[0:10] Streaming up.
>> Oh, mine is a seven.
[0:12] » How is seven?
>> Oh,
[0:14] yes, they're upstairs there.
>> Okay, [clears throat] that's okay. All
[0:18] right, I will call the Wetlands and
Conservation Commission meeting to
[0:21] order.
Um, first agenda item is seating of
[0:25] alternates. Um, Allison, will you sit
for our open seat?
[0:30] And Sue, will you sit for Marjorie or
Joe Thickman?
[0:34] » Sure.
>> Thank you.
[0:36] Um, approval of minutes from August 4th,
2026. Did anyone have any adjustments,
[0:41] notes, comments, questions?
[0:46] I will entertain a motion to approve
those.
[0:48] » So moved, I approve.
>> Second it.
[0:50] » All in favor?
>> Aye.
[0:52] » Aye.
>> Um, IWW applications for public hearing
[0:57] or vote, we have none.
Conservation Commission business, um, we
[1:02] have the referral from Zoning
Commission,
[1:04] » [snorts]
>> uh, applications ZC 2618 and ZC 2619.
[1:10] Um,
[1:13] this was the car wash, um, that was
referred to us for comment.
[1:18] » Yep.
Yep, so, um, at the August 4th meeting,
[1:22] we discussed with the applicant present
uh, the information.
[1:27] Um, this was originates with Zoning and
Zoning Commission.
[1:32] They part as part of the approval
process, they
[1:35] refer it to a number of land use
agencies, Conservation Commission being
[1:39] one of them. So, at the last meeting, we
we heard the application. Um, you asked
[1:43] at the end of the meeting for me to kind
of memorialize the discussion into a
[1:47] draft letter, uh, referral letter, which
you you have before you. Um, so,
[1:54] at this meeting, I would ask that you,
you know, look through it, let me know
[1:57] if you want me to make any changes
and then decide what
[2:01] you want to pass on to the zoning
commission.
[2:05] » [snorts]
>> Thank you for drafting that letter.
[2:06] » You're welcome.
>> I think it summarized our discussion
[2:09] very well.
>> I did let Marjorie review it. Didn't
[2:12] have any comments except the native
plant comment, um, which I did I wanted
[2:17] to mention the applicant to change the
plant species from to what you thought
[2:22] to native.
>> Um, also I did want to note that we did
[2:25] receive a lot of correspondence from the
public since [clears throat] the August
[2:28] 4th meeting and that is also up on your
Dropbox.
[2:32] » So, can I just have a a question about
procedures and operations?
[2:37] Well,
we've gotten more comments from the
[2:40] public. It's not an open meeting.
>> [clears throat]
[2:42] » So, how are those coming to us as a part
of the procedures? Is anybody sending
[2:46] anything in that
>> It's It's we're calling it
[2:48] correspondence.
>> Okay.
[2:49] » Just for your information. It's It's
not, you know, during public hearings we
[2:53] usually call them public comment.
>> Okay.
[2:55] » And that's the official part of the
record. This is kind of just for your
[2:58] for your information on what we
received.
[3:00] » which which is fine. So, you know, but
that's as a procedure we we should be
[3:05] you know, if people are sending things
to us this way, we treat them as that as
[3:09] opposed to something in the public. So,
I'm I'm fine with that.
[3:12] » Okay, thank you.
>> Yep.
[3:16] » Did everybody get a chance to read the
draft letter?
[3:19] » Yeah.
[3:23] » What are your guys' thoughts?
>> Well, I I I I have a few I have a few
[3:27] concerns, but I would I would like to
to start ask about sort of the final
[3:32] recommendation.
You have three choices, positive,
[3:35] negative, and neutral.
>> Mhm.
[3:37] » And I'm wondering if there are, um,
strict definitions what falls into those
[3:42] three categories or is it a sense of,
you know, the commission or how do we
[3:47] address that category?
>> You know, you can even say we submit
[3:50] these recommendations for review. It
doesn't have to be
[3:55] even pigeonholed into these three
>> Okay.
