 come on. Is there a second? Second. Page one. On page one under executive session, the motion was unanimous but it was 4-0 not 5-0 and as reflected that Ted was not present until the start of the open session and the executive session was adjourned not convened at 7.20 p.m. Yep. Thank you. Page two. Under number five there's just an extra number five. Actually we're five. That's what I'm talking about. And page three. Hearing no other corrections then all those in favor of improving the minutes of September 6, 2022 say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Moving on to public comment. Is there anyone in the room who has some public comment? Brian, I'm sure you're coming to introduce yourself and it's on your mind. Good evening. My name is Brian Horst, residence of Williston and I am a member of Sustainable Williston and we're holding a series of meetings for the community regarding the climate and an attempt to broaden the conversation to include more sectors of Williston in this important conversation in a more relaxed setting. It's going to be held at the Dorothy Ailing Memorial Library starting at Monday at 7 and I'd like to leave a blurb with everyone and encourage you to come as individuals and join our conversation. Thank you. Anyone on Zoom who wishes to make any public comment? No one on Zoom, Terry. Thank you. We'll move on into public works standards exemption requests from Snyder Homes and I'd like to bring us up to date on this. We discussed this at length at our last meeting. Yep, to recap for the board and the public watching, Snyder Homes has submitted a request to the select board to consider waiving a provision in the public work standards specifications which is a select board policy laid the minimum right of way required for new streets and its current project under review for discretionary permit by the Development Review Board known as the Annex located at the former Essex Alliance Church property adjacent to Finney Crossing in town. At its last meeting on September 6th the select board received an overview of the request from Snyder Homes and discussed the request with staff at the meeting. As a recap, this request would allow sections of Bodrie Lane and Chelsea Place to have a right of way between 50 and 60 feet which is lower than the DPW standard of 64 feet. I left for the board this evening a draft motion prepared by the town attorney to grant this request should the board wish to consider it. Snyder Homes representatives are available this evening but right now they have a another hearing they're at in South Perlington so should the board wish to have additional questions for them. The board may table this to later in the meeting and I can connect with them on Zoom. Also planning director Mapilance is available with a quick text to run next to work in questions. Thank you. So are there any additional questions that need to be answered before we take this up as a motion? If not then I would entertain the motion. I moved to grant a request by Snyder Homes for an exemption from the town's minimum right of way requirements for streets of 64 feet articulated in its public work standard specifications for portions of roadways in the Annex residential neighborhood which has a development application currently under consideration by the development review board as stated in a letter to the select board and town manager Eric Wells from Snyder Homes dated August 12th 2022. Is there a second? A second. That's a great discussion on the motion. During that I'll those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. May oppose. Making good time here. Moving on to class 4 of round water reclassification on the Commerce Street site and I'll ask Eric to lead us off on that. We do have guests from the Vermont DEC and I think EPA as well. Yeah thanks Terry. So the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation has proposed to reclassify the Commerce Street Superfund site from a class 3 to class 4 ground water. As part of this process of public information session is scheduled this evening right now at the select board meeting and included with the agenda I've been had the meeting notice information fact sheet, coffees of letters sent to properties within this delineated area and abutting it and we have a colleague Caldwell and Patricia Copolino. Hopefully I said your name. I'm here from Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation this evening. We have Kevin from the EPA join us as well. I don't see him on Zoom just yet. I know there's a presentation I'll try but I'll turn over to our folks from DEC to brief the board in the public on this. So please join us and introduce yourselves and this is the public information meeting. So I'll be listening carefully and hopefully there'll be some questions for you. Hi, I'm Kim Caldwell. I'm the project manager for the Commerce Street plume Superfund site in Williston and I'm joined here by Trish Copolino. She's our senior program manager in the sites management section at DEC but she's there for backup. She doesn't need to come up here. So thanks for having me here. I think some of you probably have heard a similar presentation before but tonight I'll give an overview of the site history and status and focus on the proposed groundwater reclassification. You can move forward. And so I'll just focus on the groundwater remedy that's proposed, why groundwater is being reclassified, what it means and what documents are available for the public to review and also just talk a little bit more about the process. We are just collecting comments for another couple weeks. So the site history started in the early 1980s. There was an employee complaint I believe that originally reported an issue to the state related to a wastewater lagoon at the former MiTech facility on Commerce Street. And so that's when the state became involved, primarily looking at chromium and wastewater behind the facility. And I was later discovered that trichloroethylene or TCE, an industrial solvent, was also present in the area in some residential wells. And it was eventually traced back to the MiTech facility. It was also reported that the facility may have dumped these solvents directly into their leach field. And the diagram there kind of shows where that facility was kind of on the northern end of Commerce Street and shows the leach field and lagoon. So multiple investigations were undertaken by EPA or by the