 recording in progress okay it is 630 so I will call the special meeting of the town of Essex select board for Monday January 30th to order first on the agenda additions and changes one proposed addition from staff it would be a discussion and possible action in response to H 42 in town meeting I would propose that it be the new item 60 this is legislation that was passed late last week Andy Watts suggested that we include it on the agenda and it's basically legislation around COVID in town meeting and open meeting law so it's an opportunity to talk about if you want to do town meeting in person or do it remotely and electronically by Australian ballot this year this is kind of the last chance you'll have to have that discussion unless you want to have a special meeting later on this week so I know it's late notice and it's an action item but that's why it's being proposed to be added to the agenda tonight one proposed addition from staff anything from the board hopefully staff will have a good recommendation make the motion we approve the agenda changes thank you don't thank you Ethan any discussion all those in favor please signify I I was named motion carries for zero of an agenda I missed it but we put it as a business item yeah it'll be 60 and the current 60 will go to 60 next on the agenda is to be heard this portion of the agenda is for items that are not on the agenda it allows us to hear from members of the public a few suggestions highly suggested be civil be brief be respectful and I will start in the room any public comment seeing none yes in zoom if you do go to the bottom you may see more or reactions you can click there and there is an option to raise your hand moving to the zoom meeting Mary post I see that your hand is up hi thank you just something quick please for those of us that haven't gotten our hearing aids yet try to speak up and Ethan I think you have a lot of really good things to say but it's very hard to understand you because you kind of mumble I think and I mean I don't mean that in a bad way but if you guys can try to be a little more you know clear that would be so helpful thanks so much thank you Mary any other public comment from the zoom meeting seeing none we will move on to our public hearings first up is the second public hearing on proposed amendments to the town of Essex charter I'll go ahead and open the public hearing Greg do you want to give some background on how we how we came to this point for those who may be joining us sure first time so the select board back over the summer created a charter review committee to take a look at the town's charter it's something that the public had asked for the select board had talked about over the past year or so and this was an opportunity for a group of residents to come together review the charter and make suggested changes they did that they spent they met weekly I think from September October through November and made a number of recommendations of how to amend the town charter it was quite a bit and more than we could all handle at once so the select board took a look at the recommendations and they settled on going after pursuing five of those recommendations once the select board started taking a look at it and staff weighed in some more the select board has now kind of honed in on those five and has presented some changes to the public that would be put forth to voters in March assuming that you go through the public hearing tonight and decide to put it on the town meeting morning those five things were a reorganization of the charter so no changes to that piece just a different structure of how it's laid out as recommended by the review committee there would be an ability to adopt and enforce ordinances for the purposes of regulating licensing and fixing reasonable and necessary license fees there would be a section to consider adopting an ordinance preventing just for just cause eviction another provision for recall of select board members and lastly the creation of a development review board with the concurrent elimination of a zoning board of adjustment the proposed changes are in the packet happy to discuss any of them I do want to draw your attention to a couple things one is a memo from Catherine Sonic when you were talking about who's our community development director when you were talking about the timetable for shifting from a DRB to a zoning board there's some questions about what staff work will workload looks like and what the timing might include so Catherine put some thoughts together there and secondly chairman Andy Watts could not be here tonight so he submitted some comments about the charter view as well okay being a public hearing being a public hearing I'm gonna move right on to the public to be heard on this agenda item is there actually I'll start on the zoom meeting this time are there any public comments on the proposed charter changes Lorraine's alum I see your hand raised well thank you vice chair I would just like to I'm hope hoping that we continue or when you guys vote tonight that you keep the one year as opposed to a two year for the DRB timeline I'm a resident who lives on route 15 I have noted a significant increase of truck traffic and one of the things that I note is that the Allenbrook development which is largely in Saxon Hill impacts me directly and certainly I'm I live in a close to the price chopper and we're in a high density residential district so not only does it impact me but it impacts a lot of us who live on this road it used to be a small road that you didn't see any cars on you would sit and wait for a car to go by and I looked at the the recent meeting that I think they passed the 30,000 square foot warehouse they don't know what's going in there there was in that memo from the public works they did have concerns about added truck traffic and then I looked up at our state planning in terms of freight routes and handling freight and traffic and how to make us more economically attractive to businesses to come here and one of the things that they recommend certainly is to drive traffic to 117 but the way it is now from Saxon Hill and we keep building it drives traffic down 15 toward the Cirque and I'm concerned that the old the traffic study that's being utilized it looked like it was from 2016 so you know given that seven years ago and a lot of things have changed in terms of climate and our understanding and what we need to do I think the DRB is needed sooner rather than later so that we can actually focus a lot more on planning and the impacts on our community instead of just moving forward with some of the plans that came beforehand so I'd really appreciate if there was a robust discussion about it and that we stick to that one year commitment we've been talking about it for years it's not like we didn't know we want to move toward it I saw that the city also switched to DRB and it looked like their transition wasn't that difficult and that's someone certainly that our staff could ask for recommendations and how they did it what the issues were and how to make it a smooth transition thanks and Lorraine if I may I neglected to ask but for tonight's public hearing I would appreciate if all speakers could not only say their name but where they live for the record my name is Lorraine's loom I think I said I live on center road right down by price chopper so yeah I'm right on route 15 people thank you Lorraine Bruce post yeah I Bruce post one Cindy Lane here in Essex Mary lives at the same place I do coincidentally but anyways I was a member of the charter review committee we did put in a lot of work we did come up with a lot of ideas maybe too big a loaf but you've little it down to some important things I am interested in the DRB I was a select board member from 2009 to 2012 so I'm a little disappointed in Andy's comments and his letter that this sort of dropped from the heavens as a result of the charter committee coming up with the idea well I talked about it when I was on the select board net period other people have done it there's always been tremendous resistance particularly from the developer community who like things the way it is right now so I would hasten the creation of the DRB is as much as possible I don't know if I'll hang around for your discussion later I did I remember Ethan talking about having a date of no later than a date then I think this January 1st 2025 which wouldn't be quite two years but it gives you a little bit of time I think if you we pass this provision this March it'll be a pretty good indication to the legislature that there's a lot of support and should be an indication to the town staff that there's a lot of support in the community and we can move on with that and I know it'll take some adjustments when I was on the select board I always heard how hard it was to get things done because the staff was asked to do too much so it's a refrain I've heard before and I I appreciate all the work the staff does but if the people decide they want to do this it needs to be done and go ahead so thanks a lot. Thank you Bruce. To clarify for those who may just be joining us this is the public hearing on all proposed amendments to the town charter that are included in the packet. Are there any comments in the room? Margaret. Thank you sorry took me so long to get up here. Margaret Smith I live on Alder Lane and I was also on the Charter Committee and I looked today briefly at the Essex City Charter and they got their charter passed and it included a Planning Commission and a Development Review Board they did it in less than a year so I don't understand why we need to take two years or three years or even a year and a half so it's in their current charter and it passed the legislature so it's page 17 of the Essex City Charter that has the Planning Commission and the Development Review Board so sooner rather than later and somebody else mentioned that if the our zoning Planning Commission split they would have half as much work to do so they can get through their agenda as much faster. Thank you. You need an address? Oh she said Alder Lane. Not an address just road is fine. I was writing them down for you and I didn't hear what she said so I'm sorry. I'm playing a little bit of hopscotch here I do see Brad your hand is up. Hi Brad Kennison Bixby Hill wrote I've addressed the select board a number of times and written the select board a number of times on changes to the recall language but I was told on when I was presenting on the third January to the select board I was told by Andy Watts that the select board was not going to change even though it was a public hearing a public meeting and asked for input from the public Andy said that they weren't going to change the select board was not going to change the language. Is that the case? Have you considered any other changes to the recall language? This is the public hearing we do have a business item to consider adopting amendments to the town charter which gives us the opportunity to discuss and potentially rework language. Okay. Should I wait till then? This is the public hearing the business item is essentially bringing the conversation back to the board for discussion we could take public as we go on changes however it would have to be something different than we would hear in the public hearing which