 Are we good? Yes. OK, how about you guys? Are we ready? Yes, sir. OK, so I will call the December 18, 2017 select board meeting to order and invite you to rise and join me. And pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. I'd like to welcome everyone to tonight's select board meeting. And if you haven't signed in, please be sure you do. And if you have a cell phone, most people do, if you could put it to silent or buzz, at least, so it doesn't go off during the meeting, we would greatly appreciate that. Let's see. So, Pat, do we have any additions? Yes, we do. There are two. One is the monumental gift that you get this time every year for your holiday reading enjoyment. Yes. The one difference in this year's budget is that the page numbers that you normally find on the lower right are on the upper left. And it's the line number, which is normally the page. So, when we go through this and you're looking for page numbers, it's the upper left, not lower right, as in years past. And then secondly, there's an action sheet which served as the recommendation for the cold chest or select board. And it was their vote. Oh, do you have that? I have to go bring that. Oh, never mind. Yes. Yeah, but I'm going to make some more. Okay. I guess the work out is momentarily. Yeah, it was the vote that was taken last Tuesday on the cold chest or select board as it relates to a topic on our agenda item. And that is the public safety authority. So I thought you might want to see, in case you asked any questions, has anybody approved this yet? The answer is yes, there is one. And there are many people having the topic on the agenda this evening throughout the rest of the folks who were involved in that. And others tomorrow. I think there's one on Tuesday. Shelburne. Shelburne. Okay. And also a bird is, is not ready for their liquor license night. They need one more item. So they are going to be postponed until January. Okay. So we're going to delete this item 5a. Okay. And we'll add the cold chest or information to 5d and the budget binder to, where is it? It's just a general. If you, if you want to tie it to something, it's the presentation of the FYE 19 budget. Oh yeah. For 5e. Okay. So do I have a motion? So moved. Okay. To add those. Second. Any further discussion of adding those items to the agenda? Are you done? All those in favor signify with saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Passes by zero. Thank you all. We're on to public to be heard. That's the time for the public to talk to the select board about any topics that are not on the agenda. Is there anyone here tonight wishing to speak during public to be heard? Okay. Very well. We're going to move on to our business items then. And since 5a is scratched, we're going to go into 5b. And I want to make sure we have a Walgreens representative here. Hi. Hello. Can you state your name for the record? No. Thank you. 10, 323 and 4827. That's right. Okay. Very good. So I guess we can ask for a motion. Then we can have a discussion about the application. What we normally do. Andy. I move approval of second class liquor licenses for Walgreens Eastern Company Incorporated number 10323 and Walgreens Eastern Company Incorporated number 4827. Thank you. Second. Thank you, Irene. Okay. So comments or questions on the application for Walgreens? This is a new second class? This is a new second class. Yes. Maybe they want to say a little bit about what you're doing. Yeah. We used to do that then. Andy. Yeah. Question I have is the application itself includes a check mark next to tobacco. We don't deal with tobacco. Is this just on there for the state to then process? Okay. Just want to make sure that you weren't expecting tobacco from us. No. They'll still name about the people. All right. Great. Thanks. Good question. Can you just explain the transfer from Rite Aid to Walgreens? Walgreens acquired a few thousand Rite Aid stores including all of the stores in Vermont. So there are several other states involved in the transfer. It's not all of the Rite Aid stores in the country, but I think it's some 2,000 odd number. So we've got 30, about 30 here in Vermont, and they're making that transfer on January 30th. So we're gearing up. We've had lots of applications in different municipalities, and we're almost through that part of it. And then once the Department of Lookup Control approves it, it should be by January 30th. The same date that their actual transfer is closing, all of the licenses will go into place as well. So does the transfer include the employees? I'm not really sure about that. I'm just their local liquor counsel, so I don't know how they're going to handle their employees. What I can tell you is that the management that signed off on the education that's in your packet is going to stay the same. So we made sure that the person who is responsible for the DLC education is going to be there and going to be available to train any new employees. So in both cases, the individual that's been through the training is still going to be managing the store? Other questions? I have one on page three. It says, please check one. Business is devoted primarily to, and nothing's checked because it's probably nothing's appropriate. It says food, hotel, club, or commercial community. Right. This is a second class license, so if you look above that, it says first class applicants only. So it's not the most of this particular application. Very good. Good point. Okay. Anything else? Okay. Hearing none. All those in favor of the second class liquor license for Walgreens, Eastern Incorporated, number 10323, and number 4827, signify we say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes 5-0 before you go. There's the usual admonition that the select board gives, and that is that the select board takes the issuance of liquor licenses very seriously. As should the area establishments that sell beer and wine. We expect you not to sell beer or wine to any minors or anyone who is obviously inebriated. I want to thank you for doing business here in Essex. I greatly appreciate that. And we wish you a very good, very good year. And before you go though, is there anything we shouldn't, more we should know if you want to advertise? It's a good time. You got channel 17. Okay. Like I said, I'm just a little liquor found girl. Okay. No comment there. Okay. Very good. Thank you. Thank you very much. And best of luck to you. Thanks. Okay. We're going to move on to item 5C. And I'm going to invite Abby Taikaki up to the table, please. We're lucky to have Abby here tonight. She's interested in being on the Energy Committee. So welcome, Abby. Thank you. If you could give us a little bit of your background about who Abby is and what your interest is for being appointed to the Energy Committee. Sure. I know you all received the initial email that I sent to Greg about my interests. And I wrote a slightly different version of that after having attended one of the Energy Committee's meetings. And so I wanted to read that, which pretty much answers that question of who I am and why I'm interested in. So I define myself as an outgoing networking aficionado and an annoyingly persistent but affable problem solver. And I was the recipient of the 2015 Lake Champlain Regional Chamber of Commerce Rising Star Award and was a finalist for the 2017 Tech Gym Ambassador Award. Through my roles as director of marketing and PR for Burlington Telecom and as a BTV Ignite Executive Fellow, I consider myself an ambassador for Vermont's tech economy, specifically the power of high speed symmetrical broadband as a catalyst for changing the way we live, work, and play. This relates to the areas of energy efficiency when considering smart homes and smart cities. So many of the innovations in energy efficiency rely on home and commercial internet to send real-time data back and forth to control usage in a way that saves money and eliminates waste. My current job gives me a decent understanding around the process of municipal decision making. And in reviewing the minutes from past energy committee meetings, a need was identified to brand the city as quote-unquote current not stodgy through the use of social media and video and that's literally what I do for a living. I find ways to make a municipally operated internet service provider seem kind of cool and interesting in Burlington and I believe I can do the same for the energy of Essex. As a marketing branding and public relations professional with a background in nonprofit administration, I bring with me fundraising skills including grant writing, event planning skills, communication skills like press releases, social media, and relationships with the media, creative thinking on how to do more with less which pertains both to energy and budgets. And thanks to my work as a BTV Ignite Executive Fellow, I have a strong professional working relationship with a lot of members of the tech ecosystem in the greater Burlington area from startups to the state level. My network is pretty wide and I have been deeply involved in the planning and execution of Innovation Week for the past two years. Despite all of this, I know very little about sustainable and renewable energy and I would love to document my family's journey to becoming a more energy efficient home as a way to engage my neighbors throughout Essex. I also see a lot of easy and obvious ways to energize and engage the townspeople in citywide initiatives by leveraging things like Accelerate Essex, Essex Hub for Women in Steemfest, the High School STEM Academy, and so many other community groups. For example, I know that the Essex community players is pretty much the key to saving taxpayer money at Memorial Hall. Ask me more if you want me on the committee. My acceptance on the energy committee would be exciting and mutually beneficial. I will become a more engaged in sin for Essex and learn a lot more about energy efficiency. The town gets to experiment in branding and social media marketing at zero cost. By next October, I would like to see Essex involved with Innovation Week, including a TechGM event about the energy of Essex. Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to hopefully joining the committee and I am happy to answer any questions you might have. You answered the question quite nicely. Thank you. I will open up the questions to the board. Ravi, anybody? Sue? Just in reading what you had submitted, my thought process was the economic development group would benefit from not to say that the energy committee wouldn't also, but it's not as direct in terms of the fit. I'm just curious what drew you to the energy committee. You should say that because Max said the same thing when I walked in the door tonight. And Greg Morgan is the first person that I really connected with in Essex around those sort of things. I'd be happy to work on that committee as well if my schedule permitted, but there weren't any openings on the committee. So I jumped at energy because I really think that there's a lot of potential for synergy there. I think that if we nail energy efficiency in Essex, that there is a huge opportunity for economic development. So I think they kind of go hand in hand. Any other questions? Eddie? Have you been exposed to our communications policy? No. Why is it in quotes? Sorry, I guess I should just send it down. It's a select board policy that does apply to all of our committees and it includes things like making sure that all your content is factual, that you have an unbiased view when that's appropriate, that those kind of things. I was just curious if you had seen that and whether in if you've done this work in other places, whether those things that kind of policy can interfere, whether it helps. Whether or not there's any conflict of interest between my professional life and working with the energy committee. Is that another question? That's a different question. Yeah, communications policy I've not seen the Essex one, but I would love to review it. And there is one for City of Burlington and I do work directly within the guidelines of that policy and with the mayor's offer. Okay, so you're familiar with that whole needing to... Oh yeah. You're welcome. Any other questions? Thank you for coming and stepping forward to volunteer on the energy committee. What we'll do is we may or may not have to go into executive sessions up to the board, but if we do go into executive session when we come out, we'll make a decision and someone from the manager's office will contact you tomorrow. Great. So thank you so much for being prepared like that, that would answer the questions. I love writing the speeches and it's like a new hobby of mine. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. So we want to go into executive session and everybody comfortable with you. Okay, then I would entertain a motion. I would move that we approve appointing Abby Taikaki to the energy committee. Okay, I'll have a second. Thank you, Irene and Sue. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of appointing Abby Taikaki to the energy committee signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes 5-0, you're on. So thank you once again for stepping forward like that, Abby. Appreciate it. You'll be on tomorrow. It's the day after. Good night. Good night. Okay, we're going to move on to the next item of business, which is 5-D and that's a discussion about warning the vote to create a public safety authority. And we have Chief Radd the Rose with us and Pat, who's going to... Yes, I want to invite everybody up to the table. So under the heading of regional dispatch, the memo that was sent to you, and I apologize, I'm part of it a little bit late, the issue for us at this point is whether or not that we select warned for a March 2018 town meeting vote to approve the governance structure for the Chinden County Public Safety Authority for Public Safety Dispatch Service and this structure is a unified municipal district. Now as you recall we ponied up some money and along with other communities undertook a study to analyze our E-911 capacity throughout the region of the Dispatching Services associated with that. Based upon the suggested operational and personal service efficiencies however long term they may be in realization, the study committee was appointed by eight communities and has recommended a regional approach to meeting the Public Safety Dispatching Service demand. Now all the information that's been generated by said study committee of which I was a participant and I was able to upload diligently from the audience was on a CC the regional planning web page has just amounted all of the information that was developed. That's just for the governance part. There was other work that was being done by the technical group that probably wasn't on that web page. Is that true? I believe that is true. That's not there. The memo that I sent to you was the agreement that creates this Public Safety Authority which was worked on by the eight member joint study committee. A number of attorneys weighed in. It was sent down to the AG's office and AG's office has approved this document as it is submitted to you there was also a copy of an MOU on cost sharing and should you decide that you would like to warn this there's a draft resolution to warn this topic for our town meeting on March of 2008. There was a couple of other attachments I put on there just to show you that there's been some public information discussion on how to get the information out to all the communities who will be voting on this. Excuse me. And then there was also a memo in August of 2017 with an attempt to address the minutes that would be saved in our E-91 E-91 discussion. There's some items came up during the course of the discussion as it always is about potential unknowns that could be cons and of course the obvious pros were articulated from the get go on saving valuable seconds on E-91 one discussion. Some of the cons when these are just a small list that we came up with was perhaps the potential loss of local knowledge and direct operational control and again this is not so much the governance structure but rather that which is going to be governed. There are personnel issues such as no direct contact but the bargaining decisions made by a new governing body. We would be one of eight if everybody voted to approve it and all those who got approval by their citizens had a representative on the board so conceivably we would be one-eighth or if we didn't vote at all or if we voted yes and maybe five others did we'd be perhaps one-fifth so exactly what our role and strength would be would depend upon how many people voted in favor of it and how big the board was initially. We still need to operate a local dispatch function for walk-in services and offer services not provided by the authority initially and the name of the authority may open the conversations to many other public safety functions such as police service which I learned via Chief LaRose was one of the things that was discussed in 1967 there wasn't just dispatch it was police services and although the agreement specifically mentions dispatch the document does not limit it to just dispatch and this was discussed by the Joint Study Committee I know I raised it a couple of a month or two ago and they wanted to be sure to let everybody know that the language that's in the resolution not the resolution but the agreement focuses on regional dispatch and dispatch services so I think that would be an important part to stress if we go forward and we need to discuss this issue publicly and dispatch only it's not police services it's not anything else it's just public safety dispatch some of the benefits of course are things that theoretically will happen in some of the calls with 9-1-1 being dispatched more quickly but we can't say all of them will because each call is different or many calls could be different the form of governance a regionalization of public service of course is something we're going to be dealing with we being municipalities throughout states as small as Vermont and as the local economies falter and maybe even crumble the whole idea of being able to provide for public safety services or public services in general they come into question a regional approach is certainly one way to spread the cost around to many users and it would not be out of the question to be looking for that even though our economy is robust comparatively speaking for the rest of the state so there are some supporting data stresses the potential benefits at this point in the discussion there's no real cost associated with this because all we're really talking about is whether or not to have this governance structure be something you would warn for the town meeting so it's recommended that the select were discussed evaluate and decide upon putting this issue on town meeting day ballot or not some of the points that I think might be worth focusing on and the first page on page one in the one two three four fifth paragraph of the where as is recognizing where we are in this process right now we are at the point where it says and first having sought the consent of the respective legislative bodies of the potential municipal members of the public safety authority so we are at this point in time in the entire process where the legislative body is is being sought for its opinion on whether or not to go forward with this it also mentions that in the next page at the top and where as only three entities