state until EPA became involved and the site was placed on the National Priorities List or became a Superfund site in 2005. And from there more investigation and feasibility studies led to the Record of Decision, which states what the remedies are for the site and specifically for groundwater. That includes in situ remediation, placing restrictions on the site to prevent the use of groundwater and reviewing the site every five years to make sure that the remedies are protective. So you can go on to the next. And so in general this figure here, which is included in the petition for the groundwater reclassification, provides an overview of the extent of the contamination. TCE is present in a sandy aquifer and this contamination is denser than water so it does sink down. But there is a clay layer that's thick and continuous throughout the area that's preventing the contamination from going any deeper than this clay. It's about 30 to 40 feet below the ground surface and that has prevented the contamination from getting into the bedrock aquifer. And because the contamination also sinks, the very top of groundwater is also clean in general. So it's really the highest levels of contamination are generally between 20 and 40 feet below the ground surface. We have seen some reduction of concentration over the last few years and this led us to kind of adjust our remediation strategy because we have seen this reduction. But still without treatment we expect this contamination to be here for likely hundreds of years and with remediation we're still looking at potentially decades for this contamination to be present. So I'll point out on the figure, the yellow line shows the extent of groundwater contamination to our drinking water standards and then the orange and red are just showing kind of the highest concentration areas and the purple is actually a different contaminant because TCE breaks down into a different contaminant. And I'll just touch on a little bit about what to do to clean up the groundwater. It really is going to be targeting those areas with higher levels of contamination and the orange and red. The grayish-purple areas are actually symbolizing different geology and not contamination. But the figure shows that there's going to be a series of what we're calling biobarriers, but it's actually trenches with material placed in the ground. So when the contamination passes through those basically like a permeable wall it will be treated. And so there will be a series of trenches and injection wells in the highest contamination areas. And like I said, the remedy also requires that we restrict the use of groundwater. So this design for the remediation was completed in 2019 and this year we received funding from EPA to actually go out and implement this remedy. And so one of our next steps in the next year or so will be to contract with a company to actually clean up the contamination. And so I'll just kind of reiterate why this reclassification is necessary. We want to ensure that we're protecting human health and people aren't exposed to levels of TCE. That could be harmful. We expect this contamination to be here for decades. And so we want to make sure people are aware for the long term. I think everyone in the area now is pretty well aware of the issue, but we want to make sure that continues. Like I said, the record of decision requires it. And so this will notify landowners, well-drillers, permitting agencies that groundwater use is restricted. And so we'll ensure that no new wells are drilled in the area. And so this process includes us providing a petition for the reclassification. So the petition document basically describes the contamination at the site, the characteristics of the contamination, the extent and the justification for drawing the boundaries of the reclassification area. There's also a finding of fact in reclassification order, which is a shorter summary document and is actually what the Secretary of ANR signs to make the reclassification order. And we've also provided a fact sheet online for the public about this process. And then just looking back again at the extent of the plume, that's basically what we started with to determine the area that needed to be reclassified. But we added a 200-foot buffer to the plume boundaries. And so that's to ensure that not only do we not want wells to be drilled where there is contamination, we don't want wells to be drilled near the edge of the plume and then potentially allowing the contamination to spread. We also want a little bit of wiggle room. So as we monitor the site, say every five years, we want to ensure that that time in between the monitoring events is protective. And so there's a little bit of a buffer added. And then to ensure that we can see where those boundaries are on the ground surface, it's it's standard that we are using the parcel boundaries or roads or other visible features as the boundaries for the reclassification rather than cutting through the middle of a property where you can't really tell where there's a restriction or where there's not restriction. But parcel boundaries are pretty well-defined as well as roads. And so from the extent of the plume, this map just shows what parcels are actually proposed within that reclassification area. It's approximately 80 parcels. And the only one that is partially within and partially without of the reclass area is a property along Marshall Ave because it's located on both sides of the road. So we're only including the northern portion of that property in the reclassification area. There is one existing bedrock well within this reclassification area. It's pretty far south of the plume at the Garden Center on Marshall Ave. It's been tested several times and determined to not be connected to the contaminant plume. So this reclassification order won't affect the current use of that well. It's still considered usable. But this order would prevent other wells from being drilled. And we feel that because municipal water is already available in the area, it's unlikely that people would need to drill any new wells. But again, this is an added protection. So next steps, we have about two weeks left in our public comment period. When we receive any comments and questions, we provide a summary and response to any comments online on our environmental notice bulletin. And then once those comments are addressed, the Secretary of A&R will issue a final decision