 So we'll open the meeting to say that this is a meeting of Central Vermont Public Safety Authority. The meeting is remote only. And that means that we all need to state our name and when we speak a name and where we live and when we go through, I'm gonna ask all the board members to say their name and what area they represent. And throughout the meeting, I'm only gonna ask you to be recognized by the chair before you speak and to please keep discussion on the topic and try to limit ourselves to two to three minutes apiece. And every time we talk, we should state our name, especially important for those on the phone. Thank you. The agenda, is there any additions to the agenda? I have one that's a regular annual bill that just came in by email from the Vermont League of Cities and Town and this is for our membership. In May, we made a payment towards our liability insurance for the board, but this is our base membership of $997.50. I would like to add that to the agenda. Is there any objections? What's the number Donna? $997.50. We will do a warrant and the actual bill would be attached to that. So you would all get a chance to look at it. I believe that Justin and Brent, the householder got together and we actually can do the electronic warrant again. If not, we'll do one at Montpelier police station, but we're hoping to do electronic. And so any other additions to the agenda? With that addition of the bill for Vermont League of Cities and Towns, I'm going to assume the agenda is approved by unanimous consent. Public comment, Steven, you said you wanted to speak. Yeah, I just want to remind you, Donna, I believe you were emailed by our city clerk after he and I met with the Secretary of State's office and it was unequivocal with the Deputy Secretary of State who is an attorney that unless you're under contract with Orca, you as a municipality are required to record your own meetings. It's not optional to say somebody else is doing it for you. And you were informed of this in writing, I'm told, but I don't have a copy of that. I'd like you to clarify that you were informed of that. You did myself, I forgot. Yes, and the board did discuss that at the last meeting and decided to stay with where Orca. And so we're going with our own advice. Any other public comments? Okay, the next agenda item is minutes of June 16th. They were attached to the agenda any modifications, edits to the minutes, entertain a motion? I move to approve. Okay. Second. Mail seconding, thank you. Any further discussion about minutes? Otherwise, all in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Nay. Okay, unanimous they passed. Thank you. The next item is an update from the department of public safety grant application. I believe both Doug Brent and Joe Aldrich. Worth is here as well as Rick Burt, who's here. Joe, perhaps whether you or Doug Brent start the discussion. You were the ones who forwarded the grant link of the announcement from the department of public safety. Anything you would like to say about this? I believe the state has released the application for funding for radio infrastructure upgrade. I did distribute that to the board when you forwarded to me. So they've got it. Good. Anything about, my impression was that you were definitely seeking assistance. And what I got an email from Bill saying he, a Bill Fraser from Mount Peir city manager that he definitely supports and seeks assistance from Tel Aviv to do this application. Joe or Doug Brent, wanna comment on that? Can you hear me now, Donna? Yes, yes. Doug Brent here. That was a consensus that we had between the two cities. We had a meeting to discuss when the applications came out, if we would approach CVPSA to help to fund or to fund Tel Aviv's assistance in complying with that application. I don't think that it was 24 hours later and the applications came out. So it was felt between the two city managers, police and fire chiefs from both communities that that would be an appropriate approachment of the CVPSA to make, to ask for them to fund Tel Aviv's assistance in helping us comply with that application process. Yes, I'll let Rick speak in a minute. But my understanding is, I mean, as I was reading it, as well as what you have indicated in the past was indeed that Tel Aviv already has gathered a lot of that information, but some of the outreach involving getting quotes on the equipment is going to be a real-time demand, especially within just the next three weeks. So I can understand staff not being able to do that. Donna, I have a question. Okay. I thought that I'm not sure what the grant request is. I've heard of two possible requests. One is consoles and equipment for the dispatching centers of Barry and Mel Pylger. And another, which was just mentioned, I think by Barry Chiefs, was for complete infrastructure. And I don't know whether the total infrastructure grant is required by the end of the month. That's how I read the notice, but if there's a, I'm wrong about that. Well, and the other