need to vote in the affirmative to have this authority created I passed out some information earlier on the fact that Colchester has already voted to warn this as Colchester goes so goes Milton because Colchester is for Milton so there's two of the three right there in terms of raw numbers this evening there are votes I think in Williston South Burlington Burlington whoever meets on Mondays have been about this I think there's Maluski meet on Tuesdays or Shelburne meets on Tuesdays and Shelburne will be voting on Tuesdays so probably by tomorrow morning would be a pretty good feel for many of the eight wish to go forward or need more information before going forward if you don't make a decision tonight the warning has to be approved and ready to go by I think it's January 24th that's the last time we can add items to the Tom meeting warning let's see what else of a couple of things for the question might be in your mind as to what happens to us if everybody else joins and we don't or what happens to our dispatch if we don't go forward are we prevented from obtaining service if you look at for E where it says contracting municipalities that meets municipalities or public safety agencies that may not have been admitted to this authority pursuant to section 22 which is on page 15 by the way of this agreement but that have contracted for public safety communication services with the authority basically translated we could be a contracting employee after the fact if we wanted to wait and see how things developed and wanted to think about whether or not it made sense for us page 15 talks about that section 22 talks about how to become a member and that's provided the legislative bodies that would be you approve the agreement and both to warn an annual or special meeting to enter into the agreement for the formation of the authority then then we would become members so there's two ways contracting or voting and going forward as is now let's see is there anything else for noting here can I ask for clarification on that Pat? oh yeah I'm sure I've doubled so on the the 22 there where you're talking about becoming a member yes is the fact that we warn make us a member or do we have to a successful vote in March? you have to approve the agreement and then vote to by the resolution warn it and then the people have to approve it so there's two steps three steps three steps and even if you do not well you really have to do two steps at once or all three steps I don't think there's anything in between because we would be somewhat disingenuous to this whole process if you approve the agreement but not warn it correct yeah that probably would be that form if not absolutely so the stressing I'm sorry when you're done I have just one I'll go right ahead jump in the two year opt-in on the MOU go ahead there's a two year opt-in for the MOU if folks choose to warn the town votes to join the authority there is an MOU that has to be agreed upon within two years where there's another or you're out if you don't act within the two years the MOU for the cost sharing arrangement you're out so the way I'm doing this is if you want to keep it pretty much in reserve there's another option for the town don't get into the MOU initially you have up to two years even when even after you become a part of the authority you still have to agree to the MOU as it's written by the board right so what are the things that the joint study committee members kept stressing over and over again that this is governance only this is governance only because there are a myriad of questions on the operations side that simply can't be answered so if you go forward as a board and you want to present some information to the public the public might ask well how is this going to work and in general terms we could say yes there's going to be a regional dispatch center and there will be dispatchers and there will be a boss and there will be lots of things but right now there's no ability to have the discussion because there's no entity you have several different bargaining units at play on the operational side so if you go forward and people start asking those kind of questions particularly those people who are employed we don't really have answers to that either so the very first step is governance and the governance model and that's a difficult thing even the board members at the joint study committee when they were given updates on what was going on in the technical committee where Brad sits and what's been going on in the homes of the various municipalities and how people feel about this you know there's been an awful lot of discussion and unfortunately we can't say precisely what will happen now one thing we do know is that Colchester who as I mentioned earlier dispatches for Milton and South Burlington have planned to join forces and be a beta test if you will but they're not ready to go until after the votes but they and I spoke to Don Francis late this afternoon and just double checked this they are still on track to do that so there will be regardless of how the votes turn out this evening in the other municipalities there will be three entities moving forward on this even as a beta test so we'll be able to come up with some specific data in practice in Chittenden County these will be calls in public dispatch if we don't do anything except analyze what others are doing I'm going to stop here because I know Brad you've been active and involved in the technical group is there anything you want to share about that I know we're only talking governance questions Right, quite a bit of discussion has taken place in that regard but ultimately it's nothing even close to being in final form there there are so many unanswered questions and it'll take quite a bit more work to get through but that's really put in the cart before the horse in many people's minds so it's the work of the group is still pending the software used in dispatch we have a compatibility that's equal throughout eight communities at this point or are they working in that general direction that's perfect several of us use different things so that's one of the issues to be solved in a regional dispatch is that you all have to kind of use the same software but there's still a potential there's lots of questions to be answered so Mike I was going to say really for tonight's vote if you could think about the governance and whether or not you want to go forward and if you want to do that think about the marketing information the marketing might not be the best word but educating public information out to educate the voters between now and channel meeting time Mike so that two-year availability do you sign the MOU is that a freebie you know you would not get to service until we sign into the MOU right and once we sign into the MOU we're going to have to make up for lost time standing the authority of the dispatch center up is going to cost and there'll be cost sharing at the point in time where Essex chooses to sign into the MOU as I'm understanding it what we're saving is reserving the right to not join even after there's been an affirmative vote because we don't like the way the costs are being delineated but if we become a contracting municipality the cost will be determined based upon what's most fair for the authority based upon costs that have been incurred to set it up so I think either way we will fall pay in the startup costs Mary? I'm thinking back on what you were saying about how you contributed in a fair way last I knew there was sort of contention as to what constituted a call for service because in some towns calls of service are defined differently so there are certain towns who could be charged more or less than what we might determine as fair because we might not be making the rules or someone else might be making the rules of the table and still not have our way so fair is even I think definition here that's a fair statement so I notice on the next to last page which I think is part of the marketing material there's a list of organizations that have provided letters of support and Essex is noticeably missing from that list so I'm curious if you can maybe just expand a little bit I mean almost every other community has somebody either the fire department police department whatever that has provided I'm the one that that question should be sent to more than anyone else my response to the request to submit a letter of support was that I wasn't inclined to do that at this point because inevitably I'll be asked a series of questions that I just don't have the answers to it's not that I'm against regional dispatch whatsoever that was my reasoning for not submitting a letter I just can't answer the questions and my feedback to the RPC on exactly that part of the leaflet was it seems a little self-serving that they would spend one sixth of their flyer talking about who's endorsed it I'm not sure how much arm twisting there was or wasn't I'd rather see a flyer that has pros and cons on it that's really informing the voters of the decision they have to make not some sort of cell sheet which unfortunately I think this is and I disagree with for example some of the statistics here it talks about saving up to 70 seconds per call that's only on 911 calls a large percent well 8% of the calls that go into your dispatch I know are people dialing directly so they're not losing any time when I call up the non-emergency number I get right through whereas 911 I might have to be patched and I might have a delay but I think this is being simplified in order to sell this and I reason that Chief can you tell us if you think our dispatch is broken in any way I mean my view is that it looks like we're in pretty good shape we have a great facility great people