 Okay, so I'm going to open the meeting at seven oh one. And the meeting is remote only. And we ask all participants to say their full name when they speak would also help if they put their full name on their screen. But that and all likewise asked them only to speak when they've been recognized by the chair, and to try to stay on topic as much as possible, keeping our comments two to three minutes at a time that would be very helpful. And we're going to start with board attendance. And so when I call your first name when you say your full name and who you represent. And if you're not a city appointment, then you're just recognize yourself as at large member. That would be helpful. So I'm Donna bait, and I'm an at large member. Doug. I was quite, and I am a large. No, I'm a representative. Justin. Justin Drexler. I am a Montpelio representative. Kim. Kim, I'm a large member. And I'm a city member. I'm Mel Chambel or Mel and I'm a very city member. Thank you. And others present when you speak, if you'll just say your name, that would be helpful. First thing on our agenda. Is to approve the agenda itself. You didn't want me to. I'm sorry. Oh, Jim, I missed you. I'm sorry. No, not that it matters, but Jim Ward. Of course it does. Anyone else I missed. Okay, thank you, Jim. Don't let me pass you up. So on to approve the agenda. Are there any additions? All right. Any public comments. I presume the phone user doesn't have a name on it is that you Steven. I need the phone owner to identify themselves. If it's not Steven with the person, tell me who they are. I don't even see one Donna. Pardon. I don't see your phone. I have one. It's down in the corner. Call in user one. And they do have to identify themselves. The call in person. Would you please identify yourself? Okay. Well, we'll just move forward. Okay. There's no public comment. Approval of minutes. We had both August 4th and August 11. August 4th. Any changes or amendments? If not, oh, Kim, raise your hand. Yes. What I asked for on August 4th was. Not really a continuance. So Justin could. Vote. I. Did not think. Well, back up your notice. Was to ask Televate to. Prepare the agenda. And in my email, I said, it wasn't competent to do that. When I talked with Rick Burke. He agreed with that and said he would need help. From others. Because they had no legal capacity and didn't have. The capacity to. Solicit the 10. Towns or however many were required. And I also wanted a week to talk about who was going to perform. The. The analysis to do the governance proposal. And that was passed. And. Unanswered. And we get the comments on. The. Proposal itself. I will comment on the failure to do that properly. But. Your focus is. You have some amendments to make to the August 4th minutes. You can talk about further opinions about whatever action did or didn't happen. And so could you be more specific? I did actually listen to that tape and try to just consolidate. I wasn't trying to have every quote in there. So what would you like us to consider adding. And part of that message and part of my request. Was that we get a week's delay. To determine who is going to write the governance proposal for the. Grad application. And that was denied. That motion failed. It's in the minutes. Well. My motion meant to include all the reasons I put in my. Message to the board and you only put in. To let Justin vote. Okay, I can go back and listen to it, but I don't think you had it all there. But if you can propose an amendment. And the board can decide to accept it or not. If I send a message to the board, is that included in the website? No, it's supposed to be. No, we don't have all the communications on the website. But we could. I don't believe Justin that it went on the website. Did it? No. Well, it should. Well, that it's not an official. Board piece, but. If, if. Well, first let's deal with the minutes and then we can ask. If it's supposed to be on the website, fine. But it was not part of the board packet. I don't want to prolong this. I've said what I said. I do think. If a board member urges the board to do something and they refuse. That should at least be. A record in the website. Okay. So I'm, I'm looking for a motion either to amend specifically. And maybe Justin understands what you. Your amendment is it. Are you actually making a motion to amend the August 1st. Fourth minutes. To reflect that you objected to us acting. On this. What I'm asking is. That the board adopt a. Policy that. Policy request made by any member. To all the other board members. Should be included in the city. Authority website. Well, but I mean, if you wanted done, then from my point of view, you should have done it properly. You should have sent it to the chair to distribute with the agenda and not have direct communication with the board, but you should have done it. You should have done it the right way to do it. Well, it's what I did. And I wanted to get my message across because. Sometimes you don't do what I ask you to do. Okay. So a very simple. Request. So what if we put it in the minutes that Kim requested that his. Email to the board be attached to the minutes. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Donna is that that we're going to, you want me to put that in these minutes or are we going to adjust the old minutes? We're, we're now looking at August 4th. I guess. So I'm proposing if Kim agrees is that we just put. That camp with the, his motion. And I can find it for you. That failed that. Kim requested that his. Policy request to the board be posted on the website. That's more exact what he's requested. Right. Yeah. Yeah. I think that belongs in this meeting. Minutes. Well, if you post on the website under the August 4th with the minutes and the agenda. That's what other attachments do. I'm just wondering, Donna, are the old minutes getting altered? Do you want me to put this discussion in these minutes? And then I'll post the email on the web when the old minutes get posted. I just want to know where you want me to record this. Well, if we actually amend the August 4th minutes, then it gets recorded in the minutes themselves. And then in this meeting. That's when the actual motion happened. You know, we'll say the August 4th minutes were amended, blah, blah, blah, blah. But that means we need to go back and actually do the amendment and the August 4th minutes. Does that make sense? Justin. Yep. Okay. Jim, you have a question. I'm just trying to sort this out. The. That was sent the email and question. Was that presented at the August 4th meeting? Right. Him referred to it. So we didn't talk about it. It was done before that meeting. He sent it out before the meeting. Yes. Okay. Because what I was going to suggest was that if he wanted to represent it to the board tonight, it would be a good idea to do that. I mean, I think it would be a good idea to do that. I think it would be a good idea to include it in these meetings. If he's requesting that, that's a traditional board member requested something to be included in the minutes. So we could just, as you said, attach it to these minutes. But. Did he actually present it at the previous meeting? Yes. It had all to do with business that happened at the pre, at August 4th meeting. It had to do with televates contract. And whether we attach it to this meeting or that meeting, I'm not sure it makes a lot of difference, Kim, but. That's correct. I would say the easiest for Justin. Well, procedure wise presented and talked about August 4th. We're amending this moment, August 4th minutes. So on the website, it should be attached with everything else around August 4th, the agenda, the minutes. And the attachment. It should go with August 4th. Now, I haven't had a second yet to Kim's motion that people understand it. Is there a second? Repeat the motion. Is it to include it with the August 4th meeting? Well, that's not a thing should happen. So I'll agree with that. What. And remember, we're talking about the August 4th minutes. That's what's on the table right now. And so he's asked for the amendment to happen on the August 4th. That's why I'm talking about the August 4th minutes. And I say what I have written down. Sure. For the motion and Kim, tell me if this sounds right. Kim Cheney moved to amend the August 4th minutes. So they include his motion to have his email to the board posted on the CDPSA website. He also moved that the email be posted on the website. Along with the August 4th minutes. And agenda. That's fine. Okay. Is there a second? Okay. Thank you, Jim. Any further discussion. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. All opposed. Terrific. Passes. Okay. So. August 11th minutes. Entertain a motion. Move to accept them. Thank you, Mal. Second. Second. Jim second. Any further discussion around the 11th minutes. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed. I'm just stating. I wasn't in the meeting. Okay. Would you take your hand down. Kim. That's all right. All right. So we have one. I'm sorry. Can I just butt in real quick? Who seconded the August 4th motion with a gym. The second. Jim. Got it. Okay. Next on the agenda is discuss the application. And I understand. Joe is here. Doug Brent isn't, but he certainly did a lot of Yeoman's work as well as Joe. And I was told Carrie, Carrie McCool was also. Very helpful with the application. Joe, do you want to start it off? Or does Rick like to jump forward? I'm sorry. This is Dominic archery. I just want to point out chief peak was. Getting that submitted as well. And he's probably not here because he doesn't want me to bug him. I was just bugging him too much. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I hope he forgives me. Okay. All right. Joe, you want to make comments, please. It was a pleasure to work with Dom. And wreck on this project. Being that it was a city of Montpelier. Application for funding. I'm going to defer the update to Dominic. That way he can give it an all inclusive. All right. Happy to do that. Would you like me to do that, Donna? Sure. Go for it. All right. Thank you. Again, this is Dominic archery. With television. I worked with. As you mentioned. Joe and chief Brent and chief P. Carrie. A number of the stakeholders there to. Put together the application for funding. For the city of Montpelier. It identified the. Requirements and the request for funding for a. Upgraded enhanced. Radio system for. To support both cities. The city of. Very in the city of Montpelier. As well as capital fire. For their fire communications. It mirrored the report that. Televate put together previously. And. It was structured for that type of network. We were required to receive quotes from actual quotes from. For equipment. From vendors or from state contracts to include in the. We requested quotes from several vendors. We did receive quotes for equipment from Motorola. Which we use to. To include in the application. The application was for a total of. 3.2 million with some additional contingency added on. To make a total of approximately 3.5 million dollars. To support the. Procurement build out and installation of the enhanced. Radios network that would connect the two dispatch facilities. In the cities and that would provide enhanced coverage and capacity. For both the cities and capital fire. And. As soon as you get a code. Is after two cents worth. I was very. You got an echo going there. It's those California lines. It just don't work. Yeah. Maybe. Maybe