 Then I will go ahead and call the Village of Estates Junction Board of Trustees meeting for Tuesday, March 22nd, 2022 to order. And do we have any agenda or addition, agenda additions or changes tonight? No additions or changes from staff. Andrew, I would just advise, I apologize that that link is not correct if, if folks are watching on town meeting TV and would prefer to join via zoom. If you go back to the three eight packet or any of the packets, the, the link is correct and is the same exact link. So if people have a preference to join via zoom, you can hop back to, to one of those packets and click on the hyperlink. Thank you, Brad. And I would also say the way I got to the meeting tonight was by going to the Estates Junction website, hovering over boards and meetings, clicking on Board of Trustees, and then about, oh, a third to halfway down through the pages of the video conference option where there's a link for the meeting and that's what got me here. I do have one agenda addition for tonight and that's an executive section for the personnel. So if there are no other agenda additions or changes, I would entertain a motion to approve the agenda as amended. So moved. Thank you, Rasha, the motion. Thank you, Dan, for the second. Any further discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Those opposed, please say nay. Thank you all. And public to be heard. So now is a portion of tonight's meeting where if there are any members of the public wish to address or raise an issue to the board about something that is not on the agenda, now is the time to do so. If you are using Microsoft Teams or not Microsoft Teams anymore, if you're using Zoom, please go ahead and use the razor hand function. I'm going to give you time to speak to the trustees. Go ahead, Irene. Thank you, Andrew. As some of you know, the Essex Retorter has just interviewed all of the candidates for school board seats in the April election and we are doing the same for trustee candidates. So if anyone among the trustee candidates would like to interview with us, please get in touch as soon as possible. Thanks so much. I would appreciate any press solicitations to not take up meeting time. There are other ways to go about that. And self publication or public publicization is not the way to do that. So for future, I resort to other methods. The alternative. Thank you for the method. Thank you. Also, not interested, but thank you. Have a great night. Thank you, Raj. Any other issues related to the community that members have the public. All right. Not seeing any hands up. Nobody has called in. So we will go off of public to be heard. Come back to the board and go on to business item five a. Interview and potential appointment for the bike walk advisory committee. And we have, and I really hope I don't mispronounce your name. Stefan Federhoff. Yep. That's me. Nice to see you. Thank you for being here tonight. Yeah. Before we get started. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And specifically we do offer. If there's anything that you feel you may talk about that may harm your employment situation. The opportunity to talk about this in executive session, which would basically be a private conversation with the trustees and our staff. Would you like to exercise that tonight or keep it in public open session? I think in private would be nice. In private would be nice. I think in private would be nice. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Brad, I think you're the one who has the. Capabilities of that. So if you can. Get ready as I find that motion. Okay. So I would move that the trustees entering to executive session to discuss the proposed public official appointments and importance of one PSA section three, one, three, a three. To include the co, the interim co-managers and candidate Stefan. Second. Okay. Okay. Thank you. No further discussion on that motion. Trustees all in favor, please signify by saying I. Supposed to say nay. All right. Pass unanimously. Brad, if you don't mind putting us into the breakout room. That'd be appreciated. And publicly back in a few minutes. All right. So we are back in regular. Open session. to appoint Stefan to the bike walk advisory committee and the vacant seat with the term ending June 30, 2024. I'll make that motion, Andrew. Second. Thank you, George. Thank you, Raj. Any further discussion from the trustees? All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, please say nay. All right. Let's pass unanimously. Stefan, thank you for stepping forward. Really appreciate it. And Kathy, does that hand hold over anyone? I'm going to take that hand as a holdover. If you can hear this kind of thing, it's not a holdover, then let me know. Oh, thank you. Sorry about that. Thank you. No worries. And that will bring us into agenda item 5B and to consider the appointment of city manager recruitment and hiring planning committee. Please. Raj or Amber, you want to take that? Raj, go ahead. Oh, I'm already unmuted. Wow, look at that. So as we discussed previously, Amber and I interviewed the 11 candidates and discussed this with Brad and decided that splitting up the group into a recruitment and a hiring subgroup would be the way to go to keep this moving efficiently and to leverage everyone's skills and as well as not have to say goodbye to anybody that volunteered. We felt that all of the candidates were excellent. We wanted to keep them and felt that like I said, this was the way to keep things moving smoothly and efficiently. I believe Brad has put out a couple of polls amongst these two groups to see when they can begin meeting and getting to work. I don't know what the results of that are, but tonight Amber and I are