 start. Thank you for the reminder. No, I don't record it. We got orc recording it. Yes, we do. They're right there. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So we're all set. All right. Everyone's got the agenda. I asked for approval of the agenda. Any changes? Make a motion to approve it. I mentioned you're going to fill us in on the earmark. You wanted to add that. Can we add that under other business if time allows? Well, okay, I'd like to hear about it. I'll put it under under other business. I don't think that works. I've got an echo. If it's that you're going to have to come share my computer, Stephen, then that's what it's going to take. You can't have an echo. Sorry, I have to be able to talk. I don't think we have an echo on our end. I can increase my volume if that will help. Turn yours all the way off. Somebody, Sally, you want to speak to Stephen, see if he can hear you. Can you hear me? Okay. All right. Actually, Sally, I don't need a motion for that. Okay. I added the people will accept the agenda. There's no objections to adding the earmark under other business. The agenda will be accepted as proposed. Public comment. Anyone would like to talk about something not on the agenda? Okay. And now we have the approval of the June 10th, 2021 minutes. I would entertain a motion to accept the June 10th. Second. And the move was Paul. Jim. Jim. Jim's motion and the second was Sally. We're going to have really short minutes. Brent, last minute is not in town today. Okay. And then we have the August 12th minutes. There was one change sent to me that indeed in the August 12th minutes at the very end, it lists the next meeting as September 10th and it should have been the night. Other than that change, is there any others proposed? Nope. I'll make a motion to accept them as amended. Thank you, Sally. Second. Second. Kim, I think you were first. Okay. All right. Any other discussion? All in favor say I to pass the August 12th minutes. I shake your hand. Any opposed? Great. Now we need to ratify all the motion passed within the August 12th meeting. And that includes a motion to ratify approval to pay. There was a payment to Paco to me and to Brent. They were outlined in your August 12th packet. And they were outlined here in the agenda. It's kind of a moot point to ratify these things right now because the night smart meeting didn't get more needed. So yeah, it did. Okay. Whoever's speaking, I can't, I can't hear who's ever was. Okay. Steve is saying that it didn't get posted, but I called and spoke. I emailed both Jody and Mary and they said they posted it. So I don't know where it went, but they posted. I talked to them Tuesday. So we are ratifying a vote to ratify the things that were approved within the August 12th meeting. I am registering that Stephen is opposing that because he says he didn't see the posting on the board. I just went and checked the board and it's not posted. I don't need, both women told me I confirmed it. Donna does. Can we approve it all at once? Or do we need to do them each individually? No, we can do all the, and the other ratification was the acceptance of the Tel Aviv report and final payment. So you can do one motion to ratify the motions that were voted on and approved on August 12th. So moved. Second. Any further discussion? Okay. All in favor? Say aye. Any opposed? Thank you. I will note Stephen's objection. Something being posted, then nobody knows if it stays, but we had this terrific response from the Twin Cities public safety staff or emergency services, I think they called themselves, that I would like to talk, and maybe Doug Grant would like to lead the way as he shared the letter on behalf of the group. Have you sent that to everybody, Donna? I did. Yeah, I haven't seen it. I got it. It was attached to the last email. Yeah. I mean, you know, it was there. I'm not anyone can find it in their stuff and send it to Kim. Jim, you said it was attached to the notice of the meeting. Right now. It was a follow up email. So I got it after the agenda went out. So it was a separate attachment. Maybe well, Doug Grant is talking about it that I'll send it to you. I can find it. I don't know what. Well, if you want, Donna, it's not that long of a letter. I'll gladly read it into the record so that everybody hears. It's your choice, though. I was going to suggest that. Okay, at least very essence of the recommendations, but certainly if you want to read the whole thing, do it. Okay, so as you are, dear distinguished board members, as you are aware, for over two years, the public safety agency heads in city managers for the city of Montpelier and Barry City have been meeting discuss common operational level issues which affect each of the two cities in their provision of emergency services. The current state of our radio communication system has emerged as having the highest impact on public and responder safety on a daily on a daily basis. The ongoing radio infrastructure issues and coverage problems that exist played the delivery of fire, EMS and police services in both Barry and Montpelier. On Monday, August 30, 2021, the Twin City team consisting of Barry City manager Mackenzie, Deputy Police Chief Eastman, Deputy Fire Chief Osworth, myself and Montpelier City manager Frazier, Police Chief Pete, Deputy Fire Chief Quinn and Fire Chief Gowans met to discuss the telebate report in its entirety. We felt it was important that our group reach consensus on the report, choose a direction and notify CBPSA of our position. We met for over two hours and reviewed the telebate report and the telebate PowerPoint presentation. The focus of our discussion was based on the system costs and preliminary priority slide number 23 from the telebate report. The basis for our group's outlook on the recommendations is centered on the statement in the telebate PowerPoint consideration slide number 22, bold and highlighted, bold and highlighted communications gaps require immediate attention. This is an issue of safety listed below are the recommendations which were supported unanimously by the city managers and public safety chiefs from both cities. Recommendations are that we accept the telebate report is submitted utilizing the dual simulcast system concept slide number 16. We recommend to address the upgrades as outlined by priority and cost slide number 23. Currently address and seek funding for only the priority number ones. It was the feeling of both cities that replacement of the dispatch consoles would be done at the expense of each city not as part of the regional plan. This leaves a regional plan cost to be funded or a balance of $3,930,000. We also thought support for greater fire police fire fire and police chief participation on the CVPS a executive board increased town and department memberships to CVPS a have CVPS a present their summary report in other words the PowerPoint presentation to a joint meeting of the Barry city and Montpelier city councils see the 830 21 request from managers Mackenzie and Frazier and have CVPS a develop an acceptable slash equitable funding formula slash scheme for the remainder of the priority number one project components or the $3.93 million. We plan on being present at the upcoming meetings and