gentleman present can correct me, but my understanding is it's really based on the $3.2 million that was distributed to the board, that the capital that was submitted to the legislators under the name of capital region, Barry and Mel Pylger is infrastructure. That's one of the requirements of the grant and that is what we were talking about to legislators at 3.2, individual portable radios are not allowed. It's the infrastructure that supports it. And so maybe whether Joe Doug or Rick, it's a time for you to chime in. You probably understand the application more than any of us having looked over it more in depth. So Donna, if I might to answer one of Kim's questions. Sure. About the consoles, both Barry City and Montpelier City have stepped forward and are going to purchase the consoles on their own. And that has been approved by, I believe both city councils, I'm not trying to speak to Montpelier, I know that Barry City Council did agree with it. And so we're all ready to move forward on that part of it. So to answer Kim's question, yes. And the, go ahead. Thank you for picking that up. The consoles have been a commitment by both of the cities for some time, Kim. So I'm glad Doug clarified that. Montpelier approved money for that over a year ago. And Donna, could I just follow up? Okay. Is there any pending grants I've seen to Homeland Security by the cities? I've seen things about other possible equipment less than the three, three and a half mil. So I just want to make sure I understand what this grant application is referring to. Madam Chair, can I just point of order? It is not a grant. This is state funding. It is not a grant. It's an application for state funding. Okay. So it isn't Homeland, it's not Homeland Security. It's state budget money that's been appropriated. Yeah. It was sent out under the name of Vermont Homeland Security. So when I sent it out, I did the DPS initials, Department of Public Safety slash Vermont Homeland Security because that seemed what it was coming out of. And I call all money from the state a grant. So that's my misnomer. I'm sorry. I'll take it out. I won't use it anymore to say an application for state funds. But this is very much the same scenario as what we've discussed in past board meetings. It really hasn't changed. The legislators approved the money. The commissioner was directed to create a criteria and put out an application process for that money. And this is it. The radios may be as some other equipment may be what you're seeing within the pending grants. They're certainly reaching out to try to get money to support the portables and the consoles. But so far, at least in my opinion, I've been told that the consoles weren't successful. Hence, we put money into it, but they're still trying. But they're all very separate items. They're not duplicating themselves at all, Kim. All right. I just want to be clear then that the guidelines that were sent to us apply to the grant, the three and a half mil roughly for infrastructure. Right, but as Rick and the Montpilier and Berry staff go through the actual application, there may be things that were in that 3.2 that do or don't qualify, and that's up for them to sift through it. I can't guarantee that the application is going to be 3.2, but it's in that general bar park that we're starting. Okay, thank you. Rick, would you like to say anything about your scope of work, sir? I appreciate that you got your price down to 3,000. Donna, are you moving the discussion of the grant? Well, I'm moving it to what it says right here. We're talking about now the work on the grant and whether or not giving a contract to do the application to Tel Aviv. So I'm asking Rick to talk about this scope of work that he presented and I distributed. Rick, please. You've got an echo. And we're supposed to have thunderstorms here, so I figure any minute will all disappear. Donna. Okay, Kim. I'd like to make a motion in respect to the pending question, which is to postpone or defer it until Mr. Drescher can be present and for further study. Okay, Kim has put a motion on the floor to postpone discussion of the contract of the application or doing the application at all. Well, what's on the agenda is to enter into a contract with Tel Aviv. Okay, so you want to defer the contract discussion until next week? Yes, or until Drescher can be back as I wrote you. Okay, is there a second to that motion? Okay, hearing no second, the motion fails. And part of knowing that Justin wasn't going to be here is why I did bring it up at Montaer City Council today and got full support for not only advancing that we go after this money, but that indeed we hard tell them they to do it. So Justin is an appointed representative. So I felt like if I go to the source, we know that Montaer City Council supports it and hoping that helps people make a decision. I don't know if Rick can get anything in here. I'm certainly ready if you can hear me. Okay, we'll try it again. All right, so could you please give