running it and the dispatchers themselves are great we've broken in any way do we I would say broken max but there is a challenge as administrators we struggle with on a weekly basis and that is running a 24-7 365 operation with four full timers and a couple of part timers and had taken officers off the street just to get by that is the biggest challenge that we face as far as the quality and the delivery of services the timeliness of it we're right on point that's not an issue okay thank you I saw Sue and then come back Larry I'm curious if anybody on our board has received any input from the public on whether they want to vote on this or not I don't think the public has any information really any information on it yet I mean there's been articles there's been items on the agenda I'm just curious if anybody has written anything I haven't I just thought there's not the opinion of some staff some dispatch people directly but nobody from the public at large Irene you had a like I mentioned then I brought it up in a conversation with a couple of people not all of whom I was familiar with and one said I used to do dispatch I said really I said you should become in your meetings because you could talk you wouldn't be constrained by the union but my request to the group to interview people that could speak on behalf of dispatchers has not yet been followed what I wanted to say about this also was that Shelburne has a 9-1-1 center right now they will vote tomorrow night for the first time whether or not to join if they don't join then my understanding is these savings do not manifest themselves if this organization does not become a 9-1-1 hub which is also known as a PSAP then it doesn't matter how many of us bond together we're not going to save on the one step which is the goal call answering so I think again this flyer is getting a little bit ahead of where we all are right now and it's optimistic and I appreciate that but I think it needs to be said if Shelburne doesn't buy in do they stay a PSAP maybe you know more than I do I don't know what they would do but if they were gone tomorrow that void would be filled within the 9-1-1 the state 9-1-1 network may not be as well served as it is with Shelburne in the mix because of where Shelburne is located I was just going to say in partial response to everybody who was on the committee were in favor of regional dispatch I don't know that everybody was in favor of how to retain it but I do know that the idea of regional dispatch was was not in question whatsoever and so and that's been the case and this is the third this is the third time I've been involved since I've been here Brad you've probably been involved before I was more trying to get a sense of the community of what I mean the community at large to have an opportunity to vote on this or not and all those communities did appoint somebody to serve as a member so I would imagine their elected officials probably felt that their community was in favor of more efficient more efficient emergency service rather than less efficient one but you can't say what if unless you actually get the surveys out there so anyhow try to sum this up for tonight if you decide that you want to vote you could simply say that you're not interested in going forward and that would suffice as a vote and if you are interested in going forward then you have the model from Colchester it would be a two part vote it would improve the agreement and the resolution to put it out for a vote of how many you just mentioned the efficiency I guess I would like to know from the chief and from the soon to be chief how inefficient do you think we are at processing these calls because again unless we become a PSAP I don't see any efficiency happening just because we have more people in a room farther away with more maps and new software to learn and new script based technology and dispatch to figure out I see there being a ramp up period of a year or two where we're actually whoever is on regional dispatch being actually less efficient because of all the changes well what to take this to fire off the deep water what you just stated Irene has been kicked around the table with the technical group five or six times over where are we now, where are we going, how do we get there and what's really going to work I do think there will be improved efficiencies but I'm very concerned about how this this is marketed, again I'm not against regional dispatch whatsoever Peter am I? I'm prepared to give you a word of motion we can always have more discussion there must be more discussion what's your pleasure I move that the select board vote not to move this forward and accept the agreement I move that we vote against the agreement at this time do I have a second on that okay thank you Irene okay so further discussion Irene we have a memo here that Pat referenced at the beginning of the evening that was due to August 21st and it talks about ring ring here, ring ring answer once again I'm just curious how this sits with you because you're right on top of your organization you know whether things are ringing off the hook or what I mean can you conceive of there being a 72 second delay on average the 71 or 2 or whatever this reference there came from data that was extracted from the 9-1-1 system that first part of last year we have 16,000 calls were examined and it was determined that from the time 9-1-1 picks the call up to the time a local agency picks up there's a 71 second average reference to an average I think and then the thought from there regarding the savings would be what happens then when the local dispatch agency picks up what is repeated for a second time whereas if it was a one step process the 9-1-1 operator would have dealt with sending emergency services out within that 70 seconds there will no doubt be a time savings if we go to regional dispatch I'm not sold on the 70 seconds I think that's a stretch but that data will be available if we sit on the sidelines and let that regional dispatch happen then we could answer a lot of these questions what is the average time savings what is the potential cost and the benefits and so on by waiting and looking at the data right right a lot of questions could be answered and what I hear is that we're not broken, we have some challenges as you said but we're far from broken so waiting seems like the prudent thing in my book I would not argue with that match and really here's why it's going to take three entities three municipalities to get the authority up and running if all eight or nine opted in for the authority I don't think we're going to find eight or nine signing into an MOU or dispatch and this has been kicked around in the technical group too there will be a phase in process and from what I'm sensing from the board from past conversations Essex really isn't looking to be one of the initials then we'll take a wait and see because there's more there's enough interest out there to get the center up and stood up and running and we can evaluate I wouldn't envision that we'll jump in but we'll have many more answers the questions that we now have be easy to educate the public on that too why we think there's benefit outweighing the risk but right now I see a lot of risk and potential benefit but I don't really see what the real numbers yet, Andy? I just want to ask for clarity on the motion what does it mean if we vote yes what does it mean if we vote no the way it was worded confused me so I'm not sure what my understanding from Mike's motion that Irene seconded was the motion is to not approve the agreement at this time basically so if you vote in the affirmative on this motion that means you do not approve the agreement right jump in this is to warn I think it's a two step we want to do the approval and if we approve then we would have a second one to say we want to warn or not but if the first one if Mike's motion is passed there's no reason we can't go to the warning one anyway so that we'd be done you could Rick we're talking about efficiencies we're also potentially inefficiencies which you were hinting to by potentially waiting you can see some of those this is going to be a 9-1-1 centers the chief has been part of the technical working group there's going to be things that they don't handle as Pat talked about we may still have to have our own dispatch center to be able to handle the stuff that this center wouldn't handle and the other issue is how much it costs to be there is what we initially gave what all the PD's gave for an estimate which is close to half a million dollars for us the discussion about what does it call truly cost and different communities how they calculate that again waiting gives you the time to analyze that and have them come up with a true method of what that cost truly is and what a call truly is that may make us pay more it could make us pay less depending so again there's some efficiencies you're going to save about not having two people dispatch on a 9-1-1 call but calls that aren't going to 9-1-1 we're answering 80 to 90 percent of the time we've got to answer anything so we're going to have both until we have all of the information and or we stand it up and see it so much questions we're not going to be able to answer correct but you will get those answered in time should you stand and wait for that okay I saw Sue and then we'll come Annie I was wondering if we could revisit the motion because I think when you paraphrased it you said at this time I think that's what Mike said at the end did you say? I was thinking that was a valuable at this time so I'm sorry to get back to my question so an affirmative vote would mean that we could bring this up again later I guess that's my primary question so in a sense it's the same