bringing this forward to get the approval to rest of the group, rest of the board, so Brad can move forward and get the two subcommittees underway and scheduled. We also need to decide tonight if we want to add a trustee to each of these and if so, who? Thank you, Raj. Thank you, Amber. Really appreciate the time that you took for the interviewing as well as these follow-up conversations and identifying which members should go where. In terms of trustee reps, I would first ask Raj Amber, you two have started this. Do the two of you want to continue? I think Amber is nodding yes. She is. I couldn't see her. She's like this big. That's rude. I'd continue. Sure. I always said I would continue, sure. Okay, the two of you have a preference as to which committee? I don't think so. I don't think so. Raj recruitment, Amber hiring? Sure. Okey-doke. George, Dan, any concerns? No, no. Do we have a timeline on this though? I know it's a little off the subject here, but I'm just trying to get a sense of what, when you see all this, how is this all going to transpire? So it looks like Monday nights will work for most people on both committees. So I think we'll kick it off this coming Monday with both groups to kind of set the stage and then probably each group will then meet every other week. And we will go for as many weeks as we need to, but I'm hoping that we can be wrapped up by, I mean, the goal was to have an add out and ready by the time, hopefully the governor signs the bill. So we were shooting from mid to late May. Hey, Brad, before I go too much further, Mondays was the consensus for both groups to kind of hold to that? Yeah, there was a, yeah, basically, there was one other time for each group, I'd have to pull it out. Mondays seemed to work for everyone on the recruitment committee from five to six 30, potentially Thursdays from five to six 30. For hiring, everybody's confirmed for five 30 to seven. We obviously didn't have your input or Ambers in those. But you're not going to have those two both on Monday night? Well, we are going to, because they're going to alternate. I'm going to confirm a couple of things for that. For Thursday nights, I can't do. I'll have to check on Mondays and get back. So if George or Dan or Andrew, if you're itching, now is the time to step forward and say, good golly, I really want to work on the recruitment committee. You have to say it just like that too. I can't say that, and I could never say it as eloquently as that, Raj. I think since you've shown an initial preference and you're involved, I mean, I don't want to, I'm not really not trying to wiggle my way out of it, but I will, I'm happy to step in and help. But I also don't want to take your spot. I mean, if it's just a matter of scheduling and you can reconfigure the schedule, then why don't you stay with it? All right, Brad, I don't know. I'm happy to have you do it. I feel 150% confident that you can do this. But if it helps you to get through your life spiritually and emotionally, to have me do it, then that's fine too. But I have total confidence in your ability to do it. Well, why don't we leave it like this? I need to, after the meeting, I need to check a couple of things. And if it doesn't work out, George, you're it. Okay, that's fine. That's a good way to do it. All right, everybody's okay with that? I'm good with that. So we could make the motion where for the trustee representative for recruitment, it could be Raj or George, if Raj can do it. If Raj cannot accept. Great. Sounds good. Thanks, George. Any other questions, comments, concerns? If not, I would entertain the motion. Okay, let me see. I will move that we appoint the city manager recruitment planning committee and city manager hiring planning committee with the membership as outlined below. I'll leave it there. And with Raj, Chala, and Amber Teeb, trustees, Chala and Teebo to work with the two components of the planning committees. And with George as the... And with trustee Tyler as an alternate, should trustee Charles and not be able to fulfill his duty? I can say that works. Amber, you seconded? Great. Any further discussion on that motion? Hearing none. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed, please say nay. Great. So that passed unanimously. Thank you, trustees. And also thank you to the 11 community representatives who stepped forward. Really appreciate that and look forward to it. And next up, we have business item five C to discuss contracts with the town of Essex. Yeah, so the select board, I'm not sure how many of you were able to tune in last night or watch. The select board received your recommended changes and updates or questions last night and took them under consideration. It was all done in open session. And I think there was a little fanfare more, just a couple of questions that I think need to be clarified probably in the meeting next week. And then as we walk through these, Andrew, I can highlight anything if other members don't recall what they were discussing. Sounds good, Brad. Thank you. Andrew, depending on how this conversation goes, I just want to reserve the right to ask for a brief executive session before we wrap this agenda item. Yeah, it was more than that. All right, great. So the only thing I heard last night, Andrew, was a question on the finance agreement and number six. We had suggested removing the language of the village, the transition of the village finance department out of 81 Main Street, which was more consistent with the language above switching from the finance department shall be located at 81 Main to may be located at 81 Main. I think the intention of this termination clause was that if earlier than June 30, 2025, both finance