 I nominate Liz Sharpe. So thank you so much. Is there a second? Second. Oh, John, thanks so much. Are there any other nominations for chair? Going once. OK, hearing none, all those in favor of Liz Sharpe for the chair say aye. Aye. OK, any nays? None. Correct, yeah. OK, appointing a vice chair action likely, is there a nomination? I nominate. Yes. I nominate Derrinda. OK, so you have a slick word number to JP, right? OK, so in Chris McVeigh's seconds, Derrinda Crowell, are there any other nominations for this? Peter Hood, do you have another nomination? No. Oh, OK. Second. OK, so hearing no other nominations, all those in favor of Derrinda as vice chair say aye. Aye. Yay, Derrinda, congratulations. I look forward to working with you. I'll be sure to be absent at the next meeting. Thanks. Review of the 2020 Middlesex. Here's our other JP, by the way. Board of Civil Authority Appeals Procedure, which is this right here that was approved on July 28, 2020. All you folks have that if you want it? OK. So review. Do we need to approve it again? No, I just said something that you can amend this if you want to. I think you voted by majority vote, or two-thirds, I forget, somewhere. So essentially when we go through this, just so you guys know, I follow it to the letter so that it just stays organized and I know what I'm doing. Because we don't do these meetings very often. So this is a very helpful thing to have, to just follow along since the meeting is orderly. OK, is everyone OK with reviewing and feeling like these are good rules of procedure? I just want to change something. And the headline, the title of this is all wrong is from VLCT. It says property tax assessment appeal. It's not. It's property tax assessment appeal. It's just a property assessment appeal. Property assessment appeal. Property assessment appeal. Yeah. OK. Appeals hearing of the current use valuation of 267 Portal Road. The chair opens the hearing and welcomes the guests. Welcome, everyone. And today we have Appellants John and Kate McCann. We have John here. Is that right? OK. And they're representatives. Yeah, Nick Lowe. OK, Nick Lowe. And we have present members. So all of the members of the Board of Civil Authority, just raise your hand so we know you're a member. So we are all going to together take the following oath. And that is on letter B on the flip page that begins with under the Pains Appellant History. So ready? So basically, this is the appellant of the list. It says BCA. Oh, I think they do. It's done in the list. Oh, let's do a look at the top of this appellant. Oh, OK. So just the listers. All right, so listers and appellants. Yeah. Ready? Go. Under the Pains Appellant History. You have to say this a lot. OK. Under the Pains Appellant History, perjury, do you soundly swear that the answer to the given cause and consideration shall be told truth and tell me about the truth? Yes. Yes. Great. Good job, everybody. I'm not sure that you actually had to say that without that, but I'm glad you all did. OK, so ask the appellant if he or she has received a copy of these rules and procedures. Yes. And whether he or she has any questions about how the hearing will proceed. No questions. OK, great. Request BCA members to disclose any conflicts of interest and or ex-partais communication. Has anyone talked about this outside? Or we've already had Theo recuse himself. Is there anyone else that feels they need to recuse themselves? I think I need to recuse myself because I was overhearing a lot of the discussion. OK, so Sarah is going to recuse herself as a board of civil authority member already. But are you still taking notes for us, Sarah? Oh, yeah. OK, just making sure. All right. Ask the listers to introduce the property on appeal by describing the property and its present valuation. That would be a lister's, not us. OK, right. Ask the listers. Yes, so tell us about this. OK, the property that is in question, I think, is the property that Mr. McCain just purchased that is right now a vineyard. And we've got some documentation that we'd like to share so that we can all know what we're talking about. And that will be the minutes that we roll after we met with Mr. McCain and Mr. Low. So you're going to submit the minutes as exhibit? Yeah. OK. This is exhibit one. It's going to be A, Q. And you're going to continue the copy list? Yes. Then if you could just pass these to the BCA, pass it down. This is exhibit marker, this is today. In helmet for the appellants? Everyone in helmet for the appellants as well? Yes. Yeah, yes, definitely. Of course. Should be enough. So is this? What do you have as well? Has everyone had a chance to read through this? Yes. OK. And I think we can ask questions of the listers about this. We're going to have two more exhibits. Oh, you two are. OK. And then, all right. OK. So this is exhibit A, the next one will be exhibit B. And what we're sending