on the order. And at that point, if it is reclassified, we would notify everyone of the decision, including well drillers, so that they're aware. And this area also gets placed on our A&R Atlas. So if you go on our website where you can see, for example, the locations of wells or hazardous sites, there is a layer for reclassified groundwater. And so I don't know if you're familiar with the environmental notice bulletin. That's one way to access the documents, instructions for getting to that website. We're on all the mailings to the property owners. You can also email me, send comments by mail or give me a call if you have any questions. Good. Thank you. Question for you on the corner of Marshall Avenue in South Cornell Road. There's a daycare or childcare center there. Is that in the Plume area? The corner of South Cornell and Marshall Avenue on the western side? If it's directly on the corner, it's not within the proposed reclassification area. So that property is immediately adjoining the proposed area. So they would have gotten a notification of this happening, but they're not affected by the order. Thank you. Back in 1984, I was working with the for the Department of Health, the Division of Environmental Health, but this thing broke. So it's been a long time, but it's like we're making some progress on it as well. I had a little different color hair back. Any other questions for you? Just why? I mean, I've been we've been getting updates. I've been on the board for some time now, and we've been getting updates on this for a long time. Why is it only now that this is being classified, reclassified? I thought the whole thing was reclassified earlier. So in 2015, the the record of decision said that we needed to put institutional controls in the area to restrict groundwater. But it wasn't until the last couple years, we had an agreement with EPA to actually spend our staff costs and doing this work in addition to some other other work for the entire remedy of the site as part of as part of our cost share. So we knew that this would happen eventually. It's just kind of a matter of, you know, being ready to implement the remedy, gathering enough data to actually be confident in where the boundaries were. We did a lot of investigation work in 2018, and that report was finalized in 2019 that really refined the boundaries of the plume and allow us to draw this area with more confidence because it had been a few years before or been a few years until, you know, we were back out there and collected new data. And I don't think my next question actually makes any substantive difference, but just out of curiosity, I mean, that the plume, we knew we knew where it was in the 80s, 90s. We didn't know the extent of it, perhaps, but even the areas where we did know there was no need to reclassify this as class foreground or back then. Or there was, we just figured, I mean, the town put town water in the 1980s because of this. So nobody's been drilling and using well water. So again, maybe it's an academic question. Yeah, and I think, you know, the intent is really to be protective in the future. So when properties change hands and the people working on the site now or town officials change over the years, you know, people may have less familiarity with the site, whereas people now are aware of what's going on. And I think that happens with a lot of the sites that we manage as, you know, we know there's going to be restrictions put on a site eventually, but it kind of waits to a point where we have a final cleanup plan and enough data to make that happen. And then just two other questions. It gets tested every five years. Is that right? That's a requirement in the rod. So part of the remedy, instead of aside from actually targeting the very contaminated areas, would be to develop a monitoring program. So some areas that aren't specifically targeted for active remediation, there's monitored natural attenuation that will occur. So we're just monitoring every so often and making sure the plume isn't expanding. There's always an opportunity to refine these boundaries. If we see any changes, either to expand or even reduce the area that's restricted over time, but that's kind of a standard time frame for review. Okay. And there's, I mean, scientifically, that that's okay. I mean, I just, this is really stupid analogy. So I'm saying that upfront. But, you know, colonoscopies, they say after you're over a certain age and you have family history, then it's every five years or every 10 years or things like that. And I guess the reason is because polyps don't turn cancerous within that certain number of years anyway. So you can wait that long between exams. Is this plume the science behind it similar to that where you you can test where it is every couple of years, because you know, if it is expanding, it's not going to expand that much faster than science allows. So there is more frequent monitoring planned for the areas that have those higher areas of contamination and where that the treatment is occurring. So I think, you know, if we see that the treatment is is occurring and we see those contaminant contaminant levels reduce in the areas that we're targeting, we know that that that source isn't constantly dosing the rest of the plume. And we would expect, you know, the perimeter of the plume to also decrease over time and and not continue to expand as much. But I think, you know, the data that we've Oh, okay. I mean, so monitoring in general can be adjusted. But in general, EPA requires five year reviews for for any Superfund site. So I think just this week, they're up to reevaluate the my tech facility because it's been five years since the soil remedy was completed. So that's kind of a standard timeframe. But I think, you know, based on the data we see other monitoring at the site can be adjusted based on the data. Thank you. And actually, this last part is maybe more for Eric and maybe Matt. But is there something the town should do with our zoning regulations to make it so that and again, this is area of town, it's not like people are out there digging wells, putting septic systems in anyway. But should we have something in our zoning regs that say that you can't do that? Yeah, we did in a bylaw amendment last year, there was some language related to notification and digging. I should have pulled up before the meeting. But this was addressed with that amendment to some degree. And the