we'll see when we get there. I would take this opportunity to say what you have to say and give your feedback. Well I've written and I've spoken numerous times and made suggestions to the language and all I've heard from Andy is we're not going to change the language. And that was in the January 3rd meeting. So I'm just asking if that's the case. And if it is I would recommend not putting that on the ballot because it is so strongly in favor of the select board and there's virtually no chance it would be successful. A petition would be successful by voters. So anyway that's my comment. Thank you. Thank you. Any other public comments on for the public hearing for proposed charter changes in the room online? If there's no other public comment I'd just like to respond to some of the questions about the timeline for the DRB. Sure. And believe me I hear the desire to move to a DRB. Catherine and I were actually two of the people who suggested we take a look at that in the charter. It will take time. And I know that Essex Junction has done it more quickly. They have a different staffing structure than us. They have different set up than we do. It might very well be possible to do it in a year. But if you say it has to happen in a year it has to happen in a year. And that's in a year when Catherine and her team and the planning commission are rewriting the town plan. That's a major requirement that we have to do every eight years. They're in the thick of that right now. She's also in Catherine and the Comdev team are looking at going after state designations and preparing that piece. That's a large lift to do as well in the next year to be ready for that. It gives a town opportunity to pursue more grant funding and help with development in the town center and other areas where we want to see development. They have a normal caseload of development for the town. They have a lot of work to do. They have a lot of work to do. They have a lot of work to do to work through questions about which staff person would be providing support to which board, which committee. Catherine's memo lays it out in a lot more detail. A lot of the other stuff that she has going on. I'm sure she can speak to it if you have questions. So just my plug of we're not saying no, we're just asking that it not have to be done within a year because that gets into the next year. I just want to put in that last pitch. Thank you. Public hearing comments going once. This should be clear. It says one year from the passage of Google and Montpelier. We don't even know if they're going to look at it this year. Correct. So you could actually have more time than a year. You might. My other thing is that in 1994, according to BLCT, Vermont legislature recommended DRBs for all towns. And we are in 2023 in Essex, one of the largest towns of Vermont. We don't have one. That's why we're looking at this. I do understand what you're saying. It's just a matter of redirect. Yes. I was just going to. We can talk about this in business items. No, it's fine. Thank you, Ethan. Essex Charter proposed amendments. If you would like to comment, please get your hand up. Seeing no hands, I am going to close the public hearing on proposed amendments to the town of Essex Charter. And now open the public hearing on the fiscal year 2024 municipal budget. If you would like to comment on the budget as part of the public hearing, please raise your hand. If you are in the room, if you are online, again, that option can be found under reactions in the Zoom meeting. And you should see a raise hand button. Any comments as part of the public hearing on the fiscal 24 municipal budget? Seeing none. Anything to add? No, if there's any questions, I'm happy to answer them. I think we've talked about it a budget number of times over the past few months. I can give an overview if anyone's interested, but it would be rehashing what we've said before. And if there's no public comments, I guess I don't need to. Again, any comment for the public hearing on the fiscal year 2024 municipal budget? That's just time I make the motion. We close the hearing. On the municipal budget. On the municipal budget. Okay. I know we didn't do that on the first one, but we did last time. Okay, there's a motion on the floor. It has been seconded. Any discussion? All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Opposed? Motion carries 4-0. The public hearing on the fiscal year 2024 municipal budget is closed. Moving along, we have a public hearing on the fiscal year 2024 capital budget and five-year plan. I will go ahead and open the public hearing on that topic. Any comment from those in the room? I just want to draw your attention to something in this one. Again, we've been talking about the capital budget and plan for past few meetings. We did make the motion last time. As Dan's gotten, finance director Dan Roy has gotten deeper into the audit, he's basically just catching up the balances. The main difference, main change is that the fiscal year 2022 ending balance was not what we proposed before. It's about 300,000 dollars. Come on up. Functionary short, as Dan comes up, he found some areas where he could basically get accounting more accurate so that number has been adjusted. It doesn't affect the allocation of the two cents that's being proposed, but it's just a better accounting of where we are right now. That's correct. Good evening. Our fiscal year 23 that's in front of you is like a rolling fund balance from fiscal year 22. Fiscal year 24 budget hasn't changed from what you've seen before. It's really just a matter of updating the fiscal year 22 number to match the audit report that's been completed. That's caused a reduction of about 280,000 in capital project assets. It's catching up numbers. These numbers for the fiscal year 22 capital budget were originally created in the spring of 20. So every cycle we need to update the actual numbers and it allows everything to flow through the current numbers and where we project the land in 23 and 24. Thank you. Looking for comment on public hearing for the fiscal year 2024 capital budget and five-year plan in the room. I don't see any hands online. As such, I will go ahead and close the public hearing on the fiscal year 2024 capital budget and five-year plan. I just closed it. All right. And moving along to business items 6a, consider adopting amendments to the town of Essex Charter. Do we want to walk through these individually for discussion? What is the board's pleasure? Let's see if we can just talk about what's on your mind. I'm sure there's only one thing. Ethan, what's on your mind? I'm okay. I'll start. Since I've known that made the recommendation originally, I would like to talk with Catherine on what it's going to entail and if we can have an idea of one year from passage or one of the other things I said was January 2025, but if that happens January 2025, it doesn't get taken up this legislative session and we focus on the town plan and it gets taken up the next legislative legislative session, then you have about six months to make it happen rather than 18 months. So those are my only concerns. I definitely wouldn't be in favor of two years from passage because that could be 2026 or later. I think that was the main key was in the wording it was from passage. I have a question in that is there anything that staff can do prior to that legislature approval assuming that it was past that town meeting could staff get say a good portion of the preparation to go to a DRB done before the legislature gave a formal approval and then still have a year to finish it up for the speak? Yeah, we would start working on it. I think we've already started to give it some thought. Catherine and I and what it might look like and how it might happen and yeah, I think it's passed by the voters. We would ramp that up. It's just a question of timing and what other work takes a back seat or doesn't get done or has to get done at the same time and being able to focus attention in certain areas. So we would start working on it. It's really what else comes off the plate or gets pushed aside for the time being. I share the concern that a legislature passes it whenever and you have one year that happens in two months after town meeting. That's a short timeline but if they didn't get to it until next year as you say and then they passed it and you had a year if you had actually the two years of that time frame to do it. I'm inclined to pick a date and I don't know it's tough to predict what the legislature is going to do. Our local reps, Essex reps to the state house have paying attention to the charter. I've had conversations with them. They'll be supportive and help shepherd through whatever gets passed by voters. You know, I think something like transitioning to do a DRB I don't think that's going to be controversial as Don said it states recommended that towns go to that model. So I don't think that would be one that gets hung up for any unforeseen reason. There's other stuff that I think it's a lot of other towns have some of these things in place anyway so it may not be big challenges or big concerns but again it's tough to predict what the legislature will do and what time frame they'll act, questions they might have. But I don't see a DRB being a controversial thing for the legislature to approve. The other thing to keep in mind is they're not going to approve the entire charter until if all three items are approved by the voter. They're not going to approve the charter until they have discussions with the committees on all three charter changes. They're not going to approve the first charter change for the DRB and it's going to be in effect immediately. They're going to review the whole charter at once and then it'll come out at once. Say they pick it up in the fall session and they get two things done or one thing done. Say we're lucky. You're still talking winter, the first of the year, next year when they would come in session again a year from then is January 1st, 2025. So the likelihood of it being required let's just say it's approved by July or September. It still gives you July of 2024. It's a year in six months. It's 18 months. It's already almost two years. If we started working on it right now, we're going to have the vote if the town approves it and let's say you minus two months. You have 16 months from town approval to prepare yourself. And that was, you know, my question what is the workload? Like is there severe changes that need to be done in the town? Like do we have a timeline on staff's time on what it's actually going to take to complete the task? That would be my question. I'm happy to hear from Catherine. Thank you. So Greg and I have started talking somewhat about the change and what it could look like. We haven't sat down to think through how many hours. You know, the that level of detail. I think one of the things that concerns me most until we have this figured out is there our number of staff we have we might need another staff person if we're doing a lot more planning then we might need two planners. Development review it takes a lot of time as well. So our current planner does that but right now he's doing a lot of the development review process and looking at other towns that are really similar size to ours they have more staff than we do. I think I put