[3:58] Okay. So so so there so there isn't a
procedure
[4:01] » There's not a procedure. It's really
just a referral to you that this is
[4:04] what's outlined in the zoning
regulations for review. It doesn't say
[4:08] commission commission needs to provide
X.
[4:11] » Right. But but and and [clears throat]
so
[4:14] you know, the way the way the draft
letter is referred to is that the answer
[4:17] is that the
construction committee would like to
[4:19] submit a choose one of the three.
>> Right.
[4:22] » Or we could or it could be something
complete something completely different,
[4:25] but there's no particular
set of requirements that makes it a
[4:29] positive or a negative.
>> Yes.
[4:31] » All right.
>> Yep.
[4:32] » Okay.
>> Yep.
[4:34] » Um
Well, I I have some I have some issues,
[4:38] but I do not want to dominate this
conversation, so I will let other people
[4:41] talk.
[4:43] » I think we can start.
>> Yeah.
[4:45] If you want to start, go ahead.
>> Okay. So as per usual, I
[4:50] I don't like it when we don't have a
summary of what some of the public
[4:54] concerns have been. You know, as a way
to to
[4:57] state back what that we heard X.
Um
[5:01] and and I and I was looking at the more
the more recent ones that were coming in
[5:06] and and these are kind of echoed in um
some of the preliminary ones. There was
[5:12] like three or four areas that the
concerns touched on that I thought and
[5:17] they were also touched in the
conversations at the last time, but I
[5:20] don't think we actually got some we
finally answers on.
[5:24] One was there was a some concerns about
the water coming from that local
[5:29] aquifer.
And I thought that the water would come
[5:33] from Aquarium, and so I thought that
there was um which I would have thought
[5:37] would have been a more
um
[5:40] sort of agglomeration of all the water
sources that act that Aquarium controls.
[5:45] But there was awful I was a lot of
concern from the public that it was
[5:48] going to drain that particular surface
aquifer. Has that Has that been
[5:52] addressed?
>> No. So, if you'll notice on
[5:55] um the fourth
the fourth uh subject line, the water
[6:00] usage information,
I think since we left it the applicant
[6:04] does not have a final letter from
Aquarian about this what they call a
[6:09] will serve letter. So, the
recommendation would be for Zoning
[6:13] Commission to make sure you receive that
[clears throat] information prior to
[6:16] approval.
>> Right. But so So, I I I remember I
[6:20] remember seeing that, but the
discussion's a little bit different,
[6:23] which is, at least in my mind, they we
heard at the on a August 4th meeting
[6:29] that Aquarian was going had had the had
the main pipes there. They're going to
[6:34] ratchet it down. The question was how
much water do they really need? But if
[6:39] that's coming from Aquarian
it I think the question that was some of
[6:43] the public had was was that particularly
going to draw down that local aquifer or
[6:48] is it just drawing down the supplies for
the for the town water system?
[6:52] » So, do you So, maybe we can add to this
section information of well should also
[6:59] um
should also require information
[7:02] regarding which which aquifer or
>> and local and local drawdown cuz one of
[7:07] the second concerns that was voiced in
some of these comments was that the
[7:12] areas close by
have have wells and and they're kind of
[7:17] and some of them are really not that
deep. They're fairly surface wells. I
[7:20] know the reason this is a protected area
is because the aquifer's close to the
[7:24] surface.
So, the question that some people raised
[7:28] is, you know, you know, what's
you know, if if something goes wrong and
[7:33] your and your well's only X amount deep,
what is that? What's the risk of that?
[7:37] And then what's the burden of that? Now,
I'm not sure that that falls within our
[7:41] sphere
of influence and regulatory, but that
[7:45] seems to be something that ought to be
able to be addressed as to what's going
[7:48] on.
>> Yep. Yep, I think we can bring that
[7:50] issue up to and make sure the zoning
commission is aware of that.
[7:53] » Okay, yeah.
Um
[7:56] the
Uh
[7:58] there were there were three. I was just
I was there were So there's the wire at
[8:02] that. Um
[8:08] Well, let the other people talk. I'm
going to go I There's There's two other
[8:10] themes that keep coming keep kept coming
up and I'll try to figure out those at
[8:13] some point.
