[0:14] This is the Waterberry Select Board

[0:16] meeting for September 15th in the

[0:18] Waterberry Municipal Offices. We'll open

[0:21] the meeting

[0:23] and review and approve the agenda.

[0:29] Roger.

[0:30] >> I want you want to add make an addition

[0:33] in the select board matters second item.

[0:36] It says steel room audio visual. I want

[0:38] to add also room arrangement

[0:40] improvements.

[0:42] So three three topics sort of all say

[0:45] >> audio visual room.

[0:47] >> Okay. Room of

[0:54] » All right. Anything else?

[0:57] Go for it, mister.

[0:59] >> I'll move to approve the agenda as

[1:01] amended.

[1:03] >> I'll second that.

[1:04] >> Any further discussion? All those in

[1:06] favor say I.

[1:07] >> I.

[1:10] >> Uh, approval of the previous minutes.

[1:13] >> This one.

[1:16] >> Oh, excuse me. Public, you know, I

[1:18] checked the wrong box. All right. Public

[1:20] comment. Is there any public comment?

[1:25] How many do we have our trailer?

[1:34] » All right.

[1:36] Um, I'm going to move on to approve the

[1:40] previous minutes of September 1st.

[1:43] >> So, I'm not sure that we ever approved

[1:46] the minutes from the special meeting

[1:48] that we had. couldn't find where we had

[1:51] and

[1:52] we didn't get to the same.

[1:54] >> No, I went back and reviewed it. I

[1:57] >> I think somebody was drowning your mouth

[1:59] about I had something.

[2:04] >> So, um I'm going to ask could we put

[2:07] those on the next agenda?

[2:09] >> Sure.

[2:10] >> And we'll approve September 1st.

[2:13] >> Um

[2:14] and okay, hold on a second.

[2:17] that the general meeting. Yeah.

[2:19] >> Yeah. Yeah. Special meeting minutes or

[2:21] not,

[2:22] >> right?

[2:27] [clears throat]

[2:32] » All right. Thanks, Andy. Any questions

[2:34] or comments or edits to the minutes of

[2:37] September 1st?

[2:44] I move to approve the minutes from

[2:46] September 1st.

[2:49] >> Second.

[2:50] >> Any further discussion? All those in

[2:52] favor say I.

[2:54] >> I.

[2:56] >> All right.

[2:59] There are no consent agenda items. So,

[3:03] we're going to move to the fire

[3:06] department, natural disaster, and

[3:08] cruise.

[3:10] And who wants to go first? I think we're

[3:12] going to have fire department.

[3:20] » First to the table.

[3:21] >> Go for it.

[3:24] » Thank you for coming in.

[3:26] >> Well, it's my buddy

[3:29] >> with a smile. He says that. Uh so I'm

[3:33] presuming kind of same type of thing

[3:35] just going to feel you.

[3:36] >> Um currently we've gone up in membership

[3:39] a little bit. Um

[3:41] they're young people which will

[3:44] meaning there's still a couple in high

[3:46] school which is great. It catches their

[3:48] interest. I know have another one that's

[3:51] kind of playing in in the wind. He wants

[3:54] to try.

[3:55] >> I know that he probably is not going to

[3:57] stick around. He's looking to go to the

[3:59] Air Force Academy. uh probably not

[4:03] sticking around beyond involving a fire

[4:04] department. Um but anyways, we have some

[4:07] young people it which is great because

[4:10] some of us are bored uh or at least hold

[4:13] this job. Um so we're getting there. Uh

[4:18] apparatus everything's been good. We got

[4:20] the tower fixed. Uh it was kind of a

[4:24] scary time. The hydraulic cylinders were

[4:27] the levelers for the bucket. So, as the

[4:31] >> as the ladder goes up, it keeps the

[4:34] bucket level.

[4:35] >> Uh, they had to be removed

[4:39] and they were able to get them repacked,

[4:41] but took a while. New ones are $17,000 a

[4:44] piece. So, to go repacked. Um, but the

[4:49] problem was is ours, stoves, and plers

[4:52] were all out at the same time.

[4:54] So, we actually had a plan and uh we

[4:56] recall it seems like a long ways, but

[5:00] when you're talking about getting other

[5:02] tower trucks to you, uh Wilston was in

[5:05] some parts of Waterberry was our first

[5:07] option. So,

[5:09] uh but everything's good to go now. Um

[5:12] our call volume over the summer,

[5:15] uh is not typical. Typically, our call

[5:18] volume during the summer is down. Um May

[5:22] we had 17 calls. June 30, July 31, and

[5:26] August 23 so far September 13th. Um,

[5:31] which is not normal.

[5:34] Um

[5:37] we can before I said we don't have

[5:39] anything specific that we could point

[5:40] our fingers at but this time around we

[5:44] have been getting a lot of faulty

[5:47] um smoke detector CO detectors

[5:49] >> and it's either a faulty detector or

[5:51] somebody hasn't replaced the batteries.

[5:54] Um and a lot of times that is somebody

[5:57] saying well I have hardwired ones not

[5:59] realizing that they actually have

[6:01] batteries in them as well. Now, it's an

[6:04] educational

[6:05] >> um usually once a year we get a

[6:10] ad o owner call and somebody calls it in

[6:13] and it's at night and it's turns out

[6:17] usually once a year a skunk and we had

[6:19] that recently. So, we got that out of

[6:21] the way.

[6:24] >> Gary, could I ask how many car accidents

[6:27] are those up? Seems like there's been a

[6:28] lot this summer.

[6:29] >> No, not any more than average. In fact,

[6:33] uh, for the last number of years, our

[6:38] percentage wise, our crashes are less

[6:40] than the other calls.

[6:42] >> And I would say that's probably

[6:44] accurate. Now, now that's if you

[6:47] eliminate the calls that we get for cell

[6:50] phone crash detection. We get a fair

[6:52] amount of those. And it's somebody that

[6:55] dropped their phone or they set it on

[6:57] their car and they went around the

[6:58] corner and it fell. And then we're out

[7:00] looking for a car that crashed and

[7:02] didn't crash and it is long gone.

[7:03] >> Oh, interesting.

[7:05] >> So, I think there's there's been a fair

[7:07] amount of

[7:10] >> you. Yeah. So, if you're if you get an

[7:13] iPhone, it's automatically activated. So

[7:16] if you if it's dropped hard

[7:20] coming off the carrot it going to call

[7:24] saying that there's a crash detection

[7:26] and most time it is not there but we

[7:30] have had some that were so

[7:36] » so yeah there's there's that um you hit

[7:40] your

[7:42] watch I [clears throat] got a

[7:43] four-year-old grandson that has a habit

[7:45] of hitting my watch and next thing I

[7:47] know it's getting ready to call 911.

[7:50] Save yourself. Uh I tried

[7:56] terrible record.

[8:01] » Uh

[8:03] effective today we um

[8:09] we're 50 calls higher than we were

[8:12] [clears throat] last year.

[8:15] And we're if I did the projections kind

[8:19] of right, it's hard to tell. We never

[8:20] know what you're going to have. We're

[8:22] looking at like

[8:24] 300 maybe 20 or 30 for the year whereas

[8:28] we had 243.

[8:34] So

[8:35] we're looking at not the highest we've

[8:38] ever had. A number of years ago, we

[8:40] Okay.

[9:24] does impact uh you know an alarm. But

[9:28] what I can say is every smoke detector

[9:31] activation is a fire until we get to the

[9:33] proof that it's not. Um we had a fire on

[9:36] the upper road. It came in as a smoke

[9:37] detector activation. Uh the next tone

[9:40] because we always get two in a row said

[9:43] that there was some smoke in the house

[9:45] and as we went around the corner um

[9:48] apparently all the fire was on the

[9:49] outside of the house and and smoke is on

[9:52] the inside. So

[9:54] >> I I believe that anytime we have a smoke

[9:56] detector activation

[9:58] >> uh it's it's a fire.

[10:00] >> Yeah. Sure.

[10:01] >> But some people say ah it's just another

[10:04] smoke detector.

[10:06] That's you crime both kind of thing.

[10:08] That's right.

[10:09] >> I've been doing it long enough that you

[10:11] watch one more night of getting up in

[10:12] your own room.

[10:14] >> So, can I ask a question about the

[10:15] numbers? So, you're you're saying the

[10:18] summer numbers are are pretty much are

[10:20] higher,

[10:21] >> right?

[10:22] >> And then [clears throat]

[10:22] year to date is sign significantly

[10:25] higher. Am I adding words? I shouldn't.

[10:27] >> No. Yeah, I think you're right. Um,

[10:29] >> do you think so? Then my question is,

[10:31] and we've talked about smoke detectors.

[10:36] Is that the bulk of the hireness work?

[10:40] [snorts]

[10:41] >> It's close enough. [laughter]

[10:43] >> Uh, you know, everything has

[10:46] an impact. Um,

[10:49] but it does seem like this year we've

[10:52] had more

[10:54] >> without crunching the numbers. And it's

[10:55] really hard because nationally everybody

[10:58] had to switch reporting systems.

[11:01] And so all the information that we

[11:04] previously had has sunset

[11:08] >> and so it could be gotten but I have to

[11:10] call the vendor tell them exactly what I

[11:12] want.

[11:13] >> Yeah.

[11:13] >> And it's kind of a real pain.

[11:16] >> Right.

[11:16] >> Um I don't understand it. Um I don't

[11:20] think there's anybody on our department

[11:22] and many others that like the system

[11:24] because you can't add specific

[11:27] information. It's generalized. And

[11:30] >> if you're looking for real stats, that

[11:32] wasn't helpful.

[11:34] >> Thank you.

[11:34] >> Sure. Um,

[11:38] this past uh week we had the blood

[11:40] drive. Um, unfortunately

[11:43] they were short-handed and uh they were

[11:47] way behind. There were people that were

[11:49] hours waiting,

[11:52] which is it's tough when you show up

[11:54] short-handed and then one person leaves.

[11:56] Um,

[11:58] but again, we had it um we have it every

[12:01] year and we've had it every year for how

[12:03] many years?

[12:07] » 15 years.

[12:08] >> Yeah. Um,

[12:13] » so 15 years.

[12:16] >> But it's worth a while.

[12:19] We got a we have a couple trainings

[12:21] coming up. We have a flashoverfire

[12:25] behavior training next month. It's uh

[12:28] through the fire academy. And what that

[12:31] is, they will bring a trailer out here

[12:33] and they we have people going through

[12:38] an evening of training first and then u

[12:43] a live training. They go away. They

[12:45] light fires and they show mostly newer

[12:47] people what ventilation does, what it

[12:50] doesn't.

[12:52] Kind of interesting.

[12:54] You get really dirty and salty here.

[12:58] Watch it from the outside. Uh and we

[13:01] have a National Fire Academy class that

[13:03] we're hosting uh for Vermont uh in

[13:07] January and that is arson investigation.

[13:11] So

[13:13] that's kind of it. Um making use of the

[13:15] station, making use of our people.

[13:19] I don't have anything else that I can

[13:21] [clears throat] share that would be of

[13:22] interest.

[13:24] But if you have questions,

[13:25] >> questions from the board. I see a hand

[13:28] up online. Rebecca,

[13:38] » that is an accidental click. Sorry about

[13:40] that.

[13:41] Okay. Anyone here?

[13:45] Um, [clears throat] have you heard from

[13:47] the new town manager that there's budget

[13:50] work in the future?

[13:51] >> Really?

[13:52] >> Yeah,

[13:54] >> I have. She's talking about it.

[13:56] >> Great.

[13:56] >> Uh,

[13:57] >> on the horizon.

[13:58] >> It's on the horizon. Um

[14:00] >> yeah, it's I I explained to her that um

[14:06] because it's early that it's there's

[14:09] [clears throat]

[14:10] changes that likely happen,

[14:12] >> but I'm I'm sure I'll have draft one

[14:16] ready.

[14:16] >> There's a number of us in the learning

[14:17] mode, so we appreciate the process, if

[14:21] you will.

[14:21] >> It's fine for me.

[14:23] >> Thank you.

[14:25] >> Yes, please. Uh I have been getting to

[14:27] know several uh top managers in the area

[14:30] in my new role and everyone has gone out

[14:32] of their way to say what a outstanding

[14:34] fire department we have and how well

[14:37] respected you guys are.

[14:38] >> Great.

[14:39] >> So

[14:40] >> thank you. Um it's yeah it's it's a lot

[14:44] of work. Um I just kind of heard the

[14:47] cats and the big cats heard the little

[14:50] cats.

[14:51] >> So yeah, it's we've got some people that

[14:53] do a tremendous amount of work.

[14:57] Good.

[14:58] >> Yeah, we have we have good crew.

[14:59] >> Good leadership.

[15:01] >> Wow.

[15:04] » You're welcome.

[15:07] >> Really appreciate it.

[15:11] » Uh so they're natural.

[15:14] >> Thank you.

[15:16] >> You want to go?

[15:17] >> Sure.

[15:20] [clears throat]

[15:20] >> Huh?

[15:28] Are you representing?

[15:30] >> No, you're

[15:35] » somebody's on there from

[15:37] >> what?

[15:38] >> Somebody's on there.

[15:40] >> Uh, that's me.

[15:41] >> Oh, that's you. You're on there.

[15:43] >> In case I have something that

[15:46] >> Okay.

[15:46] >> I might share.

[15:48] >> Oh, yeah. We have that printed out

[15:51] >> uh something else. But uh I'm

[15:54] >> okay before you start speaking like

[15:57] there on the table is a a page that Mike

[16:02] shared with us recently so we weren't

[16:05] able to put it on the website but uh

[16:07] there's one for the board and then

[16:10] there's a couple extras over on the

[16:12] table

[16:14] and it sounds like we going to get some

[16:15] more show and tell.

[16:17] >> Yeah,

[16:17] >> go for it. We got a real

[16:19] >> Thank you.

[16:20] >> multimedia.

[16:24] » But

[16:25] >> just say your name for

[16:27] >> So Mike Casey, I am the executive

[16:30] director.

[16:32] I crew is community resilience for the

[16:35] war area. Um

[16:39] we are a uh nonprofit organization under

[16:43] the fiscal sponsorship of uh this very

[16:48] long period

[16:51] and we were founded in 2023 after the

[16:55] July 23 flood. uh

[16:59] founding members were uh Hawaii active

[17:03] in the volunteer management uh in 2023.

[17:09] Um and then crews formed as the

[17:11] long-term recovery group to assist with

[17:15] just that individual recovery coming out

[17:18] in 2023.

[17:20] Um, we

[17:22] also acted as uh the kind of leaders of

[17:27] the volunteer management in the December

[17:30] 2023 flood and then again in July of

[17:33] 2024

[17:35] um and did

[17:38] a lot of um

[17:40] case management and individual recovery

[17:43] work uh after those events as well. Of

[17:45] course, many of the same people were

[17:48] affected with multiple uh events there.

[17:52] Um crew in addition to Waterbury serves

[17:55] uh Middle Sex Mtown.

[18:00] Um and so yeah, recently um now that we

[18:04] are over two years out from the July

[18:08] 2024 flood, um and sort of at the tail

[18:12] end of our

[18:14] individual recovery,

[18:16] uh we kind of took stock of what we've

[18:18] been doing over the last two years. um

[18:22] took all metaphorical piles of paper

[18:25] [laughter] and tried to compile uh some

[18:29] useful data for the town that we serve.

[18:31] So, we have these stat sheets for all

[18:32] five pounds. Um, and uh, the Waterbury one um, you know,

[18:39] hopefully gives uh,

[18:43] some

[18:45] context to how many folks in town uh,

[18:48] were affected. And um so the the big

[18:52] blue circle uh 147 known affected

[18:56] households those are homes that either

[18:59] um had called 211 or that we were made

[19:02] aware of via inerson canvas. Um

[19:10] 2011 calls are self-reported. So, um the

[19:14] extent of

[19:16] the damage or um you know the incident

[19:20] at that person's house, it's up to them

[19:22] whether they

[19:23] uh side that warrants calling 211 to

[19:27] report the damage. Um we do encourage

[19:30] people to call 211 because that is um

[19:33] one of the major factors that goes into

[19:36] um assessing overall damage for a

[19:39] disaster and potentially requesting a

[19:43] federal disaster declaration.

[19:46] Um

[19:48] we do not have access to

[19:53] people who call people. Uh so uh we have

[19:58] an agreement with the state where they

[20:01] were sharing the 211 information so that

[20:04] we could use that for outreach. uh FEMA

[20:07] calls are pretty much done

[20:12] and

[20:13] >> and the timeline on 211 kind of sooner

[20:16] anyway. So

[20:18] for for our needs, but so that's you

[20:21] know I say known affected households um

[20:24] because in all likelihood there are

[20:25] probably people that just called FEMA

[20:27] and didn't call FEMA one but

[20:29] approximately 150 affected households

[20:31] that we were aware of in Waterberry. Um,

[20:34] Middle Sex also had around the same

[20:36] amount. Those were our two uh out of the

[20:39] five pounds, two highest uh numbers

[20:42] there. Um, we were able to reach

[20:46] [clears throat] um almost all of them.

[20:48] We had 127 in Waterbury households that

[20:51] we were able to contact. So that's after

[20:54] we get this screw 211 we start making

[20:56] calls we start sending text messages and

[20:59] so out of 147 we were able to make

[21:01] contact.

[21:04] Um and then kind of the good news is

[21:06] that the the next circle shrinks down

[21:10] quite a bit down to 69 homes that we

[21:13] actively assisted with their recovery.

[21:15] So that means um that the the rest of

[21:18] the households out of that 127 when we

[21:22] called them they said I've got it

[21:23] handled

[21:25] um you know

[21:28] either

[21:30] my cousin's coming over with the tractor

[21:32] and he's going to fix the driveway or

[21:36] we're bailing it out. We're going to

[21:37] call insurance oursel. We've been

[21:39] through this unfortunately here. You

[21:41] know we it's not our first rodeo. We

[21:43] know the drill. Um so uh that is that's a good sign um that we had a lot

[21:51] of folks who um were able to sort of

[21:55] self-resolve.

[21:57] Uh and then the homes that we did assist

[22:00] um

[22:01] spans from uh you know it could be

[22:06] making sure that they have the the right

[22:09] phone numbers to call and then kind of

[22:11] once they're on their way um they are

[22:13] able to see the process through um the

[22:18] FEMA appeals process if you haven't been

[22:21] lucky enough to go through it yourself

[22:23] is uh just about as fun and intuitive

[22:27] ive as you would imagine it would be. So

[22:28] we end up doing a lot of help um with

[22:32] folks kind of navigating that um

[22:36] construction management and planning for

[22:38] people that are actively doing

[22:40] rebuilding. Um and then we did have some

[22:42] grants uh that we were

[22:47] giving directly to folks if they have

[22:49] kind of exhausted all of their options

[22:52] for

[22:54] federal assistance. new grant

[22:57] administrator or how do you get those

[22:59] grants or is that just disseminated from

[23:01] the state?

[23:02] >> Uh that funding came from community

[23:06] foundation. Yeah.

[23:07] >> Uh the particular fund has changed

[23:10] names. It was the disaster recovery fund

[23:12] in 23 and then they changed it to the CO

[23:15] fund. Um but that money um

[23:22] there's a number about a dozen long-term

[23:24] recovery groups like ours throughout the

[23:26] state and uh

[23:30] many of those groups

[23:32] received money from BCF to

[23:35] distribute in.

[23:41] And so in Waterberry, uh that ended up

[23:44] being just over $40,000.

[23:47] Um we did just under $100,000 in um

[23:53] successful email appeals. And so this

[23:55] was sort of helping folks through the

[23:58] email appeal process like I was saying.

[24:01] Um

[24:03] often time

[24:04] >> cool.

[24:05] >> Oh yeah. Um, I was say oftentimes, um,

[24:09] what happens is, um, if your home is

[24:11] damaged, FEMA might, uh, they have sort

[24:14] of a standard initial amount that they

[24:17] will give you for, um, whatever line

[24:21] item, uh, whether it's a driveway or a kitchen or something

[24:28] like that. And then

[24:30] you get quotes from a contractor and you

[24:33] submit that. I think hopefully can can

[24:36] get something close to the actual

[24:38] um amount that it cost you. Um but

[24:42] there's a lot of parks.

[24:48] » Can you tell us a little bit about um

[24:50] the event with um Treasure Pichek and

[24:55] Summit? We're I got to kind of be

[24:57] watching the clock here. Nudge you along

[24:59] a little bit.

[25:00] >> Yeah. So, a couple weeks ago, um I was

[25:02] down in Planefield. Uh treasurer was

[25:05] doing a roundt listening session uh in

[25:12] several communities throughout the

[25:14] state. Uh this is part of the

[25:20] um

[25:21] climate super fund. Um it's an attempt

[25:25] to sort of put a

[25:29] dollar amount on um damages done

[25:35] through that could potentially be

[25:38] attributed to public damage.

[25:40] >> So is I understood that the state would

[25:43] be getting money and PC is preparing a

[25:46] report to support whether that's enough

[25:50] or what the actual costs were in the

[25:52] communities. Does that sound

[25:54] >> uh I think that's probably

[25:57] >> there were two separateities.

[25:58] >> Oh, okay.

[25:59] That's what I'm asking. Okay.

[26:02] >> I'm certainly not the person to ask

[26:03] whether whether or not the state is

[26:05] getting any money and I think it's I

[26:06] think this is the sort of beginning of

[26:09] what is likely to be a very long

[26:11] process. Uh but they are trying to

[26:16] um in addition to it being kind of just

[26:21] a temperature check from a lot of these

[26:23] communities on on how the recovery went

[26:28] the last two years. Um really what

[26:30] they're trying to get at,

[26:32] you know, what is the economic cost of a

[26:36] disaster like uh through

[26:41] people not being able to work, whether

[26:43] it's because they need to take care of

[26:44] their home, whether it's because their

[26:45] business itself was flooded, whether

[26:47] it's because they need to take time off

[26:49] to be much old, whether they need to get

[26:53] child care so that they can go to the

[26:55] disaster recovery center and wait in

[26:57] line. um you know all of these

[27:00] everything from the very tangible to

[27:02] these sort of intangibles that really

[27:04] start to add up. Um

[27:07] and also disproportionately affect

[27:10] folks um you know if you are somebody

[27:14] who has a desk job and can be shooting

[27:16] off emails um you know in in between

[27:19] calls. That's a lot different than um if

[27:23] you are working on your feet all day and

[27:25] can't take 15 minutes when FEMA just

[27:28] decides to call you out of the blue to

[27:30] answer your phone.