that in the memo. So there's just things like that that I feel like we need to really sit down, figure out the structure, our process you know, that's aside from our just our normal workload which is pretty heavy right now and I'm relatively new and our planner is pretty much brand new so he's got a big learning curve. So we're not really fully up and running right now I'd say we will be it just takes a little time I think we're just going through a transition period a little bit as we get our feet under us. I would just appreciate considering a little flexibility again as Greg said I'm not opposed to this change it was our recommendation to staff to consider it so yeah I'm happy with that prospect I just that the timing is all and ideally I would want to do it as quickly as we could I wouldn't I'm not saying it will be two years from the data passage but just give us the flexibility or two years. Any other comments? Can I just ask excuse me I think the air conditioning just came on here or something I feel cold air blowing on my ass sorry. There's a little bit over here just what we need right now. Sorry guys I think they're going to chatter you in a minute sorry thank you Greg. Can I ask you a question? Absolutely. Do you think that it's achievable by 2025? I think we could make anything work if we have to. Do you mean like January 1st or that makes me feel more comfortable than saying like July 1st or just the year from I was under the impression that the charter would be approved this session. If not then is it the next session or is there like a fall there's not a fall session. It would either need to be this session or since this is the first year of the biennium it could be brought up next year starting December of 2023. So it could be passage effective date of July 1, 2024 if the legislature doesn't take it up this session. Thank you for having this conversation and for hearing us out and to be clear whatever direction you all decide and give us will go and we'll get it done it's a question of can we do it all at once and if we have to do the town plan that's a statutory requirement it has to get done. Development review has to get done within a certain timeline so it's stuff like going after the village designation or the growth center designation, some of the planning efforts, grant efforts, some of stuff, those types of things what might get pushed aside. They may not but they might be if we're required to do the DRV transition within a shorter timeframe. So that's kind of what we're trying to relay and just hopefully making that clear that we'll go the direction you take it's just what else might not get done in that direction. I do have a question are there resources through CCRPC that could advise and assist with either some of the work that's already on the plate or this transition? I would think so. We might have to pay for it. We get a certain amount of time of their time as a part of our work with them or their work with us. Yeah, I ask that question. Last time I asked for some help from them, they said they were really busy but if we're willing to pay them I'm speechless. Can you guarantee that it would not be passed in this session? Yeah. I'm very inclined to listen to staff. Your town plan especially with your transition is extremely important. Your growth designation centers and all of that. You have new staff in some cases. We've done just fine with the way we've been for quite some time. I don't think it's unreasonable to have a two-year plan. You can always transition part way through or make changes. You know it's a priority, especially if the people vote for it. I just think you need more time. I put a lot of stock in the staff. There's a lot that the planners have to do. New Town of Essex. That would be my suggestion. Can you clarify if you're talking two years after passage or two years after passage? It doesn't mean that they have to take the full two years after the passage. It also doesn't require that they go any quicker. Especially if you can work towards that without the legislation's approval. I just think that I agree with what Greg says that you put a timeline on it. You've got to shuffle everything to do that. Supposing they did do it this spring. What are you going to do? Plus you've got to hire potentially more staff when you go to a DRB. I think a lot of that should be fleshed out before we push to her. Thank you. I'm sticking to my one-year approval because I stay before I need to make sure this doesn't get lost in the weeds somewhere. When does the session end this year? I said it could be April, May, or June. It depends on their budget discussion and how long it goes. There's no set. They usually say around May 15th, but very rarely do they ever hit their date. So when did you compromise the six months? What do you mean? I'm just thinking if I should say that they didn't pick it up until July or June. They won't take it after they adjourn. But let's just say they go away and don't have the budgets going, but I know it's right here in the radio. Anyway, I just wondered if you'd be okay with 2511 for compromise. So I think Ethan's asking if the board would consider 18 months as opposed to two years. I know me either, but hmm. It just frustrates me because we push stuff off so much. I would be willing to compromise for January 1st, May 5th, but no later. In that case I make the motion that we approve the change to the DRB upon passage and implemented by January 1st, 2025. There is a motion on the floor. Is there a second? Seconded by Don. Thank you, Ethan. Thank you, Don. Is there any discussion on the 18 month timeframe? I just think that's too too many unknowns. Since we are updating language to something different than what was in the packet, I would like to move to public comment at this time on the starter proposal including the 18 month amendment. I'll start online, Patty. I've seen that your hand has been up for a while. I'm sorry. I'm late to the meeting. My brother just had a retinal detachment and my background is ophthalmology, so I had to deal with it. So, I'm sorry I'm late. I just wanted to throw an idea. But we are asking folks to give their name and where they live. Oh, yeah. I'm sorry. Oh, yeah. Patty Davis, nine hillside circle in Essex. Thank you. Go ahead. Okay. I was just throwing this out as an idea because I've been looking at other towns Colchester, South Burlington and I'm only speaking as a resident on hillside circle. Nothing else just as a resident who lives here because I don't like the trucks either on route 15 and I don't want any more of them. But my suggestion is because the workload is so much for the existing planning commission and DRB, what if I'm throwing this out there, we have a way to stop to stop what is in the pipeline midstream coming through the approval process that normally a DRB would do so that we could just focus on everything that we have to deal with the town plan and all that because that's planning and that's what we are planning commission and I know a lot of us individually are offering to be on committees even help out at the town office whatever it takes to help I would much rather have that thing have the existing applications stop midstream because it's our town say let's just stop it and deal with everything we have to deal with because we have the town plan and then when we're done with that then deal with DRB applications because it would give I would think it would give the zoning administrator and the zoning board time to transition to be doing what a DRB does because we will have stopped midstream all these applications coming through that I think the public should be more involved with by the way that's my personal opinion me being a resident on hillside so that's all that was my comment sorry I'm late thank you for the comment patty I'll take a moment to comment that I don't think statutorily that we can just say hey we're halting reviews in application processes and we can't change the pipelines as far as which board reviews which items until it's in our charter and the legislature essentially gives us the authority to have a DRB model is that correct? well yeah but two years is a long time to wait so there is such a thing as interim zoning that could be put into place but that wouldn't catch anything that's midstream that would be new development so there would have to be some really specific language about why it's being stopped rather than just stopping which also then places more work on planning and zoning his select board would be reviewing application correct thank you Catherine Bruce post you're up next yeah just quickly on the motion before us I wouldn't put 18 months in there from passage because you don't necessarily know in passage on passage or no later than the date you suggested Ethan works fine I appreciate dawns interest in getting this done I've been waiting a long time when the people of Israel were exiled in the desert they had a saying next year Jerusalem well next year DRB has been around a long time and I've also worked at staff levels I've directed staff things can get done and I think the compromise that Ethan has suggested is eminently doable and there would be a definite message coming in March if the town voters approve this and don't forget too a resident of town of Essex sits on the senate government ops committee Tonya Wachowski does if you haven't been talking to her you should because you know once that the separation charter passed the house it went through the senate pretty darn quickly and so you have to get that I guess the traction has to start first in house gov ops and you can do that so I support what Ethan's trying to do I don't think the 18 month thing would necessarily fit in there but the no later than date certainly would thank you very much appreciate your consideration Thank you Bruce and I will take this moment to apologize I did say 18 months but the motion is actually to have a DRB implemented by January 1st 2025 so it's not number of months it is a date specific Ken Signorello Thank you Ken Signorello I'll offer you a suggestion that I think might work a little bit smoother first it's nice to sync these things up with our fiscal year so typically these things would pass somewhere between January and May or so so I would suggest that you adjust it a little bit so that the wording would be that you would use the fiscal year following the implementation as your transition period would be in effect the beginning of that next fiscal year so if it was to pass this legislature in let's say January you would function right through the end of that fiscal year the next fiscal year is your transition year got a whole year to do it as much as six additional months and then the following fiscal year when all the terms expire on both well some terms expire on both board the zoning and the planning commission would be a little bit smoother transition I think it would be approximately 18 months it might be a little bit more it might be a little bit less but it would coincide with the fiscal year that is my suggestion you can amend that motion to do that if you think it's a good idea thank you Thank you Ken Lorraine Zaloon Lorraine Zaloon sent a road ethics just one comment I think it was Kendall who said our current PC DBA has been working just fine from where I stand it has