Those time.
[8:18] I I Oh, and I And I also did not see in
in our in our documents
[8:25] the actual like MSDS sheets someplace. I
saw pieces on them.
[8:30] Um but I didn't see all of them, and of
course I couldn't read them anyways, but
[8:33] I was just wondering where do we have
those as part of the record?
[8:37] » I believe they're in the application
information.
[8:40] I Are there SDS sheets?
>> Yes.
[8:42] » Yes, that's I thought I saw that, but
um
[8:46] » Okay, okay. So the expert over here on
>> Yes, yes, please, yeah.
[8:51] If you want to add anything to that,
Allison.
[8:53] » I I didn't see them when I was looking.
>> Oh, okay.
[8:56] » I read many many many things and then I
would type
[8:59] » [snorts]
>> didn't see those, so
[9:01] Um
[9:04] So those
So the the zoning commission should
[9:06] ensure that
that S Am I saying it right? SDS
[9:11] » Okay.
>> SDS I'm not I'm not safety data sheet.
[9:15] » Yeah.
>> Data sheet
[9:17] are included.
>> And as I do remember what the third one
[9:21] was that was also sort of brought up.
And we've [clears throat] had this And
[9:26] this issue has come up in other
applications as well. Like if an
[9:30] applicant comes in and is doing, you
know, a fantastic job and has made
[9:35] commitments to do X, Y, and Z.
How do those transfer if like the
[9:41] business gets sold?
And that was a problem we had in another
[9:45] application. So, if if people are, you
know, making these kinds of commitments,
[9:51] they're essentially mitigations or
whatever they are, how does that go from
[9:56] owner to owner? And I don't think we
have a a particular process for that,
[10:02] but that does bring some of these sort
of higher risk activities that are are
[10:08] um
you know, that's one of the concerns I
[10:10] think people have raised, and we haven't
been able to answer that.
[10:13] » So, um
you know, one option is to request that
[10:18] the zoning commission condition their
approval to ensure that the mitigation
[10:23] measures
list out them, you know, what the
[10:25] applicant did. So,
the it moves with the partial. So, if
[10:29] there's a new owner, then they will be
conditioned.
[10:32] » I I think that's part of it, and I think
I think, you know, again, it's a matter
[10:37] of reflecting this back that, you know,
we heard these concerns coming in, and
[10:40] this is sort of what we're trying to do.
Those weren't um
[10:45] enacted here, and and so, when I look at
the letter, I'll I'll tell you what I
[10:50] I did I didn't write one up, but where I
was headed with it was that there was a
[10:54] lot of great comments about
um
[10:58] sort of what the applicant has done sort
of, you know, to to mitigate this site
[11:01] that they've done it that they you can
point to a lot of things they've done
[11:05] » [clears throat]
>> in order to mitigate things within
[11:08] the regulatory environment that that
they're under. Whatever they could do,
[11:12] they sort of done.
The issue boils down to
[11:16] um and the public has pointed this out,
it's been pointed out in other places,
[11:19] that it's it's a high-risk activity in
these kinds of areas, but it's not a
[11:23] regulated one.
So, if this came forward to us under the
[11:27] wetlands commission, we wouldn't
necessarily have a way to deny that on
[11:32] under the regulation, but it doesn't
mean that it's
[11:35] not a low risk. You can have the
applicant doing everything legally they
[11:38] need to do and and and beyond to some
degree, but it can still be recorded as
[11:42] a high risk activity. And
[clears throat] I didn't see that as
[11:45] being balanced in the letter, and I
still feel like both of those things are
[11:49] true at the same time.
You know, you can point to both of them.
[11:52] » Right.
Um so
[11:56] do you want to mention high risk in what
specific
[11:59] » it So I So I So I think So I think the
the the issue is is that it's you know,
[12:07] » [clears throat]
>> it's not been studied. You know, it's
[12:09] one of the things that it's not
regulated cuz it's not been studied.
