ave a severance we have to pay to that isn't mentioned anywhere yet. I was, I was going to write it know whether we could bring that up or whether that's an executive. It's it should be public. We're gonna have to pay a severance. Yeah. Yeah. And I was going to bring that up before because when we talk with these there was some something that was offsetting that I think we have to have a discussion you know that. Yeah, I don't know if that needs to be an executive session or we need to have right. Our part needs to be on here. Right. Tracy. So it's in the FY 23 budget I believe Sarah please correct me if I'm wrong for an executive assistant because Linda left and so will we need to hire someone before July 1 to fill that need and is that something that could be pulled from the personnel. I'll defer. Sorry. I'll defer to Greg about the first part but the person that the assigned for personnel costs and fund balance. The board is can use for anything personnel cost related. Thank you. Or we can reassign it to some other category. I'd say potentially need to take a look at the budget and what we have available for the rest of the year and then figure out how to. Fill that or get that work. Yeah. Good question. Yeah. So, so Sarah, given these couple of questions, are you wanting us to take action tonight or. Do we. I would I would, you know, I would like an action tonight. I think that just amending the recommendation to add in, you know, repurposing the merger related costs to be separation related costs between that personnel category as it already stands that gives you flexibility to then just make the other decisions as you'll, as you'll note my note here is to consider using it doesn't it's not locking you in. And so I would appreciate that that'll allow me to wrap up the audit. Yeah. Okay, so we're we're we're just moving around. We're not specifically earmarking that for anything explicitly explicit. That's the way you can say that. The one question I have, then is your assigned for future tax reduction doesn't match the 300,000 that's in the budget. It doesn't. However, if you are going to take my recommendation and add an additional 666,500 and $12 to that category, we will have sufficient funds to cover the flat 300. All right, right, right. Yeah, that's where this gets a little confusing is right is you're we're actually adding to some of these but on a different page. Yeah, believe it or not. I feel like I've made it less confusing and I know that it's still very hard to follow. Right. Okay, okay. So that would just come out of there. All right. I guess then the the other, the other consideration is. So, sir, we can always change these again, right? If we want to. Absolutely. So this is this is kind of like we tell employees you can change your W for every week if you want to. It's under the the purview of the slack board to change the as you see that. Yeah. Yep. So, so if we go further down the. Path of discussing the budget and we have some things that we desperately want to put in. But don't want to impact the tax rate. We could get back into this again. That's correct. Yes. And that would, you know, so your decision here tonight would be plenty sufficient for me to issue the financial statements as of June 30th. And then those alterations finance tracks during the year. And so, yeah, as we continue down the budget. Road. We can certainly do that.  Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I remember that last year. So you brought the severance. Is there a category that that does that fit into a personal cost? Or does it fit into the personnel? Yeah. But I don't know if it fits numerically. But we could both. Maybe it's a separation issue. Or we can just define a new category. We have the power to do that. We assign whatever we want whenever we want. Well, we can do it if we want. People may not like it. Any other comments or questions? Any comments from the public? And in the room, I don't see any hands up. I will. Motion that the select board. Assign the fund balance and the amounts indicated above. And in addition, change the category for merger related costs to separation related costs. Second. Thank you, Pat. Thank you, Tracy. Any further discussion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed. Okay. Motion passes five zero. Thank you, Sarah. Thank you, everybody. Okay. What's next? Potential action to end memorandum of understanding regarding unified manager. Yes, this is, this is putting the official bow on. Something that's already been announced and we've already done a fair amount of work on. It's explicitly on the agenda to allow. Public comment. Should there be any before we go there? Any, any board member comments or staff comments? Okay. Any, any comments from the public? I see no hands in the room. Anybody online wishing to speak? I don't see any hands. Somebody have the motion up. Three people. I want to go ahead soon. I move that the select board end the memorandum of understanding regarding the unified manager when the MOU expires after February 26, 2022. Thank you, Sue. Do I have a second? Second. Thank you, Tracy. Any further discussion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed. Any motion passes five zero. Thank you for that. And then here we are discussion of potential action on tentative agreements about shared services between town of Essex and independent city of Essex junction. I'm back at this again. Let me see. I need to go get the link to bill. So you get started. I'm going to run upstairs do that. Okay. Okay. Okay. So there's four agreements that were included in the document. What was the. The MOU. Oh boy, did I. Not open them. The MOU. The delinquent tax agreement. Information to the IT agreement and then the police service. Okay, so in the. MOU. Anybody have any. Let me look through here. He's going to. Join Bill into the proper. Yeah, he's going to get the, send the link to bill. So the one question I had on the. The MOU is one of the things that we had included as part of the second tier was a timeline of. Changes. And it looks like it's been crossed out here. It says there was a section that said administration. Transition. And I said manager HR, et cetera. I know that with. Shared management changing. That's, that's pretty clear how that. Well, it's actually not totally clear how that's going to work. We've never talked about clerk and or treasurer. So I think I still strongly feel we need to have a timeline so we know. When responsibilities change. And when, you know, who's paying for what, when kind of things. Oh, the other thing, sorry, I wanted to. Want to back up just a second. Pat and I met with. Mary Beth. Redmond.  This was a follow on to a meeting we wanted to have previously to talk about the three plus three charter change, but given where we are, that's. Pretty, pretty moot. You know, it may come back that the discussion about districts within the town may come back, but. We met with them. Two weeks, almost two weeks ago. Before last Thursday before last and, and. They were, they were. Pretty clear on a couple of things there. They said that the legislature, they expect the legislation to be very tied up with reapportionment. And the state pension. Situation. And they are, they, Mary Beth was saying she has spoken with. Sarah Copeland Hansis about this. The likelihood of a certainty now that a bill will be introduced to change the. For the charter for a city of Essex Junction. And their position, their, their feeling or their understanding is that it will not be looked at if it comes to the legislature. With any questions included in it. We've had discussions that we were we've explicitly said, well, we don't know what the legislature is going to allow. Around tax delinquencies and who's collecting taxes and those sorts of things. And I think those were the two big ones that that we kind of kicked around in a meeting fairly recently. And so their recommendation is that we pick one and go with it and then let the legislature decide whether or not they want to investigate whether something's constitutional or not. There's a couple of. I guess realities that all surround some of those questions one is the who's going to collect taxes from former village residents in that year after they've approved a town budget. But they want to be declared a city on that July one. The trustees have already written their charter such that they will be the ones collecting the taxes. So if we go in there insisting that it be us that collect those taxes. Then there's a there's a conflict. The legislature is likely to say you guys go figure it out and come back. Another time. So I think that's writings on the wall there we pretty much. If we want to have that goes smoothly. Allow the