is this is the actual cost sheet where we assess the value of the property. And if you read the minutes, they'll kind of go with this on how we assess the property. But if you have questions, we can ask. Thank you. The evaluation information from the state of Vermont studies department. OK, has everyone had a chance to look through this stuff? All right, so are there questions for the listers? So I think the listers got to make a presentation. Are you going to make a presentation? You're going to explain all of this. OK, great. All right. I'm going to explain all of this. OK, we have guidelines, which was on the last page of the minutes. And that's from the state of Vermont for the LP 314 Guidelines to the attorney's department. And that's the guidelines that we follow. When we're assessing the property, if a property is subdivided, we go with the property that's being subdivided from as far as what the codes are, like the neighborhood code and the grade of the property. We also do a drive-by to look at the property to make sure that a possible off-land or something that's different than that's being sold from. We enter that into our current use calculator. And we then input it into the Vermont PI system, which is the Vermont state system that calculates how much the current use is going to be. And because we haven't had a townwide reappraisal in six years, the CLA is lower than we normally need. We've got one coming up in a couple of years. And so what happens is you take the value, which the value that we came up with was actually less than what it was purchased at. And then that's divided by the common level of appraisal from the state. And that's when it comes up to fair market value according to the state. Now, just to make sure that we're being fair, I also went to the current use department. And I challenged it and asked the question. And they said it's very rare that what somebody pays for property will be what the fair market value is according to the current use department. When we sat with Mr. Low and Mr. McCain, the only thing that I could see that we could have done different is when we're any property that we do as listers, we have to have a buildable site. And if we're not sure where on that land a site is going to be built on, we calculate as total acres. And that just says, OK, somewhere in that 13.7 acres, there's a possible buildable site on that 13.7 acres. That's our requirement to do unless you can show us that it's never going to be built upon. And they had supplied us with a sales agreement. But because it's not recorded with the town, as a legal document, like on a deed through Vermont Land Trust, we can't because that could be broken from either party. So if we had that, we could have did it as like backland. But because we don't have that, we have to keep that total buildable site included in there, which does make a difference in cost. Are there questions for the listers? I think we hear from the panel first. Oh, we can't ask. I can wait. Just the process that you have online here. They get to make their face. And then it's open to questions. OK. Letter H is where we go to glory. We are now on F. So you can present your evaluation. Thank you. And thanks, everyone, for coming out tonight. I know this appeal is a little bit out of the usual timing and process. So I appreciate everyone taking time out of your day in your evening to come out and hear the appeal. My name's Nick Lowe. I'm representing John with a law firm here in Montpelier. A little background, John and North Branch vineyards have had a vineyard on the property since, well, I guess 2018 you've had plant planting on the property. Planted 2018, we started leasing it in 2017. So up until last year, the vineyard was through a long-term lease on the property. They were finally able to buy the property last year. The purchase was delayed somewhat because there was some dispute with the seller over the price. John had the understanding that the property was to be bought at a reduced rate because it was agricultural use. The seller wanted the full fair market value. And that's when I unfortunately got involved. When the sale finally did go through, the seller got his way. John did end up paying the full fair market value of $1,600, $500. And I do have, I don't know if we need this, but just for the record, I do have the property transfer tax. This is a draft version of this, but it's the same one that was filed. And so just for the record to show that that was the price was $1,600, $500. Do you want me to distribute this? Sure. Yeah. Yeah. I'm going to make one of these six of it. Sorry, maybe you guys can share it. We'll share it. So then in January of this year, John got a notice from the State Tax Department saying that the sale had triggered a land use change tax, which was associated with the current use program. And the tax is 10% of the fair market