[0:13] OK. Good.
[0:14] I declare the meeting
[0:16] open at 6:30. What are
[0:18] the additions? We have an
[0:20] addition.
[0:22] Discussion of
[0:23] recreational
[0:24] policy issues. Uh, do
[0:28] we want to discuss
[0:29] cane control?
[0:33] Fighting reeds.
[0:34] Cane.
[0:35] Yes, it's a reed.
[0:37] Cane.
[0:39] Yes.
[0:40] This is a plant.
[0:40] Yes.
[0:41] So, we received a
[0:42] letter from someone in
[0:43] Kallus. Who wants to
[0:45] come and talk to
[0:46] us about a
[0:47] number of invasive
[0:48] species that they are
[0:50] working on, especially
[0:51] reeds.
[0:52] Cane. Yes.
[0:54] OK. So, what are we
[0:55] going to discuss?
[0:57] Should we
[0:57] invite them here?
[0:59] Oh, okay. Sounds
[1:00] good. I will write it down.
[1:02] OK.
[1:02] Is this
[1:04] Phragmites?
[1:10] Is this some kind of joke?
[1:12] Good.
[1:13] If it's not funny, then so be it
[1:14] .
[1:14] OK. Good. So,
[1:16] we have an addition.
[1:17] Review of the minutes of
[1:19] September 14.
[1:19] I missed it.
[1:20] Thank you.
[1:21] Motion to adopt
[1:22] the minutes. Uh,
[1:23] a proposal to
[1:24] amend the protocol.
[1:25] Of course. Uh
[1:26] -huh.
[1:27] I'm just starting
[1:28] the conversation.
[1:29] I just started a
[1:30] conversation. Is there
[1:31] anyone who would
[1:32] support the proposal
[1:34] ?
[1:34] Okay, continue. Is
[1:36] there any more discussion?
[1:37] Yes. The proposal
[1:38] is to
[1:39] adopt the protocol with
[1:40] amendments.
[1:41] Of course.
[1:42] Here's a correction: Clarice,
[1:44] I think it's okay
[1:45] to use
[1:46] such an informal
[1:47] style when mentioning Carl
[1:49] , Joe, and Scott. However, it is
[1:52] very important
[1:53] to indicate the
[1:54] person's full name when first
[1:55] mentioned in the protocol.
[1:57] OK.
[1:59] And when it says "
[2:00] appoint Karl as
[2:01] a delegate to the annual
[2:02] meeting," and I am not
[2:03] listed as a participant, it is
[2:05] important to indicate my
[2:06] last name. So, Karl,
[2:09] I'm making sure
[2:10] my name is on the
[2:11] record.
[2:12] Yes. This applies to the
[2:13] entire protocol. Uh
[2:15] , no. You see.
[2:16] We've never
[2:17] done this before. Scott
[2:18] agreed. Joe.
[2:19] No. Everyone else has a
[2:20] full name.
[2:21] Yes. Yes. Here.
[2:23] Yes. So, first, the
[2:24] full name, and then
[2:25] you can
[2:25] use
[2:26] OK. It doesn't
[2:27] matter.
[2:28] Yes.
[2:28] Because otherwise
[2:29] it sounds very
[2:30] informal. There
[2:31] could have been
[2:32] another Joe at the meeting.
[2:33] Yes. Yes.
[2:33] I mean,
[2:34] Joe's responsibility is
[2:35] very big. Like
[2:37] Brooks.
[2:37] Yes.
[2:38] I can address
[2:39] you all as "sir."
[2:42] Your style is charming.
[2:43] Oh, charming. The
[2:44] fact that you are not charming does
[2:45] not matter.
[2:46] You are not a gentleman. You're not a sir
[2:48] or anything, are you?
[2:49] Mr. Mr.
[2:50] I haven't been
[2:51] knighted yet.
[2:52] No sir, Carl. OK.
[2:53] I'm just
[2:54] asking just in case. I know
[2:55] you
[2:56] were also abroad for a while.
[2:57] Good. So, we'll
[2:58] leave it at that, except for
[3:00] the first time, where it's
[3:02] Yes.
[3:02] And after that,
[3:05] so Mr. Trevor
[3:07] Lewis—okay. And then
[3:08] we move on to
[3:09] Mr. Lewis. So,
[3:11] he is definitely an important
[3:13] person here.
[3:13] What do they say?
[3:14] Mr.
[3:15] In comments to
[3:16] the public,
[3:17] I always refer to
[3:17] members of the public
[3:18] and Mr., and the rest of
[3:19] us
[3:20] simply by name.
[3:21] OK. Well, that's one
[3:22] way.
[3:23] OK.
[3:24] But yes, I will do as you
[3:25] say.
[3:25] No, no, that's normal.
[3:26] We're just
[3:27] trying to clarify
[3:27] , or you can just
[3:28] use our
[3:29] last name
[3:29] and I don't really
[3:30] take offense.
[3:31] Or you could just
[3:32] say "Gish
[3:33] supported it."
[3:34] Seriously,
[3:35] I don't feel
[3:35] deprived.
[3:36] Yes, maybe we should
[3:37] use our
[3:38] last name.
[3:38] Number 42. Gish
[3:39] seconded.
[3:40] I think just
[3:41] use our
[3:41] last name. Seriously.
[3:43] Oh, yes. Gish.
[3:44] Yes.
[3:44] I think the secretary
[3:45] who takes the minutes
[3:46] should have some
[3:47] freedom in choosing
[3:48] the style.
[3:48] I think so too.
[3:49] Of course.
[3:50] I think the main thing is that
[3:51] the person is remembered.
[3:52] Yes. Yes. Then we
[3:53] understand what it's all about
[3:54] .
[3:55] Yes.
[3:55] OK. Sounds
[3:56] good. Do you have
[3:58] anything else, Carl?
[3:58] That's all.
[3:59] Carl as VLC Carl Edna,
[4:02] right? How do you like it in general
[4:03] ? To be appointed in
[4:04] one's absence.
[4:06] I asked for this myself.
[4:07] I saw that letter.
[4:08] Yes.
[4:08] OK.
[4:09] I was willing to
[4:09] let someone
[4:10] else do it
[4:11] if they wanted to.
[4:12] I saw such a chance.
[4:13] Yes. OK. Something else?
[4:15] Nothing. I ask everyone who is "in favor" to
[4:17] say "yes."
[4:18] Yes.
[4:19] The minutes of
[4:20] September 14 were approved. Uh
[4:23] , okay.
[4:25] Public comments. I don't
[4:26] want to miss it
[4:27] this time.
[4:29] You are not a representative of
[4:30] the public.
[4:32] No, no. I thought you were from the
[4:34] ring road. I won't
[4:36] give you two turns.
[4:37] Good. Just to
[4:38] get one turn.
[4:39] You will get one.
[4:40] OK. So, there is
[4:42] no audience. I don't
[4:43] see anyone. There is nothing on the board
[4:44] . I see someone.
[4:46] Who is this? Is this a
[4:46] representative of
[4:47] the public?
[4:48] RBT.
[4:48] OK. No, this is
[4:50] about
[4:52] RV maintenance. Uh
[4:54] , yes. OK. So, the
[4:55] next issue is
[4:56] a discussion of the
[4:57] culvert
[4:58] on the ring road.
[5:00] Yes.
[5:02] So, the current
[5:03] owner of this
[5:03] relevant plot.
[5:05] Um, before
[5:06] coming to the meeting
[5:07] tonight, I
[5:09] checked to see if there were any
[5:10] updates. I saw
[5:11] the note from the council. I
[5:14] saw a mention of
[5:15] Guthrie offering
[5:16] to work with me
[5:18] directly to
[5:18] try to reach an
[5:20] agreement. This is music to
[5:22] my ears. I just
[5:24] want everything to be as
[5:26] practical as possible and for
[5:27] them to be a pleasure
[5:28] to work with. I guess I'll still
[5:29] want to have
[5:30] some things in writing
[5:31] because I don't want
[5:32] to find ourselves
[5:34] in a situation again where, you know
[5:35] , everything is ambiguous, and
[5:37] someone says everything is
[5:38] fine, and someone
[5:39] we don't
[5:39] disagree on.
[5:40] OK. Yes.
[5:41] We agree.
[5:42] Good.
[5:43] But there is one thing I
[5:44] want to discuss.