are glad to give our input as needed to support this extremely important issue. As noted the final upgrades are broken down as priority one, two and three even though we support acceptance acceptance of the entire report after much consideration and discussion it was agreed that only the priority number once should be moved forward at this time. This is a considerable amount of money and the industry derived cost estimates provided by Tel Aviv will likely have notable impacts throughout the first responder community. These are good real numbers in today's marketplace based on solid information from third party engineering reports. We're available for comment at your request. Sincerely and it's signed and okayed by William Frazier, Ryan Pete, Robert Gowans, Larry Eastman, Quinn, Timothy Bombardier and deputy chief Joe Osworth. That that was our report coming out of our meeting on Monday, August number 30. Well, thank you so much for reading that. Even with the bubbles in the sound, it really was very good for people to hear it. Kim, I emailed it to you also. I forwarded the email you, because that was sent. I too have sent it to him. I have sent it to him as well. Okay. Thank you both. Make sure you read both of them. Might as well read three of them, because I sent it too. Okay. How about comments and discussion? Paul has his hand up. I really feel that that was an outstanding opinion from the chiefs and the city managers. It seems like I've been on this committee for almost a year and that we're all, I never really know what direction we were headed in. This is clear and concise direction as to where we want to go. And I really welcome bringing them in to this because it's, you know, we, that's the people that we need to be helping us decide what we need and which direction we're going. Thank you. Anyone else like to speak? Yeah, I have a question. Yes, Kim. Doug, I think we should include somebody from CFMAS, either Paul Saruti or Delegates, to these council meetings, because I think it would be good for the whole community to know your position, which I think is wonderful. I'm glad you're doing it. But I think we need to include the towns and this. So, Kim, just to let you know in the rest of the committee, just to let you know in the rest of the committee, we agree with your opinion on that. And the day after we met, so it would have been August 31st, we had a meeting in Brian Pete's office, myself, Brian Pete, Joe Allsworth and Paul Saruti to bring them up to speed and to get them into the fold as well. Oh, terrific. So they'll be invited to any meetings at the city councils. So I believe that Joe has, as Joe's on tonight and Joe is the vice president of the mutual aid, even though he wears two hats, because he's on our department as well, obviously. But with his capital fire mutual aid hat, I believe he has a comment relative to that. And I have one other question. Joe, you want to give your comment? And then we'll go back to Kim's second question. I've talked with Skip Boff-Beld, who's the president of capital fire. And we have a meeting next week, Wednesday, to discuss the televate report and that he is going to be coming forward with a letter and he'll be requesting a same type of report from CVPSA and Televate for the fire chiefs and representatives of each of the communities affected. Probably a member of their select board. I'll know better coming next Wednesday, but you should, Donna, you should look forward to a request. They would like to do a separate one to make sure it's not convoluting the two projects, because they may have some of their own questions for the user's group, our radio system versus the Barry Montpelier system. I'm really sorry that I'm going to ask you to repeat part of that. And I have this terrible echo going. Is your system off, Stephen? I can turn it on while I get here. Please. Can you hear me? I must be muted. Okay, we'll see if that helps. But I was getting somewhat of an echo, Joe, when you were talking. So that you mentioned that they were making a request to towns. I just need that restated more clearly. So they will be meeting next Wednesday. They will be asking a similar presentation to the fire chiefs and a member of their select board from CDPSA and Televate. But that'll come to you, Donna. And so like I said, I had a conversation with Skip. And so to facilitate that meeting, it'll probably be big enough. We'll have to have an area to do that. And I'm working on that now. So not only chiefs from the towns, would it also include the town's select board chairs? Interested? My recommendation to Chief Botfeld was to have the fire, have the fire chiefs and a representative from the select boards at that meeting. Excellent. Excellent. Doug, Hoyt, you had your hand up? Not really, but I guess I would jump in and just ask that apparently, not apparently, one of my responsibilities is this concept of outreach. And it seems like Joe and other people are doing a lot of things to pull some of that stuff together. But should somebody from the board be present at some of these meetings? And if so, I really don't want to necessarily volunteer myself. But if that's where I should be, then that's where I'll be. Doug has volunteered himself to be available to Capital West. It would be really good. He could be included. Chief Hoyt, I will make sure that you're part of those meetings. Okay. Appreciate it. I would like to be part of those meetings myself. Okay. For the outreach, we have Sally and Doug already attending. So we got a third person without having a quorum there. Okay. Terrific. I'm looking forward to getting that information. Thank you, Joe and Doug Grant. Jim, you got your hand up. Yeah, I'm just looking for clarification. Can I assume or can we assume that the three original proposals have now been consolidated into one? Or are we still maintaining running parallel tracks on different proposals? I know from what Doug Chief Brent said, it sounds like City of Montpelier and the City of Barrie's plan has now been consolidated into a larger one. But is Capital West still running their own proposal on a separate track? Or where are we? And not Capital West. Capital Fine Mutual Aid. Sally, do you have any input on that? So I think what we said last meeting was that we would give time for us to discuss what we were going to do as far as CBPSA goes and see what the direction was that people were looking at taking. And this fall, we would take a stance on it as far as what we're going to do because like I said in the last meeting, I think we want to be prepared to go to town meeting this coming year for people to have put money forward. Is that sound right, Joe? Just a question, Sally, when you say we, you're talking about Capital Fine Mutual Aid, not Capital, not this group. Correct. Okay. Is that correct, Joe? Yes, that is correct, Sally. Thank you. Okay. Anyone else on this topic? Kim, you have your hand up? I have a question for Doug Brent. Will the equipment and the consoles that you're recommending be capable of handling a really first rate CAD? Because it seems to me if we're getting new consoles, they ought to be able to handle a real CAD program. Just that that's a little premature and that was part of what the Tel