me the ability to share a file or two? I'm trying to share, but I don't have permission to. Okay, yep. Oops, whoops, whoops, whoops, whoops. Oops, whoops, whoops, whoops, whoops, whoops. I always do that. I request any files to be shared, be emailed to me. Oops, whoops, nope, nope, not that. Okay, try it now, Rick. Okay. Anna, Anna, Anna. Yes, Doug Hoyt. Doug Hoyt. Steve Whitaker had a question or request regarding the files. We want to make sure that we acknowledge that. I'm sorry, so Steve has a request for to talk. I'll send a share set to him. I'm sorry. Just a minute, Rick. Yes, ma'am. Doug, do you feel whatever Steve needs? I'm still not sure what needs to take place before Rick had already been given the floor. He just had trouble getting shared. Can we come back to Stephen's question? I'd like to review it at the same time as you are reviewing it. Oh, that's a different question. I'm sorry, remotely is one of those issues. We're only required to have audio and that's what we have. Rick will probably talk about it a great deal and hopefully that will fill you in. Maybe I can clarify. Right now, I don't intend to share anything other than what the state has provided so that we can be sure that we answer any internal questions. So I'm going to share the act and the application process so that we can address questions that both can raise and to provide information that we have studied and become familiar with in order to put our application and our proposals together, our statement of work together for you. And so that's what I intend to share. So I'm not sharing anything other than I'm sorry. Okay, I would draw the request. I have the application in front of me already. All right, very good. Okay, so, so by May then. So, as was suggested, was asked requested earlier what is propagating this opportunity, this funding opportunity? And it comes out of H740, which is, you know, enacted by the General Assembly. So this document here, this 1306 page document contains the requirements and the background on the funding and so I'm going to scroll to it. So please forgive me while I get there. I know you're not speed readers, but let me get to this section here. So. Madam chair, right? There's a hum on the background that we can't hear. There you go. Someone's phone should go muted. All right, so here is, I'm sorry, I passed it already? I passed it. So, as stated in this section E, 209-1 Public Safety Vermont Police Dispatch Working Group Transition Proposal Report. First of all, there's a requirement to put together a working group to support this effort that the stage has prepared. And I highly recommend if possible that members of Central Vermont be there. There is a funding and transition plan as part of it. And this represents who they're looking for to participate in it. So I think that's important to know that. And I've already had a conversation. We've had a conversation with Joe and Doug and Chief Pete about this. And all the requirements are stated in here. Madam chair, can we eliminate the background noise? Rick? Yes. I'm not really finding this part helpful. I don't know about anybody else. When I looked at your scope of work and line out the schedules and when I looked at the application, you know, I feel like we either gonna devote to move forward now or ultimately wait until another meeting if indeed we meet next week. I do have Jim Ward on the phone. He can't, and I can put him on speakerphone. Jim, are you there? I am. Okay, so people can hear him. You wanna say something, Jim? Identify yourself with your full name and where you represent. This is Jim Ward, I'm the representative from Barry City. Okay. So, I mean, I feel like either you, we've already positioned ourselves that we might want to do this, that it was likely to come. And so I would like us to move forward and at least, you know, make a vote and either support moving forward now. So we have a good chance to get into the competition and have this grant tip top, this application tip top, I'm sorry about the word grant again. And I think it's heavily competitive and that we need to be on top of it. And $3,000 is totally reasonable. So I'd like to have a motion or I'll make it, I'll make a motion that we award a contract to televide for $3,000 to assist with the application and they'll work, continue to work with Barry and Montpelier Public Safety Department personnel. Is there a second? I'll second that. Jim, seconded. Any further discussion? Jim Cheney. Yes. First of all, I think televide, hold them in high esteem. I think they do a good job for a certain part of it. I have no quarrel with their ability. And as I wrote you all, I have serious reservations to whether this vaguely named group is a legitimate applicant. I don't think it is because I don't know of any towns that have been voted or agreed to be members. And I don't think, as I wrote you, that, well, maybe I didn't write this. I don't think the contract was CFMAS for dispatching meets that requirement. Okay. Yes, Kim. So