as not voting at all we could just essentially table it to another another meeting is that what we're intending to do here or are we saying no we're not going to do this at this time until two years from now what's the recall what's the next step I guess is my question if we vote affirmative to say we're not going to do it at this time how does it ever come back up again or does it? you could keep your thumb on the progress of that entity and when it looks like it's a favorable thing to enter for Essex that would be a great time to bring it back so the intent is to not have this to not try to meet January 24 warning date it's to put on the table longer than that that's I'm kind of just trying to feel for what at this not at this time mean well Mike made the motion so we'll let Mike I think I know what you meant but Mike you want to I'll be happy to answer any questions so I guess you know we as I mentioned earlier we have this January 24th warning anything for town meeting I'm not where we would affirmative vote would put us and whether our intent is to put this off for years whether the intent is to put this off until an early meeting in January when we have this understanding of who else might be involved I just trying to understand what the how long we intend to wait to bring this back up again Mike once you go ahead I can only answer this as one select board member but in my years here I don't think anybody that I have served with has ever been bashful about asking to have something put back on the agenda whether it's in consent or whether it's an action item to answer that question for you I I would say there's really no time table nor did I intend one with my motion my motion is dealing just with the here and now and my motion basically is saying that I for one and moving that the select board let the January 24th date go by the board and not approve it and therefore warn it would you accept a friendly amendment to say not warn it for the March 2018 town meeting it's two different motions I think by saying that we're not moving to approve it we don't have to say anything about about warning it I think the agreement specifically mentions March 2018 so if you don't approve the agreement you don't approve it we don't have time perhaps a friendly amendment at this time and not before January whatever the date is 24th so that that we're not going to revisit it prior to the deadline that's in place I think the not at this time leaves it open for any time in the future but we can in the discussion wait for some flexibility it wasn't my intent to bring it up again before the 24th it doesn't matter what other municipalities vote it's a matter of waiting to get the data as far as how it's functioning that's why I will vote to approve your amendment to say we don't approve the agreement because I want to see the data it's going to take years to get Andy I guess I'm always in favor of seeing what the public has to say and much like the wreck governance thing we never took a position but we did vote to ask the our voters what their position was I mean we certainly could vote to warn this and then say that we don't we don't think it's a good idea maybe the voters will tell us otherwise it's the service that's being provided to them I'm speaking in favor of this now I hadn't planned to before I came here but because the motion surprised me I guess I'm a little surprised that we are not allowing our voters to give us guidance on this they have less data than we do and we're saying my view is that we're not elected to do all this heavy lifting and if we say we don't think this is right for Essex we don't have the data they're not going to have it either but when we do have an update and we think it's good they need to weigh in there's plenty of things about the agreement that I don't like to begin with one is for example our municipal manager he is defined to be our representative to this committee so it's a non-elected it's completely non-elected or appointed board other than they've been hired by the municipalities and there's a clause in there that specifically says that they are not beholden to their own legislative board so we have this board would have no there's all kinds of that I see that as a problem the other is that there's no maybe this is just an operational thing there's still no fund balance limit that bothers me and the other thing is that we're getting more and more of these regional entities that perhaps have overlapping functions or repetitive they all have IT departments they all have payroll departments there's no driving force to drive them to consolidate those kind of services that they each supply for themselves I read through some of Irene's material that she made available to us and for example there's a law in California where they have to review periodically whether or not there are functions that they can consolidate or whether there's still still so anyway I have plenty of reasons to not be happy about the agreement but much like the you know kind of like the Essex governance group wants to be able to vote on the budget I have some part of me that says that we ought to ask the public what they think Mike respectfully very respectfully we have over 50 years of police experience telling us that there are a bundle, a boatload of questions that nobody has the answer to with respect Andy I can't figure out why we would want to put this in front of the voters we're going to be looking to us to answer questions for them when we don't have the answers from the incredible reserve of police experience that we have with us it just it just I'm baffled why we would want to do that and relative to the 24th of January we've got budget stuff that starts in a couple of weeks why in the world would we want to talk about having public forums again on an issue where there are no answers yet so respectfully Mr. Chairman I'd like to call the question okay okay with calling the question okay motion on the table is to not approve the agreement at this time so by voting I means you are in favor of the motion which means you are not in favor of the agreement okay is that clear so all those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye aye post motion passes 5-0 good I asked the Board's indulgence to maybe say something about the volume of work that was done to bring this topic before you I know the people on that joint study committee and many other people such as the technical group have worked long hours and I believe that they deserve some recognition for that that's a very good point and I know the hours and hours of work and dedication that you and the others have put into this and I think you heard tonight that we're not against consolidation that's kind of been our mantra but it's not at this time for this particular piece until we're certain that it's the right thing for our community but yeah the dedication and the number of hours and the thought and the care truly amazing and greatly appreciated I think I can say by all of us soon I mean I don't think that I think that effort is still valuable and will still be relevant when we go back to revisit this after we have more information so thank you for all you all the work okay we're going to move on to the next item of business which is 5e and that's the presentation of the FYE 19 budget Greg do you want to take us through that please kind of a high level we're going to have many days many weeks to work and learn this I'll take the high level view for sure so it's that time of year where we present you with the large budget this year we're looking at a proposed budget $14.7 million it's been proposed by the department heads modified a little bit by the town manager it's a budget that's going to continue to provide the high level of service that you're used to in Essex that said there's it is a big jump there's some one-time costs associated with that part of that is a salary study that's required with the AFSCME contract it's about $15,000 towards that study there's also some money associated with the new manager coming on board about $5,000 for some team building exercises with staff and about $5,000 for new furniture you saw some of Pat's furniture not too long ago and declared it surplus so chance for the manager to set his own tone her own tone in the new in the new office some of the other big items looking at her five new positions they're all needed they're overdue for various reasons we've had several retirements in the past year year and a half with people who've been here for a long long time we're losing their knowledge in a lot of cases those people were doing more than one job perfect example he just saw his chief and Captain Gary the chief is going to be retiring and Captain Gary is going to be taking over as the new chief Rick was also spending 40% of his time in the IT department as the IT director so when he moves over full time to the police department I'm going to have to backfill his position in some way and that's going to be by hiring a new IT tech so a lower level lower salary starting salary then what Rick Gary was making but still a new position new employees have come on board between Community Justice Center as extension recreation and parks IT is taking on more responsibility there so that's one example of the need for a new person also looking at a human resources director where by having somebody a couple people doing that part time in addition to administrative responsibilities out of the manager's office the past couple years we've realized how far behind we are in terms of keeping up with law constantly changing federal law state law that we need to stay on top of we'll over do for that so looking to create an HR director position to make sure we're staying on