city to do that. I think we I don't know if we want to establish terms around that. We can have that discussion. The other one is the question of whether or not the city is would be required to purchase all of their tax delinquencies when they become a city and then collect their own tax. The reality is they don't have the cash to do that. You know as you've have you've you know discussion we've had tonight around the $60,000 they don't know where that's going to that might come from if we tell them they got to hire their own finance director right. So that you know it's it last time the last report I looked at said it was that the village delinquencies around the order of $240,000. I don't know if with what Sarah said earlier that those delinquencies delinquencies in general have gone down whether that's a different number I don't know what it is and I'll think I'll ask her for a new report just to see what we can figure that out. But so anyway, so I think for those two, two questions I think we we allow this in order to make this go more smoothly we allow the city to collect those taxes and we continue to hold the delinquent taxes on village properties and we you know that we the a future board whichever you know whoever's in these seats in the future can decide how to how and when to to collect those. I guess those are two things that they brought up that were the fact that you got to go hand in hand and say this is the answer not we have this conflict please resolve it for us because it'll stay on the wall. If we want it to go forward I think we need to go forward with a complete answer. No, I hit the big point. That was a big thing that I took away to we just they, they don't have the time or the capacity to answer the questions for us, they would prefer we get it worked out and then they will make it work at that point. Mm hmm. It's good. I mean it gives us direction. We can start trying to answer some of the talking talking circles. Those two things work for me. All right, so anyway, so having said that going coming back to the documents here the the. The only thing that I that's jumped out to me on the MOU is that the administration transition was crossed off and again I think I really like to see a timeline. Especially around, you know, things that we haven't talked about like click and treasure. I'm not sure who's handling it first. On the on the MOU or on MOU. I just was, I have that note that you had sent Andy after you met with the representatives and one of the things that I wanted to get more clarity on was about the annexation. Yeah, yeah, I debated whether to bring it up and I probably should. You're right that there's the 1st section, the very 1st section of the town charter says that no. No. Properties are within the defined boundaries of the town shall become part of another municipality without going through the annexation process. I've brought that language up to to Andrew and they then just put it in their own charter as well. So it's in both it's in their their charter that they approved and. And Andrew's response as well that ours will supersede yours because we. If they approve ours, then we're we're all set, but I, the all 3 of the legislators that were in the meeting ago said that they believe that they need to go through the annexation process. Tonya was going to go talk to Tucker to try to get an answer on that ahead of time so that we're not again at the finish line and then find out there's another group to run to jump through. The other thing now that you brought that up is they also believe that there may need to be a townwide vote. Because of what happened in Winooski that the precedence that that's been quoted is that Winooski. Only only Winooski voted the only the village voted to separate and. The comments from especially I think was Mary Beth was very focused or forceful on this saying that. Either rules or laws have changed since then because of what happened in Winooski to prevent that from happening again so although it's maybe looked at as a precedence she she they believe that the legislators that were in their meeting believe that there's a. Have been changes that may require. The timeline vote but when when asked that when when Tucker was asked that explicit question he shrugged his shoulders so we don't know we don't know the answer to that one yet so there is still a. That question is swirling around as well. That. And unfortunately it may not come back until they have the bill in front of them. I don't know. Is that true with the annexation process to or is it. I'm hoping that since it's already part of law since it's in our charter that they will get an answer from that that because it's already an existing piece of statute. The annexation process I don't know if you we've talked about it a couple times in here it's an independent. Three panel or three person panel is put together to decide whether it's in the best interest of both parties for an annexation to happen. It would be like county judges that get appointed to that. That's my. I don't know who that would be. And I don't know. I don't know if there's a hearings associated with that I would imagine that we would get asked to come. Present something. All right. So that was my question so you had a question. Yeah, and I am number one. We have the second tier of agreements and I notice that there was a change. Working in good faith shall attempt to reach agreement. And I'm just concerned that that completely. Weakens that entire section and just wanting to point out that the language as it was previously must reach agreement we can agree to not enter into agreement that's still an agreement. True. I would really prefer that the must stay there. Yeah, that's right. The condition precedent got taken out, which we had a lot of discussion around it. And then yeah, I. Yeah, this is just just just totally nullifies all of those that they don't have to do any of the get there so I agree. Bill, are you there. I don't know if I have us. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. All right. For some reason I can't see my microphone or my camera so I'm not sure if I'm on or not. We can't see you but we can hear you. We don't need to see you. What's the what's the question we're talking about the MOU. So yeah, and the MOU in the section that where the secondary agreements are defined, the language has been weakened to say shall attempt to rather than must. Right. They removed the condition precedent requirement. All they're required to do is make good faith efforts to try to reach agreement on tier two. But if they don't, if they've made those good faith efforts, then that's all they need to do. And we cannot, we don't necessarily have to reach agreement on tier two, but the town is committing to sign all the tier one agreements, as long as there's good faith efforts made. Regardless whether you reach agreement on tier two or not, you're committing to execute the tier one agreements, which is something that I raised in the first meeting. When we start talking about this is that there's got to be an all or nothing deal here. But that's your, that's your call. Not mine. How do we feel about that. That's why we said must. That's why we had as a condition precedent. Yeah, I see has not, I had see has nodding here so we want to go back to must. Yeah. Well, and don't we want to go back to as a condition precedent instead of just prior. So bill is the is the as a condition preceding language needed as well. You can say shall you shall reach agreement, but I mean the condition precedent is that you're committing to execute the tier one agreements in the form that are going to be attached as exhibits to this MOU. But without that condition precedent language. You don't necessarily have to reach agreement on tier two. You could say, you know, you could take out the condition precedent. You could say. We must. Or we shall reach agreement on the tier two agreements before the town is committed to signing the tier one. Same difference as a condition precedent. Yeah. Yeah. I don't know. I don't think the hang up is the words condition precedent. I think the hang up is that they don't want to sink the tier one agreements by not reaching agreement on the tier two agreement. Yeah. They better start negotiating. So I think I saw everybody the consensus is that we want to stay with must. So. And consider changing to the wording that bill just had. Yeah, whichever, whichever wording is appropriate. Bill, but we want to make it more as as you recommend. Make it an all or nothing. And then Andy, I don't know whether bill was on but also discussed. Putting the administration transition piece back in. Yeah, I think we need to have a timeline to that shows when things