board looked at an initial ground water ordinance a couple years ago. And one of the things we're waiting for was the map to be determined by DC for the reclassification event by reference in the ordinance. So I anticipate what this process is complete. The board can revisit that ordinance as well using this as a as a as a delineation tool in that in that policy. Okay. Thank you. And thank you for your presentation. The other questions from board members. Certainly questions from people who are watching on zoom. Awesome. I think there's one person in the audience. I'm not seeing any questions or hands raised. I'll see Kevin from the EPA was listening in on the call to if I don't think he has a presentation or anything. But if the board any questions for him, I could connect him as well. There used to be some air indoor air quality testing done and particular homes is that still being done? There was one home that was part of the remedy. There was basically a sump that was running in one home constantly and and causing a vapor issue in that particular home. And that residents, there's been some work done on there to to fill in the basement so that a sump is no longer needed, basically turn the basement into a crawl space and put in a vapor barrier and basically a passive rate on fan. And so the vapor issue there has been mitigated. And I don't believe any other issues were were found at any other homes. There was one other many years back that was addressed, but not more recent. Thank you. We have our questions. I remember having history. It was a good friend of mine who had a home on South Colonel Road. It was affected by the plume. He had a driven point in his basement to drink for drinking water. He made a wonderful mind. So I'm not sure if it was because of the coming up as we're not. Thank you very much for your presentation. Thank you very much. That's it. Yep. So we'll move on to the fiscal year 2021 draft single audit report. Eric will lead off and surely you'll do the main part of the job here. Yep. I'll surely drive this one for the most part, but for the board, this is a fiscal year 2021 single audit as we exceeded the federal thresholds for receiving pass through money that originated with the federal government. It's a fiscal year 2021, so it's a little bit delayed. And this is due to some extensions for any federal government. I believe surely it was a COVID effect to allow a little more time for this. So our auditing firm Solven powers completed this for us. The board has it in draft format with your materials this evening. The finance director surely good luck. He will walk through it. I'll start with the good news and there's no bad news. So the good news is there's no findings on this. So it'll be always great to see a clean audit report for the town. For the board's consideration after hearing this presentation, it's a draft right now. It's your audit report. So you'd be asked to consider approving this. Should you want to proceed with accepting and approving the audit? Well, you stole my thunder. So I'm going to start back just about the purpose because I know a couple of people here are new and probably haven't seen the single audit before. But so a single audit is when an independent auditor makes audits the grantees financial management process, including compliance with federal grant requirements. The office of management and budget is responsible for the uniform guidance, which sets the scope for when an entity needs the same amount of money. And currently that scope is federal awards greater than 750,000. And they also compile the compliance supplement. And that is a document that the auditors use that give them or provides the audit program for the different types of federal awards. So basically here's what we want you to test. And then they test it. So I'm going to expand maybe a little bit on what Eric was just referring to. So today we're going to talk about the audit program. And maybe a little bit on what Eric was just referring to. So typically we would have this audit done and approved sometime going forward prior to March. The actual deadline is March 31st. After this is approved, there's something called the federal clearinghouse. So this report is submitted onto the clearinghouse. It's a website. The auditors do part of it and I do part of it. So normally we'd have that done by or before March 31st. But because of the volume of new federal grant funds under the coronavirus relief fund, the Office of Management and Budget needed time to update the compliance supplement to come up with the compliance steps that needed to be done over all this money. So the extension is till 9.30 of 22 to file the FY21 single audit. So I'm going to turn to the second page and you say, oh, wow, look at this big index and like all these pages aren't here. So Sullivan empowers just didn't put the financial statement but the true complete single audit is first the audited financial statements and then it goes on to include the special reports for the single audit. So lots of pages in the index. You just don't have them because you've seen it already. When we do file it on the clearinghouse website, it is an 84 page document. I'm skipping by the independent auditors report because that's what you've already seen in the audit. And I'm going to jump over to the page that says schedule of expenditures of federal awards. And that we refer to as the CFA. I'm just going to tell you a little bit about this form just to help you understand it. So if you look at the very first line and it says U.S. Department of Agriculture. So each of those categories is the federal awarding agency. So that's where our funds are coming from. The next line in this case says pass through the Agency of Natural Resources, Department of Forest Parks and Recreation. So that's the state pass through. The majority of our money is state pass through money that comes from the Fed to the state. And then the third line there tells you what the actual program name was. So all of that is spelled out in the grant agreement. So the federal assistance listing, just in case you are familiar with the old terminology used to be the CFDA, which was the catalog of federal domestic assistance. They just changed the name of that. Most of the codes remain the same. They just changed the name. So the column that says pass through to subrecipient, that is if we received money and then we had a subrecipient award