[0:15] So, it is uh Monday, August 31st, 2026.
It is 6 pm. This is a special meeting of
[0:25] the Montgomery Select Board and Water
Commission. Um, we'll call the meeting
[0:29] to order. Um, first, uh, item of
business as always is to review and make
[0:35] any changes to the agenda. Do any board
members have any, uh, additions or
[0:40] deletions to the agenda?
>> No, I don't have anything.
[0:45] » No.
>> All right. Uh, not hearing any additions
[0:49] or deletions to the agenda, we'll move
on to the approval of the August 21st
[0:52] special meeting minutes.
Um, is there a motion to approve the
[0:57] August 21st meet? Can we just Can we Can
we Can we not talk?
[1:03] » Thank you.
>> I make a motion to approve.
[1:08] » I'll second it.
>> Okay. So, we have a motion from Dennis
[1:10] to approve the August 21st meeting
minutes as written. We have a second
[1:13] from Mark. Is there any discussion on
the minutes?
[1:23] Hearing none. All those in favor, please
signify by saying I or raising your
[1:26] hand. I
>> I
[1:29] » Any opposed?
Any abstensions? All right. Motion
[1:34] carries and the minutes are approved. Um
just as a point of information in case
[1:39] folks didn't catch it, Daniel is on the
Zoom tonight. So that was the eye from
[1:43] the computer.
All right. Third item here is to review
[1:48] uh a review and analysis of the latest
complaints concerning violations of
[1:52] state of Vermont open meeting law and
municipal conflict of interest policy.
[1:56] Um Chris was appointed the leazison to
deal with these and [cough] so took
[2:01] [clears throat] it up to work through
this new set. So I will turn it over to
[2:06] Chris. Um I just want to verify with you
Chris that in preparing this you worked
[2:12] independently uh of other board members.
um and just put this together by
[2:17] yourself. Correct.
>> That's correct.
[2:19] » All right, that's enough.
>> All righty,
[2:23] » Amy. It's not visitors. You'll have a
chance to comment.
[2:26] » Yeah, but really I must be honest.
>> All right. Thank you, Amy. You'll have a
[2:32] chance to comment during public comment.
Uh so, Chris, I'm going to turn this
[2:36] over to you at this point
[clears throat] to work us through item
[2:39] number four, item number three on the
agenda.
[2:41] » Okay. So, we have uh we have two
complaints that we're addressing and
[2:46] I've prepared a report for each. Um, so
I'm just going to go over the I'm going
[2:51] to go over the report and then the board
can discuss and decide whether they want
[2:54] to agree with the findings of the
report.
[2:57] » I don't mean to interrupt.
>> Amy, you're going to have a chance to
[2:59] comment during visitors.
>> Copy of the agenda that I can have.
[3:03] » A copy of the agenda. There might be one
on the board outside. You can grab it if
[3:06] you want.
[3:11] » Okay. So, we'll start with the
August 23rd written complaint from Josh
[3:16] Howard.
And that complaint contains two
[3:20] allegations. The first one is uh
pursuant to Vermont's open meeting law 1
[3:25] VSA 312, meeting minutes must serve as a
true indication of all public business,
[3:29] including a record of official documents
received and any material public access
[3:33] disruption.
Sorry.
[3:36] » The relevant law here is 1 VSA 312B1
and it requires that minutes shall be
[3:43] taken of all meetings of public bodies.
The minutes shall cover all topics and
[3:47] motions that arise at the meeting and
give a true indication of the business
[3:50] of the meeting. Minutes shall include at
least the following minimal information.
[3:54] All members of the public body present.
All other active participants in the
[3:58] meeting. All motions, proposals, and
resolutions made, offered, and
[4:03] considered. and what disposition is made
of same and the results of any votes
[4:07] with a record of the individual vote of
each member if a roll call is taken.
[4:12] 1 VSA 312 sets a minimum standard of
requirements for what must be included
[4:16] in the meeting minutes. This standard
does not include a list of documents
[4:19] received and it does not require written
comments submitted by the public to be
[4:23] included in the minutes in their
entirety. The standard also does not
[4:27] specifically include public access
disruptions. In this instance, the
[4:31] reference document was was included in
the August 21st select board minutes and
[4:37] it's in the minutes pages 13 through 15.
The recommendation is that no violation
[4:43] occurred.
[4:47] The second allegation is that the town's
interactive public Zoom link failed to
[4:51] function, completely blocking remote
citizen participation.
[4:55] This represents the second meeting where
this spec specific technological failure
[4:59] has occurred. The select board has
long-standing firsthand knowledge of the
[5:02] systemic defect as members of the select
board personally tried to open the
[5:05] broken link a few weeks ago live during
a public meeting. Because the board
[5:09] possessed clear advanced notice that
remote public access was non-functional
[5:12] and failed to correct it, proceeding
with official board deliberations
[5:15] constitutes a distinct and actionable
open meeting law violation.
[5:20] In the 7 in the 7:20 uh July 20th select
board meeting, Josh commented that the
[5:25] Zoom link was not working and that's on
the meeting recording starting at 9:07.
[5:30] Several people in the room tried the
link and the consensus seemed to be that
[5:33] the link was not clickable on some
phones, but copy pasting the link
[5:36] worked. The meeting agenda for the
August 21st select board meeting
[5:41] included a Zoom link as well as a Zoom
meeting ID and passcode. Three members
[5:45] of the public, John Chamberlain, Alyssa
Hardy, and Brent Goden, participated in
[5:50] the August 21st meeting via Zoom. They
were offered an opportunity to make
[5:53] public comment, and that's on the
meeting recording starting at 1:2428.
[5:58] All three participants responded when
their names were called, mostly stating
[6:01] that they did not have any comments to
add.
[6:04] Also at 5:01 p.m. on August 21st, a
community member posted on the McGomery
[6:09] area ver Montgomery Vermont area
community forum Facebook group
[6:13] encouraging people to join the select
board meeting via Zoom. The post
[6:16] included an incorrect link to the Zoom
meeting.
[6:20] » Can you slow down a little bit?
>> Sure.
[6:24] Relevant law
1VSA 312A3
[6:28] requires state level public bodies to
hold all special and regular meetings in
[6:33] a hybrid fashion. This requirement does
not apply to local bodies such as the
[6:38] Montgomery Select Board.
Local public bodies are required to
[6:43] provide electronic access to a meeting
if they receive a written request for
[6:47] access.
The Vermont Secretary of State provides
[6:51] an open meeting training video and
there's a link to it in the report that
[6:55] provides more information about these
requirements.
[7:00] The select board is not required by one
VSA 312 to hold meetings in a hybrid
[7:04] format unless a written request for
electronic access to that specific
[7:08] meeting has been received. No such
request was received for the August 21st
[7:13] meeting. Nevertheless, the August 21st
Select Board meeting was held as a
[7:17] hybrid meeting. Three members of the
public participated in the meeting
[7:20] remotely via Zoom.
Many factors can cause someone to have
[7:24] trouble connecting to a Zoom meeting.
These factors can include internet
[7:28] connection issues, problems with the
Zoom app, or user error. The select
[7:32] board has no control over any of these
factors.
[7:36] In the July 20th meeting, Josh reported
difficulty clicking on the Zoom link.
[7:40] Several people in the room tried the
link and the consensus seemed to be that
[7:43] the link was not clickable on some
phones but copyping the link worked. The
[7:48] URL for the Zoom link is generated by
Zoom. Zoom support provides some
[7:53] troubleshooting steps to follow when
having trouble connecting to a meeting
[7:57] which include manually entering the
meeting ID and passcode.
[8:01] The Vermont the Montgomery Vermont area
community forum Facebook post that
[8:05] contained an incorrect link may have
also contributed to some members of the
[8:09] public having trouble connecting to the
August 21st Zoom meeting. The select
[8:12] board has no control over the Facebook
group or the account that posted the
[8:15] incorrect link. Recommendation, no
violation of
[8:33] And then um the motion
>> the motion that we should make would be
[8:39] » if we make I'll make a motion to accept.
>> Okay. I had can
[8:43] » both.
>> Okay. And uh the the wording um of the
[8:48] motion should be after reviewing the
facts and applying the law as described
[8:51] in the report. I move that the select
board find that no violation occurred
[8:55] and that no cure is necessary and that a
copy of the report be attached to the
[8:58] minutes of this meeting.
>> Yeah,
[9:01] » that's that's the motion.
>> Uh so we have a motion from Mark.
[9:07] Is there a second?
[9:11] Second.
We have a motion made and seconded. Is
[9:15] there any discussion? So um
I've zoomed on twice. having an issue.
[9:22] So
are there and this is this is just a
[9:28] question that probably might not be able
to be answered but the people that are
[9:30] having problems is it consistently the
same people is it they can get on one
[9:34] time and on another time I I mean I'm
not something that we're going to be
[9:37] able to solve the problem now but um is
this a an action to I mean because
[9:44] it is a hybrid form or um maybe in good
faith are we I mean is this a contacting
[9:51] Zoom or is this more were you looking
this specific at a user error?
[9:55] » Well, I think probably I think what I
think the issue probably is is that when
[10:01] you click on the link, what what happens
when you click on the link depends on
[10:05] what app you're using to display the
document. So, that may be different if
[10:08] you're on a if you're on a computer
versus a phone and the uh the agenda
[10:13] goes out as a PDF document. So depending
on what PDF viewer you're using, it may
[10:18] behave differently and I think that's
probably what's causing the issue.
[10:23] » Is this just for you guys right now?
>> What I want to know.
[10:27] » So is when when we when we post this um
on the website, can they click directly
[10:34] from the website with the link?
>> Yeah. So, when you if you go to the
[10:39] website and you look up the the agenda
on the drop-own menu, there's two
[10:44] options. You can download it or you can
preview it. If you download it, you'll
[10:47] download the full PDF. If you preview
it, the PDF will pop up in a window. Um,
[10:53] and in that window, if the PDF is in the
right format, the link is live. That's
[10:58] what I used to get that computer on
there. Um there was one posting of the
[11:02] agenda where somehow when the um when
the PDF was transmitted to Liz or when
[11:11] Liz posted it, the link was a dead link.
It like didn't go anywhere. Um and we
[11:16] didn't realize it until that meeting.
That was when the the link was grayed
[11:20] out. It wasn't blue.
>> Um I think we resolved that in terms of
[11:23] how things are set and how it gets
posted. But I have been checking that
[11:26] when it gets posted to make sure that
the link is live. So now that we're we
[11:31] offer a hybrid function for people um is
there something that we can do um before
[11:39] the meeting starts that we're ensuring
that the link is is viable or I mean and
[11:46] and I'm not saying it's possible. I'm
not saying it's impossible. I'm just
[11:48] saying that to appease or to help um the
people or the people. I mean I like I
[11:54] said I've done it twice. I haven't had
an issue. I've done it on my computer. I
[11:57] haven't done it on my phone. Um, but I
just I mean obviously I know an Android
[12:01] and Apple have a different operating
system and the computer has a different
[12:04] operating system whether it's an a Mac
or a
[12:07] » a regular computer. So um just saying
that is there um you know when we when
[12:12] we pose this are we making sure I mean
obviously it's a Zoom thing right this
[12:16] not we we they generates the link Zoom
generates the link we don't generate the
[12:20] link
>> and that link is generated and from what
[12:24] you said when it's blue it means it's
live I think that's the
[12:27] » that's my non-technical way of phrasing
that but
[12:32] » and I would say the other thing that we
could do is just make sure that people
[12:35] know that if the link doesn't work they
can you can go on Zoom, you can go to
[12:39] the Zoom website and you can click join
a meeting and you can type in the
[12:42] meeting ID and passcode.
>> Okay.
[12:46] » One thing I don't want to make a I do
not want to make a friendly amendment um
[12:52] to to what was motioned, but something
that my takeaway on this is that there
[12:57] is a concern about the Zoom and
accessibility. Um, I what I'd like to
[13:03] do, you know, is with the board's kind
of agreement, if you will, I think it
[13:08] might be helpful if I could uh go into
the town office, maybe talk to Liz um
[13:12] and and better understand like what all
of these processes are because I think
[13:17] we've been doing it the same way for a
really long time. And as far as I know,
[13:20] it works, but some people have had
issues. Uh, I wonder if there's um if it
[13:25] might be helpful for me to just go
through and see if there are any
[13:28] accessibility improvements or
recommendations that I can make like how
[13:31] links are posted, how meetings are
posted. Um, looking at the user
[13:34] friendliness of the website, just maybe
try to have a a comprehensive look at it
[13:39] and maybe solicit input from the
community if they have, you know,
[13:43] requests something that might make it
easier or make this hybrid system work
[13:47] better for them. understanding that none
of this is a promise that anything will
[13:50] change, but just to see if there are
improvements that we can do without
[13:54] detracting from, you know, the the
requirements of the meeting.