I would like clarification. I have no question that Rick Burke is capable of doing and Televator capable of doing the basic technological data, but that's only part of what's required. And Emotion says that they'll be hired to write the application. Emotion said they're going to assist Montpellier and Barry public safety personnel to do the application. And just so you know, as previously stated by Montpellier, they are willing to be the administrator and receiver of this award should it happen. And they, unlike the public safety authority, has a good standing in bonding and can do so. So any other comments? Jim is going to be lost if we keep it too much longer. Well, Donna, I want to know if you've got something from the city to that effect, I'd like to see it. Well, it's been many other emails in the past. And I do have an email from Bill saying he totally supports Televate doing this and working with them. Brent and Joe confirmed that they had it. I had a discussion at city council today. So. It hasn't come to the board as far as I know. I want to give you a nice. Okay, so I'm going to call anyone else besides Kim. I'm going to call the question and I'm going to do it a roll call. So Doug Hoyt, are you there? Oops, Doug muted. And now everybody has to remember to unmute yourself. Well, maybe I'll come back to you, Doug. How about Mel? She's ready. Hi. Thank you, Doug Hoyt. I'd like, Kim went to the trouble of sending out a very long. I'm sorry, we're voting, Doug. I ended discussion. I'm sorry. Okay. So I was calling on you to vote for yes or no or yeah or nay. I'll just know what I object to ending discussion. Okay. Jim Ward, your vote. Yes. Kim, your vote. Nay. Donna Bate, my vote, yes. Doug, did I hear you right? You were a yes. No, you didn't hear me right. Okay. I didn't say anything. Okay, you're still eating. I'm sorry. That's what I came back to you. No, that's all right. I'm sorry, Donna, you're gonna really not like this, but while I certainly disagree with the things that Kim has said, his ability, wanting to discuss this is appropriate and we ought to let that happen. I want to make sure that public safety authority and the public safety members have full, proded support for this particular activity. And that includes Kim Cheney's. Well, I totally agree and he's talked and he's sent out his pay and nobody else had anything to say. So I feel one person is allowed so much time and then we move on. So what else would you like to hear from? So you're voting no. No, this is not a very good position to be putting me in. I do not like this at all. I'm sorry, I, okay. I'm sorry, I rushed. Jim Ward would like to participate. He has guessed and eliminated ability to be with us. So I'm sorry if I rushed because nobody else had an issue except Kim. I thought he expressed it. He sent out his memo. I didn't hear support for it. Sorry. What else can we say? Donna for the Steve Whitaker for the record. No, you're not recognized Steve. This is a board discussion. You're not recognized. Mel, your hand is up. And it sounds like we've all voted. So I don't know how that leaves things. But the question is, what more do people need to say or hear? I mean, it sounded to me like we've been having discussions for the last few months about this and it's leading up to this point. So I'm trying to understand where the resistance is. Well, I can answer that question. Go ahead, Jim. The grant application came in, I got it less than three days ago. And that has criteria for eligibility and what must be in the grant. And before the application form came in, we didn't know what was required. As I wrote you all, there is no eligible recipient that represents a minimum of 10 separate public safety organizations, nor of any of them ascented to doing this. I disagree, Kim, on that statement. But go ahead. Well. Montpelier has their contract with Capital West. They have those towns. Yes, but Capital West is not a separate entity and does not represent those towns. No. In any legal sense and cannot bind those towns. No, it's not binding them towns. It's binding Montpelier and Montpelier contract through the towns. No, it's binding Montpelier and a contract with Capital West. And every year, Cap West has to go and get individual town approval. And the grant application says, it should be either an MOU, which I'd favor, because if you've got a 10 or 15 year obligation, it should be a contract, not just, oh, we like this today. And Mel, that's my objection. I think we need more thought to put this together and make sure our applicant, we don't even have a applicant that's eligible, that I know. Okay, the difference is Bill Fraser thinks that Montpelier is and that that's part of why they wanna start working now to do whatever's needed to make sure that they qualify. Well, you didn't send me the message from Fraser, but it had come for after the grant application forms were submitted. I got them three days ago. Any other questions? I just had, I don't