I haven't heard I always could just could be a little bit late Okay, well, I will Call me to order. It's just about seven o'clock by my watch We do have three sets of minutes to review tonight But you have a quorum to review actually all of the minutes So we'll start with May 9th 2017. Is there a motion to approve? I Move to approve the minutes Dated may night. I'm sorry with amendments there, too So your second second age one age three You have one minor type all under the third bullet on public comments The second line it talks about 10,000 dollars covers judging of a four-bay pond That's supposed to be f or e bay one word Well, the reason I know that is because it was reflected in the consultants report page four So So on page four, I think the discussion That was discussion. I think I mentioned that Terry's it should suggested that 2% plus service fees are excessive for the use of town ratepayers money and I asked Jenna and Terry's it should ask Jennifer Kenley Who answered that the town receives less than 1% on? savings Just to get an idea of what what we would be losing for for that So under which part are you talking about? That was in the discussion part just before the motion before I think Ted offered a compromise motion So you'd like to have reflected in the minutes if you would yep awesome page four page five hearing no other Amendments or corrections all those in favor of approving the minutes of May 9th 2017 Hi, hi, I opposed any abstentions Now we're in the May 16th 2017 Minutes and joy was absent at this on this meeting. Is there a motion? Through a second Page one page two and page three So hearing no corrections all those in favor of approving the minutes of May 16 2017 say aye I Opposed and one abstention joy Then we have the minutes of May 25th and Teresa was absent on this is her motion to approve Hopefully approve subject to modification Page page one all corrections all those in favor of approving the minutes of May 25th 2017 say aye Aye And we're into public comment anyone in the audience who wishes to make a public comment on any issue either on the agenda or Time to do so and see no hands raised we'll move on to Board interviews and appointments what we have what we have before us tonight is a list of People in various positions on town boards and commissions that are willing to Stand for reappointment. I would call to your attention one minor Detail in the forest fire warden would be taken up under number five. So we would not want to approve that position So With that introduction is there and I would propose to you that a motion might be Made that it doesn't use the word boards, but the town positions instead If you're so inclined move to reappoint the individuals currently serving on town Positions positions with the exception of the fire warden to another term is indicated on the spreadsheet dated May 2nd 2017 second Discussion of the motion none all those in favor of the motion say aye Opposed no extensions. I might just one quick comment sure this Every single person whose term was expiring has agreed to continue which is just yeah, it's amazing We do have one resignation, but that person's term wasn't expiring there They moved or they're moving Would it be possible to get a list of all the current committee members? Sure That would just be helpful to me all commissions and boards. Yeah, just sir because I forget over time and it would just be Thank you move on to item number five, and that's the fire warden appointment and So Rick son is a memo regarding this and the request is to Reappoint the or appoint a town forest fire warden Ken Morton has agreed that he would wish to do this again for a term of five years and There is a proposed motion for that I moved to appoint Ken Morton as the town forest fire warden for a five-year term starting July 1st 2017 Discussion of the motion done Any opposed and those tension that commit that needs to be signed. Okay, you get a chance Next is the health officer and deputy health officer appointment and I sent did send you an email in response to questions from Jeff regarding the appointments And so I said in the email that I've been a health officer for 27 years Probably this deputy I think for a year or two or three before that Or the course of the last number of years we've been seeking a deputy health officer that would be interested in serving as health officer When the time came for me to step down and that's happened Cindy Thurston who was appointed as deputy health officer about three years ago Has agreed to be the health officer and with a proviso that I would be her deputy to Bring some expertise and experience to the position. So I Have agreed to do that if the board wishes to make those Motions to To the effect of make the the effect of Positions for health officer and deputy health officer I moved to recommend for appointment Cindy Thurston's as the town's health officer for a three-year term starting July 1st 2017 emotional motion So it just wanted to go quickly over I was a little bit I sent out the questions because I was just a little bit concerned And want to make sure I was comfortable But the email that Terry provided her qualifications being a nurse training Under Terry's wing if you will I think satisfied those concerns if you will if not more than satisfied She's very well prepared and as I mentioned in the email. She is taken upon herself to do some of the investigations that was requested of her in my absence, so Okay, I think the thing with the health officer, too, is that I Don't think you're called out all that often, but when you're called out it can be pretty intense So And he further discussion of that motion If not all those in favor of the motion say aye aye opposed no extensions There should be a second motion perhaps to recommend for appointment Terry McKay Because the town deputy health officer for a three-year period starting July 1 2017 Sorry discussion of the motion. Yeah, it's just an anecdote Like board representative and you were the town health officer in select board representative when we investigated a case of a off-duty police dog Biting an off-duty deputy state's attorney Your it was you know you were you were like Colombo Based on that experience that I'm gonna vote in favor of the motion So any further discussion of the motion, I'm sorry, how many years was it? Did you say 27 that should be recognized? Thank you. Thank you So all in favor of the motions a I high I Oppose say no There's no extensions So let's move on then to one of the neighborhood stormwater grant policy. I believe that James is Sherard our stormwater coordinator who's gonna be here to talk about that Jennifer Nellie who was able to answer questions regarding monies with us tonight for both this and the Who would like to start as James, I know you wrote a memo to Rick regarding this issue. I Did I'm happy to summarize that if you'd like essentially The challenge of obtaining grants is the need to distribute it equitably throughout all the participating neighborhoods While only perhaps applying for one individual neighborhood for a grant so the document we've put together and What we're trying to do here is figure out the methodology of distributing those funds if we get a hundred thousand dollars Who gets what percent of that? so What my memo does is provide four different options and these four different options Have come through a variety of well a number of iterations But the first steps was town staff myself meeting with stormwater representatives from each neighborhood that was interested in this process and that birthed the idea that we could perhaps tie it to Certain metrics and and what staff believes are a variety of metrics for consideration are here To touch upon them each briefly Treated impervious surface this metric is trying to recognize Within each neighborhood how much impervious cover? Their stormwater systems will treat the nice part about this is that it's a direct nexus to the problem Allenbrook is impaired because of stormwater runoff runoff is generated from impervious surfaces when we capture and treat those impervious surfaces where You know that that's a direct nexus to the impairment of Allenbrook Another possible metric of consideration is strictly construction costs That is exactly what it sounds like if your project cost a hundred thousand dollars to build that was your Amount that was your way to the mount towards this process The the drawback with that is the more expensive the project the more money you get and there may not be Perhaps the direct nexus or a nexus to water quality improvements like we were looking for This the third option we discuss here is an average of the impervious cover and the construction costs simple split impervious percentages Construction cost percentages divided by two Those have it mitigates the construction cost aspect about it a little bit, but still You can see for the pie charts I have here. It still waits one neighborhood fairly heavily the fourth option which is something that was Requested after the last like more meeting. I was here Was to tie it to the prioritization matrix and that prioritization matrix as a reminder was created for the loan program Exact same question. You know if a bunch of neighborhoods come to us and say we want a loan How do we pick who gets the first loan with a limited amount of funds? So we tried to the staff tried to tie those weightings to One of the allocation methods here and the pie chart is kind of speaks for itself It's it's very even the percent distributions vary from like 3% to 10% or something like that as opposed to some of the different percentages, so It's my understanding we're gonna perhaps discuss those and maybe even choose one of those allocation metrics for the grant program So questions from the board Well, it's um oh Oh Yeah, my apologies. I should just say that the very end of this document staff does recommend an option and we do recommend option number one for some of the Reasonings I Provided the main one being there is a fairly direct nexus between impervious cover treated and the issue at hand here And I'm happy to go into more detail about why staff is recommending that desired questions from the board Is um did you do any analysis and For the different options what um Versus cost to the neighborhoods is there any idea of Coming up with the most equitable share of the cost because the costs are different for neighborhood, right? So in other words, there's one of these options provide a better Average cost similar average cost or or reimbursement across all the different neighborhoods If I understand it correctly then the one link to the prioritization metrics metric has the most consistent Distributions, I believe you all also have a detailed table here that gets into some of the numbers and no I didn't didn't mean to even across but I mean even Versus the expense for each storm waterpond so the expense for each neighborhood. So for instance does one of these options provide a 10% Grant coverage for each of the neighborhoods on average in other words. I know they don't exactly but what does one of these provide the best kind of I'm afraid I don't know what you're asking Which one that comes closest to equalizing cost per share of cost per thank you. Thank you Thank you. That's exactly what I meant So the matrix option does take into account cost per household It was one of a number of factors under consideration for the matrix So that consideration is built in there and accordingly, you know The matrix option varies from 2% to 10% max for Cost distribution so right but it's but it's obvious that one doesn't cover Equally from from a burden perspective in other words cost per share or cost per household because The highest burdened neighborhood with a high, you know, 14,000 or whatever it is per household They have a fairly small piece of the pie. So I would say it's not a very good distribution versus the cost of or the burden, right? so Town staff did not do a direct connection To cost per household and for the first one the impervious cover does Do the large shares? coincide or closely match the neighborhoods that have very large expenses The answer is yes fairly closely the the top three recipients underneath the impervious cover are South Ridge Brennan Woods and Meadow Ridge They do have among the highest Construction costs that is not true across the board obviously there are a couple other neighborhoods that have higher construction costs But due to the amount they're treating Don't get quite as much So it's it's a see it seems like it's a decision between spreading it like peanut butter Which I mean we use that term all the time and we spread, you know the pain by peanut butter the budget guts or whatever or We provide benefit to the neighborhoods that have the highest burden per household Or a direct nexus to the issue at hand Agreed and and Certainly the last one doesn't seem it seems like of the peanut butter approach and I'm not sure that's the benefit of the I'm kind of with the options that we have I'm I think the first