Good evening, everyone. Good evening, our distinguished guests. Welcome to the meeting of the Waterbury Select Board of Monday, January the 30th, 2023. I'm finally getting used to saying 2023 versus 2022. We're meeting in the steel community room and the first item on the agenda is to approve the agenda. Do I have a motion to approve the agenda? I'll move to approve the agenda. So moved. Do we have a second? Second. We have a motion and a second. Any amendments to the agenda? Christa, do you have your? No, I was just waving to Danny. Hey, Danny. Hello. Any amendments to the agenda? I hear none. Folks, all in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? Motion carries. Next item on the agenda is a consent agenda item for the minutes of January 19th and January 23rd and to approve a second class liquor license for side street beverage. Do I have a motion to approve the consent agenda items? Sure. I'll second it. Do we have a second? Second. Any discussion on the consent agenda items? Alyssa noticed that there was one small amendment to the minutes. The vote on the license for the beer tasting in the park was passed four to zero with one abstention. Thank you. We have that one amendment. Any discussion on the amendment? If not, we'll look to pass the entire amended consent agenda items. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? Motion carries. Next item where we're at is the item where we can receive comments from the public. These items would be anything that's not on the formal agenda items. Does anyone have anything to say, speak to the select board on? I think in zoom land. Grickets. Therefore, we will continue on the select board items. The first item on the agenda is better connections grant. That must be Steve. That's me. Steve's all right. The rules are all slick. Just on time. I know. So, okay, sorry to slight influence. You came in just at the right time. Yeah, good. Good. So I sent you some information on Saturday morning and I've got the handout. If anybody would like a copy. You did. Okay, good. We've got them here. You've got the email and the amendment. Okay, great. Okay, sorry about that. I figured you'd be prepared, but just in case I ever come prepared to. Good, good. So this is a program I mentioned in my email that and I'll repeat that for the benefit of the public and others that are here. It's a program of the Vermont Agency of Transportation and of the Agency of Commerce and Community Development and it's been going on for several years now and the focus is to look at village areas, downtown areas and study ways to better connect the different parts of villages to look at infrastructure, to look at access and equity for citizens and for others. Okay. Let's see if we lose our Zoom connection. I think it's just the HDMI. Just wiggle it a little. I just wanna like, what is that face for? No, sorry, it just, it was gone, but clearly you can see it. Sorry, sorry, Steve. Oh no, that's okay. I just wanted to make sure that. It's on the screen, on her screen. Yeah. Okay, as long as Danny's answering. So you know, I found that the owl works better plugged into the wall for some reason. There it is. The owl will, there it goes. Okay, good, okay. Don't move. Don't move. Okay, sorry. Good, they're back. Good, so start where I left off. So it's a joint program of V-Trans and the State Agency of Commerce and Community Development and to get right to the chase, we're proposing a project in Waterbury Center Village and Karen Nevin and Jane Brown and I met today with staff. We did our so-called pre-flight interview and so this is really just an introduction to the project and then we'll come back to you with a more detailed application of budget and so on. But the basic parts of the project would be to look at how to better connect the two parts of Waterbury Center Village, the area around the green and the Grange Hall, the area along Route 100 in the vicinity of Cold Hall of Cider Mill, look at pedestrian access and safety, look at traffic calming, look at potentially way-finding signage and also look at stormwater management. The State Agency of Natural Resources is also involved in the project and they wanna look at potential stormwater projects in these areas. There was a study done back in 2018 that looked at potential treatment in areas like the Highway Garage, the Center Green, Hope Davy Park and so on and see if there are ways to address water quality. We've got a number of hydrologically connected road areas along Hollow Road and Howard Avenue so that's another part of this project. So tonight what we're really just wanting to discuss with you is if you support us moving ahead with a project, this would be started in 2023. The grant period is usually about a year and a half so it would probably be spread over two years. The budgets are typically in the 70 to $90,000 range and there's a 10% local match required. It's 80% federal, 10% state and it's split between different agencies. So it's transportation type funding but it's really geared to planning. So we're currently doing the park study so we would tie that in with Hope Davy Park, look at access to Hope Davy. I mentioned accessibility. We'd look at ADA access in the village areas. We'd look at parking in the vicinity of the triangle or green and so on. So I'm really here just to answer questions that you might have, see if you support us moving ahead with preparing a grant application and go from there. So Steve, when you mentioned storm water, is there a separate funding mechanism that could possibly cover some of that storm water costs or is that included? Do you think that's included in this proposal? So the funding for the planning side of it is included in the grant and it would just be one component. The implementation would be separate programs through the state's clean water fund and so on but it would basically look at what projects the town wants to embark on. And as I say, the state agency of natural resources did a study in about 2018 that looked at this whole area that I'll share with you because it's pretty interesting to see what they came up with. They did a project in the village back I think in 2006 looking at potential storm water treatment in Waterbury village and then they looked at Waterbury center as I mentioned, rent 2018. So it would be total, they would be A&R programs that we would look at possibly working through the regional planning commission to identify projects for implementation. Yeah, I'm happy to hear that because everything there leads into the reservoir. Right, so it's critical to if we can capture some of that and get it treated before it gets into the lake it's a big benefit. Yeah. So this would be, temperature would be about a $9,000 match on the part of the town. Approximately, yeah, the projects typically run in the 70, 80, $90,000 range and that would be coming out of the 23 budget. So that's something that we're gonna need to discuss. Yeah, so we have another grant plugged into the 2023 budget that we haven't been awarded yet and that had a 10% match. So if we don't get that grant, we've got some funds but I guess I would say to you is that in the context of the budget if we have to find $9,000 from the course of the year we can probably do that. Some of this will likely be defrayed into 2024. Correct, yeah, it'll be split over probably two years. So I expect if you apply soon the grant announced it probably comes out in a couple months. Right. Probably don't start work until the summer to engage a consultant. All this takes a little bit of time. So we could have somewhere between I'm guessing zero to 5,000 in 2023. So Steve, we're looking at doing some work on the ground in 2023. Well, purely planning. So yeah, public participation. Yeah, it would be purely planning. Implementation is not gonna be in 2023. That's probably several years down the road. One of the benefits of this program is that it would make the Waterbury Center village eligible if we get the grant, do the study we would be eligible for downtown transportation funds. And that is... For the center. For the center, correct. It's currently not eligible, but we have a designated village there, but it's not eligible. But this would open up that opportunity for funding for sidewalks or for some other wayfinding, signage, other kinds of projects, traffic calming, that sort of thing would be eligible. So does this add to our downtown designation? Is this like a separate designation for the center? So we, right, we have a village designation for the part of the village around the green. It doesn't include the area along route 100. But I think doing this project would make it all eligible for that grant program down the road, yeah. And does this incorporate any connectivity between the village and the center? I know there's been some work done on a community path that runs up along the side of the golf club and some further thought about creating bikeways or something like that. Is that part of this or is that different? I think it certainly is something we could look at. But I think this is gonna focus in the village areas and connecting those two areas together. We've looked at that path connection. We've done a couple of different studies starting early in my career here. And it definitely has its challenges. I can share some of that information with you. But at this point, this project wouldn't look at that in any kind of detail. Okay, other questions? Danny, do we need any motion tonight? I don't think we need a motion. We're gonna wanna come back with you with more detail. We basically, we always like to introduce these grant projects, give you a heads up, get your input, and then come back. Probably February 13th, we'd come back with a detailed proposal. But no, I don't think, do you think we need any kind of motion at this point, Tom? It's really... You don't need a motion unless the board is comfortable authorizing you to apply at this point. They could give a motion. Yeah, I would suggest we wait. I'd much rather come back with more detail on the detailed budget. We'll probably talk to a consultant or two about the project. So I would prefer to wait and bring back more detail. What consultants are you working at? None, none in particular. You know, we're currently working with SC Group and we definitely can talk to them about the project. But there are other consultants that are working on these better connections projects for other communities. Yeah. Okay, we'll wait until the 13th. Yeah, we would do a request proposal once we, if we get the grant funding, you know, to get a consultant. So, okay. Sounds good, Steve. So it sounds like something that you'd support and like to have a smooth forward with. Yeah, the fillings just kind of like sort of comes a little bit in no man's land sometimes. It's just, you know, in the center. It's the center. Yeah. You know, people sometimes don't really think it's kind of, you know, especially having lost a store and stuff like that. Right. And have the, you know, cash aid. Well, the store has sort of changed orientation. Exactly. Yeah, all right, exactly. So yeah, it needs some, you know, placemaking, some identity kind of fostering identity and everything. So that's really one of the purposes. Like now most people would just think it's just a thoroughfare at this point. But I think it's a great