[27:31] >> Um and so uh yeah, so they're trying to

[27:34] track that kind of stuff.

[27:36] >> Like just real quick, of the 69, how

[27:38] many are open still? uh in waterberry

[27:41] and

[27:44] uh actively doing some work with I think

[27:47] we're down to one in

[27:55] » Yeah. And so uh since the last time uh I

[27:58] saw all of you, we've done a number of

[28:00] events, some of them taking place in

[28:02] this room. Uh we did a workshop on

[28:06] home interventions. uh simple things

[28:08] that folks can do to make their

[28:09] properties more flood resilient. We did

[28:12] a workshop specifically on flood

[28:14] insurance and the national flood

[28:16] insurance program.

[28:18] Uh we did a rainarrel workshop at Makers

[28:21] Gear um in conjunction with friends of

[28:24] the Lucy River that quite popular

[28:28] again. Uh we actually are going to be

[28:30] doing another insurance workshop. Um,

[28:33] we're hoping to do it in Middle Sex so

[28:35] that we're not

[28:37] doing everything in Waterbury, but steam

[28:40] room is actually pretty

[28:41] >> Oh, yeah. We're at the insurance

[28:43] workshop.

[28:44] >> It's interesting to know numbers.

[28:46] >> Yeah. Yeah. The insurance workshop

[28:47] between in person and online. I'm

[28:49] guessing both team um it was recorded

[28:53] and it's available to view on our

[28:55] website.

[28:56] >> Oh, that's great.

[28:57] >> Home resilience workshop.

[28:58] >> Yeah. Um, and then, uh,

[29:03] we were at Water Parksfest, uh, with the

[29:07] state DVC and their stream table, which

[29:10] is like my favorite thing in the world.

[29:12] This is a sort of slanted sandbox that

[29:15] you can run a simulated uh, river or

[29:18] stream through. Uh, and it's a very

[29:21] tangible way for folks to see how rivers

[29:25] erode, uh, how different interventions

[29:28] that you might make in a river, um, can

[29:32] have short and long-term effects. Um,

[29:35] it's really,

[29:37] uh, you know, like we get asked about

[29:39] dredging all the time. It's a really,

[29:42] um,

[29:43] nice way to demonstrate why we don't

[29:48] really do that anymore.

[29:50] and people kind of it clicks pretty

[29:53] quickly when you can see it right in

[29:55] front of you. Um we're going to be at

[29:57] Warfest in Wartown with the screen table

[30:00] again uh this weekend actually. Um

[30:04] and uh I know that I'm trying to keep

[30:10] things moving along quickly here. Um, we

[30:13] did just uh sort of officially

[30:17] launch uh our Culver Crawlers um program

[30:23] here in Lbury and that's what I was

[30:25] going to share

[30:27] on the screen. Um this is a

[30:31] and I allowed to share.

[30:37] [clears throat]

[30:40] Um, so Cobra Crawlers is

[30:45] a covert monitoring program that

[30:50] >> residents

[30:55] um

[31:01] this um

[31:06] [clears throat]

[31:12] We might need to

[31:30] say I'm sharing. So anyways,

[31:33] um

[31:34] Cobra Crawlers is a covert um monitoring

[31:38] and survey app uh for your smartphone.

[31:43] Um this is something that um residents

[31:47] can use to go out and uh essentially

[31:51] report on the condition of cohorts in

[31:54] the community. Um, and that information

[32:00] goes to a website that uh, in

[32:04] Waterberry's case, Bill Woodruff has

[32:05] access to. I was going to show you the

[32:07] sort of map view that he look at, but

[32:11] it's not a huge deal. Um, essentially,

[32:15] there we go. Um, so this is,

[32:20] uh, what Culver crawlers looks like, um,

[32:23] from the towns side. Um, you know,

[32:26] Warbury has like hundreds and hundreds

[32:27] of uh and certainly not hundreds and

[32:30] hundreds of people on the um road to

[32:34] crew. Um, we have launched this in

[32:36] Middle Sex um already. So, I'm going to

[32:39] actually go to

[32:43] kind of what it looks like there since

[32:44] folks have been using it. These pins

[32:46] will show up on the map and these

[32:49] represent places where folks have taken

[32:52] these surveys and

[32:59] » they can upload

[33:02] >> photos of this lovely plug and crushed

[33:05] and then um

[33:07] >> yeah,

[33:08] >> rather than you know hoping that someone

[33:10] gets around to jumping down in the ditch

[33:14] and checking on things and all their

[33:15] spare time with the roads group. Uh

[33:18] people can do it while they're out

[33:19] walking their dog or we can do organized

[33:22] um

[33:24] uh you know sort of targeted efforts if

[33:26] we know that there are certain um roads

[33:29] or things that are uh that have been

[33:32] house in the past. So we just did our first training in Waterberry uh last

[33:36] week. So um not a lot going on yet on

[33:40] the map, but we'll keep you posted. Um,

[33:43] I can also pull um sort of a an Excel uh

[33:48] spreadsheet based uh report and I've

[33:50] been doing that periodically. Um, so

[33:53] they'll actually get a list of stream

[33:54] addresses.

[33:55] >> The training online is the training that

[33:58] you did. Is that faster?

[34:01] >> Yeah, it is.

[34:03] Um, it's a it's a little easier to do in

[34:06] person. Yeah, we've been working on

[34:08] trying to figure out a kind of faster

[34:11] way to get people up to speed on this.

[34:13] Yeah. Um

[34:14] >> and um

[34:18] so yeah, we're we're hoping that it gets

[34:20] to a point. Um this uh this program was

[34:24] developed by uh a team at Dartmouth um

[34:29] in tandem with some folks in the Black

[34:32] River uh sort of budlo cabinish area of

[34:36] the state. Um and uh they got a little

[34:40] bit of funding to put this together. Um

[34:43] they have run through that funding. they

[34:45] are aware that there are maybe some

[34:49] tweaks that could be made to make it a

[34:51] little more intuitive. Um, and so at

[34:53] this point it's we've kind of we have

[34:56] what we have. It's functional. Um, we're

[34:59] hoping to be able to make

[35:02] you guys,

[35:04] but we're excited to continue rolling

[35:05] this out in our five towns and and

[35:08] getting feedback from Woody on, you

[35:11] know, we can say this is very useful and

[35:14] great, but if there are things that he

[35:16] wants change about it, we are

[35:20] so

[35:22] bigger the visual on that is helpful.

[35:25] Um,

[35:26] >> all right.

[35:29] >> We're going to wrap you up.

[35:30] >> Yeah.

[35:31] >> Thank you for coming in. Do you guys

[35:33] Anybody have a question? Roger.

[35:34] >> There's a one. Um, I want to

[35:36] congratulate Mike for calling uh the

[35:39] resilience plan that Barry developed to

[35:42] our attention. Uh, and I was talking

[35:44] with Dana Allen, the planning commission

[35:47] today. It was got like to move forward

[35:51] with developing one for library. I think

[35:54] we [clears throat] got a lot of the

[35:55] elements

[35:57] >> and just wondering if you or a gift or

[36:00] anyone

[36:01] >> uh on your team would be interested in

[36:03] participating in that.

[36:04] >> Yeah, there's there's absolutely strong

[36:07] interest in being part of that and you

[36:10] can figure out sort of who uh within

[36:14] best situated to maybe the point person

[36:18] to town for that. payment. It's

[36:20] something we would love to see all five

[36:22] of our towns uh have and it's, you know,

[36:25] it's a living document. It's something

[36:27] just to refer to. Um but it would be

[36:32] great to get a follow along.

[36:34] >> I think, [clears throat] excuse me, I

[36:36] think, um been focusing quite a bit on

[36:39] that and and the idea of the three

[36:41] existing plans and those Yeah, there's a

[36:44] lot of parts and pieces. We've got some

[36:46] really good um

[36:48] >> stuff to work from. Um and and Barry did

[36:51] a tremendous job of putting theirs

[36:53] together. Yeah. Um

[36:55] >> there's a lot of very specific stuff in

[36:57] there, but there's a lot that would be

[36:59] >> sure

[37:00] >> well served for any

[37:03] >> and I'm going to put my plugin I think

[37:05] some really low hanging fruit from that

[37:07] plan. Some of you have heard this from

[37:10] me uh already, but um I would love to

[37:13] see a standing agenda item this meeting

[37:17] of resiliency updates. I know that they

[37:20] have been happening under the um sort of

[37:24] under the municipal managers updates.

[37:27] Um, I know that we are comfortably asked

[37:30] by folks in town what's going on and

[37:33] where can I get information and just

[37:35] sort of knowing that that is a standing

[37:37] item on the agenda um go a long way. I

[37:41] mean you guys meet every two weeks so

[37:43] it's quite possible that

[37:45] >> nothing might happen between two weeks

[37:46] but even just holding the space for that

[37:48] I think is really

[37:49] >> and I think you know you hit a real

[37:52] spot I don't want to call it that or

[37:54] good but you hit a real key item and I

[37:57] >> you know Grace is tired of hearing me

[37:59] say this is that the the whole all of

[38:02] these flood there's a there's just so

[38:04] many little flood pieces resiliency

[38:07] flooding

[38:08] >> planning commission that are all they're

[38:12] just they're all genuine but they're not

[38:14] cohesive and if it if we have an event

[38:18] where are we going to turn and and that

[38:22] she's I mean she's tired of hearing me

[38:24] talk about it. So, I think working

[38:27] through her and and getting our our

[38:29] naturalist coordinator and, you know,

[38:31] there's just pieces that need have, you

[38:33] know, we've been focusing on getting her

[38:35] and the town clerk in here and now they

[38:38] can they're hitting the ground running.

[38:40] So,

[38:41] >> we've been lucky so far, but um we got

[38:44] to get done.

[38:45] >> Yeah,

[38:46] >> that's great.

[38:48] >> All right.

[38:48] >> Um,

[38:49] >> thank you. And

[38:50] >> yeah, wait, hold on. Mike, hold on. Mike

[38:53] Bart's coming up here

[38:55] >> to have a word.

[38:57] >> Mike Bart Waterbury Center. Very quick

[38:59] question. Out of the 69 uh families

[39:04] assisted, do you have a number for town

[39:06] assistance? What what's that cost per case?

[39:12] >> Uh in the town or even also

[39:17] >> um so the

[39:20] >> would like to know town. Yeah, I mean

[39:22] the town would be tricky to calculate.

[39:25] Um,

[39:27] you know, the this sort of almost

[39:30] touches on the the intangibles of

[39:32] people. You know, we don't have like

[39:34] hundreds of people that work for the

[39:36] town that like when that happened,

[39:38] >> people are switching gears,

[39:41] >> guys.

[39:45] We had someone volunteer, right? you

[39:47] included.

[39:48] >> Um and uh so you know from within Peru

[39:54] we try to keep

[39:56] as it's tricky when you're taking 10

[40:00] minutes here half hour there. We try to

[40:02] keep on on the folks that we work with

[40:05] for uh you know months and months to

[40:07] months. We try to keep a rough tally of

[40:09] how many hours we are spending on an

[40:12] individual case. It varies, but I mean

[40:15] we have in some instances hundreds of

[40:18] hours to our most extreme cases to uh

[40:23] you know with with these with the 69

[40:25] homes that's folks that we assisted with

[40:29] in some way. So that might have been

[40:31] just sitting down with an hour and

[40:32] making sure somebody had their paperwork

[40:34] straight um up to a full

[40:37] construction plan or mediation

[40:40] >> because you guys do a great job and I'm

[40:42] sure the taxpayer especially if it's

[40:43] costing you show all the volunteer time

[40:45] and stuff like that good for

[40:47] [clears throat] them to know what the

[40:50] cost to to the taxpayer is

[40:52] >> yeah I would say pretty pretty small

[41:00] nothing.

[41:00] >> Yeah.

[41:19] All right. Thank you. Thank you

[41:22] both. Thank you, Mike, for taking on

[41:26] >> what I'm doing.

[41:27] >> Yeah.

[41:29] >> All right. We don't have any.

[41:32] >> Yeah. We don't have any natural disaster

[41:35] people.

[41:38] All right. Um we're going to move on to

[41:42] the town manager

[41:47] matters.

[41:49] All right. Um, as has already kind of

[41:51] come up, um, we are approaching budget

[41:54] season and it's my first budget season.

[41:57] Um, as well as some of the select

[42:00] boards. Um, but we want to make sure

[42:02] we're well prepared and going through

[42:04] everything pretty critically. Um, so

[42:07] with that, um, I have reached out to all

[42:10] of the different meds to let them know

[42:12] that I'm going to be setting up meetings

[42:13] with them and looking over their

[42:15] historical budgets, um, what they spent

[42:18] so far this year, and then, um, working

[42:21] on building out their budgets for next

[42:23] year. to go with that. Um they're each

[42:27] going to be scheduled to come into the

[42:28] select board so that select board the

[42:31] town's people have time to ask questions

[42:33] ahead of town meeting day and other

[42:35] events like that. Uh loosely this is

[42:38] subject to change but uh we're thinking

[42:40] October 6 will be cemeteries and solid

[42:43] waste. October 20th will be fire

[42:45] department their capital fund and public

[42:48] safety. Uh November 3rd will be library

[42:51] and planning and zoning. November 17th

[42:54] will be parks and wreck and their

[42:56] capital fund. December 1st will be

[42:58] highway and their capital fund. And then

[43:01] capping it off with December 15th being

[43:03] the general funding act and the

[43:04] municipal holding. So there might be

[43:07] other categories that come up that need

[43:09] squeezed in there. Um and I've already

[43:12] learned a lot from Phil Sheplac and I

[43:15] continue to seek him out for guidance as

[43:17] we go through this process. but it's

[43:20] still coming together and my hope is

[43:22] that as it all clicks together we'll

[43:24] have keep you guys in the town really

[43:26] informed. Um just to that schedule can I

[43:30] ask that uh let's see so if you can be

[43:37] uh let us know so that we can put it one

[43:40] on the the one that that's coming and

[43:43] then the one that's coming the next so

[43:45] that we could we put at the bottom of

[43:47] our agenda what's next so that we'll

[43:49] have like four budgets that we kind of

[43:52] know are two that we're going to do and

[43:54] then two in the future. That gives the

[43:56] community a heads up as well.

[43:59] Absolutely. Okay, cool. Um, with that,

[44:03] um,

[44:05] there is the lot money, the taxes, um,

[44:10] and we've heard that there is desire to

[44:14] fund more stuff, especially around

[44:16] downtown, um, as well as other creative

[44:19] and useful things. So in the coming

[44:22] weeks, we'll actually put together a

[44:24] process so that if groups have requests

[44:27] for tax funds, then they there's a

[44:30] unified process that they can all go

[44:32] through and then be compared by it. So

[44:35] that's not put together yet. Um but I

[44:37] will keep you guys informed as it's

[44:39] pulled together.

[44:41] So, this board needs to pro give some

[44:44] guidance to Gracie as to what kind of a

[44:46] budget she's targeting and level funded

[44:50] cost increase

[44:52] reduced.

[44:54] So, we need to be thinking about uh what

[44:58] we want her to her goals to be here.

[45:02] I don't know that we need to make a

[45:03] decision tonight, but I'm just saying

[45:05] that, you know, the next meeting, you

[45:08] know, we need to give her some guidance.

[45:10] >> We've been

[45:12] sort of bit of background. We've been

[45:14] trying to keep it level funded uh with

[45:17] no uh rate increase for a few years

[45:20] because of uh extensive increases on the

[45:24] education side,

[45:26] >> fairness to taxpayers. uh but on the

[45:28] other hand we are facing inflation and

[45:31] uh that will catch up to us maybe

[45:34] already has so let's uh

[45:36] >> see what some

[45:37] >> I think we should plan needs are acting

[45:41] >> yeah thank you Roger

[45:44] next item

[45:46] all right so um our interpre

[45:50] um entrusted me with his updates and

[45:52] they are plentiful um so the random

[45:55] metal project um official subdivision is

[45:59] still awaiting attorney general and

[46:01] director of property management from the

[46:03] state to bless this um and have their

[46:07] legal team review it. It's expected

[46:09] soon. I don't know what's

[46:13] uh Tracy, I'm sorry. Can I just add to

[46:15] that a note that the 180 the statutory

[46:18] 180day uh requirement to to submit the

[46:21] final flat for that subdivision um

[46:24] passed on September 5th. So they are

[46:29] beyond that 180day requirement at this

[46:31] time.

[46:32] >> Good to know.

[46:33] >> Um along with that the corn is due to be

[46:36] chopped the first week of October. Uh

[46:39] VHB contract has been written and

[46:41] signed.

[46:43] question mark.

[46:45] I don't know why he put that on. I can

[46:47] answer one of that, but uh VHB has been

[46:50] on site delineated wetlands before the

[46:52] time runs out. So,

[46:54] >> the ones doing the environmental review.

[46:56] >> Yeah.

[46:58] >> Um

[47:00] then as far as Woody AB goes, uh we

[47:03] started doing weekly meetings that are

[47:05] taking place. Um and public outreach is

[47:07] planned. Um we don't have set dates on

[47:10] that. the wetlands delineation has taken

[47:13] place. They're looking into a market

[47:15] study data in the area to see if it is

[47:18] pertinent uh to the Woody Avenue site

[47:21] and public stakeholders have been

[47:23] identified. So, as far as who we're

[47:25] going to be reaching out to and talking

[47:27] with, we're a priority list, but again,

[47:30] dates are not set and more details to

[47:33] come. Uh Stanley Wson, uh the market

[47:37] study is coming to an end. Um so we

[47:41] should have that um to share out soon.

[47:45] FEMA buyout

[47:47] uh 38 Union 42 union and 1634 US route 2

[47:52] are progressing. Appraisal data and

[47:55] duplicate duplication [clears throat]

[47:58] of benefits paperwork is in progress.

[48:01] The appraiser does multiple properties

[48:03] in the state. So this sometimes takes a

[48:06] while.

[48:07] >> Yeah. uh pre flood value is what is

[48:09] considered.

[48:11] 33 and 34th North Main are slightly

[48:14] ahead of the others in the process and

[48:16] are awaiting environmental work this

[48:18] fall with quotes that they can be

[48:20] demolished in the spring.

[48:23] And then just general public works

[48:25] updates. Uh there's going to be sidewalk

[48:27] work on Elm that has begun. Uh Twin

[48:30] Peaks gravel resurfacing to begin in the

[48:33] coming weeks. Uh downtown grant still re

[48:37] are still searching for a contractor to

[48:39] complete boundary sidewalk and parking.

[48:42] Remaining historical light fixture is

[48:44] part of the project and some way finding

[48:47] signs to be installed next week. Uh

[48:50] class 4 work on Woodward Hill commencing

[48:52] nicely. Uh paving on Lonesome Trail is

[48:56] completed. close out complete of ARPA

[49:01] >> uh from 2024 and FEMA PCCR for soccer

[49:06] bill in progress.

[49:09] So those are his updates your questions

[49:12] for him. I can switch back. Uh I

[49:14] understood

[49:16] we're gonna go 70% of that

[49:19] but I'm happy to hunt down any answers

[49:22] that if anyone does have questions

[49:25] >> questions. Um, one thing, one of the

[49:28] things that we voted on for the triangle

[49:31] for better connections was coming the

[49:33] trees and I don't it doesn't I drive by

[49:36] it every day and I don't see where it's

[49:38] been done and I wondered when that was

[49:40] you can expect that to follow up.

[49:43] >> Okay.

[49:43] >> Yeah.

[49:44] >> Tree removal. We only voted to remove

[49:51] » part of that.

[49:52] >> Yeah.

[49:54] Uh Mike, come on up.

[50:04] » Uh

[50:06] couple questions on the buyouts. Um

[50:12] specifically,

[50:14] do patient benefit forms, uh

[50:18] and I guess any other paperwork.

[50:21] So, [clears throat]

[50:22] are there deadlines associated with the

[50:26] parks? Have the residents been notified

[50:29] of said?

[50:31] Um, kind of a leading question. Uh we

[50:35] are aware of um

[50:39] some folks in other communities who um I

[50:45] think were also part of uh so for those

[50:48] that are not aware yesterday there was

[50:50] announcement that 90 homes in Newmont

[50:53] had kind of finally cleared the log jam

[50:56] by so there's a lot of people that have

[50:59] been waiting a very long time and are

[51:01] now finally at uh next step

[51:07] still process. Um but uh

[51:13] we got word from folks that they need to

[51:17] have their um do forms in within two

[51:19] weeks.

[51:20] >> Uh which uh for somebody who's been

[51:23] waiting for two years and now we have to

[51:26] fill some stuff out uh within two weeks

[51:28] uh

[51:29] >> you know can can shake things up. And so

[51:31] we just want to make sure that um folks

[51:33] are being made well aware. Um also those

[51:37] forms in particular uh on the state um

[51:44] whichever uh on the VDM website they are

[51:50] listed under a category of forms joint

[51:53] property owner and municipality

[51:55] responsibility to complete. So um

[51:59] just want to make sure that uh

[52:03] municipality

[52:04] uh there's some responsibility there

[52:06] that folks are talking to each other and

[52:08] that residents can come to uh town if

[52:13] they need assistance and if they do

[52:16] would it be the town manager would it be

[52:19] who would

[52:21] be

[52:22] they can definitely start

[52:26] Uh I think that is it for

[52:30] um

[52:32] blood related stuff. Um

[52:35] clocking out of proof. Did you say that

[52:37] the market study for Stanley Wson is

[52:40] going to be shared?

[52:44] » Um I believe it's supposed to be.

[52:46] >> Yeah.

[52:48] >> Well, that makes that's going to inform

[52:51] the next

[52:52] >> right. So

[52:53] >> there was a lot of nonpublic information

[52:56] in the sole uh response that didn't

[53:02] >> there seem to be a lot of secrecy for

[53:04] somebody that something that had zero

[53:05] competition

[53:07] >> uh in in a lot of that initial stuff and

[53:10] um

[53:11] >> so

[53:12] >> I don't

[53:13] >> that's great if that's what we're

[53:14] getting in in return for kind of having

[53:17] a non beat for a year and a half then

[53:20] I'm all for it.

[53:24] Thank you.

[53:30] » All right.

[53:44] Uh, select board. We're a

[53:47] little bit off. Oh, no. We're good.

[53:49] We're We're doing good. All right. Um,

[53:52] first item on the select board matters

[53:54] is the adoption of the resolution of the

[53:56] learn tier 1B designation. Is Neil

[54:00] online?