see any reason to have to be done today. I think these are substantial questions and should be answered. I don't know how you answer all those questions until you get in the process of the application. And that's why it was so important that Barry and Montpelier public safety staff and the city managers are involved to make this work. We have very experienced people at the table helping Televate make sure that we have things in place, but all that takes time. And another week takes another week away. I'm with Mel. It's like we've been talking around this forever and we have a chance and we're gonna possibly lose whether it's a 3.2 million or whatever money for our infrastructure. Donna, I have a question. Yes, Doug. Could I ask a question of Rick Burke? Yes. Rick, what is the difference for you in terms of meeting the goals in this application that you have to wait an additional week or more? The biggest risk is one at the top of my list is ensuring that we can get quotes to support the funding requests that we make. So there is a requirement in the application that says that you need to provide quotes to support your funding. And so to achieve that, and we don't have to have a proposal on the street, we'll have to work with, we'll have to decide how the best way to go and do that. And we can reach out to two or three vendors and have them give us a ROM, a rough border magnitude quote, or we'll have to go to another state because the state of Vermont does not have a vendor, a radio vendor contract vehicle that we could reference for pricing. So the state of New York does and there are a number of other states to do, but we'll have to make some inquiries, according to what we've read already within the application, that there are options for us and opportunities for us to find quotes if we cannot get something directly from the vendors. I'm optimistic that we can get something from the vendor but we'll, we have to give them, we have to make the request and we have to get the time, we get the time for them. There are certainly other elements that we have to do as a team. And I think what Kim Chenney has brought up is correct. I mean, CVPSA is not submitting the application, so CVSA is not the applicant. And we have to determine if the CVPSA governance model has any relevance. It may or may not, but I don't think it's necessary, but there's a lot of discovery that has to happen. And so we'll have to have an internal discussion to determine our strategy and then we're gonna have to then perhaps put some questions out to the state. There is a, obviously Joe Ellsworth and Chief Brent and Chief Pete have had dialogue with members of the state. So they have additional insights that I don't have, but we only have, you know, we have less than a month to go. And so with less than a month to prepare this, you know, this application for the funding, we just don't want to, if the further we delay it, the greater the risks are. But, you know, I'm not saying that so that you all make a decision right now. I'm just letting you know that any delay is going to place some, you know, some additional risk on preparing a meaningful, compelling application to secure the funds. Thank you, Rick. I appreciate that. Donna, I would certainly encourage the rest of the board to continue the direction of going and move forward to authorize this contract. So would you, since you voted no, would you put it on the table to reconsider the motion? Sure. Okay. So Doug is putting on the table to reconsider the motion that had Doug Brent's cut his hand up. Yes, Doug Brent. Eric, can you hear me now, Donna? Yes, yes. I just want to add something like Rick Burke said, there's less than a 30 day window right now. This is due on September the 2nd. If Rick wants to get us something back that we can at least look over before it gets submitted to the state again. Okay. Yes. If we want to get something back, we're looking at three weeks. Three weeks of working days for a company like Rick's is 15 days they've got to put this together. And I can honestly tell you that if we have 15 days to put this together as a city department head, as Joe's boss and speaking not for Chief Pete but about what's going on in Montpelier and how much work he's doing, this is not going to get done by city staff of either city. It's just not going to 15 days just isn't not enough. So if we've got a company that's willing to do this, which is what the public safety chiefs and the city managers of both communities discussed and agreed upon, that's the move that we should make. Okay. So Doug has asked for reconsideration of the motion. Yep. Do we have to vote on that? Is that? Yes. Do you have another motion on the table right now though? No. Okay. So for reconsideration that has to be a second. I'll second it. Okay. I got mail for second. All right. Do a roll call vote. Jim Ward. Yes. Doug Hoyt. Yes. Mel. Yes. Kim. Kim, you're muted. Yes. Donna, yes. Okay. Passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you, Jim. Go