directors and municipal directors see it possible to end this agreement, then they could recommend that and create a transition plan towards it. The reason that this was struck from here is that the departments staying at 81 Main may not mean full termination of the agreement. So that's the rationale as to whether or not it stays in here, I think is completely up to you all in that discussion next week. Thank you, Brad. I again don't have a strong feeling on this matter. I understand the logic of what you're saying. I didn't have anything else written down in terms of the select board's feedback on finance. Neither did I. For Clerk Treasurer, I think all of this was date confirming that this will conclude on June 30, 2023. I think we still have, sorry, I did skip over on the last one, Andrew, this question about the United States District Court, which comes up in all three of them. So there probably should be a conversation about that. Trustees, are you comfortable having this conversation right now or do you want to wait for executive session? I'm fine saying my piece on this now. Yeah. I don't feel this is the issue to fight. It is what it is. If the courts want it to be in federal court, it'll be there. If they don't, then it won't. That's my feeling, Andrew. Been looking at it, thinking to myself, I've seen cases brought down to federal court while I've been there. And whether the language is there or not, they could bring us to federal court. I don't know. I don't see why they need the language there, but whatever. It's six or one-half dozen or another. Yeah, it's never been a deal breaker for me. It's just kind of like gilding the lily. I'm not really clear why it's in there. It doesn't seem necessary, but I certainly don't want to fight over it. So I'm happy to leave it in there if it's important to the select board. I don't see any problem with it. It just doesn't seem necessary. Sounds good. So I think the only other question then on clerk treasurer is we had suggested that it be removed from the MOU similar to how the finance has already been removed from the MOU and be signed as an agreement that is taking place irrelevant of what happens with the rest of the charter. And so I think that's also up for discussion next week between you and the select board. Yes, Raj. It didn't seem last night when I rewatched it today that they agreed that this would be that this would be the path forward should the legislature or the governor fail to sign the bill. So I'm not sure where they're coming from with that in terms of not wanting it. It sounded like they weren't open to having it removed from the MOU. You know, I'm not I'm not sure where that would necessarily be their call. But I guess we can we can wait and talk with them about that. But clerks of village employee. But yeah, never mind. Ready to go to recreation in in Brooke seniors. So the two. There are two outstanding issues or discussions that need to take place. One is they grappled on some language here about we had removed which they had inserted this the existing space we had removed it to go back to the original language. And they had thrown around some suggestions of either putting in some terms like temporary or adequate or appropriate or comparable. And my only suggestion to you is if you're going to add something like that, then you you may also consider alternative space. So I think that's going to be a discussion next week as to whether or not you're comfortable adding some language in here about the amount and availability of space. The only thing I would expand on that is in my conversation with select board chair Watts, and it was reiterated at the meeting, I got the impression that select board understood that, for example, the second floor floor, which happens to be right up above the senior center is likely going to be reinforced and assets would not be safe to have the seniors in that space. And so it's quite likely that they might need to be relocated for some period of time. And so there certainly seems to be a willingness and an understanding that that that could happen. And so with that I do think that's providing something that says either comparable or adequate and appropriate something like that is fine. I think we also do want to take out at two Lincoln Street, because again, we have other buildings, a few other buildings we could place people in. So let's not tie ourselves to a building that's going to be under renovation, but rather we'll find a space. Again, just reiterating and stressing, as we talked about before, our commitment to the senior center and making sure that it's going to be continually able to operate and not be, I think one of the phrases was put into a dark corner or put into a rat infested basement, something like that. That's not what we're going to do, not at all what we've talked about and nothing we've done before. Someone said we would put the seniors in a rat infested basement. It was said in jest similar to the previous meeting, how it was said in jest about possibly having the senior center staff member put in a closet in relation to may or shall for providing office spaces. That was a little friendly reminder. That portion of the conversation last night was moderately condescending, but you know, that's okay. I think both sides of us, of our boards have had a joke that could have been interpreted as condescending. So I think we all just want to be careful about things that we may joke about and others may take in a way that we don't intend. I do it all the time. I guess I would, around that, well there's two issues with this. One, you know, this only extends, if I'm not mistaken, six months. This whole agreement extends six months past