[54:02] >> Neil, I'm gonna ask you to speak to this

[54:05] for me, please.

[54:10] » Sure, I can do it.

[54:12] >> Can you hear me?

[54:14] >> Yes.

[54:15] >> All right.

[54:16] >> Yeah.

[54:20] So,

[54:21] we can barely hear you. I'll introduce

[54:23] it, but I need you to identify the

[54:26] change. Okay. So there was the tier 1B

[54:30] municipal resolution which needs to be

[54:32] filed with the regional planning

[54:33] commission in order to qualify for tier

[54:38] 1B status which is a uh expedited if you

[54:42] will that's my word uh permitting review

[54:45] under uh act 250. We wouldn't have to be

[54:48] doing act 250 and you designate those

[54:51] areas. Um the planning commission met

[54:55] last night. The the uh tier 1B municipal

[54:59] resolution that was posted with the

[55:02] select board agenda was uh reviewed last

[55:07] night at the planning commission and

[55:08] modified.

[55:10] And

[55:12] Neil, that's what I'm hoping you can

[55:14] address.

[55:16] >> Sure, I can do that. Uh so we uh

[55:19] basically sused it out last night at the

[55:21] planning commission. Thanks for

[55:22] everybody who joined um to contribute

[55:25] and uh the uh resolution was modified.

[55:29] One thing was uh the main thing that was

[55:31] struck was um the res the part of the

[55:34] resolution that says whereas we have a

[55:38] flood hazard and river corridor

[55:42] bylaw. Uh we do not have that. That is a

[55:45] specific bylaw that uh we would have to

[55:48] adopt. Um, so we struck that since we do

[55:51] not have that. What we do have is a

[55:53] flood hazard overlay zone which does a

[55:57] lot for resilience and protection, but

[55:59] it doesn't meet the requirements in the

[56:01] state statute of the flood hazard bylaw.

[56:04] Um, so we struck that. Um and then when

[56:09] we struck that, we also had to strike

[56:11] the last part of the preceding sentence

[56:15] um that said uh you would be allowed to

[56:18] include already developed areas that are

[56:22] in the flood zone. So that has been

[56:24] removed.

[56:26] >> All right. So you're really really super

[56:28] hard to hear, but I think what you said

[56:32] was one, two, three, four. The fifth

[56:35] whereas was it needs to be removed.

[56:39] >> Correct.

[56:39] >> And you you've deleted that. And then on

[56:42] the fourth one you had it. It now reads

[56:47] the area excludes identified flood

[56:49] hazard and fluial erosion areas period

[56:53] because of the fact that we don't have

[56:55] the u river corridor bylaws. Correct.

[57:00] >> That's right.

[57:02] >> Okay. So there I thought there was a

[57:05] final one of these around it. The um if

[57:10] you gave it to me, that's a mistake.

[57:13] Um so the request is this has to be

[57:18] submitted to the Central Vermont

[57:20] Regional Planning Commission by the 17th

[57:23] if the town would like to have uh

[57:27] participate as a tier 1B

[57:30] community.

[57:33] Um,

[57:35] >> can I ask something? Can

[57:37] >> somebody explain in layman's terms what

[57:39] exactly that would mean?

[57:42] >> It it uh Well, I'm going to let the

[57:44] planning director do it.

[57:47] >> You should speak up.

[57:49] >> Yeah, you got to speak really loud. I'm

[57:51] not sure if it's the audio here or on

[57:54] your end, Neil.

[57:56] >> It's probably my end. Um, so the tier 1B

[58:01] designation, um, to back up a bit, the

[58:06] downtown designated area that we have, a downtown designation. Um, that

[58:13] downtown designation is being phased out

[58:16] over the next year through the changes

[58:17] in act 250 with the land use review

[58:20] board. So they are recclassifying

[58:24] certain areas into tier one, tier 2, um

[58:28] tier three is no longer around, but they

[58:31] are looking for uh tiers, they're now

[58:35] calling them to um allow for residential

[58:40] growth in particular in our previously

[58:45] downtown areas serviced with water and

[58:47] sewer. Um, and so that would be for us a

[58:51] tier 1B designation, which would allow

[58:54] for a certain amount of um, housing

[58:58] units to be built in our tier one area,

[59:03] which a lot of that is the former

[59:06] village and downtown area without not

[59:09] including the flood zones. Um, and that

[59:12] would allow us to have some oversight

[59:16] without everything going to act 250 up

[59:20] to a certain threshold.

[59:24] » Yeah. At the at the end of this it says

[59:26] now therefore it's resolved that the

[59:28] municipality of Waterberry hereby

[59:30] requests to have the town's mapped

[59:31] future land use downtown center village area and plan growth

[59:38] areas mapped for act 250 tier 1B area

[59:42] status. So it's designating specific

[59:44] areas.

[59:47] » Any questions? Chris, come on up.

[59:53] I watched a short clip on a Zoom meeting

[59:56] on this particular

[59:58] tier one issue.

[1:00:01] >> Tier one A or B.

[1:00:04] >> I don't recall exactly what it was,

[1:00:07] >> but it was in Memorial County, Marshall

[1:00:09] area. Oh, I like that.

[1:00:10] >> And they were having trouble defining,

[1:00:12] you know, what areas because the the uh

[1:00:18] designated area

[1:00:21] was so broad that it covered areas that

[1:00:24] they felt

[1:00:26] were still usable for some form of

[1:00:29] development. So I'm just my question is

[1:00:30] it sounds like they may have ironed that

[1:00:34] problem that question out as to in these

[1:00:38] floodprone areas or floodways

[1:00:41] uh that they may have

[1:00:45] figured out what how to split that out.

[1:00:49] U

[1:00:50] >> yeah from the

[1:00:52] >> stuff that I've been participating

[1:00:53] [clears throat] in um there's sort of

[1:00:55] two different things happening here. the

[1:00:58] town the central Vermont regional

[1:00:59] planning commission is required to uh

[1:01:02] generate a future land use map and

[1:01:05] they've been looking at parcels they've

[1:01:07] been and then they also look at what the

[1:01:10] town already has designated as the our

[1:01:13] plan growth centers and those that

[1:01:16] criteria but they're also looking at the

[1:01:18] floodprone areas. So they're overlaying

[1:01:20] all of this data to identify what can be

[1:01:24] in and what can be out. And the primary

[1:01:28] purpose of this, as I understand it, and

[1:01:30] Neil, make sure you correct me if I'm

[1:01:32] not misstating this, but this allows the

[1:01:36] town to have more control.

[1:01:38] uh kind of gets act 250 out of the way

[1:01:42] for development or for activity within

[1:01:45] the uh downtown center, village center,

[1:01:49] very specific designated areas that I

[1:01:51] read at the bottom. Okay. So, it doesn't

[1:01:54] impact the whole town. It only impacts

[1:01:56] the areas uh that we're looking for

[1:02:00] growth. Right. So, it sounds like

[1:02:01] they've come up with some type of

[1:02:02] formula to allow towns to kind of say,

[1:02:06] "We know this area is safe."

[1:02:08] >> It's a it's a back and forth. So, we

[1:02:10] have the town has gone and the planning

[1:02:12] commission has done a lot of leg work

[1:02:14] communicating with the central Vermont

[1:02:16] regional planning commission. Central

[1:02:18] Vermont Regional Planning Commission

[1:02:19] makes a proposal to lurk to the land use

[1:02:22] review board. So there's these, you

[1:02:24] know, local, regional, and state levels

[1:02:28] of review that have to determine whether

[1:02:30] this all goes through.

[1:02:31] >> So my question, I guess, the bottom line

[1:02:33] question is, it sounds like they have

[1:02:35] land in their feet on something that's

[1:02:39] uh they're confident that will work and

[1:02:42] not just throwing something in for now

[1:02:45] and then end up having to be amended or

[1:02:47] changed down the road.

[1:02:48] >> They're starting with these designated

[1:02:50] areas. Let look at it that way. The

[1:02:53] safer way is there's if the if there's a

[1:02:56] village center, designated village

[1:02:57] center, village area, plan growth area,

[1:03:00] those are the areas that would be

[1:03:02] allowed to have tier 1B status. Tier one

[1:03:06] B stats per

[1:03:11] any other questions.

[1:03:14] Um, we will need a motion to uh make

[1:03:19] this municipal resolution.

[1:03:23] » I'll move to adopt the municipal

[1:03:25] resolution to apply for tier 1B status

[1:03:28] for the designated areas.

[1:03:32] » All second.

[1:03:34] >> Any further discussion?

[1:03:37] All those in favor say I. I.

[1:03:40] >> All right. All sign.

[1:03:44] Um,

[1:03:47] steel room audio visual systems and I

[1:03:52] guess my agenda.

[1:03:55] >> Let's take a look

[1:03:57] >> and added well I added on for it. We

[1:04:01] added what are the arrangements?

[1:04:05] >> So we had I think I mentioned this last

[1:04:07] meeting but we had Peter was his last

[1:04:10] name.

[1:04:11] >> He worked with Fuzbuzz. Yeah, from

[1:04:12] BuzzBuzz come and gave uh toured this

[1:04:15] facility and and his company and he put

[1:04:18] all this equipment in when this building

[1:04:20] was first built and opened up.

[1:04:23] >> I don't know if I don't know if K's hand

[1:04:25] was up for the last

[1:04:28] I didn't

[1:04:30] >> Carrie

[1:04:32] Krie, do you want to say? Yeah, there

[1:04:34] you go.

[1:04:39] » Um yeah, sorry. Um, I I just wanted to

[1:04:43] understand like the resolution that was

[1:04:45] just passed,

[1:04:46] was that with the amended changes or was

[1:04:50] that what was presented to the select

[1:04:53] board

[1:04:55] originally?

[1:04:57] >> Was your motion with the amended change?

[1:04:59] >> I meant the amended version, but I

[1:05:01] didn't actually say that either.

[1:05:05] >> What do you have is the motion, Cheryl?

[1:05:08] uh to adopt a mun resolution to apply

[1:05:10] for tier 1B status the designated areas

[1:05:14] as stated

[1:05:16] that was the motion as stated. Yeah,

[1:05:18] Carrie um great catch I think we either

[1:05:22] need to I don't I'm not sure the

[1:05:24] procedure here but we need to correct

[1:05:26] it. Uh we Carrie the the one that was in

[1:05:30] the packet the planning commission

[1:05:33] identified that we we it can't be

[1:05:38] sub it can't be executed as it was

[1:05:40] written because we don't have a river

[1:05:43] corridor bylaw. So the fifth whereas was

[1:05:47] not accurate

[1:05:50] and so they made a motion last night and

[1:05:55] proposed an edit of removing the fifth

[1:05:57] one and then the fourth whereas ended

[1:06:02] uh afterial

[1:06:06] erosion areas and that's what uh I think

[1:06:09] the board intended to approve.

[1:06:13] Um maybe we need to do another motion

[1:06:16] just to make it official.

[1:06:18] >> I would like the resolution to be

[1:06:20] amended before anything is approved.

[1:06:24] >> So it it falls within the statues

[1:06:28] of the state law and then you'll

[1:06:31] actually be able to have the tier one be

[1:06:36] >> right. And and that was amended.

[1:06:41] Well, I I I don't think it was um

[1:06:46] >> it it it was revised last night from the

[1:06:50] planning commission. The planning

[1:06:51] commission gave it to the town manager

[1:06:53] today and I have it here in my hand

[1:06:56] >> and that's what I was reading.

[1:06:58] >> Great. I would like that to be published

[1:07:01] um before you

[1:07:05] >> before the select board amends before

[1:07:09] the select board like accepts that. I

[1:07:12] think the public should see that. Tracy,

[1:07:15] can you email that to me and I should

[1:07:17] upload it?

[1:07:20] >> I the only change Carrie is that the

[1:07:23] where the fifth whereas was deleted and

[1:07:26] the fourth whereas was short. So I'm not

[1:07:29] sure that we need to republish the

[1:07:33] amended document. It will be

[1:07:36] >> it will be yeah it'll be published after

[1:07:38] it's executed

[1:07:40] >> public

[1:07:42] in the meeting packet and the select

[1:07:45] board voted on and approved another

[1:07:48] >> there's a potential open meeting law

[1:07:50] >> potential

[1:07:52] off the top of my head. Yeah, I actually

[1:07:55] think I did ask this morning that it be

[1:07:58] posted on the packet. If Hold on a

[1:08:01] second and Grace is seeing if it got

[1:08:03] done,

[1:08:05] it may already be up.

[1:08:09] » The version that's on the website.

[1:08:12] >> What?

[1:08:12] >> The version on the site right now is not

[1:08:14] a fresh.

[1:08:17] >> Okay.

[1:08:18] >> Is there a time frame or it's Thursday?

[1:08:21] It's the 17th. It needs to be in by the

[1:08:23] 17th.

[1:08:29] I apologize, but I just want things done

[1:08:31] right. That's all.

[1:08:37] » Dana, you want to come up?

[1:08:40] >> This is a process issue at this point if

[1:08:42] I don't.

[1:08:43] >> Uh, so Dan Allen, I'm commission chair.

[1:08:46] Um,

[1:08:48] heard on the concern. If you read the

[1:08:51] version as amended currently and vote on

[1:08:53] that now, I feel like that's entering

[1:08:55] into public

[1:08:58] >> record. So I would suggest potenti and

[1:09:02] board does what they please on this one,

[1:09:03] but if you read the version as amended

[1:09:06] and then vote on that, make a motion to

[1:09:09] vote on it as amended and as read. I

[1:09:12] think that would allay the concern that

[1:09:14] we're having here.

[1:09:16] >> Just a suggestion you can choose.

[1:09:18] >> Yeah. Thank you, Dana.

[1:09:21] >> And process wise, I do believe voting on

[1:09:23] the amendments first before voting to

[1:09:25] adopt should be two distinct motions.

[1:09:31] » All right.

[1:09:41] Um, I'd like to propose that the

[1:09:46] document that is posted on the website

[1:09:50] is what we were given that um we I would

[1:09:55] accept an a motion to amend this

[1:09:58] resolution that's posted on the website

[1:10:01] identified by deleting the fifth Whereas

[1:10:05] and editing the fourth whereas to end

[1:10:09] afterial erosion areas

[1:10:17] highlighted areas going away.

[1:10:20] Is that what you're

[1:10:23] saying?

[1:10:23] >> That's all that goes away. That's all is

[1:10:25] what is to be deleted.

[1:10:28] >> Roger. I'll move to amend the uh tier 1B

[1:10:34] municipal resolution

[1:10:36] uh to

[1:10:39] remove uh the uh clause except those areas containing

[1:10:47] pre-existing development in areas

[1:10:50] suitable

[1:10:51] for infill development

[1:10:54] and the following whereas the

[1:10:58] municipality has adopted special flood

[1:11:00] hazard overlay district that it was

[1:11:03] consistent with the necessary standards.

[1:11:07] >> Second.

[1:11:09] >> Any further discussion?

[1:11:11] All those in favor say I.

[1:11:13] >> I.

[1:11:14] >> All right.

[1:11:19] » No. Need a motion to

[1:11:22] uh

[1:11:22] >> I will move to approve the resolution as

[1:11:25] amended.

[1:11:27] I'll second that.

[1:11:30] Any further discussion?

[1:11:32] All those in favor say I. I.

[1:11:35] >> Thank you. Thank you, Carrie.

[1:11:38] >> You're welcome. Thank you.

[1:11:40] >> All right. Um, National Park Service

[1:11:44] Resilient Pathways and Back to the Steel

[1:11:47] Road.

[1:11:47] >> Oh, I'm sorry.

[1:11:48] >> That's okay.

[1:11:51] >> I'm getting way late. I'll make this

[1:11:53] brief. Um, Peter gave us a a bid or a

[1:11:57] proposal for the vision of changes in

[1:11:59] this room to remove a lot of this older

[1:12:02] equipment and also to put a 95 in screen

[1:12:05] on the wall. Um, the bit is pretty high.

[1:12:09] I'm going to talk to about it and I'm

[1:12:10] going to do some research about it. Uh,

[1:12:12] see if we can pair it down or wherever

[1:12:14] we're at with it. Um, the audio part of

[1:12:16] it, he says we don't need to buy

[1:12:18] anything. We have all the speakers in

[1:12:20] the room. Uh, Marth and I looked at

[1:12:22] them. I looked at them further. I got

[1:12:23] West to clean them up, put the batteries

[1:12:26] in, and get them all working. So, uh,

[1:12:29] those are ready to be used by the select

[1:12:31] court. My suggestion to the board, and I

[1:12:33] don't know if we have to vote on this or

[1:12:34] not, but let's start using the speakers

[1:12:37] that are handheld. We have a stand for a

[1:12:39] speaker for people to come in who want

[1:12:41] to just make quick comments, not a

[1:12:42] presentation, as [clears throat] they'll

[1:12:44] have a speaker on a table. As I remember

[1:12:46] using this back in 14 through 18, I

[1:12:48] think Chris was on the board with the

[1:12:49] other. We'd use those speakers. They're

[1:12:51] a little difficult because you have to

[1:12:52] have them like right in front of you.

[1:12:55] Um, let's try them for a while with this

[1:12:57] board. See how they are. See if they

[1:12:58] work. If not, we can always put a

[1:13:00] different audio system in fairly easily,

[1:13:03] but let's not spend the money right

[1:13:04] away. His recommendation is try it and

[1:13:06] see how it works.

[1:13:09] Yes, the board is okay with it. Any

[1:13:11] objections? I'd like to start the

[1:13:13] speakers at the next meeting.

[1:13:16] As far as room arrangements, uh, you

[1:13:18] know, my opinion, it's arrangement. I

[1:13:20] think it's just, you know, a gas to the

[1:13:22] public that we have people presenting to

[1:13:24] the board around public matters with

[1:13:26] their back to the public. I think it's

[1:13:28] rude. I remember sitting in this room

[1:13:30] listening to trying to hear somebody

[1:13:32] speaking this way, but they're back to

[1:13:34] the public. I mean, they're the ones who

[1:13:36] own this town and we're all part of it.

[1:13:38] I know we're representatives, but still

[1:13:41] I would suggest and like to say that we

[1:13:43] make this into a beat pattern. Uh so

[1:13:46] that we are all visible to the public

[1:13:47] with speakers on the end, more likely

[1:13:50] this end. And the concern I have is with

[1:13:53] Sandy and Evan plugging in equipment and

[1:13:57] you had a concern about having to turn

[1:13:59] your head to look at the screen.

[1:14:01] >> As it is, I'm constantly looking.

[1:14:04] >> What's that?

[1:14:05] >> As it is, I'm constantly looking to

[1:14:07] >> No, I know. I know. But but

[1:14:08] >> but also we would have to turn to look

[1:14:11] at it while things are being presented

[1:14:13] on the screen. So

[1:14:16] >> how that's any different? I mean

[1:14:19] >> if we're if this is turned out like this

[1:14:22] >> it's only a V. It's not a straight line.

[1:14:24] And my suggestion is for those who want

[1:14:26] to see easier that you're out here

[1:14:28] farther where is this I mean right now

[1:14:30] with Beon I it's hard for me to see the

[1:14:31] screen sitting here because he's right.

[1:14:34] You know, it it actually is a better

[1:14:35] viewpoint.

[1:14:37] >> Shorter people, you need to switch.

[1:14:42] » So, my suggestion is I would like to try

[1:14:44] it and see how these things hook up. I

[1:14:47] know you're to power and I know you're

[1:14:48] hooked up to this machine if it could be

[1:14:50] done. So, you're farther out away from

[1:14:53] the screen and give it a try. So, that

[1:14:54] we're facing the public. I mean, I just

[1:14:56] think it's respectful. And I've seen

[1:14:58] different uh Zoom meetings in different

[1:15:01] towns. You know, I was at the Northfield

[1:15:03] one a few months ago. They're that way.

[1:15:05] I mean, they have they're they face the

[1:15:07] public and speakers are on the side. So,

[1:15:11] >> ask a question. Is there any reason why

[1:15:12] the select board can't be back there,

[1:15:15] the TV be there, and the people be here

[1:15:18] so that we're looking at everybody?

[1:15:22] » Well, the public then would have to

[1:15:24] turn, you know, they would have to turn

[1:15:26] on the screen.

[1:15:27] >> Oh, the public would have to turn to see

[1:15:28] who's on who's

[1:15:29] >> Well, the presentation. Oh,

[1:15:31] presentation. Got it.

[1:15:36] » Oh, my comment to Don when he sent the

[1:15:39] picture of what this proposal was is

[1:15:42] that people are presenting to the board.

[1:15:46] Not it is a public meeting, but the

[1:15:49] presentation is to the board. So, feel

[1:15:52] like we should be able to see what's

[1:15:55] going on, but also they're speaking to

[1:15:57] us

[1:16:00] and not not that they're not talking to

[1:16:02] the public, but the presentation is for

[1:16:05] the board and the public meeting is so

[1:16:07] that others can listen to it, but they

[1:16:09] still are presenting or asking questions

[1:16:12] of the board, not of the public.

[1:16:14] >> What's the concern with the V? What

[1:16:17] >> is this? For one thing, everything if we

[1:16:20] use the way that he proposed it was it

[1:16:22] goes a

[1:16:24] >> So now you can't see

[1:16:25] >> now you can't see this.

[1:16:27] >> Okay.

[1:16:28] >> So

[1:16:29] >> could we try it and and see how I mean I

[1:16:33] think it sounds like it's the angle of

[1:16:34] the V if it's a it's a cute angle or if

[1:16:37] it's an obuse angle

[1:16:39] >> and and I can can make it you know I

[1:16:42] disagree with Sandy. I mean all we do

[1:16:44] here is for the public and the public

[1:16:46] has every right. I remember my first

[1:16:48] principal job uh before met in a tiny

[1:16:51] room with the message being is we don't

[1:16:53] want the public to show up because you

[1:16:54] don't fit and any kind of impediment you

[1:16:57] have that doesn't allow the public to be

[1:16:59] involved and listen I think is

[1:17:01] disrespectful to the community. I know

[1:17:03] we're representatives that they have

[1:17:04] every right. When I sat in the back room

[1:17:06] last November and back there and people

[1:17:09] were talking I couldn't hear. I didn't

[1:17:10] know what was being said. And if I'm a

[1:17:12] community member um and some people here

[1:17:16] I don't there's people I don't know

[1:17:17] maybe they're interested being on the

[1:17:18] select board but they come and they're

[1:17:20] not addressed or they can't hear what's

[1:17:22] going on then they're going to say well

[1:17:24] I don't I'm not interested.