idea. Good, good. Okay, great. Well, thank you for your time. And yeah, good luck with the rest of your... Thank you. Talk to the owl and it brings our voices. There's some audio issues. Okay, they're having a hard time hearing. Out in the other lands. Okay. Talk to the bird. Talk to the bird. Okay, all right, thank you everybody. Thanks, Steve. Thank you, Steve. Okay. Next item on the agenda is to finalize the warning for the annual count meeting. Everyone probably has before them a sample warning for the count meeting. And let me just give a couple updates. Sorry about this, but if you read things 88 times and sometimes you miss article nine, the third line down I should say to specify the time of acceptance, not acceptable. And then that last sentence or article nine should end with a period, not a question mark. Sorry about that. So for the warning language in general, we went back to the pre-COVID era. So during the COVID era when everything was Australian ballot, your warning read a lot differently. And especially with regards to the budget, it specified budgetary amounts. So your warning last year read shout-out to appropriate X-towers for the general fund, X-towers for capital improvements. Going back to the warning language before COVID doesn't have those specific items in the articles, but that's part of the town meeting day discussion, conversation, education. The other piece that's different, article five and article six, which are about the quirk and treasurer. So the quirk and treasurer technically can be separate positions. So each one is warned separately to switch to a three-year term. And that would happen, that vote would occur this year to be effective next town meeting day. And then at the end of the warning, a couple items. In prior years, there was an article at the very end that said to do any other business that may weekly come before the board during the meeting. And speaking to the League of Cities and Towns Attorneys, you can warn that, but it essentially doesn't mean anything because unless an item is specifically warned, you can't vote on it. And so it's a bit of an antiquated article. It's probably just there because it's been there for a long time. So we took that out. And then there is the other business item, which was the discussion about town meeting day. And the advice of the League's attorneys was not to warn that because if you specifically warn it, even as an advisory question, they weren't quite sure in the legality of this. Someone could say, well, we've had a conversation. The public consensus seems to be this. So let's change it from an advisory question to simply a binding question. And so the advice was, well, if you're ready to vote on it, then warn it. If you're not ready to vote on it, then don't. Don't. And I think your advice in your email is a good one to keep it in. I know we were concerned that these late items may have given possible short shrift. At least it does. In other business, you are stating that you were going to discuss it. So people may want to stay for that. But I think that's an appropriate one because I think you're right. I think someone could very much push for some sort of a binding. And I don't know if we're ready to vote on that. Personal opinion. Any other thoughts? So it's obvious that, well, I mean, we talked at last meeting and we didn't know whether we were going to put it in the front of the meeting or the back, but it sounds like for all intents and purposes we're putting it in the back of the meeting. You can say that right now. You kind of prefer the advice to the formality of students and attorneys and counselors? Well, I don't know that they advise whether or not to put it in the front or the back. I think their advice was to have it as other businesses. Right, have it as other businesses instead of the part of the warning. I mean, the rest of the board, I guess I'm asking the rest of the board members comfortable with having it at the back of the meeting. I mean, I don't care either way, it's just I've been to enough town meetings where I've seen the place evacuate during special articles. So I just wonder how much input you get at the tail end of the meeting, but that's just from the experience that I've had at those meetings. I understand. Can we as, can we put other business anywhere but at the end? What does it have to be labeled as other business, I guess? It should be labeled as other business. I think it belongs at the end. That's traditionally where other businesses and any agenda item. I just don't see, again, if it's an article we're basically proposing a change. I hear exactly what you're saying, Chris. If there's enough people interested in it, they'll stay. It's always, I've seen a lot of times when there's always a hot button issue that's usually first or second on the agenda, especially during the budget things, people stay and then once that's done, they're out the door. They don't stay for a lot of other things once what they came for was, but I don't know if we have a lot of choice. No, I'm fine with that. I wasn't looking to make an argument out of this, by any stretch. Yeah, I agree with the person. I think it will get short-tripped. On the other hand, we're not gonna be voting on it. This is just to introduce the idea and let people know that this is gonna be under discussion. We're gonna be addressing this again later in the year. So I think it's fine to just leave it where it is and just make sure that people know that it's gonna be under discussion. I agree.  Yeah, I pretty much agree with what Roger said. If it were the only discussion that we were having, I think that it might be more important to try to maximize, but because it's sort of the introduction of the conversation, it seems like this is an okay place. It's an appropriate place. It's hard to, we can't make a timed agenda much like we can't on our own meetings. So it's hard to tell folks like show up at this time for the conversation. So we'll hope for the best and hope that people can be there, but also try to accommodate going forward with other opportunities for the conversation. I'm trying to remember, we don't have a space on the warning for where we like introduce the representatives and stuff. That just comes in a certain way. We just take a break somewhere. I don't think that's part of the warning. Yeah, if we could call those minutes from previous in-person, the people like John Multer spoke fairly early in the meeting, and I don't know that you've decided yet, but should and whether you're gonna have CB5 or do, I think Linda still wants five minutes on the floor for that. But if you read Carla's minutes, you'll see that. You know, that when those things took place, they didn't go on a warning. But they weren't on the warning now, I don't believe they could. We just probably have to figure out a place for you. Like an agenda. An agenda for the meeting. Our own kind of internal agenda for where they go. And I did speak to, I didn't speak to Jeff, but I did reach out to Jeff, and he'll be happy to attend on the 27th. I don't even know if I shared that with you. But he said, just let him know what time and he'll be here. Who is the moderator? Hopefully Jeff. Jeff Kildor, hopefully. He's willing, he's willing. Yeah, we'll see who doesn't get voted in. So he's gonna be voted in as moderator for this conference. He'll be proposed as a candidate for voting, voted in as moderator. And if he accepts, people. And then he moderates that meeting. And then it's good to have some week experience because sometimes that's always the first one. But he usually comes to the front of the board here once a year prior to the select town meeting and just talks about, you know, kind of what happens at town meeting and how the process works a little bit. I had a question about article 17. I thought at the last meeting we discussed incorporating the funding that came from the town in 2022 into the regular budget and then just their proposed increase being warned as a separate article. So last year, their increase was 6,500. So I believe last year the warning and I got it here was 20. Yeah. And so there's their total. And so the budget I believe has 13. That's not warned last year was like a 30, 12. 12, 5. Last year the amount that was warned was 20. So there increases here on top of the 20. Which is, I recall, our conclusion at the last meeting because the question was, but what if they come in for an XYZ percent and will the voters be aware of that increase? So the decision was made to put it on that article. I'm checking the senior center. And Tom, will you be writing up about the bill that's usually for the select board? Certain thing, you know, in terms of the budget even with the numbers you'll be getting that to a forehand. Yeah, so I'll have in this document, the manager's report, Bill and I are each writing one. He's writing one about the pass and I'm writing one about going forward. Karen, I think has both bars. And then I'll have a presentation prepared and I can review that with the board in advance. Okay, so we'll go over that the last meeting before the, after the four town meeting. And I can have it ready for the 13th, I'm sure. Okay. If you wanna do that. And really I was assuming it was a 10 minute presentation, not a formal PowerPoint per se, but if you want that I can do that and then hit the highlights and walk people through the document here. And usually I know we have this, usually a person, you know, Chris McDowell, certain procession of who doesn't, which article and stuff, so. I think that's what you do with Jeff when he's here on the turn side. With Jeff, okay. Again, if you go into the last town report and look at Carla's minutes, you'll see, you know, Chris made this motion and he made that motion, I'm giving examples. Her minutes are pretty. Just trying to get to those. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, but I don't, I don't believe, I don't believe Jeff Kilgore sorts that out with us. That's not part of it when he's offered to help with that. No, we usually talk with the town manager. Right. Decide who wants to take what and. Okay, my mistake then. No. That was his offer as he built us to help with that. It's still be useful to have him here. Yeah. Sure. Yeah. Yeah. Yes, yes. Yes, yes. Yes, yes. Yes, yes. Yes, yes. He can be very helpful. So the 13th we'll have an agenda item for town meeting day prep and we'll take it from there. Usually when it becomes, when it comes to specific budgetary items and stuff like that, even though we read the article, unless you feel comfortable getting involved in the particulars of any, any one article, you always used to refer to Bill because. Right. You know what, like the bag in his hand he could explain it right to the T if they're, you know. So. That was my main question in that. I had looked at the Australian ballot warnings, which are much more comprehensive because they had to be and literally include the dollar amounts. But my understanding is this is the general warning and that will be read day of with appropriate detail. Is that correct? It'll be a large dollar amount and then there's a discussion where the town manager will then break down a little bit, you know, for the public. And then there's any questions and or if there are any amendments to the budget. And I am not proposing this to be clear, but as a point of clarification, we cannot select any of these to be voted on by Australian ballot, right? Cause we've elected to have a floor meeting. I do wish there was that mix and match flexibility, but alas. So we can do these five. I know I will say as someone who advocated for a floor meeting, I do, I think for some of them it is, I mean, it's the point we had about, I read a points made about the other business discussion. It is where it is to make sense on the agenda, but who will be there is a question. So one other question and that may have already been stated and went by me for whatever reason, but are you and Bill both going to be sitting at the table with the rest of us? Just me. Just you. Okay. He'll be in the audience. Bill will be out in the audience. Yeah, yeah. Well, I didn't, I wasn't quite sure because of how much you may or may not have been caught up on what's transpired in the past year versus it's just. People caught up on the past year and I think the meeting's really about 23. So I shouldn't answer any question in that budget because I can't then have a different conversation. I think it's a good statement of our support and show for the community candidly, like optics and practicality. I think it's really healthy. It's a hand-to-hand thing that Bill will be there so if we are stuck on it. Well, he'll be in the front row. Come on, like what do we think is gonna happen? Trust me, I got full confidence. It's actually in some respects for me, useful to have an in-person town meeting because I've got to know every number in that. So it's the best way to learn it is to learn it. I think it's important that Tom leads because he's the town manager that he leads. So, you know, Bill, as much as I love Bill, Bill's in the past, you know, and you know, we've been following it. In terms of, are we discussing anything else on that? Sure. I guess I, again, understand why article five and six are first and that they aren't budgetary. Do we have any concerns about, hello, it's been two years, wanna change Town Clerk to three years? To be clear, I fully support the article and support its passage, but I'm just wondering from an agenda standpoint, I guess we have the moderator first, but does it, I get, again, it feels separate to me from the budget so I understand why it's being proposed where it's being proposed. I just wanted to raise that. Tyler, we have to go around a little bit. What would you prefer? I don't know.  We did a year, and again, this could be totally arbitrary. I just wanted to raise it if, and then also, I guess that's a question of, is Karen speaking to us, Tom, which we don't have to decide tonight. Who's, do you wanna speak out town meaning to why this is being proposed? I said we don't need to figure it out tonight, but for that article in particular, given that it concerns two positions you currently hold. I think that makes sense, but when those articles come up, I think it's easy enough to speak to them as to why we're proposing a change from a one to a three-year term. I agree, Mike, I'm not disputing any of that. My only question is on the order, which, again, I'm recognizing could be totally arbitrary. So if we wanna start with that conversation and the board thinks that makes sense, happy to do so. I'm just noting it is a different type of article than the rest of our budget or other discussion suite, so to speak. You think it should be, where would you take it? Towards nine? I was gonna say after 10, but. But 10 is to vote sums of money necessary for general government for already into the budget. Yeah, but the town clerk and the treasurer issue isn't budgetary per se. Not in terms. But every article after. Or special articles. No, I'm sorry, yeah, they get 11, so that's, yeah, that's kinda, if anything, it should be either after 11 or. To be clear, this could be, I am fully overthinking that. I just wanna own it. I just wanted to just get a gut check if the rest of the board says, well, let's see your nuts. We should just start with it, cause it's different. I think that's completely fine. I'm not, this is not what I feel strongly about. I just wanted to. It could be either or. Do we have to assess your sanity? Thanks, Roger. I appreciate what I'm gonna take as a boat of confidence. I think it's important after it's brought up in discussion to say why we're changing and we could speak, you know, there's the motion for a second, then it goes into discussion. And in discussion, we, I'd be glad to speak to, you know, what our thoughts are, why going to one to a three year term as to, you know, what the board kind of thinks about doing that and how it just makes expeditious. And again, it doesn't really change anything because if the town clerk is not, if the town treasurer's not doing their job, we could remove them from their position. Just look, you know, I know the whole idea behind one year term is like throw the wrestles out, you know, if they're not doing their job, but you could still do that in any way, you know, if they're not just viewing it with respect to order. I'm hearing that the board thinks the order as proposed makes sense. So I will go with the wisdom of the board, if that's. Yeah. Here where you're saying Alyssa, but I think, I think we might run into it wherever it is. And so path of least resistance might just be to leave it where it's at. Thank you all. Thanks Alyssa for that comment. Any other possible changes? I just want to make sure the articles for appropriations were requests made to us, but you have the right to not warn them. Say that again, don't. These are not written in stone. They're all right to. Well, it was not petitioned. They were requests that they have the right to petition. And these have been on there historically, but without, so the petition would get them on the warning by law, but these are ones that traditionally, the select board has opted to fund. And then the history is also, and I don't know if this was voted on at one point, Bill wasn't sure offhand. There's the informal $2,000 rule where if it's 2,000 or more, it's a separate article and the smaller ones are bundled. Thank you for that. It used to be less, I think it used to be like 750. And then I think we got increased. Tom, you see that typo, the $200 for support of Mosaic. Is that, is that meant to be a KAA? Formally, no, there's something on it. Well, thank you so much. I just wanted to call attention to my... Again, going back to Article 17, my intent for that was to reduce the amount in the article rather than increase it because the town had to pass 20,000 last year and now they're being asked to pass 26,500 on top of what's already in the budget. And I know that that caused some concern for the senior center. And so we're discussing it. I'm sorry if I wasn't articulate about this, but I was thinking that the entire amount that was spent by the town on the senior center were going into the budget. And then what they were asking for on top of any new money, in addition to both what was in the budget last year and the special article would be on this year. That was not I think our understanding from the last meeting, but if you want to do that, Article 17 would simply say 6,500 because that's the increase and the budget would contain the rest. So if the board wants us to... It would be 325, I believe, right? They have... Oh, I see what you're trying to do. Fall five right now. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. My intent is to try to keep them whole without asking the voters to vote what looks like an abnormally large sum of money in the special article. I tried to raise at the last meeting, but here we are, yes. Yeah, I apologize for not being clear about what I was trying to say. I hear you, Roger. So my preference would be to try to move that full, what is it, 32,000, whatever it is. There's 12, five in the budget, which has been in the budget. So at the last meeting, I said the 20 is much higher. And so then the concern was, well, they're gonna ask for an increase every year. And this was a transparent way to show it because they had 20 on the warning last year. I support the proposal if the board wants to do it to put 32, five in the budget if the 20 has been passed for the past several years and worn 65, that's fine. That just wasn't the conclusion at the last meeting. So forgive the exasperation. Yeah, I think the question was then, are we putting a limit on it, or are we okay to just increase the budget every year? Is it only every five years or every 10? I think that the concern and what led to this decision being made was, is it always we're just going to, okay, what's gonna go in the budget? And it was put on the article for transparency. Again, I agree, I think it's okay because the voters might balk at that number, but do we wanna think about the longevity and the continuation of the increase within the budget or are we just okay with it because we need to support the senior Senate? I mean, it's funny because I don't see a concern in how it's being proposed now because they certainly have legitimate reasons for asking for the increase. And if there's an explanation, I think either way, the question might be called because if anybody's paying attention, they're gonna see that last year and previous years it was 20,000 while the sudden is it only 6,500? And if they're not looking at the budget too, if they're looking, you know what I'm saying? Some people might not read into the budget as in depth as we all have to. So they're gonna say, why did senior center drop 14,000 off their books or whatever? And I for one would completely stick up for the senior center because obviously we know what's behind their ask and it's not like they're living like fat cats. I mean, they're trying to do a service that's very well needed and deserved. And yeah, if anybody's really paying attention, they're gonna see maybe it needs to be reworded here. I don't know. Maybe I'm getting a little bit beyond what I need to do here but 20,000 with plus 6,500 increase. Because if you take the 20 out of there and just leave 6,500, is the question gonna get asked why? Either way, I think it's gonna, it may get asked why. So transparency is what I'm looking for. 100% transparency. And to your point, Danny, I think what you're concerned about is as time goes on, this continues to escalate without question. Is that what you're thinking? And it wasn't so much my concern. It was just part of what we had talked about at the last meeting as a concern and not even a negative concern, just a question of like, if it increases 6,500, next year do we move 6,500 into the budget again and leave it or how often do we adjust the budget? I don't think it needs to be a negative issue, just possibly something to keep in mind as it may or may not continue to go up but I don't think that's the reason not to put it in the budget. It's just something I think we should keep in mind. I mean, you could certainly shove it over the 20,000 into the budget and if anybody's paying attention, they're gonna say, what the heck happened here? How come it was 20,000 now it's only 65? Has it passed five years? So my thing again, part of it was, I mean, I just want to acknowledge one, we've increased to other nonprofits in the budget, transparently, it's all transparent, it's all in the