one the impervious cover is provides The best representation of the options that's been That have been proposed, so I don't know what the other board members think It's more of a comment than it is a question I think cost I mean the reason for getting the reason for requesting a grant is to help defer the cost exactly and So using that if you will nexus I have a hard time I haven't figured out why we yet why we wouldn't want cost to be a part of how we allocate that money I Mean I can understand where when the state has a grant program. They're very interested in The money's going out to do what you want the money to do in whether it's clean up a lake or Water quality or what have you but our our sole reason for getting this money Going after these grants. I shouldn't say so but probably the key reason is to help reduce the burden and And that's why I think cost needs to be at least a part of it We've looked at various formulas Rick one of the things we've talked about in the past and I've mentioned is is just adding a you know, I think James you've done a 50% use you basically looked at 50% cost and 50% Construction costs and 50% impervious surface Yeah, what if the cost was it was a different factor is that what you're suggesting well I I am tending more towards option 2 which is the combination of impervious plus cost as opposed to option 1 But that's just leaning at this point right and I'm very interested in hearing what others have to say Can I ask a question the first looking at the memo that you have? Figure one is construction costs Figure one should be impervious cover impervious. I'm sorry, right. That's what I meant And figure two is construction costs. Yes. Okay, figure three is Impervious construction cost average Can you tell me how can you explain that? Process a little bit more sure cover construction cost. Yeah, and actually we can probably Look at the biggest contributor for the second two there in figure two with construction costs about half of the pie Is one neighborhood that'd be Meadow Ridge In figure one one of those pies is about 14 percent from Meadow Ridge So those two values around 46 percent and around 14 percent The average of 46 and 14 is around 30. So on the figure three, which is the to that slice of the pie that's third of the Circle is Meadow Ridge. So it really was just a simple add and divide straight average. So it was an attempt to Kind of factor in both how much impervious cover each neighborhood has and how much construction costs they're looking at Yep, and and you know underneath that method you could weight them in any way Right now they're weighted equally you could have construction costs weighted at 70% or at 30% and that would of course change the distribution Just to reiterate one thing this in my memo here is one of the dangers with construction costs is if we do choose to Go that route there should also be some discussion about how we treat pre-existing systems and systems that weren't constructed and also perhaps some consideration of the systems that were Maintained in pretty well as opposed to the systems that weren't maintained maintain that well at all and you know How do we take that into account when It's always a difficulty with grant and loan programs is you don't want to reward Not doing you know maintaining or what have you as anybody maintains stormwater systems No, I haven't heard of anybody. I know our neighborhood has done nothing Has any neighborhood actually done maintenance on a expired stormwater system? Certainly general maintenance You know one way to also frame this is not going out of their way to undo a system We've there are a couple in the neighborhood that ended up being dumping grounds for Christmas trees and Yeah, so they did They did come into this process in a variety of different Standings you know other one other neighborhoods have been mowing their their ponds and keeping them in relatively good working order You know to the maximum extent that from that standpoint I guess we maintain ours, but I would say we really didn't maintain it We we mowed it because it was and I saw if we didn't mow it Just brought up as a concept. That's out there as you know people deal with grant and loan programs. I Actually would lean towards some combination of construction costs and impervious surface. I think both concepts are good I don't I am Again, there's there's no good answer to any of these questions Impervious absolutely has a wonderful logic to it that it is Tied directly to the problem, but on the other hand, you know the people who live in those neighborhoods didn't create the problem and Likewise construction costs It would be a huge Distribution one way, but on the other hand I think it's something that has to be factored into because one of the concepts Here is trying to take grant money and and mitigate the harm of the entire Issue Again, I this is this is a perfect example of not that we're legislators, but how legislation is like watching sausage being It's not good But I you you were saying that you had one you wanted more construction costs I Favor I think pretty much exactly what you said and it should be a combination I don't know how to weight them. So maybe 50-50 is The best I can come up with right now 50-50 is what we have in front of you for this Option three. It's the figure three. It's very simple to adjust those weightings Yeah, whatever the board desires. I guess my question is what I wouldn't know Self-wate to give those two things And within that in terms of no, there's there's policy considerations that involve the science of it and involve the Nexus between impervious surface and the actual problem and then there's the the burden on the neighborhoods Whatever whatever weight that we give to these two factors is is probably not going to be scientific by the time it ends Anyway, if it is now at 50-50 I don't know where we go with what I just said, but I felt The further countless from the ward question one question, I guess I have a James you you brought up you This would need some additional if this is the direction the select board wants to go this Combining the to the combination to or option. I think it's option two What additional work would need to end up in this policy that option three three I'm sorry option three the pervious construction. You're right. It is What additional work would be needed to the? the stormwater grant policy It's just a changing a sense or two. Okay, so that issue about you were talking a little bit how we'd need to adjust I Was simply saying if if a desire between impervious cover and construction costs is the direction the board wants to go What you have in front of you right now and associated values Are based on a 50-50 split? So if for some reason you wanted to change that distribution, we could just recalculate that Should we ask them to do a kind of a 10 to 90? It's just a spreadsheet calculation and see what the cost the benefit Per per homeowner burden is right In other words, are we getting 10 20 30 percent? We looking for the kind of the closest, but I actually might argue against that and okay, and because We could go through umpteen iterations Ultimately, we have to choose it based on what we philosophically think the sausage making is the right approach and I Just don't want to get too swayed by oh, I'd like the way these numbers Work out then I feel like I can defend it from up, you know the best process if you will I Don't know if that makes sense I Wanted to see something that looks like we're giving the neighborhoods the the neighbors that have the highest burden Getting a good share right getting a decent share. So I don't know if we have numbers that show that but so you would like For instance at the 50 50 per household, how does that end up in each neighborhood? Right not per neighborhood because some neighborhoods have 200 homeowners, right? Some neighborhoods have 50 or household within the neighborhood. Yes kind of looking at do we can we equalize the burden somehow and Or the benefit to the burden I guess you know or actually equalize the burden at the end of the day, right? So wouldn't the answer then be we take whatever we get in a grant grant? Sorry divided by the number of households in all the neighborhoods and then just each neighborhood If they have 60 homes they get 60 times whatever that per household But they have different burdens, right? Yes, so that's where you don't get the same percentage benefit, right? I was looking try to equalize the benefit so Take the burden take out minus the grant then for household for the most part most people's burdens aren't their own fault, you know from a from a Philosophical philosophical standpoint people who moved into certain homes end up with a An expired permit burden that's not necessarily tied to anything that they did I would say nobody has that situation, right? Not the metal ridge folks and not people in South Ridge or in In my neighborhood, so Yeah, I Hear what you're saying. I don't think I would be in favor of equalizing entirely though Because I do think that there for the other people in town there has to be some sort of Balancing out and I think the fact that if you weigh because otherwise you're getting further and further away from the tying the nexus between the impervious surface and the problem I Think that the We should come up with a formula that mitigates The extra burdens but does not get rid of them entirely unless unless we get so much grant money that we can just go ahead and do that It would be nice. Yeah So you want to end up with a disc a burden you want to end up with a burden per household Consistent with the current Share of burden across the entire expense of the stormwater upgrade. I don't know so The the chart that you produced the stormwater funding prior priority matrix. That's a 50-50 So the one with the stormwater funding priority prioritization matrix that Was not originally created for this grant program. This was for the loan. So The particular attributes and metrics we have there Yeah Copy you by the way is including your packets for that of that Matrix I believe and there actually is a cost per house column But the problem is for this particular discussion that that's sort of rolled into all these other metrics to get their ranking within the Prioritization matrix. It's not teased out into its own Thing so we don't have it on the charts that you said In a way, it's part of the matrix and the matrix is one of our Considerations for the grant we have two tables the one that at the top is called grant funding distribution options Right is the percent breakdown for the four different options put forth in my memo That lets you put some numbers on like in front of your mind, but The matrix is the matrix that's driving how we prioritize these Systems in the case of you know, if they all at once came in for a loan how would we do that and and member of the community Suggested to us that we use this as a method of Allocating funds and that's what we've done here in the fourth option as it were members of the audience if they have any comments regarding The grant policy Which will not just So board how do you wish to proceed on this tonight? One more sure question. So I'm looking at the grant funding distribution options chart Is that the chart that under impervious construction average that column is what the the 50-50 split? Yeah, so You know to pick on you Ted 3% and and these dollar amounts are assuming that over the the course of This whole process say up to 10 years that we were to get $450,000 I'm not saying that's out of the realm of possibility. That would be great if we got that much, but Those numbers assume 450,000 so you can scale it as you will but that would equal around $12,000 turtle crossing for Meadow Ridge That's about a hundred thirty four thousand dollars and they're at 30% Brandon Woods is at 11% for about forty seven thousand dollars. So again the percentages are perhaps a better way to Think about the breakdown as opposed to the dollars because they they're going to change based on grant distribution Directions how much we to move which way to move tonight? Still in favor of option three Is that if that's impervious construction average I am too that is correct. I believe I got my options right this time numbers, right? So Can we make a motion on that or do we Wait to see how we ask for a revision to the Policy and then yeah, I think this will require some minor modifications to language excuse me and so as long as Maybe the board would like to take a vote on this at least we could put not not on the policy But rather the option so we can put that to bed and then it'll be a double matter of We can proceed because we we have some grants We're in fact we submitted a pre-application yesterday for one Potentially huge grant. Oh Our fingers are crossed Yeah, so this let out a lot of that process to keep going. Okay, so I moved to adopt a Neighborhood stormwater grant distribution policy based on option number three in James Scherard's memo dated May 25th 2017 Just a minor thing you referred