not and certainly could cite a number of examples that have had serious implications and impacts on our town so I'm not sure why he thinks it's working okay but it's not and it has not been for a while and a number of us have been waiting for a DBA and it was certainly discussed a number of times in the merger what we were voting on the charter amendment and so I'm not sure where that comes from thanks Any other public discussion public comment on the proposed amendment in front of us the proposed motion in front of us not seeing any new hands online any in the room back to the board want to discuss further do you just want to throw it to a vote I'd like to know where the evidence is that it's not functioning I'm not aware of that I haven't been aware of it is that a true statement I'm going to say that that's not germane to the motion in front of us and we can have a follow-up conversation on a future select board agenda for that I don't know so we have a motion in front of us to approve adopt institute to transition by after approval by the Vermont legislature because if they don't approve it we can't transition the board can have it with an ordinance but it's not on the charter we wanted to go this way I just saw we had it in there I think it has to be on a charter I think the charter has to if they don't approve it we're still going to have a planning commission in our charter I don't know if it needs to have it it's in this motion in the packet as you'd have it in place by the DRB would be in place by January 25 upon approval by the Vermont state of that so we're just taking one and two and replacing within one year of passage by January 1st, 2020 correct is everybody clear on the motion okay all those in favor of the motion please signify by saying aye aye all those opposed aye motion carries 3 to 1 thank you thank you Catherine okay going back we still have the reorganization the fees just cause eviction and recall I will take up the recall I thought that Brad's email and the one darkened change that he put in the wording there was very good and it did address some of his concerns that he had with the recall provisions in his email I don't have it right here but I don't want to Greg and Andy I remember receiving it but I'm going to have to track it down to remember exactly what it was what was the difference Kendall between what was proposed and what he's proposing he clarified how many voters it would take to have an effective recall based on current numbers of registered voters I believe well he's online I would ask Brad if he could clarify that particular particular he could say he would speak to that when it came up again I'd be happy to do that if you'd like so this was the email I think January 19th yes it would replace he literally changed one sentence at least one third so it removes the one third so currently it says at least one third of the registered voters of the town in addition to when more votes are cast we need to jump between windows so essentially the change would be more votes need to be cast for recall than the number of votes in the election when the person originally won the election and of that only a majority need to vote for removal Brad does that sum it up yes it does I guess I know you're asking for one third plus more is that what you're asking for the current language the current language says the voter in election within the officer was elected or at least one third of the registered voters of the town vote whichever is greater and the majority of that number must vote for removal I guess I'm right so if one third of the voters didn't vote in the initial election one third of the voters would need to one third of the registered voters would need to vote in the recall or to be successful in the proposal that's in the packet I'm a little slow here I'm sorry so if 500 people voted well whatever many I don't know they have 10,000 registered voters in 3,000 vote so what are you asking of those 3,000 voters they just have to show up to vote they just have to show up to vote to recall whether yes or no it doesn't you're just looking for a certain percentage and then of those a majority would have to vote for the recall in favor of recall however on the flip side if in the initial election you had 5,000 registered voters voting you would have to have more than 5,000 vote in the recall election and that's what Brad's looking for that's what this that's what the as many as who voted in the original I have a problem with changing that then I guess I don't I guess I don't interpret it the same way it says I was wondering I didn't shall be removed only if at least as many registered voters of the town vote as voted in the election where the officer was elected and it says or at least one third of the registered voters of the town which is the town as a whole yep and then it says and a majority of that number vote for removal right so whichever so if you have 2000 people vote to make the numbers easy let's say 9,000 voters you have 2,000 voters vote in the initial election the recall you would have to have at least 3,000 voters because that's greater than the third is greater than the initial election turn out I could see changing that but I would leave it worded so that way it says that the same amount have to come out as voted in the election where in the officer was elected because if let's just say 2,000 people come out and vote somebody in and then 2,000 people come out again then you have the same turnout but if you don't have that number set for one third or a number set 800 people could come out and remove the person from office after 2,000 people elected them and I think that's what the one third is there to protect against is that if you only need 50% if it's a close election to begin with you only need a couple of people to swing the other way essentially I don't think that that wording represents the majority of the town for those who vote if it was that big of a deal how hard would it be to get 3,000 people to come out to vote that's just it because otherwise you could recall every person that won an election for the person that you didn't wish to see on the board and have whoever you could get out there to I understand I mean he had it on C and his email he had it worded very simply that the select board member shall be removed when more votes are cast for recall than the number of votes the person originally won by when elected and the majority of that number vote for removal seems pretty fair you're saying that 500 people vote 501 people come out that's okay that what you're saying and if that's more votes than you got when you were elected why wouldn't it be well it doesn't it doesn't speak to those who voted in favor of you it's only how many people turned out period right total number of votes cast that makes a big difference and Dawn on your point the initial recommendation from the charter committee was for the BCA to be involved to verify whether it was a valid reason that's now not in there so someone can bring forward a petition for any reason there's no wording in there anymore all the wording was removed for reasoning so yeah I mean but again if it's egregious enough right everybody's gonna know about it yeah I mean I would think so I mean it's important that if that comes up that you don't set the bar so high that people are discouraged from even trying it 33% turnout thoughts would anyone like to make a motion or should we keep moving on our discussion we need to make a decision yeah I mean I guess I just want to understand better are we worried about the number of people that are going to vote that and making it so difficult that even if you wanted to remove somebody there the bar was so high and so difficult petition wise and everything to get enough people to do it that has happened in a couple of towns you know I mean this is the petition the petition is the petition to file a petition in Essex period it's not just the recall of select board members it's how you get a petition passed in Essex many people have done it I understand the turnout part if it's about the petition I don't see any change or it's turnout I mean I guess from somebody who was elected last year and didn't see 3,000 votes I don't know if it would be 3,000 votes from the entire voting process not just who voted for you one third of an entire number who are eligible to vote or registered to vote yeah I don't see too much of a problem with it but I also be willing to go to a fifth if it made anybody feel better that's 2,000 votes so I wouldn't go any forward than that I mean you go to 500 and you can be thrown off the board for being Ethan Lawrence you know what I mean though and how I look at this is that recall would essentially be undoing the will of the voters when that member was elected and that is from my point of view not something to take lightly and that's why it's worded in there that says the same amount of voters or the one third and if we think the one third's too high that's a different discussion I mean I'm okay with that if that was to be lowered to 2,000 or to I mean whatever anybody thought it should be but the wording that really is strong in there is that the same people who voted because if you have two different groups of people vote I mean that was one of Brad's points about the challenge voters but I mean anybody can vote at any time you could have 1,500 people show up and vote and then you could have 4,000 people come out if there's a serious issue where there's like a member needs to be recalled I guarantee the number of people who vote in the recall is going to be higher than the original election especially when there's when there's a good reason and it's gone to the BCA and it's in the newspaper and you know there's a real reason to recall somebody I mean how many times it's happened once in Vermont right or has it ever happened in Vermont it has happened in Underhill two years ago I think right Ethan what are you saying you want to leave it this way or you want to change the number that's just my question is that going to make things easier have the number lower if not I'm okay with the way it's written I mean the petition question was really what I was thrown off by because that's our general practice for the entire petition most petitions require 5% this requires 15 what's that higher threshold higher bar that Tracy was talking about so that is different yes but there is no going to the BCA validate whether it's a valid reason it would just go to the town clerks to verify the signatures and then come to us and then we have to warn it alright let's see really quickly I don't know what page the petition is in the new charter I don't think that the actual petition would apply or are you just looking up to I just wanted to see what it was for comparison really quick recall was never in our original yeah I know but isn't petition in the charter I believe it is I believe it usually refers to the statute which is 5% I think if it specifies that anywhere in the charter I thought I remembered seeing it but could be wrong there's a section under rescission of ordinances petition signed by voters of the town the number not less than 5% of the qualified voters of the municipality what section was that the old section was real or I haven't found the new section yet I didn't