Aviv study talked about. And indeed that you need to have funding to get a serious RFP out. And until you get a serious RFP out, you don't have that absolute detail is my understanding on the equipment. So we're not there yet. It certainly is the goal from everything I've heard from everyone is they want whatever we get to be as adaptable to the future as possible. But again, that will happen when you actually do the procurement process. Now, Paco had a discussion with Rick. I had one too, but I think his has been the most recent. If Paco is there, I know you had some grandkids around. Have you disappeared Paco? I did. I thought the grandkids were hidden. They're never. Well, I mean, because we wanted to hear more from both Rick and Dominic were very clear that you needed to get your your money lined up. Then you can put out your RFP, your procurement process. And so until we, I think, until we get together and do a real decision about who do we need at the table to make those decisions about the board, the membership, the cost allocation. I think that's even more important and that will lead us into the governance and that whatever institution this finally lands under that until we had a group can sit and really pow wow and say, this is who we want at the table. This is who we have confidence of in the table representing all the groups right now that it seems to be two cities in the capital of capital of far mutual aid membership. And when can we can accept what together who should be at the table making these decisions for cost allocation for governance? Then we can decide who owns it? Does it sit under public safety authority? Does it sit under some other umbrella? Who knows? I mean, I'm not. I'll keep telling you committed that it has to be Center Vermont Public Safety Authority. And I think we ought to get rid of names and just think about how does this entity function? How can we have faith in it? What do we need to have faith in it? And not worry about where we sit it until we design it. And once we design it, then we can say, okay, what title, what organization owns it that we operate this group that we've now created. Does that make sense to people? Did I explain it well that you could understand? I just think, you know, trying not to be entity minded territorial minded. Just think about it's like the far chiefs obviously they should be at the table. The police chiefs should be at the table. We've wanted them there as voting members, but it's more than that. So it seems to me part of the working group and the discussion may be that Doug, when he goes outreach and visiting Sally also in the outreach is discussing that. What do people need to have faith in the people at the table to really empower discussion that then we can go to the towns, then we can have people voting on that membership on that cost allocation because it's coming from a trusted source. So that's what I feel we need to really work on. Anyone else for next step suggestions? Yay, nay. I don't disagree with that. I just I don't know what Doug Brent's timetable is. If we're going to go forward at March meeting for new consoles and fund them. I agree with you that everybody should be on board as to what's needed on those consoles. And if that's where we're headed, that's fine with me. Obviously, we got to get everybody together and talk about it. I mean, if we could decide who among all of our groups should be at the table and we all say we're giving these people the authority to act and negotiate on behalf and they really started meeting every couple of weeks. We would know by the first of November what we could or could not go to town meeting for. I think we'd have a much better picture than we do now. But time is of the essence. We really need a commitment to start meeting and eat regularly and and have things happen of Doug Brent. So I think you just summed it up really well, Donna, in saying that time is of the essence and I will say this for a couple of reasons. First of all, this equipment as we've learned we kind of knew this. We really learned this from Rick and Dom. This stuff is operating on borrowed time. The next call could be the last one. Fortunately, here in Barry, our equipment is a tad bit newer than what some of this capital fire mutual aid stuff is, but it's all really the same vintage stuff. And secondly, guess what surprise surprise stuff's not getting cheaper the longer we wait. And so and we all know because we've all heard the stories about computer chips and things and there's brand of cars sitting on the lot of the car manufacturers they just can't get chips for them. Well, guess what every bit of this radio stuff is chip driven and the manufacturers doesn't matter which brand you talk to. They're all waiting for stuff months now. So even when we make a decision, we might be months out from even getting the stuff delivered. Okay. So at the meeting on Wednesday for Capital Fire Mutual Aid, where the far chiefs and select boards are coming together. Is this the time to try to then have representation from Barry, the city of Barry, Montpellier and Central Montpublic Safety Authority to really, you know, get down and name who should be at the table, confirm. Donna, can I can I clarify? Yeah. So the upcoming Wednesday meeting is on the agenda for them to discuss the televate report. Okay. And then they will be generating what they want to do. I would anticipate a letter coming from chief Woffeld requesting a presentation from CVPSA and televate. Okay. All right. But it's not it's not that's not the meeting for the select board members. Okay. Okay. All right. So we have another meeting in there. Do you think that they can Capital Fire Mutual Aid can meet more than once a month on this if we if at the Wednesday meeting, we make that request at the very least that we would like to move this forward on a more fast, a little faster pace. I'm sure that they'll be amenable to it. And I don't I know that they are pretty consistent with the timeframe to go into town meeting. So if it needs to be moved forward and Sally could back me up on this or not. I think I think they're willing to move on this. Yeah, I mean, we have said we want this for this coming town meeting. So I don't think that's going to be an issue in all to have an extra meeting. Okay. Well, I mean, because part of this ties in, I guess I feel like you take the twin cities team and you add the comparable individuals from Capital Fire Mutual Aid from Central Vermont Public Safety Authority and you add Rick televate to facilitate it. I think something could really come out of that. I think the drip, the gist I got from Chief Boffeld is that he wants to hear it from the horse's mouth and if there's questions to be asked, he wants to hear their answers. Oh, Wednesday. Yes, Rick. Yes, trying to get. No, that's not that's not next Wednesday. They will set that meeting up so that the fire chiefs will be there and the select board members of each of the communities will be there. I don't anticipate a hundred percent attendance next Wednesday. Okay, so you didn't really have a date yet for Rick to show up. Okay, I would anticipate Skip's request to you within the, you know, within the end of next week. I would