value. And that's where this town appraisal comes in. You know, the number that we land on with the town appraisal, it's a 10% tax to John. So if it's $147, that's a $14,700 tax to the state. If it's $116,500, it's $11,650. So pretty significant difference in tax that John would end up owing to the state. You'll see on this LV form that's the state tax form, where basically, as the Listers were saying, they basically put in this number of 106,100 that they came up with. And then the state divides that by the common level of appraisal, which is 0.7172. And then based off that, it calculates this fair market value of $147,936. I have another exhibit here. I'm sorry, I only have four copies of this. But this is from the Vermont Legislative Joint Fiscal Office. Actually, we can give you five copies. And it's basically explaining what the purpose of the common level of appraisal is. And this will say it better than I can say it. But how I understand it, the idea is that towns don't appraise property every year. Some of these appraisals get out of date. And so the state uses this common level of appraisal to balance those out and try to bring it up to the actual current fair market value. But if you go back to this form, it's adjusting the 106 to 147 using the common level of appraisal. And again, the idea ultimately is it's trying to get to the actual fair market value, which is kind of what we're here today to figure out what is the actual fair market value. There's only one of those. It's not like there's a different fair market value for the state and a different one for the town. Fair market value is fair market value. And the courts have often used, as a figure at the fair market value, to look at, well, what did the property sell for? That's your best benchmark. What does someone actually pay for the property? In this case, the actual payment on the property was $1,600. And so we think this form should be adjusted so that the fair market value is $1,16500, which would mean, instead of $106,100, putting into there $83,553. And then going through that calculation, you come up with the fair market value of $1,16500, which, again, it's the price that was actually paid. It was negotiated. It was pretty hotly negotiated. That was what the seller wanted to get on the market. And so kind of a simple argument, I think, on our part that however the calculation works out at the end of the day, you're trying to get to that number. And we know what the number is, and it's $1,16500. I don't think it will make a huge difference to the town in terms of their tax revenue, especially because the property is being re-enlisted in current use anyway. But it will make a huge difference for John in terms of the penalty that he'll end up having to pay to the current use program. I guess another thing that the listener has mentioned is that the property is going to go. There's going to be a permanent conservation easement with Vermont Land Trust. There's an agreement with the Land Trust to do that. It was supposed to have happened back in November. The Land Trust has pushed that out. Now it's supposed to happen at the end of April. But with that agreement in place, John's locked into that. The property's not actually going to be developed. There won't be any home built on it or anything. And I guess lastly, it's built out now as a vineyard. There's grapevines planted on it. And there's a few thousand feet of PVC drainage tiles in that as part of that agricultural use. If someone were to come in and want to build a house, he'd end up having to dig that out and redo a lot of drainage, which I think would add a lot of site work and effectively increase the cost of development and decrease the value of the property as a developer will be allowed. Anything else, John? During the time when we were getting ready to do the subdivision with Randy Jocelyn, part of the state's requirement was that Randy had to prove on his property that would continue to be in his ownership that the site would have to be able to have a new septic system installed. And the reason they do that is they want to make sure there's an end accessible to have a new septic system in before they would go ahead and finalize the subdivision. So we did hire a civil engineer to come out and do a site where I actually dug the hole for him on Randy's current home site. And what we found was that it was not acceptable for a conventional system. So at this point, that has only been done on the part that Randy still owns, not on our site. So we haven't had any site development in terms of even knowing whether our site is percable for on-site septic. So we don't, at this point, even know that it would be buildable if we wanted to build on it. That would be something that we'd still have to hire out a civil engineer to come in and confirm. So at this point, it's not a buildable site. Like to present? I also guess I want