or agreement that passed it on to somebody else. We do not have any of that in this audit. Well, I'm sorry. We do have the 100,000 that was from the old North End Community Center. That is essentially this community block grant money that has to come through municipality to go to a nonprofit. So we were the pass through agency there. And the second line item, which is the U.S. Department of the Interior, the program was outdoor recreation, acquisition, development, and planning. So that, for those of you who were here, that was a grant that was awarded. Oh, let me go backwards. So the town purchased the Catamount Community Forest in March of 2019. And you're saying, ooh, okay, that was two audits ago. But the grant award really lagged when the pandemic hit it affected a lot of other things. So this award agreement was actually drawn up and the period of performance began in July of 20. So even though we previously spent the money and you say, okay, doesn't make any sense, because it's a schedule of expenditure of other awards. We didn't expand that 280,000 in FY21. But in this case, because the grant agreement was written in FY21, we are including it in this report. And the same is true of a lot of the coronavirus relief fund money. I'm going to skip to the third page of this. You'll see just some prior year expenditures. So those little notes talk about the different grants that we got, that money was actually in a previous year in FY19 or FY20 in this case. But because of the date that we got the actual grant agreements, it has to be included in this report. So a little unusual, but that actually, that's the first time I've actually had that happen in an audit. But the $280,000 grant for the purchase of the Catamount Community Force and all the coronavirus relief money, those were the two programs that the auditors audited. I'm going to turn a page and then I'll come back and talk a little bit more. But the next report is the report under internal control of our financial reporting and compliance and other matters based on the audit of financial statements. So what this is is I'm going to the second paragraph and to summarize that in planning and performing our audit over internal control, they are looking to express opinion on the financial statements, but not really on the operation of our internal control. So the auditor's opinion on the next page is essentially saying, given these limitations during our audit, we did not identify any deficiencies in internal control that we consider to be material weakness. So good news. So in summary, those are the two important points in that particular document. The rest of it is all required language. So the next report, the independent auditor's report on compliance over each major program on internal control under the compliance supplement. So the first paragraph again is just referring to the compliance supplement, which they are required to follow when they're doing testing over the programs. And I just, and a lot of it talks about the different kind of deficiencies in internal controls that they're required to explain to you what the definitions of. So I'm skipped down to the second to the last paragraph. In the end, we did not identify any deficiencies in internal control over compliance that we consider to be material weaknesses. So all good. The next page, summary schedule of prior audit findings and deficiencies, we didn't have anything. So there's no single audit in the prior year. But we will continue to have single audits for the next few years. Definitely FY22 and FY23. And I imagine in that 24, it depends how long we make our ARPA money last. So I'm skipping down. So they have the financial summary of auditors' results for the financial statements and federal awards. I don't want to repeat something you've already read. But essentially everything they looked at said, okay, we didn't note any material weaknesses. We didn't identify any lack of internal control. And the auditor's report issue unmodified essentially means it's a clean opinion. And then there are no audit findings that are required to be reported in accordance with two CFR, 200.516A, that is referring to the uniform guidance as well. So the two, and here they're just talking about the two major programs that they audited, which I chatted about already. At the very bottom in our threshold, as I said, was 250,000. And the very last line says, the oddity did not qualify as a low-risk oddity. And you say, ooh, that's bad news. But what all that really means is because we haven't had prior single audits, we automatically will not qualify as a low-risk oddity. So with those two grants, they actually audited 56% of our federal expenditures. And there's this whole graph that they have to use to calculate how much of our federal dollars and the auditors go through that calculation. So, and with a low-risk oddity, the auditor may select, so this is the difference, the auditor may select as many major programs as necessary to encompass 20% of the total federal awards expended versus they audited 56% of ours just within those two programs. So, unless you have questions, that's it for me. Are there questions for Shirley? Great job. I don't hear any questions. Good. Thanks for the explanation. You're welcome. Well, Tamara, we'll have the finaling done with the clearinghouse, so it will be done done. Great. So now, I'll be looking for a motion. Move to accept and finalize the single audit report for fiscal year 2021. Second. I'll second. It's a discussion on the motion. Hearing none, all those in favor of approving the motion, say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Very good. Thank you. Thank you again, Shirley. Thank you. Moving on to community center scoping library assessment project and the project update from Eric. So we're currently reviewing RFQ proposals for the project. We had four submitted and I have a staff committee reviewing them. I hope to have a contract award here in the next couple of weeks. And reminder for folks listening, this project will evaluate different space alternatives for the select board and library trustees to consider selecting a preferred alternative for a facility project in the coming years. And this study really has an emphasis on community engagement to gather feedback on what types of programmatic elements in these facilities that the community is looking for. It's funded using ARPA dollars in the FY23 budget. There's