play with your family. Okay. I hope the additional discussion helps. Sorry that I rushed. Well, the motion is up for reconsideration but it hasn't passed yet. We voted on the motion. Well, that wasn't my understanding. Okay. I was voting on a motion. I thought as long as the person that had voted no asked for the motion to be reconsidered, it was reconsidered. Oh. Well, I thought it was gonna, you can record my vote as no if that's where we are. Okay. Okay. Well, I can call Jim again and we can have a second vote. Just my, I haven't, Jim. Okay. Okay. Whoops, speaker. My mistake. Let's just be double sure. I'll consider that vote was a vote for reconsideration. Now we're going to actually vote on the motion for the contract for Tel Aviv to assist Barry with the assistance of Barry, assist Barry and Montpelier, public safety personnel to submit an application to the Department of Public Safety. Okay. So Jim's another yes. Doug. Yes. Mel. Yes. Kim. No. And Donna's a yes. Okay. We've got four yeses. So we had the majority pass. Thank you for bringing that up. It probably was best to do the two votes. I will have to look up Robert's rules of order to reconsideration. Okay. Thank you. I'm sorry about that. But it is, you're not supposed to vote on both, right? Okay. I just understood which one you were voting on. Well, no, it was my error. So I'm glad we corrected it. Thank you for being available. Okay. Bye. Okay. Bear with it. So you need to, you need to Justin here for parliament procedures. Okay. Any other business? And next meeting. Could I ask a question of Rick Burke? Okay. Is he still here? Yes. Yes. Yes, I sure am. Rick, are you going to try to do any work in getting the towns to consent to this application or will that be done by somebody else? So when I'm preparing the statement of work, I, you know, there are certainly activities that have to be managed locally. And I, that is one activity if required would have to be managed locally. I don't have a relationship with the towns. Certainly central fire does, capital fire does. And, you know, if required, and I don't know the requirements for, you know, establishing a minimum, as you said, of 10 entities, my thinking is that what was said earlier about the relationship with, you know, already established with capital fire may already encumber them to it, but I don't know the answer to that. And so that would have to be done locally if required. Am I also correct that, you know, assert any expertise in the legal relationship that might be created between the towns and hypothetically the city? Yeah, that's not, that is not a televates role. Televates role facilitated. We will certainly be sure that we ask those questions and that, you know, that we manage and facilitate obtaining answers to questions. If there are legal requirements, that would have to, that we would certainly recommend and say that, you know, we need some legal support and that will have to be obtained locally. We're not, certainly not a legal entity. But so we, our goal will be to ensure that we comply with all, you know, we identify all the compliance requirements and they're clearly stated in the application submission language and make sure that we get them done because there are some that, you know, certainly activities that we will own and there are certainly, there are other activities that will have to be owned locally. So my request was that there be, you know, a project manager and a working group. And so, you know, basically because the two cities are leading this initiative with support from some, from CBPSA, I would think that, you know, Deputy Chief Joe Alderith will take a lead or Chief Brent. But whoever is leading the effort, it's going to require that Chief Pete, Chief Brent and Joe are heavily engaged in this because, you know, there's activities that they'll have to do. And because Montpelier is going to be a recipient of the funding, they will have to provide certain documentation that's required by the grant. Of some of it, I'm sure that they do insurance and other items. But there may be some tricky issues that we'll encounter, particularly on the governance side. And do we have 10 entities that can be identified? And I think all of that has to be, you know, we have to really follow the process or we won't meet the obligation. So first and foremost, we've got to, you know, divide and conquer this because there's limited amount of time to pull it together. Well, this assumption is you're working in partnership. So there's some things that towns, the cities will do, worth you. And so that's part of what, within your contract, you talk about working with them. That's good. So you and I will connect on the contract. Okay. If you're around tomorrow, that would be good. I'm always ready to work. Yeah, yeah. I'll be in it. But if there are any other questions, I mean, certainly I wanted to be sure that, you know, I mean, we were asked to put together, just two days ago, we were asked together to