[5:45] Last time you
[5:47] said you wanted us to
[5:48] fall asleep, and we
[5:49] ... did. I don't agree with this either
[5:51] .
[5:51] So this was before they
[5:52] started clearing the tunnel with
[5:54] an excavator. I
[5:55] had land there.
[5:56] Oh, really?
[5:57] Yes. There's
[5:57] water there now, is
[5:58] n't there? But I
[6:02] let the city
[6:03] use
[6:03] the excavator and
[6:04] poles to
[6:05] clear the pipe,
[6:06] rather than permanently
[6:07] turn this into a
[6:08] body of water. I think
[6:12] it
[6:13] will become somewhat clear when I
[6:14] meet Guthrie,
[6:15] because the
[6:15] culvert,
[6:17] even though you don't see the
[6:18] beaver
[6:19] dam there now, isn't exactly
[6:20] letting water through either. I think
[6:21] something is stuck there.
[6:23] Yes. If we
[6:25] cleared it down to the bottom of the
[6:26] pipe,
[6:27] right?
[6:28] I'm ready for this.
[6:30] But it has to
[6:31] dry.
[6:33] There is a lot, a lot of
[6:34] everything.
[6:35] What? There's
[6:35] too much water there.
[6:38] No, I mean that
[6:40] when you clear
[6:41] the pipe, the water will come down and the
[6:42] streambed
[6:43] will be restored. It's a kind of
[6:46] bet
[6:47] between the excavator and the
[6:48] beavers. Yes. A
[6:49] huge amount
[6:50] of material was simply
[6:52] scooped up and
[6:53] pushed through the pipe.
[6:54] Ahem.
[6:56] Talking to Guthrie,
[6:57] we could find a
[6:58] way to clean it and
[7:00] keep the pipe in
[7:01] order,
[7:02] and somehow determine that
[7:03] ...
[7:03] I'm not looking for
[7:04] perfection. I
[7:05] just don't want the
[7:06] entire lower edge of the
[7:07] plot to flood
[7:08] like it is now. Do
[7:09] you understand? Yes.
[7:11] I think
[7:12] collaborating with Guthrie at the
[7:13] initial stage
[7:14] is a good idea. I
[7:15] really think we
[7:16] need to make
[7:17] some kind of deal.
[7:18] Of course. And you can
[7:19] make your demands.
[7:21] We will work with what
[7:22] we need.
[7:24] The question in my mind is
[7:25] about falling asleep
[7:26] , which I don't entirely
[7:27] agree with, but now I
[7:29] understand the
[7:29] situation better.
[7:31] Yes. It's like I
[7:32] had land.
[7:33] Yes. Yes.
[7:34] Not mom.
[7:35] No, I understand. Yes. I
[7:37] understand.
[7:38] I used to be able to walk
[7:39] there on a small
[7:40] path about 20
[7:41] feet away.
[7:43] Yes. That was
[7:44] normal. Not now.
[7:45] OK. So, we have an
[7:47] action plan. To start,
[7:49] you'll have to
[7:50] work with Guthrie.
[7:51] Yes, I think we can come to some kind of
[7:52] agreement.
[7:53] I think
[7:56] at some point we
[7:58] need to figure out
[7:59] whether the easement is a separate
[8:00] document or whether it's
[8:01] integrated into the
[8:02] agreement for
[8:06] Well, I think it all
[8:07] depends on where
[8:08] this device ultimately ends up being
[8:10] . So
[8:12] let's see what
[8:13] they come up with and then
[8:15] Yes. I mean, I don't
[8:17] know, but
[8:17] if it's within the right-of-way
[8:18] ,
[8:20] right? Yes. All I've heard
[8:22] so far is
[8:23] No, we don't need
[8:24] any permits.
[8:25] This should be away
[8:26] from the right-of-way
[8:27] that we need.
[8:28] Yes. But the problem is
[8:30] that if
[8:30] the device is on
[8:31] Trevor's land outside of that,
[8:33] that's a different matter.
[8:35] No, no. An easement is an
[8:37] agreement between the city and
[8:38] Trevor to
[8:39] use land
[8:40] outside the
[8:41] easement. So if this is what
[8:46] Guthrie showed me, maybe a
[8:47] small part
[8:48] will be out of bounds,
[8:50] but not much.
[8:51] I think, for example, I would
[8:54] like to build
[8:55] something
[8:56] big enough that it is
[8:57] likely to
[8:58] work well.
[8:59] Yes.
[8:59] And as long as I'm protected
[9:01] in terms of water drainage,
[9:02] water level maintenance,
[9:03] and no one says,
[9:04] you know, the situation of the
[9:06] last few
[9:07] years—that's something
[9:08] I'll have to live with.
[9:09] Right. Yes. I would rather
[9:11] have a 20-foot
[9:12] structure that I
[9:13] consented to than something
[9:15] that sticks out a foot on
[9:16] my lot and
[9:17] doesn't really work.
[9:18] Yes. Yes.
[9:20] Another thing I
[9:21] want to discuss: I was
[9:22] told three or four
[9:23] years ago that the
[9:26] culvert
[9:28] would be replaced before the next resurfacing.
[9:30] I want to make sure that
[9:31] this issue
[9:32] remains on the
[9:33] agenda, because I
[9:34] don't want a situation
[9:35] where we apply a
[9:36] temporary patch that
[9:37] becomes permanent. But these are
[9:39] issues you
[9:40] can discuss.
[9:41] Yes. I mean,
[9:42] replacing the
[9:43] culvert
[9:44] is something we all
[9:45] need to discuss, because it
[9:46] seems like it's worth
[9:48] doing, and I
[9:48] guess we
[9:49] should wait for the
[9:50] resurfacing
[9:51] or not.
[9:52] We are not obligated.
[9:53] The pipes are replaced
[9:54] daily.
[9:55] No, but the situation is that because of
[9:56] the volume of
[9:58] water that
[9:59] passes through there, especially in
[10:00] the spring. We need to
[10:01] replace the
[10:02] culverts
[10:03] downstream.
[10:04] Oh, and also at the
[10:05] same time. So
[10:07] , I just want to
[10:08] put this on the
[10:09] record. I
[10:10] agree to provide
[10:11] part of my
[10:12] plot. Yes. You can
[10:15] put it on the record
[10:16] that we want a better
[10:17] pipe that
[10:18] is installed at
[10:19] an angle so that the water doesn't
[10:20] fall like a waterfall.
[10:21] I think you should
[10:22] even consider
[10:23] installing
[10:24] bumpers there. This is your
[10:25] decision, not mine.
[10:26] Maybe I'll agree
[10:28] to allocate a plot for this
[10:28] . I just
[10:30] want things to be done right in the
[10:30] long
[10:31] run,
[10:33] so that it stops
[10:34] my
[10:35] property from flooding and
[10:35] improves the condition of
[10:36] the road and the area for
[10:39] it. But you don't really
[10:40] support
[10:41] beaver breeding.
[10:43] No.
[10:43] Of course. One more
[10:45] point
[10:46] I would like to
[10:47] talk about. I have a
[10:50] plot of land where there
[10:51] was a
[10:52] small pond when I bought it, and the
[10:53] beavers turned it
[10:55] into a real empire.
[10:59] I would like to discuss
[11:00] with Guthrie from the city
[11:01] council: if this beaver
[11:03] dam breaks, the
[11:04] water flow will go onto the
[11:05] county road. I would
[11:08] like to lower
[11:09] her level a little, because she has been
[11:10] there for a long time. For
[11:13] security reasons,
[11:14] you have much more
[11:15] authority to
[11:16] downgrade. That's why
[11:17] I would like to
[11:18] cooperate with the
[11:19] city. I don't want to
[11:22] clean up everything that's there
[11:23] , but if you
[11:24] saw it from a drone
[11:25] or walked up to the edge,
[11:26] you would understand—beaver
[11:27] dams often
[11:29] break.
[11:33] But I know it's
[11:34] So you're presenting this as a
[11:36] public
[11:37] safety issue. I've heard
[11:38] similar arguments before,
[11:39] supposedly about national
[11:40] security.
[11:42] I don't need a
[11:43] triumph.
[11:44] Maybe you still need
[11:46] snipers on the roof?
[11:47] Yes. Good. Well, that
[11:52] sounds like a reasonable
[11:53] way to go about it.
[11:54] Paul, can I go?
[11:55] Of course.
[11:58] Both this and this are
[12:00] communication channels. Certainly.
[12:02] OK.