[14:00] » Sure, Daniel. Yeah, by all means, if you
want to dig [snorts] into it.
[14:04] » Yeah, I would I would say I think uh
looking at the the usability of our
[14:09] website and those processes is a great
idea. Um, in terms of the actual Zoom
[14:14] link, I don't think it's going to make
much difference because a Zoom link is
[14:17] just the address of a web page. And so,
it's either clickable or it's not. I
[14:22] mean, it's either it's either in the
document as a link or it's in there as
[14:26] text
>> and it's probably I think probably most
[14:30] of the issues are maybe specific to a
particular platform like particular, you
[14:36] know, phone configuration in PDF viewer
that's causing the link not to
[14:42] not to be active
>> because it is active on when you open it
[14:47] from a computer. It is active and it
works.
[14:52] » All right. Any other discussion on the
motion?
[14:58] » Hearing none. All those in favor, please
signify by saying I or raising your
[15:01] hand. I
>> Any opposed?
[15:06] Any abstensions? I will abstain.
[15:11] Uh, the motion carries.
Chris, back to you.
[15:17] » Okay, so the second complaint is
an August 21st complaint from Carrie
[15:24] Quinton
and it has several allegations. Uh,
[15:29] allegation one is that Charlie's 33125
email violated open meeting law. This is
[15:35] the wastewater email. Um, and this uh
was actually I think maybe the complaint
[15:40] was written before um the result of our
last meeting, but this uh open meeting
[15:48] law question was covered in last week's
report.
[15:52] » Um,
and the uh complaint says that um that
[16:00] it that the email constitutes a meeting
under one VSA 312 and it is possible
[16:06] for emails to constitute a meeting under
1 VSA 312. But in this case, Charlie's
[16:11] email does not meet the definition of a
meeting because it did not discuss
[16:14] business of the select board. It
discussed a public election.
[16:19] So the recommendation there is that no
violation occurred.
[16:23] The second allegation
is that Charlie's
[16:28] 33125 email violated the public records
act
[16:33] one v one VSA 316.
Charlie's
[16:38] email was released in response to a July
27th public records request from Carrie
[16:44] Quinton. And the email is attached to
the minutes of the August 3rd McGomery
[16:48] Select Board meeting. And the email
includes and the the response to the
[16:54] public records request includes the list
of BCC recipients.
[17:02] So the um the al the allegation here was
that the use of the BCC function was
[17:11] a violation of the public records act.
>> Are you going through the first letter
[17:17] or are you going through the one that I
gave you recently?
[17:20] I'm going through I'm going through the
um I'm going through your
[17:26] » the stuff that you submitted that was
that was in the um minutes of the last
[17:31] meeting
>> that you submitted on August 21st.
[17:36] » Okay. Thank you.
>> The other the other email that you sent
[17:40] um was a list of questions and it did
not appear to be a complaint. It was
[17:44] just a list of questions.
>> Exactly. I was like wait.
[17:46] » Yeah. So I'm not going through that.
All right. Um, so the BCC function is
[17:53] commonly used when sending a mass email
in order to avoid sharing the email
[17:57] addresses of each recipient with all the
other recipients. The email was released
[18:01] in response to a public records request
on July 27th. The response to the public
[18:06] records request included the list of BCC
recipients.
[18:10] Recommendation, no violation occurred.
>> I just added all this to add to your
[18:16] meeting. It wasn't
[18:23] We'll have chance for public comment
when we get to public comment. We're
[18:26] going to let Chris continue. We're going
to let Chris continue with his report.
[18:30] » Allegation three, Charlie's 33125 email
constituted abuse of town resources and
[18:36] impermissable impermissible electioning.
The email was sent from mcgomery
[18:41] selectboard.charie@gmail.com.
A free Gmail account created by Charlie.
[18:46] The email did not use any non-public or
confidential town information. No town
[18:51] resources were used to send the email.
The relevant law here uh is the
[18:56] municipal code of ethics uh misuse of
position, misuse of information, and
[19:01] misuse of government resources.
>> [snorts]
[19:05] » A common thread running through the
recent complaints seems to be the
[19:08] misconception that select board members
must remain neutral or impartial on
[19:12] public policy questions and that it is
somehow improper for them to advocate
[19:16] for a policy position.
This is not the case. Select board
[19:21] members are elected officials and it is
entirely acceptable for them to hold and
[19:25] advocate for policy positions.
see the report on investigation into
[19:30] ethics and OML complaints which is the
report from last week's meeting.
[19:35] The 2022 article ask do select persons
have to be impartial by VLCT municipal
[19:43] assistance center attorney Garrett
Baxter also explains this common
[19:46] misconception.
Do select persons have to be impartial?
[19:50] And this is this is a quote from the
article. Do select persons have to be
[19:54] impartial?
>> Not always. one article, correct?
[19:58] » It's from uh Vermont League of Cities
and Towns Municipal Assistance Center.
[20:04] And there's a uh there's a link to it in
the in this report. There's a link to
[20:10] the folder.
>> So, where do I find that report though?
[20:12] » It'll be
>> Will it be posted?
[20:15] » It'll be posted to the minutes.
>> Yeah.
[20:17] » Okay.
>> Do select persons have to be impartial?
[20:21] Not always. It depends on the context.
Like all other elected officials at the
[20:26] local, state, or federal level, select
persons are first and foremost
[20:30] politicians. Politicking involves
finding common ground where it exists,
[20:35] engaging in horse trading, advocating
for or against people, projects, and
[20:40] positions, and sometimes taking sides.
There's a widespread misconception in
[20:45] local government that a select board
must be impartial in all matters that
[20:48] come before it. This is simply not the
case. Context is key.
[20:54] Many people run for office because of
something they want to accomplish or
[20:58] because of a particular issue that
sparked their spirit of civic
[21:00] engagement. Publicly taking a position
on an issue will generally not
[21:05] disqualify a select person from
participating in a legislative
[21:09] rulemaking or executive administrative
context so long as some unique benefit
[21:15] is not conferred upon them that is not
afforded to the rest of the general
[21:18] public.
Bias, a preference or inclination that
[21:23] inhibits impartial judgment, typically
only becomes a disqualifying factor when
[21:27] a select person acts in a quasi judicial
context, i.e. when it is acting like a
[21:32] court. Examples of when a select board
serves in this role include when it's
[21:37] hearing a dog bite complaint or when
it's sitting in judgment of a tax appeal
[21:41] as a member of the board of civil
authority.
[21:46] The email did not use any non-public or
confidential town information.
[21:49] Therefore, there was no violation of 24
VSA 1993D.
[21:54] It did not use any town resources.
Therefore, there was no violation of 24
[21:58] VSA 1993E.
The email provided no personal or
[22:03] financial benefit for Charlie.
Therefore, there was no violation of 24
[22:06] VSA 1993 C. Recommendation, no violation
occurred.
[22:14] Allegation four, the August 17th special
town meeting violated 1 VSA 312, which
[22:21] states the public must be able to hear
the conduct of the meeting and be heard
[22:24] throughout
[22:28] Vermont opening law 1 VSA 310
item item five defines the term meeting
[22:35] and 5E explicitly excludes special town
meetings. 5E says meeting does not mean
[22:41] a gathering of the voters at a
municipality for the purposes of
[22:44] conducting an annual or special
municipal meeting.
[22:51] the cited section of 1vsa 312 to be able
to hear the conduct of the meeting and
[22:56] be heard throughout the meeting which is
from 1vsa 312 part u section a part c2
[23:05] applies to meetings where a member of
the body is attending remotely even if 1
[23:11] vsa 312 did apply to the special town
meeting town meetings do not allow
[23:15] remote participation so this section
would not apply
[23:19] recommendation
No violation occurred.
[23:26] Allegation five,
the August 17th special town meeting
[23:31] should be invalidated based on Charlie's
conflict of interest, his failure to
[23:35] abstain, and failure to provide a
legally audible forum. Charlie must
[23:40] abstain from participating in or
presiding over any and all citizen
[23:44] petitions or special meetings in the
future.
[23:48] So, facts. On June 15th, 2026, the
select board adopted the short-term
[23:53] rental ordinance. On July 6th, the
select board received a petition seeking
[23:57] a special meeting to disapprove the
ordinance. On July 13th, the select
[24:02] board warned the August 17th special
meeting to act on the following article
[24:06] of business. Shall the town of
Montgomery disapprove the short-term
[24:10] rental ordinance adopted by the select
board on June 15, 2026, thereby
[24:14] rendering said ordinance null, void, and
of no legal effect via petition 24VSA
[24:20] 1973.
The special town meeting was held on
[24:24] August 17th and was presided over by
Jacob Rekusen, the moderator elected by
[24:29] the town. The audience microphones were
not working during the first part of the
[24:33] meeting. The moderator encouraged
everyone to speak loudly or come to the
[24:37] front of the room and use the
moderator's microphone if needed and
[24:40] offered to repeat questions or comments
as needed so that everyone could hear.
[24:44] The microphone issue was fixed during
the meeting.
[24:49] Relevant law 17 VSA sections 2640
through 2667
[24:55] regulate the conduct of town meetings.
17 VSA 2641 requires that a town meeting
[25:01] be warned not less than 30 nor more than
40 days before the meeting.
[25:07] 17 VSA 2666 requires that neither the
warning, the notice, the official voter
[25:13] information cards, nor the ballot itself
shall include any opinion or comment by
[25:18] any town body or officer or other person
on the matter to be voted on.
[25:23] 17 VSA 2667 requires that the
legislative body of the municipality
[25:29] shall take reasonable measures to ensure
that voters who are elders or have a
[25:33] disability may conveniently attend
annual or special meetings, provided,
[25:37] however, that such measures need not be
taken if doing so would impose undue
[25:40] hardship on the town. Measures may
include location of meetings on the
[25:44] ground floor of buildings or providing
ramps or other devices for access to
[25:48] meetings.
24 VSA1973
[25:52] allows voters to petition to disapprove
an ordinance by submitting a petition
[25:56] signed by at least 5% of the voters
within 44 days of the adoption of the
[26:00] ordinance. 24VSA1973
then requires the select board to call a
[26:05] special meeting within 60 days from the
date of the receipt of the petition.
[26:10] The select board received petition
calling for a vote to disapprove the
[26:13] short-term rental ordinance. The select
board warned the meeting as required by
[26:18] 17 VSA 2641.
The warned article warned article did
[26:24] not contain any opinion or comment. So
there was no violation of 17 VSA 2666.
[26:31] This is the only action the select board
takes with respect to a petition. The
[26:35] question then goes to the voters of the
town at the special town meeting.
[26:40] 17 VSA 2667
requires reasonable measures to ensure
[26:45] that voters who are elders or have a
disability may conveniently attend
[26:49] unless doing so causes undue hardship.
The town hall where the special meeting
[26:53] was held has ramps and an elevator to
ensure wheelchair accessibility. There
[26:58] is no specific requirement that
microphones be provided.
[27:02] The audience microphones were not
working at the beginning of the meeting.
[27:06] The moderator made reasonable efforts to
ensure that everyone could hear the
[27:09] proceedings. He encouraged everyone to
speak loudly or come to the front of the
[27:13] room and use the moderator's microphone
if needed and offered to repeat
[27:17] questions or comments as needed so that
everyone could hear.
[27:22] The complaint also claims that Charlie
has a conflict of interest, but does not
[27:26] identify a specific conflict. This
conflict of interest claim has already
[27:31] been addressed in the report from last
week.
[27:35] Charlie's affiliations with VLCT,
Vermont Land Trust, Working Lands
[27:39] Enterprise Board, etc. do not create a
conflict. Not because these are
[27:44] reputable organizations whose missions
benefit Vermont communities, but because
[27:49] none of these organizations have any
stake in the outcome of Montgomery's
[27:53] wastewater project or short-term rental
ordinance.
[27:57] A conflict of interest does not exist in
a vacuum. It must be tied to a
[28:02] particular issue.
In order for one of Charlie's
[28:05] affiliations to cause a conflict on a
particular issue, there would need to be
[28:10] evidence that Charlie through his
affiliation with the organization stands
[28:14] to gain or lose something based on the
outcome of the select board decision.
[28:19] The complaint does not identify which
organization is involved or what
[28:23] interest that organization might have in
the wastewater or short-term rental
[28:26] issues.
The complaint also claims that Charlie
[28:31] was not impartial. There is no
requirement that select board members be
[28:35] impartial on questions of public policy.
The job of the select board is to
[28:40] supervise the affairs of the town 24
VSA872.