been 60,000 designated to date. And as we get into reviewing these proposals and looking at the project scope, staff's anticipating additional funding may be warranted for this project, deliver the depth of analysis and engagement envisioned as the award decision is made for a contract here with architectural firm. Before the select board tonight to consider an additional allocation of ARPA funds of up to $40,000 for this project, manager would then utilize the additional allocation in making a final decision on the contract for the project and its scope. And then also as part of my update, we're accepting applications for four community members to serve on the steering committee. I believe we have four or five submitted so far. So I'm going to bring that to the select board in October to interview those candidates and consider appointments. And then the select board will have to decide who it would like to serve on the committee as well as also be a member of library trustees in the recreation and parks committee. So hopefully we could get this project started in November. I'm anticipating it at least to start some research for the architectural firm, some kind of forming of a committee and then really pick up things after the holidays. And I think we'll go into next spring a bit, especially the outreach components. I'll have better sense once we have a contractor on board and kind of their vision for the trajectory. But things are coming together. So that's good. Good. So I have questions or comments regarding the request. Then there is a motion suggested. I'll move to allocate up to $40,000 of additional ARPA funds to be used for the community center scoping and library assessment project. Is there a second? Second. I just wanted to make sure that $40,000 was going to be enough additional. With reviewing the proposals, I believe that will put us in a good range and we should be able to find a scope that falls in that range. That's appropriate for the project. So I tried to build in a round number with a little bit of a buffer, but I'll say I'm fairly confident that that should be for us. Thank you. Other discussion? No, those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Any opposed? So we have done that. We're moving on to property tax sale update. Eric, again. Update the board where we left this last July. The town attorneys began assisting staff in the property tax sale process for delinquent accounts. This first phase was a letters to delinquent accounts from the town attorney's office. As a result of that, a few accounts have become a current due to those letters, so that's good news. There remain seven properties with delinquent taxes that have not responded to letters from the town or the town attorney that have been identified as for a tax sale or my role as delinquent tax collector. The next step would be for the delinquent tax collector to proceed to a tax sale of these properties. Given the lead time for conducting a property tax sale and what it involves with speaking with our attorney's office, my plan would be to hold it in early spring of 2023. This would avoid, more or may recall, is a redemption period if a property does go to tax sale for the property owner to pay off the delinquent taxes plus interest at a cruise. I'd like to avoid that period falling within the winter month, so that would be the reason for a little bit of a lag here to the start of the new year. The reminder of the properties that are proceeding to a tax sale, they can pay the delinquent taxes at any time leading up to that tax sale date. This would also need to pay any fees incurred by the town to date for that process, primarily legal fees and the advertising that occurred. The board amended the town's policy for collection and payment of delinquent taxes earlier this year as we looked at this process. The policy states the delinquent tax collector may proceed to a tax sale of properties that have not paid past due balance and full by the deadline and the tax sale notice letter that was sent out by the town attorney. My plan right now is to proceed with the tax sale starting that legal process in January with a spring tax sale date unless directed otherwise by the select board. Questions for Eric? A lot of work ahead for you. I know certainly for the community there's opportunity to still pay these accounts but it's a process and statute as we work to make these accounts for the town. So we'll continue the process. Good, thank you. And to the vast agreement for winter of 2022 and 23 and there's a memo to Eric from Simon Miles that describes the proposal. Yep, this is something the board sees every year. It's an agreement with our snowmobile club in town, the Wilson Hill Hawks to use public lands for trails. These are that crosstown owned lands. Select board in the past has approved the use subject to conditions suggested by the conservation commission and the public works department. Both of those entities reviewed the agreements. They have no suggested changes for this year. They find it acceptable. So really before you this evening is the same agreement as last year with no suggested changes by staff to consider. Any questions for Eric? It's nice to have something that continues on for pretty much year after year with not much change. So there's a motion suggested. I'll move to approve the use of public land by the Wilson Hill Hawks and the Vermont Association of Snow Travelers and to authorize the town manager to sign the agreement for the 2022-2023 season. That's your second. Sorry, no discussion on the motion. They used to come in. I say that every year. They used to come in in person. Yes, they did. There's no reason for them to. I just miss them, that's all. It's like we're meeting on a snow machine. That's my idea. Oh, that's right, Shirley's a member. Okay, all right. Thank you for your presence. We have a motion made. Seconded, all those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Aye, opposed. We're moving right up to the manager's report. I'll distribute it prior to the meeting at your seats, but we have the first finance report of FY23. So I'll ask Shirley to walk the board through. She's prepared. The apologies for the very last minute preparation of these. But we, even though we book all the property taxes in July, when bills go out, it means all of the property taxes get booked to our revenue, which includes everything that goes to the state