[12:12] There's a lot of concerns about where
the water is going inside
[12:15] » it's and like the residual water is just
>> So So yeah, it sounds like you maybe
[12:19] this goes like in an introduction
introductory
[12:23] » Right.
>> paragraph.
[12:24] » Right. That That I think And And then I
think that that's the that's why when
[12:28] you get to the end of why we're making
this kind of of of of conclusion, it'd
[12:33] be like we've heard these things and
these are the problem things that that
[12:37] zoning should be thinking about
addressing. Maybe have some
[12:40] recommendations. I think the summaries
of these two things are are right on,
[12:44] but I think that they are the the four
points you have here. But the
[12:48] the sort of the discussion between you
know, you know, how the applicant could
[12:54] have done, you know, things that are
sort of I won't say standard cuz they've
[12:58] they've exceeded in some areas like
planting and other things. But there's
[13:01] just other things that they that there's
not best practices on, but everyone's
[13:05] concerned um about about these things.
It's not regulated.
[13:10] » Yeah.
>> [clears throat]
[13:10] » Okay.
>> Does that make sense?
[13:12] » Yep. It does. It does.
[13:16] » So that was part of the Haldeman spiel,
but I'm wondering what everybody else is
[13:19] thinking.
[13:23] » Um
I'm kind of hunting for if they're going
[13:26] to have secondary containment in the
equipment room. That's where I am right
[13:29] now.
>> Okay.
[13:30] I'm sure there would be.
I don't know if that's OSHA like OSHA
[13:33] that would or if it's like a building
code that needs to be followed.
[13:37] But management of the
chemicals that they keep on site in an
[13:42] appropriate [clears throat] way.
>> Mhm.
[13:45] » And making sure that that's a
transferable requirement.
[13:49] » What did you You called it secondary?
>> Secondary containment.
[13:52] » Okay.
[13:56] » [snorts]
>> So like the the chemicals are in a
[14:01] bin or a right?
>> A
[14:03] » a drum.
>> Yeah, the
[14:04] » The drum also inside of something. So if
that spills or cracks or breaks or
[14:08] leaks, it doesn't go direct to
the environment.
[14:12] » Okay.
[14:17] Do Do we have an idea on based on
just [snorts] the the the water maps of
[14:23] that area,
>> [clears throat]
[14:24] » where actually the aquifer science like
how close is it to the surface? Like is
[14:29] there geological line that people have
agreed on that
[14:32] » Yeah, I I'm not I don't know the the I
don't know that answer.
[14:36] » So I I I would think that that would
need to be something that we
[14:40] should be able to address and say, you
know, we looked at this and this is to
[14:44] to get an evaluation for what the time
scale is for you know,
[14:48] water regeneration of the aquifer. Cuz
that's the concern, right?
[14:52] » Right.
>> That there's some amount of as if the
[14:54] aquifer was 2,000 ft down, it might be a
different discussion than if it's 20 ft
[14:58] down.
>> Right. Right. And I hopefully I mean,
[15:00] it'd be helpful if Aquarian kind of
addressed that in their letter.
[15:03] » It It It should, but somebody
[clears throat] ought to be able to do
[15:06] it.
>> Yeah.
[15:12] » And I'm sure zoning said that we ought
to be able to do that. So that's
[15:15] probably what they're looking for.
>> [snorts]
[15:17] » Yeah, the aquifer protection.
>> Is that Right. But But But But what what
[15:21] does it mean? Yeah, what what does it
what does it mean from a length scale,
[15:24] you know?
Time scale.
[15:27] So, one of us is like, "Okay, that's
that's what it was. Go figure it out."
[15:35] » Zoning is the aquifer protection agency,
as well.
[15:38] » What Excuse me?
>> Zoning commission [clears throat] is the
[15:40] aquifer protection agency.
So, they can
[15:45] » Okay.
>> Ask the aquafarian for that. But, again,
[15:47] I mean, it's in the
Once if something's within an aquafer
[15:50] protection boundary
>> Yeah.