to as a neighborhood stormwater grant Distribution policy. Yes formal title is neighborhood stormwater grant policy distribution isn't part of it Well, it we're not voting on the policy. We're voting on the distribution policy, right? Because we're we're gonna vote on the so I think I worded it right We're not voting on the document. We're voting on which one of these options we want. Okay, and then Rick's gonna update I think the document like people nodding their heads, so I'll go along with that Discussion of motion Thank You James Yeah, for this all this and fear the motion say aye. Aye. All right All right, so we can Move along then to the next item, which is the residential expired permit policy and We'll view which would like to talk about this I'll start it off and then I can have Probably Jennifer pick up piece one piece What we've tried to do is respond to the specific requests for additional information that we received at the last And one of that pieces was look at the rates based on a phased implementation, and that's what I'll have Jennifer speak to and We also the board also wanted to see a simplified chart showing using information that had been provided by Well Tanner and that's included in my memo On the topic topic of evaluation So with that, I think I'll turn it over to Jennifer That was done by a toilet Tanner shared the number at 20 years or the rating From the board and from the community was what does that look like? More phased in so don't show us zero to 20 years show us what happens in five years ten years in 20 years so What I did is I went back and I looked at the assumptions that we've been sharing with the board for the past couple years and said I'm not going to make up new assumptions. I'm just going to base it on what we've already been Thinking all along so that's where I came up with 80% of the expired permits Would be done by year five. That's based on a cash flow. That was done a couple years ago 100% of the expired permit projects would be done by year ten because that's what our flow restoration plan says And then these other expenses would happen. We wouldn't have to do the ten-year for bay until ten years for Bay dredging and we wouldn't have to do the main pond dredge until 20 years so that I Added those assumptions in and then I prepared this Looking at those different options and added in any additional assumptions that we had to make for the different options and showed you those What the rates would look like at year five your 10 and your 20 and we do understand that Since the analysis was done by whole in Tanner there has been an updated number for for bay dredging we think Well, this would change these numbers. It would change them all consistently So if they would all go down by two dollars if that number is inflated or they would all go up by two dollars if they're under Estimated so that is one of the items that we prepared based on that discussion. I think James has another item Sure with regards to the table this Is the table title break there's an estimated increase Yes to be affected and In general is the will the board to sort of break down these cost increases by sector So staffs broken this up into four different categories But Wilson single-family residential those are all the homes that are getting just one ERU for a billing farms commercial slash industrial that's kind of a catch-all for Basically anything that's not a single-family residence or farm or owned by the town Okay, and the last category there a town of Williston are our roads and non roads and just as an important Aside that would essentially be the tax increase portion that the general fund pays You could interchange the town of Wilson with general fund increase The options going across You can see that option three and five are Identical because they don't begin to separate in this particular analysis till after 20 years Happy to Shout about any of these costs that you see in there Oh, and also it's important to point out that this doesn't include future upgrades and major repairs in the Hoylentanner analysis It was just based on expired permits system Upgrades and maintenance. It's not taking into account the acts of God or big repairs in 20 years from now and Also, I guess one other caveat is it is very likely that rates will rise over the next 10 years in some way shape or This doesn't take into account that this would be solely in addition to what decision we make based on the options Are there questions or comments from the board? so My first question is why do you think that the the cost of maintenance doesn't affect any of the options differently? Well do they because I thought if we take care of Only the expired permit neighborhoods That's a certain amount of maintenance, right if we add in The non expired permit maintenance. Isn't that a much bigger number now? I believe what Jennifer is trying to get is we're assuming all these are ponds and that they're all going to be maintained in a Certain way so whether the numbers 18 ponds that we take over underneath you know option one for example Or whether it's all the systems in the town of Williston Per pond we're estimating the cost at the same way, but yeah, but that doesn't that's not what we're making a decision on then the numbers would change between the options if you change the Maintenance cost. I mean that's kind of what we're looking at is the cost per option So that doesn't really it isn't really flat. It's very in fact, it's very lumpy it changes them all similar Because if you're doing like option one the current path for example, we're only doing 18 ponds That is the lowest option. Yeah, and in that we would do 18 ponds Would have less of a cost in option three where it's all in you would have all 43 ponds And they would all be at that lower rate So it doesn't change one and suddenly option one is less expensive for the ratepayers than option three it doesn't change How they relate to one another I should well it makes a much closer in dollar amounts because the Magnitude of the increase will go down significantly with a significant decrease in maintenance cost Actually, which is why the this little chart showing percentages is Kind of yeah, so that just my point is that it changes the numbers pretty significantly Even though the cost per pond changes the same the cost of the options to homeowners and especially when we talk about Multi eru burdens like on the farms that That makes the some options look very unattractive because of the high maintenance costs and others would look better so that's so my point on the Different estimate or a more realistic estimate done by an industry expert of 30 years Who's done this for a job? Successfully is a better estimate than an academic paper. So that was my my first point So and it does change I think it would definitely change my decision-making if I found out that the fontanes would Instead of a $3,000 increase, we're gonna see a thousand dollar increase or a $500 increase It would make a big difference in my decision-making So it's a significant difference the the other thing was just the Process and we talked about it a little bit Rick last the last time we met and that is that When Hoyle Tanner did the report they did a 20-year dredge and then they came up with a 20-year Reconstruction fee if you will that was based on the initial pond Expired permit un-maintained pond construction fee So we took the worst possible scenario of all these ponds being un-maintained some being as James brought up unbuilt and We said well, we're just gonna dump that again at 20 years and on top of that they have to be dredged too Well, the thing we're forgetting is that the single biggest cost and expense for all of the work We've done. I know for our pond is dredging the pond in the first place because it hasn't been dredged in 20 20 some years that's the biggest expense we have so you've taken that which is the biggest part of the initial you know the for the most part the construction fees that we're all seeing for the expired permits and you're adding that on top of the average construction fee that we ended up in the first that we that we paid for or are paying for to fix these expired permit pond so you're kind of double counting and I would suggest that There's no magical pond Expansion or for instance in our neighborhood we have no room the pond is the pond you can either do a dredge in 20 years When and I think that's typical of many of the pond you can do a dredge in 20 years Which I would suggest is Probably the only thing that can and should be done in 20 years or plan for this other thing about New requirements magically appearing at 20 years. I don't think is realistic and in any way It's a double count you you should remove a significant portion of that cost that you've estimated Ma'am please and address the double count comments I think it's important to clarify something the cost you're seeing with regards to the eru increases By by both Jennifer's estimates based on five ten and twenty years and my estimates here They do not include those major upgrades. So there are no double countings in these eru increases specifically left out of these eru increases are any major upgrades so That that issue can can be placed aside when looking at these tools here also the the judging quotes were provided to us both by Estimates we got from professionals and South Burlington looked over a lot of our assumptions and came back with us and said those judging Coaches look about right similar for things. We've done so Just wanted to add that again for the discussion. Well the dredging we agree the dredging quote looked We actually did a re-quote on the dredge too, and it looked reasonable though 20-year dredge So we agree with that. So I guess I'm confused because the 20-year numbers That I saw in the document well Jennifer's document the 20-year eru increases Looked a lot like the numbers from the Hoyle Tanner The Hoylin I didn't Redo Hoyle and Tanner's report. He paid them to do that report. I use that report the what I heard from the conversation was Take that report and show us what it would look like in 10 in five years and We're going getting to the same number if we'd like to have Hoyle and Tanner Redo the report that that's a different request Well, and in Hoyle and Tanner never had the eru's include that third category They never included the major upgrades and repairs. So if we're looking at The table with the four different user groups under option one. You'll see $14 and 52 cents italicized That's the eru increase increase for option one Underneath Jennifer's option one if you go all the way to year 20. It's $14 and 52 cents That's essentially saying you're eventually going to hit that same eru rate and all these eru rates Do not take into account any major future upgrades or repairs. Well, I thought the major the future upgrade and repair was the Expired stormwater permit total cost divided by the number of You know coming up with that average cost and adding it as that future cost that was brought back to present cost I thought that was a part of this analysis You're telling me that the numbers in here just reflect maintenance just for the eru's the eru's that we're using to to represent the Potential increases in costs here. That is something that I spoke to Mike Shram about directly And that is what he reiterated for me So that is the case for the consideration of this these documents that we put together So when you mentioned we are you speaking for your homeowners association or some other we oh I'm sorry. What was I saying? We say we several times? Oh, I'm sorry. We is So we ran those numbers we agree and that we were just trying to determine who we is when you views that statement. Oh Chris and I Chris and I ran the numbers So I again, I thought these numbers included that final Construction costs which Mike talked about and we discussed at length during the meeting So why I'm trying to figure out those numbers are not included in the financial Calculation that Mike did because I certainly thought they were and They were in the total spreadsheet. They were in the totals I thought so too. So I think those the numbers that we see here include that 20-year construction cost So to the best of my knowledge and based on the last conversation I had verbally with Mike Shram While the analysis at the very bottom did have fairly large numbers, you know 4 million to 12 million give or take Those did include that third category. What I'm trying to say is that the eru's that we based all these Increases on that eru value did not include that final upgrade piece Now, obviously, there's a lot of question about this. I'll reach out to him again, but that is my understanding Yeah Yeah That's what I thought too. I mean we looked at the we stare at these numbers for a long time So in the fact that they're the 20-year numbers double To me says that there's a large expense included in that last half. That's not $20,000 a pond Because how many eru's are there there's 15,000 approximately James 14 500 or something roughly 14 