budget. Revitalizing Waterbury requested an increase. They have an increased amount in the budget and if a voter asks, we can explain it. So they're requesting an increase. It's this just question of what line it's on. So it had to do with when they asked for the 20,000 increase. Do we know when that is? I would propose if that's been done for five years, we put the 20 in like Roger was saying and just do that, but that's gonna take time to dig in. Or if we're all okay, we can just make it 32.5 in the budget. It was in 2018, 2019, sorry, so. It was in 2019 and past 2020, 21, 22. So if we say 20,000 has passed for four years. Yeah, either way, I mean, and I'm not disputing any of it. I think we also want the expenditure, which is great. And I think we're happy to explain the $6,500 increase. If the question comes up and you never know, they might just say, yep, I'm gonna move on. So think about for a moment, town meeting day or 2024. So the senior center in 2022 made their budget. They broke even. They did not have a director for I think most of the year. So they've asked for an increase in 23 based on the budget we saw. Pretty reasonable to conclude that they're gonna ask for another substantial increase in 2024. Is that change you're thinking at all? I don't know that it does, it doesn't. I just wanna think that might be a way to approach it. It affects the way I see it because I see that number just ballooning from 26,500 up to 40,000. And asking the voters to vote a 40,000 special article seems excessive to me. And so I'd rather... It's a very difficult thing being transparent, like looking at another thing. We're looking at giving down street $100,000. And we have them in as a special article for 15. I'm curious if people are gonna question, well, if you're giving them 100,000, why do they need the 15s out of the 1500? And then the question is, do we wanna keep it at where it is? It looks like everything of $2,000 are over for individuals. And just for numbers, right? The 1500 is in 12. The 100,000 is in a budget. Right, in 12. That's in the group amount. But people who are looking, I'm sure people are gonna say that paying attention to the roundabout and just in terms of news, they have seen that down street is getting money. So anyone can in that group amount question any one of those particular line items. So it seems we need to resolve this senior center first because then you brought up another excellent point about this, I would support Roger's proposal to move the 20,000 into the budget line item, given that it's passed for what we assume is four, if not five years. And that we ask for 60 or 500, if asked put the 20,000 in the budget. And I said that because the reason I recall this is I said it, tell me in the shop, like people have said that to me. And they'll said, oh, no one else. So anyway, I support that. If we do it when we present that, we basically should be very transparent how we're moving some of the money into the budget.  I'd be asking that question. Right. Yeah, I think it's fair to explain it anyway. Yeah, I think it's very easy to explain, you know, it just like it's a bill justification. Refer to page 23 on your, you know, your town report on the budget where it has, you know, you know, different, I don't know where the senior center is under, is under general government. Yeah. So, to sum clear, it sounds like there's support. Article 17 shall specify $6,500. Right. And the other 20 is put in the budget.  I'm sure. Because it's been supported for the past four years. Exactly. And they're feeding so many people very reasonable cost. Bottom line is it's all real money. Yeah. Is everyone in concurrence that we wanna have under 2000 items as a grouped item under article 12? I think we are. Yeah. I like it a lot because it's a rule and I love rules. That's why I said, thank you. When Tom said under 2000, it's here. I was like, perfect, straightforward. There's an explanation. I guess it's a Robert's rule question, but I think your downstream is fine. I don't think anyone will raise it, but the point you brought up for me is about, again, my understanding at the last meeting was that downstreet's $100,000 and the 76 for Wassie, we're putting it all in the budget. Is that correct? Because that's the only other I would just note is that's all in the budget that isn't separate. You know, obviously when it was Australian ballot, we said $100,000 to that center or the board, which I was not on. So that was the question for Wassie. So we may need to amend that. That's good. Felt we had a warning language for Wassie. I thought there was a decision to warn Wassie because some of that vote ended on the other towns. I believe that was the agreement when Maggie Burke came to present, you I think sent me email language saying, you know, we approved putting a warning of $76,000 on. So that was the question. So the question is, is it in the budget or is it in article? Okay, so if it needs to be an article, we'll need to add that. And I would pose before the other smaller ones, given that's significant. Well, that's where someone's gonna ask questions. So it should be up. Right, and Down Street doesn't belong up here too. Well, that was my question. Down Street was, Down Street is in the budget. The $100,000. Down Street is in the budget. You thought it's in the budget. But Wassie, so we're putting Wassie on the article on the basis of our previous meeting minutes. Should have been Wassie in the language. Yes, I do. I know that's topical. I gave a little bit of this math. In the difference being that other towns have to vote on Wassie. I think we agree based on Doc's brand, more town passing it. Is that the reason? Yeah, one would be 20, then it would be another four. What's the discussion though? Sorry. So there was an earlier select board decision. I don't know exactly when, but before my time, to warn Wassie receiving $76,000. Yeah, right. So Karen has language for that, that she's gonna have for you right now. And similarly, we'll just explain that every other. So a point of explanation would be that other urban expenditures are embedded in the budget with the exception of Wassie because of the other towns, which is also a rule, we love rules. What are the dates of the municipalities for them deciding? Same day, I believe. We don't have any, they can warn it, they can just spend it their budget. Put it in there, okay. So you don't have to help. Yes, let me get their hand up, Mike. Oh, good, and we can find out who it is. TG, could you announce who you are? Evening, this is actually Cheryl Glure. It's got my husband's initials. So do I understand correctly that the money, the $100,000 that Downstreet's asking for will not be a separate item at town meeting. It's gonna be rolled into the budget on whether the townspeople vote yay or nay on the budget. Is that what I'm hearing? Oh, that's, okay. All right, that's unfortunate. All right, well, thank you. Just wanted to be clear. It was kind of already voted for in the e-foot vote. Can you just say your name again for the minutes? I'm sorry. Is the e-foot separate from the select board, correct? And Cheryl. I know, yeah, I'm sorry. I didn't get the last name for the minutes, it's okay. And Cheryl. Thank you, Cheryl. Cheryl, the $100,000 for Downstreet Housing is ARPA funds, which are funds we've received from the federal government. And so they don't impact the tax rate. No, no, I understand that. But as a taxpayer, I really wanted the ARPA funds to go to the infrastructure that we currently have and where we need it to be. I was hoping it would be a separate item on the ballot so that the voters could have the opportunity to actually say yay or nay on how those funds were used. Also based on the survey that was put out by the select board and by the percentages that came back. There's other infrastructure projects that took priority or asked for priority over those funds going somewhere else. So I understand it. I sat in the last meeting, I missed the last meeting and how you're gonna set up the vote on that. But I just wanted to make sure I was understanding everything correctly. So thank you. So Cheryl, just for a little more information, fortunately or unfortunately, depending on how people look at it, part of our town plan requires us to do what we can to... And it's funny how things have changed over the years, but do what we can to promote and guide and help implement affordable housing into our town. It's similar but yet different than in another issue that we had years ago with the cell tower up on Shootsville Hill. I personally fought that battle simply because it was in the town plan that no cell tower would be put in critical wildlife habitat. If it hadn't been there, we probably wouldn't have won the case. Number one, number two, probably wouldn't have been the support that there was from the select board to oppose that proposal. So a lot of things that happen here from the select board level has to reflect what the voters voted in, which was articles or items in our town plan. So I think that's part of the reason the town select board voted in favor of proposing this 100,000. And trust me, I 100% get your point about the ARPAL money. But if you think about it from that perspective, I guess you could call affordable housing to some degree infrastructure. Here's our minutes from the guest. Well, I think Cheryl, the other point might be that we are using a great majority of the ARPAL funding for infrastructure, particularly to renovate two bridges, which Tom, how much is that going to be? It's over $500,000. $500,000. $435,000, yeah, maybe $435,000. Yeah, it's a substantial amount. Yeah, Joe, just to clarify that. Thank you, Cheryl. Other issues. Yeah, though, if you have it accessible, sorry. No, that's okay. I bet it's somebody reading it out loud right now. I'll read it while she sends it. Shall the town of Waterbury, so new article 12 on my new draft. Shall the town of Waterbury appropriate $76,000 to Wassie towards its new facility conditioned on the appropriation to Wassie for the same purpose of $20,000 and $4,000, respectively, by the town of Duxbury and the town of Moortown? And it probably should say in the warning, at least on the first time, Waterbury Ambulance Service Incorporated. That is, I would agree with that. There's some people who don't know what Wassie is. Aaron just had a correction. Where it mentions Wassie the first time, we should probably spell it out for the first time, say Waterbury Area Ambulance Service Incorporated. We can do that. We're gonna do one more to print it out. Oh, I'm sure there will be other one, yeah. Do you want Wassie in parentheses or something? Yeah, I would say after that, so you don't have to do it the second time. Yeah. It's Waterbury Area, I don't think it's Area. That would make two ways. Waterbury Ambulance Service Incorporated, there we go. And just to say out loud, what I just showed Tom was our minutes from July 18th, which had the motion made by our clap was to appropriate 76,000, subject to approval by Waterbury voters at town meeting, conditional on the Duxbury, all the stuff that's in there. There's a couple items I wanted to raise, and they're not in here, but I just wanted to make sure. So I've had a couple of these conversations with different members, and they've just been conversations here and there. So one or two people have suggested to me that you should consider articles for Frontport Farm, given the town uses it various times. And a couple people have suggested you should consider, sorry, I'm thinking embedded with the article 13 with all the others. And a couple people have suggested you should consider the same for Waterbury Roundabout. So I just want to make sure there's support for that. You have the conversation as your topic tonight. Leader of them have petitions, so you can't. That's correct. Do it the vision year. We could consider putting something in your budget, but you can't have a special article. We can put whatever special article we want, can't we? No, if you don't petition, if they don't have your signatures, you can't get on them. All right, I mean, was it Bill last week that said that Leap was considering wanting more money, but then he was told he had a petition for it? Right.  