[1:17:25] >> I do agree with the microphone because

[1:17:27] it is hard to hear when you're there but

[1:17:30] I

[1:17:30] >> still

[1:17:32] >> All right, Evan, what's your opinion?

[1:17:35] Let's get the rest of the opinion.

[1:17:36] >> I don't see any reason not to try it out

[1:17:38] for a meeting or two. play.

[1:17:39] >> Right.

[1:17:40] >> I thought we were gonna be trying that

[1:17:42] tonight actually.

[1:17:43] >> Okay, Roger.

[1:17:44] >> Well, Sandy had concerns that I wanted

[1:17:46] to have more of a conversation.

[1:17:48] >> Okay, I want to roll this along. Roger.

[1:17:50] >> Uh, yeah, I want to compliment John for

[1:17:52] doing the research and uh finding a a

[1:17:56] lowcost solution. I don't think it's

[1:17:58] worth a shot.

[1:18:01] >> Mr. Vens,

[1:18:04] >> just my two cents. There's no I don't

[1:18:06] think there's any perfect solution. I

[1:18:08] think trying different options

[1:18:11] >> is certainly the way to go and boil

[1:18:13] down, you know, don't spend forever

[1:18:15] doing it.

[1:18:17] >> Three, four different options. Boil down

[1:18:19] which one works best and along that.

[1:18:21] >> Thank you. [laughter]

[1:18:24] >> All right. Um, we're not going to take a

[1:18:26] motion on this. Let's just try it next

[1:18:28] week or next meeting and if it doesn't,

[1:18:30] you know, we'll we'll get some feedback

[1:18:32] from there.

[1:18:33] >> And you're going to continue to work on

[1:18:35] the audio and the visual. Okay, I'll

[1:18:37] have the microphone set up on the table

[1:18:39] >> and Oh, we're going to use the mic.

[1:18:40] Okay,

[1:18:41] >> the quick question. You said it was a

[1:18:42] high estimate. Can you give us a

[1:18:44] ballpark of how high?

[1:18:46] >> Um, well, I mean, there was a, you know,

[1:18:49] variety of things in there. What was the

[1:18:51] biggest driver was the screen? It was

[1:18:53] very expensive.

[1:18:55] >> And I'm going to do some research on the

[1:18:57] screen.

[1:18:57] >> So, at least we know where you're

[1:19:00] starting.

[1:19:00] >> It's like 17 grand for everybody. The

[1:19:02] screen was about

[1:19:04] >> 78,000 just for the

[1:19:06] >> All right, we're going to move on to the

[1:19:08] National Park Service Resilient Pathways

[1:19:12] October 23rd. Chet. Roger.

[1:19:15] >> Yeah. Um, as has been mentioned

[1:19:17] previously, uh, the National Park

[1:19:19] Service has, uh, offered their technical

[1:19:22] assistance to five communities in the

[1:19:26] Wooki watershed,

[1:19:28] uh, including Waterbury, Morttown,

[1:19:31] uh, Planefield, Mielar, and Barry. Uh

[1:19:35] this was requested by our former uh town

[1:19:38] manager Tom Lights and um so uh he

[1:19:43] invited me to meet with them uh in my uh

[1:19:47] capacity at revitalizing Waterberry

[1:19:52] Discover Waterberry. Um and that

[1:19:55] coincided with a uh change in our

[1:19:59] strategic plan uh to include uh

[1:20:03] promoting

[1:20:05] uh healthier recreational opportunities

[1:20:08] recognizing that Waterbury is known as

[1:20:11] Vermont's recreational crossroads. Uh so

[1:20:14] it was a good uh coincidence for us and

[1:20:18] at the same time uh we recognized that

[1:20:21] the wreck committee uh was uh doing a uh

[1:20:27] some research on improving uh pathway

[1:20:30] connectivity uh led by uh Alec Sherman

[1:20:34] of Wada uh and the rest of the

[1:20:38] committee. Um and so based on that we

[1:20:42] got together with the committee and uh

[1:20:44] the new rec director Erica Linsky uh

[1:20:48] joined and uh we uh hosted a uh summit

[1:20:53] on the uh Vermont uh I mean on the

[1:20:57] Waterbury Trails Summit on the 30th of

[1:21:00] uh April. And since then, uh, we formed

[1:21:04] a, uh,

[1:21:06] a steering committee to try to take what

[1:21:10] we heard and try to develop some plans

[1:21:12] around that. And this was based on

[1:21:14] experience that Vitalizing Waterbury had

[1:21:17] with Jack's Alley. There were a number

[1:21:20] of com uh organizations including uh

[1:21:23] Waterberry Arts and Rotary and

[1:21:26] Makersphere and Revitalizing Waterberry

[1:21:28] that all wanted to try to move that

[1:21:30] together, but we

[1:21:33] concluded that we needed to have a

[1:21:35] steering committee to make decisions and

[1:21:37] actually uh develop and implement a

[1:21:39] plan. So, uh we've got two members of

[1:21:42] that committee that I'd asked to come

[1:21:44] forward. uh Jake Ferrer who's on the uh

[1:21:48] um the rec committee and uh Eric Linski

[1:21:53] who's our rec director. Um because I

[1:21:57] have this conflict of interest of

[1:21:58] serving both on the um select board and

[1:22:02] the steering committee. I'm going to

[1:22:03] recuse myself from any further

[1:22:05] deliberation, but I wanted to ask them

[1:22:07] to come forward and present what has

[1:22:09] happened and why we're moving this

[1:22:12] forward.

[1:22:14] Thanks, Roger. Um, hi everybody. My name

[1:22:16] is Jake Ferrer. I'm a landscape

[1:22:19] architect and recreation planner and I

[1:22:22] sit on the waterway recreation committee

[1:22:25] and I serve with Erica. She's the

[1:22:27] recreation director. Um, as Roger said,

[1:22:31] the recreation committee have been

[1:22:32] leaning into looking at kind of timing

[1:22:34] and pathways and waterberry and in April

[1:22:37] had a trail summit with about 50 people

[1:22:41] in attendance and about 16 organizations

[1:22:45] represented there and there was a very interested contingency within

[1:22:50] Waterberry um to look at improving

[1:22:53] connectivity um and trails within our

[1:22:56] municipality. And so out of that um

[1:23:00] effort, we've been working with Discover

[1:23:03] Waterberry to just try to find a pathway

[1:23:06] forward. And I think we've, as Roger

[1:23:10] stated, felt that having a steering

[1:23:12] committee that can really focus on this

[1:23:15] effort is the best way forward that

[1:23:18] works in tandem with the town uh

[1:23:20] planning commission, recreation

[1:23:22] commission, the department of public

[1:23:24] works, conservation commission um that

[1:23:26] can really focus on trails and the

[1:23:30] implementation

[1:23:32] of the recommendations that are going to

[1:23:34] come out of the town plan

[1:23:36] And I think the reason we another reason

[1:23:39] we feel a task force or steering

[1:23:42] committee is necessary and why not just

[1:23:46] part this on the recreation committee is

[1:23:49] that the recreation committee is an

[1:23:50] advisory committee and Erica is

[1:23:54] ultimately the decision maker there and

[1:23:56] I also have a lot of responsibilities on

[1:23:58] plate already and so we certainly want

[1:24:00] her input and being part of our steering

[1:24:04] committee to feel that having

[1:24:06] dedicated team be working on this topic

[1:24:09] is really important. And looking out of

[1:24:11] the survey information for the town plan

[1:24:13] this year is that trails and

[1:24:15] connectivity and recreation were the

[1:24:17] highest priority of um the town.

[1:24:23] » A lot will be redundant to speak up.

[1:24:26] >> Oh, a lot of what I would say will be

[1:24:29] redundant. So I won't say much but I

[1:24:32] second Roger and Jake are saying also

[1:24:35] from a rec department standpoint

[1:24:37] obviously we would like to focus on what

[1:24:39] our town's people feel is important. We

[1:24:42] know that trails and pathways are

[1:24:44] important. Beyond that we know that

[1:24:45] pedestrian access and connecting

[1:24:49] uh again from a rec department

[1:24:50] standpoint parks and facilities would be

[1:24:53] really great. We all know that the rec

[1:24:55] department of two people cannot focus on

[1:24:58] this year round. We spend about

[1:24:59] twothirds of the year working on our

[1:25:01] seasonal programming. Um, which leaves

[1:25:04] us about a third of the year. September

[1:25:06] being one of the times where we can

[1:25:08] focus on some of our trails and

[1:25:10] pathways. So, to really keep things

[1:25:11] moving forward and not just standing

[1:25:14] still each September to September, this

[1:25:17] committee is really important and very

[1:25:19] helpful. Not only that, I think it can

[1:25:22] help us with some other things that I'm

[1:25:24] hearing are important to our towns

[1:25:25] people and uh tourists and to welcome

[1:25:28] visitors such as improve signage

[1:25:32] um what else for pedestrian access again

[1:25:36] biking people that kind of thing. So

[1:25:38] it's a it's a win-win for town people

[1:25:40] and also visit.

[1:25:43] >> Great. Just the last piece I add um is

[1:25:47] that we also have been acting as liaison

[1:25:49] with the National Park Service in their

[1:25:52] project in Waterberry and that's done

[1:25:54] with the municipal task force but we are

[1:25:56] working with them directly on the random

[1:25:59] meadow design shred that's coming up in

[1:26:01] October and then hopefully that whenever

[1:26:04] they come out with their recommendations

[1:26:06] that this group could also be part of

[1:26:07] the team that um carries those

[1:26:09] recommendations for the implementation.

[1:26:14] I have some questions.

[1:26:15] >> Yes.

[1:26:16] >> Um

[1:26:18] I don't I was struck by the membership.

[1:26:21] Um I really feel personally that there

[1:26:24] should be more and you even just said

[1:26:28] coordinate with the planning department.

[1:26:30] Someone like our planning director or a

[1:26:33] member of the planning commission. I

[1:26:34] think a planning director with more

[1:26:37] staff. So it would be uh more staff. I

[1:26:40] I'm a little confused by

[1:26:43] um

[1:26:46] the heavy representation of just the

[1:26:48] recreation arm of our community and so

[1:26:52] and and discover waterberry. So you've

[1:26:54] got two members from the discover

[1:26:56] waterberry

[1:26:58] Erica two members from the rec committee

[1:27:01] and someone from water but there's no

[1:27:04] planner that looks at what we're the

[1:27:07] town plan has just been created and

[1:27:10] implemented and where you're going and

[1:27:12] where you're not going and who's

[1:27:13] involved with

[1:27:15] >> random metals for example and how much

[1:27:18] is there so I think the balance of the

[1:27:21] membership from my perspective is a

[1:27:23] little that is not as balanced or as

[1:27:26] spread as it could be. Is there a

[1:27:28] community member that's just a regular

[1:27:30] community member that at large might be

[1:27:34] um part of this group that could bring

[1:27:38] their interest of walking around? I know

[1:27:41] that this is focused on the downtown.

[1:27:43] It's not focused on going up to the

[1:27:45] village or up to the center. So, I just

[1:27:48] kind of it just I'm not quite sure where

[1:27:52] I fall on this personally. Just, you

[1:27:55] know, I wonder if you guys could address

[1:27:57] some of those thoughts.

[1:27:59] >> Yeah, absolutely. Um, I think we're very

[1:28:03] much open to additional members. I think

[1:28:06] that list is maybe more of who's

[1:28:08] currently serving and acting,

[1:28:10] >> but

[1:28:12] I think working with the town planner

[1:28:14] and the planning commission more

[1:28:16] closely. you did present to the planning

[1:28:18] commission and I think they don't feel

[1:28:20] like they have the bandwidth.

[1:28:22] >> I that's why I said the director

[1:28:25] >> I'm not sure how much this director has

[1:28:28] time either but

[1:28:29] >> I I certainly welcome them. I think we

[1:28:31] would also welcome um community members

[1:28:33] who are interested as well. I think our

[1:28:36] only concern would be just having too

[1:28:37] many people that's ineffective. So I

[1:28:39] think having a select few would be very

[1:28:42] welcomed and I would say that we are

[1:28:45] interested in much more than just the

[1:28:47] downtown and I think that's one reason

[1:28:49] why the recreation committee wants to be

[1:28:52] more involved. You know, I think

[1:28:54] Discover Water is in charge of working

[1:28:56] around the downtown, but the recreation

[1:28:59] committee and hopefully planning

[1:29:00] commission and whoever else can join um

[1:29:04] would like to have a vision of the

[1:29:06] future and of the larger connections um

[1:29:09] that we clearly hear from our towns

[1:29:11] people that they would like. And so I

[1:29:13] think it is ideally operating at a full

[1:29:18] townwide level and into the state parks

[1:29:20] and coordinating with um state parks and

[1:29:23] the other um privately held publicly

[1:29:27] held lands in our town. So I would

[1:29:31] concur what Martha said. I mean if you

[1:29:33] add two members whether that's planning

[1:29:35] or two community members at large that's

[1:29:37] a team of eight and in my practice here

[1:29:40] you know eight people is about all you

[1:29:41] want it gets up more than that just get

[1:29:44] you know so right now you're sitting on

[1:29:46] six but I think somebody from an outside

[1:29:48] perspective and not necessarily a bike

[1:29:50] person too because it says multi-use so

[1:29:53] you know you got the bike part covered

[1:29:56] kind of at the from the area so maybe

[1:29:59] have large people who could get a

[1:30:02] perspective

[1:30:03] aren't necessarily listen to the

[1:30:04] recreation conversative. That would be

[1:30:08] my suggestion.

[1:30:12] And if you get anybody that's the other

[1:30:13] part of it, but it would to me it

[1:30:15] wouldn't hurt to see the Okay.

[1:30:19] >> Is there an action that is required?

[1:30:23] >> Maybe Roger can correct me if I'm wrong,

[1:30:25] but I believe we're asking for

[1:30:27] recognition as a formal

[1:30:30] Very

[1:30:33] cool.

[1:30:34] >> As a member of the public, not

[1:30:37] thank you for identifying yourself.

[1:30:41] >> Um Jake, you mentioned in in um groups

[1:30:45] that that are potential stakeholders

[1:30:47] here, the conservation commission and um

[1:30:50] so I'm just wondering as another town

[1:30:52] committee that might be worth um

[1:30:55] reaching out to for a voice on the

[1:30:57] steering committee um that might be one

[1:30:59] to consider. I know as a a very outdoors

[1:31:03] person that a lot of our recreational

[1:31:07] spaces um are joining or within a flood

[1:31:11] plane or a wetland area. Um and so um so

[1:31:14] they might have some really good insight

[1:31:16] in public on our public lands which they

[1:31:19] are stewards.

[1:31:21] >> Yeah.

[1:31:24] » That would be nine.

[1:31:27] >> Yeah. However you want to do it. I'd

[1:31:28] still keep it. I think that it sounds

[1:31:31] like we would be

[1:31:34] adopting

[1:31:36] or ex um what's that word I want

[1:31:40] adopting this resolution the founding

[1:31:43] resol founding resolution that was

[1:31:47] presented to us and we've made uh we

[1:31:51] would like I think we have a potential

[1:31:53] motion here to amend it. Okay, hold on a

[1:31:56] second. Can I finish talking about Yeah.

[1:31:58] Okay.

[1:31:59] >> Um I think what we're talking about here

[1:32:02] is to adopt this res this uh founding

[1:32:06] resolution. There's been some discussion

[1:32:09] here that you would entertain adding up

[1:32:12] to three

[1:32:14] members conservation if they want to

[1:32:18] join conservation planning director and

[1:32:21] a public

[1:32:23] >> community member at large. Would that be

[1:32:27] accurate?

[1:32:30] >> Yeah. [laughter]

[1:32:32] >> Do we do we have to say who it is or say

[1:32:35] I mean like

[1:32:36] >> Well, you don't say here other than it

[1:32:38] says a board member from Discovering

[1:32:39] Waterberry or Discover Waterberry. So,

[1:32:41] you don't know who that person is, but

[1:32:43] it's a board member, right? And then

[1:32:46] Waterberry recctor, two members of the

[1:32:49] rec committee. You're not saying who

[1:32:51] they are. You're just saying who they

[1:32:52] represent.

[1:32:54] >> Yes. And so I think [clears throat] what

[1:32:55] we're saying is we'd like to see the

[1:32:57] planning director added. We'd like to

[1:32:59] see a member of the conservation

[1:33:01] commission and a member of the community

[1:33:04] added.

[1:33:06] Carrie, you're on.

[1:33:11] » You must be on mute.

[1:33:12] >> Yeah. Sorry. Thank you. I just have a

[1:33:14] quick question maybe. Um, so

[1:33:19] I is this establishing a committee,

[1:33:24] a subcommittee of the recreation

[1:33:27] committee? Um, I'm I'm getting really

[1:33:30] confused by we have a recreation

[1:33:31] department and a recreation director and

[1:33:35] then we have a recreation committee

[1:33:37] which is its own entity. And so I've

[1:33:41] seen some of the notes and I know that

[1:33:43] there's been a subcommittee created. So

[1:33:47] I I'm just wondering where this falls

[1:33:48] into place.

[1:33:50] >> Good question.

[1:33:52] My understanding is

[1:33:54] >> you guys speak up.

[1:33:55] >> My understanding is this is a new

[1:33:57] committee. It is not a sub.

[1:33:59] >> It's not part of protection.

[1:34:01] >> Correct.

[1:34:02] >> It's not a subcommittee. Am I correct in

[1:34:05] that is what we are.

[1:34:11] So if you are a committee then are you

[1:34:13] subjected to open meeting laws?

[1:34:18] >> Yes.

[1:34:20] >> Yeah.

[1:34:23] >> Okay.

[1:34:25] >> Thank you.

[1:34:27] >> All right.

[1:34:30] Select board questions.

[1:34:33] >> Well, you want me to make a motion and

[1:34:35] we could do it this way

[1:34:36] >> if there's if you would like to. What's

[1:34:37] your pleasure?

[1:34:39] Well, I'll make a motion that um the

[1:34:42] Waterberry Select Board um recognize the

[1:34:46] Waterberry Pathway Steering Committee as

[1:34:48] the as presented

[1:34:50] >> without a with

[1:34:52] >> with the amendment of three additional

[1:34:57] people which could be planning

[1:34:58] conservation member could

[1:35:03] I think we I thought we were talking

[1:35:06] about the planning director not the

[1:35:08] planning commission

[1:35:09] >> or planning commission. Yeah, I'm sorry.

[1:35:10] >> Okay. I just want to be careful what the

[1:35:13] motion is. It be this adding a member of

[1:35:18] the conservation commission,

[1:35:20] a member of the community at large and

[1:35:22] the planning director.

[1:35:29] Roger's going to uh has excused himself,

[1:35:34] recused himself. So, it's up to you to second it.

[1:35:40] >> Sure. I'll second.

[1:35:43] >> So, could you read that entire?

[1:35:47] >> Well, I do have a question about your

[1:35:49] wording. Uh, I have a question about

[1:35:51] your wording. Are you saying could

[1:35:54] include not to exclude uh you know

[1:35:57] because we may or may not get said

[1:35:59] people. So can we be careful about the

[1:36:01] wording please not to you know lock us

[1:36:04] into that and then maybe not have any

[1:36:06] people we need because said people

[1:36:09] cannot join but then who then could be

[1:36:13] beneficial to this committee. still.

[1:36:16] >> Okay, I'm just looking at what the

[1:36:18] document says and it says membership.

[1:36:20] includes but shall not be

[1:36:22] limited to the executive director of

[1:36:24] Discover Waterberry, forward member of

[1:36:26] Discover Waterberry, Waterberry

[1:36:28] Recreation Director, two members of the

[1:36:31] Waterberry Recreation Committee,

[1:36:33] representative of of Waterberry Area

[1:36:36] Trail Alliance, and that the membership

[1:36:39] to be reviewed and approved annually by

[1:36:41] the select board. And I think that the

[1:36:43] question here is that the select board

[1:36:45] is making a motion to add three more

[1:36:49] >> yes

[1:36:50] >> individuals to that list.

[1:36:51] >> Yes. And I believe that this list is

[1:36:54] simply because this is who is currently

[1:36:57] meeting together which was a result of

[1:37:00] the trail summit and people interested

[1:37:03] in moving this forward. So it's not

[1:37:05] necessarily that this group came

[1:37:07] together and said these are the people

[1:37:08] who should be on the committee. this

[1:37:10] list appears to me to be the people who

[1:37:14] volunteered to start a meeting together.

[1:37:16] So I we don't hesitate to be so literal.

[1:37:19] I think we kind of want to open it up a

[1:37:21] little. I think we do want many

[1:37:23] viewpoints. I do think we want people

[1:37:24] from all the um areas you've mentioned.

[1:37:28] But it's not that we came that these

[1:37:30] must be the people on the committee.

[1:37:31] It's just the people who currently have

[1:37:34] volunteered to meet as unofficial. So

[1:37:37] the conservation they may not want.

[1:37:41] >> So Cheryl, could you read what it said

[1:37:44] about adding the

[1:37:47] >> three motion um that the waterway select

[1:37:51] board recognize the waterway pathways

[1:37:53] steering committee um with an amendment

[1:37:55] to membership to add three members to

[1:37:57] the list. Planning director, member of

[1:37:59] the conservation commission, and a

[1:38:00] member of the community at large.

[1:38:03] >> So I'm wondering if we had the word, but

[1:38:04] I could add

[1:38:07] Right.

[1:38:08] >> Yeah. And also these people these uh

[1:38:12] titles mentioned here may or may not

[1:38:15] continue to exist on this committee as

[1:38:16] well.

[1:38:17] >> Well, it says to be reviewed and

[1:38:19] approved annually by the select board.

[1:38:21] So

[1:38:22] >> sure,

[1:38:23] >> you know, that's why I think adding

[1:38:26] those identifiers, the planning

[1:38:28] director, the conservation commission,

[1:38:30] and the community member at large, they

[1:38:32] may or may not be on.

[1:38:34] >> Right.

[1:38:34] We're just asking for that

[1:38:36] representation to be considered and open

[1:38:39] to the that opportunity.

[1:38:41] >> Sure.