and a half thousand It it is the the first footnote in the table I provided and Clearly, I'll double check that but that was put in there after discussion That was my second point I think I'm correct in saying that the numbers include the construction costs because that was a big part of the discussion that we had and if Mike could have cleared that up in an instant if he said oh That's just for reference. We didn't include that but he included that in the the analysis of the cost in the sense Jennifer I'm actually does anybody have a file cannot record and I'm wondering if you're referring to The items that are online 11 what page I'm sorry attachment attachment three My bad This is from May 9th Yeah, and I can show this to you if you'd like Attachment three the number that we're referring to that's not included in there is Line on 15 right But what I'm getting at is when I look at line line 11 where they estimate what the increase will be in the in the fee It appears those numbers do not include upgrade and major repair shares Yeah, and I read this table correctly. I may be reading it incorrectly. Yeah, it says it right in them the beginning of row 11 annual share cost per year you of Capital and O&M costs over 20 years. It does not include that third category of future major upgrades Okay, and your point Terry seems to be you're just saying it should it just what we were presented with on May 9th, didn't And So what Jennifer you did I just trying to make sure I understand the whole conversation that's going on it was consistent with what oil Tanner did in coming up with their increase in the cost of the ER use What the ER use will need to be and the only other question. I'm sorry I have about The table you put together and thank you because I find this helpful is on the on the farms. They have the ability to I Think it's up to a 50% credit on if they meet certain 10% credit 40% grant Okay, thank you. Um, is that reflected in here? No. No, okay So this would be if they did not do whatever upgrades they needed to or didn't apply for that credit in grant Or if they fell out of compliance with their state RAPs, then they'd lose both the credit and the grant for the town Yes, your questions or comments. Yeah, I guess I'm still that comfortable that So I'm just looking at one of the tables Page 12 page 12 of the oil Tanner report And now I'm So I'm trying to figure out how you determine that that value isn't Present worth a future upgrade at 20 years It is it is it's online Yeah, I am I'm looking at line 11 and it does say that So the only question I would have is why did we discuss the 20-year Upgrade costs I guess I'm still uncomfortable unless I go back and run the numbers But my impression was at the meeting on May 9th that it did include the 20-year numbers because we discussed those If it doesn't that I would say that That's probably a good thing that it doesn't I'm still surprised that the ER use that are so large for Just maintenance and then I would say well, that's probably because the maintenance are two to three times what they should be but That should still should be looked at the maintenance cost should be run At a more reasonable estimate They get done a pretty deep analysis here and it's not something that We internally can recreate They just ran a spreadsheet because they didn't do any consulting right they just they provided the spreadsheet to us We could couldn't we plug in the numbers different numbers and come up with a range It's not that simple the values they gave us for the present-worth analyses Are not something that you can just fill in some cells and have it calculated out. That's something they did in-house So the question is If we take no action the existing permit policy stands if we wish to Modify it we would need to do that. Do we need more information before we get to that point? Well one one thing I think we we haven't talked about yet, and I think I mean we talked about it previously Not tonight, but we still need to talk about is the concept of Will the policy include The non-expired residential Permits I guess maybe that's the way to put it and and let me start by saying You know after I don't know how many years we've been talking about this and trying to think through all this I've come to the conclusion that I Think we need to include the You know the other group I don't know how to correctly The neighborhoods with valid permits. I have a hard time understanding how we can differentiate between the expired permits and the valid permits so That's just how I'm One one of the caveats. I'm starting with When we come to actually voting for against or not voting at all I Would agree it's an equity discussion Like the idea that people who are paying us the storm or fee get something Option number three in terms of at least the routine maintenance major repairs and upgrades the improvement cost is still is You know still to be Discussed that It would be nice to see more realistic numbers in there to give it give an idea of what the impact is for that So because we're showing it now is Well, we we we do know We know a couple things about option three Going to Jennifer's I'm good. Hope you don't mind if I refer to it that way Jennifer's table an option three at least as it is Carry it is calculated, which is the 60 40 split between neighborhoods Stormwater fund That split could change we could change that split Right now the way the policy currently reads is it's 100% zero Split if that's the right word for what 100% and zero is which would Drastically reduce I shouldn't say drastically. I'm not sure how much it would reduce that cost On the other hand if it was 100% it would increase that cost, but option three my understanding right now is built on a split of the improvement cost of 60% neighborhoods 40% Stormwater fund and I want to make sure that's correct I would reference Rick's table on his memo that breaks out the percentage costs based on the options and in option 391% of the ongoing burden financial burden would be that of the stormwater fund the 9% for the expired permits would be with regards to their upgrades currently and 0% for the valid permits. Okay, but then the question becomes is That's option three with this the improvement cost split being 60% neighborhoods 40% towns if that was to draw I'd like to Understand right now the way the policy currently reads is the improvement cost split is a hundred percent neighborhoods 0% stormwater. Yes. Yes. I would like to understand what the cost is or the split would be Under that scenario, so that would be sorry a modified option three if you will Does that make sense? and and I guess I might as well just Get this out now because I'm going to have to say it at some point I think the original I Say the original in the adopted policy where the select board Decided that the improvement cost would be on the neighborhoods But the future maintenance and improvement cost would be on the stormwater fund. I Think that was a good deal And I still feel that's a real benefit to the neighborhoods So I would like to understand What the cost impacts would be if we kept it at that 100% neighborhoods for the improvement costs 0% stormwater fee Does all that make sense? I Believe that 9% for the expired permits would would go up slightly if we were not contributing based on the 60% I Don't know what that number would be The other the other big piece of it is how much does it reduce the stormwater fund portion? I Mean that that is as important as how much does it increase that the cost to the neighborhoods Now we could wait and get that information But I'm going to argue against that because I'm not so sure I mean we we have to make a decision sometime and and and we need to make it sooner than later and Again, it's to me. It gets down to philosophy as much as it's you know down to the hard numbers Did you get my point there? I did and the only thing I'd say is that we pay You know we pay ER use right all of us pay our use then we pay tax ER use because we're taxed on the town roads and the town roads are Also covered and chopped up by ER use we pay taxes on the ER use for the town roads So as you know the neighborhoods if you will Are burdened not only with our own properties and I shouldn't have any more burden than you We have you know if we have similar size houses and driveways. I don't have any more impervious surface than you do I don't own the road or control it. I don't maintain it And as South Burlington is done they found it, you know in their own words. It was an equitable process To come up with we have to find our equitable process. No, no, of course, and I think I think Your point about About sharing sharing, you know, sharing the burden Is valid too, but remember the only people Being burden right now are the ones in the neighborhoods and What we're asking for is the town to take the share of the roads on those and that initial cost everybody else will be burdened by what could be a five dollar increase or something so I Still feel pretty strongly that the Town surfaces should be covered by town costs, and I think maybe at the end of the day That's like a three dollar difference in the ER you At least for the you know for the five hundred and sixty or eighty thousand dollars of Cost Associated in the in the residential expired permit upgrade process, right? It was one point some eight million dollars I think five hundred and sixty or eighty thousand was attributable to the road area itself You'd have to go back to the yeah I just James probably has a number on the top of us And I just I took that number and divided it out by the number of ER used to come up with a Value over the 20 over 20 years Which was I think three dollars or a little less than three If we option Yeah, I don't know what that cost would be right well we can ask James for it or I think it's about three dollars, so And then I like the I really support the idea about covering the Valid permits the valid permits right so how much how much would that cost over the I mean Do we have that number and I've just missed it that a if we covered the valid permits By taking over their maintenance and upkeep from here to eternity How much is that going to change? So that would be best represented by the report Horland Tanner did and includes including the The future major upgrades and repairs That type of program would cost us around 11 and a half million dollars For all of the town stormwater funds for a year per 10 years over 20 years and the option we're currently on is around four and a half million dollars, so The risk in about a 20-year period is Somewhere in the order of seven million dollars more for the town of Wilson stormwater fund and the year period 20 years If I may mr. Chair, I did write a memo and I'd appreciate it if we're getting close to perhaps making a decision to be able to read a small portion of it to The board as they're doing their decision-making Thank you. If you did get this memo it was on May 31st dated May 31st. I'm just going to read a portion of it a Number of the options before the board will include Incorporation of the valid residential permits and this will guarantee a considerable expansion of the stormwater program In order to maintain regulatory compliance with the additional permits the stormwater program will require additional administrative staff Dedicated maintenance staff and additional equipment This accelerated scope of expansion was not originally anticipated in the formation of the stormwater program Furthermore the town will invite a level of infrastructure and regulatory risk and uncertainty which may intensify the need to raise rates As this infrastructure ages the difference between ownership of 18 the expired permits or 43 all the town permits will significantly raise maintenance and upgrade costs With the passage of Act 64 the implementation of the Lake Champlain phosphorus TMDL and the state's inability to provide direct guidance on the Responsibilities associated with towns impervious located within these expired permits. We are in an exceptionally turbulent regulatory period This regulatory permitting risk while difficult to quantify Once again increases the likelihood of growing rates directly affecting Wilson residents and businesses Therefore given the level of risk and uncertainty and this quickly changing Regulatory landscape and the relatively and the relative youth of Wilson stormwater program It staffs recommendation to the select board to remain on our current path Option one for the near to mid future as our you as our utility matures and the state's regulatory environment Stabilizes we will be better suited to revisit the options currently before the board for consideration I do appreciate appreciate the opportunity to read that out loud and I'm Also happy to take any questions. Did you discuss? James do you mind if I? You know thank you, and I think I understand Pretty much exactly or a hundred percent what you're saying but philosophically I Guess the question becomes is Would under under the current option option one the current