And some good conversation. All right, it looks like we have a quorum. It's 5.30 by my clock. So I'm gonna call a sub board meeting to order. First up on the agenda is public to be heard. This is on anything that's not on the agenda. It is meant to be a very brief comment of letting the board know about something or asking for something to be put on the agenda. This is Julie, my friend. Can you hear me? You can. Yeah, thanks, Trini. May I speak on the sewer issue? I think you can request that it be added to the agenda. That's right. That's what I was going to ask is, this is an emergent issue at the Randolphus project. And I was gonna ask if it could be added to the agenda tonight. Okay, so maybe give just a couple of statements on why it needs to be added to the agenda tonight. So we have that in the record. Yep. So in the process of doing the sewer line replacement that we were originally planning to do at Randolphus, we discovered a section of existing town sewer pipe, which was in extremely bad condition and was sort of falling apart. But also there was an area that is three feet above where we were supposed to connect it with the new pipe. And it's actually flowing in the wrong direction to do that. And so we need to confer with the town about how we can continue the construction and deal with that situation as quickly as we can. Okay, anybody oppose adding that to the agenda? That's good. Any other public comment? John Kaplan. Yes, thank you. I guess I have a question and a comment and a suggestion and I'll be brief. So my question is for the new utility poles that were placed along Pleasant Street here in the village, whether I'm assuming that those are in the town right away. And so I was just curious if the utility, I'm assuming the utility company coordinated that with the town or had to get some kind of permission to do that work. That's correct John. That was at us, we gave approval at a select board, two select board meetings actually. Okay. And so I guess my comment is, I think some of my neighbors and myself were a little surprised at the large trees that were taken down. And I understand why that happened more or less. But I think, and I don't know if there was any kind of, sort of announcement or information given to the public that that was gonna take place, but I think people would have been a little less surprised if they kind of knew that was coming before the chainsaws showed up. So that's my comment. And I guess the suggestion is that maybe the town's website could be used for things like that.  Okay, thank you. I do know that the agenda item specifically last month was on the trees. But I also believe the trees came down before the select board meeting met. But it was to clarify the fact that the trees were in the original approval is what they were asking the board to clarify. It was a little late when they were already in the ground. They were a part of the prior approval just to clarify that though. And they also don't, they gave the town, I believe they paid the town $2,000 that went into the town beautification line item in the budget. As payment for the trees, not, we can't plant new ones there, but we can do something somewhere in the town with that money. Okay, thanks for that clarification. I'll go back and look at the previous minutes just to see that, thanks. Yeah, sure. Josie Crothers, Josie, you weren't on yet when we said this is a very limited amount of time to talk about something you would like added to tonight's budget or agenda or to update us on. It's like on a future budget or a future agenda. Oh, okay, this is brief and it is just to find out a little bit or find out how I can find out about what the select board's thoughts are on using the ARPA funds and to what extent is the East Valley Community Hall going to under serious consideration? So there's a committee that we set up to address the ARPA funds, to look at them and make recommendations back to the select board. So I would suggest that you reach out to that group and try to get ideas that you have on how the funding should be used onto their screen so that they're looking at a wide variety of uses for the money, and that might be some of them. And I believe Perry is our select board liaison for that. Okay, fine. Thank you very much. I'll be in touch, Perry, if you're there. You're welcome. Any more public comments? Perry's on. Any more public comments? Great, seeing none, then we'll move on to approval of the agenda. And this is adding item, well, it'll be item I under new business, which is the Randolph-House sewer issue. Did you need a motion and a second to approve the amended as a, the agenda as amended, not the amended as amended? I'll move the movement of the agenda as amended, the adoption of the agenda as amended.  We're done. I wish that life were that simple. It was so quiet there for a while. It's because I was muted. All right, we have a motion and a second to approve the agenda. All those in favor? I. Opposed? Motion carries. Next up is the consent calendar. This is three meetings for the minutes and the warrants. On the 20, the 122 minutes, they say that our meeting started at 8 p.m. and it should be 8 a.m. We all struggle that one, you get your eight and one. Yeah. I'll move that you approve of that correction. Second. All those in favor? I. I. Motion carries. Next up is the business part of the agenda. And first up is the Davis Road solar project. And again, tonight, I will do the same thing I did last time and let folks know that this property is owned by the estate of my dad. The sale is not contingent upon this permit, but I have corresponded with Larry and he will take and share this part of the meeting. Yep. So we postponed this from last time because we were waiting for some additional information. And I believe we've acquired the information that we wanted since that last meeting. And I'm thinking that most of that information is, yes. Brendan, Mr. Malley is joining us and I know we would like it if you could speak to what you all have done in the intervening time. Okay. I'd like to offer if Trevor wanted to present anything, we certainly could. But what we've done in response to the questions raised at the January select board meeting is we have hired a remote licensed surveyor to visit the site, to field verify slope data that was previously publicly available. And we've provided a revised site plan showing the array located on slopes less than 25%. And we've further provided letters from the engineering firm and the surveyor affirming that. Okay. So as I understand it, we now know that those solar panels are gonna be built on slopes greater than 25% and where it looks like we're meeting the requirements of the town plan and if there's other discussion folks would like to have, I would entertain it now. I'd like to speak. Who's that? If you're on board first there, you're gonna open. If members of the board have something to say, I would love to hear that first. I didn't hear any members of the board chime in. Sounds like the board is quiet right now. Oh, I think, hold on. So you have sunny. I think you don't you have sunny on here from the planning commission to give us his take on it as the chair of the planning commission. We do have sunny, but I was thinking that I would like it if sunny was available to answer questions. I'm not sure we need a presentation from them. Okay. I have a comment Larry's. Yeah, please go ahead, Pat. I don't know if this is the right time or not, but it was after reading all the materials, it seemed to me like the issue is the 25% slope. And if we could add a condition to our letter, which incorporated that it would not be more than the 25% slope, that might solve the situation. Well, I think we already have the assurances that we need from the developer. And I just offer the assurances are now a part of the, we've submitted an assurance, and it will be part of the, if issued, it'll be part of the state certificate of public good as a condition and enforceable by, that's my dog, by the state. Are you saying that the condition is part of your application? Correct. The condition is part of the application at the Public Utilities Commission. At the last board meeting, we circulated a filing that we had submitted to the Public Utilities Commission, a testing that we would not build on the slope of the 25%. Which then become part of the record and part of the requirements placed upon us to be required to fulfill to get in order to have the state certificate of public good issue. So it doesn't need any more fluid and sovereignty. I'm sorry, wait. Is that Jim Merriam? Yeah. Jim, I had a really hard time hearing you. Sorry, the N95 math, the easiest to talk to. I told, yeah, totally. But can you just repeat what you said? People allow. So at the last select board meeting, we provided a copy of a document that we submitted to the Public Utilities Commission that asserts they can make it a condition of our certificate of public good that we won't build on slopes greater than 25%. So it is part of the record and it is part of the conditions of our certificate of public good, which is the PUC process of determining whether or not they were able to go forward. Okay. Thank you, Jim. Am I correct? The planning commission did something like that? Correct. I believe it came about as an assurance to the planning commission that we would not build on over 25%. So we filed that as a way to qualify. Any questions from the board? I have a question, Larry. Does that agreement include the access road or is it just the solar panels? All right, I was on mute. Specifically, the preferred setting process and this perhaps clarifies some comments at the last meeting and that section of the town plan does not define one way or another access or array or make a... And so the only area within that chapter of the town plan where anything is referenced is that area of the solar panels. So this is in an extensive reading in general alignment with the treatment of other development with respect to slopes. So it's the location of the array itself on slopes. And so that's the condition. The access to the array utilizes existing agricultural access on the property. Thank you. Okay, seeing no more questions from the board. See Prokessor hand up. How do I speak in the audience? There's no work opportunity to see me. Oh, that's a good question. I can't really see the audience. So perhaps if there's a question from the audience, maybe Trevor can let me know when there's questions. Does that make sense? I do have a few questions. So yeah, whenever you're ready for questions, well, that's when we'll look around the room and let you know someone's in the room. We do know Michael now, but if that comes up, we'll keep an eye on it and give you a prompt. Okay. Well, I see no reason not to let Brooke go. She seems like she's ready. And then we can come back to questions from the room. Let's do that. Thanks Larry. This is very troubling what you're Larry for you to say, okay, fine. Sure, they're not going to put the solar panels on the 25% steep slopes or greater. That is not what your town plan says. It doesn't say don't put the solar panels on areas that are 25% steeper or more. The language of your town plan, which was ignored by the applicant when they gave you the town their presentation. They quoted the language from your town plan and said, see, we can fly with it. And they stopped showing you what the language of the town plan was when it came to prohibited locations. And it is one sentence that is at issue here. And the sentence reads prohibited locations colon energy facility development shall have to meet principal structure setback for the relevant area in the town zoning and shall mandatory be prohibited in floodways, class one and two wetlands, lands with 50 feet of the top of bank of perennial streams lands over 25% slope. It is hard to imagine how this applicant could possibly argue successfully that development of this facility does not include the earth moving activities that are required to create the access road and to do all of the area of disturbance at this site. Every inch of that area of disturbance is physical action on the land, which in Vermont is development. So development of an energy facility is not allowed on 25% slopes. It's that simple. And not only is that what your law is and it is your job to create the law and then to defend the law because we found out from the Vermont Supreme Court in the Apple Hill solar case from Bennington town that if the town fails to enforce their law and apply it consistently, it doesn't mean anything anymore. It loses its authority as being any kind of clear written community standard that can be imposed on any other solar array project in the future or any project. The letter in the editor that Joan Allen wrote to the Randolph Herald, at the end of it it said, this is a slippery slope and if you let this in, then there's no 25% steep grade provision left. But it's a bigger issue than that. It means your town plan will be disregarded for any telecommunications project at the PUC for any energy project at the PUC. I will send you the Apple Hill decision from the Supreme Court that reversed the PUC because the PUC made that decision that said you are arbitrary and capricious, you're not enforcing your restrictions so they're no longer restrictions. And it turned out the reason why they reversed the PUC was that wasn't what the town actually did. But it is very clear from the Supreme Court that if this select board or the plan commission decides to take a position and allow this to go through and not just say the development of this project is on steep slopes and our town plan does not allow that. That is your role here. It's your only role. It's not to weigh the public good of gee, we want renewable energy and isn't that great. The actual statutory mandate, if you want to take a position and provide a recommendation and issue a preferred sites letter, this needs to follow your law and you're not doing that. The other thing that's really concerning that doesn't seem to be part of the conversation today, I thought Perry was here to explain the process of what the PUC did or maybe sunny or something. There was a meeting of the planning commission and at which three members said, yep, I think we need to rescind this. And Perry said, gee, I'm concerned about getting sued. Let's talk with the lawyer. There's 100% behind that. Problem is before the lawyer was even gave an opinion, the planning commission through email that looks like sort of it was at Sunny's behest and he's the cheerleader here, not the decision maker. He seems to be on the wrong team, which is also concerning. But the upshot of this process is that a public decision was made by email completely in violation of the open meeting law. You can't do that. Not only is it wrong, but you led the public to believe you were waiting for a decision and you didn't. And now you have the decision from the lawyer that says, I don't know why you would be sued. Basically. And I don't know why you would be sued. This is a ministerial act that is covered by sovereign immunity. But Larry, the fact that you're working with these people or the planning commission is working with these people to change their project proposal means that the project as it was proposed doesn't pass muster and you should rescind that letter. You don't let them fix it now and say, don't worry, we'll ask for a condition. You say, I'm sorry, the reason why you gave us this project, it doesn't comply with the law and that is the job of this town. That's what they must do in this situation. It is black and white in the town plan. And if you do not reject this and rescind this letter, they can start over with a new plan. They can submit something different and get your approval, but they have to start over. It