think. Okay. Okay, I'll try not to rush it. I wanted to happen tomorrow. Poco, maybe you can help me with the flow of this. How do we go from where we are with the discussion we have, which seems where we want to be and certainly pick up on the extension from Capitol Farm Mutual Aid. Yeah, the one thing that jumps out at me right now is the issue of where we want to go where we want to be. And the big thing is who's the we CBPS a has not been charged by its membership to accomplish anything at this point. So I think having that said, hearing from Capitol Fire at one of their upcoming meetings and hearing from the city councils is very important to how we move forward. Having that said, there's a couple of things from the letter that Doug Brent read that's very important. In terms of moving forward, the whole letter is very important. Don't get me wrong, but in terms of actionable items for CBPS a one, the Twin Cities group are recommending that other towns be members of CBPS a and the other actionable item that's immediate is to come up with a formula scheme that can help identify how this project is going to be funding. So having that said, my recommendation in terms of moving forward is to put a small working group together, primarily made up of of staff people with a representative from CBPS a but that work this working group is to hit the ground running and start charting a course or actionable items and then come back to CBPS a hopefully the timing will be around when CBPS a meets with the city councils so that CBPS a can say here's where we want to be going and will you bless this plan? So and how you do that, how you facilitate this discussion? Well, somebody would have to have to be appointed chair. Now I will say that one of the things that's going to come out of this that already is bubbling up is the issue of governance and I think governance as we all know is very important. It's not it doesn't have to be the first thing that is is is done but it does have to be at the top of a list in terms of resolving the issue. It certainly has to be resolved by the time you put together any RFP you develop a funding source to to to move forward. Now, I had spoken with Rick earlier this week and Televate is willing to put together some cost range proposal from anything from help helping the group through coaching right through to actually rewriting a writing bylaws. So the point is is is that Rick Burke and Televate is interested in staying involved if that's the direction this body wants to go and I see Rick is on the phone tonight I mean on the phone tonight. So maybe he wants to chime in at this point. By all means, Rick, thanks for joining us. You're welcome. Thanks for having me. Hey, you know, we we are invested in this project the same as you all are love to continue to support you to you know to a success successful conclusion and implementation. So, you know, however we can help and whatever you need from us, you know, we're we're grateful for the opportunity to be continuing to to continue our engagement. So we'll be responsive to your request and you know available to 10 meetings and and answer questions from, you know, whatever source and whomever they come from. So yeah, I think we you know you we've come a long way since we began and you all are, you know, making great progress. So yes, thanks for asking me to talk and just let me know what you need for me. But Donna one of the one other item I wanted to mention this this idea of a small working group is is is intended to be a a prelude to the next step suggestions that tell of eight name all of the committees that were identified in the tell of eight report are are very important, but more importantly is the functions that those committees represent and those functions have to be discussed and we have to CV PSA and the twin cities and capital fire has to make a decision as to to how those functions will be properly staffed so that they can they can be worked on. So again, then my idea of a of a small working group is nothing more than to identify tasks to get things moving and also to to solidify the we being in agreement. That's the public safety folks between capital fire. The two cities and CV PSA. I guess what I'm thinking of the back of my mind a proposal of asking the board to approve some additional hours for Paco his current contract which is sort of done that maybe like 20 hours just to start with this $1,000 right that indeed then to work with this small working group that you could reach out. I'm seeing Paco reaching out to form what he feels and interview people for small working group make a proposal back to the board and to everyone else of this group and then give it some initial ownership of facilitating that until we are in a place then to look at whether or not we can afford something with the televate doing it. Does that make sense Paco to you or do you have some other suggestions? No, I know that that makes sense to me. Remember we we did already sign an addendum to the original contract and I think I probably have 12 maybe 15 hours left on that. Great. Probably after tonight's meeting 12 hours. So I'm I'm I'm opening open to working with you to move this forward now my idea of centers around putting together this working group and ferreting out the issues documenting those issues and then bringing them back before the CV PSA board for action of the board and those issues might be a discussion about how do we how do we move forward with getting more towns involved? What are the tasks associated with that? And then what's what are the what are the recommendations for a funding scheme? You know, I did a lot of work historically on different formulas for funding. Capital fire has an established funding source for funding formula for the dispatching contract move with Montpelier and of course they did a very simplified cost formula for the simulcast system. They had I can. I will tell you that if if we were to just if we were to assume a $3.9 million project over 10 years on a 10 year bond and there were 24 entities involved just the straight calculation means a little over $16,000 a year commitment from each of those 24 entities is that fair? I mean, I don't know. I am just just throwing that out that type of formula was used by the when the capital fire tried to articulate the cost of the $300,000 simulcast system. So I like your example, but I don't want to get into the weeds of that example because that's what we're trying to do with first find out who comes to the table than to start the conversation. Jim, did your hand go up and then Kim? Yeah, I was thinking of this for Paco mentioned it, but since you did I want to just get the answer to it. So much seems to ride on our funding source and I know Sally mentioned that they wanted to be ready to go to town meeting. Do we have any kind of definitive timetable or when we're going to get a notice or denial or approval or some kind of indication of whether that grant is going through? I'm sorry. Are you talking about the earmark? I'm assuming that's what the funding sources. No, no, not at all. Lehi definitely said no for this year and that we could apply next year. Oh, okay. Yeah, and Sanders didn't seem to give our application any