transition. I mean, we haven't talked about clerk or treasurer. We haven't talked about. I don't know what. Andy. Yeah, I apologize. I have a chronic kidney stone. And I started getting some pretty serious back pains the last hour and a half. So I think that's probably what it is. I apologize for leaving the middle of a meeting, but I'm going to drive myself to the art. You're going to be okay to get there. Yeah, I'll be okay. We'll absolutely do that. Thank you guys all for understanding. Do you want to tap your cabin or anything? No, I think I'll be okay. You get a call for me in like 30 seconds. All right. On that last point, Andy. Yeah. I noticed. Yeah, they took out the. Any transition for administration and I. I see that as an acknowledgement by both sides that you're going in different directions, but you need to draw a line in the sand somewhere as to when no more services from town administration. Right. Right. And what the transition looks like and every, you know, well, not. It doesn't have to be at every place, but they, you know, we haven't talked about clerk or treasurer or, you know. I don't want to come in one day and find out we don't no longer have a clerk. Right. I guess just to raise the question for. Manager and HR with the ending of the joint MOU. Is that seen as a non issue because by the start of. Potentially July one. Shouldn't those be separate? They should be right. And so when this was right, when this was discussion was originated. We weren't in a position that we weren't separating early. Right. We're not separating early. We weren't ending the shared management early, but they're. And I don't know. And I don't, I don't think we want to necessarily put conditions around, you know, how long an overlap would be and I don't want to micromanage that. But yeah, I think, you know. Some of this right has been has been mitigated by the fact that, well, we now have a different. Scenario with the finance director, we have a difference for scenario with the management. Yes. But from what I'm what I'm looking for is things. Yeah. Now I'm struggling because right the whole, the whole scene has changed. And maybe this is mostly around the clerk and the treasurer, unless they're just tied into finance as well, but there's none that's not even mentioned anywhere. Well, the trustees have said they're going in a separate direction, whether or not separation gets approved or not. Evan's contract ends on February 25, 2022. That seems like a logical time following up on what Tracy just said as to that should be when they're taking over the admin. Yep. Oh yeah. Okay, I get it. Okay. I understand. I understand. I was I guess I was hearing you differently. You're just saying that the document should say on this date, you're going to have your own manager. Oh, I'm just, I mean, basically, as far as I'm concerned on February, whenever the next day following the ending of the contract, I mean, that's, that's, that's the date. Which I think is, you know, it's kind of a moot point, but an MOU because it would have already happened, likely by the time the legislature even makes a decision before they see it. Yeah. Yeah. The thing that the thing that triggered this question for me was when was the realization that they expected the it transferred to occur before they stopped paying taxes to the town that it was in that year. And so, you know, I've said this many times where I'm trying to figure out a way to share services for some amount of time so that they're paying some of the town expenses so that our ramp rate of our taxes dump them. And when it suddenly realized that there's no it revenue to be had, if it happens all in the first year. And maybe that was explained to me before. I didn't, I didn't get it, but I'm just trying to, I'm just concerned that there might be other places where I'm not getting it. Didn't they say after the change that they would still be paying the, they would be willing to pay for the I see. Yeah, if it goes over if it goes over. It was beyond that first year. Yeah, so that that's, that's, that's, you know, that's, you know, thousands of dollars not. Okay. You know, half a year or a year's worth of half of somebody's salary got numbers. But there's been there's things like, okay, when are, when is the village going to start and the city going to start issuing marriage licenses, dog licenses, those kind of responsibilities, day to day activities that that the services that the town provides for them. And I believe they are expecting us to continue providing them during their so called transition year after they become a city that have are still paying taxes to the town. Is that the expectation that we will continue providing? I assume it is, but I think we should be explicit about it. And, and, you know, I'm, I'm, I'm seeing less and less value in some of these agreements because there's no, there's no financial. We're losing financial benefit to the town on any of these. The clerk services, treasurer services as far as because she's treasurer for the school district and all that. And that's going to be different. So, yeah, so the assessor we have an agreement on that they're going to continue paying right part of the assessor until assessment reassessment. Your health officer. We haven't talked about that. I know. Yeah, yeah. The things they haven't talked about yet. I need to have a date. I start and end date. So clerk, treasurer, health officer. What was the other one you mentioned? Assessor. Assessor we have an agreement on. And they have their own planning. What about zoning? What about. I'm missing somebody like. The engineer that for the. Public works that. They outsourced their engineering. If that's what they did before we had any consolidation. And what about water bills? Is that finance or is that something different? A combination of the clerks and the finance. And I think we need to at least have a timeline of understanding when all these things happen. We may not just, we may decide not to have an agreement around who, who, who puts out the water bills and let the. The people who do that work figure it out. But I just want to understand. I just want to make sure there's no surprises of, oh, you expected us to do that. Well, then you also need to know when they're going to elect a board of civil authority. A board of civil authority. Yeah. Yeah. Right. Right. He's not necessarily transfer over. Yeah. Which is, which is not. They're going to click their own taxes. There can't be any abatement without abort. Right. So that maybe comes into the delinquency agreement. Right. I saw an email from Evan. Within the last week and it was something to the effect about the bulletin and. board of civil authority and it suggested to me that the city or village believes they already have one. Yeah, the village does. They use their trustees and the town JPs that live in the village. Susan shared the statute language with us to clarify that. But the question is when they become a city, do they automatically become city justices of the piece? That's not anywhere in their charter. Right, because they're elected town JPs because they're elected town JPs. Do they I don't think they automatically become city justices of the piece. But yes, the village as long as they're a village has a board of civil authority, but when they become a city, it's not clear that they do. It's not necessarily our problem. It's going to be the legislature's problem. They're gonna wish that. Yeah, but now, Bill, you might have missed the earlier just the earlier discussion I had is passing that with I think I think I sent you this an email about this met with Marybeth Redbin, Tanya Vajhovsky and Alyssa Black or the three state reps for outside the village. And they were they were saying that if we want this to even be considered it needs to go with everything, every with a proposal for everything with no questions in it. Because if they say that if they need to answer a question for us, they're going to just leave it on the wall and not touch it. And that the statement that I got was that that's what happened to three plus three because it wasn't seen as a complete proposal. And so so it's my understanding that we need to go with it with a you know, soup to nuts proposal for how things are going to work. And not ask the legislature to resolve any conflicts or answering legal questions for us. Or you know, they said they said make a proposal they may change it based on an assessment of what they think is legal or not. But they don't they don't want us. The recommendation is that we not go explicitly asking a question. But you can go and ask a question and say we're willing to do x as long as you say it's okay. Yep. Yep. So that's what you have to reach agreement