[1:38:41] >> So, can I ask a quick question? When I

[1:38:43] was reading through the pathways,

[1:38:47] sort of a mapping, it also included the

[1:38:50] Green Mount Rorow,

[1:38:52] >> the Green Mountain Rors, the Snowville,

[1:38:54] because they work as maintenance on some

[1:38:57] of the trails. whether or not they

[1:38:59] should be I mean I'm not saying have a

[1:39:01] member of there but that they're

[1:39:03] notified of where they're planning to

[1:39:05] move back as far as you know because

[1:39:08] they will be involved if they look on

[1:39:10] the trail. Well, I think as these folks

[1:39:12] have said, anybody can come to your

[1:39:14] meetings, right? I mean, if they want to

[1:39:17] participate, but I guess the point that

[1:39:19] Don and I were trying to make is we

[1:39:21] would like to make it clear, well, I

[1:39:24] personally would like to make it clear

[1:39:26] that the planning director be involved

[1:39:27] because they see the bigger picture than

[1:39:30] just the recreation piece and it's

[1:39:33] multimodal. you know, I think he brings

[1:39:35] expertise and is a staff position that

[1:39:39] would be beneficial.

[1:39:41] Uh, conservation commission, Cheryl

[1:39:44] points out a good it's on none of these

[1:39:46] activities are on public lands which the

[1:39:48] conservation commission is paying

[1:39:50] attention to.

[1:39:52] >> Remember the public is in beholden to

[1:39:54] the bike,

[1:39:55] >> right?

[1:39:56] >> Or to the snowmobile community.

[1:39:57] >> That could be the snowmobile community

[1:39:59] that's the member at

[1:40:02] can be reviewed. I would say

[1:40:05] it says annually

[1:40:08] I think you come back to us and say you

[1:40:10] know this is a new committee we heard

[1:40:11] what you said here's what we've come up

[1:40:13] with you know

[1:40:14] >> yeah I mean honestly you'll get added to

[1:40:16] the [laughter] preoccurring agendas

[1:40:20] so as a new committee

[1:40:21] >> but just be careful like you say you

[1:40:23] don't want 125 to

[1:40:26] >> yeah I think I back that I understand

[1:40:29] you're saying that I think the

[1:40:30] membership list of who's on that list

[1:40:33] will fluctuate and as we get into

[1:40:35] certain projects I'm sure

[1:40:37] [clears throat]

[1:40:37] bring in new members who are interested

[1:40:40] as well

[1:40:42] >> because you don't have a limited not

[1:40:44] membership will be limited to

[1:40:46] >> not be limited it says shall not

[1:40:51] >> right

[1:40:52] >> then you get into like questions of

[1:40:54] quorum and who's a voting member and get

[1:40:57] an actual say in this as a 10th

[1:40:59] committee

[1:41:00] >> I don't feel like leaving that ended is

[1:41:03] a a good idea.

[1:41:05] >> Since I'm staring at the wording, may I

[1:41:07] make a recommendation for maybe an

[1:41:10] amendment to this based on just what I'm

[1:41:12] hearing? Um motion that the water select

[1:41:15] board recognized Word Bay with an

[1:41:18] amendment to the membership to allow for

[1:41:20] the addition of three stakeholders to

[1:41:22] the committee. Planning director, member

[1:41:24] of the conservation commission, and a

[1:41:26] member of the community at large.

[1:41:29] to allow for

[1:41:31] the addition.

[1:41:35] » Okay.

[1:41:35] >> How is that?

[1:41:38] >> Did we Is that

[1:41:39] >> Yeah, that's fine. You have to make a

[1:41:41] motion to

[1:41:42] >> Well, she's she's helping your motion.

[1:41:45] [laughter]

[1:41:46] >> And I don't know if it was seconded, but

[1:41:49] it was second in a motion and then the

[1:41:53] additional discussion brought this up.

[1:41:55] All right.

[1:41:56] >> Do we have any further discussion? Lisa,

[1:42:00] >> what? Oh, Lisa, sorry you over there.

[1:42:08] » Thank you.

[1:42:09] >> Hi. Um, Lisa, whatever it um I just want

[1:42:12] to I'm trying to understand how in the

[1:42:15] grand scheme of all of the boards and

[1:42:16] commissions like where this is going to

[1:42:18] fit in. As you know, we've been talking

[1:42:19] recently about like openings on boards

[1:42:21] and commissions. And so, I think about

[1:42:22] the stuff in terms of like trying to

[1:42:24] explain this to people. So, is this

[1:42:26] going to be a commission, a committee

[1:42:29] just like the other 10 committees that

[1:42:31] are on our list of committees? Will the

[1:42:32] select board be making the appointments?

[1:42:35] Will there be terms of a certain So,

[1:42:37] you'll be appointed at a certain time

[1:42:39] and a term to serve certain amount of a

[1:42:42] certain amount of time. Somebody, you

[1:42:44] know, comes to meetings or they resign

[1:42:46] and we're keeping track. Is it going to

[1:42:49] be like that like all the other

[1:42:50] committees are? cars are going to be its

[1:42:51] own sort of other creature than than

[1:42:55] what the um

[1:42:57] >> the document that's posted that the

[1:42:58] bottom it says the steering committee

[1:43:00] will adopt bylaws to elect officers

[1:43:03] conduct meetings and establish a meeting

[1:43:05] and reporting schedule the great

[1:43:08] question and um I guess the question is

[1:43:12] it would be the same the terms of of um

[1:43:16] membership would be broken up into What?

[1:43:20] Three. There's threeear terms that are

[1:43:22] basically uh what the other committees

[1:43:25] except for the conservation committee.

[1:43:26] They have four-year terms. Would they be

[1:43:29] staggered?

[1:43:30] >> Uh I think

[1:43:33] we haven't talked about that.

[1:43:36] >> Well, it says will be something now that

[1:43:39] >> you've gotten recognized by the select.

[1:43:41] >> Yes.

[1:43:42] >> I don't Yes.

[1:43:44] >> I don't think I'm the one that same

[1:43:46] pattern as the other set up.

[1:43:48] >> Yeah. I don't, you know, this is a

[1:43:50] pathway steering committee. It It's not

[1:43:53] the rec committee. It's not the planning

[1:43:55] commission. It's something between, you

[1:43:57] know,

[1:43:58] >> right? And so I get it just with you.

[1:44:02] >> Just wonder like where does it fit in

[1:44:03] and will it follow a similar kind of

[1:44:05] pattern that the other ones do in terms

[1:44:06] of how they're numbers are signed and

[1:44:10] how they're managed. And so people will

[1:44:12] know, you know, there's a there's going

[1:44:14] to be an opening. So So term is coming

[1:44:16] up. Yeah. And you know, maybe I like to

[1:44:18] serve, you know, try.

[1:44:20] >> Well, Jake, how do you see this

[1:44:22] different from the rec

[1:44:28] uh Yeah. different from what the mission

[1:44:32] of the rec committee already is?

[1:44:35] >> I think what it's a great question. I

[1:44:37] think we trying to tackle that and I

[1:44:40] think what we come up with and what came

[1:44:42] out of the trail summit was a kind of a

[1:44:45] need for a municipal task force not part

[1:44:48] all the responsibility of the recreation

[1:44:50] committee we're not plann

[1:44:54] don't don't have you know the power I'd

[1:44:57] say to make these decisions and I don't

[1:45:00] think we want that to be happening

[1:45:01] unilaterally by the rec committee things

[1:45:04] that would affect the department of

[1:45:06] public works planning commission and I

[1:45:08] think it could happen in the planning

[1:45:10] commission but I don't think they want

[1:45:12] to take that on. So I think this group

[1:45:14] has kind of formed out of the necessity

[1:45:16] and the function of our our different

[1:45:20] committees that know when there's no one

[1:45:21] that really fits this role and I think

[1:45:24] we've seen and heard from our town

[1:45:26] people that it's something that people

[1:45:28] really want and I think it can't be

[1:45:31] something that just is one group taking

[1:45:33] out a housekeeping kind of a coalition

[1:45:35] of people and so I think we would see

[1:45:39] this functioning as any other company

[1:45:41] similar to conservation committee or the

[1:45:44] correct committee having new members and

[1:45:46] openings and new people

[1:45:49] in terms as the other committees do.

[1:45:52] >> I'm not a time check.

[1:45:54] >> Yeah, I know. Uh I've been kind of

[1:45:56] watching that too. Um can you guys come

[1:46:00] can you do you have a calendar of time

[1:46:02] as to when you'll have bylaws in place

[1:46:05] that you could come back and tell the

[1:46:08] select board about? Yes, I think we are

[1:46:11] currently focused on town plan review

[1:46:14] but

[1:46:14] >> okay

[1:46:15] >> we meet currently we meet monthly so

[1:46:17] maybe in November potentially depending

[1:46:21] all the holidays times of course

[1:46:23] >> let's stay in touch but I think it will

[1:46:25] be helpful to have you come back

[1:46:27] question

[1:46:28] >> Carrie

[1:46:32] your hand is up

[1:46:33] >> yeah sorry thank you um I'll get my

[1:46:36] video on too um I I I'm extraordinarily

[1:46:42] confused.

[1:46:43] Um we haven't seen anything from the

[1:46:47] recreation committee since April. They

[1:46:50] missed the last um planned

[1:46:54] commission meeting where there were

[1:46:56] going to have an update. Um and I I I

[1:47:01] I'm just I'm really concerned that this

[1:47:03] is taking a whole other direction. Um,

[1:47:07] we have two departments again. We have a

[1:47:09] recreation director, right, who reports

[1:47:13] to the town manager and that staff and

[1:47:16] then we have a recreation committee,

[1:47:20] um, which, you know, we haven't heard

[1:47:22] much from. And now we're going to have a

[1:47:27] recreation

[1:47:29] task force thing. I I guess I'm just

[1:47:32] very confused. um it in all of that and

[1:47:37] the last thing that I knew was that we

[1:47:41] were

[1:47:43] I don't know six figures in the hole

[1:47:45] with the wreck department and everyone

[1:47:48] was supposed to be working on that. So I guess I

[1:47:53] I'm confused.

[1:47:57] can't respond to the financial

[1:48:00] questions, but I think the only

[1:48:02] correction I would make in what you're

[1:48:03] saying is that what we're proposing is

[1:48:05] not a recreation focused group. It's a

[1:48:08] connectivity, pedestrian,

[1:48:10] connectivity, and pathways group that

[1:48:13] can respond to what we've heard from our

[1:48:16] town and our surveys looking for someone

[1:48:19] to steward pathways and safe connections

[1:48:21] in in Waterberry. I think the recreation

[1:48:24] committee is focused on a lot of

[1:48:25] different things and we apologize for

[1:48:28] not making it soon.

[1:48:29] >> Yeah. An example an example car that is

[1:48:31] you know when Steve Lusby was here he

[1:48:34] pushed really hard to get connected path

[1:48:36] bike path from the race center to the

[1:48:38] village which means you go up the golf

[1:48:40] course. Now there's a path that's brass

[1:48:43] that nobody uses. They go up the road

[1:48:44] and you go down this bumpy, you know,

[1:48:48] it's an awful leg from through

[1:48:51] somebody's yard down through the linky

[1:48:53] street. I mean, it's just and he pushed

[1:48:55] for that and that's where it remains

[1:48:58] there because there's nobody looking at

[1:49:00] that and saying

[1:49:03] >> so so that would help with that. You

[1:49:05] know, this kind of group would help make

[1:49:07] those pathways more accessible for more

[1:49:09] people and more useful.

[1:49:10] >> Yeah. Then what what is our wreck

[1:49:12] committee doing then?

[1:49:15] >> The rec the rec committee

[1:49:17] [clears throat] is currently studying

[1:49:18] the town pool and what to do about that.

[1:49:21] >> Potential future recreation facilities,

[1:49:24] the management of our recreation fields

[1:49:26] and our parks and implementing the parks

[1:49:29] master plans that were previously done a

[1:49:31] couple years ago. and the rec committee

[1:49:34] wants to be involved with this and

[1:49:35] ensuring there's long-term visioning and

[1:49:38] a connection to the recreational assets

[1:49:40] in the town. I think this group is like

[1:49:43] it's almost I'd think about it more as a

[1:49:45] transportation group and more of a you

[1:49:48] know town facility management team.

[1:49:53] Um so operating with some authority

[1:49:57] whereas the recreation committee is

[1:49:58] literally just a planning and advisory

[1:50:01] group. All right. All right. We're going

[1:50:04] to move on here.

[1:50:05] >> We have a vote.

[1:50:06] >> We have a motion on the table. We have

[1:50:08] it seconded. We've had additional

[1:50:10] discussion and I take a vote.

[1:50:13] >> But so the motion on the table then

[1:50:14] there was discussion of amendments to

[1:50:16] that motion and so um I don't there was

[1:50:20] not a motion to to amend them. I think

[1:50:24] they agreed with your edit.

[1:50:25] >> Yeah.

[1:50:26] >> Okay. That was the that was the motion.

[1:50:29] >> Okay.

[1:50:29] >> Can I withdraw my second? I think this

[1:50:31] needs more thought before we take a vote

[1:50:34] on it.

[1:50:35] >> Okay. So, the amended motion, Don, are

[1:50:38] you still making

[1:50:40] >> I was thinking the same thing. I would

[1:50:42] have more discussion, have this written

[1:50:43] up a little differently. Is that going

[1:50:45] to throw up

[1:50:47] anything

[1:50:49] timeline or any urgency?

[1:50:53] >> Um, no. I don't think got a lot of

[1:50:56] feedback.

[1:50:57] >> Yeah.

[1:50:59] I think the only thing is that

[1:51:02] we have we are acting as kind of the

[1:51:05] collaborators with the National Park

[1:51:06] Service currently

[1:51:08] >> as a director.

[1:51:11] >> Uh no it says the pathways steering

[1:51:14] committee

[1:51:16] >> and

[1:51:16] >> which is an unsanctious anti okay

[1:51:20] >> group of people [laughter] who have been

[1:51:23] interested because hasn't been other

[1:51:25] group of people. So I would recommend

[1:51:27] working this document and put you on and

[1:51:29] it shouldn't take very long a lot of

[1:51:31] discussion. So I think

[1:51:32] >> Sure. I think you know your concern so I

[1:51:34] don't think

[1:51:36] >> Yeah. So you're working for suggested

[1:51:38] dialogue.

[1:51:40] >> No no just clean up the membership and

[1:51:42] all that work.

[1:51:45] >> Yeah.

[1:51:46] >> I think yeah we can talk more.

[1:51:49] >> All right. Um the motion is withdrawn.

[1:51:52] We're going to move on to the next

[1:51:55] agenda item and thank you for coming in

[1:51:57] and explaining and let's you know give

[1:52:00] us give us a heads up connect with

[1:52:02] Gracie in terms of when you think you

[1:52:05] would come back.

[1:52:07] >> Okay. Yes.

[1:52:08] >> Thank you.

[1:52:09] >> So a point of order chair I'm wondering

[1:52:13] if some of the committee members are

[1:52:14] here more for the discussion of the

[1:52:16] elected town clerk. Can we move that to

[1:52:18] the next item and do the select board

[1:52:20] rules later? flip those two.

[1:52:22] >> I don't think it'll take that long.

[1:52:24] >> What's that?

[1:52:26] >> That's what I think.

[1:52:27] >> Yeah,

[1:52:28] >> that's my guess. I don't

[1:52:31] >> um I I don't think it'll take that long.

[1:52:33] We I mean I want to get we we're going

[1:52:35] to need to keep moving. All right. I

[1:52:37] appreciate your uh concern and I do want

[1:52:40] to keep the conversation moving.

[1:52:41] >> Is there a second half of that last item

[1:52:44] relating to the October 23rd something?

[1:52:48] They were announcing the sheret that's

[1:52:50] scheduled for October 23rd.

[1:52:53] >> Is there more information about that

[1:52:54] some?

[1:52:57] >> Um, sure.

[1:52:58] >> Yes.

[1:53:00] >> All right, we're going to move on. Um,

[1:53:02] amended to select amendment to select

[1:53:06] board rules of procedure. This is an

[1:53:08] administrative amendment or yeah,

[1:53:11] amendment to the rule. Article five um

[1:53:17] outlines

[1:53:18] um

[1:53:20] the setting of the agenda and the mod

[1:53:23] modification that is proposed is to um

[1:53:28] request that all documentation,

[1:53:30] presentations, etc. materials in support

[1:53:33] of a request

[1:53:35] to be on the agenda be received by

[1:53:39] Wednesday the the Wednesday prior to the

[1:53:42] meeting. The other modification or

[1:53:45] amendment to the uh modification to

[1:53:48] article 5 is that it says the reason for

[1:53:51] the addition or deletion should be

[1:53:55] reflected in the minutes.

[1:53:57] And then the last line has been added to

[1:54:00] say that the town manager, the manager's

[1:54:03] designated staff shall be responsible

[1:54:05] for posting the agenda and all related

[1:54:07] materials and late materials may result

[1:54:10] in an agenda item being removed being

[1:54:13] moved to the next regular meeting. The

[1:54:16] purpose of this is really uh to be

[1:54:20] respectful of the select board's time

[1:54:22] that materials come in on Wednesday

[1:54:25] before in preparation for the agenda

[1:54:29] that the select board has time between

[1:54:31] Wednesday and Friday to review them, ask

[1:54:34] questions, um whatever.

[1:54:38] And then all materials are posted on

[1:54:41] Friday. Um,

[1:54:44] and I hope that it will keep things

[1:54:47] moving a little bit uh smoother.

[1:54:52] That's the request.

[1:54:55] Any discussion?

[1:54:58] Can I take a motion?

[1:55:00] >> Yeah. I don't feel like this gives a lot

[1:55:03] of time to work on documentation and

[1:55:05] presentations in between meetings. Like

[1:55:08] typically there's 14 days between

[1:55:10] meetings and this takes away seven of

[1:55:13] them to do work

[1:55:16] as we [clears throat] in by Wednesday.

[1:55:20] So that cuts our time to prepare that

[1:55:24] stuff basically in half.

[1:55:30] It's not it's it's not it's not just for

[1:55:34] select board. It's for So, for example,

[1:55:37] we didn't get the crew material until

[1:55:40] yesterday.

[1:55:42] So, it doesn't get posted to the website

[1:55:44] by Friday. So, the community doesn't get

[1:55:47] a chance to review it over the weekend.

[1:55:49] I just don't think it's fair that the

[1:55:50] town represent you know the community

[1:55:53] doesn't the staff the select board or

[1:55:56] the town community gets to see the

[1:55:59] materials

[1:56:00] with enough time in advance.

[1:56:04] Sandy

[1:56:06] >> um I just

[1:56:09] about that I we

[1:56:12] are not required to give the public

[1:56:15] which is a courtesy. Um, but I feel like

[1:56:18] this, if we're going to do this, it

[1:56:20] should only be

[1:56:23] I'll get a little bit more firm on

[1:56:25] things that are going to have are going

[1:56:27] to be actionable items, not just

[1:56:29] presentations because I feel like that

[1:56:32] if a person's going to do a

[1:56:33] presentation, they're presenting it to

[1:56:35] us at the time. And if we've got an

[1:56:38] actionable item that people actually

[1:56:40] need to really take the time on, that's

[1:56:43] a whole

[1:56:46] feel like

[1:56:48] um on nonactionable items like when the

[1:56:52] different board committees come and see

[1:56:55] I don't see a problem with

[1:56:58] >> the feedback that I'm getting is that

[1:57:00] we're posting things on the weekend

[1:57:02] people go the agenda gets posted on

[1:57:05] Friday and then things keep getting

[1:57:07] added or deleted or changed and people

[1:57:09] don't know that because they've looked

[1:57:11] on Friday and they think this is what's

[1:57:13] going to be discussed these are the the

[1:57:15] packet of information that supports the

[1:57:17] agenda and then it becomes a moving

[1:57:20] target because things are added later.

[1:57:21] That's what this this is looking to

[1:57:24] address. But we could change it so that

[1:57:27] the email that goes out with the agenda

[1:57:30] doesn't go out until Sunday. It'll be on

[1:57:33] the website, but the actual email that

[1:57:35] goes out saying, you know, with the uh

[1:57:39] with the agenda on it doesn't go out

[1:57:41] until Sunday. doesn't need to go out

[1:57:44] before that.

[1:57:46] So instead of when they get the email,

[1:57:49] it's got a list of everything on it and

[1:57:52] the agenda that can be changed to being

[1:57:55] I mean I'm the one that sends it out

[1:57:57] right now.

[1:57:58] >> So that changes it becomes a staff

[1:58:01] position.

[1:58:03] >> Well,

[1:58:06] all right.

[1:58:08] >> And I I think getting it out Friday,

[1:58:09] people at the weekend look at it. I mean

[1:58:11] getting it out Sunday is Monday and then

[1:58:13] you know you're working full-time you

[1:58:14] know it's like gives you like one night

[1:58:16] maybe or and as far as what you said

[1:58:19] about the seven days or gives you this

[1:58:22] time if you present something tonight

[1:58:25] again if you have to make that much

[1:58:26] changes I think that's you know I get

[1:58:29] your point about there's enough time but

[1:58:31] I can't imagine you'd have to overhaul

[1:58:33] something we said please have it by the

[1:58:35] next meeting there's a deadline if

[1:58:36] you're that close to a deadline if that

[1:58:38] much changes and something isn't Do you

[1:58:41] know what I mean? I don't think that's

[1:58:44] it's a concern.

[1:58:45] >> Roger.

[1:58:46] >> Um, I recognize that we're all trying to

[1:58:50] do what we can to comply with opening

[1:58:53] law and share as much information as we

[1:58:55] can. I think we've done a great job of

[1:58:58] trying to get the information out. And I

[1:59:01] will move to adopt the resolution as

[1:59:04] amended.

[1:59:07] » I'll second.

[1:59:10] Any further discussion?

[1:59:13] All those in favor say I.

[1:59:14] >> I. I.

[1:59:16] >> All those opposed.

[1:59:17] >> No.

[1:59:18] >> Motion passes.

[1:59:20] >> Can I just understand sort out the how

[1:59:23] many of which is it? Okay.

[1:59:26] >> So, three to two. Thank you.

[1:59:30] >> All right. Um,

[1:59:33] discussion of appointed versus elected

[1:59:36] town clerk treasurer positions. Evan,

[1:59:39] this is your

[1:59:42] presentation.

[1:59:44] >> Share my screen.

[2:00:13] You serve me

[2:00:24] now.

[2:00:34] Thank you.

[2:00:36] Yeah.

[2:01:11] It's like

[2:01:14] you just need to

[2:01:18] pray. Oh yeah, you are.

[2:01:24] Oh, there it is.

[2:01:26] All right,

[2:01:28] guys.

[2:01:52] I got to get rid of

[2:01:55] anybody.