Right, and a petition has to have a certain number of signatures, right? Yeah. I know what you're saying, but I guess the bigger question was, did either ask, it was just raised. I don't disagree, but. As much as I'm probably supportive of both, I don't think we could have a special article, whether we're gonna put some money in the budget, kind of what's the board's pleasure? How would we find a figure for that? Have they asked to have? No, it's just come up. Just come up in conversation. Now, who's that? A couple people have conversationally just sent to me, maybe these would be worthy of some future consideration. They've mentioned even given an inkling as to how much? I don't know, a hundred bucks. Oh, okay. Danny, can you hear everything okay? Okay. Since the lease is here, do you wanna address the board? Do you wanna address the board about how possible? And it wasn't Lisa asking me. Yeah, I have not, I have not. She has not. No. I don't like it. No. Wanna come forward? I don't like it. Yeah, welcome to the board. Hello, welcome to the board. Lisa Scolodi from Waterbury, Randabette. I have not petitioned and I have not considered a request. For the record, Waterbury, Randabette is a nonprofit. It's a Vermont nonprofit. It has not filed for IRS 501c3 status, although we have a fiscal sponsor from the Vermont diggers, Vermont journalism trust as our fiscal sponsor. So that's our 501c3 conduit to support us. Front porch forum is a for-profit business for the record. So I'm not sure how many for-profit businesses you're just giving money to as a donation. So that's a consideration. Frankly, had the law been changed last year as there was a proposal in the legislature to allow for notices for boards like yours and school boards to decide where to put their public notices, I would much prefer municipalities and schools to have the choice. I think that's a local issue that I would love to see revised in our state where select boards and school boards could decide where are people looking for information. They decide there was a proposal to have online newspapers be an option for boards to put their public notices because right now the law is done in a way where you have to put them in a print newspaper. And that's to try to, it's important to come for print newspapers and I get that. I didn't weigh in on that debate last year because I was both an online news site and I had a print paper going on so I had a foot in both camps and both the Times August folks and the Vermont digger folks wanted me to support both of their positions on that. So I stayed out of it. I think for newspapers, local newspapers to survive I think that's important for them to have that advertising. I wish towns and schools were able to look and see what they have in their community. So if you have a print newspaper support it but if you have an online paper that's covering you you should be able to support that too. And so unfortunately you're required to put it in the Times Argus even though a lot of people are probably not looking in the Times Argus to find out what the select board or the school board is doing on a regular basis. But you have the option, so my bottom line is I would rather it not be like a handout and a donation that we receive from a school board or from a select board. I think the sort of the fairer, more transparent and above board way of doing that would be for or over the course of the year when you have we've already started doing this when you've got jobs to post that you place an employment ad on our website to just have it just be a regular way to support us as a business. Whether we're a nonprofit, we're a nonprofit but we're still a business. And so if you've got jobs that you want to advertise consider putting them on our website as well as you would put them on front porch forum or you would put it in seven days or wherever else you might advertise to get candidates for jobs. If there's important public notices there've been a few of those already. Maybe the town meeting warning of things when there's an important public hearing sure you've got to put those in the print paper but if the spirit of this is to have the public actually notice what's happening it should be in a place where the public is looking. And so that's another opportunity. We're not charging a lot for those. Our job ads are relatively inexpensive. We've just been charging $50 a month to post something for a job. So it's a pretty inexpensive way to have another place where people would see it. So I feel like that's a more sort of above board way of doing it than to feel like you've given us a donation and somehow that makes you a donor and that journalistically I sort of feel better about it just being a, we're buying it out instead of we've given you this contribution and so that's a little awkward I suppose. So that's why I didn't make a request and I didn't expect to. So I appreciate you thinking of that and I appreciate you supporting it and reading it and telling your friends to read it and that sort of thing. I'm trying to be as useful and keep it free so everybody can look at it and everybody can use it and it's nice to see how much traffic it gets and how many people are using it. So that would be, if you want to show a support that would be the way to do it and it would be like a much more sort of clear cut way to do it as a business transaction and not a contribution. So. Thank you very much. Have you ever requested a lottery for money? Not specifically, no. I told the boarder the same thing, you know. I would be happy to, you could put sponsor spots on our newsletter, you could put ads on our website and that's what, and we're hoping to be able to do that with the whole community. Everybody can be doing that, you know. So to see it as a place we would love to be, you know seven days has all the employment ads in Vermont. We'd like to be like the little seven days in Waterbury and Stowe and wherever and in our little community here where people, you know, kind of look there for job ads too. So one thing at a time, I suppose, but we're getting there. But yeah, so that's, I think that's probably the better way for businesses and, you know because we've got the capacity, we've got a website, we have a lot of traffic on it, a lot of people are looking at that website. We've populated it with Google ads which are very generic ads right now. We'd love to swap those out with ads with local companies and, you know, towns looking for mechanics and things like that. So anyhow, I appreciate you thinking about us. I just want to ask you, I know it's probably, there'll be an anecdotal answer. Do you think more people are getting their town news from your E-blast versus front porch forum? Well, I think there's people looking in both places but the information is different. Yeah, you know, you're not getting news articles on front porch forum. You're getting people making announcements and telling people things in between I've got studded snow tires to get rid of and I'm having a yard sale and I need a babysitter and, You're not talking about the down budget and stuff like that. No, and the town, and I see front porch forum as more of a place, like a meeting place where people have conversations with each other. You know, and just because my neighbor posts something on front porch forum, I don't know if they have all their facts right. They're not reporters, they're not checking things. And so I'm hoping that, it seems like a different lane. It's not necessarily journalism. And what we're trying to do is journalism. So, yeah. Thank you, I appreciate that. It's almost an invisible coffee talk, right? Yeah. You can sit there and have your coffee, review front porch forum, communicate with your neighbors without actually looking at them. Right, well that's just in his name, right?  It's like the morning coffee at Billings Mobile. Exactly. So, anything else? Thank you. Okay. Thanks for asking, yes. Answers that question. Yeah. I would say I was not inclined to support the way value the service front porch forum provides. They do their own fundraising drives, which individuals can contribute to as they can to Lisa. I didn't realize that they're for profit too. They're a public benefit corporation, which is a specific set section of Vermont statute, but yes, that is correct. I would say, based on what was just discussed, I would propose the board encourage staff to the extent feasible to utilize the job, postings and advertising on the roundabout with the appropriate fees, which to their credit, I think they've already been doing. I think I saw a labor job there a couple of weeks ago. So, that would be, that's what I would propose in terms of. Yep. You can do that. I just wanna go back to article 12 for one second. Okay. The language, I think was drafted in summer. It was, I inherited it. Yeah. So for article 12, the $76,000 is ARPA funds. Mm-hmm. Do you believe the article should specify that? It does not have to. That was the intent of the board. Shall appropriate. I would support this, or $76,000 of American Rescue Plan Act, ARPA funding to Wassie, because to me that's a very different ask of voters than just the money. Yeah, that's good. I'm also just gonna say I've hold last minutes meetings. What's in our approved minutes from last meeting is that we were putting 100,000 from Downstreet on the warning. So I don't care. We just should amend the minutes. I was just gonna say that because I told Karen, I was looking at something and I originally wrote on budget for Downstreet. And then I looked back at my notes and it says warning. So I gave Karen the wrong, wrong infill. And I, I'll just say. You're saying you're just warning your voter? And I mean, it has the same thing though about the senior center and the 12-5 and that 26-5 is a special article. So to be clear, I don't think we're bound to that. I'm just acknowledging that's what was in the minutes we approved. So what's your pleasure on the Downstreet? Should we put that as article 11 or 13? You know, up front like we're doing Wassie. And then while I went Downstreet, you wanted to do the same for the other ARPA funds. So the ones that were in the budget were Bridges, Brazos, and Yves-Man. Correct. Bridges Road and Yves-Man, but those are, in my opinion, municipal entities. I agree, yeah. Downstreet is not. The reappraisal piece too. Of course. Wassie is not. That's the difference where I think they, those two both should treat either one of them differently. Right. So should we, I won't say honor Cheryl's request to see that money put on a special article? I think we should. Fair enough. We talked about it at last meeting. Then the question comes, you know, I know some of these dollar amounts are usually a blank and someone adds that dollar amount in or you was going to put it right in the morning. Say that again. You know how a lot of times, like with the budget, it will have kind of a certain amount, you know, and someone makes a motion for the budget of 6,400. 