we'll move to questions while you work on your technology. Okay. Questions about the application. I mean, you sent us. For dense pieces. Just really amazing. Very, very thorough. Cam, you have your hand up. You have a question. Well, I have some comments on the application. If you want to hear them now. Okay. Well, I congratulate. Televate for doing a superb job. I've never had a quarrel with them. I think they did a wonderful job. On the other hand. The application. Should. Fail. There was absolutely no. None of the requirements. Or. Eligibility for governance were met. The RFP. Required. That there be. Memorandum of. Understandings with each participating town. Agreeing. To. And then they had to enter into a contract with the city. To help. Maintain. And. Upgrade. Any project that was built. And the. Solicitations from the. Local towns. Were absolutely useless. None of those were MOUs saying. That the towns would actually. Step up and pay for any shortfall. Or take care of any ongoing problem. What I understand the procedure will be. Is the application will go to. A review committee. By the. Federal security unit, which is really a state. Unit. And they would be able to review. Terri Lavelle. And two other. Public safety people. Who are supposed to review it. And even a casual review. Will show the application totally fails. To prove. That the city of Montpelier is eligible. To apply. towns meet any of the requirements that the RFP require. I think the review committee has two choices. They can ditch the application and say it simply doesn't show that there's an eligible applicant. I think more likely they have the ability to ask for more information. And my prediction is they will reject the application and send it back until a real governance proposal is made. It's clear to me from reading what was written by the police department for governance that it no way meet the stated requirements. And I followed the stated requirements in the various grant applications and they couldn't be clearer. There has to be a contractual agreement that sets forth a budget, a cost, and an agreement to share in any necessary funds. And there's nothing like that in this. And the contract that was submitted which had to do for dispatch only with a poem cat fire for short and nothing to do with building a whole new system. So my prediction is this will be bounced back with an instruction to prepare a real governance proposal. If you're interested, I read the Wyndham County proposal. It doesn't have a governance proposal either. I haven't been able to review the others, but I think there's almost none. So I was told by Terri LaValley that the review board would meet this coming Tuesday. And I'll either be proven right or wrong. But that's my view of what's likely to happen. Because otherwise, they're simply it's a failed application. All right. Jim, do you want to say something, Don, before Jim talks? Yes, Donna. Thank you. I'd like to address Kim's comments, please. This is Dominic Arcuri with Tel Aviv. I believe we did address every aspect of the RFP as we put together the application with the numerous attachments that were provided. As Kim mentioned, we did provide an example of a contractual agreement between the City of Montpelier and Capital Fire for dispatch services. We did that to identify that there is an ongoing contract and an extended contract for sustaining those dispatch services. We did have letters of support from all of the towns and cities that were involved that would be dispatched by either the city, either the cities. Those were included as well. We did address the aspect of sustainability as to how the network would be maintained. We did provide a spreadsheet of the Capital Equipment Plan that was approved by Capital Fire, which does allocate funding from each of the towns, ongoing funding over the next 10 years to support maintenance of equipment. That was included in the application. We also identified from a governance structure our interpretation of the request of the RFP was to address how the project would be governed. We did describe that that there would be a contractual relationship with a vendor. And there would be a, if you want to call it a steering committee or a stakeholder group made up of various representatives from the public safety agencies within the Capital Region, as well as the vendor, as well as potentially a implementation consultant where there would also be a contractual arrangement. And that is how the project would be managed. So we did describe that in the application. So we feel we have addressed those items. I understand Kim's concerns. We feel we have addressed those. I also point out that we met with Terry LaValley during the development of the application a couple of times to best understand as we could what they were looking for with the application. He did give us some comments and suggestions which were incorporated into the application as it was submitted. Thank you. Yes, Jim, your hand was up next. I was going to comment on something else, but just want to ask Dominant. So your contention is that you have met the requirements of the grant application based on your interpretation of it. Yes, that is our belief. Okay. So what I was going to say before, and I'll still say it again, there's nothing that we can do now regardless of whether we agree or disagree with Kim until it gets acted on. So I'm not making a formal motion, but I suggest that we just move forward and see what happens. We don't have any other choice. Okay, Rick, you're still a little bubbly. Not readable. Okay. Okay. Well, the application did go in. The work was done. It was hard work. Lots and lots of pieces and lots and lots of editing because