[2:01:56] So, this is a a discussion we've sort of

[2:02:00] been

[2:02:04] » various points in the past couple of

[2:02:07] months

[2:02:10] uh about moving the town clerk and

[2:02:12] treasury to an appointed rather than

[2:02:14] elected position. And I put this

[2:02:16] together as a a summary of everything

[2:02:20] we've discussed so far and the next

[2:02:22] steps.

[2:02:24] Uh I wanted to first explain how we got

[2:02:27] to this point and why we're even having

[2:02:28] this discussion. So

[2:02:32] early this year the incumbent clerk left

[2:02:36] amid massive turnover at the town

[2:02:38] office.

[2:02:39] uh exactly the reasons for that I don't

[2:02:42] feel are really relevant to this uh

[2:02:45] discussion at this point in case the

[2:02:48] board has to deal with the issue as it

[2:02:53] came to us. We can't go back and change

[2:02:56] what may have happened with the previous

[2:02:58] board or staff.

[2:03:01] Uh [clears throat]

[2:03:02] the key factor is that it left us with

[2:03:05] this very important position to fill.

[2:03:08] And between the former clerk and all the

[2:03:10] other staff, there was a lot of

[2:03:12] institutional knowledge that was lost.

[2:03:15] Uh to fill that vacancy, we made an

[2:03:18] interim appointment

[2:03:20] uh at the town elections.

[2:03:23] Uh no candidates filed to be on the

[2:03:25] ballot for either clerk or treasurer. Uh

[2:03:29] the previous clerk was reelected as a

[2:03:32] right-in candidate but refused to take

[2:03:35] office again for reasons that aren't I

[2:03:37] don't feel relevant anymore. Uh which

[2:03:40] left us to make another interimm

[2:03:43] appointment. We opened up applications

[2:03:45] and waited and waited and waited. Uh

[2:03:50] and it was I forgot to check the exact

[2:03:53] timeline. It was several weeks that this

[2:03:55] position was opened and I was pestering

[2:03:58] the interimm clerk about whether there

[2:04:00] had been any applications yet and there

[2:04:02] wasn't and there wasn't until very last

[2:04:04] day. One person

[2:04:07] uh put in an application to be the town

[2:04:09] clerk.

[2:04:12] >> Uh I had reached out to people and sure

[2:04:16] the rest of the board did as well. Like

[2:04:17] I reached out to people I know who might

[2:04:19] possibly have been interested. No

[2:04:21] responses.

[2:04:23] uh which is a big problem anywhere any

[2:04:26] year but this is an election year and

[2:04:28] the elections process was already

[2:04:30] starting to get in motion when this

[2:04:32] whole thing was happening. Uh we went through the formalities of

[2:04:40] the interview process but we ultimately

[2:04:42] had little choice but to hire the one

[2:04:44] person who had applied.

[2:04:48] Uh, which tells me that people in this

[2:04:51] town are not very interested in being

[2:04:53] the town clerk, which is

[2:04:57] » it's funny, but it's also a problem.

[2:04:59] Cool. Okay.

[2:05:01] >> Uh, the problems here, the three core

[2:05:05] problems are that there is low public

[2:05:08] interest

[2:05:09] uh in either the election or the

[2:05:11] application process and nobody stepped

[2:05:13] forward to run.

[2:05:16] Uh two is the institutional knowledge

[2:05:18] and experience that we have lost and

[2:05:20] need to try to rebuild. And the third is

[2:05:23] that these roles require some

[2:05:24] specialized skill sets with legal

[2:05:27] compliance managing a pretty significant

[2:05:29] budget and they aren't necessarily

[2:05:32] suitable to be filled by just anyone

[2:05:35] either through an election or through a hiring from a tiny pool of applicants.

[2:05:41] Neither one of those is going to

[2:05:42] guarantee that we get somebody who's

[2:05:44] qualified to do the job well. And the

[2:05:47] fact that our current town clerk has

[2:05:49] been doing well so far uh to me really

[2:05:53] just highlights that it could have gone

[2:05:55] much worse.

[2:05:58] So the proposed solution here is that

[2:06:00] the uh town clerk and treasurer can be

[2:06:04] appointed by the select board instead.

[2:06:06] This is an option that we have under

[2:06:09] state law. Uh

[2:06:12] state law also allows us to elect or

[2:06:15] appoint people who are not residents of

[2:06:17] Liber to these positions.

[2:06:24] Uh

[2:06:26] I see several merits to making this

[2:06:28] change. First is that it allows us to

[2:06:31] pick from a broader pool of applicants.

[2:06:34] uh removing the residency requirement

[2:06:36] enables to open it up to qualify

[2:06:38] candidates anywhere in the state. Uh we

[2:06:41] wouldn't be limited by whoever happens

[2:06:43] to express interest in any given year.

[2:06:48] Uh second, elections aren't a good

[2:06:51] process for finding qualified

[2:06:53] candidates. An interview is a much

[2:06:56] better screening process.

[2:06:58] uh

[2:07:01] elections can turn into a popularity

[2:07:04] contest. They can be in some way

[2:07:06] representative of the town, but there's

[2:07:09] a reason we don't elect judges in this

[2:07:11] country. You know, positions that have a

[2:07:14] specialized skill set need a better

[2:07:17] process for finding those qualified

[2:07:18] applicants.

[2:07:21] Uh third is stability, which is true for

[2:07:24] both the town and the office holders.

[2:07:29] The lack of long-term job security makes

[2:07:32] it un unattractive to potential

[2:07:35] applicants. I know at least one person I

[2:07:37] reached out to back in April

[2:07:41] said, "Yeah, maybe they would be

[2:07:43] interested, but for basically financial

[2:07:46] reasons, they couldn't do it at the

[2:07:47] time."

[2:07:50] uh

[2:07:51] and this greater stability and being

[2:07:54] more attractive goes back into the first

[2:07:56] point

[2:07:58] uh would draw more people to this

[2:08:00] position.

[2:08:02] Uh

[2:08:04] it also benefits the town by keeping

[2:08:06] experienced people in the job for longer

[2:08:09] and that institutional knowledge can be

[2:08:11] built up and we can plan for transitions

[2:08:14] without these sudden [clears throat]

[2:08:16] uh interruptions.

[2:08:20] And the last reason is the one why the

[2:08:23] legislature made this an option in the

[2:08:25] first place. There was an issue in some

[2:08:27] other town where there was uh somebody

[2:08:30] in one of these offices who was

[2:08:32] misbehaving in some way. U it is

[2:08:36] possible for a clerk or treasurer to

[2:08:38] misuse their position. Uh pocketing

[2:08:42] public funds trying to influence the

[2:08:44] outcome of an election. uh or even

[2:08:48] without any ill intent, it's possible to

[2:08:50] do the jobs poorly when missing

[2:08:52] deadlines, losing paperwork, stuff like

[2:08:54] that. And currently, there is no way to

[2:08:57] remove a clerk or treasurer once they're

[2:09:00] in office.

[2:09:02] Uh if these were moved to appointed

[2:09:04] positions, they could also be removed by

[2:09:06] the select board, which provides

[2:09:08] oversight and accountability.

[2:09:11] Um the town would also have some more

[2:09:13] flexibility in terms of defining job

[2:09:15] descriptions and clarifying

[2:09:16] responsibilities or combining it with

[2:09:19] other positions like bookkeeper or

[2:09:20] finance director which is something

[2:09:22] they've also floated the idea of

[2:09:27] uh which gives applicants a better idea

[2:09:29] of what to expect from the job and gives

[2:09:32] us a clearer picture of when those

[2:09:34] expectations are being met or not.

[2:09:39] Uh there are some potential drawbacks,

[2:09:41] some of which we know ourselves and some

[2:09:43] of which have come from the public

[2:09:45] already. Uh first is that it may not

[2:09:48] actually provide the benefits that we're

[2:09:52] hoping for. There might still be very

[2:09:53] few little from interest from

[2:09:56] applicants. You know, if you live in

[2:09:58] Ducksberry or Underh Hill, why would you

[2:10:00] care about being the clerk of

[2:10:02] Waterberry? Like uh it's not your town.

[2:10:05] It's not your business. So it's very

[2:10:07] possible that this won't actually help

[2:10:10] thing.

[2:10:12] Uh second is that the select board would

[2:10:14] be overseeing a position that oversees

[2:10:16] our own election. And some people have

[2:10:18] expressed concerns that that might uh be

[2:10:21] a possible avenue for abuse.

[2:10:24] Uh and third it is removing a choice

[2:10:27] from voters like this is um a choice

[2:10:31] that the voters get to make and we would

[2:10:32] be uh taking that away from them.

[2:10:39] uh to address these in order. I think it

[2:10:42] is true that it might not get us any

[2:10:45] more applicants, but it definitely won't

[2:10:47] get us any fewer applicants.

[2:10:49] I only really see an upside uh in this.

[2:10:54] It might not be a big upside. It might

[2:10:56] be a very big upside, but I it

[2:10:58] definitely won't make things worse.

[2:11:03] Uh second, the town clerk currently

[2:11:06] oversees their own elections. So if we

[2:11:09] think this kind of abuse isn't likely,

[2:11:10] then we should also be concerned about

[2:11:12] it. Right now,

[2:11:14] uh select board members are also members

[2:11:17] of the board of civil authority. And if

[2:11:19] people are worried about us influencing

[2:11:21] the town clerk, they should also be

[2:11:23] worried about us influencing our own

[2:11:25] elections through that avenue currently.

[2:11:27] So, I don't see this getting any worse

[2:11:30] for potential abuse or accountability.

[2:11:33] Uh, again, only upside, the current

[2:11:37] system has no oversight that would let

[2:11:40] us discover improper behavior or if it

[2:11:42] was found, there would be no opportunity

[2:11:45] to correct it except hypothetically

[2:11:48] impeachment by the legislature. But you

[2:11:50] can probably imagine how likely that is.

[2:11:55] Uh, a lot of damage could be done in 3

[2:11:58] years while you're waiting for another

[2:12:00] election to happen and the voters get to

[2:12:02] weigh in again.

[2:12:04] Uh, I

[2:12:05] >> Evan, can I Excuse me. Can I interrupt

[2:12:07] for just a second? So, are you saying

[2:12:09] that

[2:12:11] um an elected town clerk or elected

[2:12:14] treasurer?

[2:12:16] I thought the legislature could made it

[2:12:18] so that they could now be removed

[2:12:20] >> if we move to appointments.

[2:12:22] >> Oh, only if they're appointed. only if

[2:12:24] they're

[2:12:24] >> okay. Thank you.

[2:12:26] >> Yeah.

[2:12:26] >> Okay.

[2:12:26] >> Wait a minute. So, if a town clerk is

[2:12:28] embezzling

[2:12:30] thousands of dollars and they get

[2:12:32] arrested and found out, they remain

[2:12:35] there. No legislative, no oversight by

[2:12:37] the state

[2:12:39] >> unless they were impeached. As far as I

[2:12:40] know, they're in their impeachment by

[2:12:44] the legislature.

[2:12:45] >> So, there is a process.

[2:12:47] >> Yeah.

[2:12:47] >> The state legislature.

[2:12:49] >> Yeah. Right.

[2:12:52] Isn't that Coventry that they couldn't

[2:12:54] get the clerk was in?

[2:12:58] >> It would have to be pretty egregious. I

[2:13:00] mean, you know.

[2:13:00] >> Yeah.

[2:13:00] >> Well, that's why they put this law in

[2:13:02] place.

[2:13:04] >> Go ahead, Evan.

[2:13:05] >> Other positions of county sheriffs and

[2:13:08] states attorneys that have done some

[2:13:09] pretty serious misbehavior recently and

[2:13:11] have not been impeached for it.

[2:13:12] >> Right.

[2:13:13] >> So, I think the chances that the

[2:13:15] legislature would bother with a town is

[2:13:19] pretty unlikely.

[2:13:25] Uh

[2:13:27] and as far as democracy is concerned, I

[2:13:29] think it's already undemocratic. Uh

[2:13:32] after this concern was raised by a

[2:13:34] member of the public, I went into the

[2:13:36] archives and looked at the history of

[2:13:39] town clerk elections. And since the

[2:13:42] since they were moved to Australian

[2:13:43] ballot in 1976, there's only been one

[2:13:46] contested election in this town for

[2:13:48] clerk. and three for treasurer.

[2:13:52] Uh if people are worried about voters

[2:13:57] being able to make a choice, they

[2:13:59] already don't have that option.

[2:14:03] I could tell you the years if anybody

[2:14:06] cared, but it uh

[2:14:10] you know if democracy means people get

[2:14:12] to choose their elected officials, they

[2:14:15] have not been able to do that in this

[2:14:17] century. Even when a town clerk has left

[2:14:20] and the position was vacant, there was

[2:14:22] only ever one uh person running to fill

[2:14:25] that vacancy.

[2:14:28] And it's also important to note that

[2:14:31] moving to an appointed position is not

[2:14:33] something the town can do or the not

[2:14:36] something the select board can do on its

[2:14:37] own. It would be a vote of the town to

[2:14:41] decide whether this is a thing we're

[2:14:43] doing or not. and the town can decide

[2:14:46] how democratic they want this to be and

[2:14:49] how important that is.

[2:14:55] » Uh the town at the annual meeting in

[2:14:58] March would have to decide whether this

[2:15:01] position moves to appointment. It's not

[2:15:03] something the select board can do. We

[2:15:04] can just decide to ask the voters that

[2:15:07] question.

[2:15:11] Uh so that brings us to how I propose to

[2:15:13] implement this change. Uh there's a lot

[2:15:16] of moving pieces here and several votes

[2:15:19] that would have to be put to the public.

[2:15:22] I've reviewed the statutes and consulted

[2:15:24] with PLCT and so as Sandy, she's helped

[2:15:26] me on this. Uh I've come up with a

[2:15:28] timeline that targets the final decision

[2:15:31] to be made at town meeting day 2027.

[2:15:36] Uh there are three different votes of

[2:15:38] the town which we'll go through first

[2:15:41] and then we'll go through the actions

[2:15:42] the board would need to take and when to

[2:15:44] make that happen.

[2:15:48] Uh the first public vote is on whether

[2:15:52] the final decision should be made by

[2:15:54] Australian ballot or whether it would

[2:15:56] default to a floor vote at town meeting.

[2:16:00] Uh uh this would have to be held at a

[2:16:02] special town meeting which I have

[2:16:04] targeted for January 11th which roughly

[2:16:07] aligns with the petition deadlines for

[2:16:09] candidates and special articles which

[2:16:11] are both in the mid to late January.

[2:16:14] That'll give plenty of time for the

[2:16:15] ballots to be prepared and printed.

[2:16:18] Uh this meeting is held at a floor vote

[2:16:22] with like all town meeting questions

[2:16:25] default to and there would be four

[2:16:27] articles which I've written up here of

[2:16:31] whether to use Australian ballot to

[2:16:33] answer each of these four questions on

[2:16:35] the residency and appointment for each

[2:16:38] of the two offices.

[2:16:43] uh this is not what is going to decide

[2:16:45] the question itself just the method we

[2:16:47] use to decide the question. Uh, I

[2:16:51] include this step because I feel very

[2:16:52] strongly that decisions of of this

[2:16:54] magnitude that affect the sort of

[2:16:56] structure of town government should be

[2:16:59] made by as many people in town as

[2:17:01] possible. And we've seen as a lot of

[2:17:04] data to show that Australian ballot

[2:17:06] consistently gets much much better

[2:17:08] turnout than floor votes at town.

[2:17:13] » However, this would be all decided.

[2:17:15] These questions would yes the decision

[2:17:18] about whether to use the ballot is a

[2:17:20] flaw vote

[2:17:20] >> right.

[2:17:25] » Uh the second public vote is at the

[2:17:29] annual meeting. Uh depending on the

[2:17:32] results of the special meeting it would

[2:17:35] hopefully be on Austral on on the

[2:17:38] ballot. Otherwise it would again default

[2:17:41] to a four vote.

[2:17:43] These would all You're saying these

[2:17:44] would all be Australian ballot ballot.

[2:17:47] Australian ballot articles

[2:17:50] >> if if these ones pass.

[2:17:53] >> Right.

[2:17:53] >> Yes.

[2:17:54] >> Right. Okay.

[2:17:56] >> Uh

[2:17:57] >> it would go on there with electing

[2:17:59] select board members, library

[2:18:01] commissioners, all the other stuff that

[2:18:02] usually goes on the ballot.

[2:18:05] Uh if the earlier questions fail, we

[2:18:09] could still put these to a floor vote at

[2:18:12] town meeting. I just feel it would be

[2:18:15] less representative and less fair.

[2:18:18] Uh

[2:18:20] regardless of how it's decided, this is

[2:18:21] when the final decision would be made.

[2:18:24] And uh the

[2:18:27] town meeting warning can and I think

[2:18:30] should include an article dedicated to

[2:18:32] discussing and debating this question.

[2:18:35] It's just that no action would be taken

[2:18:37] under that article if it's decided by

[2:18:41] instead.

[2:18:45] Uh the third vote that I am proposing

[2:18:49] and I I want to make clear that uh Sandy

[2:18:53] does not support this after our

[2:18:54] discussions uh but I feel that it's a

[2:18:57] related and should be asked at the same

[2:19:00] time uh whether to seek a charter change

[2:19:03] to enable recall elections for town

[2:19:06] officers.

[2:19:08] uh a

[2:19:11] this is a accountability measure for

[2:19:13] members of the select board to help

[2:19:15] alleviate some of the concerns mentioned

[2:19:17] earlier about democracy and the power

[2:19:19] dynamics and potential for malfeasants.

[2:19:22] Uh

[2:19:24] applying for a charter change comes with

[2:19:26] its own separate procedure

[2:19:29] uh and requirements. It's a decision

[2:19:31] that would ultimately be made by the

[2:19:33] legislature. Uh but this is the town can

[2:19:36] vote to sort of kick this off and make a

[2:19:38] formal request to them. This is also

[2:19:41] targeted for town meeting to maximize

[2:19:45] the public turnout and

[2:19:47] uh decide the question will people have

[2:19:50] it in their minds and they're deciding

[2:19:52] the other questions.

[2:19:58] Uh that brings us to the select board

[2:20:01] actions that would be needed to

[2:20:03] implement

[2:20:04] uh this timeline.

[2:20:07] Uh each of these

[2:20:10] special meetings comes with its own

[2:20:12] warning requirements which I didn't

[2:20:14] include on this calendar because it's

[2:20:16] already cluttered enough.

[2:20:18] But I chose these dates to align with

[2:20:20] our regular meetings

[2:20:23] um throughout December, January, and

[2:20:25] February.

[2:20:27] Um with the exception of the January

[2:20:29] 11th special town meeting because that

[2:20:32] is a town meeting, not a select court

[2:20:34] meeting. And the LCT advised it should

[2:20:36] not be combined because it's a different

[2:20:39] group of people making that decision.

[2:20:42] Uh

[2:20:47] the warnings for the special town

[2:20:51] meeting would be uh finalized on

[2:20:53] December 1st. Warnings for the two

[2:20:57] hearings regarding the charter change

[2:20:59] would be uh finalized on December 15th.

[2:21:03] Uh January 19th is when we would be

[2:21:06] finalizing the town meeting boarding if

[2:21:09] not sooner.

[2:21:11] uh would also be holding the first of

[2:21:14] the twoformational hearings about the

[2:21:16] charter change. And

[2:21:18] >> these are public information.

[2:21:20] >> Yes,

[2:21:21] >> it just says information, but this is

[2:21:23] open to the public.

[2:21:24] >> Yeah, publicformational hearing like we

[2:21:26] had at our our last meeting about

[2:21:27] donations.

[2:21:32] uh February 2nd would have

[2:21:34] theformational hearing about the uh

[2:21:38] final decision and we've

[2:21:42] uh heard from some town clerks in other

[2:21:45] towns that have considered this and made

[2:21:48] that decision who would be willing to

[2:21:49] come and speak with us about their uh

[2:21:52] opinions on the matter. And this would

[2:21:54] be when I would target most of our

[2:21:57] public outreach forward. If uh if people

[2:22:02] want to come express their opinions

[2:22:03] about it, this would be the time to do

[2:22:05] it.

[2:22:07] Um

[2:22:09] February 16th would be the

[2:22:10] secondformational hearing and then the

[2:22:12] final decision is March 2nd at the

[2:22:14] annual meeting.

[2:22:18] So the question for the board tonight is

[2:22:22] are the rest of you interested in

[2:22:24] pursuing this and if so on this timeline

[2:22:30] go forward with some parts of it not

[2:22:32] others

[2:22:34] >> that timeline.

[2:22:35] >> Yeah.

[2:22:36] >> Okay. Thank you.

[2:22:37] >> And are there any other questions that

[2:22:39] still need to be answered before we make

[2:22:41] uh decision about this?

[2:22:46] I have a question.

[2:22:47] >> Yeah.

[2:22:48] >> Um just because my brain works in

[2:22:50] buckets. Um

[2:22:53] the

[2:22:56] I'm not I don't I'm not following the

[2:22:58] charter change, but the charter change

[2:23:00] does not relate does the charter change

[2:23:03] relate to

[2:23:05] the process of determining appointed

[2:23:09] versus elected town clerk and town

[2:23:13] >> procedurally. completely separate.

[2:23:15] >> I included it because conceptually I

[2:23:17] think of them as related and and being

[2:23:20] tied together, but procedurally two

[2:23:23] separate things.

[2:23:25] >> How are they related? I don't understand

[2:23:28] what you

[2:23:28] >> because the reason I propose the charter

[2:23:30] change is to address the concerns about

[2:23:33] accountability

[2:23:36] regarding the select board having that

[2:23:39] power over the town clerk.

[2:23:43] Um,

[2:23:44] >> so you could remove the select board

[2:23:48] at this point.

[2:23:49] >> What did you say?

[2:23:50] >> You could remove the select board if you

[2:23:52] felt they were abusing the town clerk.

[2:23:55] >> All right. Thanks.

[2:23:56] >> And I I felt like if we're asking the

[2:23:58] town to give us more authority, we

[2:23:59] should offer more accountability as

[2:24:01] well.

[2:24:02] if the town if if all of this went

[2:24:05] through

[2:24:07] and there was a change to appoint these

[2:24:10] positions,

[2:24:12] uh it's called appointed, but it would

[2:24:14] be very I mean I would expect it to be

[2:24:16] similar to the way we hire the town

[2:24:20] manager.

[2:24:21] >> Yeah.

[2:24:22] >> So there's you know like we could do

[2:24:23] even the select board could have three

[2:24:25] committee teams and Okay.