[28:45] When a proposal such as the wastewater
project or short-term rental ordinance
[28:49] comes before the select board, each
select board member studies the issue,
[28:53] asks questions, listens to public
comment on the issue, and discusses the
[28:57] issue with other members in open
meetings. Each member forms their own
[29:01] opinion as to whether they are in favor
or opposed to the measure at issue.
[29:05] Having an opinion on a public policy
issue is not evidence of a conflict. In
[29:11] many cases, as in the case of the
short-term rental ordinance, petitions
[29:15] are brought for the purpose of reversing
or undoing an action taken by the select
[29:19] board. Therefore, it should not be
surprising for a select board member to
[29:24] be opposed to an article that is brought
by petition. The fact that a select
[29:28] board member disagrees with the
petitioner's policy position does not
[29:32] indicate that there must be some hidden
conflict of interest.
[29:37] At the town meeting, voters ask
questions, share their opinions, and
[29:41] hear perspectives from both sides of the
issue, and the voters make a decision.
[29:46] There is no requirement that select
board members remain silent during this
[29:49] process. As the elected representatives
of the voters, it is entirely
[29:54] appropriate for select board members to
explain the select board's actions and
[29:58] the reasoning behind them to the voters.
The special town meeting is not a select
[30:03] board meeting. It is a meeting of the
voters of the town of Montgomery.
[30:07] Charlie did not preside over the
meeting. The presiding officer of the
[30:11] meeting was Jacob Racusen, the moderator
elected by the town. Charlie's actions
[30:16] during the special town meeting included
participating in floor debate when
[30:19] recognized by the moderator and voting.
These are actions that are available to
[30:24] every voter at the meeting.
Recommendation.
[30:28] The petition to disapprove the
short-term rental ordinance was handled
[30:32] properly by the select board. There is
no cause to invalidate the result of the
[30:36] August 17th special town meeting.
Charlie has no obligation to abstain
[30:41] from future special meetings or select
board action on voter petitions.
[30:50] » I'll make a motion.
>> Okay.
[30:52] » Did you have
>> same motion as before?
[30:53] » Yeah.
>> After reviewing the facts and applying
[30:55] the law as described in the report,
>> I move that the select board find that
[30:59] no violation occurred and that no cure
is necessary and that a copy of the
[31:02] report be attached to the minutes of
this.
[31:04] » Yeah, that's the motion.
We have a motion from Mark. Is there a
[31:09] second?
>> Second.
[31:12] » Thank you, Dennis. Is there any
discussion on the motion?
[31:19] Not hearing any. All those in favor,
please signify by saying I or raising
[31:23] your hand.
>> I.
[31:25] » Any opposed?
Any abstensions? I will abstain. And the
[31:30] motion carries. That brings us through
item three.
[31:35] Uh moving on to item four. So this is um
board process for receiving written
[31:40] comments and communications. Um so I'm
looking for guidance from the board on
[31:44] this. We only started accepting written
comments back in July. Um
[31:51] since then given the volume and timing
of the material that we've received um
[31:55] you know the minutes from August 3rd
were 24 pages long. The minutes from
[31:59] August 21st were 19 19 pages long. for
the comments. Um, timing wise, we
[32:05] sometimes get stuff given to us at the
meetings, stuff comes in the Monday
[32:09] following. We also get stuff submitted
Thursday with a request to put them on
[32:14] the following minutes. So, so timing is
kind of unclear. Um, and there's also
[32:19] some questions about the content. Um,
specifically, if we receive written
[32:24] comments that include profanity, how do
we handle that? Um, and so, uh, I'm
[32:29] looking for some guidance from the board
as to how to handle written
[32:34] communications or written comments the
board receives. Again, when we started
[32:38] receiving them and recording them in
July, I did that on my own. I didn't ask
[32:43] the board. I just said, "Sure." Um, but
now I am looking for the board to
[32:48] provide some guidance on how we how we
handle this. Um, again just given the
[32:54] volume, the timing, the content, and
then the physical requirements of having
[32:58] to actually record all this stuff on
archival paper.
[33:00] » Is there any um guidance from like the
state of how to handle
[33:05] » So according to state law, the minutes
cover uh basically just three things.
[33:10] Who was there, the motions that were
made, and then the result of any votes.
[33:14] Um, so the requirements for the minutes
in one VSA 312 are are limited. It's who
[33:20] was there, motions, proposals,
resolutions made, and the outcome of the
[33:23] votes,
[33:28] » but there's nothing anywhere saying when
you do get a written request, what you
[33:32] have to do.
>> No, there isn't. Uh, the towns handle
[33:35] this differently. Um, there are towns
that have uh written board policies,
[33:39] which we've talked about in the past,
that talk about uh taking written
[33:44] communications and putting them in a
file. It's available on public record.
[33:48] Um, I haven't found any board or city
council that actually accepts written
[33:53] comments and records them with the
meeting minutes. Um,
[33:58] but there's no there's no formal
guidance other than that. Um, if you
[34:02] read things that are out there about
minutes, um, some of the stuff that
[34:06] you'll find it is statements like the
minutes exist to record the board's
[34:10] business. It's not a forum for public
discussion. Um, but there's no other
[34:15] guidance beyond what's in state law from
the state.
[34:18] What was it about the profanity?
>> Uh my question related to profanity was
[34:23] what do you do if there's profanity in
written comments? Um I don't feel
[34:28] comfortable censoring someone's written
comments or editing them. Um,
[34:33] » well, because
>> um, so, uh,
[34:39] » board members,
>> if you can't be quiet and act
[34:42] respectfully,
>> I asked you because sometimes
[34:45] » you'll get a chance during public
comment to talk. So, when you're
[34:48] recognized, you'll have a chance. Thank
you, Amy.
[34:51] » And, she just turned around and told me.
>> Thank you, Amy. Okay, let's all try to
[34:55] behave like third graders and kind of
keep their hands to oursel and stay
[34:59] quiet and and not be mean to other
people. We're just going to, you know,
[35:04] be ourselves. So,
>> all right, board members,
[35:09] what do you want to do with written
communications that are received either
[35:14] at a meeting or between minute meetings?
H how do you want to handle this?
[35:20] So,
have we always accepted written?
[35:25] » No, we we only started really doing it
back in July. It was at the request of a
[35:30] member of the community that didn't feel
comfortable speaking publicly and I
[35:34] said, "Just give me your comments and
I'll record them with the meeting
[35:36] minutes."
>> Um,
[35:39] following that seemed to kind of
>> open the floodgates to that. Um, and so
[35:45] again, given the timing, the volume, the
content,
[35:49] » I'd like to figure out something that,
you know, we can do to receive these,
[35:54] um, but also make the minutes manageable
and, you know, in the in the format
[35:59] that's appropriate given what they're
there to do.
[36:08] » Yeah. I I feel like the minutes aren't
really the right place for those. I
[36:13] wouldn't be opposed to posting them
somewhere else
[36:18] if there if there's another place to do
that.
[36:21] » So like you mean physically post a copy?
>> Well, I was thinking on the website is
[36:25] what I was thinking. But
>> yeah, my only concern with that is that
[36:30] then we end up with a part of our
website that really looks a lot like a
[36:34] comment section on the Facebook post.
Um, and we all know what happens in the
[36:38] comment section of the Facebook posts.
>> That's a that's a good point. And then
[36:41] it it becomes an there's an onus on the
board to either moderate that or respond
[36:46] to it which kind of creates a separate
dialogue from what's happening.
[36:53] I mean I'll offer that the and I have
not done an exhaustive survey of other
[36:57] boards policies but the policies that I
have looked up the ones that I have read
[37:01] that have policies [clears throat]
related to this seem to say that they
[37:05] accept the comment. um they'll record it
received and they'll keep it on a file
[37:09] that's available for public inspection.
Um they don't record it with the
[37:13] minutes. If it is a comment that gets at
a specific policy um such as conflict of
[37:20] interest policy, complaint policy, dog
policy, then that policy governs what
[37:24] happens with uh the comments beyond
that.
[37:37] There's there's kind of a distinction
between maybe there's a distinction also
[37:40] between a comment and versus a versus a
written complaint because complaints
[37:45] would ideally have a policy for how to
handle those depending on what type of
[37:50] complaint.
So in the case of that if a complaint
[37:54] was received in writing at a meeting it
would be taken stamped as received filed
[38:00] and then the complaint policy would
govern the next steps associated with
[38:04] that
>> similar to if a written complaint about
[38:07] a dog was handed to us. Um if it was
just written comment related to
[38:13] someone's opinion on the color of the
new trucks uh that would be stamped as
[38:18] received and it would go into the file
and retained. uh that's available for
[38:22] public inspection, but it would not get
posted with the minutes or anything
[38:26] happen beyond right.
[38:32] » So, we're talking about people are just
writing an opinion that can't be here.
[38:37] Is that or because they don't?
>> So, what we're getting now is we're
[38:42] getting things handed to us at meetings.
We're getting communications emailed to
[38:46] us before and after meetings with
requests that they be recorded with the
[38:50] minutes. [snorts] Um, we're getting
stuff all sorts of ways
[38:54] » and the
the law states that we're not required
[38:58] to
>> one VSA 312 simply states that the
[39:02] minutes cover who was there, the
motions, proposals, resolutions made,
[39:05] and the result of the votes.
Our minutes tend to be a little bit more
[39:10] than that just to give a little bit more
color into like so for example when Mark
[39:15] provides an update on public works we
tend to give a short synopsis of the
[39:19] guys are working here they're finishing
that up so we try to add a little color
[39:23] I mean if you go back into the town
records and look at minutes from like
[39:26] the 70s some of these are less than
onethird of a page long for a meeting
[39:31] that lasted six and a half hours
>> so um we've gotten a little bit more
[39:38] verose with our minutes over the years.
Um, but state law, three things, who was
[39:43] there, motions, proposals made, and the
result of the votes.
[39:47] » Larry had a question.
>> Can it wait until public comment?
[39:50] » I'm okay.
>> Thanks, Larry.
[39:52] » Just trying to help you out.
>> I just I don't want to start selectively
[39:56] letting people talk whenever. So, we're
going to handle everything during public
[39:59] comment. Um
[40:04] » um
>> I'd like I'd like to just look into it
[40:09] more and then see what you know.
>> Okay.
[40:12] » If you want to table it, that's fine. I
just as as the person who currently is
[40:16] taking the minutes.
>> I don't feel comfortable making a
[40:19] unilateral decision about this one way
or the other just as I don't feel
[40:22] comfortable censoring something that
comes.
[40:24] » I'm hoping hoping this is going to slow
down.
[40:26] » Okay.
>> All right. If if that's fine, if folks
[40:29] are comfortable tableabling this, we
can. Um, it also brings up the broader
[40:34] question that came up at a couple
meetings around board policy related to
[40:37] things like if we are doing a hybrid
meeting and the meeting glitches, what's
[40:42] the process for addressing it? So, we
can look at a a board policy about
[40:46] meetings too if we want to.
>> Yeah.
[40:48] » Um, so we can certainly look at that,
but if
[40:50] » maybe that's
>> if the consensus is that we want to
[40:52] table it for this evening, that's
>> totally fine with me.
[40:58] Yeah.
>> Okay.
[41:00] » Sounds like the consensus is to table
it. So, we'll carry that item forward
[41:03] while folks can think on it and um do a
little bit more digging if they want to.
[41:08] That brings us to item five. This is the
Northwest Fiberworks lease agreement. Um
[41:13] so, I will point out that this is one
area where if the board does want to go
[41:17] into executive session, we can because
it's essentially a contract. And so
[41:22] premature public knowledge of our
positions related to a contract during a
[41:25] contract negotiation is a mechanism
whereby we can go into executive session
[41:31] because the premature knowledge of our
discussions could put us at a
[41:34] disadvantage. Um I'm not saying we have
to do that. Um I don't think there's a
[41:39] lot in here that's proprietary or or
secretive. Um I'll walk through. So, was
[41:46] there anybody else
>> interested in doing a lease with us for
[41:49] » So, we do have So, we have two we have
two uh two entities looking to enter
[41:54] into an agreement with us. The first is
Northwest Fiberworks. This is the one
[41:57] that we've got before us tonight.
They're the ones that want to put the
[42:00] equipment in the firebase um storage
area in the back. Doug is working with
[42:05] them very closely on that. Doug has
reviewed all this and is okay with it. I
[42:09] will say um the other entity is north is
uh NEK broadband or NEKCU.
[42:17] Um they're also looking to enter into an
agreement with us that would be to house
[42:21] equipment outside of the building uh on
a separate
[42:25] thing that they would have access to out
there. Um they have not gotten back to
[42:30] me with detailed responses some of the
questions I posed. So we don't have
[42:34] something to act on by them tonight. But
those are the two groups that are
[42:38] looking to utilize space here.
>> Oh, okay.
[42:42] » Are we are we looking at So, we're not
we're we're in the position to pick one
[42:47] or the other.