whatever plan Are we treating one group of permit holders? differently than another group and what would be the justification for doing that did you mind that I ask in that fashion no and It's been my understanding that These these systems have become expired so they've already been treated differently by the state for a number of years In recognition of that the town has made what is in my opinion a fairly generous offer We will incorporate your permit into our ms4 permit which makes all future operation of maintenance and future upgrades Disappear in the long term that cost is very difficult to quantify, but it's massive, you know for perpetuity These neighborhoods no longer have to pay anything so yes It is a one-time of cost, and I'm not minimizing that for these neighborhoods, but that was the deal So yes, we are treating them differently in A manner we hope is fair and the reason we're treating them differently than the valid permits is those valid permits have had They haven't had liens on their titles. They haven't had clouds on their titles. They haven't had to do transfer permits have expired stormwater permits They haven't been in limbo as with regards to their permitting status So by virtue what the state has created they're already different and therefore we must treat them slightly differently The option one that's put forth is again in my opinion a good deal long term And does meet a lot of the requirements that you know all the requirements we need to meet for this state Thank you Actually, you know I gotta say I which if I agree with the idea. I don't I don't agree with covering then the Neighborhoods who do not have expired permits. I wish that we could because it would be a very easy solution But I do think there's a difference between the 18 neighborhoods that are gonna have to expend significant amounts of money and the other neighborhoods who are newer and Haven't had this and they're not gonna have this burden as as my When my kids were in daycare, I remember the phrase it was used over and over again was Fair doesn't mean equal And I I don't know if this is fair or not Probably could you know, I don't think anything's going to be fair in this I do think that the Select board policy that was in place when I got back on is the one that is in place now It's It is a pretty I think it is a pretty good deal I think the interesting thing about it is that you know, you it's it's a voluntary program Nobody has to do it you could go to the state yourself and and Take care of it that way So You know, I the question is should it be more generous? Is it too generous in comparing this to the residents is that don't have expired permits? I think this is the best balance in a in a very turbulent situation. I mean the state's Bureaucratic and regulatory leadership in this area has been really bad And I don't expect that's going to change So I'm I'm Concerned about a lot of things not the least of which is if we hook on to basically giving neighborhoods an entitlement Which these 18 neighborhoods are getting and we've talked about why that? Has some balance to it whether it's complete balance or not. I don't know But if we hook on to all the other things and all the other non expired permit neighborhoods in town That that is creating an entitlement and by that I there's you know the legal definition meaning like You get this money if you meet the criteria period and your criteria is you have a stormwater infrastructure and permit Then the town is going to pay for that In an end to infinity and I am I'm really worried about what that cost would be So I I agree this this is a really awful issue And I but I think I'm going to keep my vote would be to keep the policy as it is it's a I Know we always think we we have talked about this a lot of times more than I'd like to think about but When you say entitlement I never think of it as an entitlement because I think one of the Residents here before talked about it and talked about paying their school tax when they have no more kids in the school it's a public good and the fact that these 18 or 40 some neighborhoods have stormwater ponds is Primarily a result of the town's planning. It's not the result of neighborhoods It's a result of the way the town wants to do development the primary runoff from The roads is what fills the stormwater ponds. It's not from the houses themselves like any other house It's not in a neighborhood so we provide the neighborhoods that have these stormwater infrastructures Provide the benefit to the rest of the town and the cost we expend on those like when we pay for school taxes Benefits the general good of the town. It's I don't see it as an entitlement. The fact that we have a stormwater pond is Is a burden the fact that somebody living a quarter mile down the road? Doesn't have one and has the same impervious impervious surface as I do Says that there is a general inequity in taking care of our water quality I'm the people in neighborhoods by which the town is is Pushing all of the development by virtue of its its bylaws and its ordinances pushes us the residential growth into neighborhoods Therefore pushes the burden onto those homeowners who are in neighborhoods only this is this is new though because when we moved in there We didn't Accept that burden when we when I moved into heritage Meadow. Nobody told me that By the way five years from now Somebody's going to come up with some new scheme that says you're going to carry the stormwater burden along with these other Neighborhoods for the rest of the town. So we do that and I think the neighborhoods are caring are carrying that public good burden for the and I hardly feel like I'm entitled. I mean I feel like I'm Disentitled can I jump in for a second? Yeah, I didn't use the term like there's In common nomenclature. It's I mean it is a budgetary term like a social security is an entitlement Sure, what I'm talking about is the the the neighborhoods that have Permits that are up to date if we create a policy here tonight It says for now on the town is going to pay for your upkeep and your maintenance of your stormwater infrastructure That policy is an entitlement relative to those people. I'm not saying entitlement in terms of like I understand It didn't sound like it It sure the entitlement of what I'm talking about is like social security is an entitlement Medicare Medicaid is an entitlement Stormwater policy if we pay for it town-wide the policy will become a budgetary entitlement, but I Ted I'm Disrespectfully, I mean I'm just thinking about this in terms of a public good these neighborhoods are doing these store the Primary they're taking care of the primary burden of stormwater maintenance for the town these 18 and 46 or however many neighborhoods we have we do the primary Water quality work in the town I mean there's a couple of other small things happening outside But for the most part it's and why shouldn't the the burden of water quality be spread across the town rather than a few residences Just by virtue of the fact that we're pushing our development our our homeowner development We're pushing it towards these what do you call them? These residential configurations Puts thank you plan unit planned unit developments. So that's what the town pushes. So they pushes in this into this configuration so I just look at it as trying to share the burden and However, we cut the initial cost whether it's 40 60s 80 20 or dump at all I mean we're burden more than everybody else. We're improving the water quality in the lake But I think I'm having a problem with that. It's not that we as neighborhoods are improving anything I mean you buy in a neighborhood that has a permit that had specific requirements with it and part of it was Maintaining those stormwater puns. So I Guess I'm trying to get away from this. We're doing this overall public service You're you're complying with a permit that goes with your land that you knew when you bought the property I think that's the only difference. I want to put out there. It's not like Each neighborhood's doing this wonderful public service. They're doing what they're supposed to do The water quality work is only required because the development exists in the first place Absolutely in the roads and the road is part of that and We push, you know, we push that you know, we create these developments because we want to increase the population and allow people to live here So but again, you have the same and you know from just looking from an equity perspective Ted House for instance He doesn't live in a planned unit development. He has the same impervious surface if we're talking about a an ERU We call it a utility fee What what do we get for our utility fees, right? I'm going to get now that I'm in one of these 18 expired permit neighborhoods I'm going to get Some benefit as a result of that utility fee I'm going to get some some work and some some stormwater maintenance as a result of that People in and neighborhoods that don't have expired permits they will get nothing Yep, but they won't have to pay for the infrastructure to come up to snuff in the first Let me go to it's up to snuff, right? We would they would have to so if we go with a like a South Burlington policy We would have somebody go in and inspect the pond to make sure it's at the current level before we would take it over You know, that's they have kind of a process and policy by which they do that So let me interrupt the Question and answers here and go to the audience to see if there's any comments from folks out there So if you would please identify yourself when you speak, so I'll start over here with a gentleman in the light blue shirt No, that's an obligation of the homeowners association for those particular putts We're here trying to figure out are we going to undo a policy that we're working on tonight and Redo it and and modify it and I think that's the question. We're all trying to determine at this point. It's not I'm not going backwards and seeing they're saying town desert doesn't have obligations I think we're sitting here trying to go do we Policy and rework it a different way that was the question that I was working on There is a balancing act that needs to be done. It's not a yes or no black or white answer. I'm sorry. It's a lot more complicated than that We've been dealing with this for 15 years the state Cashed our check at Indian Ridge for our permit and never issued it We still allow the consultants come in and look in to make sure that we're in compliance as recently as last 15 years The issue that I think was brought up and the Ted touched on You know remember this was a lawsuit from the conservation law foundation about the clean water Okay, we're all stuck in this and yet you just have the the most Third discussion about why we're at a roadblock at a time We've spent so much time working on this together and that's the value of this the value of this is we're working together The second value is the communities are providing water-boiling protection on the island and we're not getting credit for that in Our case alone just in Indian Ridge. We're estimation right now is $2,000 a house in addition to taxes and Everything else that we talked about because we're getting assessed and feed And we're still getting charged For the storm water on top of it if anything we should be getting rebate. I should get a rebate for two years because we're getting We can get out of the starting date That's a problem and no one wants to digress for that But we've got to find a way to just answer the question that you just had Is this legal or is what we're doing totally legal in the way we're going about it to get a permit And I asked a question has the town had the attorney go to the agency of natural resources of DNC and Ask them that question because I don't know if the household communities have but I think that's worth investing in Because otherwise we're not going to get a compro and we need a compro because never in the history That I in all the work that I did 35 years in my mind I can't think of another policy and that's what we're doing public policy in the community to move forward To get an answer that makes sense and I'll go back as far as the billboard law If you're ever been in Vermont back in there I'm 60 years old, but they found a way to mitigate billboard law and it wasn't $2,000 a household and That's what the heartburn is here. We're sitting here, and I'm debating do I stay in Williston because I'm asking a question to you Why do I have to pay $2,000 more to the new Williston and any other resident? That's the question that we're all asking and is being debated at the homeowner associations And we're all trying to find ways to help James move forward And we need to move forward, or we need to leave the answer and I appreciate you giving me the chance to respond If I could just make a comment to you at all, please don't think I'm not trying to find an equitable answer I am and I am very much listening to everything that's going on I don't have the answer either and that's why we're all