[12:02] Thank you all.
[12:03] Thank you.
[12:05] Um, so
[12:08] we don't need an
[12:09] agenda for the next item. We do
[12:10] n't need to.
[12:11] No, we don't have to
[12:14] talk to each other
[12:15] . Yes, it's a little early. That
[12:17] sounds good.
[12:18] Thank you all.
[12:19] Thank you.
[12:20] Good evening.
[12:21] So, the next item
[12:22] : discussing the timer
[12:24] in the city garage. Um,
[12:26] Jen did a lot of
[12:27] research to
[12:28] send
[12:31] Want to transfer to RB
[12:32] Tech while Jeffrey is here?
[12:34] And we have a
[12:36] discussion of RB Tech's Internet
[12:37] services and managed
[12:38] services.
[12:39] No, Ruben wanted to
[12:40] stay until the very
[12:41] end, right, Ruben? Well
[12:43] , we could do it
[12:45] there.
[12:45] The later, the
[12:47] better.
[12:47] It won't be a long
[12:48] meeting, but I think
[12:49] Carl has a good
[12:50] point.
[12:51] Good.
[12:51] Why not?
[12:52] Of course.
[12:53] OK. Um,
[12:54] discussing internet
[12:56] services and a possible
[12:58] RB Tech 2026 managed services contract.
[13:01] Okay.
[13:02] Do you want me to
[13:03] prepare it, or should
[13:07] I just voice it? What kind of
[13:10] contract is this? Me,
[13:11] let me
[13:12] find the contract.
[13:15] So I'll start by saying that
[13:16] I think they're
[13:19] both pretty simple.
[13:21] So, the contract for the
[13:22] city garage is
[13:23] simply a contract with
[13:24] Fidium to provide
[13:26] internet there. Um,
[13:28] exactly.
[13:31] This is because you cannot
[13:33] access your
[13:34] surveillance system via
[13:35] Starlink because you
[13:37] cannot have a static
[13:38] IP address on Starlink. They
[13:41] don't provide it,
[13:42] they won't
[13:43] do it. This is not the
[13:44] service they
[13:45] offer. We were
[13:46] hoping that NEKCV
[13:47] would build a line right
[13:49] next to the garage, but
[13:50] in the end they didn't
[13:51] . Unfortunately, NEKCV
[13:55] doesn't have coverage there,
[13:57] but fortunately,
[13:59] Fidium does. So it's still
[14:02] fiber optic
[14:03] internet. He is very
[14:04] fast. It is quite
[14:05] sufficient for your
[14:06] needs. So, this is the
[14:08] context of the situation.
[14:11] So this won't work
[14:13] via Starlink?
[14:14] It's currently running
[14:15] through Starlink, but you can't
[14:16] access your
[14:17] security system there.
[14:19] Therefore, you need to
[14:20] change the internet.
[14:21] Starlink has always been a
[14:22] temporary or
[14:23] backup option.
[14:25] So, we can
[14:25] leave it as an
[14:26] emergency channel in
[14:27] case Fidium fails, and
[14:29] then the internet
[14:30] will still be there. Which is probably
[14:31] not a bad idea.
[14:33] Yes. True.
[14:35] So, that's all about
[14:36] the internet in the city
[14:38] garage. Wait,
[14:41] before we
[14:42] continue, do you
[14:43] recommend
[14:44] connecting Fidium and
[14:45] continuing to pay
[14:46] for Starlink?
[14:49] This is solely your choice
[14:51] . I don't have a strong
[14:52] opinion on this matter
[14:54] . I don't think it's a
[14:55] terrible idea, but
[14:56] frankly,
[14:57] you don't have backup
[14:59] internet at the city
[15:00] office. Maybe it's worth
[15:02] starting with this. I
[15:05] mean...
[15:06] I thought Starlink was kind of a
[15:08] permanent solution
[15:09] until we got
[15:10] fiber.
[15:10] When we already had
[15:11] fiber optics.
[15:13] Well, we gave up
[15:14] on Starlink, but now we're
[15:15] saying you can't
[15:16] use
[15:17] Starlink for a
[15:19] security system.
[15:19] Right.
[15:20] True. So we're
[15:21] getting rid of Starlink anyway.
[15:22] You're still
[15:23] getting rid of Starlink.
[15:24] Yes.
[15:25] Of course.
[15:25] Because your experience with...
[15:27] wait, you have
[15:28] fiber now?
[15:29] Yes.
[15:29] And when
[15:31] the power goes out and
[15:32] the generator turns on, the internet
[15:34] still
[15:34] works, right?
[15:35] That's right. Yes.
[15:37] This is just wonderful.
[15:38] Yes.
[15:38] We had. This is what we
[15:40] had. We have installed.
[15:41] Yes.
[15:41] This is great. Me, me.
[15:44] That's right.
[15:45] Yes.
[15:45] I have fiber optic and
[15:47] it only disappears
[15:48] when the lights go out
[15:49] and the router goes off
[15:50] .
[15:51] Right. And our
[15:52] generator turns on
[15:54] , and we have no
[15:55] problems.
[15:56] Yes. Obviously, the entire
[15:57] line could
[15:58] break.
[15:59] So I think we could
[16:00] switch to Fidium and
[16:01] abandon Starlink.
[16:02] Well, we'll
[16:03] switch to Fidium anyway
[16:04] .
[16:04] We must.
[16:05] Yes, it is regardless
[16:06] .
[16:06] Right.
[16:07] The question is
[16:10] good.
[16:12] And what happens if
[16:13] Fidium goes down for
[16:14] half a day or a day because
[16:15] the line breaks,
[16:17] since it's not
[16:18] underground, it's a
[16:20] pole-mounted thing
[16:21] . Yes, I
[16:22] mean, the work won't
[16:23] stop. They don't
[16:24] have internet for half a
[16:25] day or a day.
[16:26] Stop the trucks,
[16:27] pull over to the side of the road,
[16:28] right? I mean,
[16:29] nothing is accurate.
[16:30] Well, that's my opinion.
[16:31] Why do you keep it?
[16:32] I know. I know.
[16:34] Good.
[16:34] It's not a bad idea
[16:35] to have Starlink. How much
[16:36] does Starlink cost us per
[16:37] month? I thought it was
[16:38] cheap.
[16:39] About 50 dollars.
[16:40] I thought so.
[16:41] We
[16:42] constantly have to pay an extra
[16:43] $50. Um, because we're
[16:44] running out of
[16:46] data.
[16:47] So 100 gigabytes is
[16:49] like 50. But then, if
[16:50] they run out,
[16:52] you have to
[16:53] pay 50 again.
[16:53] But if we don't
[16:54] use them,
[16:55] right,
[16:56] then they don't
[16:57] run out,
[16:57] right?
[16:58] So that's a $50 reserve
[16:59] .
[17:00] Yes.
[17:02] Will the road
[17:04] crew be completely
[17:09] Well, the problem is
[17:10] that if we
[17:11] implement a new
[17:12] timekeeping system,
[17:13] it will be tied
[17:14] to the internet,
[17:15] right?
[17:16] So if the internet
[17:17] goes down, the
[17:18] time will also stop.
[17:20] If the
[17:21] heating systems fail,
[17:22] repairmen
[17:23] will also be able to log in
[17:24] remotely.
[17:25] For $50, come on,
[17:26] we can do
[17:28] $50 for what?
[17:29] For a month.
[17:31] $50 per month. I
[17:32] mean, that's
[17:33] more than you
[17:34] pay for Fidium to
[17:35] have a backup in
[17:36] case something doesn't
[17:38] break.
[17:39] Yes, I don't care.
[17:41] It seems like he has.
[17:44] I just think it's a
[17:46] waste of money. I do
[17:48] n't think so. Right. It is
[17:51] quite unlikely
[17:52] that it will turn off.
[17:53] I mean, even
[17:54] if it
[17:55] turns off,
[17:55] what's the difference.
[17:56] Yes. Big deal.
[17:58] Right. Ruben,
[17:59] say that again.
[18:01] We are inclined to
[18:03] just
[18:03] get rid of Starlink.
[18:06] You I don't it should
[18:07] be
[18:10] pretty reliable there.
[18:13] It is generally quite
[18:14] reliable. So,
[18:16] you know, is it worth
[18:17] $600 a year for,
[18:20] well, let's say, a few
[18:22] hours of downtime a
[18:23] year,
[18:25] right?