target there if that's another position that can be funded well would be providing services to village employees potential there to have the village pick up some of that salary some of that tab some of the new employees public works is looking for a new employee for water sewer and highway shared between those two they've got a large workload that just never seems to slow down and they're ready for a new employee to help out with that the police department also is looking for two patrol officers again to keep up with demand to help with succession planning we've had the police chief has about to retire one of the captains just retired and captain Gary is moving up to be police chief so looking to start succession planning and help some internal candidates move up hopefully in the police department lastly this isn't a new position but looking to have the assistant parks foreman who is a part-time position right now become full-time parks and rec is has plenty to go on the part-time person is overworked as it is and struggling to keep up with duties so that's another position that that is important to fill so recognizing it is a large budget but again there is a need for these positions if you take out the new positions the budget is much more what you're used to it would be a about a 3.66 percent increase without those new positions one-time cost they make up about a little more than half of the budget increase but all told it is a budget increase of a little over million dollars seven point three two percent increase if it's fully funded it'd be an $86 increase for the average homeowner $280,000 home those are based on our conservative assumptions that we usually operate on of one percent growth in the grand list and that is what we give you so look forward to having some good discussions in January can answer some questions right now but it's really next month is when we'll get into the weeds right any general questions I guess I'll request it possibly so when I read through this one it jumped out at me was that I think I've ever described a 3.5 percent across the board kind of salary average I don't know what those represent we budget for across the board salary increase the way the contracts are set up with the AFSCME is that it's merit based so 3.5 is the maximum you can receive again trying to be a little bit conservative in terms of budgeting so if everybody is stellar then they can get their 3.5 percent that's what we strive for it's probably not going to be 3.5 percent across the board but I wanted to put that up there just to show you what we can we're potentially looking at and other contracts the non-union employees typically match union employees in terms of expectations for salary increases so that's in the contract that's a number that's already in the contract up to it's not a guaranteed 3.5 percent but it can be up to 3.5 percent you know raises if you read anything that would be a high raise in terms of what probably our constituents are seeing in what they're doing so I was curious if there was a way to mock up what the impact would be if it was 2.5 or 3 percent but it sounds like if that's contractualized it's not really a way to do that it's contractualized and part of it is we have to go into go into the contract in good faith and that we're going to operate it and uphold it in good faith so that's part of the budgeting for the maximum as well okay excuse me that 3.5 percent also includes premium pay such as longevity that's a function of the collective bargaining process too but that's also built in just it is a little out of line with what is going on in the rest of the world the select board approved it okay any other general questions okay we're going to as Greg said we're going to get into the weeds in January on this okay thank you Greg thank you happy reading over the holiday okay we're going to move on to business item five F and that's errors and omissions Greg you're on again so this was another error in omission I think I might have alluded to it last meeting this one is for a 63 kilowatt solar facility that the assessor's office found it's at McLaure moving in storage at 167 coldchester road this is we're talking about the solar facility that Randy found on Saxon Hill often on Thompson Drive last last meeting one of the ways he looking into that he realized the state had updated its website in terms of tracking permits so I'm going through to see if there was any other solar facilities that he had missed and as he came across this one so we'll be updating the value of the grand list by $13,400 tax impacts bringing $68 to the town operating budget and about $211 to the school district budget those are good cats on Randy's part questions about this one what's the board's pleasure on this I did have a question I'm sorry Mr. Chairman Greg I believe when this came up with a solar array before I think we had did you not tell us that you had put a procedure in place where that doesn't get by us anymore a couple things part of it was that the website the state website has been improved and Randy's now checking regularly that's part of how this was caught and part of it is just better communication with the clerk's office once they see something that's been filed in the land records they're more aware now to bring it up to the assessor's office okay I remember the first one I had forgotten about the connection with the clerk's office thank you I was just going to make a motion that would be great make a motion that the select board approve this correction as the property was not listed in the 2017 grand list thank you Sue do I have a second on that second thank you Mike any further discussion on this error and omission hearing none all those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye aye opposed okay most passes five zero thank you all then we're going to move on to business item 5G and that's adoption of personnel guidelines so we saw them last meeting and this is the meeting to adopt them and it's important to get those adopted tonight because there's implications on our insurance correct okay so yes as Max said you saw this last meeting you accepted it then took some comments back and feedback the memo that I gave you this whole list of the different items that are mentioned in the past couple weeks I'll hit on the high ones there's a few items related to sexual harassment just the definitions confirming some of the laws answering some of the questions that came up last time but basically we're going with the legal opinions, legal definitions definitions in place from the US Equal Opportunity Commission using the terms that have been part of statute and just making sure we're just being a statute and using the same language another one of the issues that came up solicitation distribution within the town right currently it said it says no non-employees may not distribute or solicit information on town property I just added a clause saying without the approval of the town manager so that will allow the energy committee or the conservation committee to hand out materials that they're working on beyond that issue holidays couple of questions came up last time about changing Columbus Day and Christmas Day recommending we stay we keep with what we have state law, federal law rather than trying to change holidays that we have just trying to stick with the state and federal definitions and names for those holidays so those are the big ones can jump into questions if you have anything else about some of the other stuff that has come up Irene sent over some additional formatting recommendations afterwards I didn't have a chance to make those changes and get them to you today couple options if you move to adopt these today which would be great because we do have some insurance stuff that would take place on January 1st based on these policy guidelines so you can make a motion to adopt the guidelines without the authority to make any formatting changes as we see fit no content but just the formatting stuff the other option is to just adopt them as they are and we can bring it back to you in the near future to prove the formatting stuff cost of adopting these be saving a little bit of money with out of pocket health care costs for the town optical would decrease a little bit each year beamers contributions, retirement contributions would be going up about $6,000 netting that all out it's an overall increase of approximately $19,000 a long term looking at reducing the amount of retirement payouts that people can receive upon retirement right now with the manager's approval employees can cash out up to 800 hours of sick time that would be going down to a maximum of 600 hours so we won't see those savings for a little bit but over the long term it should benefit the town significantly and with that I will turn it over to questions questions I'm concerned about what we're afraid of in changing the name of a holiday that so many other cities and towns and states have changed do we really expect the union to file agreements if we give them the same day off but we call it something different don't necessarily expect them to file agreements but they coating this the town attorney I'll find my proper notes that if it just says Columbus Day and we changed it to a different day the contract says Columbus Day that the union could come back and ask for a second holiday off is a possibility could we make that part of a negotiation the next time to change the day the name of the day it's a possibility I'm looking for a path to do this we are less offensive and more sensitive to people in our midst and obviously we wouldn't be alone because mainstream publications like Time are publishing this information I'd like a guarantee not just a