[15:52] » that that is sent to us, it triggers all
the aquafer protection
[15:56] » Right. And and
And and and but I also think that this
[15:59] is just something
So, I I can imagine something that's
[16:03] like right on the edge being the aquafer
protection zone,
[16:06] and I imagine something that's like
right up at the top, you know, you dig
[16:09] down 10 ft and you're there.
>> Okay.
[16:11] » Um
And and I I And I think
[16:15] since they're asking us to figure out
these parts,
[16:18] then obviously something that goes back
into the infrastructure.
[16:24] And And it's not just over the one site,
but it's over where that drainage pond
[16:28] is and the and the and the rest of the
uh
[16:32] storm water sewers, etc.
That's expected areas.
[16:41] » Have you Have you Have you been able to
make magic out of this?
[16:43] » No, because it's only showing me things
from a month ago.
[16:46] » Okay.
>> I was like, I don't know why I can't
[16:47] find anything here.
[16:50] Everything says from a month ago.
I can't seem to update it.
[17:02] » What are you thinking, James?
[17:06] » I've been hunting for the SDS sheets,
too.
[17:09] » Okay.
>> Try now. I'm not sure.
[17:12] » I found a list of the chemicals they're
using, but
[17:14] » Like, I
This is just showing me stuff from a
[17:17] month ago. So it's not
>> Okay, so updated us too.
[17:20] » Yeah.
[17:24] » Maybe able to pull it up here.
It's hard to read on there.
[17:37] » [cough]
>> So what are you thinking?
[17:39] » I'm just looking at protected aquifers
in their town.
[17:41] » Okay.
>> And see how deep
[17:46] It's a the it's the areas of final
adopted aquifer protection area.
[17:56] It looks like there's two aquifers that
overlap each other in that location.
[18:00] » So it sounds like
So I can add these this information to
[18:05] the letter. It sounds like we're going
towards a kind of
[18:09] neutral for your information type.
>> [snorts]
[18:12] » Am I correct in
>> That was where I was headed because I
[18:15] see I see it on both sides and I see
them as having to make
[18:20] the final the final decision but I I do
I think they are going to make a final
[18:25] decision but I do feel like our job is
to put this information in context.
[18:29] » Right and I think yep.
I think one of the most important parts
[18:32] of that is that adding that you know
paragraph about you know the
[18:36] conservation commission understands this
type of activity and there's not many
[18:40] best practices on it.
These are our concerns and then kind of
[18:45] going to
>> Mhm.
[18:46] » [clears throat]
>> the other
[18:47] » And and and and I and what I can do is I
can as I
[18:51] there were a few other public concerns
like the you know
[18:56] things like you know
just you know not allowing something
[19:00] like this but that that doesn't really
fall in our in our purview but
[19:03] [clears throat] it's really if you go
through the ones that sort of fall
[19:05] within our purview and stuff that breaks
into like four categories. We ought to
[19:09] be able to say we've heard these. This
is what we've heard. And this is what's
[19:14] going on for them. And I
I can take it on myself to summarize
[19:17] those and send that to you.
>> Okay.
[19:19] » And then you don't you don't have to
figure that out. I'll send that.
[19:22] » Okay.
That'd be helpful.
[19:30] » As far as
what kind of referral, I'm comfortable
[19:33] with a neutral referral.
And I don't think this is
[19:38] going to improve anything, but I also
don't think it's going to
[19:42] » [snorts]
>> necessarily detract from anything
[19:45] either.
Um
[19:47] » No, raising our concerns is what we're
supposed to be doing, right?
[19:52] » But I think there's a lot of valid
concerns. I also think that they've been
[19:56] substantially addressed.
Um but I mean there's always the what
[20:00] if.
>> Mhm.
[20:01] » [clears throat]
>> And then
[20:02] » Yeah, I think that's part of I mean the
other part of the of the the plus side
[20:07] is that
and it and it's also balances out with
[20:10] the number of car washes that are around
here. But any car wash that's doing this
[20:15] and as well operating in a good in a in
a in a as designed system is better than
[20:20] anybody washing their car on and going
into the storm sewers.
[20:24] » Yeah, and it's better than a parking lot
with dirty cars getting rained on ending
[20:29] up in there.