>> No. No. So, this So, so this is Sounds
[42:49] like
>> uh NEK broadband is coming over the hill
[42:52] down 242 and Fiberworks is coming in
from the west. So, Montgomery is going
[42:58] to be served by two different
communication districts. Yeah. Um, and
[43:02] because essentially both of their lines
terminate in Montgomery, they're both
[43:06] looking to house equipment here to
assist with the operations of their
[43:10] systems.
So, North House Fiber Works, um, the
[43:15] response to some of the things that were
raised in the last uh, draft that we
[43:19] reviewed. Um, so the this agreement
should be between the town of Montgomery
[43:22] and the fire department. That's been
corrected here. Um, article three, um,
[43:28] there was some conversations around, uh,
the free service at the subject
[43:32] property, this ser this property. So,
um, in consideration for the lease
[43:37] agreement, they would give free service
to the town. Um, they're also providing
[43:40] a generator out back that will then be
in our ownership. So, in addition to the
[43:44] generator, they're looking to provide
free service. I did go back and forth.
[43:48] » So, the current cost of the service is
250 a month. So, then they're going to
[43:52] wave that. Uh yes, that would be the
idea. Dennis, you got a question.
[43:55] » They are paying for the generator.
>> Yes.
[43:57] » Yeah.
>> So the generator is being furnished and
[43:59] then that reverts the ownership of that
uh reverts to the town.
[44:03] » Um it will be hooked into their system
so that should power fail that generator
[44:07] will work for them but it will also work
for this building.
[44:11] » So this building is okay.
>> Yep.
[44:13] » Um so I did ask about other places in
town and free service other locations.
[44:19] The response I got in writing here is
that um the free service only pertains
[44:23] to the premise in which the equipment is
being housed.
[44:27] Um
>> so let me ask this question. So if we're
[44:30] looking at two different
>> companies coming in here, does it have
[44:33] to be
>> one's coming from the west,
[44:37] one's coming from whatever, east, north,
south, whatever. So does it have to be
[44:42] this building? Can one be at a different
building and one what I'm getting at is
[44:46] that this one's offering free internet
service for here like we got you know
[44:52] other public spaces is that is it
availability to
[44:56] » Yeah. So um so I think the location here
is what makes the most sense for where
[45:02] their service is going to kind of be
divided like any K is going to come down
[45:06] the hill basically to here. Northwest
works is going to come from the west up
[45:11] to here. So this location just makes
sense in terms of where their service
[45:14] lines end. Um I have talked to them a
little bit more about where they are
[45:19] proposing to offer service in the
community um and where we would have
[45:23] access to it. So they are going to have
service on Main Street. To your broader
[45:27] point, if NEK broadband terminates here,
um my question to NEK broadband would be
[45:34] can you provide us free service here?
thinking any uh Northwest Fiberworks
[45:39] could provide us free service at some
other location on Main Street like the
[45:42] town hall.
>> Um
[45:44] » I have not gotten a definitive answer
like on that from either one other than
[45:50] that's something that we can do. Um, so
my my recommendation once I run through
[45:55] the questions is going to be that within
this we amend uh we we approve it with
[46:01] an amendment to um
the third article in here that instead
[46:08] of saying
>> third
[46:09] » um
town of Montgomery future fire
[46:13] department 86 Mountain Road that we
amend that to at one municipally owned
[46:17] property.
>> Yeah.
[46:18] » Yeah. I guess my thing too is that if we
don't have the proposal from another
[46:23] place, what are their what are they
offering? Yeah. For the town, are they
[46:26] more amunable to saying all public, you
know, all the spaces or
[46:31] » Yeah. So, I don't think that would work
for them because they're not going to
[46:33] the only they're not going to have
service that extends to any other of our
[46:37] buildings.
>> We're just coming to here.
[46:38] » So, just so it's going to stop here and
it's not going to go that way.
[46:41] » That's my understanding. So, NEK would
be basically the ones that we'd want to
[46:44] provide here. Yeah. and and they have
said in principle in an email like
[46:48] that's something that they would be
amicable to as consideration for the
[46:51] agreement. Um but they haven't gotten
that to us in in writing yet.
[46:56] » So this 250 is what they're saying what
like what what's what's our service?
[46:59] What are we paying now?
>> It's through uh we have a few different
[47:04] services here. I talked to Liz about it
today. We've got a consolidated account.
[47:08] We also have a Comcast business account.
Um, I think when you combine all these
[47:13] things, it's over 250 a month.
>> Yeah.
[47:16] » Um, I don't know the exact number we're
paying.
[47:19] » This building has two different
carriers.
[47:21] » Yeah, we have an account through uh
through Comcast Business. We also have
[47:25] an account through Consolidated. I don't
quite understand this, but the
[47:28] consolidated one I think we have because
of the package that they offer. They
[47:34] don't I mean I dropped consolidated a
while ago, so I don't really know, but I
[47:37] guess it's like you you you can't just
tease out the phone service the way that
[47:41] they were basically pitching it to us.
I'm not sure.
[47:45] » So our phone services was consolidated.
Okay.
[47:48] » And my preference would be longterm to
figure out some voiceover IP thing so
[47:51] that we can just go straight internet
and drop the phone altogether. But
[47:56] there's some details that have to get
worked out there.
[47:57] » My yeah concern with that would be is
if the internet goes down I mean I guess
[48:03] one or the other. If the internet goes
down I would think the phone lines are
[48:06] going down anyway. So
>> um
[48:11] okay.
>> So
[48:15] the generator not only u
covers their panel but it it it covers
[48:22] this building right that it runs his
building. Yep.
[48:27] » And who and who's responsible for the
update of the generator?
[48:30] » Uh we maintain the generator.
>> So it's our responsibility. It's a free
[48:33] generator, but we're we're we're taking
care of it.
[48:36] » Okay.
>> And and and who's doing that? Obviously,
[48:40] it's the whoever's installing it or
>> I'd be the company we use to do all of
[48:43] our generator maintenance.
>> Yeah, we use Milton Cat.
[48:47] » Milton Cat does our generator.
>> All right. So, oh, sorry. Do you have
[48:53] another question? Is that the generators
going on in here as Milton Cat?
[48:56] » I I haven't walked up to see I don't
know what it is, but Milton's Cat is the
[49:00] company we use to service the
generators.
[49:03] » Uh so going again going through our
punch list that we sent back to them.
[49:06] Article five, exhibit A needs amending.
They've corrected that.
[49:11] » Yeah.
>> Article six, landlord agrees to provide
[49:14] electricity electricity. Tenant pays
amounts of usage based on monitoring
[49:18] equipment. So, um, we can figure out
with them whether we want to invoice
[49:22] them monthly or quarterly. Um, they're
fine with either. Quarterly is probably
[49:27] more efficient.
>> Um, article seven,
[49:31] uh, the generator is a Generrack 30
kilowatt singlephase LP liquid cooled
[49:36] transfer switch is a gener 400 amp
singlephase automatic transfer switch.
[49:42] » Uh, article nine.
[49:46] Uh so they have clarified the generators
being supplied by Northwest Fiberworks.
[49:50] Article 9 is to ensure that any upgrades
to the backup battery equipment that may
[49:53] be needed in the future is accounted
for. Um
[49:58] so they addressed the question that we
had with article 9. So that should be
[50:02] fine. Now
uh article 17 the question was
[50:06] clarifying the gen the owners the
ownership of the generator and they have
[50:09] clarified yes the generator will remain
with the town of Montgomery.
[50:14] Uh, and they fixed the stuff in exhibit
A. The header is no longer Alberg. It's
[50:20] Montgomery. The address has been fixed.
The location has been clarified. And
[50:24] which door they're talking about in
exhibit A has also been clarified.
[50:28] So, uh, they've addressed all the
concerns. Um, again, I went over this,
[50:34] Doug has gone over this, um, since he
has a better understanding of the
[50:38] electrical needs plus on the part of the
fire department. Um, so my
[50:42] recommendation to the board tonight
would be to sign this, but that we amend
[50:47] article three. Um,
>> so that it reads as such service
[50:53] delivered to the town of Montgomery for
use at and then instead of it saying the
[50:58] Montgomery Fire Department, 86 Mountain
Road, etc., etc., [clears throat] um, we
[51:02] just say at a municipal property of our
choosing. [cough]
[51:10] » [clears throat]
[51:13] » So, this this one here is going to
service more of the town
[51:18] » than the other one coming in. Is that
what you're saying? I
[51:20] » I believe that um this this
[clears throat] one's going to serve
[51:24] more uh residences
>> and more of our infrastructure, more
[51:29] Yeah. more the town buildings.
[clears throat]
[51:33] » And Charlie, just to confirm that uh
generator backup is going to be for all
[51:36] components of the public service
building. That's the fire department,
[51:39] the town office, and the library.
>> Yeah.
[51:41] » Yeah. I So, just to clear be clear, I
don't think it's it means that we can
[51:45] run everything all at once off of it. I
think what it means is that should we
[51:48] have a power outage that gener that
generator will allow the building to be
[51:52] used in the capacity of a fire
department and an emergency shelter. Um,
[51:58] so I don't think we could all be in here
at once with all the lights on doing
[52:00] stuff like we're doing right now. Um,
but it would be a backup so that EMS
[52:05] could be served out of that bay and that
um, if we needed to make this a a
[52:11] shelter, we could do that.
[52:19] » So, what I'd be looking for, if folks
are game, is a motion to um, adopt the
[52:24] lease agreement as amended. And again,
the amendment would be article three,
[52:28] changing the Montgomery Fire Department,
86 Mountain Road, Montgomery,
[52:31] Vermont,05470
to at a municipal property of the town's
[52:35] choosing, and then we can work out with
them which property you want that to be.
[52:40] » So, I'll I'll make that motion through.
>> All right. Thanks, Mark.
[52:44] » Going to lease. Yeah. Yeah,
>> I'll second.
[52:47] » All right. We have a a motion from Mark
to adopt a lease agreement with
[52:50] Northwest Fiberworks. [snorts] We have a
second from Chris.
[52:54] Is there any further discussion?
>> The only the 25-y year lease.
[53:00] » Yep.
>> That's the only I mean that's
[53:03] it's all on lease.
>> It is. Um NEK is angling for a permanent
[53:07] easement. Um and I'm trying to work on
them to figure out like
[53:14] why they need that because permanent is
a lot longer than 25 years.
[53:18] » Uh I think 25 years is probably the
lifespan of their equipment. I'm not
[53:24] quite sure, but yeah. [clears throat]
[53:32] » And again, the it's going to [snorts] be
housed in the fire department with
[53:35] access through the fire department. Um,
and like I said, the fire department
[53:40] through Doug, the chief has um reviewed
this and they're okay with all that.
[53:44] » So, if something goes down the
equipment, they're going to get access
[53:46] to the building. Yep.
>> Whereas the other company would be
[53:49] outside.
>> Outside. Yep. And so NEK is going to or
[53:52] Northwest Fiberworks is going to have a
punch code to that outdoor outside door
[53:56] to get into the fire bay to get back to
their equipment.
[54:04] » Any other discussion on the uh on the
agreement?
[54:13] All right. Not hearing any. All those in
favor, please signify by saying I or
[54:16] raising your hand.
>> I
[54:18] » I. Any opposed?
>> Any abstensions?
[54:23] » Abstain.
>> Okay. So, I think what I heard I heard
[54:28] three eyes,
one abstension. I didn't catch your
[54:32] vote, Daniel.
>> Oh, I was for it.
[54:36] » For it. Okay.
>> All right. Um, so motion carries. 401.
[54:41] Dennis abstaining.
All right. Uh, that brings us to article
[54:47] six. Article six. Item six, um, bridge
rental agreement with the town of
[54:51] Georgia. So, um, as folks should already
be aware or if you're not already aware,
[54:56] for full disclosure, my day job is the
Franklin and Grandal County Forester
[55:00] with the Department of Forest Parks and
Recreation. I'm bringing this to the
[55:04] town to the board for your take on it
with that hat on. Um, in my capacity of
[55:12] county forester, I work with towns to
develop management plans and execute
[55:16] work on town forests. Um, I'm working
with the town of Georgia to do a timber
[55:20] sale on their Silver Lake Town Forest.
Um, in order to access that, we need a
[55:25] temporary bridge to get over a small
stream on the truck road to get to the
[55:29] property. Um, I thought we had a bridge
secured through the department. Uh, but
[55:34] it turned out that it is not available
this winter. Um, the town of Montgomery
[55:38] has a portable temporary bridge that is
sitting up at the water plant. It's been
[55:43] sitting in there for
>> I'm not sure how much is left of it
[55:47] because we used some of it on Brady Road
and then some of it on Cotch. So,
[55:50] » yeah, I did. So, I did stop and talk to
Scott. Uh
[55:54] » Randy might say might know how much is
left, how many feet. Um, and so what
[56:01] what I what I would like what I'm asking
from the board tonight is um I guess
[56:08] verbal approval [clears throat] to
pursue putting together uh some sort of
[56:12] an agreement to loan them this bridge.