and everything that goes to the school district. So we have to wait for the state to produce the cash flow, which I just got late yesterday afternoon. So I was hoping to have them done this weekend, but the timing just didn't work out. So I'm going to just talk about the major line items like property taxes. That's really what I just said to you. It looks like we're not going to quite hit budget, but what happens every year is when the state sends that cash flow report, the preliminary one, when the final one comes in May, so what I do is we book this $34 million of property taxes. I get the cash flow and I move everything out of tax revenue that the state is telling me is going to be paid to them or the school district. When the final cash flow comes in May, that number is typically less that we owe to the state so that I'll make an adjustment to increase property taxes and reduce our liability to the state. So I do anticipate we'll be right on budget for that one. Penalty interest in other tax, the majority of that, 85,000 of that, or I'm sorry, 82,000 of that, is the pilot or pilot billing that we do. So we send a invoice to the state of Vermont for the two rest areas and they pay us pilot. And the other majority of that is to the Chittin and Salad Waste District and to Cassella for their operations. They pay us pilots for their land. So those have been 100% billed in this year compared to last year. It was really late. I didn't get to it until February and then Mary billed it. So that's why that looks so high at 48% because in the other 10,000 of that $95,000 number is interest on property taxes just for July and August. Let's see, just skimming down through here. Ambulance revenue looks like, ooh, wow, we haven't done anything because it's only 5% of budget. But under the accounting rules, I get to look at the July and August reports that we get from the city of Berry who does our accounting for us and any payments in July and August that relate to the prior year activity, we can pull back into the last year. So this truly only represents cash received on services for July and August of this year. So that's why it looks low. And at the end of the year, it'll look back in line once I pull back in July and August of 23 into June of 23. Let's see, recreation revenue is at 59%. The reason for that is that the day camps themselves, six out of the eight weeks of the camps for the summer already happened. So most of that revenue is booked. And then enrichment camps or contracted camps, as we call them, we had 16 camps this summer in this fiscal year. So the number of camps increased and the number of students increased. So that's a big share of the revenue is already booked within the summer months. Let's see. I know I have my notes here, but I can just remember most of the things just by looking at this. Host town fees looks low, but that is just one payment for Cassella for the material processed at their transfer station. So we get a fee based on tonnage that goes through the transfer station and Eric and I are in the process of working on a new agreement for this year. Expenditures. I'm going to pick on the select board because they're already at 49%. But again, that's just the TV contract of $12,600 that's paid in July of every year. Let's see. I could just look at the front. Regional social services and health, 31% of the budget because we have, I'm going to cheat and look at my notes, the Winooski Park District. Who else is in there? Winooski Park District, the CCRPC and VLCT. We pay 100% of their fee annually in July, so that's already there. Transportation. The biggest share of that is we pay approximately 214,000 to CCTA. So that's paid in three installments over a year. So 71,400 already been paid. So that's a third of the year already paid on that particular line item. And parks and recs at 25%, that just corresponds to the increase in revenue. So their expenses are more in the early part of the year. The only expense we don't have recorded for that is the invoice from the school district to pay for the facility charges for the summer. Or I should say from July 1st. And that... Oh, sorry, I just want to talk about one line. So then at the bottom, I put in this unallocated insurance isn't like, what is that? So that's not a budget item. It'll disappear in September. So when we pay the league for all of our insurances where it means comp or regular property and liability, one of our getting unemployment, they just get charged to the general fund and we stick them in an account and then I have to allocate them out. Well, until I was doing this, I realized I hadn't allocated out July. So it'll be gone in September and it gets allocated to across all the departments in the general fund plus the three utilities. So let's see. User charges for water, sewer and storm water, they all look low. If you consider with 17% through the year, but this is the same issue that the bill goes from May 15th to August 15th. So one and a half months goes back into FY22 and then one and a half months is in FY23. So that's only a month and a half of billings. In other revenue, both for water and sewer, the majority of that is hook on fees. So I was looking at it compared to last year and most of our revenue from that comes in like December to June timeframe and we're just seeing that same pattern this year. Let's see. Outside services again for all three entities is audit. I'm going to cheat and look at this one because I don't remember them all. Audit fees, legal, engineer fees and insurance payments and that's where that allocation comes in because nothing's been allocated to them. The first quarterly payment hasn't been allocated. So it looks low now, but once I allocate in September, one quarter of the year will be charged there. Let's see. I'm going to look at sewer for a minute. So treatment and other, we have $870,000 but no expenses in the first two months. That's invoiced quarterly and the first invoice came in in September for $213,000. So that's been paid. Additional capacity purchase. I'll have to look at that one because usually Essex invoices us early on in July every year but we did have that hiatus last year so we'll reach out to them and get a billing for them for that additional capacity that we've agreed to. The treatment plant upgrade debt. That's a one-time payment. That's in October. So once October hits, that'll pretty much meet budget. Public Works Building