[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.

East Montpelier Selectboard - September 28, 2026 [EMSB]

Transcript