. Yeah, we shoot for goals, but that's, I think we need to stick to that, but I think that's going to be a big revision. Well, I think it's great that we have a governance subcommittee that there is. It is. Well, I'll challenge you a little bit, George. We also said getting the first survey out was going to be a huge challenge by the timeline that we set. Right. And we got it done, maybe by the skittiest of margins. We can do it, but I'll just go to see. But we also, we don't want to just we don't want to just meet a deadline to meet a deadline. We want a good product. Yeah. And that's why we hired KSV to get that good product. And I think, you know, in reading through their first survey and their results and the data that has been generated so far that we're still chewing on gave us a lot of insight and a lot of things to bring to the subcommittee and elsewhere. Okay. Questions, comments on service? Okay. So for a process standpoint, it sounds like are we not approving making the motion to approve the document today and wait until the changes are made or do you want to make the motion to approve it with the changes? I would like the latter and then leave it up to staff to fit it in. So someone wanted to make the motion to move the trustees authorized the use of the infographic grader S6 2020 answering your questions about the November 2020 merger vote during the focus groups about governance change. I'll second. I'll second. And that's going to that we understand that that includes the revisions. So we're going to do Raj's at our beginning of the bubble and then a revision date. That's fine. Great. So any other questions, comments and concerns in the motion? All those in favor please signify by saying aye. Great. Thank you. Thank you. And George do you want to continue where you left off? Continue where I left off and it's not very much. So I'll go to the other the other graphs with the one tax rate. These again just trying to represent what the governance options look like graphically. This is the specific information this goes to the focus groups so they can just sort of pictorily get a sense of what it is. One interesting thing I'll just draw as a sidelight we asked I said I really would like to see it would be helpful just looking at all this information. What are the populations of the two parts of the community? And it's interesting that we're both if you look at the representation options a little graphic we're both pushing 11,000. We're neck and neck to see who's going to reach 11,000 first. Which is more I thought we were both around 10 and a half so it's we've all right. The current tax structure of the show we wanted again people to get a sense of what when they look at their tax bill because we understand just from a lot of the questions we saw from the first survey people conflate school taxes, village taxes, town taxes, other things all into our bill. And we need to be able to we want to be able to help them distinguish between what the municipal government's control and what the school minister that's pretty much it. And so we went over this I think we had a lot of revisions so this is the document that's going to the focus groups. That's great. How are things going on the this committee with the increase in membership and first and second tier alternates? Well the new members have been you know they've added a lot you know I mean it's it's some of the original members I'm not sure who the new members are because they seem to it's sort of like a revolving seat I'm just kidding. It's been great so I mean I think we this was our last big push and to get this out the door and get this finalized and so now we're meeting again but the idea is well it's KSB will be there and they're going to give us the results the sort of summaries of the focus groups and we're going to take it from there so the next big step really is what I alluded to earlier was starting to work with them and the board in putting together this more comprehensive survey that we're going to try to get out in September and hopefully we'll get as big a response as not bigger on that. Did I miss anything Raj? Amber? Well you both you were on the left and I think that was I think you covered it because you went over all the things we did I was just trying to keep up with KSB's timelines Great. Yes I certainly appreciate the work it's totally has been a lot going into it and happy it's not happening at the board level We're taking way too long I'll add that As far as we understood the last communication we saw from KSB they had I believe they had all their slots filled Maybe you wanted to but I think they had last time we said they had 80 inquiries 60 slots Wow So it'll be interesting to see the result again two distinctly outside the village specifically inside and then two next And they're going to be done by They'll be done by the end of this week So I think it's early next week Sorry You can see we're trying to stay out of the process We don't even know what to say So just to be clear we are staying out of the process the governance of committee and staff had absolutely nothing to do with the selection of the people They went off of survey results the only restriction for KSB was based upon what the the joint board the joint board's direction no serving or former serving elected official They wanted people without direct influence on the other than that they made all the selections we haven't seen the list we have no idea who's going to correct there if we have anything else on the governance of committee good looking forward to the input though yes absolutely so we will go to item 6 yes sir sure what is the first focus group meeting what is the first focus group meeting I believe it's tomorrow or today or tomorrow it would be today at 6 o'clock you just approved the document you're supposed to be used at the focus group no I heard you say that the focus group document was the second one that I started telling I believe the text of the motion was approve this document for use at the focus group yes focus group is tonight the focus group got the second document that we talked about with the three governance structures before you approved it you have to