having this discussion But I'm getting the impression that you all think that I'm in one breath. That's not it I'm just listening trying to find an equitable answer And I appreciate that response back because James two weeks ago It's the first time in public he heard him give credit to the fact that the communities that are taking over the impervious services Are providing a service back to the town To help that situation improve because frankly Just knowing our own basin you go putting a dredge machine in there You're going to put more stuff than that thing trying to fix something that's not broke and Again putting the warranty in that you think yeah, that's cost, but that's what we got to do. We got to do it But we're beating the dead horse if we don't at least admit There's a benefit to what we're doing that helps everybody here in Willis to protect water quality That's what the issue is and that's all that matters coming at us with As long as water quality is being protected and human health is going on fine. We're in good shape So these have Did not take into account any grants, but you're absolutely right if the grants are received then The grants are applied directly toward the portion of the the capital cost Roughly 40% of any grant proceeds would benefit the town That hasn't been determined, but I What he says if we got grants and we get would and we said we're going to use 40% as a number for us for the improvements when we would we benefit from that or that grant also All right, Sam Good question See how we wouldn't Responsibility Could be You know Jeff saying we'll make sure that part of things that we're getting a 50 already You're only thinking that because of these I came up with an estimate of just under $4,000 to And I didn't just pull the number out of a textbook I'm going to take a look at some of the palms that are in the system. I measured them up I figured out how much they're going to hold, so I knew how much work was involved. That's how I came up with the estimate when I start to think about Push-off 16 hours twice a year That is just totally way out of the black Each of the palms that I've looked at are less than a half meter It's going to take less than a half hour or four or five minutes to involve each one of these palms and twice a year To mobilize the palms and do the job, I mean you're talking three hours tops not 16 Then when I think of when I start to think about the inspections schedule I say Well, yeah, pre-inspection and storm for storms and post-inspection, that's all a good idea But then I start to think about My work cycle's outside and I wrote it to work and I was bringing these cool sideways I don't know if it's going to go sideways. I probably wouldn't roll my bike The point is when I started to think about that I started to realize that how practical is the are these 10 pre-storm inspections I mean, what kind of storm are we handing out that actually get out and do the inspections My point is these kinds of storms come up so fast That there's not enough time to actually get out there and do these inspections And as far as post inspections again, what kind of a storm are we talking about? you know storms are rated in average per year occurrence so A one-year storm on average Happens once a year And that's a pretty small storm to get right down to it So the reality is I don't think The land share of these inspections are ever going to take place And we have catch basins in our Our neighborhood I don't think they've ever been inspected This way, I'm sure they've been annually inspected other than that They have been inspected prior or after the storms The bottom line is This kind of thing is inflating the numbers for the annual maintenance costs that you guys are making your decisions on And how can you make a decision if you're getting bad bad information and With regards to the spreadsheet that Boyle Tanner sent you Rick sent me a copy which was a previous copy. It was kind of like a copy into works. It wasn't the copy that was presented Two or three weeks ago and James You can just plug in some numbers and it works And I could there was a couple of plug-in numbers that I couldn't understand where they come from But they were manually put in And if you wanted to we could sit down and figure it out and Believe it or not, you can Just plug in some numbers and the spreadsheet works fantastic Thanks Yes, and I do it any time if you want I shape and care I don't live in any development and I just have a clarification question because I've been trying to understand something and James Since the 18th the people with expired permits the state won't renew the permit. It's not that they did something bad And since those 18 were identified, I believe some more permits have expired. The state is not renewing them. Is that true? Do you understand that? To my knowledge, no other permits have expired in the Allenbrook watershed In that time frame if other permits have expired outside the Allenbrook watershed It's possible again. It's a relationship between the permit holder and the state But the reason it's a bigger issue with Allenbrook is because it's impaired. So it's not as easy to just get a renewal So you and I looked this year and the information said there was like a temporary renewal not a five-year renewal I'm just trying to understand if there are communities that will tomorrow be facing the same issue these 18 have been facing And if in the difficult regulatory Environment where the very reasons James gives why we shouldn't take on this responsibility Are we in the sense throwing those communities into the bus to deal with this next year or the year after the year after? And as difficult as it is to think about the long-range plan the sort of collective bargaining that we as a town can do is probably valuable And I'm not advocating for a position. I'm just saying that's a Something to be figured in with it Thank you. Thank you. Excellent point So, uh, let's try to wrap up our thoughts on this tonight and see if we need some more information If so, what do we need and so we can go forward I would ask at a minimum that we get the numbers drawn up with a refined maintenance costs If I made this the maintenance costs we have are a collaboration of both Quotes that town staff has gotten and also working directly with the south brillington Store motor professionals over there. We said How do you do this? What are your estimates with regards to inspections dredgings, etc? And those assumptions that south brillington helped shape williston estimates Were also supported by hoyland tanner And in regards to jennifer's statement discussion we had earlier If we're estimating that annual maintenance is $8,000 a year per pond it could be six. It could be 10 It could be a number of different things on a whole sliding scale, but these things will change proportionately and again The best effort of town staff to provide an estimate that won't you know Leave us out there to dry if we're Not getting this 100 correct But I do urge that we have crunched a lot of these numbers and and going back to rerunning this will involve getting back to hoyland tanner and Having them do another set of analyses So the question is the board does the board wish to have that kind of information done Sure I'd like to If we could settle this sooner than later, but if if folks think it it will help then sure Well, it just if if we're if we're going to be opposed to Larger burdens and those larger burdens on some of the farms and other properties Have multiple eru costs if we can figure out that the burden is lower It might make different options more palatable To be honest, I'd like to also revisit the financial analysis done so No, because I'm still Unsatisfied on the eru cost. I guess I'm still confused as to why we have such a large bump on the eru cost If we don't take over any if we don't do any major improvements In the second half, so If there's no upgrade or Your 10 to your 20 right right. Yep. Okay. There is a 15 year and a 20 year Um forebay dredge and then there's 20 year But it was in there a main pond dredge at year 20 So that upgrade was there that major Main pond dredge. Yes in my assumptions that for all of these options They're in forebay dredge in year 15 and 20 Will be captured in the 20 year rate the main pod dredge will be captured in the 20 year rate. So that is But I'm happy to share the analysis with you Okay So that's the reason you think for the doubling of the eru cost essentially for options three and four Oh general there had a question or comment. Yeah, I still have that report in front of me So it's kind of curious about the accrual for those big expenses. Are they happening happening annually or does it just kind of all drop in in year 15 What I did is a very simple analysis of saying at year five This is this is the expense that hoy on tanner said is going to happen in year five So that's where I added that expense at year 10 This expense was added in at year 20. We have the 15 year 20 year and then the 20 year main pond So in theory The first nine years wouldn't capture a big expense that's going to drop in on the 10th year Is that right just because if I'm a homeowner and I have a have to repay my house I would approve for that annually and try to think about budgeting for that. So Instead of hiding it at the expense that comes out in ten years Oh, absolutely. There would be I mean we would have to do a budget for this every year and a five year capital plan Or six year capital plan for this every year To take into account all of these expenses and that's why There might be arguments that they're too high They're actually probably too low in some cases if we're not taking into account those major upgrades The financial analysis took into consideration loans to the neighborhoods under the loan program that was approved Hmm I don't believe that was in the oil and tanners analysis. No No, that's separate So it didn't take into consideration The cash flow concept of loan in the money for the neighborhoods And therefore it didn't take into account the payment either it did not Her suggestion from Teresa about information requests and I didn't hear the consensus on that I don't think it's going to change my mind, but I don't want to stifle data coming in either. So But the question I guess I'd have before I Before I take a firm position on whether we get more information is What's the agenda look like at the next meeting and can we get this information? First of all, we're not going to have a full board next meeting Second of all, the main topic is We have a whole bunch of different rates to set Tax rate so That is a likely Date for taking this issue up again Well, it depends if it you schedule a special meeting then it's Depending on the available board members if it's a regular meeting The next meeting after the June meeting would be sometime in July that we've we've decided on the Reasonably time-sensitive I would almost say the decision of these options is perhaps even more time-sensitive These options will actually Drive Exactly how we approach these grants For instance grants require a match the grants we're applying for require 50% match from the town So is that 50% match from the neighborhood solely is the town contributing based on some sort of Percentage that is put forth in the options And then just looking at our budget and our capital savings, you know What do we have available for these grants if we're matching if we're not matching? Or and if we have loans think about how much we would have available for loans We don't know at this point Right we have to submit a number of grants in early July and the grant we applied for We should find out about in mid-June whether or not we can take the next step in which case that would be um That town staff sent out a preliminary email to HOA saying we're not asking for it yet But we might ask for this information soon And the reason we sort of worded it like that is because whatever decisions made with regards to these options Will influence our decision making as staff as to how to approach the grants in general And the budget of the storm water program I don't think we're going to need extensive deliberation With the new information. It's either going to change Mines or not. Um, how could we squeeze in 20 minutes on this at the next meeting? Well, you're not going to have a full board remember that So that's kind of a major factor. I'm going to be gone. So that'd be presumably for Here We're also assuming we can get the consultants To get us information in that sort of quick turnaround that was an issue in this last round of Utilizing the consultants So Chris you have a comment In contrasts Town and storm water fund have dedicated staff expertise in storm water treatment operation maintenance and capital improvements With that said, I have to know and understand why we need to go to the temple For this analysis And I would like to know who you consulted James for contractors when for the crisis What the costs for Now, but can you address that individually They were