[18:29] You know, now that
[18:30] I've said it out loud and
[18:31] on record, it'll prove me
[18:32] wrong, they'll
[18:33] shut down for a
[18:34] week, and you'll all
[18:35] be mad.
[18:40] Yes, that's great. So
[18:43] if we have Fidium, why are
[18:44] they doing a big
[18:45] fiber network?
[18:49] I don't get it everywhere.
[18:51] That's right.
[18:52] We had, we had
[18:53] copper wire from them.
[18:54] We united, and they
[18:55] just, they didn't give
[18:56] us a choice. They
[18:57] said: you get
[18:58] fiber or you
[18:59] get nothing.
[19:00] Oh, Consolidated just
[19:01] left.
[19:02] No, Consolidated Fidium, Consolidated
[19:04] absorbed Fidium or
[19:06] vice versa.
[19:06] Oh, I understand. So now I have
[19:09] Comcast and Spectrum.
[19:11] I mean, it's
[19:12] just incredible.
[19:13] They
[19:14] only came to us from Consolidated.
[19:15] They came and
[19:16] said, "Oh, by the way,
[19:17] you'll have fiber
[19:18] or nothing, and it'll
[19:19] cost half as much
[19:20] ."
[19:21] Yes.
[19:21] They do it little
[19:22] by little.
[19:23] In any case, that's
[19:24] not all.
[19:25] OK.
[19:25] So, what do we want to
[19:27] do here?
[19:27] Good. It just
[19:28] seems redundant
[19:29] when you have a
[19:30] central law.
[19:31] Well, but this
[19:33] I will make an offer
[19:34] to sign a contract
[19:35] with and at that time
[19:39] at the time when Fidium
[19:40] starts operating.
[19:42] Yes. Yes. Yes. I just
[19:44] want to make that
[19:45] clear. I
[19:45] support this
[19:46] proposal. Are
[19:47] there any other
[19:48] discussions?
[19:49] Who is in favor, please
[19:50] say "yes".
[19:51] Yes.
[19:52] Most
[19:53] agree. Do
[19:54] you have anything else to
[19:55] discuss in this
[19:56] room?
[19:57] OK. Um, sorry.
[19:59] Either I'm hung up, or you
[20:00] guys are hung up for a
[20:01] moment. Speaking of, the internet,
[20:07] yes,
[20:09] I think it was me.
[20:11] Wait one
[20:12] second. I'll
[20:13] change my internet
[20:14] connection for a second. Sorry.
[20:20] So, that's on the note.
[20:22] Oh, okay. There is
[20:24] a lot about this.
[20:25] OK.
[20:29] Sorry about that.
[20:31] Yes, everything is fine. We
[20:32] hear you.
[20:34] OK. Uh, so the
[20:35] next part is um
[20:40] I think we
[20:41] just signed a
[20:42] contract with you
[20:43] guys, and then as we were
[20:44] reviewing it, we
[20:46] realized that you
[20:47] had a clause in the contract
[20:48] that didn't match, and
[20:49] we're usually very
[20:50] careful about
[20:52] that clause being
[20:52] approved at that
[20:54] point, the action being
[20:55] taken, and everything being very
[20:56] clear. Um, but it so
[21:02] happened that two
[21:03] years ago, or a
[21:04] year and a half ago, uh
[21:06] , Jen's predecessor
[21:07] contracted with Arbite
[21:08] to implement
[21:09] user security
[21:11] , namely
[21:12] spam filtering and
[21:13] user security training
[21:14] , uh, and, uh,
[21:22] implementing
[21:24] credential management in the
[21:25] city office, and
[21:26] there was a long pause
[21:27] before that project
[21:28] was implemented. And
[21:33] then when we
[21:34] finally did it,
[21:35] we realized, and
[21:36] there was probably a conversation
[21:37] somewhere along the way, uh, that
[21:39] you needed
[21:39] the archiving that's
[21:40] required by the
[21:42] open meetings law
[21:43] for your
[21:43] emails. Uh
[21:49] , so we just
[21:50] added archiving, and
[21:51] I guess somewhere along the way
[21:52] we didn't get it all
[21:53] figured out, and you
[21:55] paid for it, but what
[21:56] you paid for and what
[21:57] you contracted for
[21:59] don't quite match up
[21:59] . So it's
[22:03] just an updated
[22:04] contract to
[22:05] reflect what you've
[22:07] actually been doing
[22:08] all this time. Jen, does
[22:12] all of this fit
[22:13] your understanding of the
[22:14] situation? Uh
[22:17] , yes. I don't know what this
[22:19] line about
[22:20] archiving
[22:20] emails
[22:21] under the
[22:22] open meetings law is that
[22:23] you just mentioned
[22:25] . So, "
[22:26] user security 2," the only
[22:27] difference between "
[22:28] user security 1" and "
[22:29] user security
[22:30] 2" is that
[22:31] we keep an archive of
[22:32] every email
[22:34] that goes through the
[22:35] system so that you can
[22:37] go back to it
[22:38] to comply with the
[22:39] open meetings law and
[22:40] retrieve any
[22:41] message
[22:42] sent or
[22:43] received through your
[22:44] system. This is literally the
[22:49] only difference between the
[22:50] "
[22:51] user security 1" and "
[22:52] user security 2
[22:54] " products. So, Ruben, are you
[22:57] saying that you
[22:58] took too much
[22:59] or too little from us?
[23:00] Uh, actually we were
[23:01] charging you
[23:02] for "
[23:03] user security 2". Uh, and
[23:05] but your contract was
[23:06] for "
[23:07] user security 1".
[23:09] Good. And were
[23:10] we
[23:11] just getting there was a
[23:12] discrepancy between
[23:13] what was said in
[23:15] your contract and
[23:16] what, uh, we
[23:17] actually got Jen. Is that
[23:20] correct? Yes, we
[23:22] noticed a difference in the
[23:23] numbers. So I
[23:25] asked for an updated
[23:26] contract that was
[23:29] correct
[23:29] and reflected what we were being
[23:31] charged.
[23:32] So
[23:33] yes, but
[23:34] Kyle's question is, what are
[23:35] we paying for?
[23:36] What do we get?
[23:38] Yes. Right.
[23:39] Are we paying for something
[23:40] we already paid for
[23:43] in the contract? It seems
[23:45] not. You pay for what you
[23:47] get, and
[23:48] now the contract
[23:49] will reflect what
[23:50] you paid for.
[23:52] Yes. But we didn't
[23:54] overpay.
[23:55] No. And if that were the case,
[23:57] we would have already
[23:58] refunded your money.
[24:00] So the problem
[24:00] was that
[24:01] the contract was
[24:02] not drafted according to
[24:03] our wishes, and
[24:05] our wishes
[24:05] are to
[24:07] have this "
[24:08] user security 2"
[24:08] according to your
[24:09] discussions with Gina.
[24:11] Right.
[24:13] Yes. Usually, when you
[24:14] order a new
[24:15] product, we simply
[24:16] correspond via
[24:17] email, and there
[24:18] is a clear
[24:19] paper trail. But
[24:21] something
[24:22] was missing in this exchange. So it's
[24:24] just a
[24:25] contract amendment.
[24:26] I just want to
[24:27] make sure I
[24:28] understand everything. We paid
[24:29] for the service. We
[24:30] received this
[24:31] service.
[24:31] The documents just don't
[24:32] match.
[24:33] No. Right.
[24:34] That's true.
[24:36] OK.
[24:36] The contract was for something
[24:38] else.
[24:39] Perfectly. Yes.
[24:40] But, apparently, our
[24:42] budget…My question is: is
[24:43] our budget still
[24:44] growing?
[24:45] Yes.
[24:46] That is, what we
[24:46] spend far
[24:48] exceeds our budget.
[24:49] Is that correct? It
[24:51] looks like we are
[24:53] spending
[24:54] $30,000 more than
[24:55] our budget for year 24.
[24:57] We spent 54. So we have a
[25:00] 30,000 over budget for the 26th
[25:01] year.
[25:02] Yes.
[25:02] Is that right, Jen?
[25:03] That's right.
[25:04] Will this
[25:05] trend continue? It looks like
[25:07] the trend won't
[25:08] continue because you
[25:09] said the budget is 24
[25:11] and we've already spent 11 in
[25:13] 27, since we're in
[25:14] budget year 27,
[25:17] right?
[25:21] We're not even
[25:22] halfway through the
[25:23] term yet.