what we've presumably will already have paid for with the FY23 town budget in some ways. So that sort of, it seems like they want to, well forget the space part, but as far as that six months in the period of this agreement, the one, two, three, four, five, six, whereas seeing as how this agreement includes FY23, correct? Yes, it goes through FY23 and half of FY24. So it seems like they're saying that for FY23, we won't have access to Sandhill Pool or park or facility rentals, even though we've paid town taxes or will have paid town taxes for that period. And I just don't, I know we've talked about this. I'm not sure if that was just left out of an adjustment when it was sent back. I can't honestly remember how we left it, but I know it was discussed. I feel like it was discussed. So I can, I guess I can see where July 1st, 2023 to their half a year ending of this agreement on December 31st, I can see where that would apply. But I don't know why our residents would be restricted from EPR facilities while they're paying for them. So I don't know if that's just an oversight that we can bring up with the next time. I'm also heard their logic last night of the December deadline or the December ending of this, which I'm not sure, I know they don't want to have half year Indian brook passes, but that seems more like a, I kind of would rather this stuck to fiscal year deadlines. And if they want to put a line in here that says, you know, we're not, you don't get spring 2024 Indian brook access, that's fine. I guess it seems, I guess I'm having a hard time with that with the, with the December half year expiration of the agreement and what that means to access that we're already paying for. I think we can certainly propose taking out the sandhill pool, public outdoor pools, those kinds of things as for yes, fiscal 23, we will be paying taxes. And so to say that we can't access things that we're paying taxes for is a little odd, lack of a different phrase in terms of the termination in halfway in the half of a fiscal year. My understanding is that it would, to create a way for city residents to have a half year access to something or two Indian brook would be a new process for EPR that they would need to figure out how to do and implement. And so it's from my understanding to make their life easier so that they frankly don't have to, especially when again, my understanding is they're down a few staff members. So from, from my perspective, I don't know if that's necessarily worth the central drawing this out. So I guess I'm wondering, so this is really in a sense, a six month agreement for village residents, because for us, nothing's changed until July, between July, right, am I thinking about this right? So I'm sort of wondering why we're spending this much time for a six month agreement. Which, yeah, I sort of would just say forget it because we're going to have access to all of those things. We're going to run the senior center the same way next year or in July for that fiscal year. So really from July one, 2023 to December 30th, 31st, 2023, that's all this covers. It just seems odd to say the least. So either we make it for a full fiscal year and put a line in there that says, except for Indianbrook, because of the past thing, which is understandable, or scrap it. I feel if you don't mind me saying I completely understand what you're saying, Raj, and it would make more sense to me, as you said, to go through the full fiscal year. On the other hand, I don't have a problem with any of this, what it's saying. And so if it serves the larger purpose of getting these agreements wrapped up, something that we've been working on, to just finally say, fine, this is fine. I mean, there's nothing like on this page right here. There's nothing really that bothers me that I would say, no, that's wrong with someone's being taken advantage of, that I would just as soon say, let's just go with it. The only thing I will say is something like, and again, you're raising an interesting point about the timing and everything. If somehow village residents, I would guess that beyond 20, beyond July, if we don't, if village residents, well, for the coming year, village residents obviously will have access to Sand Hill Pool because they'll have paid for that privilege as town residents. But the year after that, so it is a little weird with the timing. I'm not sure if I'm following all the logic with the timing here. But there's nothing in here that really bothers me. Again, a lot of it is just, I'm not sure why it was necessary to do it this way. I mean, it sets up both communities to have to either make a hire and for the other to find a space mid-year or renegotiate a new agreement for just the senior center, you know, presumably a year from now because we're not going to want to do it last minute. It's just odd. I guess we'll talk about it with them. But I certainly don't want to jeopardize everything else. I just think this is overly, this is strange. I think for, as George said, the end goal in mind of trying to get these things resolved, I would propose we make that proposal to change or to remove the Sand Hill public outdoor pools and their programs from saying we won't have access to it, even though we will be paying taxes. So for that fiscal year where we are still paying town taxes, we have access to town amenities and town programs. I would just clarify that portion of the timeline. But other than that, I would say let's just keep it as it is. Okay, everybody okay with that? So that's it on the agreements, Andrew. I don't know if you still want to go into the executive session or not, or for any other comments. The only thing I want to mention, I think it's going to be