can't be fixed. Well, my understanding is that the role of the planning commission is advisory to the select board. No, they have the independent voice. The planning commission can speak to it. The select board can speak to it and the regional planning commission with regard to the regional plan can speak to it. And in fact, the planning commission and the select board are not even obligated to take the same position. I've seen one situation where there was a disagreement, but you get to speak as a select board and the planning commission gets to speak as the experts who created the law and gave it to you to enact. And all three of those entities are required to sign on if this is gonna be considered a preferred site, which is a monumental decision by the town because it becomes true and valid unless it can be overcome with evidence, which certainly that will be the case and if this goes forward, that in fact the town's recommendation is wrong because you didn't follow your own law that you wrote. And if you don't enforce the law, that means it's arbitrary and capricious. You're not treating everyone equally and you are obligated to treat all of your citizens equally. When you create a law that puts everybody on notice what the rules of the game are. And now you have this developer saying, don't pay any attention to the wording in your actual plan, because don't worry, we'll put the solar arrays, I don't know, we'll flatten the site. So there are no steep slopes and then we'll put our solar array panels up. That road is on steep slopes no matter what. It violates the town plan and that's all you have to tell the PUC. That's your decision. Treaty. Thanks, Larry. First off, the town plan is not law. It is a guidance document for the town that we look to to give us direction. But I just want to clarify what Brenda was saying. And I think given how this was, a long mission of fact, and the land and the element that's there, that is not excusable. Brooke. They didn't even bring up this prohibition to you and now they backpedal and try to put a bandaid on something that violates it. Brooke. Okay. You don't have the floor. So, Brooke, you will have a chance to be heard. I believe Trini was talking and you interrupted her. So please, please let her continue and finish and you will have a chance to respond. Trini, please continue. I'm sorry. Larry, I lost the audio. Were you speaking to me or telling me to do something? Yeah. Trini was in the middle of talking and you interrupted her. Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't hear her speaking or I wouldn't have done that. I apologize. Trini, please continue. I just want to clarify that it seems like one of the big issues here is the road and the access road. So there's two accesses to that property that are existing at this time. One was the original road that went up in. It goes around the outcrop of rock there. And the other one was built in 2014 when we had the property bogged and that was then put back with the proper ditches and water burrs and everything to meet the logging regulations. So there's actually two existing accesses to this property now, which I believe are the ones that are being proposed to be used. So those are existing. There's no, I don't think there's any question on that one. May I speak? Sonny Holt was another planning commission. Yes, Sonny, please go ahead. Yeah, I did an extensive study on this. I looked at the audio and also the video from the last select board meeting. There's a lot of misunderstandings of what went on and a lot of claims that have been made that are really incorrect. As far as the access road goes, it's 1,100 feet. That 1,100 feet, there was only one section of 100 feet that has a slope greater than 25%. And that's about 9% of the entire road and probably 2% of the entire limit that can be constructed on. So I don't really all think the access road is an issue here at all. I did, I can go and give you my findings and recommendations that I came up with in my study and then we can go back and expand on that if you like. There were two issues basically. One was will Norwich technology install solar panels on slopes greater than 25% in violation of Randall's Town plan. And the second issue is did the planning commission use a process to grant a preferred siding led with the Norwich solar technologies. And then my findings I found out that number one, Norwich solar technologies did not violate the town plan when they requested a preferred siding ledder from the planning commission on 1 June, 2021. And then number two, for reasons unknown, Norwich solar technologies changed the solar or a plot plan on 4 August, 2021 for review by the public utilities commission. Finding number three, at an open meeting on 7 December, 2021 the planning commission confirmed that the 4 August plot plan violated the 25% steep slope prohibition in the town plan. On 10 December, Norwich solar technologies have put on notice that if they plan to put solar panels on steep slopes, then the town of Randall may have to vote their preferred sites led up. Norwich guaranteed to both the planning commission and the public utilities commission that the array will be arranged so that solar panels within the current limit of disturbance are not installed in slopes greater than 25%. The PUC rule, because the status of the preferred designation ledder has not changed, the adjoining land notice motion to stay the proceeding is denied. In the process findings, although it was not a written policy, the planning commission did use a process to grant the preferred sighting ledder to Norwich solar technologies, but the process needs to be improved. My basic recommendations is to keep in place the preferred sighting ledder granted to Norwich technologies for the Davis Road solar array. Number two, task the planning commission to develop a written process or checklist for future approvals of preferred sighting ledders. Now also through this entire process, there are a lot of false claims and accusations floating around. And a lot of those meet their ways into local newspapers. One of the claims was that at the 7th to 7th 21 meeting at the planning commission, they decided to rescind the preferred sites ledder, but they were going to make sure they wouldn't be in their legal hot water first. And that's false. There was no decision made to rescind the ledder at that meeting. Another claim, NSC promised that if the planning commission did not rescind the preferred sites ledder, they would not place total pounds and slopes greater than 25%. That's false. There was no promises asked for nor given by either the planning commission or Norwich technologies. Another claim, after the December meeting, the planning commission members communicated privately by email with Norwich solar technologies. The NSC attorney told them that the town had no legal basis to prohibit their development on steep slopes. That's also false. The assertion that somehow a deal was struck between the planning commission and Norwich technology that's false. There was no communication with the NSC attorney. There is no known conflict of interest between PC members and the NSC. Another claim, one third 33% of panels are on slopes greater than 25%, that's false. Only 13% of the panels were shown to be on slopes greater than 25%. And here we talk about the access road. The access road is going into the stirred areas in excess of 25% grade and even up to 40% grade. That's quite a claim, and it's false. Of the 1100 foot access road, there was only one instance of a 100 foot section shown on a slope greater than 25%. That's 9% of the entire road and probably less than 2% of the entire limit of disturbance. I can go back and give you more details on any of those, but that's basically what I found out in my investigation. And it was very thorough. Thank you, Sonny. So Larry, Mike, finders been trying to jump in for a little bit too, just as we kind of rotate everybody here in the room with us. Yep, yep, please go ahead. Based on the map, I haven't had a chance to look at this new one. I'm not sure how different the road is, but on the site plan that's currently before the public utilities commission, there's several hundred feet of road that are over 25%, including some sections that are 40%. And I'm not talking about the grade of the road, the slope of the road itself, because we've all seen roads put on steep slopes that wind up around a mountain. The road itself doesn't have to be steep, although this road is fairly steep in some areas, but it's on slopes, it's carved into slopes that are up to 40%. So I disagree with whatever information Sonny has. I'm just using the PUC maps with the LiDAR data, which is all I have access to. If they have ground-based survey data that's different, I'd certainly like to see it. Maps from today, these are done by, just to clarify, we'll put them together, this was Krebs engineering with... Krebs engineering did the survey. And they were the survey. And Krebs is the third-party engineer. And they're the letter from Krebs and then the letter from Verizon stating both their qualifications and that they did the road. And then it's installed on less than 25% slope. And then this will be filed at the PUC level at some point. Yeah, we will update it again. I think the important thing here is that the limits of disturbance has never changed on this project. And we recognize, everyone should recognize that projects change a little bit as you get better survey information. But the limits of disturbance, what we've always said was gonna be disturbed, that has not changed. We're just, it moved panels around with inside that. Excuse me, Larry, is there a way for the remote people to look at whatever is being submitted to the select board in person tonight? That's a good question, Trevor. Give us a second here, maybe. It's not pre-loaded on the laptop down here, but maybe we can figure some out. But you guys might wanna keep going, we'll work on it. If not, we can certainly post it. It's just they don't have it right here. Or maybe if they have an electronic version, they could email it. Yeah, that we can certainly do. We're trying to figure out if we can quickly get it onto this screen share, but for everybody. So if you guys keep going up. Yeah, this is one of the limitations of a hybrid meeting. It's harder to share documents. But you see, Larry, this shouldn't be happening. That's the whole problem, whether you're in person or remote, they're not supposed to be bringing you back new maps to legitimize the decision that you made that was wrong. It should be presented ahead of time. You should have the public see this document. Then you should hold your public meeting on it, at which time people have had the opportunity to look at the document and can actually respond further. But that's why the process you're going through is wrong. They gave you something and it doesn't comply. Now they're giving you something to try to fix the non-compliance. They should be starting over. This isn't fair to the public and especially to the abutters. And frankly, Larry, if they haven't changed the limits of disturbance, you know what the elevations are. You know that the disturbed area has many slopes over 25%. So maybe you should be able to make a decision to rescind tonight because even the fix is not okay. You have to decide what the intent of the law is when it says energy facility development shall not be on lands over 25% slope. Areas of disturbance, physical action on the land is development. Look at your own zoning ordinance. People can't do physical actions on the land without a permit. That's what development is. You have it defined in your own ordinances. So just a question, if the select board chose not to take action tonight and then delays it for a few more months, what does that do to the timeline? I thought we had this urgent date that the planning commission had to meet, which is why they were compressed in their timeline. Sure. Do you want me to answer my training? I'll be applicant and answer that question. The timeline was driven by the fact that the public utilities commission changed rate structure at September 1st, which drove to have a completed application submitted to the public utility commission by September 1st. You needed to have the three legislative bodies, letters submitted or approval. And so that's what drove to the schedule. And to be clear, the only way this project goes forward is with the preferred letters. I think there was some discussion last meeting that this project could go forward with the letter retracted. That's not actually, it's actually correct. This project is not on a landfill. This is not on a rooftop. The only way this project goes forward is with the preferred citing letters from all three bodies. Yeah. I don't know if folks can see that. We did put the handout that the folks in the room have is it's up on our screen and it says it's screen share. So I don't know if folks can see that. Yeah, I can see it. And so on this, yeah. I can see it, but I can't read anything on here. It's just too small. So that's better. It's much better. Can you make it even bigger? Yeah, I don't want to lose the whole thing. I'd rather lose the legend though for this. It's just to show the picture. Not better. That's much better. Thank you. Trini, can I just answer your question? I appreciate Jim's response in terms of the original timing of the application or the needing the preferred sites letter. And he is correct about the preferred sites letter. It doesn't go forward with all three of those signatories. And so I do appreciate him correcting that information. But I think what you were asking is what was the pressing thing for the Planning Commission to make their decision or you folks. That had to do with the Public Utility Commission process going forward and setting the schedule and the hearings and all of that. And the concern was if the preferred site letter was to be rescinded or should be rescinded, then that process should not go forward. And unfortunately, it is going forward because the rescission didn't happen. So I think they were trying to beat a certain deadline where they had to ask for a hearing. But I believe Joan and Michael asked for a hearing. So it's on track at the PUC. And so I guess what Jim has explained is if they start over now, it sounds like they've missed the deadline for moving forward somehow with this particular application. But that's why applications have to be complete. And that's why the towns need to look them over and make sure that they pass muster before they get the easy kind of rubber stamp process. So I'm sorry that the timing isn't working out for them. But in response to some of the stuff that Sonny was saying, well, so what that only some of it's on these steep slopes? The town plan doesn't say, well, if only 90% of it's not on steep slopes. That's not what it says. It says all the development of this facility can't be on steep slopes. Rewrite your town plan and make it so that the steep slopes can be only on a portion or whatever other ideas that you have. But what you put into play is a law. And that's what it is. Sorry to say. I see Brendan has his hand up. Thanks, Larry. So I'd like to make a couple of points. And I want to acknowledge first off that some of these discussions have indicated a level of certainty about interpretations of the town plan or town code. And I personally, I don't want to present myself as speaking authoritatively on the town's plan or codes. However, given that, I think we should all recognize that it's for the town to speak authoritatively on those topics. Having said that, within the subject of development and the subject of an energy facility within the energy section of the town plan, an energy facility is not a defined term. The only place that it's referred to