attention and maybe other people around the table know the right people to call. So we've moved on to the funding source being municipal grants. Municipal and state. I mean, that's part of, you know, yes, is looking at that and trying to also because the cities and towns monies are coming in like four installments to this year and to next year. And so likewise as it comes in, they're going to be making decisions. So this is definitely one we want to get on the table for all the towns to think about with some of their rescue money, federal dollars. Does that make sense, Jim? Okay, I just had to hear that we've got a definitive no from Lehi. I apologize. I didn't get that email. One of the things we did, I mean, we did put in a reduced application, but they said, no, that they had just already had moved on everything. And that was my misunderstanding. I thought I apologized to all of you because I really thought I misunderstood what Diane was saying and that indeed they moved right away. So even the reduced application, they didn't look at because one was the definitions. Maybe this will ring some bells. The definition had had to fit better fit law enforcement. And so the only thing within our application to Lehi that was strictly law enforcement was the consoles. But and so we resubmitted that. But then we turned out, she said, no, I'm sorry, you're just, we just can't get here. You may have covered it the last meeting and I was, I didn't catch the whole last meeting. So there's a lot of fine parts, but one of the other things that came out of that is Paco create a very reduced profile that taking Lehi's larger piece and more simplified it so that we could share it with towns without overwhelming them of this long application. And I'll make sure that I put that out to everybody to look at. So I'll send it. Donna. Yep. You have two hands up. Kim first and Stephen Kensie second. Oh, I'm sorry to see Stephen. Thank you. Okay, Kim, Cheney, go ahead. Donna, I would just like to move that you consult with Paco and work out a contract for continued involvement as he described. Well, we have one. And so if you made that motion just to add 20 hours, we do it like in 20 hour increments. We're controlling our money. We're down to having a total of like less than $40,000 after we pay everything out the door. That was my concern. I think to be fair to Paco, we have to figure out what he can do and how much time he thinks it'll take. Well, am I conversation with him and Paco correct me that he's definitely interested in continuing and I don't know if he'd like a larger contract. Certainly speak up or if you can deal with 20 hours now and 20 hours tomorrow. Well, Donna, I'm, I'm, I'm aware that CV PSA has does not have an infinite budget. The budget is finite and I got to believe until the next fiscal year that that the monies that are remaining are depleting. So yes, I want to remain. I'm willing to do the work in in 20 hour components or less. In other words, I'm willing to say, let's not write a new contract yet or let's not write an amendment. Let me work with you and use the hours that I have left on the existing contract and see where it goes. Okay, well, that satisfies me as long as Paco is happy. Maybe my emotion is simply to approve continuing Paco at 20 hour increments. Anybody want to second that? I think it's already taken care of with the existing contract. Yes. No. Well, we have 12 hours left on the existing contract. We, the board extended the 20. Yes. So Kim's motion is to add another 20 to the existing 12. I'll second that. Uh-huh. Sally Beach it. Any further discussion on that? And I know, Steve, you still have your hand up and Kim, would you took your hand down? You've got your system hand up. I know it's hard to remember. I can't see you, Steve. I'm sorry. You disappeared. Oh, there you are. You want to say I have two questions. We have a motion and I ask if there was any further discussion of the motion. Okay, so wait. Okay. So right into the motion of adding 20 hours to Paco's current contract. All in favor say aye. We have your hand. Hi. All right. Any object objections? Thank you. And now I've Steve McKenzie had his hand up. Yeah. Yeah. So I don't, I don't want to be the skunk at the party, but there's from, from the very city side, I'm assuming the Montpellier side as well. We've, we've worked to help set direction with the memo that Doug spearheaded and others helped tweak and refine. But as, as we've been, as we've been talking or as folks have been talking, I've been thinking through the, the process and the approach. So what the recommendation from the twig cities group was that we have, we have a joint, we arrange a joint presentation or a presentation to a joint council meeting and the target dates that Bill and I picked was October or is October 20th, which is still a little bit off. We, we pick that due to the existing council schedules that we have or agendas between now and then as I was thinking about that and I haven't had, haven't, it's not only occurred to me tonight. I haven't had a chance to discuss it with Doug with the berry team. I'm really thinking that the berry team actually needs to have a pre-meeting with the city council before the joint presentation on the 20th because for all intents and purposes, the berry council probably knows little to anything about the, I'll say the, the, what's been going on for the last two years. A lot of them, you know, most of the members are new. They don't have a long history. So, and as I, frankly, it's a, it is a new council. I mean, a number of months old, but I'm, I'm getting to learn the council better. And I know that if we just land on their desk on the 20th with a fairly comprehensive briefing, they're going to, they're not going to be receptive to making any kind of decisions that evening. And I don't know that we're asking to, but I think it's prudent from our side to begin to get our council up to speed. So, so that's one thing. I've got to work on with Doug and Joe. I have, I did send them the whole television report and the presentation. I think I've lost track already a week or 10 days ago. I just said very comprehensive report, an awful lot of reading. We'll be coming to make a presentation sometime in the future. I don't think we had the data established. So they've had it, but, but receiving a 111 page report is pretty daunting. I haven't the Twin Cities memo just got published. What was it? Wednesday, Wednesday, Doug, I will be, I'll be distributing that to the council this weekend in my manager's report. So we've got some preparatory work to do at our end. But, but we've also, and I apologize if I'm sort of repeating, but I just maybe reinforcing that a big part of this is really defining the project with projects and the recommendation from the Twin Cities group is we've essentially, there are essentially, I'll say two projects. One is purchasing the consoles with the two cities. That's one piece. And then the other is the 3.9 million. So for the municipalities, there's two, there's two funding pieces of the puzzle to put together. Frankly, probably couldn't come into worse time for Gracie. I'm going to be doing a lot more homework on ARPA funding. I don't know whether that will