to say that part of the contract between Randy Jocelyn and myself was the fact that in our contract, it states that our site has to be conserved. So even though it hasn't been officially conserved with Vermont Land Trust, it is in documentation that we have to conserve it. It's, of course, not recorded because we haven't conserved it yet. And again, the delay is not on my part. I was hoping this was going to be done last year. But they keep finding constraints that keeps pushing them. And I'm constantly in communication with them to find out when that's going to happen. And right now, the earliest is April, and again, with the possibility of slipping again. So we're already well into over a year of getting into the part where we conserve it and make this agricultural land permanent. Can you say who the they and the them is? So they would be Vermont Land Trust. OK. Thank you. And also them. Any more evidence for you guys? Because then we'll go to questions. Anything more you think? Or no, we'll ask the listeners to respond. I mean, I guess I do have the purchase and sale agreement with the Vermont Land Trust. We might as well, because it's been discussed, we can just put that in. Folks are not going to want to read this right now. It's pretty long and boring. Also, we have a time constraint on these things. We only want no more than 30 minutes. But we can just put that in just for the sake of having it. OK. So the listeners, you can respond to the information presented. Well, I've got just a question. I mean, it appears that he's going to leave it in agricultural land. And I know that Karen, who's a very strict, we will have to have like a 25-acre minimum for forest land. And I'm not sure if agriculture, you need that. Is there any chance of working with current use so that you wouldn't get a penalty at all by putting it back in current use? Well, it's been, it was previously enrolled as ag in current use. And the 25-acre minimum doesn't apply for agriculture. And it's being basically just when the land, when the deed was conveyed, the current use program kicked it out and then it goes back in. And that's what triggers the penalty. And so it's nothing actually changed. The land is still being, it's ag use, it's still being farmed. But it bounced out and comes back in under the new deeded owner. But has anybody talked to current use to see if that can be waived because of that? We're working on that separately. First of all, as soon as I purchased the land, there was a letter sent to me from current use that says, you have 30 days to reapply into current use. I reapplied within those 30 days. So I believe I was in here. And I may have spoke to one of you two six months, maybe a little right before I came in to find out what taxes I need to owe on this property. And somebody, and I can't, I'm sorry, I don't remember who it was, but said, we haven't figured that out yet because of the current use issue that's going on with it. And the fact that I had re-enrolled it, I even paid the fee to re-enroll. And that's in limbo right now because of it being kicked out like this. So we're still trying to figure out where that is. But it's eligible to go. It is eligible. And we're trying to get the penalty waived, but it's the state, and it's going to take a while. As of law, because it's 25 acres or less, and I am an agricultural farmer, the land just in needs to be able to generate more than $2,000 worth of revenue off from the agricultural product, which we have met. And actually, over a year ago when Randy Joslin did subdivide this property, he actually asked me to submit to the state my financial records to prove that we did generate more than $2,000 revenue. So he was able to re-enroll it under current use after he subdivided the 13.7 acres. OK. Sarah, how's our time? We're getting tight. Yeah, it's getting pretty tight. OK, so are there questions from the BCA members about this? Yeah, Chris. This is, if it's safe, this one there. Who fills in the numbers for this? Who puts in the CLA? CLA is a firm thing that's distributed from the state to the town because that just works the year. It changes every year depending on our grand list. And does the CLA apply to every money? There's no barriers, no deviation from it. OK. And so is this somewhat of a mechanical form that you put in the numbers and the CLA prints out with these different systems? Yeah, and this form is actually just a page three of what we got. So I have the full three pages here. But so I don't know who filled it out. We just, John, received it. But it is mechanical. We receive as this from the state. We get it on the computer, right? So all we do is fill in the value of the acre. All we fill in is 106. Which is an arbitrary number, I should point out. 8106 just, it has nothing to do with anything with our land. We bought it for 116.5 work. The 106 is. It has to do with the grade of the