important when we meet in the joint session to ensure that we're having a common language when we talk about finalizing, approving, signing, whatever the words are we want to use to get these agreements taken care of. One of the things I heard from the select board meeting, and I hope I'm not mistating what was said, is that while we trustees may want to have these issues resolved at that joint meeting, that's our desire. It doesn't mean that the select board needs to meet that. And so whether we are talking about signing all of the agreements and or whether we are talking about having a formal vote on all of the agreements and the overarching MOU, I think we just want to make sure that we as trustees are clear as to what we're hoping for and what we're okay with. And then hoping we can have that same understanding of the select board. My only thought on it, I understand what you're saying, and what is I to get to the point is that they're saying they don't want to sign this until the city charter actually clears the legislature. Is that correct, Andrew? Yes. And so I mean my only thought is fine, but please, can we stop negotiating this stuff? Can we just say it's a done deal? We're not, I mean, I'm just concerned that by not signing it and delaying a few more weeks, there'll be a temptation on someone's part to dive back into this and open it all back up again. And I would like to get some assurance that that's not going to happen. I mean, we have been at this now since October, earlier, September or something. I mean, it would really be nice to just say, this is done. And we're not going to open it back up and start looking at language in details again. We had our first conversation on a separation with the select board, I believe it was May. So it's been a little while. Okay, so it would be good to wrap it up. That's all I'm saying. We can. And in my mind, signing means you've wrapped it up. If you have a long, you know, maybe the lawyers among us can would argue differently, but it seems to me that if you, no matter how much agreement you have on a document until it's signed, it's still an open document that could be revisited and revised. And I would really hope, I would hope the select board doesn't want to go back into this, because I don't think the S6 Junction trustees want to go back into this at this point. Amber, why don't you go next? See your hands up. Not a while since I looked at that MOU, but I believe the rationale for the way the MOU was structured was the intent was to sign pre-approval of the legislature. So this has all been built in with the understanding that it very well might never come to fruition. So I agree with George. I would like to see, I'd like to see this put a pin in it here. Well, heartedly agree with you, Amber. I do believe that is why we created this MOU in consultation with the village attorney and town attorney, so that way the trustees and the select board can negotiate as equals and partners with the full understanding that the trustees will become the city council should separation pass. And so to set this up as temporary or repetitive agreements intentionally. So yes, I still hope they'll sign. The only other thing that I thought I heard was with regards to that MOU and removing the boards and commissions, I don't think they, I don't believe I heard an agreement to remove the boards and commissions from the overarching MOU, but rather to wait and hear from the housing commission. Raj? Yeah, so housing commission, I'd like to invite the chair and co-chair to that joint meeting that we're having next week if this, if that's going to be on the agenda. Just to hear, I kind of feel like we may not get a definitive answer and I almost feel like asking them their preference for a board that's nearly 50-50 village in town and is just getting underway and sort of getting their heads around the topics as they are. To ask them what, to put the decision on them, I think is a lot. So I'd like to invite them, if you think it's appropriate, more to hear how they've discussed the pros and cons of staying together or or separating as it were and becoming a town commission and a village commission. I am a little uncomfortable asking them which way they'd like to go. I don't know that a board that size with what they're doing and where they are as young as they are going to have a consensus, but and it didn't sound last night like the select board was willing to remove any of that from the MOU. Personally, I'm of a mind, I'm trying to put myself into the shoes of the chair and vice chair of the committee or of the commission where if they have not yet had that conversation as a commission then it would put them in that precarious place of trying to make a decision on behalf of the body that they haven't endorsed yet. I think it may be upon us to either, we may need to just come to an agreement that if the select board is willing to take the boards and commissions off of the MOU then our agreement is we don't share any board and commissions and we just go our separate ways so we can get this done. As George had said before, these committees and commissions are creatures of our boards. We can create them at any point in time with the exception of those that are written into our charters. None of these committees are talking about it written into our charters so we can create and disband them at any point. And you know, we also have a whole another fiscal year of them operating as they've been operating to date. So the idea that these decisions need to be made right away is a little bit disingenuous. I mean, how does the housing commission knowing it's going to be split, June 30th, July 1st, 2023, continue to do its work for the