provide a source of funding or not. I'm not, I'm not, I'm not, frankly, I'm not optimistic at this point, but I could be wrong. So I mean, the budget pressures on Berry City for this coming year are great. We have staffing needs that we're trying to work with in the city administration that I don't know if we can even fund those positions. So there's a lot of homework for us to do on the Berry City side and having a working group help forge the direction of the projects and funding concepts and things like that is critically important. And March seems like a long time away, but it's not. I mean, frankly, it's not March. I mean, it's got to be done by January. Yeah, it's January. Yeah. So are you seeing that you're going to propose to move back the joint council meeting maybe to the 1st of November? No, no, no, no, no, no, no, I think the 20th is a good day. I mean, frankly, if I, if I, if I thought it was feasible, I'd even move it up to the earlier November, but I'm not sure that that's possible. All I was trying to say is and maybe the 20th is good for us because I've just come to realize I sort of had a chance to give some thought to this listening to the meeting and since the memo went out Wednesday in order, in order to be fair, if that's the right word with our council, we, I've got some homework. I've, we've got some homework and some, some preparation to do on our side before the meeting on the 20th, Bill from Bill's end, he may not feel the same way because he's had both you, Donna, and at least up to whatever a month or so ago, I'm forgetting his name, Dan, yeah, Dan, as, as both counselors and representatives. So probably had more opportunity to keep the council, your council up to speed. Well, we've got a lot of new members too though. It's a point well taken. Yes. I mean, we all need to do homework, which to me helps give a lot of energy back to the essential needs of that small working group. And yeah, I guess that was a long version of saying I need to get our council engaged. And I think anyone around this is bored of definitely are available to whatever level we can help you do that. But Joe and Brent, you're Doug Brent and Joe, you're covered all the expertise. Okay. So in, just looking at the agenda, Rick, anything else that you want to contribute? I want to make good use of your time while you're online. I caught him when he's sleeping. No, I was, no, I didn't know. No, I'm good. I just need to, as soon as, you know, reasonably possible, we could confirm dates so I can be sure that I've cleared my calendar, you know, for when I may be needed to answer questions and to participate and make a presentation. That's, that's all I'm going to need for my own. Yeah, I think Rick, this is Steve McKenzie. I think the, right now, the data put in your calendar would be the 20th. Yes. Or for a joint meeting with Berry City and Berry in Montpere. Okay. I don't know about other dates, but that's one. I think you can lock down with a high degree of certainty. All right. And I guess the other point is that September 20th or October 20, October, October, October. I'm giving you a little time. All right. Do you have a time frame? What time? Well, it would be while our council meeting started seven. This is going to be joint. It actually would probably be in Montpere. Yeah. The Montpere Council Chamber of City Hall. Okay. And I think what we were contemplating is that it would and we're not in a position to make this commitment, but it would be a team that I think that we were thinking that would be Paco and you, Rick, and, and, and I'm sorry, I forgot your partner's name. Don Don along with, you know, Donna and or others from the board who could be there, but I think you folks are the best equipped to make the presentation as, as concisely as can be made. And we can work with you on that. I mean, the reality is, you know, I say a half an hour tops to make the presentation, however long it goes with with with questioning and answers is another beyond your control, but, but a half an hour is probably the toss before you lose everybody. Understood, sir. We can coordinate more on that, but I was, yes, likewise. I was thinking it's so important to have the, the experience far cheap and staff and so that we get people who really talk about what their real day-to-day crises are and could possibly be worse so that they really can relate to it in real real terms of data. I mean, the, the reality is there's no even, even I is managed. I mean, I don't have the sensitivity to the concerns that Doug and Joe have with our existing system. I mean, we don't, we don't deal with it every day. Yeah. So, and if, and if I'm not feeling it, if you will, you can imagine where the council's. Yeah, definitely. Okay. That's, that's good. October 20th. Everybody underline that big and bold. Paul's got a question. Okay. Paul. There we go. Okay. There's really two things. I, I see tonight that we're all headed in the direction that we need to move forward and disseminate this information out to our other partners that are going to have to go to their select boards and governing bodies. And one of the things that I think we need to discuss is that if we as a group support the twin city letter that Doug read tonight, because I, that's where I, that's where I stand too is let's take this one palatable bite at a time. So let's move forward with phase one. And the second part of it is I'm going to make as a motion is I make a motion that we send Doug Hoyt as our representative to these outlying partners in capital fire because of his history with them running capital West for so long. These are people that trust him. And, and so I'm going to make that a motion. Okay. Second. I'll second. I was trying to put that into the middle. I mean, my motion, your motion into words and I didn't catch it all, but that you would be appointing Doug to represent us in all the future meetings related this the outreach committee is going out to, to these departments or the, or the capital fire mutual aid association. And, and I would like Doug to represent us. Did I say our spokesperson? Yes. Sally, you would go okay with that. Yeah, the friendly amendment. Yes. I mean, Sally, certainly on the outreach committee, Doug is a chair, but I think it's good to have one key spokesperson that doesn't put Sally in the bind of representing to at the same time. Does that make sense? Sally. Yeah. Okay. Okay. And second to that motion. Thank you. Kim Cheney. Any further discussion on that appointment? All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Terrific. Thanks for the motion and thanks for the acceptance, Doug Hoyt. Now stay well so you can do a good job. We got to all stay healthy and sorry about Paul, but you know, it can happen has happened to many of us and it can happen to anybody. So everybody well. Yes, Stephen. I think there was a second part that Paul's was yes, you're right, which was to make a a motion or to accept or either the recommendation except or not accept the recommendations of the twin cities committee as a source document for direction. If I got that right, Paul, I had not included that in the motion, but I said, I think it's something that we need to discuss tonight is where do we stand