[25:23] True. We've already
[25:24] spent 11 thousand,
[25:26] even though we haven't
[25:27] even gotten halfway there. The
[25:28] difference is explained
[25:29] in the notes.
[25:31] What exactly?
[25:32] Therefore, all deviations
[25:33] are explained in the notes
[25:35] to the report.
[25:36] Yes. We
[25:36] had a collaboration
[25:38] with 133, our
[25:40] website service provider. We
[25:42] had a project with them for
[25:43] about 3 thousand,
[25:45] and part of the IT
[25:46] budget is also an annual
[25:47] NEMR contract. And
[25:51] we also had
[25:52] security projects, uh, and it
[25:57] seems like we're being
[25:58] charged, uh, because
[25:59] the contract says on
[26:03] the last page 23966
[26:06] , but every month we
[26:11] see bills for
[26:12] about 3 thousand or so
[26:13] , according to
[26:14] estimates. So, uh, there
[26:20] are sometimes additional
[26:22] costs with support tickets. Uh, and we
[26:25] had to install
[26:26] Wi-Fi boosters
[26:28] because the door locks
[26:29] needed
[26:29] a booster because there were
[26:31] problems. So, this
[26:34] was also a project.
[26:39] OK. So here you have a
[26:40] monthly
[26:42] expense summary of
[26:43] $23.96, which is
[26:45] $2,400 per month,
[26:46] but you say there are
[26:48] additional
[26:49] charges?
[26:50] Yes. And there was also
[26:51] equipment for the
[26:52] city garage,
[26:53] about 5 thousand. So
[26:57] this also affects
[26:58] costs.
[26:59] Yes.
[27:00] And these things were
[27:01] approved after
[27:03] we made the budget.
[27:05] So,
[27:06] on an annual basis,
[27:07] what should we expect?
[27:11] So, it
[27:12] looks like our
[27:14] budget is
[27:14] too low right now.
[27:16] Yes, obviously.
[27:18] Yes, but you know, it
[27:19] could just be a
[27:20] fluke, because the previous
[27:21] year wasn't that
[27:23] bad. Is
[27:24] this just a one-time
[27:25] surge, Ruben?
[27:26] This year it is very
[27:27] high.
[27:28] Well, we spend 3
[27:29] thousand a month. and for
[27:33] everything they need to
[27:34] do.
[27:35] No. Yes, that's all
[27:37] you have.
[27:38] This was to be expected.
[27:39] Yes, but is this
[27:40] just one year's worth of expenses?
[27:41] They
[27:43] will decrease next year.
[27:43] So, if we
[27:44] spend 3 thousand
[27:46] on IT services per
[27:47] month, that's 36,000 per
[27:48] year.
[27:49] Yes. Right.
[27:51] But sometimes it turns out
[27:52] more.
[27:53] So we can
[27:53] expect the same
[27:55] next year.
[27:55] Yes. Yes. I'm just
[27:57] trying to understand,
[27:59] okay? The budget should be 36
[28:00] thousand if we
[28:01] stick to the
[28:02] updated contract
[28:04] .
[28:04] Yes. Right.
[28:05] And there is a
[28:06] reserve,
[28:07] right? Good. About
[28:09] 3,000 a month,
[28:10] right?
[28:10] Yes. So, this year has been
[28:12] extremely expensive.
[28:14] 64,000,
[28:15] right?
[28:16] More than 36,000, which is
[28:17] more in line with what
[28:19] we...Okay.
[28:21] OK. Good. So, the
[28:23] next question for
[28:24] discussion, Rube,
[28:26] that was it. That's
[28:27] all. Yes, that's all
[28:28] I see. Just a minute.
[28:30] I'm not...
[28:32] I'm just trying
[28:33] to figure out where we are
[28:35] .
[28:35] Yes. No, no, no. Yes.
[28:37] So, the proposal may be to
[28:39] announce a tender or
[28:40] renegotiate the
[28:41] contract.
[28:45] Yes.
[28:48] I suggest that we...
[28:52] updated technology.
[28:56] Are there any other questions for
[28:57] discussion? I can't hear.
[28:59] I ask everyone who is "in favor" to
[29:00] say "yes." I
[29:01] received clear consent.
[29:03] They are coming back.
[29:04] Thank you very much. Thank you.
[29:06] guys.
[29:07] Sorry I couldn't
[29:08] be there in person. It's okay
[29:09] . We
[29:11] all...We figured it all out.
[29:12] We figured it out.
[29:13] OK.
[29:14] Sounds good.
[29:15] Yes.
[29:15] Thank you all.
[29:17] Good night.
[29:17] Yes. And you too.
[29:19] Good. So, now let
[29:20] 's go back to the
[29:22] time clock. in the
[29:24] timekeeping clock. I
[29:26] think we should
[29:27] choose Accord, or whatever
[29:28] it's called.
[29:31] A thousand dollars a year
[29:32] is the easiest
[29:33] option, right? Everything else
[29:35] looked expensive, but the
[29:36] only question was: does
[29:37] it meet our
[29:39] needs? Is
[29:40] that so?
[29:41] Yes.
[29:41] Good. You were talking
[29:43] about...
[29:44] Oh, yeah. Yes. So
[29:46] he had some
[29:47] concerns about the
[29:48] costs. Will the
[29:53] administrative
[29:54] costs outweigh the savings
[29:55] we will get from
[29:56] time...
[30:02] I recorded his
[30:03] comments in
[30:04] the notes from the
[30:05] email,
[30:06] if he asked
[30:07] to choose one, then he liked Arc Oro as well as
[30:09] Treasure, they are
[30:11] quite similar and have
[30:12] similar functionality.
[30:20] But Arc Oro was very
[30:22] easy to
[30:22] use. NMRC
[30:27] needs a CSV file to
[30:29] communicate with NMIC. She
[30:33] can do it. Hmm, so
[30:37] how are we to understand his
[30:38] comment that it would
[30:39] take
[30:40] at least an hour or two
[30:42] every day for it
[30:43] to pay off? Does he
[30:44] really say that? He
[30:46] says there are many of them.
[30:48] This will not save money
[30:49] .
[30:50] Yes.
[30:52] I know. When you look
[30:54] at these handwritten
[30:55] notes, it's ridiculous,
[30:56] but
[30:56] they're all exactly the
[30:57] same.
[30:58] Yes.
[30:59] Absolutely the same.
[31:00] I think they felt
[31:01] my own.
[31:01] You raised this
[31:02] issue.
[31:03] Well, I just said
[31:04] yes. No, no, no.
[31:05] It seems that Will the
[31:07] time clock change?
[31:08] I did it on my
[31:09] farm. I can tell
[31:10] you this right now.
[31:11] And was it
[31:12] effective?
[31:13] Yes.
[31:13] Good.
[31:14] 100%. It's just more
[31:16] accurate. That's right and it
[31:18] works.
[31:20] And how does it work when
[31:21] road workers start
[31:22] work from their homes?
[31:24] This is a valid question.
[31:26] I think you can
[31:27] log in remotely.
[31:28] Yes.
[31:28] So if you have a
[31:29] mobile phone, you
[31:30] can install
[31:31] the app.
[31:32] Aha.
[31:32] And there is also
[31:33] geo-tracking within the
[31:34] geo-zone. So you
[31:35] can make the city of
[31:36] Vont-Pelaar, they
[31:37] can track
[31:39] their
[31:39] location by
[31:40] GPS if we
[31:41] want to. But then they
[31:43] all need
[31:43] mobile phones with an
[31:45] app to log in.
[31:46] Or you can set up a
[31:48] kiosk in a city
[31:49] garage.
[31:49] We could do the
[31:50] first stage—
[31:51] set up a kiosk in a
[31:52] city garage. In the
[31:54] second stage, we
[31:55] could add
[31:56] functionality as
[31:57] needed.
[31:58] Yes.
[31:58] Good. So, one
[31:59] question: will these
[32:01] hours be transferred
[32:02] directly to
[32:04] Yes. So the treasurer
[32:05] will log into their
[32:06] own application and
[32:07] be able to upload
[32:08] data. Well, for me it's
[32:10] much more efficient
[32:11] .
[32:11] Undoubtedly.
[32:12] No hassle with
[32:13] paper records.
[32:15] This is what we do. It's
[32:17] like, you know, record
[32:18] keeping now. We
[32:19] do it electronically.