possibility I can't guarantee what would get approved I can't guarantee what would get approved I'm asking you to bring it to the table but it says also a union it's a state and federal holiday and I'm not saying we can't change it but I'm saying that we look to the higher authorities when we can or need to and in this case the state of Vermont and the US government still refer to Columbus Day but the governors the last two years have changed the name they have proclaimed it to be a different day it takes an act of the legislature to actually change it for the state of Vermont holiday so could the select board pass a resolution at this time or at a future time and change the name so that our republic city says for example Indigenous Peoples Day no matter what your contracts with the union say and do a similar proclamation the way the governor has I would have to get back to you on that one there's other ways to handle it too besides renaming I'm asking for the legal path whatever it takes I'd like us to go on that path thanks Sue I still have a concern that the only employees that are referenced getting any kind of training on sexual harassment are new employees when they come in so it seems like the hang up is around the frequency that you revisit that training but couldn't the clause in here instead of just referencing new employees reference that all employees will receive training on sexual harassment and the policies and not identify what the frequency is but it concerns me that you could have an employee that's been here for 15 years there's nothing in the policy that says that they are going to receive that kind of training and I think that's important two parts and I don't disagree it is important we had sexual harassment training for all employees I think three or four years ago about three years ago it is required for all new employees and we did check with the town attorney in terms of making it more of a regular requirement the hang up as I said in the memo was how do you define regular so we have every intention to make it an ongoing training I believe Travis is setting something up for early 2018 to have it done again for all employees in the near future but in an instance of hard fiscal times hard financial times if something has to get cut from the budget and happens to be sexual harassment training we then at risk of violating our own policy so the legal recommendation was that we did not put that in there I understand the legal recommendation was not to put in what the frequency is that it's occurring but what is the issue with identifying that we are making available this training for all employees and not just for brand new employees and not specifying a frequency correct I think part of the early intention of that language was to make sure that we didn't miss any new employees and also when it comes to the seasonal employees we get a lot of new employees everywhere but that doesn't mean that if you've only gone through once when you're new that you've never get it again whenever we have the training everybody goes and that's good but why wouldn't you want to put that in your in your handbook yeah I think we can correct me for one pet but I think we can change to say that the training will be made available to all employees upon request I think the the hang up is promising that we're going to make it a regular training but I don't think I see much I wouldn't see much issue in saying adding a clause that it will be made available to all employees it's just it's very specific where it's only talking about new employees and not everything this would be a good idea I think too yeah okay what's the board's pleasure I move the select board approve the employee adopt sorry I move the select board adopt the last revised employee document the employee document personal guidelines thank you thank you Mike do I have a second thank you Andy any further discussion on that Andy did we want to include the just saying most recently revised include the sue suggested yeah and the formatting yeah if someone wants to make or I can make my own it doesn't matter but I want to make sure that we say that staff is okay to make formatting changes okay and Andy okay any further discussion on that all those in favor of adopting the personnel guidelines with the updates we talked about signify by saying aye aye opposed 5-0 thank you all okay we're going to move on to business item 5-H and that's amending the minutes of December 15 2008 Irene looks like you're up thanks I want to be consistent with the way we report things and be transparent about what happens and this was one of these executive sessions that I think went late into the night and by the time we adjourned the recording secretary was no longer there and I think there was just you know a slip up in getting the opposition name typed in and as I said in my memo Max was on the right side of history and I think that the minutes reflect that as well as being transparent and since Pat is still with us and he likely remembers that meeting and we've revised other old minutes to make them current with what really happened I wanted to bring that up as an option for the select board to change I don't think we've ever revised before we revised motion not the minutes this is as for minutes this is the motion we're revising the motion to say who opposed it thank you for it's not revising the motion that's revising the minutes the motion is different the vote result is not part of the motion I'm proposing that we modify the minutes to reflect transparently as we have in the past who was the opposition on the motion Andy concern I have about this memo is that it references discussion during executive session it implies that we had a discussion recently about local option tax there's two things there one is that it's revealing stuff that was said in an executive session and the other is that it because it's so taken out of context relative to what was actually said so the problem that this raises for me personally is that if we ever had a discussion or if we do discuss local option tax either in open or closed session I cannot participate my employer requires me to recuse myself so I just want to make it clear that I'm very concerned that the way that this memo is now part of public record and if somebody picks this up and reads it they could think that I participated in a discussion about option tax and I could be fired I just have I just want to raise that concern and get it into the minutes at least that I did not participate in a discussion about local option tax and you know you can do whatever you want to me but this was brought up we just came up as a phrase as a potential thing that someone might be interested in in the future there was no discussion among the select board about a local option tax in that executive session otherwise I would absolutely recuse myself from that discussion this it says here you weren't on the board then no no the way the wording says it says because the statute of the local option tax resurfaced in a recent executive session so in our executive sessions we never we never had made a finding about local option tax so there was never a discussion specifically about local option tax we were talking about hiring a new manager and the phrase local option tax came up during that discussion that's what happened during the executive session if I'm spilling the beans on something important go ahead and throw me out I don't care I got to keep my job though I just want to make it clear that had we talked about local option tax I would have recused right so did you have a head up okay go ahead another comment to make is that is it our intent to go through all meeting minutes and add in anything I mean why this one is my question the I looked at the statutes that you were talking about and it only it says that if a roll call was taken is the only time you really need to record who voted for or against and I don't see any reason to reach back nine years and update minutes I think it was said a bad precedent to update minutes that have been previously approved I definitely will not support this I don't care what side of history I was on Harry so I have here the minutes of February 9th 2009 which I will share with you and the public was asking who was who was the opposition and the person who opposed this didn't type up and say it was me nor did anyone else on the select point the finger so because the public was eager then to know and we've been asked since then who was the opposition on this vote I think it's only fair to the public to answer that question on the reverse side you will see minutes from earlier in 2008 once again Mr. Olivia posed the motion passed for one on line 273 and you'll see that that is the practice and we were told at last week's meeting how important it is for the recording secretary to be consistent in what she puts in to the minutes and that's the only reason I'm offering this forward if Max does not want his name recorded for all time it still should be part of the record as to when well if it was about you and it didn't matter then I believe you would have piped up when the public asked who opposed it and I think it was inappropriate at that time for you to keep it a secret and I'm no longer willing to keep it a secret from the public I believe it should be in the minutes but if it's not in those minutes it will at least be in these minutes thank you it's not about me it's about let me finish it's about setting a bad president by going back and modifying previously minutes it's just wrong and one more thing it's not about the recording secretary she makes the minutes comes to us it's up to us to update them it's at that point that was the board's error not the recording