approve it now I'm sorry so if it's is a concern that something is going to be used at the focus group that hadn't been approved yet my concern was it's okay I think because they got this document which was just approved but I would just point out that it's retroactive it's a little odd that we'd approve a document now to be used at a focus group taking place now and they got it in advance that's all thank you is there anything else they knew our method graphic is better okay so we will go on to 6e which we'll actually go back to this a little bit later on in the meeting we're going to have this in a deliberative session so we will now go on to set the agenda I'll move to agenda second any further discussion with agenda agenda so in the trustee's minutes melody the reading file is bronze bicycle friendly community very Indian brook specifically and I don't see any of brook mentioned at all so when I went back through I was thinking maybe we could put it in somewhere like line 141 ish this is at the joint meeting that's right it talks about reopen select boards and trustee agree the discussion needs to be scheduled about how to address off leashing in the local parks unless I am mistaken I think the only part we're talking about is India brook yeah so what we typically do is if there's a change to the minutes that we would like to have to state what we would like it to be so I guess my change would be discussion needs to be scheduled how to address off leashing at Indian brook could you state the number so it's 141 on the joint line 141 on the joint trustee select board meeting minutes is that I mean I'm open to suggestions I agree with exactly the same response I said boy we talked about it for about 15 or 20 minutes should we revisit the minutes and read through these later or these tapes we didn't solve anything I don't think we did I mean I don't think we concluded or solved anything but we did because I got a bunch of email about our discussion from Indian brook would be having another reporter and not having any minutes yeah well back to there was no action taking there was a lot of public comment and a lot of public thoughts on it there was no action so I think one of the things we have tried to do is not get verbatim minutes so if we could just have a comment that there was discussion and that there will be a future meeting on the topic that's really what is I totally understand that as somebody who used to take minutes we're not asking for verbatim but literally the words are not mentioned at all so that would be my change would be to add that piece so 143 I have after awfully strike in local parks and add Indian brook that's good sounds good did anybody have any other changes to it I don't have any other changes but I would like to ask if the materials from Sarah Quinn Lindsay about the tethering and dangerous dog statutes they said they left those but can we get those or did they not leave them the lady that left are you talking about the lady there was two so in the minutes itself it indicated that the woman who spoke about the dangerous dog statutes in other states that she was going to leave materials for us Lindsay who was the woman with the rescue she talked about leaving the anti-tethering law information for us and I didn't see either one of those so I didn't know if they had left them or not and staff could forward them to us good calls so would anybody like to make a motion to approve the consent agenda as amended I will make that motion that we approve the consent agenda as amended sir is there any further discussion all those in favor please signify by saying aye aye so going on to the reading 5 starting off with corn member comics I'm good nothing then going on down from that we shall enter into a deliberative session and a deliberative session is one in which we require privacy in order to speak with our attorney given some given a legal matter at this point in time we will take a brief recess so that way we can we're going to have some privacy so are we going to convene a public session after that after the deliberative session we are going to be making a how about then since to have to not have everybody leave if we want to go into the into the office and then we'll come back when we're done sure that way we shall return we are going to we already have a public action yes we are going to make an action yes thank you welcome back everybody thank you for waiting as we had the deliberative session with our attorney I'd like to ask this point in time not seeing Mr. Calange is here if Mr. Calange's attorney is here not seeing the attorney present just want to make sure to note that into the record so we have in front of us a request to delay the compensation hearing in discussing the compensation hearing the Mr. Calange's and the attorney have been well aware of the required appraisal for months in advance adequate time had been provided by the village and the only basis for the request really came down to a matter of costs not availability of experts not availability of people purely down to cost so at that matter and with no rebuttal from either Mr. Calange's or the attorney I personally would find that a delay would be due to the contestant's lack of a timely action and to not approve the continuance that has been requested of us my assumption is we need to make a formal motion to not approve of the great I will make a motion to not approve the request for a continuation to consider damages relative to the Crescent connector project second any questions any further conversation on the motion I will just agree that I don't see any compelling reason for all the reasons that you stated I think you stated it very clearly they knew an appraisal was going to be necessary and there's been lots of time and to get it done and it's not a matter that they can't get it done it's just a matter of the cost being more than they had anticipated so it's not compelling reason hearing no further comments all those in favor of the motion please signify by saying aye anybody post great hearing none the motion passes and we shall go to the end any further discussion aye anybody post thank you everybody thank you for waiting thank you