[2:24:27] >> Yeah.

[2:24:28] >> It's not just the select board.

[2:24:30] >> Yeah.

[2:24:31] Legally, it's Justice Black, but I think

[2:24:35] they're in charge of the process,

[2:24:36] >> right? Okay. All right.

[2:24:41] » Um, yeah. Uh, first of all, thanks for

[2:24:44] doing all this work.

[2:24:45] >> Yeah, a lot of work there.

[2:24:47] >> Um, I are we the first, uh, municipality

[2:24:52] to, uh, be pursuing this appointment

[2:24:56] versus elected?

[2:24:59] >> No. Uh I don't know the exact numbers

[2:25:01] off hand but it's somewhere in the range

[2:25:03] of

[2:25:05] 60ish towns have changed the clerk and

[2:25:08] somewhere around 90 have changed the

[2:25:10] treasurer and

[2:25:14] » not a majority of towns by any means but

[2:25:16] a pretty fair chunk of them have have

[2:25:18] considered this and a lot of them have

[2:25:20] made a change

[2:25:22] >> and we could pursue this without having

[2:25:26] to pursue a charter change if if we were

[2:25:29] If it passed to go to move to

[2:25:32] appointment, then the select board would

[2:25:35] have a procedure to move the town clerk

[2:25:38] if the case of the dozen. Yeah, they're

[2:25:40] malfunctions.

[2:25:41] >> Correct. These are options that already

[2:25:43] exist in state law

[2:25:46] both for the appointments and the

[2:25:48] residency. That's not part of the

[2:25:51] chaggeration.

[2:25:54] This wouldn't um because it doesn't

[2:25:57] happen until town meeting day.

[2:26:02] We're still going to elect a treasurer

[2:26:05] and town clerk at the next town meeting

[2:26:08] day regard.

[2:26:10] >> Yes.

[2:26:11] >> And what term are those two positions?

[2:26:16] uh they would be elected for a

[2:26:17] three-year term and then if the

[2:26:19] appointment vote passes uh it would be

[2:26:23] 45 days from that point which would be

[2:26:26] April 16th is when those terms would end

[2:26:29] or whenever the select court makes its

[2:26:31] appointment whichever comes first.

[2:26:33] >> Wait, so it's three years plus No, it

[2:26:36] replaces it replaces the three. Okay,

[2:26:39] that's what I saw. All right, thank you.

[2:26:42] >> All right, hold on a second. I just want

[2:26:45] to get the rest of the board here.

[2:26:46] >> Just one question. On March 2nd, it says

[2:26:48] include time for public discussion on

[2:26:50] the floor. Meanwhile, people are voting

[2:26:52] on Australia.

[2:26:53] >> Yes,

[2:26:54] >> it seems a little comfortable. I mean,

[2:26:56] some people are getting information

[2:26:58] questions. I voted early and I get

[2:27:00] there. I wish I would have known.

[2:27:03] >> Yeah, I know that seems a little long to

[2:27:05] me. It's not electioneering at a polling

[2:27:08] place because there's a specific carve

[2:27:09] out in the electioneering at a polling

[2:27:13] place law that says you can do this. You

[2:27:15] can discuss Australian ballot items from

[2:27:18] the law tell but it would be

[2:27:23] a little convoluted. Yes, people voted

[2:27:26] early.

[2:27:27] >> But that's why you have twoformational

[2:27:29] meetings. Okay. I just wanted to make

[2:27:32] sure and you'd want to be encouraging

[2:27:34] people to go to those first two

[2:27:35] meetings.

[2:27:36] >> Yeah.

[2:27:37] >> Sandy, did you um The only thing I I

[2:27:40] guess have to say before we go any

[2:27:43] further with any of this, the select

[2:27:46] have the right or the

[2:27:49] um the ability to put these on the town

[2:27:53] meeting articles without having any. So,

[2:27:58] I think the question is, do we even want

[2:28:01] to do that? Because it would have to be

[2:28:03] the majority of us deciding yes, we want

[2:28:06] this on the town meeting articles.

[2:28:10] And if everyone says yes or a portion of

[2:28:13] it, yeah, we'd like to do the town

[2:28:14] clerk, we don't want to use the town. I

[2:28:17] mean, it's the board's decision to do it

[2:28:19] or not do it. And then

[2:28:22] >> put it on the

[2:28:23] >> put it on Exactly. not to make the

[2:28:25] decision but to put it as a floor vote,

[2:28:28] we have the right to do that as the

[2:28:31] governing

[2:28:32] whatever the legislative body for the

[2:28:35] town. So if none of us are interested in

[2:28:39] doing that, then we're done.

[2:28:42] Um maybe we're interested in only the

[2:28:45] like I said the town clerk only, not the

[2:28:47] treasurer. Maybe we're interested in

[2:28:50] dropping the residency on both one. I

[2:28:54] mean all of these are articles. If

[2:28:56] nobody wants to do any of it or we only

[2:28:59] want to do one or two at that point we

[2:29:02] decide okay the next step is to work on

[2:29:08] making this or asking the town whether

[2:29:10] or not they want to put this as a

[2:29:13] Australian bow. So that's kind of where

[2:29:15] we are where I feel like you maybe

[2:29:17] should just figure out whether or not

[2:29:19] people even want to go any further.

[2:29:23] Great. Let's just hear from who's here.

[2:29:27] Come on up, Bill. I'm just gonna go

[2:29:28] around the room here.

[2:29:30] Um

[2:29:31] >> I hope I'm not two minutes because

[2:29:33] there's a lot of stuff that I here. Um

[2:29:37] first of all,

[2:29:37] >> I'll give you three.

[2:29:40] >> I I disagree with the number of premises

[2:29:46] that

[2:29:48] were stated as this is necessary. really

[2:29:52] uh we had a debacle in East town uh in

[2:29:57] 25 and into 26 with regard to

[2:30:02] you know 10 people leaving this uh

[2:30:06] employment in this town. Uh the town

[2:30:10] clerk resigned, manager resigned. uh it

[2:30:13] was not a fun situation

[2:30:17] and I think to to take a big leap to say

[2:30:21] that we have to go through this whole

[2:30:23] process to elect uh to to rid ourselves

[2:30:29] of electing courts and treasuries is a

[2:30:32] big overreach right now. I think that

[2:30:35] maybe you could let the town let things

[2:30:39] settle. We have a new town manager now.

[2:30:41] We have a new select board now. And

[2:30:43] yeah, you had you had difficulty getting

[2:30:46] people applying for this position. And I

[2:30:49] hope I don't offended people at this

[2:30:51] board, but the there were 300 voters who

[2:30:55] elected somebody to the town clerk's

[2:30:58] office. Even though nobody ran, there

[2:31:01] was somebody elected to that position.

[2:31:03] There was somebody elected to the town

[2:31:04] treasurer's position. This board chose

[2:31:07] not to even talk to that person. She

[2:31:10] came. No, let me finish. Okay.

[2:31:13] [clears throat]

[2:31:13] >> She came in at the at the 9th hour, the

[2:31:17] 11th hour, whatever, whatever you want

[2:31:19] to call it, and said that she wasn't

[2:31:22] interested. But prior to that,

[2:31:25] all the communication and the public got

[2:31:28] to to know was what happened. We didn't

[2:31:31] know what happened at executive session

[2:31:33] here.

[2:31:33] >> We're going to debate that, okay?

[2:31:36] side of the story and the board has

[2:31:38] another side of the story and and what

[2:31:40] evidence the question here is whether

[2:31:43] the town whether the select board should

[2:31:45] be looking at appointed versus elected.

[2:31:48] Let's not we're not going to go into who

[2:31:50] said, she said, they said, he said.

[2:31:53] >> Okay, let's be where we are right now.

[2:31:54] >> Let's where this is where we are now.

[2:31:56] >> That's fine then. Is that's fine.

[2:32:01] So, we got to the point where where the elected clerk decided not to take

[2:32:08] the position. And now we're here. We've

[2:32:12] got a town clerk. We've got a town

[2:32:14] treasurer. and we have a good town

[2:32:17] manager. The town treasurer's position,

[2:32:20] I think, you know, I would like to have

[2:32:22] you give Gracie some opportunity to to

[2:32:26] decide what she might need in terms of

[2:32:29] having a staff here. I don't know, maybe

[2:32:33] you know, but I don't think the public

[2:32:35] knows all of her skill sets. Is she's

[2:32:38] got good experience with budgeting? Is

[2:32:40] she an accountant? Does she know how to uh direct the bookkeeper? I don't

[2:32:45] know. So, this is a big step, but let's

[2:32:51] just talk about this. Your proposal to

[2:32:55] um you know, I agree with Sandy. If

[2:32:58] you're going to do this at all, just put

[2:33:00] it on the town meeting agenda. We had a

[2:33:02] town meeting two years ago and we had a

[2:33:05] lot of discussion about whether we want

[2:33:07] to go to Australian ballot and the

[2:33:09] voters clearly said no, they didn't want

[2:33:13] to do that. You're proposing to have a

[2:33:16] special town meeting in January to have

[2:33:20] a discussion about whether we want to go

[2:33:22] to Australian ballot for this one

[2:33:24] question.

[2:33:26] I think you're going to have very few

[2:33:28] people there. Uh so maybe you get what

[2:33:30] you want. Secondly, if you have that

[2:33:33] vote on January 11th, have you factored

[2:33:36] into the equation that there's a 30-day

[2:33:38] appeal period where people can have a

[2:33:41] petition and decide to overturn what

[2:33:43] they did on January 11th? That would you

[2:33:46] could have a petition that comes in on February 11th that says you have to

[2:33:51] have another town meeting to to

[2:33:53] reconsider the decision that was made on

[2:33:56] January about it. And you need a 30-day

[2:33:58] warning for that. So that puts you to

[2:34:00] March 11th, which is after town meeting.

[2:34:03] So I think your timeline is a little bit

[2:34:05] next time.

[2:34:07] >> So anyway, I think that if you're going

[2:34:09] to do this at all, just put it on the

[2:34:12] agenda. But I would suggest that

[2:34:16] over 200 years, we've elected clerks in

[2:34:18] this community. We've never had

[2:34:20] difficulty. Maybe we didn't have people

[2:34:23] running for the position, but how many

[2:34:25] of you select board members over the

[2:34:26] past 35 years have had uncontested

[2:34:29] races? I wouldn't get too worked up

[2:34:32] about

[2:34:33] >> Thank you.

[2:34:34] >> Rick West

[2:34:43] and town resident. Um,

[2:34:47] I'm going to start by saying I actually

[2:34:49] favor the appointment of the clerk and

[2:34:52] treasure, but I agree with

[2:34:55] some of the things that Bill said, which

[2:34:57] are essentially

[2:34:59] go slowly and really work this through

[2:35:01] and think about just what it is you want

[2:35:03] to do. Um,

[2:35:06] my reasons for

[2:35:09] making that appointment actually made

[2:35:10] sense. um despite the few hundred years

[2:35:14] of

[2:35:16] success we've had in the current system

[2:35:17] and I I don't actually doubt that

[2:35:20] although I haven't read the history

[2:35:22] books uh

[2:35:25] always start with asking question what

[2:35:29] problem is it that you're trying to

[2:35:31] resolve the problem it seems to me that

[2:35:35] we have it that was exposed in in the uh

[2:35:39] activity

[2:35:42] in everything that happened in the last

[2:35:43] two years is that um

[2:35:47] there's a mismatch between authority and

[2:35:49] responsibility. It seems quite odd at

[2:35:52] times that uh an appointed official town

[2:35:55] manager

[2:35:58] is in a position awkward position of

[2:36:03] directing and cannot direct the

[2:36:06] activities of an elected official.

[2:36:09] The clerk and the treasurer are both

[2:36:13] roles that are primarily

[2:36:15] in my view and I could be wrong about

[2:36:17] this non-political but and therefore

[2:36:21] administrative and ministerial primarily

[2:36:25] and that's important. So electing

[2:36:29] those positions

[2:36:34] doesn't have for me the uh

[2:36:40] with of is that the right word of um

[2:36:46] democratic concern that's being raised

[2:36:48] here and by the way the use of the word

[2:36:52] democratic or democracy in this

[2:36:54] discussion seems to be tied entirely to

[2:36:58] the electoral process and the electoral

[2:37:01] process is not the only means by which

[2:37:04] we exercise or act in democratic ways.

[2:37:09] My opinions on appointments versus uh

[2:37:12] well no versus well yes I guess versus

[2:37:15] elections are already on record uh in

[2:37:18] the Waterbury rounded out just a month

[2:37:21] and a half ago not with respect to this

[2:37:23] issue but um

[2:37:26] there's a general matter

[2:37:29] with respect to the roles

[2:37:32] and responsibilities of the legislators

[2:37:34] and um the commissions that they

[2:37:39] have some experience in this. So I feel

[2:37:41] strongly that I it's

[2:37:45] entirely within the

[2:37:49] jurisdiction and authority of

[2:37:51] elected bodies of legislators to appoint

[2:37:54] commissioners to to do [clears throat]

[2:37:56] specified limited work on their behalf.

[2:38:01] I think that

[2:38:03] I see no reason why the the roles of the

[2:38:05] clerk and the treasur fit in that in

[2:38:08] that

[2:38:11] view.

[2:38:12] So I would merely I'll finish up by

[2:38:14] saying I think you should seriously

[2:38:17] consider this the process that we choose

[2:38:20] to do this. I think Bill is right that

[2:38:24] and Sandy are right we shouldn't blush

[2:38:27] this. we should think long and hard

[2:38:29] about it and and have the kinds of

[2:38:32] public discussions in which these views

[2:38:35] get aired. Um,

[2:38:38] and I would just say that

[2:38:41] I guess I've already said it. I'm not

[2:38:42] worried about select board abuse. Uh, me

[2:38:45] neither. I I don't actually I I don't

[2:38:48] like the idea that my initial reaction

[2:38:50] to the proposed trigger change is uh

[2:38:54] negative. Okay.

[2:38:56] Recalling elected officials because

[2:39:00] we have elections every year. That's

[2:39:02] what elections are. They are recalls.

[2:39:05] We've already got that need. So, I'd be

[2:39:06] careful about that. Very. Um,

[2:39:11] and lastly, um, well, I've just said it.

[2:39:13] I don't think that that a legislative

[2:39:16] body appointing

[2:39:19] officials to do specific

[2:39:24] um

[2:39:26] work that is within their jurisdiction of the legislative body and

[2:39:31] then

[2:39:33] specifically defined for the positions.

[2:39:35] I don't think that's undemocratic.

[2:39:38] I think that human ele

[2:39:41] Thank you.

[2:39:42] >> Thank you.

[2:39:49] My first initial question was um we

[2:39:52] don't need to answer it right now.

[2:39:54] There's no law in state legislature that

[2:39:57] if a town u

[2:40:00] clerk or treasurer somehow abuses their

[2:40:04] position [clears throat] that there can

[2:40:06] be a special election to

[2:40:10] recall or vote that person out. That was

[2:40:15] second question is if the board if

[2:40:18] you're asking

[2:40:20] for

[2:40:22] a vote on whether or not to allow the

[2:40:25] select board to appoint these positions

[2:40:29] with the revolving select board year

[2:40:32] over year

[2:40:34] who fires those people if need be? Is it

[2:40:39] then become the town manager's position

[2:40:41] to do that or does the select board that

[2:40:45] perhaps didn't hire that person now have

[2:40:48] the responsibility to fire that person

[2:40:52] >> is the select

[2:40:54] >> whoever whoever happens to consistent

[2:40:57] >> I see that problematic because the

[2:41:01] future select board that may have to

[2:41:03] deal with some needless action for

[2:41:05] whatever reason doesn't know how that

[2:41:08] person got put there. It just seems like

[2:41:10] it's shifting the responsibility to

[2:41:13] different people who may not be all in

[2:41:17] on what could place get that person, you

[2:41:21] know, to have a desire to have that

[2:41:23] person move. That's just my thought

[2:41:26] process.

[2:41:27] >> And then how does that conflict with the

[2:41:30] town manager's

[2:41:32] relationship, if any, with those two?

[2:41:35] [clears throat] Those two P those two

[2:41:37] positions have three-year contracts. Is

[2:41:40] that what you're Is that I mean you're

[2:41:43] >> That's Yeah.

[2:41:43] >> Yeah.

[2:41:44] >> I mean, I would set it up as an

[2:41:46] indefinite contract like the manager.

[2:41:49] >> Well, no. Manager has a three-year

[2:41:52] contract.

[2:41:53] >> That's negotiable.

[2:41:56] >> So, how is that any different than

[2:41:58] electing the town people electing?

[2:42:00] >> As Evan just said, I don't think you

[2:42:02] heard it. She doesn't have to petition

[2:42:04] for her. But that's completely all of a

[2:42:07] sudden Gracie who you know would rather

[2:42:10] have

[2:42:13] no different

[2:42:14] >> what I just recognizes she doesn't have

[2:42:15] to petition for her. Well, that's part

[2:42:18] of the problem, you know,

[2:42:21] people don't want a petition [laughter]

[2:42:23] for the for the petition.

[2:42:26] That's a drawback,

[2:42:27] >> right?

[2:42:28] >> But that's an ad. I mean, everybody's,

[2:42:31] >> you know, and uh so and then as far as

[2:42:34] the charter change, I agree with Rick.

[2:42:37] >> To me, that seems like it's stepping

[2:42:39] into the realm of,

[2:42:42] you know, your tight.

[2:42:45] >> Yeah. transition. I'd rather see that

[2:42:48] just

[2:42:50] >> again that's an option for the voters in

[2:42:52] the town. If they don't ever want to

[2:42:54] remove any of us, they don't ever

[2:42:56] circulate a petition.

[2:43:01] » I'll be very brief.

[2:43:05] I I don't want to recant what a lot of

[2:43:08] the other folks have said, but I do

[2:43:11] think

[2:43:13] something that the select board needs to

[2:43:16] consider. I do think the problem with

[2:43:20] like if if you have a rogue

[2:43:24] uh

[2:43:25] treasurer or town clerk, that's what the

[2:43:30] legal systems for them in jail. Hey, I'm

[2:43:34] Scott with money. I'm sorry. I believe

[2:43:36] in law and order. You know, if someone

[2:43:39] does something illegal, they should be

[2:43:41] put in jail.

[2:43:43] >> But but then they're sitting in jail and

[2:43:46] we have no clerk.

[2:43:49] >> I understand. But to me, if someone does

[2:43:52] something so heinous they can be money.

[2:43:55] >> I understand it. What you're

[2:43:56] [clears throat] saying is if it's an

[2:43:58] elected position, right, that's that

[2:44:00] elected position. That elected person is

[2:44:03] sitting in the jail not taking care of

[2:44:05] our town.

[2:44:07] >> Elections.

[2:44:08] >> We have to have a new election.

[2:44:11] >> I

[2:44:11] >> Okay. I just wanted to

[2:44:13] >> I totally understand that. And I maybe

[2:44:17] um Evan could clarify this. If we have a

[2:44:20] town clerk sitting in a jail cell, we

[2:44:23] have no recourse to hire, you know, to

[2:44:26] have a new election.

[2:44:28] >> Not that I'm aware of at all. They're

[2:44:31] still the town clerk in jail.

[2:44:33] >> Exactly.

[2:44:33] >> Would have to go to the legisle, right?

[2:44:34] I mean, they would have they would have

[2:44:38] problem. You know, I I do just in

[2:44:40] summary, I do believe because these

[2:44:43] positions have become so complex that I

[2:44:47] think appointment does make a little

[2:44:50] sense, but I don't think we should rush

[2:44:52] right into this timeline, make make a

[2:44:55] quick decision. I think that's just

[2:44:57] foolish. I think we should give it a

[2:44:59] little bit more thought, elect, you

[2:45:01] know, have a have an election and look

[2:45:04] at this maybe in 12 months.

[2:45:08] I I just want to point out we have been

[2:45:11] posting for the treasures position and

[2:45:13] have gotten no applications. Just put

[2:45:16] that out there.

[2:45:20] » That's happening with so so many

[2:45:22] >> I know it just because you know a

[2:45:24] fiduciary responsibility of that

[2:45:26] position

[2:45:27] >> and it falls back on you. But I feel

[2:45:30] like if that was a position that was

[2:45:33] offered somebody to apply for,

[2:45:36] >> we might have some.

[2:45:39] >> That's just

[2:45:40] >> I'll tell you what, I know a few people

[2:45:42] that would, but they don't want to deal

[2:45:44] with being going for an election.

[2:45:45] >> Going for election. I I understand that.

[2:45:48] >> Yeah.

[2:45:49] >> All right. Thank you, Mike.

[2:45:52] >> All right.

[2:45:52] >> Miss,

[2:45:56] thank you very much.

[2:45:57] >> Thank you. Thanks for coming. All right,

[2:46:00] let's bring it back here. Everyone's

[2:46:02] commented. Is there anyone on the

[2:46:04] website or on the whatever?

[2:46:08] >> What's your pleasure, Board?

[2:46:12] » I'm going to start. I think we should

[2:46:14] hold off on this and do due diligence on

[2:46:18] a process that does not involve a

[2:46:20] meeting in the middle of January. I

[2:46:22] would like to see us take this on during

[2:46:24] better weather and have these meetings

[2:46:26] like in the spring or fall, you know,

[2:46:28] it's easier to get to. I also, and Rick,

[2:46:30] that's my comment. I think what'd be

[2:46:32] interesting is to have two community

[2:46:34] members debate this and videotape Zoom.

[2:46:37] And I thought that'd be an interesting

[2:46:39] process like, you know, the debate to

[2:46:41] actually hold a debate whatever the

[2:46:43] rules are around this so the public can

[2:46:45] hear the pluses and minus versus just

[2:46:47] sitting. And again, no offense, we'll

[2:46:49] have those public meetings. But to have

[2:46:52] two people really narrow in the back and

[2:46:53] forth would be an interesting, you know,

[2:46:56] way to get some information on the

[2:46:58] pluses and minuses of both. Sandy.

[2:47:04] Um, I'm against obviously like you said,

[2:47:08] I don't want anything to do with the

[2:47:10] charter,

[2:47:11] but I feel like I if you ask me right

[2:47:15] now if we should have these four

[2:47:17] questions on the articles, I would say

[2:47:20] it's because I feel as though there are

[2:47:25] a lot of people out there that would be

[2:47:26] excellent in this position.