[32:21] We don't need
[32:22] to sum up the hours
[32:23] in our heads and
[32:23] write them down on
[32:24] paper. I just
[32:26] really think there
[32:27] needs to be a backup
[32:28] option so they
[32:29] can log in on the spot
[32:33] .
[32:34] But they don't do it
[32:35] often because they have to
[32:36] go to town to get a
[32:37] truck if
[32:38] they're going to leave.
[32:39] I understand that, but
[32:40] set a perimeter
[32:42] where they can enter
[32:43] , just like
[32:44] that, okay, we can
[32:45] discuss how that
[32:46] would work.
[32:47] Most of the time this
[32:48] will work if you
[32:49] need to remove a
[32:50] tree from the road or
[32:51] something similar, which
[32:52] happens about three times
[32:53] a year.
[32:53] So they take
[32:54] the city trucks
[32:55] home to be
[32:56] ready to
[32:56] clear snow at a moment's notice
[32:57] .
[32:59] The only one taking
[33:00] the truck home—
[33:02] it has to
[33:02] be above 350.
[33:07] No, all city
[33:08] trucks in the city.
[33:09] The only truck is the
[33:11] pickup truck he takes.
[33:16] So there really aren't
[33:17] many options
[33:18] for remote
[33:19] login. This
[33:20] will happen
[33:21] infrequently,
[33:22] and that's probably why it only
[33:23] happens when you
[33:24] have to remove a
[33:25] tree from the road in an
[33:26] emergency,
[33:27] which happens three or four
[33:28] times.
[33:29] If they agreed
[33:30] to it.
[33:31] I think a thousand is
[33:32] probably the best
[33:33] option. This is the most
[33:36] reasonable cost.
[33:37] If it does everything
[33:38] you want, I think
[33:40] it's probably...
[33:42] And $1,000—is that
[33:43] hardware plus
[33:44] maintenance?
[33:46] Uh, does
[33:47] that cover everything? Well
[33:48] , implementation, uh
[33:50] , for example, training
[33:51] us, getting us up to
[33:53] speed,
[33:54] and then support.
[33:55] Do we own
[33:56] the equipment, or do we...
[33:57] So there is no
[33:58] equipment. We
[34:00] use
[34:00] a tablet and simply
[34:01] install the app
[34:02] on it. So we
[34:04] already have it. So,
[34:05] OK.
[34:05] We might
[34:06] have to make a
[34:07] stand or something
[34:08] like that. But
[34:09] everything, everything is virtual.
[34:11] Yes.
[34:15] OK.
[34:16] I'd rather... So, we're
[34:18] preparing
[34:21] a proposal, what's the
[34:22] name of the company
[34:23] ?
[34:24] Taco, do we need
[34:26] a suggestion?
[34:28] Yes.
[34:28] OK.
[34:29] I propose to
[34:31] hire, engage or
[34:32] otherwise, or
[34:34] Yes. A rural arc.
[34:39] Golden Arcal. OK.
[34:42] You did it. Me, I
[34:45] support this. Is there any more
[34:47] discussion about
[34:48] Joel?
[34:49] I just want to
[34:50] point out one thing
[34:51] about this. That's not our
[34:52] goal—we're not
[34:53] trying
[34:53] to save money. It's
[34:55] about accountability and
[34:56] the ease of the
[34:58] payment process itself. So I don't want to give the
[35:01] staff the wrong impression.
[35:03] True.
[35:04] We are not saying
[35:05] that the staff is doing
[35:06] anything wrong. We
[35:07] say we want to
[35:08] do this for
[35:09] convenience, for
[35:09] efficiency.
[35:10] Yes. True. True.
[35:12] That's right. This is more
[35:13] efficient.
[35:14] Thank you. Yes. I agree with you
[35:16] . Is there a second
[35:17] offer?
[35:18] Yes, we have a friend. Tom
[35:20] supports.
[35:21] And we are discussing it
[35:22] now.
[35:23] All in favor,
[35:24] please say yes.
[35:25] "Yes" is accepted.
[35:27] They have.
[35:28] OK. Uh, uh,
[35:33] next item 650, we're
[35:35] a little behind, is the
[35:38] appointment of David
[35:39] Mallet to the
[35:39] cemetery
[35:40] committee. I move that
[35:44] David Mallet be accepted or appointed to the
[35:45] Cemetery
[35:46] Committee.
[35:48] Second. Is
[35:49] there any more discussion?
[35:52] In principle, if
[35:54] a person can walk,
[35:55] they can breathe
[35:57] even if they are not there.
[36:00] He is on the case. That's
[36:01] it.
[36:02] No more
[36:03] discussions. All those in
[36:04] favor, please
[36:05] say yes.
[36:06] Yes. Accepted. Uh
[36:09] , let's do
[36:10] our additional uh
[36:11] on policy, the
[36:13] immediate
[36:14] policy of the council. This
[36:15] question arose because
[36:16] one of the members
[36:18] resigned. Someone
[36:20] else wants to take
[36:21] his place. They
[36:25] decided they
[36:26] didn't need anyone, and it looks like
[36:27] we would have to
[36:28] amend their
[36:30] policy before us,
[36:31] and that would mean
[36:32] changing the wording a little bit
[36:33] to say they have to
[36:35] appoint
[36:36] someone. It
[36:39] doesn't say that now.
[36:41] Well, it
[36:41] says that if
[36:42] they're going to
[36:43] appoint someone,
[36:44] they have to go through the
[36:45] whole procedure.
[36:46] Yes, this is a slightly different
[36:47] interpretation.
[36:48] This is a different interpretation
[36:49] than mine, too. Yes.
[36:50] But come on, come on,
[36:51] let's go
[36:52] through the history of this
[36:53] issue. Yes. So
[36:54] when we created
[36:55] the recreation board,
[36:57] we needed them to have
[36:59] rules, and we
[37:00] asked, can
[37:01] you write them for
[37:02] us?
[37:03] Yes.
[37:03] And they wrote us
[37:05] some rules, we
[37:06] reviewed them and
[37:07] asked for
[37:08] some changes. And when
[37:09] they came back with
[37:10] another project, we
[37:11] liked it. So,
[37:14] these rules were
[37:15] created as a joint
[37:16] project of the recreation
[37:17] board and the board of elected
[37:19] officials. We are both
[37:20] responsible for this. And
[37:24] apparently we...well, clearly
[37:25] Jim Barlow was
[37:26] right, that we were
[37:27] wrong, and that we
[37:28] inserted contradictory
[37:29] language about the
[37:30] appointment,
[37:31] saying that this board is
[37:32] responsible for the
[37:34] appointment, and somewhere else it
[37:35] says
[37:36] it has to be
[37:37] approved first by the
[37:39] ...
[37:41] recreation board.
[37:42] Yes. And he recommends
[37:44] certain wording
[37:45] that we should
[37:46] insert there. And I would say
[37:49] , just in the spirit of the
[37:50] collaborative work that
[37:52] we've done with them
[37:53] in the past, that we
[37:54] would send them
[37:55] Jim
[37:56] Barlow's wording, if we
[37:57] like it, and
[37:58] say: here's what we
[37:59] want to change in
[38:00] policy. What do you think about this
[38:02] ?
[38:03] Of course. And then, as far as
[38:04] I'm concerned,
[38:06] we're acting
[38:07] within the existing
[38:08] rules,
[38:10] respecting their
[38:11] decision not to make
[38:12] an appointment, because
[38:14] they need to
[38:14] know who they
[38:15] can work with and,
[38:16] more politically correct,
[38:17] what kind of team they
[38:18] want to have.
[38:19] So, this was
[38:20] about VAC,
[38:21] right?
[38:21] Yes.
[38:22] Right.
[38:23] That makes sense. So, we're
[38:25] not.
[38:25] What I don't understand is
[38:27] why they're against it. It sounded like
[38:29] they wanted to keep
[38:31] the options open,
[38:32] like they wanted to see
[38:33] who else might be
[38:34] interested. They
[38:35] need more time,
[38:36] but
[38:37] I guess they just
[38:39] didn't want another
[38:40] member.
[38:40] Maybe that's true.
[38:41] That was what I
[38:42] understood: they just
[38:44] didn't want a member.
[38:45] Yes, that's exactly what I
[38:46] understood.
[38:46] So, on our council,
[38:48] when
[38:48] a vacancy arises, the law says
[38:50] we must
[38:51] fill it without
[38:52] delay. I forgot the
[38:53] exact words.