from eci dirt tech and um vtoms free contractors I'm sorry. I know who you work for Chris And I'm getting that it's one thing here And I'm not down and Chris has been doing this for 30 some years, but we aren't new at this either So to keep questioning our numbers and saying that you know You want us to give you new numbers? Is that numbers you want Chris to give us to give you? I mean, I'm not sure where you want these numbers to come from Thing is your numbers haven't changed I mean, if they've been the same old numbers, I mean come on 16 hours for the bush hogging 22 times a year Are we gonna are we We're getting down to have a public works department is his run here And that's that's exactly what's happened So, uh, if that's if that's the challenger you want me to sit here and defend That department I will do that But uh, I don't like being questioned or all the time here on What happens or doesn't happen or what whether we go out and look at catch basins or not before a storm After a storm because we do the guys drive around to make sure things aren't blocked and plugged. So, you know Is that what's happening? I asked Okay The policy as it is, I mean The policy exists right now We have a policy in place right now Um, can you go forward and apply for those grants given how the policy is? Disqualify us is I know it's a tough question to ask and answer, but Would would changing the policy disqualify us from the grants? It it wouldn't disqualify us. It would make it difficult for me to um, Plan we'd need to take sort of a step back again There's 50 percent match required for these grants and a lot of these grants are getting up there in cash flow. So We would essentially need to review our budget We would need to review our our rate. Um, we'd need to look at when our rate would increase And we'd need to uh, sort of rethink all that before Committing ourselves to These grants that require a match. So it nothing's impossible. We will make What decision the select board makes happen? Uh, it will just take more work if we choose a different option Low as I am to throw the idea. I'm wondering if we could uh, have a Special half hour meeting To be scheduled as quickly as possible dependent on when we think We can get the information that that terry wants Uh, in addition when how responsive is hoyle and Tanner, they're very responsive. I'm still unclear exactly what additional information we need exactly how we're going to structure that Um, a lot of things have been said today with regards to additional information that we could perhaps Packages as I made a specific request that we provided some additional quotes from a person who does this as a job and My impression was that the numbers you came up with james were the same numbers you came up from with an academic paper a year ago Um, that was my impression from what I saw. So we didn't see where those numbers came from otherwise There was no No other information provided on how those things came about all the respect that has been provided to you detailed analysis and and discussion on how The hours were anticipated for inspections where these quotes came from have been Provided and if the additional information had been desired at any point. I'd be happy to give it to you But um, yes that that information has been shared in one way shape or form. Is it is it in the where is it? I'd want to get back to you probably in more detail because I remember asking for the scope for analysis And I remember being told that the scope was um Now we're switching gears the scope is slightly different than how we Estimated our maintenance costs, which was a lot of back and forth individually calling south burlington And working on pass quotes that we've gotten and yes, it has been influenced by an academic research paper That is true as well, but it's been it's been a long-term process where we've uh looked into and and contacted many sources I didn't see it as part of this package though, so This is part of tonight's package that's correct or or the package on the ninth I didn't see it on the package of the night before that I believe well then I don't yeah, so It wasn't really provided for the night So if you have it that would be great to see if it's uh, if it's um, but I think we just need a consensus on whether we're going to look at the Alternative maintenance costs Yes, and you can look at it as a window. I mean you could look at it as here's a bounding box of Of costs although I think some of the higher end costs are maybe a little unreasonable, but So your required request then is to have someone who does this as a job to provide us information And I did you have somebody in mind for that? Chris provided the town Those those quotes. I mean you guys can decide whether you want to use those or Those quotes are based on today's values so this We're looking at numbers over a 20-year period so Something else has to be done with those numbers beyond just saying okay. These are today. I can buy it for this But 10 years from now Absolutely, right? So whatever that $10,000 four bay charge that it would scale the same though They would scale, you know the $10,000 Future value would scale the same way as a $4,000, you know It would scale with whatever cost of living or whatever Cost of money increases over time or inflation over time Apply to those those numbers They would both scale Would be no kind of no different but If if that's a factor if it's not a factor in the in the decision of the majority of the board then It would be a waste of time to go do it right if it if it wouldn't sway If the magnitude of the numbers wouldn't sway the decision then it it's it's not a meaningful thing to do I'm still I'm still on the point of thinking that this is a benefit to homeowners In the entirety for the town So we're taking care of a problem that has been placed upon us by the federal government and these different These different clean water acts which benefit everybody benefit, you know the lake benefits everybody And we're burdening a certain small subset of the community or actually A fairly large subset of the community Disproportionately and I'm still in that mindset that that It's a it's a public thing and we should share that burden and Just like in the future if we have to put a storm water pond Unroot whatever in the town as a result of town road runoff because that's a future EPA need then we would all pay into that the same way. So I'm still of that Of that mindset and I also would like to see us, you know, I Chris's point on Homeowners not being experienced or capable in maintaining storm water ponds is a good point not just because of the the financial point but because homeowners do a lousy job of Of that kind of work and having the town take care of that as a utility to me makes a lot of sense and that is Taking care of the non expired permits as well. It's probably the best The best insurance that they will be taken care of by capable and competent staff like we have so And it does protect like I think Chapin said that you know We have some new policy that comes down the chute that affects these other neighborhoods We're allowing them to be carrying burden for the town So I'm that's where I'm stuck. So if that doesn't change anybody else's perspective or the majority then we shouldn't redo the estimates because it would be Right, I mean, I don't want to waste your time. So I I'm still looking for whether or not we have consensus Terry, I think you have valid points. I just I weigh things differently. Yeah, I understand but nope For me, it's not a you know $20 a year for me for the roads versus not the roads And it'd be a few more dollars if we're kind of spreading that cost to take care of the other Right, you know $20 a year on In year 20 when we have I don't know how much taxes you pay, but you know in the Double figures it's it's It's not a lot when you talk about taking care of the lakes taking care of clean water and Benefiting everybody So I hear at least three people in favor. No two people in favor I don't think it's going to change my mind. Pardon me. It's not going to change how I weigh this Okay, so I'm not sure what we're at as far as Consensus on this I'm not going to get more numbers. So I would not be in favor either or so that one. We will not be doing that and Any solution to our problem Policies in place or is it modified? There's this creates complications for staff Previously the staff had indicated in the previous meetings that it was going to attempt to maximize The amount of grains it was applying for and it was going to work with the neighborhood More stronger for views. Is that still going to happen? The email was sent out by james recently um Kind of setting the table saying yes, we we need to get to get us soon We can't start that process until we get some more information and the decisions tonight affect part of that Okay, so as a follow-up on that, thank you I don't really understand how that decision affects what's going to apply for at all If there's a cash flow issue We don't know that because you already said you've got enough money to loan to neighborhoods without So it was a long to the neighborhood or being paid for but stormwater fund is the same amount of money And if there is a cash flow problem with stormwater fund, there's always the possibility of getting into fund loan From the general fund. I'm sure that the town has done that before They're legal and they work very very easily So I don't really understand We will make whatever decision you make work with regards to the grants this decision is much larger than grants Shaben And I'm repeating this just because I said this at town meeting too and so I'll just say if no one in the room can say Is the state renewing permits? Currently and how many will be coming up in the next three years? That's information I would want to know in making the decision between these options if I were sitting in your chair So the question still is before it says to whether or not we want to Cue the policy as it is or Do a different policy based on some option. I'm not sure we're Where we're at as far as making that decision tonight I'll be in favor of rescinding the policy Either where I be If we want to investigate other options and continue to do that, I think that's an option that we can do But I would not like to rescind what we have in place right now I think the current policy is inequitable I mean, I don't have any problem leaving it in place until we find something new but I guess um I wasn't clear What the next step would be Well, if we don't rescind the old policy tonight I heard support for the all-in Polit option tonight was good looking at the Neighbors that do not have expired permits and I Not sure we're out with that at this point. I've heard is so support for looking at that anyway Feel strongly that We it's that equity issue But I'm not sure I support option three as it's currently described which has the 6040 split on the improvement So I'm not ready to make a motion to Modify the policy Those are information that we need in order to look to look at that one of the thoughts is is that If you if you break down the option Cost increases by their constituent pieces That is You know, you have kind of four different things that are moving here. You have a maintenance of expired permits maintenance of The non expired Permits right that's those are two different pieces Then you have the cost of upgrading The current storm water ponds or the and the and if you will the the entire cost and then you have the 6040 split cost and The town would just be looking at from a constituent piece just the piece that the town would share across the eru's right So if you broke those If you came up with eru cost increases for year five 10 20 For each of those constituent pieces then we can add and we could kind of create our own matrix of Of options if you will we could come up with more options that that are listed that are listed here In the original in the hoyle tanner report I was disappointed that none of the options that we actually had been talking about for the last year were included So an option for instance a simple option that said The current policy take the town roads over just take the town that wasn't an option in the report That simple one or the all-in option which came up at town meeting day, which was And it's not the same as the all-in option that's listed all in would be The town basically takes over upgrades and maintenance of everything right basically make it go away and That could be But and that wasn't followed up on I think on your your work either Jennifer, but it was if you could dissect it out of hoyle tanner's work But it wasn't it wasn't listed as one of the options. So That's a way to look at it. Anyway, well the all-in option I think is the The the one that that came up at town meeting day is The town would take over All the upgrade costs So 100 of the cost of the expired permits And take over maintenance of all of the storm water ponds A couple of people on town meeting day brought that particular