It's going to take going and actually
[56:17] figuring out how many pieces are there,
the span, getting the stuff. I have
[56:21] talked to Scott and he's okay with it.
>> Yeah. Um, I will point out that like in
[56:25] my capacity as county forester, I have
no stake in this timber sale. I don't
[56:30] get paid one way or the other from it.
None of the proceeds come through me. I
[56:35] am a facilitator working on behalf of
the department. Um, but I have no
[56:39] personal financial or other interest in
this timber sale. I'm just trying to
[56:43] help another town in Franklin County get
work done. So the history of this bridge
[56:48] is this [snorts] was a temporary bridge
we got when the Lonely Bridge was
[56:52] [clears throat]
before the Long Lonely Bridge got
[56:54] repaired. So we got this bridge through
the grant through a grant this temporary
[56:59] bridge. Um so we've used two sections of
it. We've used one section on Brady
[57:04] Road, another section on Cotay. So
there's still some of the bridge left.
[57:07] So that's what we're talking about.
>> Yeah. And I believe the span they'd be
[57:10] looking for is like 30 to 40 feet. So I
think I think we have enough there, but
[57:16] » we can clarify. We have to cut out some
of the sumac that's grow through it.
[57:19] » Randy might know you know [snorts] how
much is left
[57:23] » and what would the length of the rental
be and the also the revenue from it? How
[57:28] much would we charge? What's like a
reasonable fee or
[57:31] » Yeah. So so the length of time would be
this fall through the spring. It would
[57:35] be just used for this one winter to
execute the timber sale. The uh the
[57:39] rental agreement would be up to the
town. Um, we could mirror uh the kind of
[57:44] rental agreement that the Department of
Forest Parks and Recreation uses and the
[57:48] fee structure there. Um, at a minimum,
I'm going to put on my slugboard hat
[57:53] again for a second. At a minimum, I
would want us to have at least a bond in
[57:57] place so that if the bridge was damaged
or destroyed, we get covered.
[58:01] » Uh, as to the fee that we charge, that's
up to the board. Um,
[58:07] so again, tonight I'm looking for the
board basically to say we're cool
[58:12] looking into that. Um, from this I can
work with Scott to figure out exactly
[58:16] the pieces that would be needed. Um, I
can put together a uh like a rental
[58:22] agreement mirroring what the department
uses and bring that back to the board
[58:25] and we can talk about the the fee
structure, too.
[58:28] » Yeah.
>> But tonight was just kind of a this is
[58:31] an idea I've got. Is this something that
I can pursue and come back to the board
[58:34] with or is this a No, no, no, no, no.
We're not renting our bridge to anybody.
[58:39] » I don't I don't see a problem with it. I
mean, the bridge is sitting there. So,
[58:42] » if we have an asset we're not using and
we can get some money renting it out to
[58:46] a local town in need. That seems
perfectly reasonable. I don't have a
[58:50] problem with that.
>> Okay. All right. Well, if there's no
[58:54] objection, I will work with Scott to get
the details on this and then at our next
[58:59] uh meeting, I'll bring back uh a draft
agreement for the board to look at. Um
[59:04] and then we can talk about the
particulars. But that's great. I
[59:07] appreciate that. Um I think anytime
towns in Franklin County can work
[59:11] together to help each other, it's a good
thing. So,
[59:14] » I appreciate that.
All right. No formal action on that, but
[59:19] we'll keep that uh moving. The uh item
seven here is the town hall committee
[59:24] charter. Um so this was brought at a
request of the chair of the town hall
[59:28] committee. The request was to amend the
composition of the board from seven
[59:32] members to five members. Currently their
charter speaks of a seven member board.
[59:37] They want to drop it to five. So the
action would be to amend the town hall
[59:40] committee charter to state that the
composition of the board is five members
[59:44] not seven members.
>> What is the reasoning for that? just
[59:50] » so yeah. So Tosska, since you're the
chair of the committee and this is
[59:53] subject to the charter, you're
recognized to give whatever background
[59:57] you want.
>> It's essentially that we have three
[59:59] people that show up. So in order to have
a consistent quorum,
[1:00:03] » okay,
>> we would rather have a five member
[1:00:04] board. Two of the other members are come
and go.
[1:00:09] » Um but they're not consistent. So right
now we have three solid people that show
[1:00:14] up at every meeting and with seven
members.
[1:00:19] So
five is five is work.
[1:00:23] » So I make a motion to amend the town
hall committee charter to five members.
[1:00:29] » Okay, we have a motion from Mark. Is
there a second?
[1:00:31] » Second.
>> Thanks Chris.
[1:00:34] Uh
is there any discussion on the motion?
[1:00:41] Not hearing any. All those in favor,
please signify by saying I or raising
[1:00:44] your hand. I
>> I.
[1:00:46] » Any opposed? Any abstensions? You are
unanimous by zero. Motion carries. So
[1:00:51] that brings us through our agenda to
public comment. And so we will go to
[1:00:55] public comment now. Um
I think I have everybody already here.
[1:01:00] We don't have a sign in tonight, but I
think I have everybody listed. Um so
[1:01:04] we're going to start. We're going to go
left to right. Um we're not going to put
[1:01:08] a clock on folks, but I would ask that
you try to be um concise and uh so we're
[1:01:14] not here until late. Um, dope. We're
going to start on the left. So, my left,
[1:01:19] Cliff, you're up.
>> Oh, I just got a quick question. Uh,
[1:01:23] [clears throat] what is the status of
the updated policies and procedures on
[1:01:26] why the my two voicemail messages were
uh not given to the town assessor in
[1:01:35] order to get to why I had somebody
trespass,
[1:01:38] not trespass, but walk onto my property
without after I warned the town.
[1:01:43] » I was like, know where we're at, please.
Yeah. So, um, so we don't have a formal
[1:01:48] written process or procedure for that.
Um, I have spoken with Liz about it and
[1:01:52] she has, uh, worked with our tech folks
to see what happened as far as where the
[1:01:57] gap showed up and she believes it's
addressed. Um,
[1:02:01] » here's the I would like to know because
the next step I want to do is is
[1:02:05] probably fight the assessment since it
was in violation the law.
[1:02:09] » Okay. I mean, I can ask Liz. Uh,
>> I don't want to do that. It's just
[1:02:13] because I was like all I want is
somebody to tell me it's fixed and it's
[1:02:17] never going to happen.
>> Yeah. So I I believe
[1:02:19] » I said show me not say yeah I think it's
fixed.
[1:02:21] » Okay. So I believe it has been fixed. Um
I what what sort of evidence
[1:02:26] » is not
>> So let me ask you this. Uh you said show
[1:02:28] me what what kind of evidence would you
like?
[1:02:30] » Well just show me what you're doing for
procedures and policy that won't happen
[1:02:34] again
>> because obviously they slipped through.
[1:02:38] » Okay. So a written
>> please help me out here.
[1:02:40] » Yeah. No no. So, I'm just asking what
you would like as far as the
[1:02:43] » just give me some kind of policy or
procedure that this is not going to
[1:02:46] happen to anybody else.
>> Okay. Looking for the for us to write up
[1:02:48] a a procedure that says that this is
>> I asked the town. They said, "Hey, call
[1:02:52] this number appointment."
>> I did it. I did it twice. Left messages.
[1:02:56] Okay.
>> And still had to show up. So,
[1:02:57] » when you say left messages with the town
or the assessor?
[1:03:00] » The assessor. [snorts] You're supposed
to make it over cross over the
[1:03:02] electronic stuff. Again,
>> my point is I would like to have some
[1:03:08] kind of resolve.
>> Okay. written resolution. Okay. We I
[1:03:11] will
>> otherwise I don't want to go down the
[1:03:13] other route.
>> Heard. So I will work with Liz to get
[1:03:16] you something in writing that addresses
how it was addressed and then what the
[1:03:19] policy is in the office for doing that.
Yep.
[1:03:21] » Thank you.
>> All right. Good.
[1:03:24] » Roberta, you're good. Okay. Hi. You're
[clears throat] good.
[1:03:28] » Y.
>> All right. Carol
[1:03:31] » for now.
>> You're good. Pat,
[1:03:33] » um, on the fiberworks,
I've been talking about Northeast
[1:03:37] Fiberworks. Um, so I had some questions,
concerns, and I don't know how the phone
[1:03:44] lines that you're currently using down
here are run, if they're run pole to
[1:03:49] pole or underground. Where we are in
Reagan Road, they're underground.
[1:03:54] » Yeah.
>> And [laughter]
[1:03:57] and um that means that if a tree falls
on the line, it knocks out the electric
[1:04:04] but not the phone. And we can report an
outage,
[1:04:10] fiber works is going to string it pole
to pole. So, if you're going phone over
[1:04:14] internet,
uh, you're going to lose that when the
[1:04:18] line goes down.
>> What? We're going to be what?
[1:04:23] » It's not It's It's If you go with the
NEK, if you leave consolidated,
[1:04:29] » if you if you switch your phone service
like Verizon or AT&T, I'll use that as
[1:04:33] an example. It's not I mean it's apples
and oranges but but you have consol I
[1:04:37] don't know what you have now but say you
have consolidated what he's saying is if
[1:04:40] he's consolidated on the Reagan road is
underground. If he was to switch over to
[1:04:44] NEK they're going pull the poles to his
point is if a snowstorm hits power lines
[1:04:49] go down that means the phone lines go
down if you're using NEK. If you're
[1:04:52] still in consolidated you're fine
>> right?
[1:04:55] » That's what that's what he's saying.
It's not saying it's not saying it's
[1:04:57] everybody's going NEK. It's it's your
choice to switch over. That's for the
[1:05:00] town risk. But then they usually can
only put it underground to get to your
[1:05:04] house
>> that you just
[1:05:05] » Yeah, but that's but that's
>> that's only
[1:05:08] » that that's only if but that doesn't
have if if something happens up the
[1:05:11] street and the pound goes down, you're
not going to get phone access or
[1:05:13] internet access or that's what he Right.
Is that
[1:05:16] » I mention it's it's a consideration
that's important for me. It may or may
[1:05:21] not be important for the town. Yeah,
>> great great point to raise with folks
[1:05:27] when they're considering whether or not
to switch service. I guess yeah,
[1:05:31] » but consolidated is Reagan World might
have it underground, but I don't know if
[1:05:35] other people have it underground. I
think it's all it's all it's it's it's a
[1:05:39] it's a fin it's a financial burden on
them that they make that choice to
[1:05:42] either put it underground, which costs
more.
[1:05:44] » Yeah. and easy cost obviously is to put
it up in the air which obviously living
[1:05:49] in Montgomery you're going to have a
different potentially outcome you know I
[1:05:54] use the examples like like the Belelfrey
we went to um to Starlink
[1:05:58] » for that reason because we were
constantly we would lose power we have a
[1:06:02] generator but we'd always lose our phone
lines and we'd lose our credit card
[1:06:06] reader and everything so um and I
understand what you're saying I agree
[1:06:09] with you I just it's just that it's you
know it's
[1:06:12] » the preferential of the company how they
want to spend spend their money. So, I
[1:06:15] mean, it's tough.
>> Um, but I think your point being is that
[1:06:20] if we're going to use NEK here, we're
potentially going to this building's not
[1:06:25] going to have internet
andor phone.
[1:06:30] » Well, if it's strung on a power on a
pole and
[1:06:35] » Yeah.
>> tree falls.
[1:06:36] » Yeah.
>> Yeah.
[1:06:42] » Thanks, Pat. Anything else, Pat?
>> No. Okay. Uh Sue,
[1:06:46] » not at this time. Thank you.
>> Okay. And I will just uh seeing you
[1:06:49] reminded me, I'll just let everybody
know uh I did check in with DEEC Friday.
[1:06:53] They thought they were going to have the
written response to the public comment
[1:06:58] on the wastewater indirect discharge
permit by Friday. They haven't posted it
[1:07:02] yet. I haven't heard from them yet this
week, but as soon as that does come out,
[1:07:06] we'll put something on the website so
folks can read that. So, thank you.
[1:07:09] » Yeah.
>> Um so, we're going to keep going around
[1:07:12] in public comment. So, Alyssa, you're
good. Tusca,
[1:07:16] » I'm good.
>> You're good. All right. Now, we're going
[1:07:18] to loop to the next row and go back this
way. I don't see anybody behind Alyssa.
[1:07:22] So, Amy, you're up.
>> Me?
[1:07:24] » Yep.