>> Right. And so I think that's part of the
[20:31] plus side that needs to get at put in.
So we we have we recognize this. You
[20:36] know, we recognize this part. And this
is what's being pushed against.
[20:39] » [snorts]
>> So that that's why I think it's kind of
[20:42] like out those two fields to it. And
this is a good description of the
[20:45] discussion we had.
But that's but that's that's where I
[20:48] thought thought it was it needed like
one more tweak.
[20:57] » So we would need a motion
for what we're going to pass on
[21:02] to the zoning
commission.
[21:05] Um
I mean it could be
[21:12] Um.
[21:14] You know, the draft reference this, the
draft referral letter with the issue to
[21:19] end at the
recommendations
[21:23] that were discussed during the meeting.
Um.
[21:27] And provide a
neutral
[21:31] recommendation to the zoning commission.
>> Are we under Are we under timeline right
[21:34] now?
>> I mean I would I think we should
[21:37] » Yeah.
>> Cuz we want to wrap this up
[21:39] » for the next meeting.
>> Okay, their next meeting which is
[21:43] » I think it's before our
>> September
[21:45] » September 1st meeting. Yeah. [snorts]
>> [clears throat]
[21:49] » I would I I would like to get this to
them
[21:51] prior to their next to the meeting where
they're
[21:55] » Oh, the zoning's meeting?
>> Yes.
[21:57] » Okay.
>> We have to.
[21:59] » [laughter]
[22:02] » So, okay. I I can understand that. That
makes sense. It it doesn't do us very
[22:06] good if it doesn't get there. Um,
what are our choices is to
[22:12] um
is to [clears throat] essentially Can
[22:16] Can we basically do this update and then
do this like over email?
[22:20] » So, you can send You could send me the
information. I can update the letter and
[22:24] send it.
Um,
[22:26] we're not going to change that it's a,
you know, what type of motion you're
[22:30] doing like
if it's neutral, positive, negative, or
[22:32] nothing.
>> Okay.
[22:33] » Um, but we can reference, you know,
saying that
[22:38] it's going to be this letter with the
addition with the additional edits that
[22:42] were discussed in this meeting.
>> And the ones that you're going to
[22:46] » Right. And And And but
>> And then I will You'll see it I mean
[22:50] you'll see the final once we work on it
and we see the final letter
[22:55] then I can I'll send it out.
>> Okay.
[22:58] » Before
>> Okay. So So
[23:01] » And this final line that says, "With
this information, we would like to
[23:04] submit a neutral approval."
>> Right. So, so the discussion right now
[23:10] is whether it's neutral,
positive, or negative.
[23:15] » Right.
>> Right.
[23:17] » And And
>> Or would like word, again.
[23:19] » Or Or Or not.
>> Just neutral. Just for your information.
[23:23] » what we found. So, so so Okay, so I
would I would vote that the last one is
[23:28] not on the table.
You would be You would be asked to give
[23:31] an opinion based on our stuff, and have
it should be one of the other three, but
[23:34] not
>> probably agree. I think we can
[23:36] come to a
agreement
[23:39] on a positive, negative, or neutral.
>> Right. Right. So, I think it's one of
[23:42] those three, and not the last option.
Does anybody think it can be the last
[23:46] option?
>> No, we should make a
[23:48] » Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
>> know, go on record, and you'll give it
[23:51] up.
>> Yeah.
[23:52] » Okay.
Then
[23:54] then
then the question is, does anybody think
[23:57] it should be approved, you know, a
positive endorsement?
[24:03] » I'm kind of comfortable with neutral, to
be honest.
[24:05] » Yeah. Neutral.
>> And neutral sounds
[24:09] Okay.
>> You know, here are our concerns, and
[24:11] this is how they end.
>> I I And I And I think that that's I
[24:14] think that's a fair one. You know, I I I
don't I think it's also unreasonable
[24:19] when something is is an unregulated
activity, and there's not a lot of
[24:23] scientific information to point at how
somebody could do something better.
[24:27] » Mhm. Correct.