land, the land that it was taken from is almost duplicated, unless that land was in a lot better shape than yours. So the grade in everything that's taken from the land that was subdivided. So all of them values mean something. And I think that the list there is a we understood from speaking with them when we appealed to them before we came here is that when they come up with this 106 number, they're constrained by basically they're working with a computer model. And they can put in certain parameters and then it spits out a number. And I think the board here has more flexibility to take kind of a broader view. You don't have to kind of mechanically just apply a certain. We couldn't put in $83,000 for the land value, because that would be way less than the land has been valued forever and ever and ever. Well, and you know, respectfully our position is that it's still the correct number. 106. Sorry. 106. No. The 83 that then gets to 116. And I think the common level of appraisal number does apply to everyone's property equally, but it's assuming that those everyone else's property was appraised six years ago and isn't up to date. So it's pulling everyone's numbers up. What we have is 116.5 is the today value of this property already. I'd like to recognize Peter. Peter? So this is a question for our listeners. Isn't it true that we apply the same methodology to valuing this land as we do all the other open land and middle sex? Yes. Yes. So this is a standard which we apply town land. And in my memory, when we have had people approach us and say, how come I paid this much for the land and you've valued it this much? And this is ignoring current use rules and all that business. But we pretty much stuck to our guns and said, this is how we value land for all the land and middle sex. And your land is gonna be valued the same way regardless of the purchase price. I'm not aware, maybe we have, but we have ever accepted the purchase price as the market value. Like I said, the current use instructor said that purchase value is rarely the same as the current use value. And the other thing to take notice of is dependent on how many acres you have, which sounds kind of strange, but it's almost like a dozen eggs. But it doesn't act for five bucks. You buy one egg, it's gonna be a dollar. The more acreage you have, the less the land is per acre. So once you cut off like 10 acres, that is a standalone property and is valued as a standalone property. Even if it came from 100 acres at 400 acre, now you're paying maybe six or 800 acre. That's how the whole calculation is in the land system. Again, I'm not completely correct in saying that the formula that we use to derive the land value is a formula that we use across town. It's not a formula that we made up for this particular transaction. Yes, and the only thing that would make that different is if you can, without a reasonable doubt, say it could not be built upon. Because it's calculated in there that there's gonna be a two acre buildable lot. And again, the only legal document that we would have if it was part of the deed that land trust had went through. But not having that, we have no way of knowing if that's a buildable lot or not. But you do have that because you do have the purchase and sale contract between the land trust that it's going to have. Legally could be broken before the closing date. I've done that by the house before. Just quick clarification. Yes, John. Yeah, thank you. About the property from Mr. Joslin, or he's subdivided, how is the land trust involved in the contract for purchase and sale? There's a separate agreement between the McCanns and Joslin requiring the McCanns to enter into the agreement with the VLT with the land trust. And can I just quickly respond to the prior issue? I understand that the 106 number comes out of this computer model that the town uses, townwide. And that could be a great model that comes up with an excellent estimate, but it's still an estimate. And I think the actual amount that someone would pay on the market is a better actual number of the fair market value. And I would say that the Vermont Supreme Court does often and frequently rely on the actual price paid when it comes to these valuation questions of how much is a property worth for tax purposes. Okay, we are really running out of time. I'd like to recognize Rhianna. Yeah, I just, I had just been in response to that, that methodology with using the purchase price. You know, if this number came back and common level appraisal adjustment was still below the market price that you paid at the point in time, we wouldn't be coming after you to say, you paid more than this and we're gonna adjust this number to that. It's not even, I don't even believe that's legal. So I think, you know, as Peter said, having a common methodology across the town is necessary. And unfortunately, I don't think it fits your