next 15 to 16 months effectively? I've been thinking about that a lot and I'd hate to be on that. I mean, how do you work together on, you know, I just don't, it'd be a very strange position to be put under. So I sort of agree with you, Andrew, that if we find out Monday, if we do invite them and we find out Monday, and I think they've had at least one conversation around this according to minutes, we do find out that they don't have a strong opinion either way. You know what? I'm fine with, you know, making that decision either direction at that point just to move this process along. I think we'll look back in four or five years and things will be humming along just fine. Trustee, is there any other thoughts on that? Go ahead, Dan. I agree with you, Andrew. I see these groups, these committees as functioning well while we share a vested interest in our community as a whole. And as we've seen with the attempt at merger and, you know, that whole discussion that was concerned about representation and village residents really don't have some members of the town outside the village, don't have an understanding of what it's like to be in the town outside the village. So how can they really weigh in on matters with the same perspective that the resident of the town outside the village has because they're much more suburban or urban or rural in many ways up there. But yeah, and I picture two other communities or four other communities right around us. Winooski and Colchester or Burlington and South Burlington and I tried to envision a board that they would have had back in the day after they split in trying to share two communities weighing in on how you should handle housing issues and issues for your community. It just doesn't work in my mind. I don't see how it works. Thank you, Dan. Thank you, Raj. So if there are no other comments from the trustees or questions or concerns, Raj, you have mentioned going into executive session. And would you be okay if we hold off on that so we can just lump the executive sessions all together? So before we go on to the next agenda item then, I would just ask if there are comments from the public that you would like us to have in our minds before we go into that executive session later on, then now would be the time to do so. And as a reminder, the topic is about the contracts for the town of Essex. So again, public, go ahead, raise your hand. I'll make sure to give you some time to express your concerns. I am not seeing any hands up. Nobody has called in. So we have what we need and we'll go on to the next agenda item, business item 5D declaration of official intent. Yeah, Andrew. So this is relatively basic in order for if the voters approve the bond for the replacement of the main street water line on the 12th, then you will want to have this declaration of official intent signed, which allows us to be reimbursed expenditures prior to actually receiving the bond. And so this would allow us to begin or continue work with the engineers and others after April 12th in order to get prepared to move that to construction. Thank you, Brad. Trustees, any questions, comments, concerns? Seems fairly straightforward and I really appreciate you all thinking of this in advance so that way we don't cause any kinds of delay and should this be approved of making sure the project happens? Yeah, that was, that was Jess. Ask the appreciation on, please. So with that then, if there's no questions, comments, concerns, I'll entertain a motion. I'll make a motion that the trustees adopt the declaration of official intent to reimburse certain expenditures for proceeds of indebtedness related to the main street water line replacement bond should the bond be approved by the voters on April 12th? I'll second. Thank you, Dan. Thank you, George. Any other comments? Hearing none, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, please say nay. Fast unanimously. Thank you for that. The next agenda item we have is to discuss the Conferential Disclosure Agreement, which we will do in executive session. So we will move on to the consent items. So I want to make a motion to approve the consent agenda. I move we accept approve the consent agenda. Excuse me. George, thank you, Dan. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, please say nay. Fastly again. Thank you all. And into the reading file with board member comments. Go ahead, George. Yeah, Andrew, and I think I mentioned to you this to you before, but I note that Tammy, who in the over the last month became a strictly a talent in the newsletter, and she did an outstanding job with both. And this was largely on her own time. And I would like to, I don't have a specific thing, but I think we, the trustees have a small fund that we, with which we can provide some miscellaneous expenditures. And I would like to suggest that we come up with some kind of a token of our appreciation, a small gift certificate to a local restaurant or something like that. I don't have anything specific in mind, but I would like to recommend that. And I don't think we have to spend a lot of board time on it. I feel that we could probably just have Wendy and Brad, I think then probably of like minds with us and they could probably just handle it. But I just like to throw that out there for the rest of the board to give their approval. You are not the only one who has mentioned that, George. Brad, do you want to give, let me know what you've told me in emails before. Yes. We're happy to take care of that, George. And we will, we'll work on something this week or early next week. Thanks, Brad. Thank you. I agree if she did. It's a great piece of work. So I guess the only other thing that I would, a couple of