on whatever x is going to be. Yep. Yeah. And the question of the city having a board of civil authority isn't really a town problem. No, I just but if but I don't know if to think about whether it plays into the delinquent tax collection, just their problem. It's not our we still will still have our own BCA and we can we can nominate and I'll reelect you know, like a full slate. Okay, if you're if you're comfortable, it's going to be just like the trustees right now have said they will become the city counselors, the sitting trustees, I believe that's in their charter. So part of this special session law could be the existing, yeah, BCA in the village, which consists of the trustees and just JPs will will become the BCA for the new city. Yep. If everyone's in agreement with that. I'm okay with that. And the legislature says that's fine. Right. Okay. Okay. Anything else on the MLU? Sue? Just under item number three, the I assume that this was just crossed out the provided the condition precedents at fourth and section one above is satisfied. Right. They had taken out the condition precedent. So in section one, so that's why they removed it in section three. That's at least the way I interpret it. Yeah. So they also also in section two, remove the ability to oppose separation at the legislature, which was in from very early on, but and then removed until this most recent round. But again, that's a decision. Select board needs to make retain the ability to oppose. I think so. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, my question was more around. Does that mean we simply can't say I oppose separation or would raising questions be seen as opposition?  Right. They still have the ability, Tracy, to, to make suggestions as to the transition. I forget the exact language. I don't have it right in front of me here. But, but but now, since it was in there, and then it was removed, you will face an argument that, oh, you agreed that you would not oppose this separation because an early draft said you had that right. And then you agreed to take it out. So just a statutory or contract interpretation issue. Yeah, I think that needs to stay in there too. Because the question is, right, what do you what is what can be interpreted as opposing? Because if we hold fast on some point that we want, they could accuse us of opposing separation. Exactly. When it's just negotiation. No little concern because there's a lot of slashing in all of these. And they, they're, they're like, gotchas like if we didn't, it's 10 o'clock at night, and we got this on Friday and looked at it, you know, we all did weekend. Yeah, we missed something. It could be a big gotcha. And yeah, well, and these are, I mean, these are agreements we've been through time and time and time again. Right. And without a rationale, as far as why these changes were made, it's hard to, to respond to those changes. Yeah. But that's all I had in the MOU. Alright, so Bill, I think the right, we want to make these things make it go back to being an all or nothing deal. We want to retain the ability to oppose and I think we need to have a defined timeline so that we're not missing anything. But I, I don't know, I have to think maybe I'm need to think about that one some more. Anybody else think of a feel for any thoughts about whether a timeline is appropriate or whether because the other changes that we've been through the last couple weeks, it's kind of moot. I'm being over sensitive. But we can still ask. You can still ask Greg. I'm wondering if it's worth to have a timeline mostly as draft or a roadmap to talk today about how some things have changed that we hadn't foreseen and there's more. And so I'd hate to be held into a timeline or something changes. That's either an opportunity or the opposite of an opportunity that you have, but something that you have to react to and have to have to deal with. So I think it'd be helpful to see a timeline, but to make it part of an agreement and not be a fixed thing. Yeah, it makes sense. Even just in a form of like a draft burn down chart that we can, you know, adjust as we go. It's trying to keep all the moving parts here and sometimes up here fails me. Right. And that's the only way you're going to see where there's dependencies as well. Relationships. If Andy, if I'll be the devil's advocate here for a second, the village is going to say a so long as we are paying taxes to the town as town residents, we should get the services that title to. Yep, that makes sense. But if they choose to hire another manager or new HR or both, then the question is, is the town going to be required to pay for two managers for the rest of the fiscal year? So we're struggling with right now. Just want to make sure I came to the party a little late tonight, although I had been sitting around for several hours waiting. All right, so we move on. All right, so let's see what was next in the pile. The link with tax agreement. The link with tax agreement. So, Bill, you might have missed the discussion we had before on this as well, where with regard to the going to the legislature with an answer, not a question. The trustees wrote their charter to say that they will collect taxes for the town from village properties during their so-called transition year. And so if we go in there insisting on doing it, then that's a conflict that we may be told to go home and resolve by the legislature. So we're I was posing that we'd have to cede to that request. They're the way they wrote their charter. The other thing is on the delinquent taxes, they don't have the funds. I guess they could borrow money if they had to buy out. We do have the language in there to say if lawful, you know, including all taxes on delinquencies beyond the effective date of the city charter, if lawful, and then says in the event the town cannot lawfully pursue, then the city left the volume out. It doesn't hurt anything to leave that language in there, right? But isn't that ambiguity that we were getting guidance on? But we state that the upfront is that the the town will continue to collect. I have a question on, well, the last whereas is struck. Oh, yeah, the last remaining whereas. I just want to make sure that I'm getting my years correct. Prior to the end of the last fiscal year in which the village voters were allowed to vote on the town budget. So that would be FY 23. Yes, the city shall pay the town in full for the town portion of those taxes. So does that mean that taxes that say July 1 2022 for the start date taxes that are actually owed in August would not be paid to the town until the end of June 2023? Am I correct in that timeline? Oh, right. That's the way that is the way that is worded, isn't it? They could wait until the absolute end of that year to give us that money. Right. That's how I interpreted it. I have a couple of things to if I if I may. I mean, the concept I was trying to work with was the town collects all the taxes during the last fiscal year in which the village voters were allowed to vote on the town budget. Now it's being changed. The concept is the city collects following the effective date of the charter and doesn't pay their share until the prior of the end of the fiscal year. As you just pointed out, Tracy, so you're right. We could they could benefit from that float for several months of having what is town outside the village dollars being in their coffers and collecting interests where they should be collecting interests where it's owed. So and I want to also point out that the city charter provisions that they have voted on, it's not controlling and so you can't you shouldn't feel hamstrung by that language because I've seen charters changed dramatically from what was voted on by the voters and what gets approved by the legislature. So that position that, well, it's in our proposed charter therefore it's controlling. But that is that's not good. OK, yeah, so they could they could ask the they're sponsoring legislators to change the wording before it's submitted to the legislature. Correct. Or yeah, very good point. And this is this is this is actually something this is this goes into the timeline question of how quickly does does somebody need to put together a billing process to bill. Village residents for town taxes and is that even practical to expect somebody to put together that. You know, such a new a new system in that time frame because they become a city on July 1st and first taxes are due or first tax bills have to go out in August. They've got less than six weeks to put together a new billing process. Oh, I see. OK. Thank you for that bill. That's very helpful. Like I agree with you wholeheartedly and I also agree from this from the standpoint of. Well, I guess if they have