put the statement of work. I finished it a few hours before the meeting, it's forwarded to the team. And if you haven't had a chance, I could discuss it. But it's relative, again, it's divide and conquer. Well, you know, television owns this, locally it's certain other items are our own and collaboration, we prepare a compelling application to secure some funding for this initiative. I have one other question. Is there a separate scope of work for this aspect of your engagement? There is, I haven't seen it. We have one scope of work, we're just doing this application. That's it. Is there a separate piece of paper? No. Could you send it to me? I haven't seen it. Okay, I sent this scope of work around, I will resend it, that's fine. I'll make sure you get it, Kim. Thank you. I'll forwarded it. Okay. Any other questions of Rick? All right. Thank you, Rick. Glad you were here. Thank you. And for me to do this so quickly, you know, isn't like you aren't like all of us doing lots of things. Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity to work with you folks. I mean, this is it. I mean, we've got to get some funds to support public safety in the region. It's a, you know, every day is at risk. So we've got to do this. Yes. Okay. Thank you and thank the board for all your patience about this evening. It's all, the next would be, I assume we don't need a meeting next week. This would be on our agenda. So our next meeting would be September. Is there any objection to that? It would be September 8th. And at that time, we would be able to have the application, look at it, discuss it. Should we do that a week earlier? Just in case. It goes in September. I mean, September 2nd is the deadline. That's Tuesday. Our regular meeting is Thursday. I'm done. Can I speak? Just wait a minute. I'm trying to understand Doug's question. Well, you're saying the application has to be in on what? On September 2nd, which is a Friday. Right. Our regular board meeting would be the 8th of September, the second Thursday. You want to be after the grant, I mean, after the grant application goes in. Well, because it's the week, you can ask for drafts if you want to see it, but the personnel staff is going to be, you know, digging in deep with Tel Aviv and getting this application done and shooting it off. And we can ask for drafts if you'd like, Doug. I mean, you're part of that working group. Yep. I would like to see a draft before it heads in. Sure. So I'm looking at the calendar right now. And what I'm seeing is the 25th because the next date is the 1st and that's almost after the fact. I mean, if you're looking to make any suggestions, I don't know, would you be? You talking to me now? Pardon me? You talking to me or? Yeah, I am, Doug. Well, if there's enough time, they can get a draft to us and we could get suggestions and if there is a need for suggestions and then it would make sense to do that. Right, yeah. But I really don't want to spend a lot of time second guessing Tel Aviv, but this is part of my personality and how I approach things and like to have the opportunity to look. You know, after it's after it's been signed in, I make any difference what you think it's in. Well, I mean, we've put a lot of faith in our own because it's so technical with our public safety personnel and Barry and Montaigneur that, you know, we've always been open to input along the way. I don't know the whole board has that expertise to give them. But if we had drafts along the way, and we can give it to them direct, I don't know what the board meeting would do to the application. Right, can I address that? Okay, but I'm back. I just want to go back to what Mel said. I'm looking at September and September 1st is a Thursday. The application is due on second Friday. We would be meeting usually on the second Thursday, which is the eighth. I was confused about, did you mention the 22nd? Well, I mentioned the 25th and the only reason, excuse me, I did, was because it sounded like Doug wants to see it before the fact. August 25th, I got you. And it sounds like Doug wants to see it before the fact. It might not be finished totally then, but you'd have at least what's there. And probably a lot of it is surrounding to the finish line. I'm just, I guess in my weird way, trying to be helpful and throw an idea out there. And I don't know if that- No, no, okay. I just didn't was confused about the date. So my thing would be whether it's more helpful for us to give direct input, then at a board meeting that takes them away from their tasks. That's all. I mean, do you want us to have a board meeting to discuss it, Doug? Or do you just want to give direct input? No, I'll wait and see if Rick can get a draft. Booming. What I would recommend and Doug, I really appreciate your interest in supporting this effort and as you have all along, all the board has. I don't, I'm not creating the working group, but I don't see any reason why you couldn't be involved in this. And so I'm expecting Joe and Doug