in any kind of descriptive sense is in the prior paragraph where it talks about the acreage of the panels. I could certainly present that as well. There's another distinction which I might offer for the town to consider authoritatively, which would be the difference between an existing development on a piece of property versus a new development. And so perhaps this is, and certainly I would think it would apply here. We are talking about existing access on a parcel. And we're talking about new array development. So that's the distinction that I have that I can offer to the town for the town to evaluate. I can mention something about that access road of the 1,100 feet of that area where only 100 feet was found to be on a slope greater than 25%. What Norwich Technologies plans to do with that road is dig it out 12 inches down. It will be a 12-foot wide section. And there'll be gravel placed in there, 12 inches worth. It will be well protected from any storm water damage at all. They have this covered under the PUC. PUC requires precise engineering studies on anything that goes on and what the conditions are to correct those areas. I see nothing wrong at all with the access road. And as far as the town plan goes, I think some people are misreading the town plan. So what the town plan says, the total project area of panels must encompass 10 acres or less. Number two, the project as designed cannot be visible in the growing season from town or state highways. That's always been one of the primary reasons we looked at solar development areas. It should be out of the viewshed of people. Number three, must meet principal structure setback for the relevant area in the town zoning. And number four is prohibited in floodways class one and two wetlands, lands within 50 feet of the top of bank of perennial streams and lands over 25% slope. There are other things in the town plan that we, of course, look at in the specific area where it talks about steep slopes is what I just read. Are there any questions from the room? I thought I'd check now that we have a moment. Yes, I would like to ask a question. It was just mentioned that the road would be carved out 12 inches deep, 12 feet wide, 1,100 feet long. That's 490 cubic yards of soil to be removed on steep slopes. I'm curious on the site plan, it shows that that soil from the prime ag soils will be stockpiled on site, presumably for restoration at some point. Does not say what happens to the rest of the soil that's carved out of there. And there's no stockpiled place for it. Perhaps somebody from Norwich Solar could explain, where does that soil go? Friend, do you want to take that one?  So the work that happens on site, typically, whether it is the, I'm sorry, I just had to take a second, because the description that Sonny provided was from the civil engineering notes on the site plan, which is correct. And so there are some conditional statements in there. So for instance, not all of it needs to be excavated. So that's if the excavation needs to happen in order to create a stable surface. It will be cut and then filled in order to create a stable surface. If it's not needed to be excavated and can be top dressed, it will be top dressed. So there's a lot of information in the details of the civil notes there. The prime ag soils specifically are required to be stockpiled for future restoration. The other soils are typically used on site. As where on site would they be used? 490 cubic yards is a lot of dirt to put on site, and there's nothing in the site plan. Are you going to fill in the valleys to make it flatter, or what? No. So I guess what I was trying to say, and I apologize for being a little unclear, it's unlikely that the entire extent of the road would require both cut and fill. So what the plans are describing is when necessary to remove 12 inches in order to create a stable road base, it'll be removed. Where not necessary, it will not. So the point I'm trying to make is it's not necessarily that volume of material that we're talking about here. And I have a question probably for Brendan. We were just talking a little bit about the area of disturbance and how that relates to the 25% slope. And I'm wondering if you can talk more about how those two things are currently related to each other. So there are two elements to this discussion. And it might make sense to just keep them straight as we talk about these various issues. One element is with respect to the placement of the array itself. And the other element is with respect to how the site in general is designed, permitted, and managed in the broader process. So as part of the state process, specifically the state stormwater permit process, that is where this project or any other project goes through a review, an analysis of slope stormwater management activities, and often an adjustment, and I say often because we're not at that part of the process yet, an adjustment of that type of construction activities that can take place on different areas of the site. So an example of that would be if, for instance, there's a sensitive area or a steep area, the state has sometimes conditioned our permit that you might have non-mechanized clearing in that area. Or another example would be no stumping on a area of certain slopes. So those strategies and conditions come typically through the state stormwater permitting process. OK, thank you. If I may speak a little bit about the issue at hand, I really think we're getting off into areas other than the initial issue. When the Planning Commission met with Binder and Allen back in December, the issue that was forefront was slopes over 25% in the solar array area. OK, we never talked about going down the access road and looking at that area there. So almost from day one, this entire issue has been about slopes on the array panel itself. The other issue is when Binder and Allen went to the PUC to show an interest in this, they never listed slope issues. They never listed anything about being in their view shed. All of this came up after events rolled on. So I think we're getting away from the primary point of what the issue has been all about, at least as it was addressed to the Planning Commission in December. And that was only on the slopes being greater than 25% in the solar array site itself. We seem to be getting off in the weeks here looking at other items that may be of interest, but it was not the primary focus of the Planning Commission on 7 December. Thank you, Sunny. Brendan, if I may, I follow up for a moment. I guess my question is really about are there 25% or greater slopes within the current area, planned current area of disturbance? So there are. And that would be an example. So it's areas not where the solar panels are located are over 25%. And so a typical way of managing disturbance and the consequence for stormwater would be something like non-mechanized clearing and no stumping in those areas. Those are typical strategies to manage that. So questions, what does non-metanical clearing mean? Does that mean herbicides? Oh, no, I'm sorry. It means not a feller buncher, for instance, but an individual with a chainsaw. Thank you. Brooke, you've been waiting patiently. I just wanted to mention I have cut and pasted into the chat the three most important sources of law for you to look at here. The Randolph zoning regs have a definition of development. It includes my excavation, the town plan section that talks about the prohibition of lands over 25% slope. And the important part of that town plan is, in the beginning of the sentence, prohibited locations, energy facility development. And the other piece of information I've provided is out of the zoning statute in state law 24VSA chapter 117, there is a definition of land development in that, which also talks about any mining excavation or landfill or any change. So it also includes excavation. It looks like a Randolph pattern, their definition after state statute. So this is about, is this development going to involve the disturbance of land with excavating on slopes more than 25%? And to say, well, we'll cut down trees with, you know, instead of bringing in a loader to knock them down and we'll leave the stumps, doesn't solve the problem. The entire area of this facility that is being developed, all the development related to it, including existing roads, if they are being touched in any way, shape, or form. If they're being widened, if materials being added to them, that's all development. And I think Mr. Malley is a very nice man. I have nothing against this particular project other than it violates the town plan. And if you do this, it harms the town. Mr. Malley can figure out a different way to do this, where it doesn't impact, is it problematic in the town plan by all means? I hope he can. I have no dog in this fight other than trying to make sure that the town follows their own law that they created. Just to be clear, Brooke, a town does not have authority to create law. So our town plan isn't a law. It is. Absolutely. That would be a statute. It's absolutely. No, laws are laws. Your ordinances are laws. Your town plan is a law. You enacted it. Well, assuming that you enacted it, it's important to statute with all the time frames and notices and hearings to involve the public. It is a law, of course it is. Laws are ordinances. Laws are statutes. Laws are constitutions of the state. And law is the constitution of the United States, as well as the statutes of the United States. The problem here, really, to give you just a little bit of context and background, is that the town plan document was a planning document for aspirational purposes. And then underneath that, and in compliance with that, zoning law is supposed to be enacted. And the problem with Act 250 and the PUC processes are they rely on an aspirational planning document and turn it into a regulatory document. And as a result, what we saw happen years ago in Act 250 where the town plans were being disregarded because they were saying, we should do this and we should do that, which is exactly what the town plan should say. And the problem is that Act 250 decided, well, that's not a mandatory requirement. And unless you use the word shall not should or say something's prohibited and make it crystal clear that it's a mandatory requirement, your town plan held no water in Act 250. So now it's when the PUC 248 process and the 248 for energy projects came into play, all of a sudden the town plan is put into play as a standard that it was never intended to do, wasn't written for, and really it's a really bad way to do land planning in my opinion. But that's what we're left with. And that's why all the towns went to all of the Vermont League of Cities and Towns presentations, including two of them that I gave two years in a row to explain the very issue about, it has to be mandatory language now.  So that's why I think this is so important. I have nothing against Mr. Malley. I think he's, green energy is great, but it needs to be put in the right places according to the rules that exist. And that's my interest in this and why I'm spending my time talking with you folks about it. I'm not representing anybody and I'm not getting paid to do this. I just, I'm really disturbed, really about the way the process is. And to this day listening to Sonny, I think very highly of him, but I don't think he understands the role that he's supposed to be playing here and I think that that line has been blurred. And so you sit in judgment of this and you get substantial deference to your opinion. If it's not right, Ms. Binder and Mr., Ms. Allen, Mr. Reiner can argue against that and they can upend the presumption that you're correct if this has to go through the PUC process. But in the meantime, the harm is happening to the authority of your town plan. That's my concern. I'll be quiet now. The way I'm seeing part of this, at least right now is that we seem to be wondering whether cutting down these trees like somebody with a chainsaw, which is within the limits of disturbance, whether that constitutes development. And it's not clear to me that that's the case. I think. Well, I just, can I, as Larry has sort of spoken maybe use this as a springboard if the board wants to maybe check in and see where it's at, we're in, we've been after this now for a couple of meetings for a while and we just check in maybe see play out where Larry is. I have a short conversation about where the board is at and see if that helps to illuminate some of the pathways or the unanswered questions. I'm trying to be mindful of the fact that we do have a number of other things to do without trying to give any kind of shortened end to this. I'm trying to find that right space. Could we share the document? I mean, these stuff that you passed out tonight short notice.  I'll do whatever. The technology is here. Mike has a picture he wants to show you. Is it, you want me to screen check? Sure. But this is becoming a much longer conversation about much media stuff. I just wanted to check in to see where you're at rather than trying to parse through what constitutes development here tonight. Well, there are other things awaiting as well. Well, while Trevor is doing that does, is there any comments from the board? Seeing none. Brooke, is that your hand from before? Or is that a, I've done that many times. Can folks see that now? It looks like we're sharing. I'm not seeing a photo. I'm just seeing the folder. The folder, yeah. Yeah, change what you're sharing in the share screen. What's that? Change what you're sharing on your share screen. Right, well, wouldn't it? So, are you in the initial? Three open minutes? Yes, three open minutes. Okay, now go to the Zoom. Click on share screen. That one has to be open for us. That's what I forgot. Now there it is. Did I not think folks see it? Should see an image. Five red circles, can you count it right? Yep, got it. Thank you. Do you want me to explain what you're looking at? Yes, please. Who is this that's showing us this? I'm sorry. This is Trevor and Kim pulling it up. So it's up to our laptop. But this is something like Binder sent to us a little while ago tonight. Okay, thank you. The map you see is taken from the plan that's before the PUC. That's the road down there. And the circles, the red circles are 50 foot diameter on the inside of the circle. And I've labeled the slopes from the LiDAR data at the road crosses. The road itself is not that steep because it angles up on the side hill. But the hills in itself have the slopes that I've shown in that diagram. Quite a few of them are over 25%. And I think there's one on there, 39%. Yeah. I have the same diagram that I looked at. And I show no slopes over 25% in those particular areas. The only slope I show is down towards the bottom as it makes that turn on around. That was the slope that I found over 25%. I prefer we didn't argue about the map. My inclination is to think that this is an existing road and wouldn't constitute development. So I'm not sure that it matters, that it's above or beyond or below 25%. The road from the turn there, it goes on up. It doesn't cross those slopes pretty much. It goes along with the slopes. So it's not directly crossing them. Larry, is there any excavation, any material being added to any of the roads? Are they being widened? Because if that's happening, how could it not be development just because there happens to be a path there that is not supported in any law I've ever seen in 26 years in Vermont? Well, I'm not sure I'd call it a path. It sounds like it's a road that's already been used for logging purposes.  