their own finance department. But if they screw up, we don't get to get our money. Yeah, so right. Yeah, that's a very good point. This goes beyond just a wordsmithing. This is this is a business deal. This is conceptual. Yeah, yeah. The only other point I would make on the delinquent tax agreement is that. You know, the the extra territorial collection issue that we've flagged all along about if lawful. Yeah. Why don't we just say, all right, village, you purchase one once you start that fiscal year, you purchase the delinquent taxes for village properties, period. And you pursue the collection. Instead of this, well, we'll keep billing. But then when when it's over, we'll we'll the town will now chase delinquencies in the new city. It seems like again, if it's lawful, fine. But if it's not or if there's an issue and that's a disagreement and we're supposed to be all in agreement down in Montpelier, say, how about this city, you just purchased those delinquent taxes from us as of the fiscal year start where you become a city. The two hundred and forty thousand bucks. It's cleaner. Yeah, it is cleaner. We're not making progress here. Well, there's also the third. Go ahead. At the end of number one, there's also similar language. City shall purchase those delinquent accounts from the town at the end of the fiscal year in which the village voters were allowed to vote on the town budget. So that's the same as in the whereas we talked about before. Right, they're changing that concept. Assuming that these are on the agenda for next week's joint meeting, we can get some of these. OK, one thing I noticed is the top of the second page where it says the city will pay the town the town's share of property taxes. I don't know what they mean by town's share. Top of the second page, the first line says. Yeah, so you pay the town share. They're paying. After after all the stuff crossed out, right, right? Yes, following the effective data, the city charger, all property taxes due and delinquencies incurred for properties located in the former village will be collected by and able to the city. We'll keep going. Then it says the city will pay the town. The town share of property taxes, regardless of delinquencies. It all got reversed. Yeah, so instead of the town collecting 100 percent and paying the school district and the village their respective shares, regardless of delinquencies, they're saying we'll collect the town outside the village, the school districts and the cities, taxes and we will pay you town at the end of the next fiscal year or whenever your share without regard to delinquencies. So they would be assessing those properties with a town tax. What is the town share? I guess it would again, the transition is make sure pair her whatever have left of it. Right. Right. Yeah. But this is right. So this is that other thing that I think the timeline would highlight is how much time you actually have put together this billing process and figure figure that all out. All right. So I guess I guess then the question is the select board, do we have a preferred position to take on this? Do we want to? I mean, what I said early on was no, thank you. We'll collect our own taxes and I could go either way on the delinquent taxes because delinquent taxes are an asset in one sense, but cash is better than money owed, I guess. So I saw now is about we'll collect our own taxes. We want to go in that direction. With the liquid taxes, we could set up our own repayment plans with people that are delinquent. Yeah. Yes. What I'm saying is you wouldn't be able to you wouldn't be able to do that with the city ones. All right. If we're only going to collect town. Well, if we're there's there's existing debt now, there's existing paid taxes now. And those are the ones that so there's there's two pieces of this. There's there's collect there's there's taxes that haven't been paid in the past, which are the delinquent ones. But we've also got tied into here was collecting taxes during that transition year that's complicated into this one. And I think any any delinquencies that occur in that transition year in the village would be held by the village. It's all the prior ones that like the ones they're holding right now, the ones that we're holding right now. They're proposing we keep those and we continue to collect on those. They haven't said anything about restricting how we choose to go after them. We could say, you know, a futures like board could say, we're going to focus on city properties to get them off our books and we're going to do tax sales in the city every month for the next till they're till they're all gone. But do. Probably won't but. So, Andy, are you saying that that worked into this now is not just delinquent taxes, but also just the collection of taxes during that during that what they're calling the transition year. So so they're this again, the timeline, right? They're going to vote on a town budget this coming March. They're going to vote on a village budget in April. They want to be a city on July 1st. But during that so-called transition year, the town will continue providing services to them as if they were still a village. But they would collect their own taxes and town taxes for village properties. And then somewhere in here at reading this right by the end of the year, they send them send us the money. There's no there's no timeline for them to give us the money. I mean, at the end of the year, which is my point and mentioning that this is labeled the delinquent tax agreement. It's not just a delinquent tax agreement. It's not just a delinquent tax agreement. It's a transition tax agreement as well. Yeah. Yeah. And I was going to say the same thing. I think we need to revisit what the scope of this actual agreement is. Yeah. And because it's not it's it's crept. Yeah. And I what I really don't understand is why collecting taxes, why add more on to your plate? In that first year, you're going to have staff to hire. You're going to have processes and procedures to work out. You're going to need to, you know, develop all of these things. Why not stick to what works? Why reinvent the wheel? Your finance systems may not even be in a position to. But I think that's a discussion that we should be having next week with with the trustees at the table to really get toward. What problem are we trying to solve? What are we trying to put in place? Is it about delinquent taxes? Is about taxes as a whole? I think clerk very much needs to be included in this conversation. Because that's another staff member that's going to have to be on board and ready to go on day 1 and back to the billing question. So, I guess to get back to the fundamental questions in here that I see are, do we want to press the village, the city to buy the delinquent taxes or are we OK with holding? That's one question. We have a. I'm OK with holding them because they're technically paid stuff. They'll be collected eventually. Right. And they're still payable to the town. And I believe that that was Sarah's recommendation. Right. Correct. I think so. I have to double check. Yeah. Yes. I mean, I guess I'm trying to say I deferred or whatever. And then there's a nuance. There's a nuance to that recommendation because there was a question of, OK, well, you have to separate out which taxes are school delinquent taxes or school taxes, which delinquent taxes are town taxes, which delinquent taxes are village taxes. And I wrote back to her after I saw her saying we would be too complicated to sort all that out. But you just we've we've made the village in the in the school district whole. So it's all the same to us. Right. And then she said, oh, well, that's that's another way to look at it. That that that that's an easier way to look at it. So I think her first impression was it would be too painful to separate them out. When I pose the question of when it's a scenario of saying, well, it's just all it's all funged together. From our perspective, it's just it's just property tax owed to us. Nothing's owed to the school district. Nothing's owed to the village is all owed to the town. She said, yeah, that's much simpler and it works that way, too. She made she made she made, yeah. They make sense to ask her again. And I mean, any of these of recommendation from staff. It would be helpful, because a lot of a lot of this has been built on. Discussions, Brad had with with staff includes his interpretations. It includes potentially older information. I don't know. Yep. And it goes back to a comment. I mean, previously that let's not ask staff twice for the same interpretation. Let's just get everyone on the same page and get the same answer to the same questions. Because I mean, we can't ask staff twice for every