>> And And you know, on the face of it, the
[24:31] applicant's done what, you know, has
been
[24:35] the only question is more. So, I think
that's the reason I would go for
[24:38] neutral,
uh because of these other problems, some
[24:40] of them which are out of our control.
>> Yes, when we
[24:44] you know, they when they go to the They
have to go went to the state and said
[24:48] "What about the carryout?" And the
state's like,
[24:52] "You You don't even know." So, it's hard
to say
[24:55] » Right.
>> a negative because no one's studied it.
[24:59] It's
>> So that's
[25:03] Do we Do we need a formal motion now?
>> So maybe it could be something moved
[25:08] with this information the Conservation
Commission would like to submit a
[25:10] neutral referral to the Zoning
Commission and provide um the the the
[25:15] the attached letter of concerns that
were discussed.
[25:20] » So moved.
>> Wait a second.
[25:24] » Second it.
>> Any discussion?
[25:27] All in favor?
Aye.
[25:31] » Okay.
Thanks, Britney.
[25:34] So I will I'll I'll review the
SCSs as well.
[25:38] » Okay.
>> That can be just added to the
[25:41] consideration.
>> Yeah.
[25:45] » It's not MSDS anymore.
>> Not in a while.
[25:49] Yeah, they they tried to go to a more
centralized
[25:52] universal because they were every
country had completely different
[25:56] requirements. They tried to go to a more
centralized
[25:58] » So this is more of an international type
sort of
[26:01] » Yes.
Compared to what it was, yes.
[26:04] Realistically
>> Okay.
[26:07] » So
>> only
[26:08] » It's been a while, so
>> Yeah, you're dating yourself.
[26:14] » I date myself.
>> It was It was like 15 years ago that it
[26:17] changed over to
>> Yeah, it's about time.
[26:21] Um
do we have any other conservation
[26:23] business?
[26:28] Um just for official purposes, can we if
we're not busy super busy the next
[26:33] meeting, can we put on the agenda
rodenticide discussion?
[26:36] » I have one of the directors' responses.
I'm waiting for the other who said
[26:39] they'll get it to me and then we'll So
I'll provide that information and that
[26:42] could be the starting off point.
>> Thank you very much.
[26:47] Um designated agent actions and other
reports?
[26:51] And adjournment.
>> Motion to adjourn.
[26:55] » I think
I hit
[26:56] all in favor.
I.
[26:59] Thank you.
>> For over 40 years, SCM has been the
[27:03] voice of our town.
>> Bringing us together through local
[27:06] programming and
>> education
[27:08] » and live broadcast.
>> SCM isn't just about television.
[27:11] » It's about empowering our community.
>> Ensuring our voices are heard during
[27:15] government meetings.
>> And celebrating milestones. [music]
[27:17] » Like our high school graduations.
>> But today, SCM faces a challenge.
[27:21] » Our funding structure is based on
television subscriptions.
[27:24] » And it's no secret, people have been
cutting the cord.
[27:27] » With a shift to internet-only
subscriptions.
[27:29] » SCM receives less revenue.
>> Even though all our programming [music]
[27:32] is freely available online.
>> We need your support.
[27:36] » We need your support.
>> your support.
[27:38] » We need your support.
>> We need your support.
[27:40] » Your donation can make a difference.
>> It will ensure that SCM remains open.
[27:45] » Continues to educate our youth and keeps
our community informed.
[27:48] » Thanks to SCM, I've been honing my
creative skills, helping me work towards
[27:52] my college degree.
>> SCM is crucial for keeping our community
[27:55] connected.
>> SCM isn't just here to broadcast local
[27:58] events. They're actually preserving
[music] Simsbury's history.
[28:01] » Join us.
>> Join us in preserving Simsbury's voice.
[28:04] » Simsbury's voice.
>> Together we can ensure that SCM
[28:06] continues to thrive
>> for generations to come.
[28:09] » Visit our website
>> or scan the QR code on your screen to
[28:12] make your donation.
>> Every contribution
[28:14] » counts.
>> Thank you for supporting Simsbury
[28:16] Community Media.
>> Where your town,
[28:18] » your schools,
>> and your government come together.