[38:54] Well, but they were there, we
[38:56] created them. We did not
[38:57] include any
[38:57] wording stating
[38:58] that the vacancy
[38:59] must be
[39:00] filled.
[39:00] No, that's right.
[39:02] Yes. It
[39:02] just says
[39:03] we have to
[39:04] approve it if
[39:05] they...
[39:05] That's what it says.
[39:07] We are not obligated
[39:07] to approve it if
[39:08] they approve it.
[39:09] No, but then it will
[39:10] reach us,
[39:10] right? We don't have to
[39:12] approve it,
[39:13] but
[39:13] they have to
[39:14] approve it first.
[39:15] Yes.
[39:16] Right. But
[39:17] okay. We're
[39:19] trying to say
[39:21] that Jim Barlow is saying that
[39:22] the vacancy should be
[39:23] filled.
[39:26] I saw it, but only
[39:27] briefly.
[39:29] Was that in the
[39:30] council memo or right here?
[39:31] Oh, that's a separate
[39:32] announcement.
[39:33] Oh, that's right.
[39:36] Take this. Individuals
[39:44] interested in
[39:45] joining the Recreation Council
[39:47] may submit a letter
[39:48] of interest
[39:49] to the council, stating the
[39:50] applicant's name, city of
[39:51] residence, and
[39:52] desire to work. The
[39:54] Recreation Board may
[39:54] meet with
[39:55] applicants and make
[39:56] recommendations to the board
[39:57] regarding the appointment.
[39:58] The council has
[39:59] the authority
[40:00] to appoint members
[40:01] of the
[40:01] recreation board.
[40:02] So, it doesn't say
[40:03] they have to.
[40:04] No, it doesn't say they
[40:06] should, but they should. I
[40:08] agree with that. So we
[40:09] can give them this
[40:11] wording and
[40:12] see if
[40:12] they want to
[40:13] change it and
[40:14] ask the board to
[40:15] wait for their
[40:16] recommendation.
[40:19] We still have to.
[40:21] We must always, as
[40:22] it was written
[40:23] before. We don't act
[40:25] alone, do we?
[40:27] Right.
[40:28] OK.
[40:29] But that's just how we've
[40:30] limited ourselves.
[40:32] Yes. Right.
[40:33] We offer another
[40:34] way if you want.
[40:35] But we should still
[40:36] wait for their
[40:37] Yes.
[40:38] recommendation.
[40:39] Yes.
[40:39] Well
[40:39] , we would have to
[40:40] . It says
[40:42] the board can
[40:43] meet with
[40:43] interested
[40:44] applicants and can
[40:45] make recommendations.
[40:47] Yes.
[40:47] Maybe. I just
[40:51] need clear
[40:52] rules for everyone, and we
[40:53] have to
[40:54] work with them in
[40:55] cooperation.
[40:56] But they are not
[40:56] obligated
[40:57] to fill the spot
[40:58] if there are
[40:59] more than five left, as
[41:00] there are between five and
[41:01] nine members.
[41:02] Aha.
[41:02] And at least five, as
[41:03] they say. So if there are
[41:05] fewer than five,
[41:06] then they will be
[41:07] forced to—from five to
[41:09] nine.
[41:09] OK.
[41:11] I don't...So I don't think...
[41:13] Well, never mind.
[41:14] We'll send this
[41:15] text to see
[41:16] what happens.
[41:16] Yes.
[41:17] Good. And also, I wanted to
[41:20] raise a question that
[41:25] concerns me in connection
[41:26] with this letter from
[41:27] Jim. I want us to
[41:32] understand: we do not
[41:32] make public any
[41:34] communications between us
[41:35] and our attorney.
[41:39] If we do this, we will
[41:40] lose attorney-client
[41:41] privilege and also
[41:42] give an advantage to
[41:43] anyone who may be
[41:44] on the other
[41:45] side of the legal
[41:47] dispute. This provides them with
[41:49] information about
[41:50] legal
[41:51] advice. So
[41:52] yeah, we won't make it
[41:53] public.
[41:55] Of course. Yes. So
[41:57] if you could
[41:57] send this via
[41:58] email instead of
[41:59] posting it on the
[42:00] website.
[42:01] Good.
[42:01] That would be great.
[42:03] OK.
[42:04] Thank you.
[42:05] So, another issue
[42:06] you raised is the
[42:07] fight against reeds.
[42:08] Yes. Let me
[42:10] open up.
[42:11] I've never even
[42:12] heard of that word. So,
[42:13] Phragmites...
[42:16] communis is the name of the
[42:18] genus. Sorry, Phragmites
[42:22] is the name of the genus. My
[42:26] first
[42:28] thesis editing job in Japan
[42:29] when I was 16 was
[42:30] ...
[42:32] You got your PhD
[42:34] at 16?
[42:35] There was a graduate student in
[42:37] Japan who was working
[42:38] on the vegetative
[42:39] zonation of P. communis.
[42:42] And she paid me to
[42:43] edit her
[42:44] English.
[42:45] A.
[42:46] And when I finished,
[42:47] she found out I was
[42:48] only 16.
[42:49] A.
[42:50] However. However. However,
[42:53] Colleen Bloom writes: “I am
[42:55] writing to you as a
[42:56] member of
[42:57] Quelos Lakes and
[42:58] Streams, an organization that is
[42:59] fighting
[43:00] invasive species
[43:01] that know no borders
[43:03] , including reeds,
[43:04] cattails, and
[43:05] Japanese knotweed.
[43:07] We recently
[43:08] teamed up with UVM Extension
[43:10] to combat cane
[43:10] blight. Would
[43:12] you like us to
[43:13] come to one of
[43:14] your council meetings
[43:15] to discuss
[43:16] collaboration?”
[43:17] We have this problem in
[43:18] East London.
[43:20] You can learn about
[43:21] this from Colleen Bloom.
[43:23] Probably yes, otherwise
[43:24] she wouldn't want to
[43:25] talk to us.
[43:27] Of course.
[43:29] I'm not thrilled about
[43:30] this. But,
[43:31] if we have a
[43:33] meeting,
[43:36] yes,
[43:37] maybe at seven, maybe at
[43:38] ten.
[43:39] Good. I didn't know for sure
[43:41] .
[43:41] Yes. We find out what's
[43:43] happening.
[43:44] I don't like
[43:45] this rhetoric of war
[43:46] on plants. Is
[43:48] that too strict for you?
[43:50] Yes, there are
[43:52] already enough people in North Murio
[43:54] talking about this. So it's
[43:55] probably worth
[43:56] listening to what she has to
[43:57] say. Good.
[44:01] Well, let it be.
[44:03] Oh, let him say.
[44:06] Well, you know, it's an educational
[44:07] opportunity.
[44:08] Yes.
[44:08] I mean, it's a
[44:09] new word for me, but now
[44:11] I can say it
[44:11] for me. For me too
[44:13] . Do
[44:13] you know about
[44:14] fake ladies?
[44:15] Yes, you can say "
[44:15] come and read". Is this the
[44:17] generally accepted
[44:17] reading?
[44:18] Generally accepted.
[44:19] Common
[44:20] reading. Really?
[44:21] Yes, that's a common
[44:22] name.
[44:22] OK. Do
[44:23] you want
[44:24] to contact her? Uh
[44:24] , I can.
[44:25] Or do you want Jen
[44:27] too? I have
[44:27] it right here. I'll
[44:28] just
[44:29] tell her to contact
[44:30] Jen.
[44:31] Name
[44:32] Yes.
[44:32] Okay, it's done.
[44:34] Now we have warrants.
[44:35] We have an
[44:37] administrator report.
[44:39] So let's do
[44:40] it, uh, simultaneously, so to
[44:41] speak. OK.
[44:45] So we can listen
[44:46] , and we can also
[44:47] see. The
[44:51] Old
[44:52] West Church Association
[44:53] asked for granite
[44:54] blocks from Sodom Pond
[44:55] Road. Uh, so I wonder
[44:59] if this is normal.
[45:02] Well, there was an answer.
[45:04] Yes, he said
[45:05] he was fine with that.
[45:06] I thought he was
[45:07] going to use
[45:09] some of them, but I got it
[45:10] . But I thought
[45:11] he said everything was
[45:13] okay.
[45:13] I thought he said he would
[45:14] find a
[45:15] use for them.