single question. There's a there's a complication that our charter doesn't allow us to talk directly to staff, but Brad isn't constrained by that. You can go talk to anybody staff. And so we don't have the same access. Right. But we can still coordinate to make that happen. Be helpful, right, rather than I'm the same question from two different places. It's just frustrating. Yeah. And if it's frustrating for us. Yeah. So I guess my impression is that we're OK with with holding the delinquent taxes if it's legal. But we we we'd like to to see more in more. Around how collecting taxes for the town would work from the standpoint of. Is there really enough time to put together a billing process and. We need to have timely terms terms for paying it. It can't be by the end of the fiscal year. And why does it why would that function move to the village? So the reason why was an interpretation that Brad made when I said, well, if you become a city on July 1st, can we really tax you? And what I was saying is, well, they shouldn't become the residents shouldn't become. Residents of the city until the end of the last fiscal year that they voted on a town budget for. And they took very strong exception to that. They want to be a city as soon as possible. They want to be able to call themselves the city as soon as possible. And they saw pushing it out to the end as a as a an affront to their independence or something. And I'm I'm I'm I'm a hope I'm not mischaracterizing that. That that's and so when I said when I my argument was, well, you shouldn't become city residents until the end of that year. Instead, they came back with what will collect those taxes for you since you don't think you can legally collect them. With no discussion, they just went there and put in their charter. But we just learned that the fact that it's in their charter doesn't bind us. So, so we propose what we think is the right proposal. But I, but I don't know if the fact that we're going to have two separate finance departments now whether that changes things. And but nobody's talked to the clerk about how the clerk's going to manage it either right so I don't know how it fits together. So it's so it's so again, it sounds like our our position. Tell me otherwise, what we can do to hold the only one taxes it was legal. But we prefer to collect our own taxes. Thank you. And unless you can show us that it's going to work. And that we have excellent, you know, appropriate terms for when you're going to have the money over, because we have, we have. You know, there's a certain amount of time after, you know, that we have to provide the, we have to pay the school based. And we provide the village is similar terms. So we need to have bill read. He's still on so I want to make sure. So what's the question. Bill have to do have to redo part of this then. Yeah. But I'm not sure exactly how you want me to read if you understood right. I was crossing things out and going back to the way they were. Okay. It's, it's a redacting the redactions. We've got a, we've got a fundamental. I'm just making sure Bill needs to hear because you're looking at us and I didn't know if he understood what we were asking him. Your preference is the town will continue to collect if legal. Instead of having them purchase and the town will prefer to collect its own taxes. You have the most eloquent respond. I mean, position is that if you voted on a town budget, the town's going to collect those taxes. Right. Regardless of where you live and you can call yourself a city all you want, but yeah, that that transition year the town will collect. Yeah. That's I mean, it seems to be a reasonable position. Yep. Yep. And, and they can write in regards to what their, their approved charter says they can change the language before it goes to the legislation to reflect that. Yep. All right. So it's 1030. We've been at this for four hours, do we? We still got ITG due. And police. Oh, right. So the, the 11 o'clock is the reaching hour. We have to vote whether or not to continue. I wasn't aware of that. It was a long day and it's going to be a long day. So let's see, should we move on? What's the next one? ITG? Police. Which one was next? Actually, like, not too bad. Where is it? I did have something in the ITG. So why is there is whereas in there that says that we expect things to be not expected to be negligible. Exactly. That was my. Okay. That's because we expect. I like that one too. This is one where staff did weigh in on this, Rob Paluba. Sit down with Brad and Evan and myself and we went through and. Conceptually, we agree with what's in here. IT doesn't think it's going to be very time consuming or much of a lift to do this stuff. They are working. Now they've gotten the village a list of the contracts that IT manages. And when it comes to actually transferring this stuff out. IT thinks it can wrap it into its normal workload without too much difficulty. The heavy lift is going to be more on the village side and setting the stuff up. That doesn't sound like it's going to be that time consuming for the town IT department to turn that over. Keep going back to the separating of the data and the and the trans transfer of that data. Just having been involved in IT separations. That's where things are difficult. And I know that there was a reference to, you know, it may, I think brought Rob mentioned this when we were talking with him on the budget. That it may end up being that that data doesn't get separated out. I think that needs to be represented here. I mean, we may just allow them to access it from our servers. They were that the village was not going to have the historical data. Oh, all right. The historical data will stay on ours. Right, right. Do we need, right. That's a good question. Do we need to specify that somehow and have some sort of mechanism for them to access it. Right. I don't think that's quite what Rob's comment was the comment was around that they would take a snapshot right and basically stand that up on their own server set up a historical and access that data on their own server for historical data. But my question after thinking about that is what actually does that data entail. And is that data that we want to live. Until records retention schedules say it can be removed. In another municipality. Yeah, and how do you cleanse that data so it doesn't contain town outside the village there. Yeah, I don't recall how they were. I don't think they were going to I think they were just going to. You'd have incomplete the accounting records if you took it out. So how does that I mean, a snapshot. There is, and then we have these other clauses about holding harmless or whatever. And one of those other ones was, I'll let Don comment on this, but I had a question in three. No, I just on to it says it'll work with the town's IT director to prepare a written plan for the migration of the former village IT infrastructure data and resources. That not cover what you're asking. Yeah. The plan. I don't think we want to make. I mean, if the town IT director is going to have the final say and whatever gets sent. So maybe not. I'm sorry, Tracy, go ahead. And I can't I was, I was going to make a point, but I can't actually find it. I'm assuming that I see termination. But is there the ability to amend the agreement thinking if there are problems encountered. And it takes more time during that 1st year or any other unintended consequences. How do we amend this agreement to reflect that I don't see a clause for that. There have been most of the agreements that I reviewed have language about. You can agree you have to have mutual agreement to amend. Yeah, you're right. There's no amendment clause in here. There's only a termination terms. There's no amendment. There's also no end date. This is an event the of migration is not complete. It just means it's going to continue on and on and on. It's the number six. Oh, yeah, when it's complete sir. Yeah, can we is there a ability for us to say enough is enough and stop. It looks like it was when the village determined it was done. Bill, do we need something in there that says we can stop with that we want to stop at some point because we're I mean this this has no end date really only the village can terminate. We can propose one for sure. What is this is going to be negligible. As far as cost easy easy PZ so we should have it done by the time their fiscal year starts. Inside your cheek. So we need so we need an amendment clause that we need the town needs to be able to have the ability to terminate this thing somehow to or it needs to have an end date because it can't just go on forever because they could they could maintain us as consultants forever the way this is worded. Just say well