This is development that you're talking about. They're not using an existing logging road. They are improving the road and developing it. They're changing the road. It's physical action on the land. Yeah, I don't know where you draw the line between it's being development and not development. It seems like if you'd have to go beyond a certain amount of change before it's considered development, but I don't know where that line is. I know this is an existing road and that any changes are going to be rather modest. So are they modest enough so that it's not development? I guess I don't know without knowing more. Well, the site plan calls for excavating, replacing the gravel and putting fabric under there and making it 12 feet wide. So yes, that is significant change from what's there now. Just offer Larry if you had a second. Yes, please. Okay, certainly this is outside the scope of the process that we followed in open meeting in both the planning and select board, these discussions. I understand the logical chain that got us to this discussion, but I would just offer that the discussions were held on the basis of the location of the array itself and in kind of good faith. We followed up and responded to concerns about the slope of the array installation. And I will further offer if there is additional discussion about the use of existing access. I think the folks here, me included, would be right to be careful to speak authoritatively about the town's interpretation of its own documents. And so I'll just offer from my point of view that the array is installed on slopes of less than 25% and existing access is used to get to the array. And that is the case. And it was the case originally. If there's further discussion about how that access is used, that is something that is, often addressed at the, at the state level. I was muted. Thank you. I'm sorry. I'm seeing no other comment. So seeing no other comment. I think we're done with this discussion and we will. Move on to our next agenda item. Trini, it's all yours. Thanks, Larry. Excuse me, Trini. Before I sign off, it's Brooke. Is the board going to do anything? Are they going to make a decision? Or table it or take it up next time? Or. I'll send that back to Larry. It sounds like we're just done with the discussion. No one. No other comment. I think we're done with this discussion and we will. We're just done with the discussion. No one had any more comments or, or motions. Deliberative session to discuss this. I'm sorry, Pat. Say that again. We go into deliberative session. Discuss this. I believe so. Trevor, is that something we can do right now? I would hesitate to say yes, just on my lack of. I'm not sure that there's a. There's no decision or discussion there. That's of a sensitive nature. So I'm not sure why. Deliberative session would be allowed. Yeah. Yeah. No, that sounds right, Trini. Figure out the story to get you into one. You have a section of law. Pat that you think we could get under this. I mean, this is usually a contract personnel issue. I was asking the question because I've listened. Read a lot and listened a lot, but I'm undecided. And I'm not sure how to resolve that. This is Tom, if we were to make a decision. Is the decision we're being asked to make to rescind. Our letter. I mean, what decision are we going to make? We don't make a decision that lets it stand as is, right? Correct. And where are we to make a decision other than that? Letting it stand. We'd have to have a motion to. For example, rescind. Correct. Yes. Exactly. Right. And the reason why I think we're unclear about deliberative session is that. We almost never. Use this. Ability that we have to go into deliberative session in. In my. Almost five years now on the board. I've only been in a deliberative session with the board one time. So I'm not clear as to what the exact parameters are. So. Are you using deliberative session in the same. In the same way that we use executive session. No, it's a, it's a, it's a separate. I'm not sure what the words are. It's, it's, it's a separate tool that, that boards can use to make certain, to discuss certain kinds of decisions. Okay. But they're not as proscribed as an executive session. Correct. Which is very prescribed. I am, I am not really sure it's been so long since we've, we've done that that I really don't recall exactly how. How detailed the. You know, how much guidance we have from statute about deliberative session. I guess I have a hard time determining. What we might discuss in deliberative session that we can't discuss in. The public session. Right. I mean. Yeah, I don't know what Pat has in mind. So. Yeah. I wasn't asking for it. I was just questioning whether we could. I guess my alternative comment would be is I think. I need some legal advice and some of these legal issues that have been raised. Before I would make the decision. So just really quickly. So everybody. Has a baseline. This is from VLCT. It's a quick summary of what's a deliberative session. It occurs only in conjunction with a quasi judicial proceeding. These are situations where public body. Such as a select order development reports acting like a judge or jury. It's evidence or testimony than ways, examines and discusses the reasons for or against an actor decision based on that evidence. Examples include tax appeal hearings before the board of civil authority, vicious stock hearings and employment termination hearings. I'm talking a little bit about zoning and subdivision development review. Those pieces that fall for a zoning board or develop review board. There are some more specific applications that I think this would be a little. It would be broad and be a stretch. Yeah. Sounds unlikely that with this would qualify. But it does sound like Pat has some, some reservations that he would really like some more information. About some of the legal questions that have been brought up this evening. And given that. I would, I would suggest that we do. Consider putting this on our next agenda after we've gotten. Some more clarity. About questions that Pat might have. And I think some of us, other ones of us too, probably have shared some of his questions. Larry, if I can just add the other issue that hasn't been addressed is the decision making by email of the planning commission on their decision not to rescind the letter. I thought that was going to be brought up today. And Perry was here to talk about what the process was that it was engaged in. I guess, I guess what I would, I would want to say. I would like to say about that is, um, I'm not sure that now is really the time to, to talk about, um, Open meeting law. I think that is another thing, which would be really great for us to talk about at a future meeting, um, especially given the amount of time we've already spent on this topic. That right now is, I don't think it's going to change anything. And I'll also let you all know that, um, we, the town does take open meeting laws very seriously. Um, and, um, um, our town manager is, um, scheduling sort of as we speak, um, training for chairs of committees and any other members of the public who might be interested in, um, in coming up to speed on exactly what the open meeting law requires of all of us. Right. But Larry, if you don't respond swiftly to this violation that is. In the emails itself, it's a separate issue. Um, the decision was made by email and you want to put that off. That's not the same issue. And really has nothing to do with Mr. Malley's, um, application. It's a holy separate issue. That has nothing to do with the substance of this. And that's, that's my point. That's my point. It is a separate issue. And we haven't put that on our agenda for this meeting. And so. I think we should address it, but I don't think that now is the time for us to do so. It's, it's not part of our tonight's meeting to discuss. This open meeting law. There was no violation of the open meeting going. If, if, uh, If you don't want to continue that. Larry, Larry. This was. I was, I was told that. I thought I read that. Harry was here. For a purpose. To explain. It's on the planning commission too. And my understanding was. Coming. Explain it. And I'm not. Maybe I misunderstood, but I have no, I just am. I don't understand how you're going to explain it. I was told that. I thought I read that. Harry was here for a purpose. To explain. No. It's on the planning commission too. I don't understand how you, you appoint these people for the planning commission. And if they need to be trained. Or you need to be trained about open meeting law, then that needs to happen. The fact that Sonny is not, uh, you know, coming to terms with this and apologizing and say, we'll never do this again. It's really. Getting off track. Yeah. Like I said, I. Like I said, I, I, I don't think this is the time. I'm not going to say that. I'm not going to say that. I'm not going to say that. Yeah. Well, what else does a citizen to do other than Sue the town? If the select board is not going to be responsive to a file, a blatant violation of law that's been proven by the FOIA request that got all the emails that prove. What happened? They decided without a meeting by email. And you're not going to do anything about that is what you're saying. So you're not going to be doing anything about that. You're not going to be doing anything about that. You're not going to be doing anything about that. If you're not going to, you're not going to hold that. Can you decide that tonight? So that people can. Who have come tonight to hear about this. And understand. What month it is that the select board is going to approach. Yeah, I'm happy to suggest that we put an on our agenda for our next months meeting. I think the other thing to note here, Larry is it was made known that. The town is taking steps. wide for our committees and volunteers. Most of these people are volunteers. So to think there isn't going to be an issue once in a while is just ridiculous. But if the town's taken steps to line up training and to work with these groups and to help these people who are volunteering their time to the town, to meeting the ever-changing, I might add, requirements of public meetings, I think we're doing quite a bit there. You know, you may disagree with whether the Planning Commission had an issue, didn't have an issue, how it all went down, and whatnot. That's a whole different topic. But to say the town's not recognizing it is wrong because we're saying maybe we need to help some of these volunteers that are spending so many hours volunteering their time to the town and bring them up to speed on the latest and greatest version of public meeting law. So we are taking steps. We may not be addressing this specific instance and debating that one, but that's a different piece. I appreciate that and thank you Trini and I do really support the training, but I'm really concerned that Sunny even tonight is still disputing this and you've had the opportunity to look at these emails, and I think it's incumbent upon the select board if they're taking this seriously to make a public statement and say, you know what, guys, you screwed up, we'll train you, but this isn't the way we do business in Randolph and make a public statement about it. Not just, oh, let's fix it and put it under the, you know, brush it under the rug. That's my concern because this is so blatant, it's appalling. And now to tonight even hear further argument that we didn't violate the open meeting law when I've seen it from myself in the emails, it's astonishing.  Now come on, you already blew it with, you know, having and treating, I don't hold you responsible at all. You recused yourself last time, but the baton got passed back to you. And I think it would be really nice to see the town take the high road, take a stand here and say, you know what, the planning commission made a mistake. We all make mistakes and we're going to make sure we're trained so we understand our roles and how the public has to be allowed to see and be present when the town trans acts business, because that's what the open meeting law is all about. You don't get to do it in secret, whether it's on the telephone, by email or whatever. So I'm really disappointed and I expect more of my select board members in my town. And it will change my vote the next time if you don't do something here because it's wrong. Okay, Cheney, you're up. Thank you, Brooke. I just take one final comment, Larry. It's Jim from Norwich. We are happy to come back to another select board meeting. We appreciate all the work you put into it. I apologize for the drama. This has paraded you. It is a tactic to stop solar by having letters, preferred letters repealed. For instance, last night at Norwich, maybe even some people here were at that meeting trying to get a letter that we had ignored repealed. And all I ask is, if it's December, planning commission meeting, it was about panels installed on a 25% slope. That was the issue. We addressed that issue and have been trying to be good partners here. And I'm happy to come back, but I really like to know that we're not going to make this a continually changing goalpost by some of the complaints that come in such that it makes it impossible to come to a decision. So I'm just requesting that if we can get to an efficient place where we know what the issue is, we can then all settle on that and not keep changing and injecting new components into the process. May I rebut that? We at the planning commission and the select board have always maintained that the entire disturbed area of the road and the solar panels were an issue for the slopes. However, at the December meeting, we did use the PUC slope diagram to show that there were 40% slopes under the panels, because that was the most explicit way that we could see it using their slope diagram. And the steepest slope actually was under the panels there. But that doesn't mean that their slopes weren't in other places. The planning commission seized on that as the norm of solar technology as something that they could remedy and ignore all the other issues that we had brought up and focus solely on that. I feel that we did bring up the issue of the entire disturbed area and the access road at our earliest interventions here. Okay. Well, thank you both for your final comments. I think it's moving forward. Let's go on to giving some direction to the planning commission on cannabis. Let's see. I think I see Josh just jumped on too. This one was scheduled. There was a little bit of conversation about it. Maybe start to talk. If I understand the basic question of at least this part of the conversation, it's about whether or not to create a municipal control board or to explore that part of the process. So what's the role of that type of entity? Much like we have a local board of liquor control. There might be other questions. It was pointed on, I'm going to say it was last year. I think it says in the manager's report exactly when there were two votes, one to allow retail cannabis and one to allow the integrated licenses. Those are the folks that have a medical license and a retail license. I think I saw 12 or 14 of those around the state. One was in Randolph, I don't know if they're still operating, but those are limited in number, but the retail establishments don't have that same sort of set of parameters. So I don't know, Josh, is there anything in that quick and in short? Yeah, maybe we should have gotten to the weed before the solar, but I just want to say thank you to all the volunteers who serve on our commissions and slide boards. Thank you for your service. So I think what I can add is this is still evolving from the cannabis control. Basically the state statute allows municipalities who have adopted to cite retail integrated license operations in their municipality can form a cannabis control commission, much like the liquor control board. So what does that mean? Well, in essence, it's just like the liquor control board. It's kind of like a rubber stamp because this is a state regulatory process. Now cannabis businesses, they're still businesses, they