situation from your purview, but I think for the town, you've gotta establish that standard. Jan? Well, I must say, I have to agree with the listeners. I used to be a listener for the town and this totally is what we've always done. My one question to you though, is when you were in negotiations with Land Trust, usually when you are doing, promising to do what you're doing, you get a good deal on the land. Well, so I'll go back to say that. So in 2017, we entered into a contract, long-term contract with Eugene Jocelyn, who was the father of Randall Jocelyn, who also was the town clerk here at Middlesex at one point. Unfortunately, he passed away, wonderful man, but we had an opportunity to sit down. He was a dairy farmer here in Middlesex and wanted his property to continue in agricultural use and not to be developed. So we entered into this agreement. And on that agreement, it said that the land would be sold to us as unimproved farmland. Now, unfortunately, when Randy became the executor, he challenged that verbiage. And at that point, and Nick can correct me if I'm wrong, but what we, and Randy didn't want it developed in terms of anything other than farmland. And we said, okay, well, we'll give you the 26,500, which is what the agricultural appraisal was of the property at that time, or we'll give you 165, and you don't have any say on how the land is being used. He chose to go the 165 rather than the 265. So we did have a contract that says that it would be sold to us for ag land value. We got into what Nick says, a contested argument on that, and we decided to go with the 165 just to clear the air. But there's nothing in the deed, correct? I said says, I reviewed the deed, there's nothing that says that you, congratulations, keep it as I property, because we did review the deed. It's not a review. Okay, we're running out of time. Do you want to recognize Randall on the iPhone? This, that is a, that is not a BCA member. Oh, he's not a BCA member. I'm sorry, Randall, we can't. Probably this exchange should probably stop. Okay, okay. All right, so we are running out of time. There's next steps that have to happen. We have to appoint an inspection committee. Is that happening? Okay, in point and inspection committee we have three BCA members to inspect the property because no decision is being made tonight anyway, to inspect the property at a date and time set by the chair and report its findings back to the BCA. Are there three BCA members who would like to volunteer to physically visit this property? Chris, Jan, and John, okay? Okay, Jan and John. Yeah, Chris, Jan and John. And so we need to, we want to do this quickly. I don't want this to go on for date. Weeks and weeks. We have to do it within 30 days. Right, I'd like to do it sooner than that. We just have to take a time and date. So you guys, can you look at your, and know when these got, do they need to be here or no? The owner? I think they're, I think they're here. Actually, to be, who's handing out business cards? And that, John. Okay, we're not going to have any expert aid communication here. Right, that's just to set up an appointment. Right? And know where they're located, maybe. I agree, you should not be on the property when they come. And nor should there be any listeners. It should just be the sub, absolutely. I? It should just be the sub committee. It should be no listeners, no talents. Okay, that's fine. You know, sir, when we've done it before, the owners have been there. Yeah, okay. I've been to someone's house and the owner's there. I mean. I would just think. I would just think. They're allowed to, that you can go to somebody's house, they should be there, but they can, you can't have. Yeah, they're not walking around with us. No, no, no, no, right, right. Yeah, no, we know. Yeah, I know we've had that, I know we've had that issue. You can't have conversations. So there can be no email conversations. You can, there can not be even email of conversations between each other. I don't even think. By the sub committee? Yeah, by the sub committee. I don't. I think they can talk. I don't know. Well, they have to put together a report. I know, but I think, remember, we had to do it in person, Jan. There was something like that. Yeah. The three of us, we had that. Okay, being done one over the other. Yeah. Okay, so what date do you guys want to do this? Uh-huh. It's just late at night, right? It's not. You know, can we do that? We'll coordinate it. Yeah, I know I need my calendar. Do you want, do we have to reconvene then? We're going to then recess to a date and time, not more than 30 days from today to accept the inspection committee report. So when we do this, when we reconvene to the next select board meeting. Okay. Which is that, two weeks? Two weeks, yeah. And then it gives us a framework when we have to get together. And so within the next two weeks, you will go and you will let us know when that date is so we can record it. You guys can have a report done by then? So? Two weeks is one. What does that do? By every second? It's going to be the second of April. April second? Yeah. Okay, fine. That's fine. So between now and April second, they'll come and look at your property. So what time do you want to be done April second? Well, just the, Oh, for the BCA meeting? 