in relationship to that letter? Yeah, that's a great point. Okay. So do you want to make it a motion because he's right? Certainly. I make a motion that we that we accept and and backup. I don't know how you want to word that that we are endorsing behind the letter from the twin cities. And that is the message that you know that Doug and Paco and Sally and and the outreach committee that is the message that they're bringing to these other entities when we explain what we're looking at buying. You know, what's this thing going to look like? Well, now we have a really good idea what it's going to look like. Yeah, I mean, the only thing I would add to it is that it's really important that we have a solid working group that has that every everybody has faith in and that and that would be the one addition I would make to their recommendations is that we have this solid supportive working group that everybody buys into Donna my suggestion would be to maybe do that in two parts. So just the first motion would be if this is what the board chooses to do except the recommendations of the twin city. Memo that's the right word except the except the recommendations of the twin city group as a path forward for implementation. Yeah, just and leave it at that. That's except the other twin city team. Yep. As a path forward for implementation. Implementation. Okay. Yeah. Donna, I agree with that. I think as you pointed out. It's the beginning and we need to get a broader group to figure out. Exactly where we're going. So that's a second to Jim's motion. Yeah, I'll second it. Okay. Further discussion. I think. Yep. Well, it was Paul. It was Paul that moved that wasn't it? Yes, it was. Yeah. Okay. I thought Jim was modifying it. So. It was me. It was me and Paul. Discussion between Steve and Paul about that. I mean, I kind of rewarded it hopefully to simplify it, but it was Paul's motion. If you don't mind Paul. Okay. So are we talking about acceptance or are we talking about endorsement? The words I've written down that I understand the motion is that public safety authority board accepts the recommendation of the twin city team for implementation. Nothing about endorsement. Do you want to make a friendly amendment or discussion about endorsement? No, I just I just want it clear that we, you know, what direction we're headed in. We're looking at doing phase one and let that be the piece that they bring out to the different towns and the different select boards and let's begin implementing that part of it. And let's say accept and endorse. I think you need the endorse to show our strength behind it. That's where we're going to, that's going to be our path too. I'm okay with that wordy. Okay. And I had Kim Cheney a second and you're comfortable with that wording. Well, I like the acceptance. I think Steve McKenzie had some good points. There's and you did. There's a lot more to how this is going to work out. I, I think it's a wonderful move of the twin cities and I'm fully behind it. I'm just smord smithing this word indoors. I just don't think it's a full story. I'd rather it's not the full story. There's more to it. But within this letter, it's one of our pieces that we're endorsing or not. What's the group's closure? Can I suggest an alternative wording that might cooperate everyone? Go ahead. What if we just say that we adopt the recommendations as a path forward of the twin city committee? We're adopting them as what we're discussing endorsing accepting could be confusing. But we are. I think Paul's suggesting that we adopt the recommendation as a path forward. Right. I just need agreement. Paul, which are you more comfortable with? I really don't know. I'm not a word smith. But, but I agree with what's in that letter. I think that is our path forward and that and that is what is the crux of this motion. The word that we're going to put out from here is, is this what we're looking to do? Is this our path forward? Well, let's say accept and endorse. Let's be bold. What you mean? Let's put it to a vote. Okay. So the, the motion reading right now being presented is that the central public safety authority board accepts and endorses the recommendations from the twin city team as a pathway forward for implementation. All in favor say aye. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. It really was a board discussion. Steve was about the motion, but Steve would like to say something now. I'm sorry. I missed you. Yeah. Can, can you all hear me? So I'm concerned that we haven't had any analysis from the consultant Rick and Dom on what are the implications towards an overall system engineering approach that they recommended to narrow the scope. I don't find a phase one or a priority one break out. So I'm kind of interested in firing as to what's being left out of the scope of the letter. What's being kicked down the road for another day? And because I've already, I mean, I've refrained from speaking last meeting when the teledate report was offered just because the good in it outweighed what's missing. But we continue to be missing failover resiliency engineering LTE integration and a PSAP design with PSAP failover. So to further narrow that scope here without even understanding to what degree we're narrowing it. I think it's premature. I think you there needs to be some engineering analysis of the impacts on a long term strategy of in effect narrowing our scope to what's in that runner. Okay, I'm not criticizing the letter because I don't fully understand its implications yet. But I would I need I need some help understanding its implications and I don't I think we're moving recklessly fast here to defend my motion. You are looking at a filet mignon budget and we have I can hear you. I can see your mouth moving but I can't hear you. Well, that's because you two are both on the air at the same time and you're getting echoes. Yes. What we are looking at and what and what the memo really is bringing to light is that this is going to be a big enough bite to swallow at one time. We do not have an unlimited budget. And we got to sell this to the voters. Okay, Steve McKenzie, you still have your auto hand up. Yeah, yeah, I was speaking to Steve. Steve's Whitaker's comment. I think the best way to try to answer your question Steve is to look at the component. I'll say the a la carte menu on page 23 of the television report that has the listing of priorities and the breakout of costs and the essence of the twin cities report was to say move ahead with just the number one priorities. There were four and of those very city among very city among payer would look to implement the console portion of that implement and fund the console. I don't know if that helps at all, but that's the no no brainer. What else is getting left out though? Okay, I'm not going to go and discuss the report right now. Okay, you made a statement about missing. I'm going back to the motion on the floor. There's a motion been seconded. Yes, it has. I'd like to call the question, please call the question. Okay, so all those in favor of accepting this motion to accept and endorse this twin city teams letter say I all opposed. It passes. Very good. All right. Moving right along here. Seven forty six. We've got