still need to adhere to our zoning regulations, which is pretty clear, retailers retail, manufacturing, processing, that's all considered to be light industrial. I think part of the challenge as of right now in terms of the planning commissions and the zoning part is we don't quite know how cultivation and what use that is, but I think we are trying to, we are figuring that out. I would say one of the benefits of having a cannabis control commission that would be made up of select board members is that if there is say Senate Bill S-152 that's out there that is passed, it would allow the municipality to collect some license fees every year instead of just the state and it also allows the cannabis control commission to just get to know their cannabis business owners. Otherwise, that might not necessarily be the case. So that's just a little bit of background information. I'm happy to answer any questions that you have. So Josh, are we premature in doing this given that the state hasn't really outlined everything yet? And submitted to the state, they're being reviewed. I don't believe many of them are going to change. House Bill 701 was just passed, which codified a lot of the rules that the Cannabis Control Commission have created. And so there's very little that will be enacted that will affect municipal the municipality's ability to regulate anything. This is a state control process, but like I said, they're still businesses. They would still need to get a zoning permit. I've had multiple inquiries about this and so they're going to get a zoning permit. They apply for one. Retail is retail. Like I said, the tricky part is what is indoor cultivation and what is outdoor cultivation? And according to our zoning regulations, the zoning administrator myself can determine that. Appellants or applicants can appeal those decisions to the Bellarmere report. So my intention is to bring this to the DRB's next meeting at the end of the month because they can look at a business model or sector and they can determine a use if it's not already there. So I think we can figure this out. I think it's a good conversation to have with the select board to see if they think a Cannabis Control Commission would be beneficial for them and the municipality. And is that always the select board? I believe so, yes. So when you say they need still need a zoning permit though, isn't there work then there to be done by the planning commission on looking at the zoning regs? As far as we're going to locate these, there's rules right around proximity to schools and facilities. Right. And a lot of that, of course, according to the statute, they can't be located within 500 feet of school property. So I've looked at that map and I don't believe that falls in, that is an overlap with any district that we have that would allow retail. So retail's central business district, maybe some adjacent districts, but regardless, the state will not allow those upper-age seats of school property. Like I said, manufacturing, processing, there's cultivation and then there's processing into value-added products, into packaged flour, and then is the distribution, wholesale distribution into the retail facility. Most of our uses, so most of the value chain there already falls under light industrial, which is allowed in pretty much most of our districts to some extent. And then, of course, retail is allowed in several of our districts also. Like I said, we're not sure how cultivation, you know, there's outdoor cultivation and then there's indoor cultivation. How do we look at those uses? What use do they fall under?  So, you know, it makes it a little challenging, but again, I think that's where we can fall back on our process of, you know, engaging the development review board and the planning commission so that we are looking at cultivation equitably for both outdoor and indoor and so that anybody who's interested in that can look to the zoning regs to get a clear path forward to operating their business. Josh, if I may, you just said that the current cannabis policy does not look upon cultivation as an agricultural practice. Is that accurate? So, is it looked upon? It occurs to me maybe that's similar to like a lawn and garden center where there are growing plants and trees that you can then purchase and plant yourself. I mean, or does it just fall into a gray area that hasn't been fully thought out yet? My other question is it's been said that there, I can't recall if it was you or Trevor that there have been a number of inquiries so far and I'm just curious as to whether the bulk of inquiries have been about potential retail operations or whether there is some interest in the town in cultivation. There has been one retail inquiry in several cultivation inquiries. Interesting. I can answer the first part of that question, I think, Tom. The significance of cannabis growing, not being considered a farming activity specifically is because in Vermont, farming has a lot of exemptions, I should say, from Act 250. So, cannabis wouldn't fall under those exemptions that farming gets. And I think that was intentional that when this was all set up that farming in general is given quite a bit of leeway in terms of the things they're allowed to do compared to other kinds of uses of the land. But the cannabis cultivation doesn't fall under that category. Yeah. All right. That makes sense. Thank you. I think another important point is I think, you know, obviously, you know, with a new sector, we want to make it, you know, as easy regardless of what sector it is, we want to make it as easy for businesses to get started up. A lot of these business owners would have to still get a zoning permit from us to operate. If we don't have a cannabis control commission, there is nothing on the state side that, you know, they wouldn't tell an applicant, hey, you need to get a zoning permit. They're just going to issue their state permit. So if we have a cannabis control commission, the cannabis control board cannot issue a permit unless that applicant has gone through the municipality first to get their local license. So there might be a situation if we don't have a cannabis control commission that we have individuals who are cultivating who are not aware that they might need a zoning permit, they go to the state, they get their license, and then they start operating a cultivation business without knowing that they need a zoning permit. And so that's a potential. But we can mitigate that risk if we have a cannabis control commission because the state is not going to issue their license until it's verified that the local municipality has issued theirs. So, Josh, are you saying that the state, if we do set up one of these commissions, that the state will know that we've set it up and that before a grower or other business, kind of businesses would be able to get a permit from the state, they would say, oh, your town has a commission that controls this. You need to go through them first and then come back to us. It's actually in the rules, the cannabis control board has said that if a municipality creates a cannabis control commission, they must inform the cannabis control board of that so that they're aware. So how I would see an applicant go through the system, which is they would reach out to myself and the zoning department, I would have the conversation with them informing them of the application process to get a zoning permit, and then inform them of the cannabis control license process. Simultaneously, working with them to get on the cannabis control commission's agenda and issue the zoning permit so it happens as quickly as possible. And then once that's done, then they can apply to the state for their state license. From what we're hearing, it sounds like there's some pretty good reasons to establish such a commission and not much of a downside. You can also condition approvals of licenses on, if you have the commission on some of these factors, such as Josh had mentioned the zoning compliance one, we've got a sign ordinance, so that would be one of those things you can regulate, condition compliance, or condition approval of a license. You have to make sure that compliance is part of that. Public nuisances are another one, so you can do things noise is probably the most common one that comes up. Because you've got the control board, you might have an ordinance in place that regulates those things, but it wouldn't affect the license at the end of the day. What this would also allow you to do is to tie a compliance with the ordinances to the successful holding of that license if there's a violation. So that if they violate the ordinances, say you have a habitual offender of some kind, you could revoke that license authority at the local control commission, where if you don't have it, we're trying to use whatever tools are in ordinance, which are probably just going to be fines. And there's no real, there's not as good a tool set to maybe encourage the activity to see. So there's a little other wrinkles there in addition to all the zoning compliance stuff that you get with the commission that you wouldn't get if we just let it sit with the state. So the discussion was to give direction to the planning commission. So are we looking to give a planning commission direction to create this? It seems to me like there ought to be some effort there to look at where we want these. There's areas that the state doesn't allow it, but where would we like to see it happen? I look at the planning commission for. Right. And I think it's important to know that the state statute to, it trumps local statutes, right? Our zoning regulations cannot be stricter than the states.  Like I said, light manufacturing covers most of the cannabis licenses that cover processing, manufacturing, the value added stuff, wholesale, warehousing, distribution, all of that's going to fall underneath light manufacturing. A lot of districts that allow most of them. So I think it's just getting clarity over how we should be interpreting what outdoor cultivation and indoor cultivation is just so that, you know, again, we're we're treating people equitably. And I think that that is easy to be determined. The DRB has not weighed in on this. And like I said, at the end of the month, they will. So I think we'll have a little bit more guidance from them. They might decide that that outdoor and indoor cultivation, because the state has not deemed it to be an agricultural practice, they might decide that it's an entirely different use. And so then we might have to work with the planning commission to at that point to come up with some regulations at that time. So I guess I'm back to my original question then of whether we're too early to be looking at this. I don't know. I've been trying to get the planning commission to look at this for the last six months. So nobody seems to want to make a decision. And I don't I don't think it's too early. Our regulation says that the zoning administrator is to determine the use. If people want to wait, that's fine. Effective April 1st, the state applications go online. Applications will be given out by the states before May 1. So I guess I'm happy to decide where we want to put these these businesses or what uses. I just don't think that's right for one person to be deciding that. And based on the timing, we might be talking about two different pieces. There might be say you return in March to kind of review the considerations for a control commission. And that's the part that you do before that April 1 deadline. It would leave open that period of time where the zoning administrator has to interpret sort of appropriateness of anybody who wants to put any of these enterprises somewhere. But then the planning commission can correspondingly be looking at, you know, what should be regulated. They should include anything. And then you've got that process, just that that one would take longer. Even even if we were ready to go with a set of zoning changes today at the planning commission level, we're still going to be outside likely outside that marker. Or for say May 1 license issuance would be awfully close to try to turn both their process and our process around the statutory timeline. So I think we're talking we're up against the spring deadline. We're probably talking control commission as sort of first action. And then at least you've got some regulatory role in it at a legislative body level. And then whatever it is on the land use regulation side as well. I wouldn't I wouldn't think that the cannabis control commission would be, you know, you guys wouldn't be reviewing an application per se, just like you whatever you do for the liquor control board. Whatever that process is, I would imagine it would be very similar because they would already have their zoning permit, which would be either, you know, approved by the zoning administrator or the DRB. So I don't I'm not quite sure there would be a lot of lift for the for the commission. But that's it's up to interpretation. I think the state has has, you know, left that up to municipalities to decide. Give us a little bit of a hook so that somebody does get out of order doesn't go first, or there's some other disconnect in the process. You could either send it back or condition our approval is conditioned upon and get you successfully make it through the zoning. It's ideally they'll have gone through that first and come to you there. And some of it might be that we have to talk about some of the policy elements of it too. It might be that whether they make it into the zoning rigs or not, we may want to set up what's the flow. I mean, I don't have any good way to gauge how many of these we're going to get. I think there's a market threshold for what you can support for retail cannabis, particularly in the town of our side. Like I don't know how often we'll get to, you know, get to exercise any of these, any of this knowledge and capability. But there might be policy elements we can do to try to frame how people come in and navigate the process to make sure that things get reviewed and checked off in the right place. But I think it's going to be iterative. It's going to be while we live with it at the simplest level. It may be as easy as what we do for liquor licenses, which is a pretty light but who knows, it's a different animal. So let's break this into two pieces. First one being whether we should have this control board and the other one being kind of what we toss to the planning commission to look at for us. So I think the first issue of whether we want to look or explore having the control board is a different issue than what we think we need out of the planning commission, right? So I'd agree with that because I think that the control board is no different than the current liquor board. And so the select board is going to grant the permission for an establishment to happen. And I'm assuming that I don't know this for a fact, but I would imagine that just like the liquor situation that there's probably going to be a cannabis inspector, like there's a liquor inspector from the state. And so, you know, our role here is to provide a license. And then I'm assuming that once we've done that, or maybe before, they've gotten their license from the state. So I agree that the select board should probably be handling that part of it. And as far as what I think the planning commission should be looking at is, you know, we already have zoning laws that, you know, address retail. And so the question is, is, you know, we're going to consider this to be the type of business that's going to fit into one of the categories that's already, you know, in the zoning laws. Question is, is, you know, are those going to be allowed, you know, everywhere as we're allowing retail, or are we going to limit those to just, you know, the downtown business district for as far as the retail component, I think as far as the cultivating side, I can see that basically happening anywhere. So in my mind, if we're allowing, you know, certain businesses to happen, you know, outside of the village limits and are you five zones, then I think probably that's what we need to look at here. Okay, so throwing this going forward, we want to ask Trevor to look at whether there's any guidance out there on kind of the framework of what that liquor or what the control board would look like. Like what are, what that processes, you know, are we, do we have an application that people fill out? Does it then come before the board?  