secretary it was the board's error she wasn't there and then I'll go to Andy oh you know what we need to start putting in who opposed alright I don't think it was always put in there or maybe it had been and then when did that remember I mean we'd have to go before I guess way back in the minutes before I started but it was just one meeting I don't remember when it was and she just started saying so then when she said told me to do that then that was when she was chair so when she told me to start doing that then I did thank you sir Andy the fact that this memo is now part of public record has to be questioned to change it it effectively puts it in the public record yeah that's fine sure yeah it was me that voted against it that's but it's not about me it's about not wanting to set a precedent of going back and changing minutes that have already been improved motions are different right that's allowed by statute let's someone else comment first excuse me does anybody else want to say nobody let's say we've talked many times here at this like more table about doing lessons learned and yet we're not really good about that and one of the lessons that I learned from this vote was not to succumb to the kind of pressure that I think board members face a lot of the time when there's a big push to do something when it came to the local option tax and yes Andy was not here and no Andy did not offer any decisions or input on it when we talked about an executive session I will second that when we talked about this in 2008 I felt very pressured to go along with what staff was pushing and I had constituents who were renting about this will be a problem for IBM has staff looked into this why haven't they looked into it or by staff it was all fine several weeks later this hit the papers and IBM went ballistic so the lesson that I learned from this whole episode was to do my own homework to do my own research and to make sure that if I didn't feel comfortable with something I said no and I wanted to compliment max in public for doing the right thing in this instance and I'm just sorry that he doesn't want his name attached to it again I appreciate you wanting to do that but it's not about me I want to do what's right for the community and transparency and not setting a bad president to go and correct menace that have already been approved okay any anything else okay so we're going to move on the next item then which is a business item 5 I and that's approval of the minutes of December 2nd 2017 with select board corrections do I have a motion I'll make a motion that we approve the minutes from December sorry 15 no oops sorry what's going on December 2nd December 2nd there are too many December 2nd okay let me see actually 15 is no yeah yeah yeah okay December 2nd and December 4th we're going to start with December 2nd okay yes the motion is for December 2nd 2017 okay and these are the ones I think second okay so we have so you made a motion any second thank you okay there's one okay all those in favor of the minutes of December 2nd 2017 uh signify by saying aye okay most passes 5-0 Irene I think you took minutes for this so I want to say thank you welcome okay do I have a motion for approving the December 4th 2017 I will make a motion the minutes for December 4th 2017 with select board notifications thank you second yes okay very good page one I'd like to add something to the line 48 where it says Mr. Levy congratulated Chief LaRose who has served the town of Essex I'd like to add with distinction for 37 years I did say that I'd like to include that if I may Irene Mr. Schiedau provided the following changes rather than additions and then on 23 the addition of a memo and then on line 46 please I'd like to add the date effective January 13th 2018 that was mentioned several times I think that's important I think even the time was mentioned if I recall yeah yeah I didn't go that far okay page two Sue is flowing for all bold I don't know I have no idea why that happened but I have a little change I have no idea just to format English I can't look again there's another point too anything else Sue okay anything else on two page three Irene there are several sections in these minutes where the entire section is bold based and I just wondered if Greg or anybody else knows why this isn't if we could change it okay sorry I have other changes okay Irene let's see which ones are important to actually mention line 100 energy rather than planning for the first word anything else on three page four page five okay sorry Sue page two the word overtime is really okay okay Irene did you have something I have five page five line 245 rather than anything it didn't need things we don't have to is what I said okay okay Sue 228 we have how funds will be used it's my point was supposed to be how funds have been used okay page six page seven Irene on six line 248 please she's delighted she lived to see this day let Irene do another one and then come to you Sue alright I'm on seven 320 are asked to change the name of Columbus to be less offensive Mr. Watts asked about Christmas Day okay Sue so down to bottom 334 and 335 I didn't ask for a list of examples to be added but I asked that a note be made that a list of that it was a list of examples that it was a sample and not a comprehensive list whatever for that note I asked for that note to be applied to the list what line was that 334 335 she also asked that a list of examples be added to the general harassment section but I didn't ask for a list of examples I asked for the note saying that it was simply a list of of examples and not a comprehensive list did you get that Sue so she also asked that note be included I wrote my attempt at was a note be made following the list of examples of sexual harassment conduct that they are a sampling and not a comprehensive list so you're good anything else on seven Colin do you yes we do is it about the minutes a correction yeah just line 45 and this relates to some news that I've been waiting on so I wanted to make sure I didn't miss this part says Pat congratulations on his new position is that what you said or was it on his retirement oh that's a good point this is a position and it's something I've been waiting on and I totally missed that congratulations chief on his retirement yeah thank you Colin well okay I know he's not the top Colin but he has a new position that doing somewhere else oh he's not I thought he got a different job did you hear that that's what Colin is waiting to hear that's his retirement oh hey I good catch Colin hey we know who's that one too okay so we're on seven was there anything else on seven okay page eight ah Sue so on 346 change instead of what it says to say missed the language for new employees to receive training on sexual harassment and suggested yeah the rest of this one you good with that sir Irene on line 338 please the next last word of should be is and then if we could omit is the intent at the next line if it makes sense okay page nine and page ten oh so on nine number 400 the word member there should be business I didn't see any sentence any member line 406 I believe on your copy I had designated on line 263 we should remove the blank and number six that was before a period there was just an odd okay header and then also on line 283 ad quote Mrs. Renner pointed out that Mr. Levy had used the term special tax district she had not end quote that the board had approved that I'm still not clear on that that's why we said I wasn't sure didn't seem the only thing that seemed to prove was Mr. Watts encouraged Mr. Levy to remove right and if you go back to the video take at line 301 25 the marker Mr. Watts makes his proposal and Mrs. Renner says I accept that friendly amendment to my addition and no one said anything and because no one reinforced for me that oh no wait what you said isn't being accepted I said I accept Andy's addition to what I have just said it certainly wasn't clear to me right and it wasn't clear to me until I went back to the video tape to double check so that's why I'm giving you the marker whatever you guys are saying to each other usually it's pretty clear about what you want right and that's why I'm very clear the only clear intention I got was that which is what I included it's nothing personal I really don't have any have any personal art to this I just didn't you guys actually said things pretty quickly I was surprised so I think you have to discuss what you were clear what you really wanted that's why I said that because it had been a few minutes since I made my proposal except what Mr. Ross was saying in addition what I was saying because the controversy was could we say anything about something that we didn't and that's the only reason I approved the minutes was because no one rejected it how I heard it understood anything else on page 10 I do I'm the one who said it these are these are the corrections that we wanted to add for the ones that got rejected the original ones that got rejected then that's fine and then are you good? so everybody go with that just fine just fine ok all those in favor of the minutes of December 4th 2017 with corrections signify by saying hi post ok most passes 5-0 very good on to consent agenda do I have a motion to approve consent agenda so move with select board member comments thank you I mean do I have a second second any comments on consent items ok hearing none then all those in favor of the consent agenda signify by saying hi post most passes 5-0 is there any reason to go into executive session I would entertain a motion to adjourn second ok thank you arene all those in favor of the journey signify by saying hi hi ok we're done 5-0 thank you all that was a record so we're going to be together a lot in January