[45:16] Just contact
[45:17] him. I heard the same thing.
[45:20] OK.
[45:21] It doesn't matter. We agree
[45:23] with
[45:23] Yes. Yes.
[45:24] OK.
[45:25] I think he will find a
[45:26] use for them. So,
[45:28] uh, Bill Higgus
[45:29] was asking about the
[45:30] plank flooring at
[45:31] Sparrow Farm and where
[45:32] to store it.
[45:34] Oh, rotten wood.
[45:35] Yes.
[45:36] Oh, God.
[45:38] OK. this rotten
[45:40] wood. At first
[45:41] he talked to me
[45:42] about just
[45:43] stuffing it under the bottom.
[45:46] I was just going to
[45:47] say,
[45:48] well, what are they doing?
[45:49] They will have a container.
[45:51] Just throw it in the
[45:52] woods.
[45:52] Yes,
[45:53] but they will have a
[45:54] container because he
[45:55] wrote to me about
[45:56] having something in the field. I
[45:57] said, well, I'm going to
[45:58] mow the field on
[45:59] Monday, and I
[46:00] mow it on Saturday
[46:01] to finish.
[46:02] And then he was going to
[46:03] leave something there, and I
[46:04] thought it was for
[46:05] garbage collection. Ha?
[46:06] I'll make a suggestion
[46:08] to put this on
[46:08] Carl's front porch.
[46:11] I, I'll call
[46:12] Bill and talk to
[46:13] him about it.
[46:14] You don't have to.
[46:15] Yes.
[46:15] Because if he's
[46:16] going to put
[46:16] this in a container,
[46:17] he's going to have to
[46:18] get rid of it. And I think that's the
[46:19] point.
[46:20] Ugh.
[46:20] Regarding this.
[46:21] Yes.
[46:22] But we can just
[46:22] pile it up
[46:23] somewhere. To pile up
[46:23] .
[46:24] Yes. In the forest. There are a
[46:25] lot of forests and swamps there.
[46:26] It can rot. So That's
[46:28] right.
[46:29] True. And some nails
[46:30] can also
[46:30] go bad. This is
[46:31] great.
[46:33] It's all natural.
[46:34] Oh, that's right. It is not
[46:36] painted.
[46:37] It's all natural.
[46:38] True. Right.
[46:39] Good. What else do you have?
[46:41] OK. So, the
[46:42] pedestrian and
[46:44] cyclist safety grant was
[46:45] approved for 48 thousand
[46:46] with 20%
[46:46] co-financing.
[46:50] I just need to
[46:51] send them a letter
[46:52] saying we agree to a
[46:53] deal with
[46:54] these numbers. This
[47:01] prompts the grantor
[47:02] to prepare an agreement, and
[47:03] I work to
[47:04] arrange a
[47:05] pre-meeting
[47:06] if the board agrees to
[47:07] move forward.
[47:10] Of course.
[47:11] Yes.
[47:11] Good.
[47:12] You will include Aaron
[47:13] Clark in the preliminary
[47:14] meeting.
[47:15] Yes.
[47:15] Perfectly. She will
[47:16] like it. The
[47:20] deadline for the EMFD RFP proposal is
[47:21] October 6 of this year. And
[47:27] regarding the MPG and CDBG grants
[47:29] for the
[47:30] Orchard Valley Waldorf School Master Plan
[47:31] and the
[47:34] North Montier Center Master Plan Project, we
[47:35] now have a website with
[47:37] all the information.
[47:42] We also have a
[47:43] survey. It is
[47:45] intended for all
[47:46] community members who
[47:47] want to provide their
[47:49] suggestions or
[47:49] determine priorities
[47:51] for the project. The deadline for
[47:53] submitting
[47:54] survey responses is
[47:55] October 9. That's when
[47:57] it closes.
[47:59] Also, I look forward to
[48:00] any
[48:01] questions you may have, or email
[48:02] me if you would like to be
[48:04] added to the list of
[48:05] stakeholders.
[48:07] And one more question:
[48:08] next week
[48:09] we have a training day for
[48:10] city
[48:11] administration employees. Therefore, the
[48:12] city
[48:13] administration office will be
[48:14] closed on October 7. That's
[48:17] all.
[48:17] Good. I have a quick
[48:19] question, Jen. I
[48:20] saw that there were already two
[48:21] applications. Perfectly.
[48:22] Yes. Did
[48:23] they come through the
[48:24] aforementioned channels, through
[48:27] emergency management or...
[48:29] I don't think so.
[48:30] No. Good. I'm just
[48:32] curious.
[48:37] I have a question from the
[48:38] last
[48:39] council meeting, regarding North
[48:40] Montier, there was a
[48:42] SD group launch there......
[48:45] that took place last
[48:47] week at a private
[48:48] home. I'm curious about
[48:53] what we think about
[48:54] holding
[48:55] public events
[48:56] in private homes,
[48:57] because I'm used to the idea that
[48:59] public events
[49:00] should be held in
[49:01] public places where
[49:02] people don't feel
[49:03] uncomfortable because of a
[49:04] personal relationship with
[49:05] the owner of the space
[49:06] . True.
[49:11] On the other hand,
[49:12] it's nice to have a
[49:13] meeting place right where
[49:15] the project is being implemented,
[49:16] and there's no public space
[49:17] there.
[49:19] Yes. Well, all of this is, in
[49:20] fact, not exactly an
[49:23] official matter. I
[49:25] mean, it's all
[49:26] directed by Selena, Selena,
[49:31] That's the thing. So
[49:34] it's not exactly an
[49:35] official event,
[49:37] but that's why it was
[49:38] held in that
[49:39] house.
[49:41] I think it would be better
[49:42] if it was in a
[49:43] public place.
[49:45] That would be more appropriate.
[49:49] At school,
[49:50] right? But it was
[49:51] nice to spend it in the
[49:53] community.
[49:54] I think that's why
[49:55] the supplier advised
[49:57] us to hold it in the
[49:58] North Maylor community
[49:59] nearby...
[50:00] Who advised us?
[50:01] Provider.
[50:02] Of course.
[50:04] I suggested
[50:04] holding an open
[50:05] meeting, an open
[50:07] house, where it
[50:08] happens,
[50:10] in a private home,
[50:11] right?
[50:12] That's where it came from
[50:13] .
[50:15] I think in the future,
[50:17] more distance could be created, and
[50:18] at the same time, I will say that there are
[50:20] others... So, we have a
[50:24] complex problem,
[50:25] but yes,
[50:27] more could be done to
[50:28] maintain some
[50:30] distance. Yes. But I'm
[50:31] not
[50:32] busy enough to
[50:33] talk to people and
[50:34] try...
[50:34] So what about this old
[50:35] dance hall? Has
[50:36] it now
[50:37] been converted into
[50:38] apartments?
[50:39] It is completely
[50:39] empty. He, uh...
[50:42] why did I forget the name? It
[50:44] still belongs to...
[50:45] we know who. Yes. And
[50:48] he...
[50:49] there's still an
[50:49] old water
[50:50] boiler right in front of the
[50:51] entrance. I live right
[50:53] across from him.
[50:54] Yes, I know.
[50:55] Yes. I went there to
[50:56] dance about 50 years ago. They
[50:58] used to
[50:59] hold dances there.
[51:00] Actually, even
[51:02] later.
[51:02] In fact, it was still
[51:03] ...
[51:04] 30 years ago.
[51:05] Yes, there were
[51:07] dances there.
[51:08] Yes, but it's
[51:10] privately owned now,
[51:11] so it's not a public
[51:12] place, right? Yes. I was
[51:15] just trying to
[51:16] come up with a public
[51:17] place there. There's
[51:18] really
[51:19] nothing there.
[51:20] None.
[51:21] Yes. OK. Well,
[51:24] we have what we have.
[51:27] Would you like to make
[51:28] a suggestion?
[51:30] Um, is there anything else we can
[51:32] discuss? Mr.
[51:33] G. is in a hurry.
[51:37] I suggest...
[51:38] What are you doing with your hand?
[51:39] I propose...
[51:42] to close the
[51:43] meeting.
[51:45] I think so.
[51:46] Second.
[51:46] OK. All those in favor,
[51:48] please say
[51:49] yes. Yes. Yes.
[51:50] OK.
[51:50] See you
[51:51] next...
[51:51] see you
[51:52] next Monday
[51:52] . I guess we...
[51:53] See you on
[51:54] Monday.