Or are we able to have a process by which if there's no issues and whatnot, it can be an administrative renewal that doesn't have to come before the board? You know, we've talked about this with the liquor licenses and the state won't allow us to just allow it to be an administrative approval, but on the liquor side, but you know, is there framework of what that control board would look like? And then on the flip side, if, do we want to toss direction to the planning commission to ask them to look at kind of what this, what this looks like? And do we want it to be like any other business where we look at lighting and traffic control and those type of things only? Or do we want to have other things we look at? Are we, we can't spot zone, we can't single anybody out and whatnot, but are there, you know, do we, do we have areas we don't want them in? You know, do they really all have to be in the business zone? Do we want them scattered so there's allowed in random center and east random too?  Thoughts? So one of the differences between this and liquor is the liquor control, liquor is controlled by the state. They're the ones that set the prices and they're the ones that set the tax. And in this particular case, it's different because they're not distributing, whereas the state distributes the liquor, the state would not be distributing this. So it's a very good question whether or not we would be able to, you know, basically administrate, you know, another or renewal of a permit without having to come to the board every time. That's why I don't know what the rules and, you know, look like on that. So we definitely need Trevor to do some digging here. I think they're annual licenses. I think they have to go to that process annually because the state wants their money. Right. But does the cannabis control board have to be the one to approve it or can we set it up? So in Randolph, the processes, the board approves it the first time. It's an administrative approval after that unless there's an issue with them. I think if there's a cannabis control control commission that that would be an annual license that they would have to approve just like the the state license from the cannabis control board. Yeah. But I think that's something we would need to flush out, right? Is there a way to make it so it doesn't all have to come before the board if they're in this just a routine process so they're not waiting or whatnot. But so for next time, we'll put together almost like a little mini users manual of sorts. From what we can tell, you know, your guide to creating and operating your local cannabis control commission and see if that's something you're still interested in at that point or at least better understand. And then that might be the action element at that point. And then also as part of that process, try to draw and identify some of those questions that you may want to consider and then pass the planning commission to digging further. Sounds good. Yeah, I think that's a good idea. I think the board is a good idea, but I think having the discussion in a broader context is a good idea too and having the planning commission kind of flush some of this stuff out and decide, you know, should there be how should that all kind of play out and how does it interact? Do we need any changes in the zoning and whatnot? Let them any changes in the town plan to allow it in certain areas, that type of thing. But all right, let's move right along because we haven't got very far on this agenda today. East Valley Community Hall project, the whole discussion over as they go out to raise funds to help renovate the hall, would the town consider allowing the hall to be named after a family name or some other appropriate name identified by somebody if they were a donor towards the rehab of the building? What does that look like? How much is that donation and what's the process by which we go about that? So let me weigh in here a little bit because I was tasked with what do other places do and it really boils down to the type of building, the institution or the facility where it's at and naming buildings or jointly naming buildings ranges anywhere in pricing from what I found from like $75,000 up into the million. So it depends on the size of the building, size of the project. It seems though typically if somebody's paying or sponsoring a facility or a building like this that there's significant recognition that seems to happen in the 25% to 35% category if that's what they're contributing to the cost of the project. So that's what I found from my research. I would just said having been involved in other communities and with arts organizations and other nonprofit organizations that have grappled with this that figure that Perry cited is pretty consistent. Roughly 25 to 30% of the total project cost is sort of set as a benchmark for naming rights or and sometimes what happens is someone will make a sizable contribution but then they'll ask to have it named in honor of someone else too. It's not just you know kind of a self-aggrandizing kind of thing but sometimes it's honoring a making a contribution to honor an exemplary community servant or citizen or something like that. But it typically is in that 25 to 35% range and this is a much smaller facility in larger facilities. Your naming rights extend down to you know an auditorium or a gymnasium or a meeting a conference room or a wing of a hospital. In this case we're talking about just one relatively small building. So assume the estimate to redo this building is in the six to eight hundred thousand dollar range. I would say a two hundred and fifty thousand dollar maybe a two hundred to two hundred and fifty thousand dollar contribution would to my mind at least would would constitute sufficient amount to give the person naming rights. The other thing we you know I hate to bring this up but when you think about all the controversy that's going on around the country and not not necessarily that we would have this happen here in Randolph but you know what I'm getting at is that the person who is making the contribution needs to be on the up I don't know how to put it needs to be on the up and up. We don't want to have a contribution from someone with who's who's carrying a lot of fraught political baggage or you know allegations of racism whatever it might be you've got to make sure that I do think we need to make sure that the person is of you know high high integrity and whatever moral character however you want to put it I can't imagine that would ever be an issue but you know college is all over the country you're dealing with having to rename dormitories and and educational buildings because the original donor that the property was named after was a slave owner or whatever I'd hate to see us go down that rabbit hole with something as you know as as basic as as the the community center the community hall I should say so what you're saying is somebody needs to be doing some betting here yeah yeah and Trini I apologize you asked me several months ago you said that someone had approached you to ask about the the you know Kimball and Chandler and and whether they were you know slave owners or advocates for slavery or whatever I don't even know where that's you know that notion came up but I I offered to do some digging into that and never did and it it hasn't come up again so I sort of put it aside but it's that kind of thing we wouldn't want to have somebody contribute $250,000 towards the project and then find out that they're you know that that you know they were former Ku Klux Klansman or something like that I mean I'm really stretching there but you know what I'm saying there does need to be some betting you're saying we shouldn't ask you to bet them Tom so here's what if we have this project and it's going to take $800,000 to do it and we have two people come forward with $200,000 each how do we name the building uh flip the coin and see who goes first I would say whoever comes forward with cash on the barrelhead first you know the cash of the Grand Parsons though there you go is it the highest donor of at least x percent is that how we word it that's that's a possibility or you could do a hyphenated name you know yeah thinking you do a joint yeah you can do the uh you know you're out who goes first if you had two if you had two donors that were of equal value you know and 25 percent or more well probably your names before mine in the alphabet so we it can be the Armstrong airs uh community hall if you'd like I do I do think 200 to 250 for this project presuming it is a $600 to $800,000 project is a reasonable benchmark um and you know I would love to think there are two people in this community that could come up with that amount but I doubt it oh I wouldn't say that well who would come up who could come up with it and would come up with it I guess well I mean we've had significant gifts from folks before I mean you know generous to numerous organizations and certainly would have qualified for you know that type of I wouldn't be a that wouldn't wouldn't surprise me that if you know somebody was out there and thought that was a really good they really stood behind it they may be able to they may be within those means to do that so yeah yeah 3d I kind of like the idea of a third you know 25 to 35 but maybe say a third something like that somewhere in that range and I think when you have a smaller dollar amount project like this your your risk is higher of having more than one donor at a set percentage it's a good problem to have I just want us to be ready if we have it but you know do they you know let's have them start in on a bidding war hey highest number gets it yeah I mean you could yeah that could be that could be it could be auctioned off as long as it's you know there's a minimum that there's a minimum that needs to be hit and you get auctioned off or you said you know two people could jointly share it if they get along well right if not then you think there's a way to go right you want the bidding war because they're just going to jack it up to get it away from the other guy no it's happened before I'm sure I'd love to think we could have that problem just want to be prepared you know yeah no totally agree I mean I and I think if that situation should arise then you know that's would probably be who best to talk about a couple options one you know would they both contribute because if you somebody outbid the other wouldn't you want the other person to be involved too if they felt that strongly about the project well you they would have to be a it would have to be a commitment that they were making right knowing that they did not be the winner see this is this is where larger projects are easier it's easier to cope with this issue because you name parts of the facility after large donors you know and so John Doe gets the auditorium and Jane Smith gets the you know conference center or whatever but in this case you've just got one building unless we're going to build a stage in there and then you could you could for example call it the there is one well then then when that's renovated and I've never been in the facility but then when when it is renovated and the architects you know when the when the design final design is said and done you could sell the naming rights to the stage for I don't know just making a number up 25 or 50,000 something like that so the the hall gets named after one person in the stage gets named after another and you on and on if there are other if there are other discreet places within the hall you can sell naming rights to those too and you you know you just put up a nice plaque and have a reception for the person that it's named after when the time comes and let them ribbon yeah yeah I mean I would be as this moves along a little further and we have a clearer picture of what the cost is going to be and we hammer out this naming project naming issue a little bit more we flesh it out more I'd be happy to because I've worked in the area of development and fundraising in the nonprofit sector for most of my career or a large portion of it I'd be happy to work with the with the hall committee on a naming driven fundraising prospectus or something like that I like that idea you know when they're really ready to go out and solicit these contributions they're going to need to identify somebody that's going to go out and make the asks I'm not the person to do that but I'm certainly happy to lend my expertise to how you make an ask and what the value of an ask is and that kind of thing perfect you're nominated be careful what you ask for do we want so what we need to do is come up with how the town wants to do this because this won't be the only building hopefully but do we need a policy that talks about this do we do we look at buildings and do it from a you know for x percent you get to name you know this part gets named from you but if you go to this you know is it piecemeal you gotta buy all the pieces to get your name on the building uh normally you would you would have one sizable gift for the whole build to name the whole building take for example at uvm medical center back in the day when it was medical center hospital of vermont I was working there in their public relations and development program and um that's what brought me to vermont and they had a major building project in the late eighties and early nineties and the main building I don't know if it's still called that I would imagine it is the main building of the new mchv was called the mcclure building and it was named after the former publisher owner of the brollington free press um and the mcclures he and his wife gave something like I'm just making this up but something like 10 million dollars back then in the late 70s early 80s or late 80s early 90s um and that building was named the mcclure building so but then there were all these different entities around the camp of the medical campus and even around the university that are named after either historical figures or large donors um but I wouldn't say that a donor should like kind of put together a chinese menu or a jigsaw puzzle of different pieces to have their name on the building should be named after someone or maybe two some ones if there are two large donors you know um and then you just hyphenate the names well it's you know seems to be pretty typical of you know educational facilities I mean that's you know that's where I reached out to is you know Dartmouth college certainly has you know numerous buildings named after you know folks who are major contributors to their campaigns or whatever the project right right and you know that's the uvm and middlebury and those kind of places so I mean I'm presuming that that josie and the other people uh behind the community hall project I would hope they have a sense of who they might go to in the community to look for that kind of support um and then it's just a matter of crafting crafting the ask and going to them with a proposal and saying you know would you do this in exchange for that you'll get this your name on the building your name on the stage whatever um they've had some preliminary contact with a few people um and