6.30. Okay. Yeah. And then we'll reopen the hearing. And we'll do the rest of this, right, Sarah? So that, we kind of end this now, right? Mm-hmm. So we're at number M, which is recessing to a date and time, which is April 12th. Okay. April second. April second. I'm sorry, April second. Yeah. Okay, that's an L. 6.30. Before we recess, do I have a chance to make one comment or do I want to ask? Just until April second. I think we're pretty much done with comments at this point. So, okay, I guess that's it. Thank you. Yes, Chris? We know we can hear the comment at some point. So I think we're all out of here now. No, no, it's fine. You sure? Yeah, I don't want to do anything that seems like it would break. No, I just, I don't want to then start having other conversations that might arise from it. I don't know, this will be good. Yeah. We've already gone over a lot of time. So, okay. So thank you guys for coming. Thank you. And thank you Listers for coming and presenting your evidence. And we'll see you back here on the 12th. Sorry, I keep saying the 12th, the second of April. I think it's really reasonable that I've never, I can't believe this is part of our policy that the college and the Listers get to comment on this on the subcommittee report. I don't remember ever doing that before. Do you guys try? I think yes. I think so. The one we had is a... Yeah, I don't know. We do this in a way that we can. Thank you guys for coming. So I do have a quick question now. Are we gonna see the report before coming to the meeting? No, they don't see the report before coming, right? It gets presented out. They weren't there when we presented it by these guys. So you guys come. Okay. I think it's, I still, I'm gonna raise some questions about whether or not the Listers and the appellant get to comment on that subcommittee report. My recollection is the subcommittee reports handed to the VCA and the VCA discusses it and then the VCA makes a decision. Okay, but where did you get these instructions? VLCT, but then on the other hand, VLCT is calling it a property tax assessment. Okay, so... I'll just do the tax assessment. Stay tuned. Okay, stay tuned. Thank you. Thank you. All right, so we're now adjourning the, is there a motion to adjourn? No, wait. I gotta do this. Oh, sorry. I gotta do this, Nate, seven. Right to the central. Hold on. Oh, that's still a part of the VCA. I'm sorry, so we're done with you guys. Yeah. Thank you, everybody. I'll see you later. So we're still doing something on the agenda about the May 7th voting date for the school budget. Good luck with the property. Designating middle sex town halls of polling location for May 7th, 2024. Revo of the fiscal year 25 WCUUSD budget with polls open 7 p.m. action likely. Is there anything you wanna tell about this, Sarah? Yeah, we're having a re-vote. They're not gonna watch the school district it's not gonna be all the ballots, right? So we're gonna open the, just because the polls have always been warned for the, I just need you guys to approve using the town hall for the polls. And then I need, I'm sorry guys, to appoint two JTs again to carry those Washington Central ballots. There's been that time, I confirmed the ballots are being counted that night. Oh, that's nice. Okay. Is that a Tuesday also? May 7th. What's this first? Designate middle sex town halls of polling location. All those in favor or a motion? I'll move that way. Okay, second? Sound hall. I'll second it. Okay. Who's seconded? I did. Dorinda, all those in favor? I. I, okay. And then designating the following to act as election officials for the above vote Cheryl Granfield, assistant clerk and treasurer. Dorinda, Crowell, JP, former assistant clerk, Marika Gellis. Is there a motion for those three? So moved. Wonderful volunteers. Is there a second? Yep. Okay. Who is the second? Brandy. All those in favor? I. I. And now appointing two JPs to deliver a voted WCU-USD ballots to the East Montpelier Elementary School for tabulation after the post close on May 7th, 2024. Is there a motion to appoint two people? I would do it since I missed out last time. I would nominate Chris and Jair. Thank you so much. Is there a second? I'll second it. Thank you, Dorinda. All right, all those in favor of appointing these two JPs to deliver votes? Aye. Aye. Alrighty, so any other things before we close out this meeting? All right, we're adjourning the meeting at 7.15. Good. No, we're not. We're doing it at 7.23, 4. Wow. And sir, that's May 6th at 7 p.m.