find the new one either so Ethan you're asking for the 15 to be changed to 5 well I mean that's just a previous conversation I guess I know I've only had so many conversations that I forgot that we had changed because they took out the language for grounds for removal and the verification for the BCA so that's why we compromised that 15% because we had no stipulation you could get the voters in support then you had your case there was no case to prove anybody other than the voters and I think that's where we decided when we I don't remember if it was unanimous or not but I know we got to the 15% because we had removed the other language so Greg said it's 117304 in the current charter and that speaks to ordinances I believe state statute for petitions for charter changes or other items that require petition I believe it's 5% of registered voters is the standard and it was in there as 44 days and I think we went to 60 60 days so that's one of the other things that we well and also keep in mind since it is on all of our minds that if we lower that threshold to 5% we have to warn a special meeting which is going to increase the cost of elections again speaking to and staff time there's no support for it's fine it just feels weird to be deciding something that affection so to speak you know and that's initially why this is one item that we asked the charter committee to look into so we weren't right that we had something to react to not us crafting language that directly would impact any one of us so I make the motion that we leave the recall provision as proposed so thank you Don thank you Ethan any last discussion saying no just for clarification around the motion to adopt the recall provision as proposed with no changes getting that adoption piece in this is what's going to go on to the ballot the ballot yes thank you your motion is to adopt it as presented second you have a motion and a second all those in favor please signify by saying aye opposed motion carries for zero the motion we just cause eviction just the way it's proposed do you want to say adopt it adopt just cause eviction as proposed thank you Don I heard a second from Ethan if that's not the case please correct me not hearing any correction any discussion on just cause eviction seeing none all those in favor please signify by saying aye nay say nay hearing none motion carries for zero thank you now I'm lost as to what I'm where I am here go ahead Ethan it's your turn I'll make the motion that we approve that we adopt thanks Don we adopt the license fees as written and proposed thank you Ethan do we have a second second thank you Kendall any discussion seeing none all those in favor please signify by saying aye aye nay say nay hearing none motion carries for zero and that leaves us to the reorganization proposed charter amendments make the motion that we adopt the proposed reorganization charter amendments thank you Ethan is there a second thank you Kendall any further discussion on that seeing none all those in favor please signify by saying aye aye and any nays say no motion carries for zero that brings us to the end of our business item for consider adopting amendments to the town of Essex Charter which brings us to consider approval of fiscal year 2024 municipal budget Dan would you like to join us or you can stay seated if there's no questions we have discussed this I think at every meeting since November we have had multiple coffee chats on the budget around town this is our second public hearing that we had earlier this evening on the fiscal 24 budget any changes or updates that you have for us no there are no changes or updates okay so I just want to make sure you have the amount correct so we're looking at $15,401,152 that's the proposed any discussion so I'll speak up again I've said it a number of times I had a chance I went through the capital budget pretty extensively there's $60 million worth of capital projects and you've got $3 million in your account the fund balance that you're applying for the budget this year about $600,000 you did $400,000 last year and I know last year's budget you added per diem firefighters and a couple other items that were covered by the fund balance so this year we went up to 22% when a number of residents expected it to be higher and I did expect it to be higher because I really thought that this year with Essex starting new that we would stop the subsidies stop and give a transparent budget that funds everything that the town of Essex is doing we're not doing that we're using our savings and half of that saving 41% of that savings that you're putting towards it came from the city that we no longer have access to so I just philosophically I have a problem with not fully funding the budget when we know that we need that money to run the town that you can't find $600,000 more savings and you know that you're going to have to find $600,000 more of revenue probably tax revenue from the folks going ahead so I just wanted to point that out it's not a popular position to be but I would have much rather seen a budget at 28 or 29% that was fully funded so that the town's folks would have the opportunity to see what it cost you to run your town so the tour that I took on Friday was very eye-opening I would encourage every town resident to take advantage of that as well there are a number of capital projects in a town that have obviously been put off and the town is just spending capital as they have it they're not planning for the capital that they need currently that's my opinion I just wanted to make that clear so I may be the only one that ever votes for a budget or won't vote for a budget because it's too low I think next year you're going to be in 10-15% range again that's what you're looking at again I think it should be out there publicly that's all thank you Kendall, any other board comments? what's your pleasure? I make the motion that we adopt the physical year budget in the amount of $15,401,152 a motion we have a second was that worded appropriately for you? okay motion second are you ready to vote? all those in favor please signify by saying aye aye all those opposed? nay motion carries 3-0 thank you moving along our next business item 2020-24 capital budget and 5-year plan Greg, just to clarify this is not something that the capital plan will not be on the budget but the select board does need to adopt it correct, so you adopt the capital budget and 5-year plan that goes into the annual report people can see what it is and where the 2 cents on the capital tax are going but because we have that 2 cents on the capital tax that is fixed, that's what is there it's like preview for an item later on on the agenda is there's a question about whether or not to increase that 2 cents and increase the capital tax but for what you're voting on and what you're approving right now that's the capital budget and 5-year plan based on the 2 cents okay and we did have this we had a second public hearing this evening on this same topic where is it where is it in the packet because right after the budget it goes to the I don't know if that's the noise of public hearings underneath that keep going and it goes general budget way down mm-hmm after general budget should be capital I think you're still in the public hearing section charter, does this need an amount or just approve it just approve it yeah that's why I was looking to have a question 32,000 because as I mentioned in a previous meeting that I could have my saying it after the public hearings I'd like to increase the capital budget this year to that that it was last year I'm the capital not how we were told that we could do it well so there's a couple ways you could increase the operating budget but you just approve that you increase operating transfers into capital we've already assigned $200,000 of fiscal year 22 fund balance towards undesignated capital alright so that's how you did it and that's already in there that's part of that so we're good at the 5.2 then just in different folders you did that 322 is coming from LTAP and then the 200 on assigned capital perfect I just want to make sure we were at the number we were at last year I think we had this conversation this week too you got me thank you I can't find it in here and I'm like I don't know what number we're at because I had those conversations I think it is important too just to be transparent to the town that we are we did make the changes to fund the capital plan as we did last year so yeah so the 5.22 is inclusive of the $200,000 transfer and perfect I appreciate that so I make the motion with the select board adopt the fiscal year 2024 capital budget in five-year point thank you Don is there a second discussion or are we ready for the question when will there be an opportunity to increase the capital I think that's when we get to now item 6E on the agenda what's that I would just like a little more information on why 3 million in capital is sufficient when you have 60 million plus of capital projects that you need is there a reason behind that yeah I'll take a shot at it and I'll look to Dan and Aaron and Catherine if they want to add anything after that but that capital that 60 million is every project that we've identified over the next five years and in some cases beyond so we're trying to fund it along the way as we go that's some of the capital tax generates about $320,000 with the new town of Essex tax base operating transfers do you remember what it was this year for operating from capital I don't recall but there's another good chunk of money that comes in from the operating transfer that goes towards capital yeah that sounds about right and that is kind of a rolling thing so every year we'll have new vehicles that come off the capital budget because we pay for them we have parks equipment that buy new parks that comes off the capital budget so it's not the $60 million is a combined total over a number of years it's not that we need to have that $60 million this year or next year I hope that answers it and also some of that is going to be for large storm water projects other projects that involve grant opportunities that could be 80, 20 that's 90, 10% so we won't be sole sourcing the $60 million but it will be funded through grants and other and that's a really piece that Dan mentioned just to reiterate the grants we do a lot Aaron and his team do a lot Catherine as well to go after grant opportunities and to make sure that it's not just the town of Essex tax dollars paying for capital we try to find other opportunities to supplement our own assets and that is part of my concern is that having that available in the capital for those grant matches is very important and I just noticed looking through the capital budget parks and recs is funded pretty well I mean they've got in their capital section they've got enough money to cover what they have for capital there when you look at like your buildings and especially public works and things like that they're substantially lower than their assets so and when you go around through the town you can see that some of these capital projects have been put off probably because of funding I just would urge looking at that and put in the money there you get your biggest bang for your buck on those long term purchases and so any further discussion or are we ready