>> All right. So, Oh, yeah. Mine was kind
[1:07:28] of about what um [clears throat]
the farmer was talking about because we
[1:07:34] had a man
probably two weeks ago step up and said
[1:07:39] that they had ran ran the fireworks up
to
[1:07:44] and I was like really and you know and
he's coming and he's [clears throat]
[1:07:49] looking at our meters and everything and
there was nothing up there and he said
[1:07:54] they're supposed to be running it and I
was like, well, that's kind of far.
[1:07:59] And then I was to the understanding that
they overtook Consolidation, but no,
[1:08:06] » no,
>> no. So, in town now, we're going to have
[1:08:10] NEK in their service area, Northwest
Fiberworks in their area, Consolidated,
[1:08:16] which is now Vidium,
>> and you can also get Comcast, I believe,
[1:08:21] as another alternative. So, there's
still going to be
[1:08:24] » certain points.
>> Certain points. Yeah. Not everybody. I
[1:08:27] should somebody going to be that far up?
>> So my understanding is that um the
[1:08:32] communications union districts are
trying to get to the quote last mile for
[1:08:37] service everywhere. Okay.
>> So they should be running it all the way
[1:08:40] up to the geoo. That's that's their plan
at least.
[1:08:44] » Okay.
I just find it funny, you know, because
[1:08:48] just where we are, you know. Yep. Um,
and then, uh,
[1:08:58] I don't know, Terry, this might not have
nothing to do with, you know, the topic
[1:09:03] tonight, but it has to do with Act 181
and 2, Act 250 that
[1:09:12] I'm concerned that
there a statement by you that
[1:09:21] are going to just take
our land by conservation whether you
[1:09:27] remember Dennis you said you can get
what you want for your land whether you
[1:09:31] want you know the price you're asking
>> somebody's going to pay if they want
[1:09:36] your land they're going to pay for it
>> but but that's going away when that
[1:09:40] assessor come up he said we're not
assessing your property we're assessing
[1:09:44] your land
your land's going to be devalued we were
[1:09:48] Oh,
>> this was the nemerric assessor that came
[1:09:52] to your property.
>> Okay. I mean, the assessor should be
[1:09:55] assessing
>> devaluing someone's land.
[1:09:59] » You're talking about the statewide
assessment of everything, properties and
[1:10:02] land. I guess I don't I'm just trying to
understand,
[1:10:04] » right?
>> So, this whole state,
[1:10:06] » this whole act, it involves the whole
act 181.
[1:10:10] » I'm not really fully familiar with 181,
but
[1:10:13] » I would I got something for you and you
better be. You're going to be if you
[1:10:17] watch this, you will be.
But
[1:10:21] they're he told he said they're not. He
He didn't even care about our building.
[1:10:27] He didn't care about what was in our
building. He said we're here for the
[1:10:32] land. So what I want to know is no.
>> Well,
[1:10:40] I read statement a statement from
Charlie
[1:10:46] and
in a in a
[1:10:51] I believe it was BLCT,
but I could be wrong,
[1:10:57] that there's going to be a 40-year
easement on
[1:11:02] certain people's property, which I know
mine's one of them because we're not in
[1:11:06] current use,
down to 10 down to 10 acres
[1:11:13] where you're going to prevent us from
allowing our son
[1:11:20] son's kids to build on our land that we
have paid full property. We're not
[1:11:27] current use.
>> Yeah. Yeah.
[1:11:28] » We've always paid full property taxes,
>> but because you want it so bad for
[1:11:32] conservation that you just want you're
just going to snatch it.
[1:11:37] » So, do you have can you can you point me
towards the statement you think I made
[1:11:41] where where I can find it? She said, "I
I don't know what you're talking about."
[1:11:43] And not no offense.
>> Well, I tried to find it right before I
[1:11:47] came here,
>> but I couldn't. Okay.
[1:11:50] » But I've seen it,
>> so I'm going to find it. You know, I
[1:11:55] will. You know, I will find it.
>> Okay. And I'll just say if you can find
[1:11:58] what you're referencing and send it to
me, I'm happy to address it. What you're
[1:12:02] saying does not ring any bells related
to anything that I'm aware of. As far as
[1:12:07] act 181 goes, that was repealed. Um, and
so that's
[1:12:11] » but but what you're going to do, so we
got our gravel pit. What you're going to
[1:12:16] do with the gravel pit is you're going
to say it's too close to the beaver
[1:12:19] pond. We've already I've already seen
this action already occur cuz they were
[1:12:26] in our somebody was parked at the Beaver
Pond driveway and I walked in there and
[1:12:31] I asked them what they were doing.
>> When you say they like do you have their
[1:12:35] contact information like who this was?
They were the natural resources
[1:12:41] commission.
>> So it was somebody from the Department
[1:12:44] of Environmental Conservation.
>> Yes.
[1:12:46] » Okay.
>> And you know what?
[1:12:49] » Our gravel pit been there longer than
the beavers, but we we protect those
[1:12:55] beavers left and right.
>> Okay. I'm I'm not aware of anyone trying
[1:12:59] to shut down your gravel pit, Amy. So I
I don't know. But again, if you can find
[1:13:02] the
>> find the statements,
[1:13:04] » there's a lot of money involved here and
a lot of money you want to get away with
[1:13:08] because what it's going to what it's
turning into be is you have the first
[1:13:13] right of refusal.
>> Who does
[1:13:18] » you? The town
>> on what?
[1:13:20] » On what?
>> On on the properties.
[1:13:23] » I don't believe we do.
>> Come on, Mark. You can sit there and
[1:13:27] shake your head all you want. Your farm
is so protected. I can't believe it.
[1:13:32] » So So Amy, so if you can if you can find
>> I'm gonna find it.
[1:13:35] » Yeah, I would love that
>> because you know what? Every time I go
[1:13:38] in into these um places that I've looked
and I found it before,
[1:13:43] it there's a red flag saying don't enter
this. It's It's dangerous. It's a
[1:13:49] dangerous site. You know what? I entered
that site today. There's nothing
[1:13:53] dangerous about it.
>> Okay. Yeah.
[1:13:59] » But if you so so if you can find if you
can find and send uh send me on the
[1:14:03] board a reference to what you're looking
at, I think we'd be better able to
[1:14:07] address it. So yeah, if you could do
that, that'd be great, Amy.
[1:14:11] » And it it'd be great if if you would
appreciate us some more for what we've
[1:14:16] done.
>> I will try to appreciate you more, Amy.
[1:14:19] But I think I've said in the past,
>> what pissed you off, Charlie,
[1:14:23] » is when we put our road in right
alongside that class 4 road because we
[1:14:27] asked for help for many years and you
wouldn't help us and you said, "Here we
[1:14:32] go.
>> I'm going to I'm going to shove it right
[1:14:35] up their ass." And that's what you done.
>> I didn't shove anything anywhere and I
[1:14:39] don't have any opinion left, right, or
center on your road.
[1:14:42] » Look at Look it. It pissed you off.
>> And don't tell me it didn't. That pissed
[1:14:48] you off, child. But yet,
>> a mile past our place, you guys went in
[1:14:54] that went in up on that Atlas land. You
took bulldozers and skitters and
[1:15:00] everything you could and made a two-lane
highway, but yet we put a driveway in
[1:15:06] because nobody would give us money for
30 years to take care of a class 4 road
[1:15:11] that we done out of the kindness of our
heart. But when times got tough, and
[1:15:19] it's the same thing you guys do. When
you can't afford it, what do you do? You
[1:15:24] raise taxes.
>> We couldn't afford it. What you do to us
[1:15:28] when we asked you for help?
>> That's what you did to us.
[1:15:34] » All right. Thank you, Amy.
Uh Carrie,
[1:15:39] » uh I think that she was talking about
maybe your your not just 181, but your
[1:15:43] conservation company or nonprofit.
>> Are you talking about Cold Holiday
[1:15:48] Canada?
>> Yeah. And I I'm hoping because I know
[1:15:52] that now we're not allowed to. We used
to be able to kind of comment together
[1:15:57] per topic instead of having to revisit
other people's topics, too. So,
[1:16:02] » there's a lot on my plate that I'm going
to try to go through nicely.
[1:16:06] » Or yours. You can
>> like I said, no one's got a time clock
[1:16:09] on yet. Everyone has
>> Okay, go ahead.
[1:16:13] » Kind of keep it straight forward. But
>> for your for your She's talking too
[1:16:18] about your conservation. Is there
anything that you know of in law,
[1:16:24] legislation, lobby or just your
executive director of your company is
[1:16:31] think considering anything
>> company
[1:16:35] » taking land instead of asking people if
they want to buy not buy
[1:16:41] » no one is taking anybody's land.
>> Okay. So that's what I I wanted to know
[1:16:44] if there is anything that can that that
is in action has been done at all. So
[1:16:49] nothing related.
>> Yeah.
[1:16:51] » I just wanted to know. I didn't know
>> you're talking about eminent domain.
[1:16:55] » Yeah.
>> But for conservation purpose.
[1:16:57] » No. Yeah.
>> No. And this is Dennis. This
[1:17:01] » I'm just asking.
>> No. No. I'm just saying this. I'm just
[1:17:03] » Okay. So So question answered. We're
good. Okay.
[1:17:06] » And it's answered and we we're
>> it's different than imminent domain.
[1:17:10] » And then yeah, not imminent domain.
Whatever. I don't know what that's not
[1:17:14] my focus right now.
Um, the tech comment was more about
[1:17:20] really kind of just having maybe you do
a lot of work, Charlie. You do the
[1:17:25] minutes, you do the tech, you do you
moderate, you know, you're and you've
[1:17:31] been doing this for quite a while and
you've had to take on some of these
[1:17:35] extra [clears throat] roles like Suzanne
used to be the minutes, you know, and so
[1:17:38] it would just kind of be nice if we had
an independent person that could do the
[1:17:43] tech. um or somebody that is specially
here for all of the technological things
[1:17:49] so that you're not having to do that on
top of everything else. If something
[1:17:52] isn't working because things are not
working on a regular basis, there's a
[1:17:58] problem somewhere and and if you're not
able to find it, we should have a tech
[1:18:02] person that is more responsible to make
sure that that's all functioning like
[1:18:07] like we have Northwestern
access today. they they're in charge of
[1:18:12] their their stuff and it's working, you
know, um because they're setting I don't
[1:18:17] even know they're who knows. And then
the same with the minutes too and then
[1:18:24] the public record complaint.
Um, so with that,
[1:18:33] I mean, it's not just a a select board
email that's advocating for something,
[1:18:39] and I've already talked to you about
that. That wasn't the problem. The the
[1:18:44] attorney sending back all that
information, it was fantastic, but it
[1:18:48] was very narrow. It avoided a lot of the
main points that were solid that I was
[1:18:54] concerned with. And I'm looking up a lot
of like past connections because you
[1:19:00] when you start having affiliation with
so many different boards and you're on a
[1:19:05] legislative level and there's a lot of
money involved on all of these boards
[1:19:09] together including your nonprofit and
grants are being given everywhere.
[1:19:14] People like Tusca need grants. You're in
charge of like she has to say yes and
[1:19:19] you're part of the board that like says
yes for that for every grant. Like all
[1:19:24] I'm saying is you're affiliated with
things. I don't even know if there's an
[1:19:27] affiliation with any dress that she gets
from from but it's a whole atmosphere
[1:19:32] out there politically with a lot of
money and kind of potentially a lot of
[1:19:36] like control. So that's what my concern
was more with that with that um email
[1:19:43] that you were saying something that was
not true
[1:19:46] » and you were promoting it in a way that
was like swaying voters. like not only
[1:19:52] were you promoting it, we know that you
like you want the wastewater system, but
[1:19:55] you had an angle on it that was like no
matter what, you factually characterized
[1:20:00] like something wrong. It was inaccurate
and it was to me a little like deceitful
[1:20:05] saying that the person who wrote the
petition was from from mass when it it
[1:20:12] was from Vermont. And you might may or
may not have known that. I'll figure
[1:20:16] that out at some point. I I mean I've
told you that multiple times in and open
[1:20:21] meeting. It's on the record. It's
recorded. You can watch it again, but
[1:20:23] keep going.
>> Yeah. Exactly. So So you were persuading
[1:20:27] voters in a false way.
>> That's the problem with the with the
[1:20:32] open meeting law. That is the the main
there. There's probably more, but that
[1:20:36] was the problem.
>> So just to be clear, are you saying that
[1:20:38] that is in violation of Vermont's open
meeting law?
[1:20:41] » Yeah.
>> Okay. It's not.
[1:20:42] » No.
>> Yeah. So Okay. It's I respect your
[1:20:46] opinion that you don't like it, but it's
not a violation of open meeting law.
[1:20:50] » No.