Rent, again on all three entities, is just a charge from the highway department and the general fund back to the three utilities and I'll do that next month and take care of that. And pump station debt is payable October, March and June so there just haven't been any debt payments yet. Let's see. So now I'm going to skip over to the back and talk about the stormwater fund. We talked about revenue already with water and sewer. Project labor and within maintenance operation is project equipment use. Those are the charges that are coming from the highway department for the projects they do for stormwater and I just get a report of that activity quarterly from Bruce and it gets booked quarterly so hence there's no year-to-day activity. And capital expenditures, if you're looking compared to water and sewer, you say, ooh, all the capital expenditures actually goes budget. And the reason is for water and sewer, we actually have separate funds that we put the capital funding into so really physically we transfer money at the bank and so it is maintained in those accounts and we keep track of the balance by project. For the stormwater fund, I decided not to do that. I just do it within the general ledger instead of setting up another fund and the auditors actually sort of would rather you not have more cash accounts. So one cash account and I just maintained that on the GL so you'll only see capital expenditures in this when we spend but on the GL in regards to cash, I do keep track of the balances that have been approved each year and the spending against those. So that one's a little bit different. And that's it for me. Questions or surely? Very thorough. Very good. Okay. Thanks. You are welcome. Thank you. And more energy reports. A couple more of it for the board briefly here. Our energy committee is going to be putting on a community electric vehicle event on October 1st over at Hallenbrook School. I've got to double check the time. I think it's in the afternoon that day but it sounds like it's shaping up to be a really good event with a number of EV odors in town bringing their vehicles, having a question and answer. I think we'll have an e-bike demo as part of this as well. It could be a good event from the committee putting on here. Also looking to set a date for our select board retreat for the DEI training from Bund and Sun. Thanks for pointing it out, Terry and Greta, that the 8th is election day. So we'll cross that one off the list here. So the 29th of November is a 5th Tuesday. We can also look at other potential dates if that date's not put for the board here. Anybody have problems with the 29th? We'll figure out time with your 6 or 630. Yeah, it sounded like one of their... Well, one person in the room, then a colleague may be joining us remotely. I think they work over in the UK so trying to make sure it's not too late on their end. So they say 6 or 630 would be helpful. Okay. So we can look at that. I'll let them know to mark that off. Now I sent the board a note today on North Wilson Road. The sinkhole issue there has revealed that there's a stormwater pipe that crosses under the road that has failed. So we're going to have to fix this to do so. We're going to have to close the road for a couple of days. There'll be a detour that will be set up probably the old stage road. We're hoping we'll get a contractor on board to do this. We ordered the pipe today that we need, but Bruce is watching us very carefully. He told me if the condition changes at all, for the worse, we'll need to close the road immediately to prevent any further damage. So we're hoping we'll have lead time in the community on this to prepare for the detour, but if traffic seems a little wonky around the village, suddenly that's probably what's going on. So I think it's one to two days once we can get a contractor on site. So hopefully this is resolved. Any idea whereabouts on North Wilson Road? It is just south of the Four Corners with Mountain View and Governor Chittin Road. One or two houses down from there. So I guess a sinkhole opened up just off to the side and you can see some utility lines exposed and further investigation found. It was the stormwater pipe that goes under the road. We'll get that one fixed here. Then I had good news right before the meeting. I had a letter from DLCT that Wilson's been accepted to the Welcoming Engaging Communities cohort. So it was good news that our community was selected. I'll share a letter with the full board and read it and Jeff, they invited both of you if you wanted to attend the VLCT Town Fair and they still haven't figured out exactly when the cohort's going to meet. So they might discuss that more during that meeting. But I'll pass it on to you and Jeff and see what your schedules look like. Good news for us to be accepted into that group. And that's all I have for managers. Okay. Moving on to other business, I have two items to take care of. One is the catering permit for 24th of September at the Aisham Farm. Anything, any other things on that that we need to talk about? The catering permit, like Terry shared, is at Aishams. It's coming up this Saturday, the 24th. It's Southern Smoke Foods, LLC. We have this new online form system that works on this against these. The staff has no concerns with this at the site. We rarely host weddings there with the RV approval. He's looking for a motion to approve. So moved. Is there a second? Second. Discussion of the motion. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? And the, from out league of cities and towns, we need to appoint or elect a delegate to the town fair, the other meetings that are taking place there. And Eric has been our delegate in the past and recommend that he be, again, is there a motion? So moved. Is there a second? Second. Any discussion on the motion? If not, all those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any other businessmen need to take care of tonight before we go into executive session? Hearing none, that I'm looking for a motion to go into executive session. Moved that we enter executive session to conduct the annual evaluation of the town manager under the provision of Title I, Sections 3133 of the Vermont Statutes and Invite Town Manager Eric Wells to join. Is there a second? Second. Any discussion on the motion? All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? So we're in executive session. I think our easiest way to do this is to go downstairs.