6,400. You mean like for article nine and 10? Okay, let's settle the Downstreet issue first and then get to that. I'm just saying, I'm equating that to that. Agree, and that was the difference between the Australian ballot language, which I called like flowery and kind of like, because it said, we shall do these things for the general inhabitants of the town. And I didn't know if that was someone and gave dollar amounts. I gotta say something. I've been biting my tongue for a while on this. You know, the Downstreet project was voted on by great payers of the sewer and water system. The people of the so-called town, if you still think that, like some people do, that there's a town in the village, they didn't get to vote on that. And that was a rub for me. But then we're asked to give money to Downstreet as a town, and we were asked as a town to appropriate money to EFUD for reasons that I won't get into tonight. And I'll just put it this way. Merger's only convenient when it's convenient. And I'll leave it at that. There's a history behind all of it. Any other comments on Chris's? The question at hand is if it's its own article or not, my thing has always been consistency. So I was okay with Wassie being the only one because of the minutes. And if we want it to be private, non-municipal organizations, that's fine with me too. I think we don't need to re-litigate. I mean, by virtue of being in the budget or its own article, it will go to voters, but I'm hoping to having it be its own article if that's our pleasure. Let me read some proposed language for the revised Wassie language and then for a new Downstreet article. So for Wassie, adding to the article using essentially some identical language from last year, it would read, show the tone of Waterbury appropriate $76,000 to Wassie, Stealth Out, at no cost to the property taxpayer using American Rescue Plan Act funds provided by the U.S. Federal Government conditioned on the appropriation to Wassie of the other towns. And then Downstreet, the article would read, show the town of Waterbury appropriate $100,000 Downstreet housing using their formal name to offer the development of affordable housing at 51 South Main Street, at no cost to the property taxpayer using our funds provided by the Treasury. Does that, for the development of affordable housing 51 South Main Street, spell it out clear enough, do you think? In regards to your comment, Chris, I just want to comment on that directly. I understand your concern, but I did see that the voters of the town, those of the town at one point, if I don't own that property, so they had a little bit more control. So they had a vote to approve that, and then decided to use the $100,000 of ARPA funds. They have voted to approve the sale of the property. Right. I know there was nothing that had a binding amount of how much and stuff. But it's what took place after that that... I understand. Again, I don't want to get into the weeds on this because it's a toxic issue. We'll go on and on and on. Merger should have been all in period, plain and simple. I think in the present moment, there's so much history and there's a lot to deal with going forward. Obviously, like it's not, things aren't just sealed up in a bow. But for me, what I'm trying to focus on right now is what's already happened has happened and what can we do going forward? And part of what we need to do as a town is support our residents and some of our residents don't have a place to live. And some of the people working here truly don't have anywhere to live or are leaving town or can't afford it. And we have this ARPA funding and part of what we as a town have pledged to do is help implement or guide, as Chris said, housing for our residents and for people who wanna live in Waterbury. So that's what this vote is. It's up to the voters. We're not dictating a spending of money, but we're asking the voters if they also want to uphold that pledge to help Waterbury folks have safe and affordable housing. So that's the present moment and that's what we're doing. So that's what's helping me really help guide and stay present in this decision. So hopefully that's helpful. And then I wanna apologize because my notes are messy and I'm trying to follow the best I can. So I apologize if this is repetitive, but the only things for ARPA funding in this budget are the bridges, the gravel roads, in the reappraisal. And then I was confused on EFUD because in my notes, I am mixed up whether that's in the budget or not. That is in the budget. In the budget, okay, thank you. And I will just say the rationale given was that as a special article, it might not pass on its own. But I remember the conversation, but I didn't write the complete decision. Oh, totally, and I'm more framing that in terms of other items where it's a lot. I think it's a bigger ask of voters to vote down a full-town budget than a special article. And I'm just naming that. I'm the one who said consistency. So I stand by that, but that's the downside to having things not in the budget. So is it a consensus that we're moving forward with the $100,000 for Down Street to be a special article? Yes. I would say yes. Who's ever wanted to agree with him with that? Roger, you're kind of... I'm not thrilled with it, but I'm not gonna oppose it. I'm in the same camp as Roger. I think it's fully transparent, helpful, consistent, consistent with our values to leave it in the budget, but I'm okay with it being off. Again, it's part of our municipal plan. So that's what the voters wanted in... And people said in the surveys, housing was an issue. So... Yeah, it was a big response in the surveys. We're being consistent to that. Yep. So it sounds like a special article. Okay, I'll finish that in just a minute. So, E-5, that's all. Oh, it's fine. Do we have to bring up every piece of arco funding now? Sorry, I didn't decide it. I had thought this was all decided. It was decided at the last meeting. It's in the minutes. Yeah. I just want to make it clear. I thought it was a change. I think we're got confused. And I didn't read the minutes in detail before, but I'm talking to Karen, there was a lot of conversation about each one. And at the end, I thought the decision was to put them all in after the E-FUD conversation. Put them all into the budget. Into the budget. I don't know which... Boy. Right, we were only taking out Wassy because of the E-FUD agreement. Yeah, we need more consistent here. First, I see the wheels spinning. Disappointed that we got this confused. Same. Go back to square one then, I guess, and move forward, put it in the budget. For E-FUD? So for all of them. So you're saying just keep Wassy in, keep Down Street and E-FUD in the budget. I mean, do you think Wassy can go in the budget? That's okay. If we do all budget, that is the cleanest. I don't think Wassy needs to go in the budget. I think people are fully aware of Wassy's importance in this community and that'll fly through. Plus the fact that... Plus the fact that... Yes, the other municipalities. We had 600,000 free E-FUD that was dependent on E-FUD voters voting yes and they didn't. There was a $600,000 line. Thank you. The issue with putting Wassy in the budget is if the budget is approved, you have, I would argue, a legal obligation to pay Wassy the $76,000 even if Duckbury and Moortown don't approve. So you can assess that risk and decide to put Wassy in the budget or you can say we support Wassy no matter what the other towns do. Well, that would have been, yeah, I guess I... I thought there was a legal issue. The legal issue is just about the other towns. Because we made it dependent on the other towns and that was done specifically to try to leverage more money from the other towns. Are we concerned about the other towns? Or do we think it's possible that they're not going to? No. No, I think... I don't... They're numbers way smaller and I don't think they're gonna be opposed. I think ambulance services are gonna be just something that people are gonna vote for because it's an absolutely needed function in the community. Necessary evil. Not necessarily evil, it's... Well, you know what I mean. Yeah. Gotta go to the hospital. You don't want to go on a share-of-life. This shouldn't be this difficult. All right. I'm a little bit mixed now in terms of, I know, have it. I like the... I'm a big believer in transparency and by having separate things, I think there was, for Down Street, there was pretty unanimous support. There was unanimous support in the survey about affordable housing. I think the E5 question is probably a sticky one. But what's your role, what's your role, Roger? Okay, my preference in terms of consistency would be to put them all in the budget and that we have a separate explanation, perhaps given by Tom, on how the ARPA funding is being allocated, what's being left for 2024, and that all of this is in response to the survey that we took some time and effort to do to get the will of the people that this reflects that to the best of our ability. That's cleanest. Any other opinions? Good luck. I think we can make it Kim Pallin case. So we all unanimous to put all three in the morning? That's what I'm keeping at least on hearing. Well, and I guess from my perspective, it's not just these three, it's the roads, it's the bridges. It's, you know, there's a lot of ARPA funding that's going to infrastructure as well. But I find those a little different with certain town. That's right. Yeah, there is a difference. There is. Unfortunately, you know, we have to, you know, state the fact that there is a difference. Unfortunately, everything in opera is not, you know, we're not a dictatorship, but it's also, you know, some things they vote us in to make the decisions. So what about CB Fiber that is that? That's a done deal. That's a done deal. We already have a budget. That's a good example, Chris. I like Rogers. I'm okay. 76 goes to Rossi. Don't tell Tori. Doc's very employee. Does anyone have any objections to Rogers' statement? Hearing none, that's what we're going to do. With apologies to staff. I want to be clear. So Article 12, where we, Rossi received $76,000 of opera funds, dependent on the two towns, that's now in the budget. So there's no articles. That's Rogers' proposal. Yes. And Article 13 for Down Street is now in the budget. So there's no Article 13. Correct. Okay. Okay, so. We don't know. I wasn't following that either. I think they're talking about E-Fund. But I think you made a good point if he explains those budget numbers and how they came about and where that money came from then. All right, so people could always amend things in the budget. So Article 12 and 13. How? How? The leading is way faster. Yeah, the leading doesn't take as much time. What time? The leading is way faster. We