for the question everybody clear on the motion I do have one so if we if they don't approve more than the current two cents capital you won't be able to fund it at the current level we would assign we've assigned proposed how to assign the two cents which is $322,000 part of what we've talked about wanting to do over the next year is to really build out that five year plan to really figure out does it make sense to stick with the 12 year vehicle replacement schedule or is it going to save us money in the long run to go to a 10 year or an eight year replacement cycle to really get into Aaron Stinson work with our stormwater infrastructure that started to fail and in some cases are we setting aside enough for that we really want to spend the next year figuring out is that 60 million is that accurate is it too much is it not enough what other things are out there and then we'll come back again next year and say here's what we think it should be whether that's operating transfers or capital tax we're going to build that case and make that argument a year from now where we are and if we have enough or if we don't they're enough I just I want to be the one that squawks about it because a lot of places they have a capital plan and they do it every year stuff but they just don't provide the funding to do what you know you need for the capital and just like the C Essex funded the way it needs to be funded the motion in front of us is to approve the fiscal 2024 capital budget in five year plan everybody ready for the question mm-hmm those in favor please signify by saying aye aye all those opposed nay motion carries for zero and in looking back at my notes here I had written down 3-0 for the voting on the budget I do just want to point out that it was 3-1 and that did ass so I apologize if that was a mistake or if I just wrote it incorrectly which is a possibility so at this point we're going to move to agenda item 6d which is the memo on each 42 that Greg handed out Greg do you want to speak to this so last week on January 25 the governor signed legislation called H42 it relates to annual town meeting and meeting law it's um it's legislation that's tied to COVID and the fact that COVID is still present in our lives and it's giving legislative bodies and towns the opportunity to be cautious to avoid meeting in person to avoid having large gatherings so there's a few things that are in H42 you can postpone the date of town meeting you could also decide to do Australian ballot for all items which is what we've done the past couple of years and if you do that you would do the informational hearing that's required you would do that online as well which is again what we've done the past couple of years it's like I said it came up late last week so that's why we haven't discussed it before the impression I was getting from the board was that you were comfortable moving ahead with back to in person town meeting so we've already made steps to do that and to reserve some space up at the Essex cinemas but did want to bring this up Andy Watts caught it and asked it to be added to the agenda so do you think it's worth a discussion and just acknowledging that it's out there and that the opportunity exists if you want to be cautious I don't want to make any judgments or preconceived notions as to how people feel about COVID these days so chance to talk about if you want to do anything about age 42 or proceed as you've discussed about moving back to the in person town meeting the only other thing I'll put in there is we've talked about and this will be on your next item you would want to include an item on town meeting to move to move all future business to Australian ballot if you do that that has to be a forevote it's still my understanding so if you do all Australian ballot voting in this case allowed under age 42 that question would not be allowed you'd have to wait until another year or two until you go back to in person town meeting so with that caveat I'll turn it over and try to answer any questions or what you discuss one clarifying question it will be in the T-Rex theater if we hold it in person is that correct okay and I believe that they did recently update their ventilation system during COVID correct okay it's also a large yeah it's a large theater I think there's at least 400 seats we typically got about 200 250 people at town meeting and that was when our population was almost twice as large as it is now and given it's basically a budget presentation what's my other concern is it and Tammy's already started working on the different departments are going to set up tables sign up you know people are interested in stuff like that or what's happening and conservation and trails will have a table and get that information up and that's already in the works too so I'd rather see it any kind of question for Craig do you have a did you get a legal opinion on the Australian ballot being conducted as a floor vote if it has to right now or if we well it just says in the memo it says my understanding I just didn't know if that was 100% it's not 100% it's 95% I'll explain why in the past that has been the understanding that you have to have a floor vote to move to Australian ballot in all future instances and I think it was last year the year before when the legislature allowed a similar type of event to happen they specified that you cannot ask to move all future business to Australian ballot by Australian ballot under these COVID rules so that's where I'm assuming it still applies unless there's an exception and I was looking through some of the information from the Vermont League of Cities and Towns I didn't find anything about that but fairly confident that it will be what it's been in the past that's my understanding as well because I just have a concern I should say is a concern but I would recommend doing a hybrid informational meeting conducting business by Australian ballot but I don't know how that applies to the capital tax and can the capital tax not be on Australian ballot either because we don't have business by Australian ballot or does this allow us to do everything except for the vote on Australian ballot and our capital tax is going to be by Australian ballot no matter what because if there are people who would like to attend and we had as an official town meeting it will be there anyway they're going to be broadcasting but there won't be a vote right? there won't be a vote anyway the vote's done the next day on Australian ballot if we have to if we have to vote from the floor to move all future business to Australian ballot that can't be done electronically virtually so that's what I'm asking are we doing a is this just informational this isn't town meeting it's town meeting the way you're we've been moving the way we've discussed up until right now has been you're doing in-person town meeting that's what it's about on the Monday night March 6 as proposed on the the warning that you'll take up next the question of should the reports of the officers be accepted that would be a floor vote and voting on all future business by Australian ballot would also be a floor vote then it would turn into the informational hearing to talk about the other ballot items the budget, the capital tax the charter amendments we typically announce who's up for the offices that are up for election the next day there's always a public to be heard and then it closes until the next day with the rest of town business or town meeting being conducted by Australian ballot at the polls has there been any concern expressed by the public about an in-person town meeting not that I have heard I'm not a public health expert by any means anecdotally it seems like we're returning to kind of pre-COVID times you certainly see more masks in the grocery store but than you did before COVID but I'm completely anecdotal I'm not going to try to speculate or opine on much the right health you'll have the option to wear their mask if they want to but anyways there's a large space any new thoughts discussion I mean unless there's a public groundswell against having an in-person public meeting I would think we would stay the course on that note since we did not have a public hearing on this one we will go over to public comment if there's any public comment in the room on H42 and in-person versus virtual information session whether to include a floor vote if it is in person whether to include a floor vote for moving all business to Australian ballot at that meeting anyone in the room anyone online have public comment on this can I see your hand up left over sorry next in line then Lorraine's loan Lorraine's loan center road Essex just one concern when we did some of our equity work on the best committee one of the things that we found was this for people who are extremely busy have little kids have a sick or a loved one at home that they have to take care of certainly for those who are marginalized in that way it makes things easier for them so I just want to throw that out there and then it's hard to predict COVID certainly I do watch the wastewater recently we have had an uptick so it is hard to know by the time you come to it thanks any other public comment none we'll bring it back to the board I'm sure I couldn't quite catch everything she said okay Lorraine Kendall wasn't able to understand everything you said would you mind just a quick synopsis of what your thoughts were sorry about that Kendall my mumbling can you hear better Kendall can you hear me okay better I worked on Essex Best which was started as a task force for policing and we looked at equity and one of our findings through that work was that online offered access for people who are marginalized parents who are at home can't get out people who have loved ones who are sick can't get out elderly people can't get out it just was a way to make voting more accessible and more equitable so I just wanted to throw that out there and also in terms of COVID very unpredictable it's just hard to know and there are people who are immunocompromised who can't get the shot who may not be able to wear the mask for whatever reason it's just in terms of trying to be a more equitable and accessible town for democracy I would just like that to be considered thanks so my understanding is that the town meeting even if it is in person will have a hybrid option or were you not planning on having a hybrid option it won't really be hybrid channel 17 in the past has live streamed I believe that's going to be the case again this year we're planning to meet with I'm not sure but Scott are a different representative from town meeting TV but Tammy's going to set up a meeting to go over to the T-Rex Theater and make sure that they have what they need they can set up to the audio visual it won't be hybrid online like this big reason being that we can't it's tough to tell voice voting online and in person so that's why if it's hybrid it has to be informational only it's all about who's got the louder your name so if it does move forward in online informational meeting the balloting will still take place the next day the only voting that would not happen in that scenario would be accepting the reports of the officers moving toward Australian ballot for all going forward and I guess public to be heard would still happen does that clarify