they've kind of floated some stuff out there but they are really looking for what the select board would support uh as far as kind of the value of the donation to the naming rights okay what what are they what are they proposing right now as they're so they have a very tentative uh very you know even in draft form a budget for what they think the full project is going to cost them we've been throwing out this number of 600 to 800 000 is that based on some preliminary number crunching yes yeah yeah yeah so you want to do a do you want to do a motion about this or do you want to just provide them with some guidance right now and if they come back with if they think that that's achievable then we can make further decision um I I think that's right I think the 30 30 to 35 percent of whatever their projected budget is is is a reasonable amount to ask for soul naming rights um and if they were so blessed as to have somebody step up with two separate $250 000 contributions and right and they were amenable to it I just say hyphenate the name you know um yeah Smith Jones community hall right I'm gonna start with you guys I think it needs to be in that in that percentage range so do we want to just go back and and and tell them that's our recommendation and then you're more than welcome to I'm happy to step up and meet with their task force or their committee or whatever it is and start to try and flesh out a we should sell the stage too and if there are any other locations in that again I've not been in the building so I don't know if there's a meeting room it could be that you know we could we could sell the naming rights to the meeting room or I think we should stop short of selling the restrooms although at the Flynn in Burlington the urinals have sponsor names above them I'm not making it up it's true um so you can get really crazy um but uh I'm not sure we want to go that that far all right let me go back and chat with them and see if that's enough direction to keep them moving yep and again offer my services um Trini if they um they want to sit down with me hash some things out too all right we'll do that I assume when they name a urinal it's they do it for somebody else I'm not sure what the naming rights cost for the urinals but there are name tags at least the last time I was at the Flynn um um I you know you're not you're looking at the wall in front of you what can I say and there was a name tag there so all right moving along adopting the grant agreement resolution for the child care project this is the standard grant agreement resolution form there are a few of these out there we'll have to fill in the grant agreement number I know there's been a little uh time lag in getting that um just didn't have it when I filled the rest of it we didn't put that in before we send it off um otherwise the form's filled out it's part of uh getting us to being able to execute said grant agreement I'm going to adopt the grant agreement resolution for the child care project I'll second that all those in favor hi hi those she carries the certificate of no appeal or suit pending I know Mimi's listening so we'll see if she's she's gonna run pretty fast she's just upstairs I can run up and check I'm gonna run up and grab her yeah she's here thank maybe our pace through her off so you're comfortable I don't know that uh there's nothing really to explain isn't it a statutory requirement that we do this if we don't have anything pending as of the 1st of February plus it protects you if something goes okay I couldn't unmute my computer it's just the form that says we don't have any is that what you're asking I think that's a general question it's just the form saying that we don't have any appeals pending on my grand list any grievances um that this grand list is launched as it is I'll move the way through the certificate of no appeal or suit pending to the 2020 one very much I'll second we're moving in a second all those in favor hi hi all right opposed scary soldier on Mimi next up is the profession on the fireworks we've received notice that the village fire department is not going to take the lead on those this coming year they indicated why I'm just curious the price went up drastically yeah I've heard that from other communities as well but can I share with you about that a little bit so you know I know a little bit about the process and so I actually had a conversation yesterday with DJ from North Star fireworks and you know the situation is exactly is what's going on with other businesses around the state is they're staffing shortages and so they're in the same boat as a lot of people a lot of businesses are where you know there's just not enough people who you know in filling the needs of that field and so consequently you know it's kind of like airline seats they've only got so much capacity at that point in time for that week and they technically I think that's you know I think she explained to me that maybe that's 40 percent of their gross or maybe even higher you know for their entire business model during that period of time and so consequently they're just you know an increase in their supplies and an increase in their staff so they've chosen to take those shows and you know maximize what they can maximize so that's why the price has now gone up so it was $10,000 show I believe before it was a I don't know five or $6,000 show you have to ask the fire department about that number but that was the impression I got yeah and so the fire the fire department was happened to do some fundraising to make up the difference between what they were getting from admissions already so that was just too big a gap for them to look at the question was whether the town wanted to take it on or whether we wanted to allow somebody out in the private sector to do it or just drop it. Were they willing to do something that the town did some of the funding were they willing to do the organizing and so forth? It sounded to me like they were ready to walk away from that. It had become quite a hassle and Trevor and I can attest to that. That's a site specific issue you know that was trying to get an agreement with the Brunswick school who was the new ownership of the pit so but you know in the end worked out so I'll give you you know my here's my take on this I would give you you know permission to use the top of far as hill as we did you know during the pandemic period of time I don't want to be involved in fundraising for it I did that once I can tell you that was very successful but I don't want to do that again but from that location you know you know everybody told me they could see those fireworks for miles around and there was plenty of viewing points to see them so that's my take on that. I don't think at the town level we have the capacity to do all that organizing. Well it didn't take a minute it doesn't take a you know if you're not charging an admission fee and you're not worried about selling food you know I suppose they could look out of mess but I mean for me to do it you know that you know the times you've done it for Winterfest it's honestly not a lot of work you know the biggest thing is getting a permit from you know the fire chief and you know other than that basically you know in my case it's turning over the top of the hill to these guys and it's pretty simple I mean you just you know there's an area I don't know 300 feet I guess that just has to be you know no one can be near and the fire department you know I'm assuming in the summer time you need to have them on site in case there's an emergency but you know that's not so much the case for what I've done in the winter so I don't know is it a free community event that we put on or do we try to find another organization that wants to you know take on the the the process of you know trying to generate and raise sponsorship I will tell you that during the 2020 4th of July event that I did we kept upping the numbers to how many dollars worth of fireworks can we could buy because as we kept on receiving money from GoFundMe and private checks and things like that we were around the nine to ten thousand dollar range and that was all just contributions so that was done privately outside of the town correct correct what about let's throw this out there I'm sorry Sunny's not still here what about asking the two rotary clubs if this might be something they would want to take on as a joint project and they might even be able to raise money above the cost of the fireworks and have the fireworks be a benefit for I'm just you know speculating have have the fireworks be a benefit for a scholarship fund or something anything they raise over and above the ten grand or whatever it takes and then they could even have presumably they could stage a cookout somewhere you know barbecue chicken dinner or whatever as an additional fundraiser as well just thought I'm no longer in Rotary so I wouldn't be the one to make the approach but so there is so there is a possibility there I mean like I said I've got too much on my plate next summer to take this on yeah that's why I'm offering the property but if you know if an organization wanted to you know use the property to do exactly what you're talking about you know maybe there's some music some entertainment prior to the fireworks I'm happy to let you know them use that that venue you know we've created that little thing we've been done for Chandler and try to help them out so I'm happy to provide that space but I cannot be involved in you know the organization or that right now I've just got way too much on the plate yeah yeah so does somebody want to reach out and see if that's something they're interested in the Rotaries are interested in doing that yeah somebody maybe I'm sure that you know Tom maybe just reach out to Sam Cole and ask him he's now the president of the who's the president of the more of the sunrise club I think that's Sam Sam Cole right okay it was sunny but it's changed hands now and just oh well I think yeah Sam Cole yeah yeah I can I can reach out to him or you know I know I don't know Sam but I know something quite well and I can reach out to John Holmes is handing off the leadership to I believe to Bob Wright of the of the noontime club so I can I can I can at least speak to the two of them and make some overtures to the morning club as well and see if it's anything they're interested in the noontime club is far more financially solvent than the that's not the right word but far more financially well healed than the morning club is from years of fundraising for scholarships and so on so they might be amenable to taking it on especially if it could be another form of benefit yeah I think that's a good start I'm not sure if there's other any other organizations that that can pull pull that off there's not that I'm thinking right right now it's like I don't know who would who else would be able to to do that yeah Perry didn't you say that you you fundraised for the fireworks last last time at Fars Hill when you had them during the during the summer and that that was successful you raised yeah a bit of money so I'm I'm wondering if our real issue here isn't so much that we need to find an sort of an organization to kind of it it just sounds like we need to find a human being of any kind who would be willing to kind of you know go around and find find folks who will help pay for it sounds like the there are there is private money out there that's willing to help out with this kind of thing so maybe it's a matter of having somebody who's willing to go around and do it and Perry it sounds like you're you've got too much going on to do that but maybe there's there's somebody you know who can talk to the people that you talk to and yeah there's I mean you know it was you know it was a joint effort with you know four or five folks who were you know talking it up and you know making a few phone calls and then Mary Richter did a GoFundMe page you know and the GoFundMe page I don't remember it's off the top of my head exact number but you know the GoFundMe thing was you know that might have raised four thousand or so and then there was a substantial number of business sponsors that probably kicked in you know five hundred bucks and it's I think it's totally possible that you know you just have to find the right entity who can that can do that kind of thing and you know I don't know maybe you know here's another thought you know is it is it a rec department event thing you know I don't know whether that's possible but I know they're strapped you know and Heidi's got a lot going on when it comes to that so maybe that's not realistic I don't know maybe Chandler takes it on and does it in coordination with uh some time of a of an event you know this brings music in so I think I like that idea I think the rec department has enough going on especially in the summer but I I wonder if the channel organization would be interested in helping to put something together that that would be they're already using they're already using the hill okay I mean we that you know I think we'll continue along I mean it's been it's been growing and it's relatively successful so maybe they're the entity that puts it together and you know they pick up sponsorship to cover the cost of fireworks so I I know right now when I talk to DJ you know she wasn't going to give away the date we have a little bit of time so you know what that time looks like maybe three to four weeks is my impression so if we could come up with something she would you know we probably could get that that price and be honored yeah some sort of musical performance followed by fireworks that sounds great you know well you know for years I mean Sam was doing that at the stock firm with you know VSO you know selling tickets to the concert and you know fireworks were part of that process so yeah yeah that was fun and there's enough room certainly you know at the hill to I think accommodate something along that line especially if it's a ticket sale situation you know there's I'm probably not going to plant corn next year I'm just going to put that field back into grass for a while so you know there's certainly enough space there I think to to accommodate something along that lines of like a VSO situation natural amphitheater okay so Tom's going to pursue the rotary who's going to pursue Chandler I can have the conversation but I'd rather you know let Tom let's let's try the rotary first and then you know if the rotary says now we're not interested I'll have a conversation with Karen so Tom will be in touch after his conversation yep great then next up is a member to the transcript sorry go ahead muted I was just babbling along there not really I will reach out to Bob Bob right in John Holmes of the noontime club right away and then kind of get their take on it and see if it's something they may want to do collaboratively with the uh with the sunrise club and we'll see how that goes all right touch base with Perry keeping a toaster yeah I will I'll reach out to John right away um the fact I'll I'll see Bob tomorrow because we've got an RAC DC board meeting so um I can even I can even mention it to him there all right so moving right along two rivers transportation advisory committee rep this is to consider appointing Trevor to go have that fun I get all the best now so in the past we've got a long way to form one more thing yep yeah I think it's that's the last time I think we've had somebody to regulate with this fund Bill Morgan was in that role so it's quite a few years back I think at this point it would be useful especially if there are some conversations about prioritization that could lead to funding during the infrastructure avenues that might be opening up make sure that as we develop projects we can maybe get them in into that regional um priority framework and make sure that