and Chief Pete to be the conduit and certainly another brilliant mind involved in this is not going to hurt. So we are going to prepare this as quickly as possible. And there's going to be more than one bite at the apple. As I said, we committed to have a final delivery to you by the end of the month, but there's got to be interim ones along the way. And I don't see any reason why those can't be put in front of the board and others just so that you can have your input. I can't speak on behalf of who's going to lead the project for central Vermont. I'm just speaking on behalf of, of, of, of, of television support. I'm happy, you know, to have whoever's involved and you know, it's, it's going to move fast and we got to get it done. And all the best ideas are the ones that we need to have. Yeah, I appreciate all that. And please don't misunderstand me. I don't want to do anything or engage in anything that slows you down in terms of doing what needs to be done. So, I think you would just be, you'll add value to it as far as I'm concerned. So I, I see no reason and don't think you would slow us down. If you're, you know, you know your region and you know public safety. And if we, you know, particularly it says police and fire, I mean, we have a fire initiative but you know, the grant is looking for a combination of public safety. And so we're going to need to strategize that we do that and building bridges between our radio networks, between police and fire as part of what interoperability is involved in. So we've got to be creative and, you know and stating how we're going to achieve that in my opinion right now. But I, again, I've read, I've read the group of the act requirements. I've read the application and there are some, there are some tricky elements that we're going to have to figure it out of best strategize. So I think one of the activities indicated is that we need to develop our strategy. A lot of recommendations, but internally, I think too that, you know because Chief Bren and Joe have been engaged in this. They have insights that I don't have and we're certainly going to leverage that. They've been in discussion with, you know with, you know, members of the state. So we've got to leverage their insights in building a compelling application. Okay, so we're going to see some drafts. Terrific. And Doug, you've been our point person on all tech stuff. So we're still expecting you to perform. I have another question. Okay. Okay, Kim, one more. What I understand is happening tonight is CVPSA is having no further responsibility in this grant. You've told me that the city is taking this whole responsibility. See that this is done on time and meets the requirements. And part of that, I'm making that statement is if it goes south, it shouldn't be the fault of CVPSA. Tonight's vote, as you explained it puts the onus solely on the city of Montpelier here at the grant done properly and on time. Well, I'm sorry. I see it like our working relationship with our needs assessment study and other things we've done with Televate and the cities is that we've always had myself and with the technical Doug has been involved so that public safety authority always stays involved that we have one of us attend meetings. We read the materials, we present the materials to the board to edit as appropriate. So we don't relinquish our involvement, but it is our money, so we need to be there. The expertise and the administration and somebody who can actually receive the money, manage the money, Montpelier is willing to be the administrator. That's different than this $3,000. We're gonna watch our $3,000. You can do that. Finally, you're giving it to the city. And I don't think CBPSA has any further legal or systematic obligation for the outcome of this process. And I think we need to be clear about that. I'm a lawyer. I can't comprehend approaching it. I worry about liability. We have no further obligation. We will consult and we'll help, but the city is solely responsible for getting it done on time and meeting their requirements. With all they can ask us for all the help and I'm sure we'll give it to them. Well, okay, that's your opinion. I just differ from you. I look at it quite differently, but anyone else wanna comment on that? Please do so. Okay. So my understanding is right now, we are just going to leave our regular scheduled meeting for September unless something comes up and we need to meet earlier. Okay. The drafts will be submitted to the board. Yes, that was stated, yes. All right. So by unanimous consent, if nothing else comes before the body, I'm going to adjourn the meeting. Thank you all. Good night, good night. Goodbye, Rick, good luck. Thank you to the board for your continued support of Tel Aviv. We look forward to winning some funds so we can get this show on the rug. Amazing. Actually have equipment, fit equipment. Yes. Yes. It's a marvel. All right. Thank you all for your time and attention. Thank you very much. Good night. Good night all.