can create another one. We do, we need a signed version tonight. Yeah. Okay. So, I mean, I'll go up to lead 12 and 13. Are there anything, is there anything else we're changing? Time's running out. You were running through a couple of things earlier. Was it just Rossi? We're all good grouping under $2,000. Which ironically brings us back to draft one, which did not have on sale down the street. With the exception of 17, we changed 17. All right, where are we going? Correct. Do we have a final on who? Yeah. I mean, is that all the changes? There's one more question. I think so. I think there's a period missing on one of those, but okay, okay, good. So we'll have a final review once it's printed. Yeah. So this time I'll print. Oh yeah, and did you get the net changes on nine from Tom? Yeah. All right, I won't take all the old ones. I'll just come back for the new ones. So for the record, the Harwood Highlander boys, varsity basketball team won against the Lamoille Lancers tonight. Is that a rivalry for the edges? No, it's a victory. They sort of need it. Is your son on the team? He is the co-captain on the team. Sorry, we're dragging you away. Oh, we should get another zoom in the corner. And while Karen's doing that, I can just quickly review the final budget as it stands today. We've made a one change. Just one. None of the changes you've talked about tonight will impact the tax rate. So since we've presented departmental budgets, going back and you change money here and money there, so the significance and then we, during that time we, you've done a final 2020 new numbers for the auditors, audits them, we have, we think pretty good numbers for 2022. Human Voices might poke in the audit, might have some adjustments. So the tax rate I've presented as a draft in early January was 0.5411. What I'm at today is 0.5439. So it's higher, but a third decimal place. And a couple of big changes that drove that. I don't wanna say big because I don't know that worth the third decimal place is all that big. So the first is the tax rate is estimated based on your grand list. Right. Last year's grand list was overestimated when the tax rate was set. And last year when the budget was voted on at Australian ballot, the tax rate was voted on. So in 2020- Based on the overflated grand list. And it wasn't, it was- Right, but I'm just saying that. I'm just clarifying, right? Yep, so in 2022, we were short on taxes by about 36,000. So I've adjusted the grand list estimate downward a little bit to try to be a little more conservative there. And then the other, one of the other big changes that impacted it was last year, the voters approved $50,000 for the park site and the initial budgets I directed for you didn't have any expense in there. So the revenue of the 50,000 approved by the voters was part of taxes last year. We still have about $20,000 to spend on that study but we'll spend it 23. So it's sort of an accounting issue, but you gotta have the expense. We also made other, I would consider a minor adjustments here and there. So I think there's really nothing material in that regard. Those are just things that influence the rate. So we're not talking a penny change, we're talking a quarter penny issue of a change. And then the grand list, of course, haven't finalized until April. So there's always a little bit of a risk if you set your tax rate via Australian ballot. Question? Yes. So with respect to our friend, the warning that we're not going back and forth, article 10 on whatever version I'm reading says to vote sums of money necessary for general government highway and library expenses with the same to be expressed in either specific dollar amounts or as a set or as a rate or tax on the grand list. I assume that language will be more specific when we review it, but are you gonna recommend a dollar amount? Are you gonna recommend that, tell me do you get approval for a tax rate or for an overall dollars? I can give both with certainty at that point, but. But are you gonna recommend one or the other? Tell me. I guess you don't need to know now. I was just curious. Given that we clearly asked for approval for a tax or even a pass that you said left the short. By the time March rolls around, Dan will have a really firm number on the grand list. There's always a potential for some challenges, but challenges that would impact the tax rate would really have to exceed seven figures at that point. And we probably know about those already just in conversation. The big issue in finalizing the grand list unless you've got some real challenge where you know a $20 million property is challenging this, you know, a ski resort or something is making a big challenge. The big issue is construction and progress. So he tries to visit all those properties, but your build based on your percent complete. And that's as of April 1st. So he'll do a lot of spring visits to try to capture all those numbers. And there's always a fair amount of construction and progress. And so this would appear different in the town report just based on some of the actions in the ARPA funds tonight. All the base revenues and expenses that are not ARPA impacted should be set at this point. And I just want to talk briefly about going forward. So there was a week of cities and towns as a weekly legislative update and conversationally they're telling us that the state, some of the states, I don't want to use ARPA funds I'm not sure it's ARPA, but it's federal stimulus, ARPA go back better. That the state is looking to invest in bridges. And that would mean that some of the bridges in the state transportation plan that we normally have a 5% cost could in theory go to zero. So the Stowe Street Bridge, which we're planning on spending that 5%, which is 175,000 in 2024, could go to zero. Bridge right down the road, which would be a good cost could be paid for by the state. So that doesn't necessarily impact town bridges. The state wouldn't pay for normally, but projects in their pipeline could help us going forward. So that's pretty good news for the future, I think. Is this one down here a state or a town? It is ours, but it's on the state plan for some funding in the future. So we're hopeful that. They'll pick it up. They'll pick it up. That'd be nice. Going forward, and I'll have something for you, not for a while, but eventually. So the FIRE contract, which is Ducksbury, it's about $110,000, $15,000 a year. It's based on the Grand List. And Dan Sweet's also their lister. So he went actually and captured the, all the properties within that area. And it's essentially our FIRE cost. And then based on their Grand List number and our Grand List number, you take the percentage. So it's a pretty fair contract overall, but it goes down about a half percent a year because our Grand List has grown faster. We've got, we're just growing faster. And it's not about the assessment on the common level appraisal, it's just we've got pure growth. So it's not a big thing, but you know, a half percent of 800 grand is still $4,000. So for the long term, I'm probably gonna just seek to enter into what I think is a more fair agreement, which is a fixed cost with an inflator built in. Because otherwise we just. Our own growth is hurting us. Our own growth is hurting us. I think that's fair to do with them. I think that's the intent of the contract. That's why I'm not discussing it in an executive session, not proposing a change at this point. I just think it's something to consider for the long term and in five years it could be, it's still gonna grow because our fire budget is growing, but it's gonna grow a bit less than it should, I think. Just something I think we need to tackle. And then the other piece for the long term is, and then maybe this is 2023, maybe it's 2024, but I think we're likely to lose we're down in public works position. We've had no lot of filling mechanic. We came close to someone who then offered a big raise to stay where he was. Good for him, but one applicant. We're a little concerned about the summer and some of the mowing works and parks and cemetery maintenance, but we're also just starting to think about maybe long term, we just don't fill that position. We know we're gonna need a better paid crew. Have a little more budgetary room and the future to do that if we're down one. And in talking to Bill Woodruff, that's not uncommon for this town to go down that position. We've been in that position for years and years. So it's not necessarily a massive operating concern for him for the winter, it's more the summer. So that may be something as the year goes on, we just start to consider for the long term. So all those things will impact I think 2024 in some way. So is there consideration for a part-time position for the summer? Yeah. Even, and I'm just throwing this out here because it just made my wheels start to spin. Say you had a subcontractor that was in the mowing business or whatever and he had a guy that he could spare for the summer, sub amount to the town of Waterbury. We just pay him a lump fee and he provides whatever he provides for that person and we get to service something to consider. Yeah. So as on a contract basis or higher? Either one I think. Yeah. Just get the light on the budget, we pay out. Doesn't matter, yeah. Work's gotta get done. Going back to the issue of the other town's contributions, do you think they're gonna squawk at your change and possible payment structure? They'll have a new chair in March and I don't think I'm proposing anything that's gonna impact anyone in a big way in the short term. But in the long term, our growth on the Stowe corridor shouldn't impact our cost-provided fire services to a neighboring town. So it's a logical argument. I just wanna, I think have a slightly, it's a slight change in mechanics really. It's not a major change going forward. And that contract has essentially increased always anyway. I just think it should be increasing a little more. Well, typically if I remember correctly, the contract calculated out to X and Bill always rounded down to the neighboring towns. So we were getting clipped a little bit every year anyway. So in all fairness, we should be going back the other way a little bit. Yeah, and I like your thinking about, really shouldn't be on calculate based on Waterbury's growth. Just because we get proportionally bigger doesn't mean that the cost to serving fire protection to duct spray goes down. Right. I mean, just because we're providing them with a full-blown service essentially that they don't have to provide. And in itself, the mechanics of what makes that happen, I think is worth more than what they're actually paying us. You know what I mean? To keep the volunteer help and to train them and do everything and organize them and. Yeah, there are a lot of different components to their budget. I don't know if all that's considered, probably it's right. I don't know. So I think they're getting a bargain, you know. And then the other comment I just want to make for 2024 and it's a general comment, general government town operations. I don't see at this point as being a big budget driver or any real budget driver in 2024. The salary numbers this year still have some payouts for Bill's time and that goes away. Yeah. We'll have some turnover and planning development, but I don't think that's gonna drive the