wonderfully a lot of public safety personnel, people really responded. We do, I would like to entertain a motion to make payment of the $3,000 for telemates fulfillment of their contract to assist with this application. Some moved. And Jim or Doug? They're seconded. Okay. I'm sorry. That was, I'm confused. Maybe Justin got who the second was. I heard Jim. I think it was Kim. I think it was Kim. Okay, great. Seconded. Any further discussion about proving the payment for the work done? All in favor say aye. Anybody opposed? Terrific. So that payment has been approved and we will do a better job getting your checkout. I don't know whether Justin wants to do it electronically or manually. He can let me know. But we will, we don't have any vacations on staff. So between one or the other, we should get it out. Okay. Anything else that any Don or Rick would like to say before you depart and we can move on to our next agenda item? I guess maybe now's a good time to mention that Doug Brent is retiring. I think his last day is the 16th. And I don't know if it's his price. Oh shoot. Joe, I'm sorry. Okay, take it out of the minutes. Oh, Doug's not going to watch the video of this meeting. I don't believe it. Anyway, but I'll be sending out some things about that. But we do owe a lot for him. He's been very consistently around the table all the years I've been on the board. Joe, go ahead yell at me. No, that's fine. Yeah. After 49 years of service to the Vermont fire service, Keith Brent will be retiring on Friday the 16th. Coincidentally, that's a 68th birthday. So everybody, the board has received the information about Friday. I encourage you to attend. It would be nice being great. And as I outlined in the email, I have to say one thing is that I want to remind CBPSA that the application period for this was roughly three weeks, three and a half if you want to get technical. There was a lot of moving parts. There was a lot of stuff to be done in three weeks. So that narrow timeframe, we had to stick with what was there and what was currently in place. And so I can appreciate people questioning about certain avenues, but we were not going to fabricate or change what is currently in place and working historically for the last 20 years. So that is where we came from as a group and it was decided. And I think that's really important to understand. And we did have some guidance periodically from Chief Hoyt, who was there, who participated and really was kept abreast of everything that occurred. So I just want to just mention that. I think that's very important to understand that this is not grant money. This is state funding out of the state project that they have allocated for this process. Everybody keeps saying the grant, the grant, this is not grant money. That's all I have to say. And again, I'd like to appreciate Dom's work on this. We were in lockstep for many, many weeks. And I talked to him more than I talked to my own wife. So again, thank you, Dom. I appreciate it. I've said my piece and I will turn it back to the Chair. Thank you, Joe. So by any time in, can you hear me now? Yes. Yes. And then a dog turn. I missed his hand. It's up there on a dark corner. Yes. Go ahead. All right. Well, I just wanted to say, again, to follow up with what Dom said earlier and also to address Kim's concern about governance. So Dom and I went through the application multiple times, search for the word governance, because we also were, you know, we wanted to be sure that we'd have a cogent response regarding governance. And the only mention of governance was governing the implementation. So there was no request to, you know, there was no requirement from our interpretation of the application to submit how we govern ourselves. And we obviously think, all think that governance is important, or you wouldn't have a skinny PSA, and you wouldn't meet regularly and discuss these valuable topics. However, the application only required us to provide an overview of how we would govern the application, the implementation of the funding to achieve our, of the objectives. And that, we wrote that off, you know, we created a committee, you know, that would be, that would be constituted of local public safety officials and other members, including, you know, representatives of the town. So, and select boards so that we would have a comprehensive review. And that was our, that was our approach to address that. So, and, you know, I think I really believe when we discuss this with Joe and with others, Chief Pete, and we came to the, you know, came to the consolidated agreement that this was the right, this is what they requested. So that's what they submit it. So if, if they deny it, if they deny our application, because we didn't provide a formal how we govern ourselves, you know, on a day-to-day basis, I think we would have an, we would appeal that because that's not what they asked for directly in their application. I just wanted to share that with everyone. Thank you for giving me the time. Yes, yes. Okay, Doug, point? No? All right. Kim, I think you actually beat Jim to the wave. So go ahead, Kim, and then Jim. Look, I understand completely what Joe Althra said, and I've told him personally, I have great respect for his work and how hard he worked on this, and everybody else. And that's not my complaint. The complaint very simply is the eligibility requirement says, there must be collective support among all participating jurisdictions. This should include memorandum of understanding agreements and letters of intent, representing the select boards. And that's what I'm looking at. And I hope I hope, Rick Burke, you are correct. It's not my interpretation. And that's going to be reviewed by the reviewing