things, I would point out that for those of you who have received your ballots, I know I received mine today in the mail. If you're unsure how to vote, please go ahead. And if you look at the reading file, there is a video that has a recording that Brad and I did for a budget and ballot overview. Additionally, I'm going to start offering open Zoom sessions from 12 to 1230 on, sorry, the message just came through. Yes, Kathy, I'll be sure to do that. I'm going to be doing a Zoom session weekdays from 12 to 1230 beginning this upcoming Thursday. Please check your front porch form. If you're subscribed to that or Facebook, those are the ways that I have to communicate with our residents to be able to talk about any questions that you have that's on the ballot. Make sure that you have the information you need to make an informed decision. Feel free to attend, but to have you. And I would also just mention we are now at a point in the pandemic where I feel that we as a board need to have the conversation of whether we want to continue with remote only meetings or go back into a hybrid format. We don't need to come to a decision on that tonight. I guess have this in the back of your mind and we can revisit this possibly at our next meeting as an opportunity to make a decision at that point. I would also just say I do know that if we do go back to a hybrid meeting, there may be some impacts on Brad or other staff to help ensure that that can happen. And so Brad, I guess if you don't mind either sharing some concerns now or some of your thoughts now or writing that in a memo for us for our next meeting would be appreciated. Yeah, I can do that in a memo and put that on your next agenda. Thank you, Brad. George, I see your hand up. No, I'm just going to say, but you cut me off. It was that you had my exact same thought. I thought I think going back to hybrid meetings would be great from our perspective, but if it does create a lot of extra work right now for the interim managers who are also trying to do their regular village duties as well as well as I didn't mean to cut me off. You had the same thought. We run the same wavelength there. So, you know, if it's I think it'd be great to go back to hybrid meetings, if we can, but if it's going to be really onerous for Wendy and Brad to try to pull it off, then I think we can hold off a few more meetings. That's my only thought. That was a great mind of George. Thanks for sending me those vibes. All right, trust me. So there is nothing else. So we have three executive sessions. I don't think any of these are going to be controversial. So maybe instead of doing one motion at a time, we can just roll through all of that. How does that sound? Great. So for contracts, I would move to find that premature general public knowledge regarding the village contracts of the town of Essex would clearly place a village at a substantial disadvantage as a trustee's risk disclosing its negotiation strategy if it discusses a proposed contract in terms of public. I further move. I'm just going to keep going. Sorry. It's all good. I further move that we go into the executive session to discuss potential contracts with the town of Essex under the provisions of Title I, Section III, A1 of the Vermont statutes and the internal managers. I will further move to find that premature general public knowledge regarding the village's contracts regarding a confidential disclosure agreement concerning information obtained by the village and its staff that is related to research and technology development of wastewater contaminants would clearly place a village at a substantial disadvantage as a trustee's risk disclosing its negotiation strategy if it discusses the proposed contract in public. I further move that we go into the executive session to discuss a confidential disclosure agreement concerning information obtained by the village and its staff that is related to research and technology development of wastewater contaminants under the provisions of Title I, Section 313A1, other Vermont statutes that include the interim co-managers, water quality superintendent and village attorney. I further move that we go into the executive session to discuss the evaluation of an employee under the provisions of Title I, Section 313A3, other Vermont statutes and to include the trustees. I'm done. I will second all of those. Thank you, Raj. Trustees, any comments? Hearing none, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Those opposed, please say nay. Passed unanimously. Thank you, everybody. Brad, are we coming back into public session for any of these decisions? So I would say don't wait around town meeting TV. We'll come back very briefly to make a decision. We'll adjourn from there. So now we're back in regular session. Thank you, everybody, for your patience. And we are back to making the decision on Business Item 5e. And so I would entertain, I'll go ahead and I'll make the motion. I have it on my screen. I move that we enter into the confidential disclosure agreement concerning information obtained by the village and its staff that is related to research and technology development of wastewater contaminants and authorized management to sign all documents related to this matter. Second. Thank you, Raj. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Those opposed, please say nay. Passed unanimously. Thank you, all. And with no other business, I would entertain a motion to adjourn. Move to adjourn. Second. Dan had the motion. Raj had the second. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Those opposed, please say nay. It was unanimous. Thank you, all. Have a good night. Thanks, Brad. Good night. Thank you, Brad, for your patience.