>> Just like I know you don't like that I'm
[1:20:52] involved in a lot of things. It's
possible. And no matter what,
[1:20:56] » you're just not getting any answers you
want. So that's all there is to it.
[1:21:00] » You do with ethics issues. I
>> How long are we going to hash this out?
[1:21:05] » We've gone over it how many times,
Carrie?
[1:21:06] » Okay. If they had just if you had
figured something out.
[1:21:09] » Jeez, it's getting ridiculous.
>> Like across the board blanket.
[1:21:12] » Okay, just keep going. We're through
your comments. You're good.
[1:21:15] » I just don't think that this should
continue to be something.
[1:21:18] » You should stop any time on this issue.
>> All right, Mark. Let's just let her
[1:21:22] finish.
>> Yeah.
[1:21:24] » Yeah.
>> Yeah. Watch out.
[1:21:27] » Guys, guys, everybody take a deep
breath.
[1:21:31] » Everybody take a deep breath.
>> Carrie, you have the floor.
[1:21:34] » Okay. So,
>> work through your comments.
[1:21:36] » Yep. And that's fine. Thank you. Sorry.
I'm
[1:21:40] » No, don't be shy. [snorts]
>> It's okay. It's all right. Um then I
[1:21:45] wanted to
ask um oh the connection with Sarah
[1:21:51] having done that
I mean she she she has presented
[1:21:57] two VT Vermont city league and towns.
She was a presenter for codes for code
[1:22:05] of ethic and they changed the codes of
ethic. So she literally created the
[1:22:11] codes of ethic potentially.
>> Okay. Can you just can you clarify what
[1:22:14] you're saying? So Sarah Buckton, our
municipal attorney
[1:22:17] » Yeah.
>> presented at a VLCT event about the
[1:22:21] municipal code of ethics.
>> Y
[1:22:23] » and you're saying that led to the state
legislature changing the code of ethics?
[1:22:27] » No, I'm not. I'm just saying I'm just
trying I'm just trying to understand
[1:22:32] what you're what you're saying, Carrie.
just saying you're getting all of your
[1:22:36] information from the attorney that wrote
wrote that like the the response and
[1:22:42] she's she's the one involved in Vermont
City leads and towns. She's giving our
[1:22:47] town advice. You are the president vice
president there, right? So like it's all
[1:22:53] like the fact that we are sending our
select board members to a place that is
[1:22:58] like potentially there's a lot of
conflict between in the past between
[1:23:04] that I can see and I'm finding between
you and Sarah having like a pretty
[1:23:09] long-standing crossover like
relationship
[1:23:11] » like can you like what
>> I have a few I have plenty
[1:23:14] » like what I just if you have a few no if
you're going to accuse me of a conflict
[1:23:19] of interest in every breath I want you
to be specific. What is it? What is the
[1:23:23] conflict?
>> I don't want to say anything that's
[1:23:25] that's technically like wrong. I If I do
it, it has to be in writing. It's
[1:23:29] horrible. But it's just
>> Okay. Well, I would appreciate instead
[1:23:33] of kind of vague assertions of things,
specifics really do help.
[1:23:38] » So, well, yeah. What what do they follow
for the what's their it's called
[1:23:44] something the
>> no for the um yeah for the for the code
[1:23:50] of ethics for Vermont leaks cities and
town there's a name of it
[1:23:54] » so just so I can clarify
>> that's you you have an issue with
[1:24:00] the lawyer who sits on the board that
helps to write the ethics
[1:24:03] » no so she doesn't sit on the board
>> No okay okay so she she she she wrote
[1:24:08] the code of ethics for the municipality
bodies.
[1:24:11] » No,
>> no,
[1:24:12] » no. She, no. She has presented to
Vermont League cities and towns who then
[1:24:17] » trains you
>> and works with you and
[1:24:21] you know what they're following for
their codes of ethics is like right on
[1:24:25] track with with her. So like that in
addition to the state,
[1:24:31] » the attorney's office that she's
involved in, Paul Gill, is that his
[1:24:35] name?
>> Gillies Tarant is the firm. Gilly has
[1:24:40] has wrote a and and for quite some time
a significant book about town policies
[1:24:50] act 250.
>> He Yeah, he has. So, but just to be
[1:24:54] clear like
>> the LCT has many events. They bring in
[1:24:59] many speakers to address things. They
didn't write the code of ethics. The
[1:25:04] legislature did. So again, I I I
>> But hopefully that'll change in
[1:25:10] November.
>> Sure. Anything can change with
[1:25:13] elections, but I
>> So So again, car I guess all I'm asking
[1:25:17] Carrie is if there are specific
>> things that you can give us in writing
[1:25:23] to respond to, but I don't know. I don't
quite understand some of the the
[1:25:28] » That's why I write because I'm really a
horrible public speaker. I I
[1:25:31] [clears throat] don't it doesn't come
out right at all. It's it's not
[1:25:34] something that
>> it's one of those things that I'm
[1:25:37] working on.
>> Okay, hold on, Amy. I'm gonna I want
[1:25:40] Carrie to finish her public comments and
then we're gonna go to Josh.
[1:25:44] » I just am saying that she did a
presentation that's explaining how
[1:25:47] municipality municipal offices should
analyze conflicts of interest. So, she's
[1:25:53] the one she's saying this is how you
should analyze it. And then she's our
[1:25:57] town attorney and all of the people here
are going like to to her and there's a
[1:26:05] background between you guys that I'm
like very concerned about that that was
[1:26:09] a very biased response. It was narrow.
There's a lot of stuff that I'm going to
[1:26:14] be needing to go through legally because
it's not it's not fully right and you
[1:26:19] shouldn't have been doing some like
talking about our code of ethics policy
[1:26:25] with with like attorney money for one
and talk about it from a legal
[1:26:31] standpoint. That's why are we defending
that's not what I was asking. I wanted
[1:26:35] to ask if you guys had talked like
actually talked amongst the board about
[1:26:40] the possibility of an appearance to a
reasonable person in town that there
[1:26:45] could have been a town code of ethic
violation. A reasonable person in town
[1:26:51] couldn't have assumed that if a
reasonable person in town does any kind
[1:26:55] of research at all and understands
anything, it's possible. Nice.
[1:27:00] » I mean, I just
>> I'm I just don't want to get to the
[1:27:03] point where I have to find like bad.
Like, it's just I want to prevent that.
[1:27:08] » I just You should have at least like
talked amongst yourself. I was expecting
[1:27:12] you to not give this legal like spend a
lot of money, give this legal response
[1:27:18] to all the code of ethics.
>> I was expecting you to talk about it at
[1:27:21] a select board meeting. Would would
somebody reasonably think that? So
[1:27:26] Chris, you're the one that talked to
her, Sarah, correct?
[1:27:29] » Yes.
>> So this was Hold on. So So to your to
[1:27:35] your point to your point, Carrie, you're
saying
[1:27:40] » Chris is the one that headed the
investigation, right, Chris? Correct.
[1:27:45] Right. So we can clear that up now. So
you saying that Charlie spoke to her
[1:27:50] about what we what Chris addressed has
it's nothing to do with Charlie. Like
[1:27:56] Chris did his part to do to to to talk
through through this stuff. So Charlie
[1:28:01] had nothing to do with this. If you're
going back to looking at it as a
[1:28:04] standpoint of their relationship, which
I mean I don't I mean I don't know. I
[1:28:08] mean you know people have relationships
with lawyers because they have the best
[1:28:13] interest of in this case the community.
um whether and people have the complete
[1:28:20] right to disagree with it, right?
Because anybody we're going to disagree
[1:28:23] whether it's wastewater or short-term
ordinance or you know the lawyer the
[1:28:27] conflicts or whatever what have you. But
that's why she went to law school is and
[1:28:30] if she's talking about ethics that's
like that's what you know that's if I'm
[1:28:35] not mistaken that the law firm is
specializes in municipality ethics.
[1:28:39] » She's she's in general. Okay, we're
going to we're going to
[1:28:42] » Yeah. So, all all I want to end on this,
all I want all I want to end up saying
[1:28:47] is Chris is the one that spoke with her,
not Charlie.
[1:28:50] » So, this is the order of operations
because Chris did already email me back
[1:28:54] about what happened. Liz emailed the
attorney. The attorney replied to
[1:29:00] Charlie and repi replied to Liz because
he's the chair, right? But he is the one
[1:29:06] that I'm talking about conflicts of
interest
[1:29:09] that I don't know if it should have just
gone back to to Liz and then I think he
[1:29:14] said and I have to go back through his
email to explain all of the dates and
[1:29:17] all the times but that that Charlie then
asked him to to present. So like you
[1:29:24] made a decision for him to present
before you even fine
[1:29:27] » the at the public meeting at the grain
shaw Chris was appointed by the board in
[1:29:32] a vote that I abstained from to lead on
this just as a matter of fact and a
[1:29:36] record.
>> I did not pick Chris or tell Chris in
[1:29:40] charge of all
>> this is a topic on you and you should
[1:29:44] really not be talking.
>> Carrie Carrie I am the chair of this
[1:29:49] board. It's a public comment session.
We're going to keep doing public comment
[1:29:52] and we're going back to Robert's rules
right now. The person with the floor can
[1:29:56] talk. Carrie, you have the floor. You
can finish your public comments.
[1:29:59] » Okay.
>> Yeah. And that's the whole ethics part
[1:30:02] of it that if it wasn't about that that
it wouldn't I wouldn't care who is
[1:30:06] moderating.
>> Um so we what did we end up doing with
[1:30:10] Northwest Fiber tonight? They're
essentially going to be working together
[1:30:15] and they're
>> we executed a lease agreement for them
[1:30:18] to house equipment in the public safety
building in the fire bay.
[1:30:21] » Yeah.
>> And do they have any like is it possible
[1:30:25] that NEK can go underground? Like
>> I don't know the mechanics of their
[1:30:28] operation. You can ask them.
>> We're just doing we're doing public
[1:30:31] comment.
>> Was there another option for the JP part
[1:30:35] section or is that the only thing we
had?
[1:30:37] » The only commun the only communication
unions districts are Northwest Fiber
[1:30:41] Works and NEK Broadband. the service.
>> So, we're just trying to get it here.
[1:30:44] Sweet.
>> And then
[1:30:48] I think I think I might be really close.
>> Um, yeah. I mean, I'm not going to
[1:30:55] I don't want to go too crazy right now,
so I'm fine.
[1:30:59] » Okay, great. We're going to go to Josh.
>> I do have a question about that
[1:31:02] broadband. You said that we have a 25
year lease agreement. We could have a 25
[1:31:07] year lease agreement and we have to
maintain that for 25 years. What happens
[1:31:10] if no one dies? We have to buy a brand
new one in that arena.
[1:31:14] » I'm sorry. Buy a new what?
>> Generator.
[1:31:17] » Uh
>> cuz you said we have to maintain it for
[1:31:19] 25 years only buying the original one.
So if it dies in 15 years, we have the
[1:31:23] new one.
>> So no, the lease agreement of 25 years
[1:31:26] is just for them to have access to that
space.
[1:31:30] » Um there's nothing in that agreement
where if the generator died and we
[1:31:33] didn't furnish one, we'd be required to.
Just curious
[1:31:40] maintain that thing.
>> The generator is ours for good.
[1:31:43] » So, we have to maintain that for them no
matter what.
[1:31:46] » Uh we maintain it. We'll we'll be
maintaining it with all of our
[1:31:48] generators because it'll serve both them
and the building.
[1:31:52] » No,
>> I'd like uh just go off for a question.
[1:31:56] Uh could you tell us if you've ever had
any uh things with Sarah Box before you
[1:32:01] were before she was a lawyer?
Have you ever testified next to her like
[1:32:06] three different times?
>> No, I have never had any kind of
[1:32:10] personal or business relationship with
Sarah Buckton prior to her being the
[1:32:14] municipal attorney starting in 2023.
>> And I still have no other relationship
[1:32:19] with Sarah outside of her being the
municipal attorney. We don't serve on
[1:32:24] any boards together. We don't hang out
on the weekends.
[1:32:28] She's the municipal attorney. I saw that
you guys testified next to each other in
[1:32:31] 2003 in March. I think it was
>> we testified in March of 2000 where
[1:32:38] » I can find it. Come back to me. I'll
find it for you
[1:32:41] » like in court.
>> Come back to me. I'll find it.
[1:32:44] » Like a legislative committee. You mean
something like a
[1:32:49] » I didn't go back.
>> I just
[1:32:52] » Okay. Are you good?
>> You don't remember?
[1:32:55] » You know. Yeah. I'm getting gray hairs.
All
[1:33:00] right, Charlie. I'm going to make it
simple tonight.
[1:33:03] » All right. Love simple.