committee, as I said. And we'll either get a chance. There was no way you could do a governance proposal in three weeks. I don't dispute that. It would require a lot of work and a lot of negotiations and talking to people. And I just hope that we'll get another chance at it. Okay. Anything else? Otherwise, we will close the discussion on the application, thanking everybody. Oh, Jim. I just wanted to correct something that Deputy Chief Volsworth said. Doug Brent's going to be 69 Joe. We're the same age. You're young chickens. Geez. Okay. Anything else? We're going to move on then to discuss. Thank you. Televate, you're more than welcome to stay, but I also understand time. And thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you for the opportunity to join. We're clapping. We're clapping. I know. Bye-bye. Thank you. Bye. So the next item is more to get people thinking about that indeed in October, we have to start placing ads. A lot will fall on Justin or I will divide the doors up, but that the Charter's deadline backs things up so that in November, we have to start placing ads about our meetings and our budget. So I wanted people to start realizing that we have to start thinking now and not wait till January as far as our budget and what we want to do next year as far as the agenda. The other thing that's happening is in March, I, Doug, and Jim all hit our threshold of limits of terms. So there's going to be a lot of turnover. So I would hope that we would keep that in mind as we're planning 2023 and 2024. We have to do like three budgets out so then we'll be also dipping into an estimated budget for 2025. So people have a general discussion just to get things going and people would think about things. This is the time to bring it up and help us to be really focused in October when we meet. Donna, so what positions are going to be open in March that we're going to need to fill? Board positions. Yeah, so there'll be one group that should be started. Yeah, one berry rep appointment and one Montpelier appointment and one at large. And we have two at large is open actually because Brent's position hasn't been filled. Okay, so one Barry appointment, one Montpelier appointment and two at large that are both elect. Yeah, we have four people. Yep. Donna, I'm not term limited. Excuse me? I am not term limited. No, you're in your last term. I know that. Correct. Yeah, I didn't list your name. Jim. Oh, Jim. Doug from Montpelier. Jim from Barry, myself, and then the vacancy. So we have four slots that will open up. Okay, so and right now I did instruct Chris, our assistant treasurer to invoice the cities. With this last spend down, we have like $5,000 in our bank account, a little bit less. We until the first payment comes in from Barry and Montpelier of $7,500. We get those payments from the city, from the ballot item in quarters. So we'll get that $3,000. So we need to be thinking about what we want to put on the ballot for the 2023 town meeting day. Whether you want more training, go ahead. Kim, when did you say that this DPS application is going to be decided? What was your intel? Well, don't tell me to this. I was told by Terry that the review committee was going to meet this coming Tuesday. It seems like knowing the answer to whether we got any, whether any money is going to be approved for that would really drive our agenda moving forward. It seems like we should maybe table this until October because we could have a very ambitious agenda if they give us all that money. Even with that, I mean, that's why we're not making any decisions tonight, but to discuss it and think about it. So what if the application goes through? What's our role? Because we are still without funding for staff. We're still without any profile to go after any grants. So what do we want to do? What's our role in this? Or likewise, do we want to beef up training and the focus back to dispatchers? So just having people think about it, and maybe that's all we can do is just what's already been stated. But definitely, Justin, you and I need to start looking at the charter and looking at dates and getting things in place. Okay, any? Oh, Kim, you got your hand up again. Is that leftover or new? Well, that was good. I agree with Justin. I think it's hard to have a serious discussion until next month. We just don't want a serious discussion. I just want ideas put out there. Like, oh gee, I like Jim sometimes has ideas. Gee, I really want us to do such and such for the people fighting. Well, if there is going to be a new governance procedure, then that to me depends on what we're going to do. There are alternatives to CVPSA, but they have to meet the criteria for a governance proposal. And what we have now is handshakes all around, but no binding agreements. And so we need to know where we are if the CVPSA charter would require the towns, not catfire, to join it. And that would require a tremendous amount of work and explanation. So whichever way we go, we need to know, I mean, look, I want this thing built. I want to get a new system. And we're going to need to have a governance plan regardless of what happens with the grant. There is no governance plan at the moment. It can't all be done on a handshake. Okay, so governance is one issue you'd like to have consider in that discussion. Great. And it's totally fine if people aren't ready. I'm hoping just having this discussion will make everybody think about it. Any other business to come before the board? Our regular meeting will be October 13th, Thursday, 7 p.m. And that's all we need to talk about. We can adjourn early for change. I'm adjourning by unanimous consent. Thanks for the offer. All right. Have a good evening, ladies and gentlemen.