we're not done yet. Sure. So go ahead. Yeah, so I have a number of things I so I don't really understand why we added this added this clause about that it's going to be negligible. I mean, that's an opinion at this point that's not completely understood and I don't think it belongs in the. It's aware as so it's an expectation. Not binding. It's not binding. But it was added in is it necessary to be edited. It's not necessary. Yeah, but we asked it for their opinion. That's why it's there. Um, I think an item number three, it was struck. And shall to the fullest extent, and demnify and hold harmless the town against any claims and penalties resulting from such access. I think we discussed that. And that was an issue that was brought up by the attorneys for the village. I understand their argument is that somehow having indemnification language in a contract with a municipality amounts to indebtedness without a boat of your electorate. Didn't seem to bother him with a 10 year commitment on a police agreement, but I added in language to the fullest extent permitted by law, which should address their issue. If it is in fact illegal for a municipality to indemnify another municipality, then there's no indemnification obligation. It's harmless. It's struck your fullest extent permitted by law. Well, they they struck the whole indemnification clause, which included my language that was meant to soften the blow that that they see from that original language. So they want they had a problem with the indemnification language. My response to that was to the fullest extent permitted by law. And their response was take it all out. I'm going to keep going or I see Tracy's got her hand up. Yeah, the first number three, the first orange line that's not struck in the process of the migration, the city shall not violate any violation of state or federal regs concerning protected data. I specifically asked around, you know, any ramifications of breaches for regulated information.  If there are ramifications from the feds, who's on the hook for those. And so should not violate any violation. My view is the city should be on the hook for that. It didn't seem to be any opposition to that specifically. It was more about the indemnification. But I don't even see the session access and never mind. It's my eyes are crossing. New teaser dining. So I just had a couple like there's some things that are that were added that were kind of vague. Also in item number three, the town and city shall maintain the contract through its expiration date and the city shall reimburse the town for its share of the amount do. But these are contracts that were written. Not dividing the village and town share right these are contracts that were the town for the whole town. The question right I wrote down here is what is considered the city share. Right. Yeah, I don't know how you would know that. And then in item number five, there's a reference to at a reasonable hourly rate. Reasonable is a very subjective term. I think that that's like, you know, an appropriate agreed to rate, possibly. And then at the bottom of number three where it has the town shall allow the city to negotiate with those vendors on any claim penalties. I think it's a shared negotiate. I mean, you know, yes, the town will include the city and any participation on any negotiations with the vendors. I don't think the town is that that infers of the town's removing themselves from those negate those negotiations. Confused. I'm lost. Which section? I'm at the bottom of that's the bottom number three. Oh, okay, so right the contracts are with the so what this is saying, I believe is that all of the contracts are with the town at this point. And the city wants the opportunity to negotiate those. Any penalties. Even though the, because we're saying that the city has to pay the penalties. And they want to, they want to have the right to negotiate those penalties. Is that, is that a viable position bill. Actually, the way I was looking at this was if separation causes a penalty, be it with a third party vendor or a violation of some federal regulation, it's on the city's nickel. And that's what I would suggest be the select board's position here and to make it as clear as possible. What Sue was your questioning is the city is asking for the right to negotiate those penalties away or negotiate them somehow. And I don't see a problem with that because you know, if you want to have them negotiate with a vendor and say, you know, if you chop that penalty in half, we will hire you to do our next upgrade in the city. And there may be a negotiation there for them. I mean, it's not going to be a negotiation for the town, the town has its contracts. The town isn't going to play pay the penalties so it doesn't have any real dog in that fight that I was just thinking relationship wise, you know, then we're, you know, the town still needs to have a relationship with that vendor and it isn't involved in whatever negotiation is and that could potentially have a downside impact on the relationship with the town. Then I agree we should the town should have a seat at the table with it and then negotiation. Bill, can you figure out some language to put in there to give us the right to participate in those negotiating or be a. Yep. Interested party or terms are. Thanks to that was good. You're on the table, you're on the menu. Yeah. Bill, the underlying stuff where it says that a reasonable hour early rate you put those words in right. I believe so I was tracking. Yeah, you're blue, the assessor agreement. But I, what, what, what's. Bob, or whoever the it director is what's his all any hourly rate we could put that in. The salary and benefit cost of the staff doing the work something like that. Yeah, something more objective explicit. Yeah. Right. Somebody could argue as well $17 an hour. That's what I may. Great. Great. His hand up first. Oh, no, I'm done. Oh, because I tasted my eyes are like swimming at these colors. Is there anywhere in here that covers what happens there is a security breach during transfer and who's responsible. That's what trace you I think was trying to get at. And that should be on the city. Okay, but that should that should be in print somewhere. There's no language in there. And we have some language about violation of federal regulations regarding federal or state regulations regarding protected data, protected data. All right. Anything else on this one. The police agreement. The only thing I know a couple of things I noticed is. I thought you would raise the question of automatic renewal. Still says automatic renewal. I think I raised that at the last thing I wasn't comfortable with it. Yeah, automatically terminate. Oh, the automatically terminate. This is automatic renewal. I brought up the automatically terminate. And automatically terminate is still here. Under 11. They put in in section 11. The creation of a new police force. Being. Triggering the automatic termination language, but then they tempered it by saying with two years notice. So it's really not an automatic. It's a two year notice termination. Doesn't make sense. Oh, okay. Automatically and terminate in two years. I thought that sort of made more sense above rather than the automatically, but. And a six or one half dozen of the other in there. Should we take out the automatic just take out automatically the word automatically does apply to. Oh, it comes in solvent. And C and C, I guess. Question I has in section four in the last paragraph is there's a phrase added that says, and any refund for services not provided or reduced shall be paid to the city. So this is a kind of. Could they claim while you didn't provide us those services so we want some money back regardless of whether. Is that what this clause allows them to do. And they've got a failed budget. Yeah, it's written in the context and they're written in the context of a failed budget that if we change. If we change services, we're not going to build them for those services, but this is this is saying and any refund for services not provided, we're not going to change services in arrears. We can only change future services. But they're asking for a refund for services not provided. Could they say, well. You didn't provide any, any. Parking tickets on this place.  You know, could they come back to us with that language in there to say, you know, you didn't provide it provide us that service so we don't want to pay for it. For something that was in the past, and this paragraph is intended to talk about a future budget, not a.  