almost, you know, 15 minutes of what's left on the agenda. One of the things on the Taliban report was about working groups and though all those factors need to be dealt with, I think that it spreads us all too thin and at this point, I think it's better to go back and just focus on the small group and that we actually can form a consensus of how to move forward and how to deal with who's at the table, who makes the decisions and start looking at using some experts to help us do some cost allocation studies. Once that small group is really established, anyone else would like to spend any time on the working groups. I'm more or less saying, I think we should just don't know. You get over it. The agenda called for discussing of a governance committee. That's one of the working groups. There were five of them. Yeah. And I would like to be on that committee and I would like to work with board members to pull in other players so that we we form a group to think about governance. Kim, I think what we've what we've so far established my understanding group, correct me, is that we have a small working group that initially is going to help us decide who should be around the table to then develop a governance model, develop a formula until we have that group then to have a secondary group do that without the support of those being the right people to make the decision. I think is faulty that we need to do this very carefully as who's at the table making the decisions. I agree that that's critical. But the question there are a lot of options on how we can organize incorporating the towns into the decision process so that they're a real part of CV PSA or its governance. That's right. And once we have established that core group, then you you and others can bring their ideas to that group. But I think we need to the membership of the towns really has expired and they need to come to grips with their membership. And I think we need to I agree with you. This is a major consideration. But I think there should be a committee of this board that at least has responsibility for working on that. And I've talked with several people about different solutions and I don't claim to have any path forward but I can see there's a lot of people that need to be talked to about how this is going to work. And I think it should be a committee of this board as you outlined in your agenda. That would be responsible for following that up. No, because what that is not what we've discussed so far Kim that we've actually said we're trying to get rid of I'm going to call the entity labels. And by first starting with this initial working group to help us decide who should be the core group that is everyone's appointed representative that groups will have their faith in and give them authority to then start working on governance cost allocation. And then we feed into that through our representative in that core group. But it's not the public safety authority board sitting over here and deciding governance because that leaves other people out. We need them at the table making that decision that core group. Of course it has to include everybody. Okay. Delcoy. Yeah, I guess I'd like to interject from my perspective that we've been given a couple of different blueprints on how to move forward. Number one we've got Rick Burke and tell of a they've given us a very large blueprint. On what the future could look like and what the potential cost are. But today or within the last few days we've all been given another blueprint that comes from the twin city working public safety folks. And I think that's the best thing that has happened in this process notwithstanding the great work by television. And Joe pointed Joe also pointed out that there's there's there's means and that we're going to I'm going to get invited. I'm going to go to it. So it looks like there's a path forward for that particular type of communication to put all of the groups together in the same place. I think we got to get by and by all the people especially those in in the capital fire mutual aid system. It looks like we've got some buy-in that's coming from Barry and my player which is absolutely fantastic. So let's all let's let this part play out. Let's get the groups together. Let them sit down. Let them talk. Let them come to an agreement. And then we can do the things that even Steve Whitaker points out that we need to question. This is not a final design. There's nothing being spent other than time and energy. But I think we get everybody to buy into it so that we can move forward and deal with those issues that occurred not only in Barry and my theory but also curling and all of Washington County and a little bit beyond. So I think we're there. Just let's just let it happen. Yes, in that direction the more buy-in the more potential membership and enthusiasm for the whole regional approach. Steve McKenzie your hand went up. He's muted. Sorry picking up on something Doug said with respect to buy-in I guess I want to be perfectly clear. You've got by I think it's fair to say you've got buy-in for the Twin Cities group. But that doesn't mean you've got buy-in from the Barry City Council yet and I certainly can't speak for my payer but I don't want I don't want anybody to proceed assuming this is a slam dunk and bury. I think it's a I think just because of the funding challenges I don't I don't I don't speak for the council and I know we've we've got challenges ahead. So I just wanted to be be clear about about buy about buy-in. I understand that Steve I personally understand that and recognize that which is why I've underscored that we've got a blueprint and we'll discuss it. I realized that councils don't automatically show up on board. But to have the blueprint just having if we can get a nod from people I mean funding may be further down the road than we want but to get the vision out there is huge. So I think in that way the blueprint is essential. My point exactly you know what's what's move on. Yes. Yes. Okay. And I guess likewise. As far as committee reports outreach certainly has their homework ahead of them. Jim the charter maybe at some point you could just call a meeting this next month and do some just you know what I call fine tuning what we have and see incorporating my comments and others that you've got that would be helpful. We may or may not decide to submit it but it would be good to at least look at look at it I think out the website Brent and I have meant Brent Householder and he's a little slower getting things done on the website but he does have his to-do list and one thing that I think has been successful is his link into the YouTube of our meetings that Orca is doing and Orca is here tonight. Thank them so much if they don't get a notice from me they reach out remind me it's really important that we have that public availability of our meeting. So again thank you Orca anything else that people would like to talk about before we close the meeting. Okay. Like to make sure that those working group meetings are held in accordance with the meeting law. Of course yes yes. Okay. Well then all during the meeting thank you all for your contributions been very valuable very valuable good evening. Have a good night everybody.