budget in any real way. Highway might, depending on the staffing issues, depending on the contractor issues for the parks and the cemeteries. But I think that the big budget driver is gonna be capital funds and how much we wanna put into those funds for those projects. A level funding pavement is okay for a bit, but what's construction inflation right now, higher than the general rate of inflation. So if we increase bathing 10%, that's 40 grand. So we'll know more as the state rolls out some of their projects, but nothing in this budget makes 2024 more difficult. I just wanna make that point. Did VLCT talk at all about, you mentioned that the Build Back Butter funding was coming down for bridges. Would there be any other funding? I mean, that's a huge appropriation, federal appropriation. So are there any other funding coming through on that? Yeah, there's a lot out there. There's a lot under Governor's budget, but folks generally have enough time to digest it and see how that translates down to the town level. Okay. The abbreviated VLCT guide, I think was 120 pages instead of 500. They eliminated the ones for like urban areas that wouldn't be eligible in the remaining programs. It's like 120 pages. I'll check my math, but it's ridiculous. Do we have any speed readers? So to your point about 2024 and beyond, my analogy I used before the meeting where you had four rungs below you before you were in the water, now you're in the water afoot. It's gonna get a lot deeper between now and the next few years. That same development on rat 100 though that hurts the fire contract is gonna add to the grand list, but there's some pretty substantial things in front of planning and zoning. And the reappraisal is that you're planning on having that done in 2023? Or TBD? 2024. Okay. So that would affect the grand list in 2025? You know, no, it's kind of maybe 2026. It's a couple of years to get a ton. And of course it changes everything dramatically and it will change the tax for you, but it shouldn't change how much you actually pay. That's what, I was having this discussion with somebody yesterday and he was all concerned because he owns a fair bit of property up on Ring Road or someplace.  It's all gonna be reapportioned. And the basic budget of the town is just gonna increase by its usual percent. The process works the way it should work. That rationale also applies to your state education tax payment. So they understand that. They make the adjustment just as we do. Like I try to tell people that the municipal tax rate is structured to service the debt. Bill will argue with me and say that debt is, budgetary costs aren't debt. In other words, paying salary, paying buying vehicles. Well, that would be debt. The municipal building is a debt. It's all debt as far as I'm concerned because it's money you owe, right? And you generate taxes to pay that debt, the whole circle of it. If you can control the debt, then you can manage your tax rate growth fairly well. And I think the town has done that the last number of years. And to your point about tax re-appraisal, it's kind of a similar formula like that. I mean, your tax rate, your appraisal rate will go up, but that should bring the tax rate down for most people. The newer homes, by rights, they'll get whacked harder with the new tax rate because their appraisal rate is current. And it's a new home where if you've been living in a home for 25, 30 years, that home is depreciated.  You know, your appraisal will grow up and your tax rate will come down. Out of pocket should be very similar. If anything, on the older properties, it should come down a little by rights. But the housing market right now is all over it. Your point, yeah. But the housing market doesn't have to do with that much. I agree with everything you put it. But it's all relative. It's like everyone had a certain dollar value. If everyone goes up 30%, it's all, yeah. It's not gonna make a difference. Yeah, the one issue I've spoken a little bit with Dan about that would make a difference, but as of right now, it's not the way the law, the regulations are. It's short-term rentals. A short-term rental is a single-family home in the grand list. And something that's more of a long-term Airbnb strikes me as something that should have more of a commercial valuation. Yeah. But that's not something we can fix on our own. It's something the state has got to change. Yeah, that's a valuation issue. Versus a taxable mortgage. You know, certain towns are addressing whether you can do short-term rentals, right? Like Morristown. Yeah, there's a lot of. Yeah, but I don't know how they had the right to do that. I think that's an interesting question. It's just for a lot of towns that are really changed. Yeah, well, and Morristown did, so I don't, you know. It's no different than the federal government starting to dip their fingers into it, dictating what you can charge for rent. A lot of towns are getting engaged in the short-term rental housing. Some towns are starting to regulate, some towns are starting with a permit requirement, which may not have a fee just to understand what's out there. It's something that's gonna just be an evolving issue for some time, I think. Anything you'll be deciding at the state level? Because it's, those are no longer really owned or occupied anymore, to the most part. Well, I know, there's a whole range of stuff going on. I'm just wondering what the regulatory framework is. I think this thing has become some better guidance on how they're valued. Right, I think it's a property valuation. For the rest of your questions, I think there's a housing task force that might have some influence. Oh, there were no complaints. Yeah, I'm so sorry. You guys were sort of... Oh, good. We'll have another one. Two to one. I looked at my eight. Okay. On the summary, is everyone good with the operating budget summary for 2023? Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Yes, thank you. Thank you, that's a great summary. And we have the warning, which... You want signatures on the warning? I brought everybody a fresh copy.  Our own health services. Do you want the match to... Do you want... We have one copy of that. You want one copy that's going to work our signatures? I'm ready to sign. We want a motion and a second and a vote. Yeah, we should. Well, please take a minute and look it over. Okay. The prototype goes. I'll read it. Sure, I'll read the question. Whoever you might see, please sit down. So we went, essentially went back to the original. Except for an adjustment to the senior center and a correction to some spelling and punctuation. Danny, are you going to be able to stop by my office and sign it next?  I'll email you if I don't feel comfortable coming in. Okay, well, we can work that out. Double mouse. I also, yeah, I also is e-signature loud because I have like a, I don't know.  We can publish it with four. The version we'll publish in a time, Argus is at the signed version. I think we can do the, and I don't need that till Wednesday. So we still have some time to get into the time time is fine. I think the word foreign is inaccessible, but that's okay. I said, I think the word foreign is inaccessible, but that's okay. I know that's a standard language.  Well, this is a historical event. E-signature. You're ready. So my point on the whole tax rate thing or the reappraisal, controlling the debt produces your tax rate. Once you do a reappraisal, the money that's asked, now you're reappraising here, the money that's asked from that same group that pays that debt should go down. Should. Whether it's the tax rate goes down. The only thing I worry about is the tax rate. The tax rate, I don't think you worry about it, but Karen. Oh, but for this big boom, Dan and I had a conversation at that time. There was a sort of a climate of homes, mine included, that were selling at a proportionately higher margin than your home, perhaps, or a home that already had a much higher tax value. So there was a dialogue that houses in my neighborhood were gonna go up substantially higher rate than other neighborhoods that had. I think a reappraisal is meant to level that playing field. And I hope it goes that way. But I'm just saying from a personal standpoint, there was some anxiety in that conversation for me, but it's overdue. It has to be done. It's almost like we get to a point where we're, I won't say spending beyond our means, but you get to a point where you get a step back down the ladder so you can start over again, and start crawling back up, you know? It's, I think that's, it's supposed to, like I said, level the playing field. But again, controlling the debt, even after a reappraisal, if you can maintain controlling that debt, the ask, the ask from those religious people will be still the same or under, that's what drives your tax rate up. It's asking more because you've accumulated more debt. And then there's a degree of more debt that comes anyway year over year. It's just- Or less if you pay off the bond with due respect to Tom.  And I trust that professional opinion personally. I don't disagree. We should not be trying to increase it astronomically, but the goal is to keep it manageable while meeting our needs. Depending on who's eyes you're looking through, I guess, and this is the way I'll put it because I don't have any other way of putting it. Getting foolish about expenditures, about things that might not necessarily need it's need versus wants. If you can stay away from the wants, I mean, that controls the debt, the ask. The more you ask, the more your taxes go up. Plain and simple. So would you have a motion for this morning that we've just signed? Or are you happy with the signature? I'll move it. I'll move the motion as well. Everybody's okay with what's there? I think everyone's signed, but we do need a formal motion. I'll move. We accept the warrant as just signed by all of us. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second it. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? If not all in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? Motion carries. We have a warning. Thank you, Karen and Tom, for the many revisions. We appreciate it. Thanks for your patience. Yeah. Thank you for two hours to circle back to where we started. I never got through this. A chartered city has, you know, four articles. Welcome to Snot Tampon. I just, I know at least some older here, but I'd be remiss to say, I thought it was a wonderful article that she had about Tom. And I didn't realize that Bill Halso was a mineral science major. I don't, I don't read the articles. I am. You didn't read the article? No. It was a good article. And I think it was written by a student reporter. I will say giving due credit. Right. But it was from the roundabout. Absolutely. You're right. It was, I thought it was an excellent, you know, article introducing Tom to the community. I even learned something about being a mineral science major. Well, it gives you some explanation for the granule or explanations that he would deliver. I'll make a motion to adjourn if there's no further business. Thank you. Second? Second. Second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? Motion carried. We stand adjourned. All right, Danny. Thank you all. Hope you feel better. See you Danny. See you Danny. It would make the night. Thank you.