[2:47:30] if it was a hired position

[2:47:33] that we would not have the ability to

[2:47:36] have with our current

[2:47:39] it would open it up for people that are

[2:47:42] very qualified and um not that we do not

[2:47:46] have anybody qualified now. I'm just

[2:47:48] saying it would I feel it would would

[2:47:51] change a lot of things and I and I would

[2:47:54] be putting it on as an

[2:47:57] Roger.

[2:47:59] >> Uh I am uh favorable to the idea of uh

[2:48:04] moving towards an appointment. Um, I do

[2:48:09] share some of Bill's concerns about uh

[2:48:13] going into

[2:48:16] more uncharted waters just at a point

[2:48:18] when it seems like we're we're settling

[2:48:21] down. So, I think we could take a year

[2:48:23] to further debate this without uh any uh

[2:48:27] real danger.

[2:48:34] That wasn't obvious. So can I ask a

[2:48:37] question to this group influences? So um

[2:48:40] my understanding is West Pollock was

[2:48:42] appointed

[2:48:44] only until Tommy. Right.

[2:48:46] >> Right.

[2:48:46] >> So you could have two people let's say

[2:48:49] run through

[2:48:50] >> town

[2:48:52] >> or none.

[2:48:53] >> Well just

[2:48:55] >> I mean he would have Wes would have to

[2:48:56] run

[2:48:57] >> but Right. He would have

[2:49:00] two other people. I'm just saying three

[2:49:02] people plus food. Right. And then

[2:49:03] whoever votes. So he could be out of a

[2:49:05] job after what? That's right.

[2:49:06] >> Eight months or seven months to hear it.

[2:49:08] Correct.

[2:49:09] >> If he's not vote,

[2:49:12] >> I'm just saying that's a danger that we

[2:49:13] have, right? I mean, who knows?

[2:49:15] >> Right. That's a danger about every

[2:49:17] election we have maybe.

[2:49:20] >> Well, that's why we didn't have a lot of

[2:49:22] people apply because I could be out in

[2:49:23] seven months. At least you have three

[2:49:24] years of a job

[2:49:26] done. That's some a little bit of

[2:49:28] stability. But I mean, I aim in the West

[2:49:30] for taking that chance. I mean,

[2:49:32] >> yeah.

[2:49:36] because you're right. I mean the

[2:49:38] timelines as Bill mentioned you're

[2:49:39] concerned about the Thursdays that kind

[2:49:41] of stuff.

[2:49:43] >> Yeah. Did not affect our decision.

[2:49:47] >> I should say I'm against the charter

[2:49:50] change. I think that's something we

[2:49:54] didn't read into right now. So you're

[2:49:57] suggesting that um this kind of timeline

[2:50:01] slide to the spring which would be a new

[2:50:04] select board

[2:50:06] theoretically

[2:50:07] >> well some right

[2:50:08] >> right some uh and so

[2:50:12] let let yeah

[2:50:15] okay

[2:50:16] >> I do want to clarify that the January

[2:50:18] meeting you mentioned is just about

[2:50:19] moving the questions to Austral IC

[2:50:21] ballot.

[2:50:23] It's not about the debate about the

[2:50:25] actual appointments. That decision has

[2:50:28] to be made at the annual meeting. So the

[2:50:31] debate about that would always be

[2:50:32] happening in January, February, no

[2:50:34] matter what.

[2:50:38] So if you took the charter change out of

[2:50:40] the equation, that conversation, you

[2:50:43] have the January town meet, special town

[2:50:46] meeting to put the four articles on the

[2:50:50] ballot

[2:50:52] that only authorizes

[2:50:56] that only the vote at town meeting day

[2:50:59] would be to authorize the select board

[2:51:02] to appoint and then and the residency

[2:51:05] question.

[2:51:06] >> Correct. question would only be whether

[2:51:07] or not it's on the

[2:51:10] >> Australian ballot

[2:51:12] >> because at that point it's already been

[2:51:14] decided that it's going to be that it is

[2:51:16] going to be on Australia. So the town is

[2:51:18] voting in March and so you spend

[2:51:21] February with yourformational meetings

[2:51:24] as to why this is being put on the

[2:51:27] ballot.

[2:51:27] >> No. Well, we

[2:51:30] >> that's not what has to be done. I mean,

[2:51:32] you can you're trying to

[2:51:34] >> if it's on the ballot, there is a

[2:51:36] requirement for anformational hearing,

[2:51:37] >> right? But I'm just saying the what he's

[2:51:40] talking about is if the board decided

[2:51:43] that they do want to put this,

[2:51:46] >> you know, it would be to have the

[2:51:48] meetings to make people understand, but

[2:51:51] we also would have that special meeting

[2:51:53] to say, okay, if you would rather vote

[2:51:57] Australian ballot than to have it as a

[2:51:59] floor vote, then we need to have a

[2:52:02] special meeting to allow that to happen.

[2:52:06] Yeah, that's what happens in January.

[2:52:08] What I'm asking is what I'm trying to

[2:52:10] get at here is the timeline really is to

[2:52:15] um address the issue at this coming town

[2:52:18] meeting day. I feel extremely strongly

[2:52:23] that's terrible. Sorry. Uh I feel very

[2:52:26] strong that Lee that there needs to be

[2:52:30] public education and outreach. And so I

[2:52:34] wanted to understand what those two

[2:52:36] meetings in February would be. To your

[2:52:39] point, Don, about having a debate with

[2:52:42] town clerks or community members that

[2:52:46] would that would have to happen in

[2:52:48] February.

[2:52:49] >> Yeah.

[2:52:51] Um

[2:52:55] so the alternative I think I'm hearing

[2:52:57] is um two of you are interested in

[2:53:01] pursuing that direction and two of you

[2:53:03] are saying do it next year do it uh

[2:53:08] >> start it up after we select you know

[2:53:11] back there

[2:53:12] >> start it a year later I mean

[2:53:14] >> well I mean you would start a process

[2:53:16] and figure out all

[2:53:17] >> well you still wouldn't have the vote

[2:53:18] until the next you'd have the vote

[2:53:20] uh 2028

[2:53:22] >> but it would have a new select board to

[2:53:24] make that decision.

[2:53:25] >> Right.

[2:53:25] >> I mean this board

[2:53:30] » or the other thing is we can table it

[2:53:32] for another meeting and

[2:53:34] maybe have some people come in to speak

[2:53:37] like you had said before different town

[2:53:39] man [clears throat] town clerks that

[2:53:41] have different opinions not necessarily

[2:53:43] all that are for or all that are against

[2:53:46] because I'm sure we can find both.

[2:53:47] >> So that's a good point Sydney. What's

[2:53:49] our drop dead date?

[2:53:50] >> That's a good point, Sandy.

[2:53:52] >> That is pretty much what this timeline

[2:53:54] is. Like this was targeted towards the

[2:53:57] annual meeting. And then

[2:53:58] >> Can you put it back up there? Well, it's

[2:54:00] the January 11th date. That's the that

[2:54:03] they have to warn that January 11th

[2:54:05] date, right?

[2:54:06] >> And that would be just about deciding

[2:54:08] ballot versus floor vote.

[2:54:10] >> And that we could warn the special town

[2:54:13] meeting at our next on October 6th if we

[2:54:15] wanted to and hold it in like mid

[2:54:16] November. So it's basically anywhere in

[2:54:18] that window like mid November mid June

[2:54:20] >> which allows for the 30 days.

[2:54:23] Yeah. Yeah.

[2:54:23] >> Yeah.

[2:54:24] >> We said it.

[2:54:26] >> So the other thing Yeah. Um also with

[2:54:29] this um the 45 days after

[2:54:32] uh town meeting the reason for the 45

[2:54:36] days is that a petition can be put up to

[2:54:39] reverse.

[2:54:40] >> Right. We have that too,

[2:54:41] >> right?

[2:54:43] regardless of whether it goes either

[2:54:45] way, if it's Australian or if it's a

[2:54:47] Florida.

[2:54:48] >> I think I mean I think do from my

[2:54:50] perspective I think Don brings up a good

[2:54:53] I feel like I' I'd really like to hear

[2:54:54] from some town clerks quite frankly. I I

[2:54:57] know of I know of two I know of both

[2:55:00] sides but I think that more people uh

[2:55:04] hearing both sides would um help inform

[2:55:09] a path forward if that's all right

[2:55:13] >> maybe making to have another meeting

[2:55:16] where we have a little bit more time.

[2:55:18] >> Yeah. So well we're running into

[2:55:21] >> there's a lot of hot topics these days I

[2:55:23] know right

[2:55:24] >> um

[2:55:27] Yes,

[2:55:33] » I'm a strong advocate for the open town

[2:55:37] meeting, but if you're if you're all if

[2:55:40] your goal is to have an Australian

[2:55:43] ballot question to do this, you can do

[2:55:47] this by amending your chart as opposed

[2:55:50] to having a meeting in November that

[2:55:54] people are going to come out to decide

[2:55:55] whether or not they want to change um

[2:55:59] you know to a special

[2:56:01] Australian ballot for one item issue.

[2:56:04] Charter changes have to be done by

[2:56:06] Australia. So you can have all of your

[2:56:09] discussion and all of your education

[2:56:11] between now and the time you put your

[2:56:14] warning together. You have to write the

[2:56:16] charter and it could be a simple charter

[2:56:20] meant I mean you you got a a local

[2:56:23] option tax that's like two through two through two through two but

[2:56:25] the charter is one page long right so

[2:56:29] you can say

[2:56:32] shall the voters amend the charter to

[2:56:34] allow the select board to appoint the

[2:56:36] clerk and treasur and then you have that

[2:56:38] vote by Australian ballot at town

[2:56:41] meeting and you can have all the

[2:56:44] education you

[2:56:46] So if you're trying to have an

[2:56:48] Australian ballot, do it that way. And

[2:56:52] for my two sense, if you're going to

[2:56:56] amend the charter and allow somebody to

[2:56:59] be

[2:57:02] a hired person as opposed to elected

[2:57:05] person, then write the chatter and let

[2:57:08] the town manager appoint the clerk and

[2:57:10] treasurer. And that person is an

[2:57:13] employee like every other employee in

[2:57:15] this building that the town manager

[2:57:18] appoints. And if the town manager then

[2:57:22] the town manager gets to uh evaluate the

[2:57:25] person. If there's issues, the town

[2:57:27] manager can discipline or fire the

[2:57:30] person. Speaking as someone who served

[2:57:33] five different boards with three or five

[2:57:36] members, it's not great to have more

[2:57:39] than one boss. So the town manager

[2:57:41] already has to have five people to be

[2:57:44] responsible. That's correct.

[2:57:46] >> But other employees really it's helpful

[2:57:49] responsible to one person,

[2:57:51] >> right?

[2:57:51] >> So if you're going to do this, let town

[2:57:53] manager be the person. So what's the

[2:57:56] timing that

[2:58:01] » you know?

[2:58:04] Who's at the speed of the legislation?

[2:58:05] It might take until the end of the

[2:58:08] legislative session.

[2:58:09] >> Yeah.

[2:58:10] >> I mean, Burlington has had some charter

[2:58:12] changes pending for several years

[2:58:15] because controversial

[2:58:18] depends on

[2:58:19] >> what the issue is.

[2:58:21] >> Yeah. I mean, Teresa, we would have the

[2:58:24] support of Teresa. So,

[2:58:26] >> so thank you, Bill.

[2:58:27] >> I mean, I think that's something that

[2:58:29] >> So, I think what I'm hearing here is

[2:58:33] more research. more.

[2:58:35] >> All right. Um

[2:58:39] I I guess I'll talk with one of you two

[2:58:42] as to what you want to do for next steps

[2:58:45] in terms of putting it back on the

[2:58:46] agenda and I am very respectful of how

[2:58:50] much work you have put into this. It's

[2:58:51] massive and I really appreciate it and

[2:58:54] so I don't want to push it but I

[2:58:57] recognize we also have a timeline that

[2:58:59] you have to look at. Well, I guess my

[2:59:01] question is

[2:59:04] if we're interested in it, do we try to

[2:59:06] do it for 2027 or like Don suggested,

[2:59:10] push it till next year and do it in

[2:59:12] 2028?

[2:59:14] >> I don't think we've made that decision.

[2:59:16] >> Yeah, but I just want again for our

[2:59:20] work.

[2:59:20] >> The only thing that you know me got all

[2:59:23] the evidence and why you're doing this

[2:59:25] that doesn't go away. It's a matter of

[2:59:26] how we want what's the process we want,

[2:59:28] >> right? Whether we go with this on a

[2:59:30] different timeline or whether we do as

[2:59:32] Bill suggests we do a chart of J and all

[2:59:35] that evidence and all those rational

[2:59:37] still exist.

[2:59:38] >> I think you have to find out about the

[2:59:39] change process.

[2:59:41] >> Yeah.

[2:59:42] >> Okay. All right. So we'll table this for

[2:59:45] now.

[2:59:46] >> What do you need to know about the

[2:59:47] charter change process?

[2:59:49] Well, as Bill was just proposing is

[2:59:51] that's a third that's to me is a third

[2:59:53] alternative

[2:59:55] >> process

[2:59:56] >> that does not have to be tied to town

[2:59:57] meeting. Uh that can be done literally

[3:00:00] anytime.

[3:00:03] >> I I understand that. I guess what I'm

[3:00:05] most concerned about is communicating

[3:00:08] all of this information in an organized

[3:00:11] presentation to the community because

[3:00:15] whether it's a charter change for

[3:00:17] Australian ballot, whether it's putting

[3:00:20] it doing special meetings and putting it

[3:00:22] on Australian ballot, whether it's the

[3:00:24] residency question, uh there it's a it's

[3:00:27] a big change and um I'm respectful of

[3:00:31] the timeline

[3:00:33] that that may be the best solution is to

[3:00:36] just put it off a year or not. But it

[3:00:40] may be not doing it all. I mean, putting

[3:00:42] it it's we're not putting it off a year.

[3:00:44] We're putting it off. It's Yeah. Okay.

[3:00:46] It's a yes or no. And then it's a

[3:00:49] charter change. It's there's three

[3:00:51] processes in there. And from my

[3:00:53] perspective, it's complicated. And so

[3:00:57] the most important

[3:00:59] >> piece of this whole discussion is how we

[3:01:03] educate our communities as to what is

[3:01:06] being discussed. Roger. And I can just

[3:01:10] like to add that uh I really do uh

[3:01:12] respect all the work that you've done on

[3:01:14] this, but it seemed like it was based

[3:01:16] primarily on the experience within

[3:01:19] Waterberry and there's a whole uh you

[3:01:23] know 250 other towns out there uh that

[3:01:27] have considered this and I'd like to get

[3:01:29] some of their experience into the

[3:01:31] discussion to better educate ourselves

[3:01:33] as soon.

[3:01:34] >> You know the I I just want to comment on

[3:01:36] that. I just want to comment on that in

[3:01:38] that the town clerks that I talked I did

[3:01:41] talk to a few because I wanted to

[3:01:42] understand whether this was worthwhile.

[3:01:45] Um and the the repeated comment was

[3:01:49] there the the the technical the

[3:01:53] legislative the know the rules that they

[3:01:56] have to work under the state statutes

[3:01:59] that they have to abide by

[3:02:01] >> are just huge and it's getting more

[3:02:03] complicated. Colchester was one of them.

[3:02:06] Um and then the other side of it is the the personally the concern on the

[3:02:12] financial side is putting someone in

[3:02:15] that treasur position is responsible for

[3:02:18] all of our account

[3:02:21] and you know we've been blessed having

[3:02:23] Bill but uh you know

[3:02:26] >> all forever.

[3:02:27] >> Well I'm afraid not.

[3:02:30] Um, so that was the

[3:02:32] >> No, I I totally get it and I just think

[3:02:35] >> having that as part of the discussion

[3:02:37] will be the swirl even more, you know,

[3:02:40] as our political climate changes

[3:02:43] >> and it's more divisive and reading an

[3:02:46] article in the Atlantic about what's

[3:02:48] going on in local elections is where all

[3:02:50] the crap is starting to really happen.

[3:02:52] >> I'm just curious is the town clerk on

[3:02:55] their own has elected without much

[3:02:57] protection by the town. So they don't

[3:02:59] apply or is there better mor protection

[3:03:02] if you're an employee?

[3:03:04] >> So it would encourage people because

[3:03:05] there's a lot going on and a lot of

[3:03:07] >> yeah children and if you think Vermont's

[3:03:10] immune to it

[3:03:13] >> yeah it's

[3:03:14] >> all right we're going to table this for

[3:03:16] now.

[3:03:17] >> Is there specific questions I can

[3:03:19] research and answer like do you want an

[3:03:21] alternate timeline? there want

[3:03:24] >> I think you I would research getting a

[3:03:28] couple of town clerks pro and con I mean

[3:03:31] you know ones that advocate strongly for

[3:03:34] their their elected or having been

[3:03:36] elected whatever you know what but I

[3:03:39] think that's a key piece I think the I

[3:03:42] didn't you know we didn't really talk

[3:03:44] about the process that Bill just

[3:03:46] presented in terms of the charter making

[3:03:48] it through a charter change process I

[3:03:50] think that's relevant

[3:03:51] >> says no offense

[3:03:53] Yeah,

[3:03:54] might be able to find others that

[3:03:57] >> company still changing its charts. We

[3:03:59] had the town before.

[3:04:01] >> Yeah.

[3:04:03] >> Just look at this.

[3:04:04] >> Yes. We didn't we didn't really get that

[3:04:06] presentation. So, I would look at those

[3:04:08] two elements. Um, and you guys let me

[3:04:13] know when you want to bring it back to

[3:04:15] the table.

[3:04:17] >> Okay.

[3:04:17] >> Sure.

[3:04:19] really thank you both for what you're

[3:04:22] doing. Is that the last?

[3:04:28] » Oh, last item. We got to approve the

[3:04:32] private road. Could you bring up the who

[3:04:34] has the map? Uh the pager, the one

[3:04:38] pager.

[3:04:43] » Thank you very much for having the map

[3:04:45] and the explanation.

[3:04:47] zone administrator.

[3:04:52] » So, um more of the same. Um downtown

[3:04:56] density um creating uh triggering the

[3:05:00] need for a new private road. Um in this

[3:05:04] particular context, the And if you'll

[3:05:08] let me point, this single family

[3:05:10] dwelling has literally been picked up

[3:05:13] and moved to where that black square is.

[3:05:15] Yeah.

[3:05:15] >> Um so has moved from 73 North Main

[3:05:18] Street to the parcel currently known as

[3:05:21] 75 North Main Street. Um that makes for

[3:05:24] three buildings on that parcel each with

[3:05:27] a separate locatable address and three

[3:05:29] buildings equals a private road.

[3:05:32] >> All right. And the property owner has um

[3:05:36] has requested that the select board

[3:05:38] consider um Hearthstone.

[3:05:41] >> All right. it take a motion or do you

[3:05:44] have questions?

[3:05:46] See, we all had plenty of time to look

[3:05:48] at this.

[3:05:50] is was very helpful.

[3:05:54] I didn't have to do it when I was

[3:05:56] working.

[3:05:56] >> Love that you really approve that

[3:05:58] numbering. That's measurements.

[3:06:00] >> Yeah. Is there a motion to approve? Oh,

[3:06:02] could you put that back? I was reading

[3:06:04] it.

[3:06:07] >> There you go. to approve a new private

[3:06:10] road named Hearthstone Circle off of

[3:06:13] North Bay Street.

[3:06:17] » Roger. Motion, Roger.

[3:06:19] >> Uh I move to approve a new private road

[3:06:22] by the name of Parkstone Circle. Uh it's

[3:06:25] located on the map.

[3:06:28] >> Is there a second that?

[3:06:31] >> I said I will second that.

[3:06:33] >> Okay. Any further discussion? All those

[3:06:35] in favor say I. I.

[3:06:38] I'll vote to post. I didn't hear you.

[3:06:41] Oh, you said I Okay, thank you.

[3:06:43] >> All right. Um, next meeting. Um,

[3:06:50] >> more items

[3:06:52] holding task force.

[3:06:54] >> No, that's the next meeting.

[3:06:55] >> Oh, okay.

[3:06:57] >> Roger.

[3:06:59] >> The housing task force is coming with uh

[3:07:02] Bonnie from BLCT to talk about the chip

[3:07:04] strategy. So, we are going to need some

[3:07:06] extra time there. You're going to have

[3:07:09] two committees probably or two draft

[3:07:13] budgets for us to look at. The better

[3:07:16] connections final recommendations.

[3:07:20] It it says an adoption. I'm not sure

[3:07:22] that I got to find out what they're if

[3:07:25] there's any action required by us or if

[3:07:28] they're just going to project present

[3:07:30] the final report. Okay.

[3:07:31] >> Which is what you already have. But

[3:07:33] that's the one.

[3:07:34] >> Yeah. I just got to find out what

[3:07:35] Duncan's got in mind here. Uh I just

[3:07:38] want to

[3:07:39] >> confirm it and secrete commission and

[3:07:43] the housing task force.

[3:07:46] Um Gracie may be at a conference. We're

[3:07:49] trying to figure out if she can be in

[3:07:51] person or if she's on Zoom. So um more

[3:07:55] to come on that. I'll probably be in

[3:07:58] person.

[3:07:58] >> You're just amazing.

[3:08:01] Uh, she likes to drive as far as I can

[3:08:04] speak. She came all the way from Idaho.

[3:08:08] » We'll see.

[3:08:09] >> Anything else?

[3:08:10] >> Just a note that Wes will be sitting in

[3:08:12] for me taking minutes at that meeting. I

[3:08:15] will be in Ireland celebrating my 50th

[3:08:18] birthday.

[3:08:20] [clears throat]

[3:08:24] » Uh, I do have one more. Um September

[3:08:27] 23rd is our open house for our welcome

[3:08:30] for Gracie Wes. I see you there. Yeah,

[3:08:34] Wes. Um we hope you'll be able to attend

[3:08:38] that and um it'd be great if Myra could

[3:08:41] be there as well. Others

[3:08:43] um it's here 4:30 to 6. Thank you. And

[3:08:51] uh great time to have conversation with

[3:08:54] our some new key players in our

[3:08:56] community.

[3:08:59] >> All right. Um that's Wednesday,

[3:09:02] September 29. Okay. There's something

[3:09:05] else that just came in. All right.

[3:09:07] Anything else? Uh motion to adjurnn to

[3:09:11] move.

[3:09:14] >> All right. All those in favor said I

[3:09:17] >> Thank you.

Waterbury Municipal Meeting - September 15, 2026 - Selectboard

Transcript