>> Okay. Because you talk about the
[1:33:06] temporary bridge. Well, my other half's
a logger, so I know all about temporary
[1:33:11] bridges. Okay. And you know, well, I
just looked it up online so that you
[1:33:17] everybody know how much a 40 foot
temporary bridge would cost.
[1:33:24] » Like the purchase price. The purchase
price
[1:33:28] » $26,000
[1:33:32] » for a temporary bridge, but it's yours.
>> But I just want everybody to know how
[1:33:36] much
>> how much is the weight of
[1:33:38] » I don't know that. Just look the 40 foot
[snorts] 50 foot is 6 26,0002.
[1:33:45] » I don't give you the button.
>> Anything else? Teresa.
[1:33:50] » Oh, there wasn't there.
>> Hang on. It's Teresa's
[1:33:56] » radio, but I don't know how much
>> Teresa, you still have the floor.
[1:33:59] » I know.
[1:34:03] » Yes. But I'm being nice tonight, just to
let you know cuz I got dinner waiting
[1:34:08] for me at
[laughter]
[1:34:12] » Daddy's cooking.
>> And I know how great you how you how
[1:34:18] everything goes around here. I've been
here long enough and I'm not rehashing
[1:34:22] anything,
but these meetings are great. But
[1:34:27] sometimes people decide or get really
heated up.
[1:34:32] They got to remember they're in the
public and they're [snorts]
[1:34:36] thinking, you know what I mean? Like
Mark, I'm not going to pull you out
[1:34:39] right now, but you got a little mad.
>> Yeah. I'm sorry.
[1:34:42] » You got a little mad.
>> Yeah.
[1:34:43] » And that okay, but cuz we all love you.
We're all here. We're all family. That's
[1:34:50] I become family up here and I don't know
why.
[1:34:52] » I don't love mine. I like them.
>> Okay. Can we
[1:34:56] » But anyway,
>> I just want to let you know about the
[1:34:59] logging bridge.
>> Okay.
[1:35:01] » And if a Georgia thing's coming up, let
us know cuz Chris needs another job.
[1:35:07] » Okay. I need I need to
[1:35:13] » Thank you. Okay.
>> All right. Thank you, Teresa. We're
[1:35:16] going to go. Craig needs one too, right?
>> We're going to Larry for public comment.
[1:35:20] Larry, public comment. The floor is
yours.
[1:35:23] » I have five or six in no particular
order.
[1:35:25] » You can do them whatever order you want.
[laughter]
[1:35:28] » Uh
Chris did a prefest for us. He did
[1:35:33] script for the uh before he read the
lawyers interpretation
[1:35:39] last time on the 21st. and he read this
document to the public that were here.
[1:35:46] » And I believe this document should have
been part of your minutes and and should
[1:35:50] have been attached as well.
>> It was
[1:35:52] » it it was not with the minutes.
>> I think it was.
[1:35:55] » No, it was it was not it was basically
>> this just this document with Sarah's
[1:36:00] interpretation
>> the report.
[1:36:01] » Okay. But this was read before he did
that before he did that interpretation.
[1:36:06] Before he read her interpretation, he
read this.
[1:36:10] » Okay. That's pretty
>> that's the it's the document that um
[1:36:13] it's the document that Sarah provided
that went over the open meeting law
[1:36:17] complaint section of the report.
>> Okay.
[1:36:20] » And um so I read instead of reading the
text of the report, I read it was
[1:36:25] basically a summary of the of that
section of the report.
[1:36:27] » And this and this should have been
because it was read to the public should
[1:36:31] have been part of
>> part of the part of the record.
[1:36:34] » Okay. If we if board members want to
amend the minutes from last meeting, we
[1:36:38] there's a process to do that.
>> Secondly, at one time, sometimes it
[1:36:45] doesn't seem like very long ago, but
maybe it was the beer or something. At
[1:36:48] one time, Liz was
uh going to be head of the uh do I want
[1:36:55] to say ethics?
We needed a we needed a
[1:37:00] » a
>> person a person that was a employee and
[1:37:03] she took it. How did that she go away
and Chris became
[1:37:08] » what happened to Liz?
>> So Liz is the leazison with the uh
[1:37:14] ethics commission. Um the ethics
commission exists only in name right
[1:37:18] now. Um we have we can't we so we
basically they're useless to us until
[1:37:23] they get money and can do stuff.
>> Thank you.
[1:37:27] You're talking about all the complaints
you receive.
[1:37:30] Lucky
[1:37:34] you you have a you have a format that
you use for complaints of ordinances and
[1:37:39] policies uh particularly with planning
commission zoning and everything else.
[1:37:44] You might want to look at that to see if
that's something you can use and you can
[1:37:48] look at the complaint and see if it's
really worthwhile. Okay.
[1:37:51] » Yep.
>> Mhm. Um,
[1:37:55] » what the hell does that say? [laughter]
>> Oh, yeah. The environmental group guys
[1:38:01] that were here and asked and took a few
questions about the
[1:38:06] » uh the Yeah, the folks from DEC on the
indirect discharge permit. Yeah,
[1:38:09] » they said probably two weeks or more.
It's definitely been two weeks or more.
[1:38:13] Have you heard anything back from
>> Yeah, like I said earlier, I checked in
[1:38:16] with them Friday. I thought they were
going to have the written response to
[1:38:19] the comment log up Friday. It's not
there. Um, I'll check again with them
[1:38:23] tomorrow, but as soon as we get word
that the comment log responses are live
[1:38:26] on their site, we'll put something on
the website.
[1:38:28] » A follow-up question to to that is, are
you going to award a contract without
[1:38:33] their answers?
>> No, because we need we need the answers
[1:38:36] and the the permit,
>> the 25 year
[1:38:42] um,
>> can it be broken?
[1:38:47] » Uh, there is.
>> What's the terms of being able to break?
[1:38:49] Yeah, there are there is severability
uh or default I should say.
[1:38:59] » Yeah, it's on 19
uh there's a default provision.
[1:39:12] » I mean it would be broken through the
default provision in clause 19. Um
[1:39:17] there's no other clause that essentially
allows either party to break it at any
[1:39:21] time. So it would be a case of we would
default on it somehow and that would be
[1:39:26] the breaking of the lease.
My my last my last comment is that a
[1:39:33] good lawyer a really good lawyer would
probably poke a lot of holes in Sarah's
[1:39:37] interpretation because it is an
interpretation not not all of it is law
[1:39:42] and I think that's on those people that
disagree to be able to to have to do
[1:39:48] that. It's not it's other than that it's
done.
[1:39:53] » Sure. Yeah. I mean, like anything
related to law, until it's ruled on by a
[1:39:57] judge, it's two interpretations of law
until it's settled.
[1:40:02] » Anita, anything for visitors?
>> Nope. Okay. Thanks. We're going to go to
[1:40:05] the Zoom. Uh Daniel, anything for
visitors?
[1:40:12] » Uh [laughter] Gabby, anything for
visitors?
[1:40:16] » Uh Peter, anything for visitors?
[1:40:21] » Yes. Hi. Can you hear me?
>> Yep, we can hear you.
[1:40:24] » Just an observation. Uh over many months
and a few years, the board seems to be
[1:40:30] spending u an increasing amount of time
defending itself
[1:40:35] on either real or appeared conflicts.
And I understand you're addressing it
[1:40:42] through uh process. It concerns me that
the process involves uh a law firm that
[1:40:51] is being employed by the town at the
approval of the select board. Basically,
[1:40:57] the select board is policing itself.
Uh she does have a stake. Sarah or her
[1:41:02] firm have a stake. They've been employed
by the town for many years past and um
[1:41:09] anticipated years forward.
So once again, and I've brought this up
[1:41:14] before, and it's obviously the final
decision is yours, but the um oversight
[1:41:21] of conflict of interest should be
removed completely from anybody with
[1:41:26] affiliation or the potential to
um continue
[1:41:32] as a vendor or whatever you would call a
law firm with the town and be hired out
[1:41:39] uh to somebody who's got absolutely no
affiliation with the town. That's just
[1:41:44] an observation. Over the years, the the
board is spending a lot of time
[1:41:50] uh on these issues and that doesn't seem
to be getting any traction in terms of
[1:41:56] resolving them
uh because nobody frankly is is
[1:42:03] buying the process right now.
[1:42:08] That's my observation and that's it.
It's uh and and the question remains,
[1:42:14] you know, what what are these people
being paid at Gilly's Tyrant or Tarant
[1:42:18] Gilly's law firm that Sarah works for
u to address conflict of interest? The
[1:42:24] question's been asked and I've never met
a lawyer that hasn't built somebody for
[1:42:29] breathing within the month that they
took the breath.
[1:42:36] So, I'm quite sure you have what they're
charging you. You must have it by now
[1:42:40] because this has gone on for a while.
>> So,
[1:42:44] » yeah. So, we don't actually have an
invoice to cover her work on the
[1:42:49] conflict of interest stuff yet. I I
checked today because it someone else
[1:42:52] asked.
>> Um
[1:42:54] » I mean, I will say that it the the board
policing itself, that's the process. I
[1:43:00] mean, if complaints come to the board,
the board is the one that addresses
[1:43:03] them. I think we brought Sarah in at
that point to try to
[1:43:09] address the lack of trust with the board
members um by having a third party and
[1:43:14] we thought the municipal attorney given
that they are the attorney that
[1:43:17] represents the town would be a an
adequate third party. It sounds like
[1:43:21] there's a definitive lack of trust now
with her with a subset of the community,
[1:43:27] however small it might be. Um if
something else comes up and we want to
[1:43:32] hire a third-party law firm to address
it, we certainly can. Um but in the
[1:43:37] absence of working with an admissible
attorney, it comes back to the board.
[1:43:41] And so the board essentially is who
would address complaints. Um and we can
[1:43:47] certainly not involve the town attorney.
Um
[1:43:53] but that's that's the resource we have
right now to answer questions related to
[1:43:56] legal matters.
So then the follow-up comment would be
[1:43:59] that basically the person who is citing
law is being paid by the town to cite
[1:44:06] law to substantiate
a position of what is a conflict and
[1:44:11] what is not. And as you must well know,
you can cite law to support pretty much
[1:44:18] any position. That's why you have a
system all the way up to a Supreme
[1:44:22] Court.
uh far beyond our scope, but the point
[1:44:27] is that you're paying this lawyer
>> to uh feed Chris
[1:44:34] supporting documentation
to a position that the town uh select
[1:44:40] board has not breached conflict of
interest. And I take exception also to a
[1:44:46] subset of the community, however small
it is. It's not quite as small as you
[1:44:51] might imagine, Charlie. There are a lot
of people that don't speak
[1:44:56] uh publicly but voice their opinions
privately
[1:45:00] that have absolutely no faith in the um
integrity of the select board.
[1:45:08] And you know I'm personally I I am uh
cognizant of all the work you do.
[1:45:14] There's a lot of positive work you do. I
get all that. My concern is that your
[1:45:18] time doing that work is being chewed up
by these types of complaints of conflict
[1:45:26] of interest that are not adequately
being addressed
[1:45:31] and the money is aside but uh it's not
really aside. I mean the money is the
[1:45:36] money but uh the result is long you know
it's it's not happening you're not
[1:45:42] squelch you're not satisfying the
concerns of the subset
[1:45:48] that uh
there's there's not a conflict of
[1:45:52] interest
and that that could go on for more years
[1:45:57] who knows but I think it would be a
productive [clears throat] constructive
[1:46:02] first step to
not rely on someone that the select
[1:46:06] board is authorizing to be paid to make
the judgment. The judgment should be
[1:46:12] made by somebody with absolutely
uh nothing to gain. I understand you pay
[1:46:17] a third party, but you don't pay a third
party for years back and years forward.
[1:46:24] It's a oneshot deal.
And that that's kind of what I'm
[1:46:28] suggesting. But uh that's obviously
again up to you guys.
[1:46:32] And that's it for me.
All right. Thanks, Peter. That brings us
[1:46:37] through the public comment. Um, that
brings us to the end of our agenda.
[1:46:41] We've done a round of public comment
that I received.
[1:46:44] » We've done a round of public comment.
We're all going to try to take a deep
[1:46:48] breath and go home to dinner.
>> Thank you.
[1:46:51] » Uh,
with that, uh,
[1:46:57] brings us to our agenda. Is there a
motion to adjurnn?
[1:47:01] » Make a motion to adjurnn. Is there a
second?
[1:47:04] » Second.
>> Is there any further discussion?
[1:47:10] Hearing none. All those in favor, please
signify by saying I or raising your
[1:47:12] hand.
>> I
[1:47:14] » I.
>> Any opposed?
[1:47:16] Any abstensions?
All right. Motion carries and we stand
[1:47:20] in adjournment at 7:48 p.m.