option up and it's basically that says, you know, we're we're going to create a town a town storm water Utility that actually takes care of all of the town storm water problem That was a request I don't think that's in any of the any of the options It is by default the The first column Where they calculate the entire right program cost. So the exact Option you're putting forward the numbers are there As a matter of fact, even the er use are there. So it it actually was included Perhaps the nomenclature could have been improved, but it it was there I'm just saying that you could have you could come up with the 5 10 20 year eru increases based on that particular Total cost option if you will It's just a way to look at, you know, you had a question. How do what have we did this? Well, you could look at it in that way without having to go back to the well 40 times to ask for different options, right? Because there are only a few a few pieces. I think we're talking about but I guess I'm I that information won't hurt And I can give you clarity in terms of what it is. I would like for How to cost out, you know, what I'm going to call the modified all-in option Which is the 100 percent zero percent split But I think the the question also comes down to is and that information is good information But is it is is it going to change people's minds on the slack board? And it it sounds to me like Three slack board members feel the the policy is is is is appropriate and good and should stay the way it is I have I have a desire for it. You have a desire for it um We still have the option of of having that information and Taking action on it later. Um, I guess I I We're we're beating something Uh Yeah, I don't know how we what else we can do Right. So I guess the only person I think ted and joy have made maybe made themselves clear I don't know if terry's made himself clear if if I only heard that terry didn't want to rescind the policy today But I I don't know if terry thinks that there's any Policy option that would be better than what we're doing today And I don't know if there's anything better, but I'd like to see the information that you're asking for Make a decision Well, that's three people though. That's three of us get the information So is it understood by staff than what we're looking for? four percentages When you get into the present worth value of all these different costs um I think that's where it gets a little Bit beyond my skill set Um, if you're looking at percentages and saying like, okay, well if we say we're going to pay 50 percent of this and Then we can take those numbers and split them in half and figure out and say percentages And so at the bottom you would have something similar to what rick shared with you of saying the storm water fund will pick up 91 percent of the cost Expired permit holders will pick up nine percent And for the table that would be the most helpful for me, and I think it's three tables is labeled ratepayers estimated How difficult would it be to modify that table? to include A modified or maybe modifications to option three the all in We would actually need to go back to the consultant again They ran present worth analyses that we can duplicate that would be You know sending them another scope of work and and renegotiating with them on current continued efforts One thing I will say and I can do homework on my own. I pretty much have everything I think I need in the hoyle tanner report I just have to figure out how to look at those numbers and recalculate what they They put together. I mean for instance Um, one number where it says 40 percent that becomes zero one number where it's 60 percent that becomes 100 percent And I can go through and do those And that's what we did when we were looking at the percentages that rick shared with you and we looked at and we took those numbers And that's where we came up with. Wow. These are all percentages are are similar And they good up and down similar if you say, okay, it's not going to cost 4.6 million dollars to do all these upgrades. It's actually going to cost 2.5 million You can change that and see how that percentage carries across to the different options And you can see that the options all change in a similar way Um, but as far as adding in new options, you could play with it however You wanted and I think I ran some numbers. I think there's like 50 different potential options You had all the different limitations together and so it's it's hard for us to try to interpret What you have in your minds, but what you're asking for specifically is if the town took over ongoing future maintenance renovations for for the All the permits all the residential expired and valid. So that's that's one thing. Yeah upgrades It would be with the upgrades The improvements what are called improvement Would be a hundred percent homeowner association zero percent um Stormwater fund That is the option you have that's no the the option we have is 40 percent stormwater 60 percent. No the um the first column Well town report is the total pro program cost So that's exactly what you just said No, because that would that would mean that it would be a hundred percent stormwater fund when It would be zero percent stormwater fund for the improvement cost Oh for the oh, I'm sorry. Do you see what I'm saying? Yes. Okay. Yeah, I'm sorry Supposed to get so I have heard two additional options If you just one Right. Well, jeff had one. He terry has one So you're looking for just a single option and that is That's the one I'm interested in understanding what the numbers are And jeff we can estimate that fairly closely Option three is what you're saying, but instead of We're just going to switch the improvement costs Which means we have 700 more thousand dollars Into the neighborhood section. So what what we're talking about is you're shifting 700 000 out of 11 and a half million So kind of my answer to you is Certainly it'll change the percentages, but but not a lot at that point So you can sort of use option three as an indicator and say well, okay Stormwater fund is a few percentage points less and the expired permits are a couple a few percentage points more But you can kind of do that mental math with what we have here And that that's what I I felt I could come pretty close And that piece we could do when we get into changing These base numbers that he's building everything off. That's Yeah, I'm not asking that Oh, are we all clear as what we're asking for? Okay, well, you're you're only interested in one different option No, well, that's the one that's I I'm happy to look at other information too And you just said a key thing you said it won't change the numbers much and that's that's an important aspect of that kind of beating on the number thing here and I'm I wonder if if the numbers is that the numbers is it Is that the numbers we're disagreeing with as a board? the burden of the additional eru cost or as it Is it philosophically you don't feel like Trying to figure out why I try to understand philosophically why different board members are in the place they're in so Um The numbers changed by for instance three dollars. Does it change anybody's Mindset or it may not but I think it's a discussion for another night when we have the information in front of us So if we're through with the that topic for tonight, we can move on to the manager's report Well, I'll give a quick update on my written report and I have some things In addition to my written reports Um on the police chief police chief recruitment process The interviews have been set up We have um Seven individuals that will be interviewing the uh upcoming round and everyone that was invited for an interview has agreed so um No one's dropped out of the running so far And we ended up with over 75. I think it was actually more than 75 A couple came in late, but anyway So that process is continuing to move along Uh on another matter industrial avenue bridge that work is just about completed The weather hasn't been cooperative the last couple days or at least today anyway Um that project is running over budget. There are some unforeseen issues but Well, I shouldn't say over budget. It's within the mount we have available But it was over the original estimate because some unforeseen conditions were encountered things were worse and They had appeared on the surface so um That boosted the price somewhat, but as I said it is within the amount of money that we do have available while on the topic of projects that are underway and uh Problems developing the town hall work on the Bell tower should we call it? um Ran into some problems when you start pulling things off We find that there's a fair amount of carpenter ant damage Which was partly because some Moisture at some point got in there and maybe the moisture problem got fixed But it allowed the carpenter ants to get a stronghold and so there's a lot of damage so um, we're looking at We we have two parts to it and we had the money was supposed to cover the repair of both parts The lower part which is the base and in the upper part The um if we take the money we're going to spend on the lower part and put it all towards the upper part We got 100 of a cover, but I've asked um We need I want to get a quote on doing the whole thing even though it may be over budget because we got Everything's mobilized. They got all the the scaffolding up and in my opinion. We should just get it all fixed so We'll be working on that uh We received some good news Today actually we had a forewarning of it, but uh Yeah, I sent along a news release concerning the grant We are very very fortunate. This is um, we're one of seven Communities across the country that receive this money and we received the largest amount along with one other community I think also had them large uh sizable amount, which I found what I thought there are two others that had the same amount I found interesting that Almost all of these communities except for two were in new england. So I don't know what Well, that was about but in any case This is one large piece Funding and there's others that are being pursued for this and of course we have we're just going to be getting started soon with our study committee But this was important. One of the reasons why we pushed for this now Was because our concerns about the money not being available A year from now and I think it was wise because we got the grant It's for the community forest The catamount community forest that same point that since you brought up the community forest. Did we ever get uh was a um Um an appraisal ever done on the property that was one of the things that was going to be done So we understood what uh, yeah, that's a normal part of the process. I don't know if that's been done yet, but that Yeah Yes, yeah, well, we would we would require it any time there's town money involved. We would need to get our appraisal um, the uh annual 4th of july parade is coming up this year. It's going to be on july 4th Well, there are some years it isn't when it falls in a sunday in particular uh, the um, Todd Goodwin our recreation director has put out a request for judges to serve on the parade Um, and we have normally one member of the slide board. So I'm looking for a volunteer. Oh joys Okay, it's good. So I'll put less I still get asked to judge enrichment odd Okay, good Let's start on the bridge And that's all I had for this evening. Oh, thank you. Was there any other business that we need to talk about tonight? So, um Does anybody want to spend a few more minutes talking about or can't we talk about storm water? Because I frankly I want to get get over this too. I want to get beyond and I can't What I'm trying and the number thing it seems like it's kind of a rat hole, right? You know, we can get one set of estimates or another step. I feel and I ask chris sincerely He's not low balling the numbers. He's putting his reputation behind him. So he feels like the numbers are correct But I don't think from what I'm hearing it's not necessarily those numbers that are Ted, I think it doesn't that's independent, right and joy. I'm not sure And and terry. I'm I'm not sure either Um, I'm parked in a different place. I feel like it's a public good. It's it's you pay utility fee everybody should get some utility and You're either getting clean water Or or you're getting, you know, the maintenance of the thing that's providing clean water So I know others Don't feel that way but um Because I feel kind of like we're we're swirling and we're not we're not converging on A solution just redoing the numbers and that's what I'm afraid of Let me reiterate what I said before. I think that's a topic for others Talk about when we have a chance to go back and think about what we heard tonight From the conversations that we had So we'll have a brief conversation about this at some other point. Okay. All right. That's that's that's uh, that's fair Okay, any other business to talk about tonight If not, then We are adjourned. Thanks I was I was actually hoping as well either one way or the other I wanted to just have it