it? okay and if we bite the bullet and do it this year and assuming it passes all years moving forward it would become an informational meeting and our business would be Australian ballot so that would be in my opinion more like we're in speaking about equitable path forward for the town because it's more inclusive I agree absentee ballots and access to our voting system any other thoughts comments questions do we need a motion or just remain no action? I believe we do there is a recommendation while there are three options for yeah no recommendation it was more recommended language if you want to pursue any of these options thank you for that we're not going to follow this we're going to go ahead we don't need to it'll just happen put it on business because business can be presentation can be discussion it's not going to hurt if you want to make a motion to continue with the traditional town meeting but I think you're also fine to just get a discussion you're not going to pursue this and we're moving ahead with the meeting as we've discussed in the past sounds good anyone have different thoughts? there's already a motion on the record we're approving it the last time sounds good moving to now business item 6e consider approval of warning for town annual meeting I make the motion that we approve the warning for the annual town meeting dated March 6th and 7th for 2023 to fill in the amount under article 5 to read 15 million $401,152 oops we need to we need to do article 6 before we do this though I believe we should I just realized when I read the next one I was like oh yeah would you like to withdraw your motion? I will withdraw my motion then at this time okay there was something else here so as Dawn indicated article 6 discusses the potential increase to the capital reserve fund previously we had discussed increasing from two cents to 3.5 cents to make up the loss of 41% of our grand list I believe that increase would be 3.4 cents just to keep even with what we previously had also to note we did move over as discussed previously we did move $200,000 over for capital reserve fund at one of our last meetings I don't know if that impacts anyone's decision or thoughts but I will open it up for board discussion well you know I would like more Andy does have a memo in here that he wanted 3 cents but I would speak in favor of the 3.5 cents I don't think we should lose any more ground this is literally the biggest bang for your buck it's been decades I've told so many people all over the place that Essex does this and everybody should do it fund your capital right on your thing give your folks a chance to vote on it explain it to them I think if you put out a lot of information as far as what they actually get for that 2 or 4 cents on their tax bill it's staggering town staff takes that and applies it towards grants sometimes 80 to 90% grant funded it's literally the biggest bang for your buck so I would speak in favor of staying with 3.5 cents that keeps the status quo a little bit thank you Kendall Dawn, Ethan I suppose for information I did ask Greg this question after last meeting the $200,000 that we moved over is roughly the equivalent to a 1.5 cent increase to the capital tax yeah probably 1.4, 1.5 so just added information I thought I'd share so if you have 1.3.5 that you're proposing that's what it would be the 200,000 yeah it would generate off the grand list about $200,000 let me see if I can that's all right well that was I guess I'm glad the question was raised because I'd really like to know that for my decision making I would speak to what I was thinking before that question but you know I was in the idea of originally I was stuck on 2.5 and I wasn't going to go above that I liked the idea of 3 cents because it's 1 cent and I also I know it's a couple of years in the making to make this happen but we have a reappraisal coming the grand list is going to change by a lot I mean in a house that's appraised from the town $230,000 and it's not a $230,000 house so I don't want to jump to 4 cents and have a ton of money coming in I know we have that for the years to come Kendall but I'd rather ask for less and have it be approved and see where we're at in a year or two then to ask for a large increase and maybe not get it so I was thinking that the 3 cent would be a 1 cent increase the P's and maybe we can readjust after the appraisal or next year if it's if it doesn't fit the plan but I hate to ask for more than we know we need a larger increase is there any reason that you can't ask for that capital reserve for a year or two on the rate every year through Australian ballot is there any reason why you're reluctant to change it or then leaving it at the same point I'm sorry I was trying to do math so either keeping the 2 cents or each year asking for 2 cents or 3 cents or 1 cent or 2 cents and changing it the feeling that I get is that if the board votes to put it to 3 cents it's going to stay there for 10 years why is that why can't it be changed if the grand list goes up in a couple years and we do see that extra why can't you just change it we're now only collecting 2 cents because that's all that's needed for your capital plan this should be tied to your capital plan what you need to fund your capital if there are portions or parts of your operating budget that you are transferring on a regular basis to your capital that should be taken into account for your capital plan that you're funding for your cents on a tax rate in simple terms that's the way I understand it is that the town needs 3.5 cents to fund their capital plan adequately for what you need to do for your capital plan so in my opinion it doesn't look like it's tied that closely to where it goes which again for me is an issue of transparency for the voter and that if you figure that you're putting 530,000 in the capital of a year and that's doing all of your capital stuff but really you're pulling extra money out of the operating budget so you have a million this year and next year we didn't need the 530 because we didn't have it we only spent 200 how would the ordinary taxpayer know that you wouldn't so that is my point that we should be asking the voters for what we need to fund our capital replace our equipment, keep the town operating so that they know where the money is going and that's what I'm hearing is that you've been at least funding it to 530 so which is a 3.4 cents so I would say ask for 3.4 cents and if in two years or a year the grand list goes up or next year we get big development and you only need a penny change it that's just my comment so the two cents it creates that baseline creates that there's always some money coming in for capital as I mentioned we also have money that comes in as transfers from the operating budget from the general fund that gets money that gets transferred into capital I don't necessarily think there's a right way or wrong way of doing it or a more or less transparent I think you could adjust it each year and say okay the two cents should go up or down based on the need but I can pretty confidently say that the need is there for that two cents and then some and so then it becomes you want to transfer some from operating should it just be all capital as inflation happens as prices come up is the operating transfer going to be enough not going to be enough so if you're fixed at two cents for 20 years all the things you're buying and paying for those two cents are not going to be the same price they were 20 years ago so maybe we're saying the same thing yes we are and I think that's part of what we want to do over the next year really figure out based on what happens this year with the two cents or more than that what is the right amount and I think that the three and a half cents that staff has proposed this year is really just to make up what's been lost from the village tax base that would be the 3.4 cents we can fairly confidently predict that that costs are going to go up stormwater keeps being one of the big ones roads are another big one gravel and asphalt materials are going up equipment cost of materials cost of equipment is going up so that's why we're looking at replenishing what's been lost and then adding that extra 0.1 to kind of take a step in the direction of what we think is coming and what we think is going to be the need but then yeah regardless we'll be here again next year saying whether it's three and a half cents or hey we overshot it's really only three cents like I wouldn't think on that I wouldn't expect that but I think it's next year will be more the what's one of those long-term costs that are coming how do we get a better picture of that we have a decent picture of it now with the capital plan but now that down what are the needs what does it look like this three cents is really just to make up through the tax base that's been lost and that's why I'm comfortable with staff's recommendation of three and a half is because that's based on what you've been using and what you need at least and that feels like a better decision to me versus saying well I maybe the voters won't approve it or maybe they won't if they don't then you know that they won't but this way it's based on a real world need real number it's not just a I tend to be a little bit brave when it comes to getting capital because nobody wants the salt shed the collapse and have to spend a hundred thousand dollars with a loan to fix it folks understand that the eighth inch question if after the reappraisal we can adjust downward or downward if it turns out we have a windfall next year we could ask again next March we only need two cents if it's tracked closely to your capital plan your capital budget anybody can look at it and say okay they wanted four cents this year because we had to redo the salt shed circle back to another question about what the additional cents would generate revenue an additional one and a half cents would generate two hundred and forty one thousand six hundred dollars and one cent would generate about a hundred and sixty one thousand dollars about a hundred thousand difference right but we only needed two hundred thousand dollars to fund what we were last year this year it was an approximation that if you do I'm just comparing if you did the point one point four cents which would make up the difference of what was lost that's two hundred and twenty five thousand dollars so that two hundred thousand dollars from fund balance was an approximation but it's not a dollar for dollar that makes sense what are your thoughts I'm good with adding one point four cents to the tax rate in addition to the two cents it'll be three point four three point four Ethan what are your thoughts I would support that personally I think we should ask for a penny because we could give them a hundred thousand dollars their tax money back next year when we have a surplus next year now you're going to also take into consideration that the overall budget is a seven point six percent decrease so the likelihood of having the same surplus as last year is unlikely except we're in this year's budget so based on the fiscal twenty three budget we're not going to say that we're going to have the same amount of money budgeting where we've in the fiscal twenty four budget where we've cut that police to 90% funding where we've stripped out the