they that's another way to get them to the front so that they're at least seen considered so you'd be interested in doing that yeah yeah but I've served on the one in Chitton County I think way back when one of my tours of that that way I'll move the way our town manager Trevor to the TRORC transportation advisory committee second all those in favor hi hi hi post ocean ferries we have anything under other business nope nope next up is a random house sewer issue um should I start with just a little background and um and then I think we will need to understand a little better what the the town typically does in situations like this does that make sense yep so also um I think we've been joined by our project superintendent um who's Adam Proctor I think he's on the call now so um Adam please feel free to to chime in and I also um if you would like me to share some sort of I have a photo and a map that I can uh share to show the the sort of location of the issue and the issue itself if that would be helpful we haven't generally enabled screen sharing outside here for security reasons okay all right I send them to you yeah and we forwarded them on so everybody okay so everybody's seen it okay um so um so in a in a nutshell we we are now unable to connect the we had to move a sewer line uh around where the uh new part of the building would extend um the initial location I think uh didn't work for a variety of reasons and so would this is this is a suit of a new location um and now we are unable to connect where we were supposed to connect because about 130 feet of this 12 inch place sewer line um looks to be disintegrating and um the location at which the connection would have to be is apparently about three feet higher than our connection was uh designed to meet because of the it's um you know the the elevation line in a straight line um should have been three feet lower than this structure is so indicating that this is kind of like a roller coaster shape instead of a straight line elevation down uh and so this area um can't be connected to this as part of the existing town sewer line so um we can't continue until this is resolved somehow our construction folks at nailer and brine um did a estimate for us and got some material estimates for the approximate costs of the installation of these 130 feet in the structure that's needed which comes to about 40 000 and those estimates were forwarded to you um and then another concern that was expressed when this possibility of having to replace this came up which um I'm sure Adam can explain more is that then the structure that this would end in essentially if you replaced all this line then it's ending at a very old structure as well I guess it's a some sort of brick construction and um these are all very old very brittle uh pipes and so we're concerned that the end may be difficult to or just non-traditional at least and so we wanted to get the town water departments um help in sort of uh quarrying and installing the sleeve that we would need to hook up to there just because that is their structure and um it seems like it it certainly wouldn't want to be something where we um where we did something to to cause that to be you know hurt in any way so that's there's multiple lines coming into that structure also so we're just concerned with any kind of damage to any other lines yes that's true that's you met had mentioned that that there's what a six and two twelve or something the water department can confirm 12 yeah so we've got chris here right now and he's on a bit of a time crunch and I think we anticipated being close to hour three of our concert by the time we got here so I don't know if you want to just hear from chris really quickly from our perspective because he's gonna be um he's got something he's gonna go do in about 10 minutes I don't know just to get a jump in there it's a little out of order but try to make the most of this time um so first of all the line is still functioning um we've never actually had a problem on that line I get that the clay bells are cracked but believe you mean we have a lot worse conditional lines around town um I can list off about 10 within no time um but yes there's recruiting and but we've never had an issue posed by this line uh typically if we had we would get it out clean it out camera if we saw that there was roots protruding we would there's contractors that actually have root treatments um broken clay bells are actually typical of an old line especially one that's been turned like this one has um just from sitting under the ground there's kind of how it works um so that the real issue we're told in the project is the free foot but um I don't disagree though with the line you know is not in optimum shape and the structure that they want to go into is probably one of the oldest active sewer structures there is in town I would just solely hire I don't even know what who the contractor would be that would have to do it but we'd have to hire a contractor to do that that's we can't core and tap into a manual we can't even do that with a new one ourselves so um we typically do everything precast as best as possible um trying to think of what else I can include oh that manual the one that the one that's you know that they be tying into does take about a little probably two-thirds of the town's flow through that manual a lot of it goes through it so there is some care that needs to be taken you know if we're gonna do something to that aspect Chris just a question if we have a developer that needs to tap into one of our lines do we take care of that for them or do they are they responsible for hiring a contractor to do that work um they have to hire a contractor that we approve okay which makes sense that's common yeah the the issue I think change is you know two-fold one is that we weren't supposed to have to tap into that I think we were our plan had us you know 130 feet back and that became impossible and if um so we're looking for some help here this is a you know uh granted it there may be worse uh but this is pretty significantly bad in terms that it's it appears that we can't do what we originally and were had agreed to do and we're we're going to do as a part of the hookup um and I guess Chris um so if if I could ask Chris a question and and uh I don't know if if Adam could craft me some verbalizing this incorrectly but is so are you saying that we could hook up to it the way it is the condition on the line is not what's preventing the hookup is all I'm saying um it's the height difference is the big thing I don't really understand where the height issue came from if somebody didn't verify the actual depth of the pipes before the flans were brought up I'm not sure of that usually engineers there is a manhole an older manhole that would have been in the corner that if they did have actually checked the height of it I'm pretty sure we're verified that all time in that that was done yeah I could chime in a little bit on that Chris um so yeah there's the existing sewer manhole that's you know off print street and then there's the other existing manhole north of the Randolph house so basically I believe those two inverts were found and then a line was drawn between the two structures and then basically the map was done from there so when we get to that 130 foot north portion of it you know from print street north that's where the elevation by the math of the invert at the lower structure to the math of the invert at the upper structure was supposed to be three feet lower but it's not so obviously all our design is based on all those invert heights and the hard part about all of this is that an existing line runs directly through the foundation excavation that will need to be done for Randolph house that's why there's the urgency on it so when you say they were supposed to be there but they aren't who confirmed where they were supposed to be you can get an invert elevation from within the structure okay so it wasn't a town of Randolph employee who told you this is where the line is that was done through the engineering work I believe it's from the ad belts but I can't really answer that from 1977 and that we have our engineer is Dave conger from d&k who who did the maps and things but I think the point that as I understand it is that this um so normally you'd expect this to be like a ramp a straight you know line from one to the other and this area that's three feet higher is actually like you know like a little um 60 feet yeah it's like it's like a bump so it's not draining down toward the invert the way a sewer line should drain it's going up and down when we when we expose the pipe that's in the photo it was three quarter full of solid material so I guess what I'm trying to understand is whether this was something that should have been uncovered during the due diligence of getting the site work data before the design was done I I guess part of the question is what are you asking the town to do so we obviously this impacts us because of time because we we are stopped and so we can do this we are also concerned because so much flows through this including stuff from Randolph house that clearly this area is just you know it may you know quote unquote work sort of but if he opened this up and there's a bunch of stuff sitting there it's not you know working working the way it should be working and the fact that there's this three foot difference is I'm sure part of the reason that that's happening that the you know some of it's getting through but maybe it's backing up as a result of the elevation change we are just stopped because we don't we don't have the ability to do what we understood we were supposed to do when we initially did the design based on the drawings and the invert heights that are there for engineers to use to create these drawings and and the impact to us is not only time but it's you know this is a forty thousand you know or to the town is this a forty thousand dollar change in cost and it's and then you know it's our project but it's this isn't our part of the project initially so um I guess we're asking how the town can help us get through this so that this is you know better safer but that we don't have to bear the whole cost of it we're you know happy to think about supporting it um but you know it's a big ticket item and delay in being able to pursue this would create an enormous um cost to the project um and I'll just mention one other thing which you may or may not know that we had without being required to do it for the so uh in as a part of our plans we are installing a water hydrant near print street and that was something we did in part because we discovered in the course of the project design that there was no um hydrant on print street that had satisfactory flows to serve that area that the fire department was having to use main street hydrants and bring hose down and so we agreed to add that that was a thirty forty thousand dollar ticket item that we have already done to improve infrastructure on that street we just there are limits to how much we can afford to take on when it really impacts as Chris said this is a substantial amount of flow goes through here and it's really just not designed right apparently or installed right initially and the pipe is so old I mean if you can see this picture and if you know Adam was saying that when they opened it up there's you know there's evidence that it is not working that you know it's a good idea to fix it and in terms of the issue at the other end is which we just want to make sure that you know that's not on our list if possible because there are so there's so much going through there and it's another older structure and this could you know we don't want to have to go another 130 feet um to uh to continue to replace you know unknowable old infrastructure so Julie is this project federally funded yeah and so a cost like this would be a budget adjustment in that grant a cost like this would have to go against uh no I mean we can't just add to the charge of the grant no it would have to come out of uh either contingency or another line item and there's you know limits to that especially now given that in this um environment I guess we call it we have already incurred substantial price increases and time delays that are taxing this budget didn't we uh in some of your prior projects hasn't the town had to vote to accept amendments to the grants to add funding because of cost overruns the only grants of that sort are cdbg grants this doesn't that I'm aware of that doesn't this this project doesn't use cdbg grants so there's no process for you to go back and look at additional funding from whatever source you have not in not in time and this we've been back once this did initially was a million dollars over over initial estimates and um that we had to go back before we began to make up um that cost so could Adam explain the three foot difference what why is there three foot difference uh yeah again the design which is what we follow you know as a contractor so the design was based on the two existing structures that this municipal pathway travels from so there's one structure on the north end of the site there's the other structure on the south end next to print street so as a design they connected the dots between the two structures so you have a pathway between the two in a fairly straight run and then they also have the two different elevations where the pipe leaves the north end and enters the south end um so those invert elevations are what the entire design is based on you know you do your footage and that's just how they get their increments of rise per foot so then the design for the entire you know sewer is based on those invert elevations and that's where we get a elevation we need in that parking lot which was three feet lower than what the line actually is if that makes sense was that a mistake in that design when it was done in 77 78 I don't know when the actual line was put in but I know when Randolph's house uh you know was built so right but is that needed a mistake in the design of where it would be connected again I'm not a designer to me the mistake would be from the get-go that it wasn't installed on a straight line and you know at the elevation between the two but you know I can't say how they installed it or you know what happened during that install but I just know it doesn't work for this project design and your experience on these projects if there's a flaw in the design whose responsibility is that isn't it usually the designer gets hard when you get into municipalities um I don't know what else they could have done other than based on the two structures and the elevations of each start to know you know what's underground so how about generally Adam I'm sorry how about Trini's question but generally generally would it be a design flaw are you saying yeah take me to the valley out of it make them all private or other partners uh you know I can't speak again back when it was put in whether it's 1890 or 1977 I mean obviously nowadays yes it would be a flaw back when it's put in 100 years ago possibly not you know there's a lot less strict guidelines back then but I mean it's obvious that it's not flowing even though it hasn't failed yet right but Trini correct me if I'm wrong your question was about what happens if this situation occurs and it's a it's a flaw with the design plan it's not matching up with what's in the ground correct usually that goes back right you're taking municipalities out of it though so if it's a private uh scenario you know you're gonna have structures and fields and you know things of that nature that you can base your design on just trying to get an answer that's all yeah I thought I was answering I mean I think in my layman's terms how I'm looking at this and how I have come to understand this is t