overtime where we've stripped out a lot of that buffer that we used to have there's always going to be staffing turnover there's always going to be some openings there we might get a few thousand a few ten thousand dollars but hundreds of thousands of dollars after fiscal twenty three is probably not likely fiscal twenty three and again we don't know what's going to happen we can budget we can project but we don't know when the big storm is going to hit and we're going to get fully staffed and overtime is going to exceed what we've got and we're not going to have a fund balance can we cautiously optimistically say that we'll probably have some fund balance next year roughly through the year we haven't had any unforeseen big surprises keep your fingers crossed yeah we'll come in under budget but we don't know what and then when we come in under budget we take a look at forget who said it earlier but that six hundred thousand dollars of fund balance that's offsetting this year's tax rate if we just take that out that's a six percent budget increase next year no matter what we want to use fund balance and savings to kind of feather that down do we use five hundred and fifty or four fifty or four hundred fund balance next year to sort of ramp down that tax rate increase and if we have enough do we apply some towards capital to help us through for another year and keep replenishing our capital and designated based on we don't know when the next storm water break is going to happen we don't know when the truck is going to stop working or the salt shed is going to collapse so will there be fund balance next year maybe but we don't know what we don't know how much and the year after that the farther you get out the harder it becomes to predict but to your point and fiscal at the end of fiscal year twenty four it's a lean budget and to the point where yeah we get a bad winter and overtime is up you might go over budget which is not what we want to do we have massive springtime flooding and to to that point if you ask for three point four cents and you don't get it you're now short two hundred and fifty thousand dollars so I just wanted to throw that out there I've always been the mouse in the room to say that those are taxpayer dollars and they committed that money to the budget that was presented to them as their money to be spent in that budget it should go directly to the next cost of the town but I just would caution that there is a risk going over three cents that it doesn't pass and I'm not saying that I know that for a fact I'm just saying that that is a risk to consider because if you go back to two cents now you're talking about a two hundred thousand dollars shortfall so that's where I was kind of you know with the three cents and we're what forty thousand dollars short you said one sixty one you said I believe sixty one for one cent I just think play it safe a little bit and the reappraisal happens this is going to be capital plan that falls into the reappraisal you're going to see the reappraisal done at least two years I believe right at least two years out twenty twenty five is that completion or starting it'll be complete in around two and a twenty twenty five okay two and a half years yeah so you have one bridge here then this is twenty four we have a budget coming back possible surplus we have a fund balance right now currently if we can get three cents we're looking at sixty thousand dollars for future year twenty five budget which you're only talking game one for sixty thousand dollars in better chance of approval and then after that year's budget is passed you would have the decision to make for planning for future year twenty six and you would have the reappraisal numbers during that process I would have the numbers yes but that we didn't have any money for another year it would take another full year to have one full tax cycle before that would actually come to realisation it would be two years then yeah do you look at a hundred and twenty thousand dollars when there's one point four million dollars in the fund balance right over there fund balance right now currently just in total operating we keep fifteen percent of the operating budget in undesignated capital which is in the order of two point two point some odd million yeah it's two point three or two point five two point three I thought it was one point three which we have to do per policy it's the slack port's policy it's best in general financial practices two point five two point five two point five so we're over fifteen percent and when you think about some of those you know costs that have occurred recently you know that can deplete that fairly quickly I'm just hesitant that I know we haven't heard it at the meetings we've just I've seen a lot of stuff online a lot of comments from people about the twenty two percent increase and I'm just nervous that going in with the twenty two percent increase and asking for three and a half cents or three point four cents you're not even asking for one point five more than they're already going to pay right but they're going to see three point four and it's based on real world numbers it's based on the need that has been there and is there and it's going to continue to be there so I think it's a stronger position to be able to say why are you asking for one point four cents because the budget and the capital plan outlines this is what you need minimum versus no offense number of three cents because you think it might pass versus three and four if the three point four doesn't go then the voters have spoken and we know that you have to tighten it up and do something different you think that so if the voters do say no to three point four it then reverts back to we still have that crack we still have to cover what we've proposed so given the twenty two percent overall increase do we want to roll those dice or would we rather find some middle ground lower than the three point four three point five and use more of a staged approach see how that goes including the two hundred thousand that we already moved over and go for a little bit less this year about three hundred people are going to come and listen to us the rest of them are just going to show up and vote you you know my position both the budget and the capital and standing firm on three point four is needed and should be put forth let's say you select person Lawrence I'm going to stick with three because I'd rather see forty thousand dollars than a hundred than a hundred and sixty but I'm not the majority of the board so we'll care with that let's say you madam chairman chairperson chairperson my preference as I just I'm in line with Andy's thinking twenty two percent is a lot we moved over the equivalent of let's say call it one point four cents through fund balance give or take I would prefer to see an increase but I think three point four is too high at this time given what we are asking of voters to go with the one cent making it three point three cents three cents when I'm adding one I make it three three cents I think it's written on the paper as what the proposed rate is going to be right by adding so we need to determine the horizontal line so that's how the question is going to read it's not going to say three cents no it says shall the town of Essex increase the capital reserve fund by adding blank cents to the tax rate in addition to the two cents previously authorized for the purpose of financing capital project I could get on board for one cent alright then I'm going to withdraw my original you already did alright so I'm going to withdraw yes since this was not part of the public hearing I would like to open it to public comment Patty I see that your hand is up yeah I just tuned back in my ears perked up listening to Kendall I can attest just talking to a lot of neighbors not just here but on the other side of town where I do a lot of my gardens and for years the capital tax rate to be increased because they want services and now that we're separate from Essex Junction we want services now we want our sidewalks fixed we want you know it's been 35 years since since Alan Martin Alan Martin has been repaved that for people to bike and walk on that's crazy Alan Martin should come up to the stand and say his peace because he says we need three and a half percent suburban part of Essex is falling apart thank you any other comments online or in the room saying none would anyone care to make a motion or do you prefer more discussion am I back to making the motion to approve this whole warning and putting in the amount I make the motion that we approve the annual oh my gosh Alan I'm sorry we approve town of Essex annual warning dated March 6th and 7th 2023 to include the tax budget amount $15,401,152 and to the town of Essex to increase the capital reserve fund by adding one cent to the tax rate in addition to the two cents previously authorized and the rest may remain the same thank you John Ethan you have seconded thank you making sure I didn't forget something I do not think I did okay is everyone clear on the motion all those in favor please signify by saying aye all those opposed nay motion carries 3 to 1 thank you moving to the consent agenda any comments I make the motion we approve the consent agenda as presented thank you Don is there a second thank you Ethan discussion all those in favor please signify by saying aye aye all those opposed motion carries 4-0 reading file first up I would like to thank Tammy and all staff who took part in the department tours extremely informative very appreciative it was great to see things that we don't know we didn't know there we don't know our issues we don't have any comprehension of all the work that staff do to keep the town running so thank you for that very eye-opening experience yeah Tammy and the department heads and other staff but I will happily pass that on and glad you enjoyed it absolutely and to congratulate the Essex Police Department on their new hire yes any other board member comments discussion none nope go ahead I was just going to say do the residents have the opportunity to do a tour minimum tour like that they have access to all the town facilities with prior appointments right pretty much for the most part I mean it's we haven't offered a tour like that if somebody was interested in seeing a certain thing for most instances we would accommodate it we do have some areas that are secure not open to the public but yeah if there are certain areas that people are interested to see we can usually try to find a time to show it to them it's tough to do a full day tour like that yeah I wouldn't recommend that there were some folks that expressed interest in a tour of facilities and I would think a chief or anybody there certainly could show them around a much bigger understanding of what you get for your 20% of your tax bill it would be interesting to see did you know little facts that we heard during the tours little tidbits if you will do you know what's under the water sewer bill yeah now I know and I wish I didn't just a river just a river any other board member comments if not I would entertain a motion to adjourn thank you Dawn is there a second second thank you Ethan motions to adjourn are non-debatable all those in favor please signify by saying aye aye motion carries 4-0 we are adjourned