Yeah, I, I, I scratched my head on that one as well, Andy, and I was like, should we have a reciprocal provision with. I was having trouble trying to come up with. And if we provide, if we provide the services that we don't collect in our budget, are they going to. They're going to pay that extra amount. The budget is reduced than there is, they're going to be charged. Right. Whatever the metric is. Population or per capita. Well, if the budget's reduced, their, their costs are going to be reduced if their services are reduced as a result. What's the refund? I don't think it needs to be in there, frankly. Yeah. Yeah, because we can't change services in the past. And I don't want them to have the ability to claim that they did that we didn't provide them a service. And therefore they're do a refund. Right. And I think a refund assumes that you've paid for something. First, where if the budget is reduced, they wouldn't have paid for it yet. They wouldn't have paid for it. Right. They'll get, they'll be credited in the credit is because they're per capita costs are going to go down. As a result of the reduced budget. Yeah. So that was the only, that was that particular clause there was the only thing that I. I got confused on the automatic renewal and automatic termination. There's only only two that I had flagged as well. Any other police comments? You've got me thinking I forgot about something with automatic renewal. I don't think I did though. So I don't think we resolved anything. We made some progress on some things, but. So be. Oh, we're closer. Well, I feel like we had made edits and there was a lot of striking of. Yeah. That we had. So I think there's a discussion that needs to take place. Okay, so Bill, we don't need any executive session discussion tonight. Okay. Good. I said that as a question, but I meant it as a statement. All right. Should we anything else? Anything else you want to bring up bill? No, we hit all the points that I had flagged. Okay. We need to ask the public. Oh yeah. Any, I've gone away from the meeting here. Any public comments on this question. Or the discussion we had. Irene. Seeing the changes that were made in the strikeouts. I just wonder when we determine that this is not good faith negotiation. Thanks. Thank you. Any comments online? Patty. You guys are doing a great job. And Bill Ellis is he's real cracker jack. I think it's great. He's we're lucky to have him. Thank you, Patty. All right, we got four minutes before we have to have a vote to decide whether to stay or not. I don't see any other hands up. Let's move on to consent agenda. I make the motion we accept the consent agenda. Thank you, Don. Thank you, Sue. Any further discussion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes four zero. Reading file. Any board member comments? Tracy. I just want to make mention of my email that's included in there. More than happy to have. Further conversation on that. If I don't want to step on Rob's toes, but if it's okay with Rob. I am more than happy to set it up and maintain. Do whatever, but we can definitely have that conversation at another time. So this is, this is a application where the select board members could potentially set up discussions with the public. One-on-one kind of thing so that the, you know, outside of public meeting information sharing question answering those kind of things. Or have office hours. Essentially, it would allow a member of the public to go to a website and basically say, I want to meet with Andy and pick a time that you have set your quote unquote office hours for and automatically reserves time on your calendar, follows up with the participant with how to contact if there are instructions, all of it is pretty customizable. And it's, it's, it's pretty user friendly. Any other member comments? I have to confess that I lied in a prior select board meeting. There, I always, I said, I probably said it in a couple of select board meetings that there's no recall provision in the, in the state of Vermont. And then last month under Hiller recalled one of their select board members. So I did more investigation and there are in fact 11 towns in, in the state that have charter provisions that allow them to recall elected officials. And I also, I'm partly bringing this up and I'm partly bringing us to clear the record that and correct and correct statement I previously made. But I also am aware that there's an individual who is working on a language for a proposed charger change for the town of Essex to allow recall of voters. So that may be coming. I don't know if it'll come as a petition or whether we'll be asked to do it. But in Hiller Hill's case, they did not. It was a petition driven. The select board didn't want to, didn't want to. Well, it was, it was directed toward a specific individual on that point. So they didn't want to be in a position of promoting a, a change so they get rid of one of their own members. But so anyway, it's, it's potentially coming. See if, if where it goes, the again with 11 cases, there's proven language that could be used. The, we have a resignation from the conservation trails committee. We may want to have a discussion at some point about whether to there's, there were two candidates that we did not select the last round of interviews. So the question may come back as to how we want to handle that whether we want to re-interview, re-advertise what we want to do. But it's not on the agenda side, but that's potentially coming. I think we've said enough. Maybe. Anything else? Go ahead, Tracy. I was just going to say with no other business, I move we adjourn. Thank you, Tracy. Thank you, Don. Motions to adjourn and non-divatable all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed. Hey, thank you.


In this video, we're going to discuss the solution to question 5 from the final exam for Math 1220. In this question, we're asked to determine which of the following series is convergent by the alternating series test. So notice the test it specified. It says the alternating series test. So whether we have a convergent series or not, we only care about the ones that can be proven convergent by alternating series. And by the alternating series test. And as such, if a series is not an alternating series, then the alternating series test does not apply. That rules out very quickly choices A, B and F, which are not alternating series. You don't see this negative 1 to the n or this negative 1 to the n plus 1 that's necessary for our alternating series. Now be noticing here that choice B is a p-series, right? This is where p equals 2. And so as a p-series, it is convergent, but we're not looking for a convergent series. We're looking for a series which is convergent by the alternating series test. So the instructions matter here a lot. Now for a series to be convergent by the alternating series test, it's necessary that if you ignore the negative 1 to the n, that that sequence decreases towards 0 eventually, right? And so looking at these, once we get n squared over 3n squared plus 1, that's a balanced rational function. If you just look at the leading terms, you get n squared over 3n squared, right? That sequence, not the series, but that sequence would converge towards n squared over 3n squared. That is one-third. So this sequence is in fact divergent by the divergence test. So that's not the correct answer right there. Working over here on E, we actually see something very similar. As n goes to infinity, again ignoring the negative 1 to the n right here, just the sequence 1 over the arc tangent of n, as n goes to infinity, you're going to end up with 1 over the, well, the horizontal asymptote of arc tangent, which is pi over 2, that becomes 2 over pi. But in particular, that thing is not 0. Therefore, this is a divergent series by the test of divergence. So it would appear that by process of elimination, D is the only correct answer, but we might have actually found this earlier. Again, ignoring the negative 1 to the n plus 1, if we look at top and bottom, this sequence is essentially the square root of n over n, which is to say 1 over n to the 1 half. And so as n goes to infinity, you get 1 over infinity, which will look like 0. So this is a decreasing sequence, which approaches 0. It's an alternate series. Therefore, it will be convergent by the alternate series test. We might have actually found D a little bit sooner. So you don't necessarily have to go through each and every one, but that act might be a good measure, right? Just to make sure you get the right answer on this question, you could eliminate every possibility, except for the one correct one that does work. So this one requires the alternate series test, which apparently only applies to alternate series. So watch out for that on this question.


Everybody forced here ripping 2021 prism football hobby 3 box number 32. This is a random team style break You can always find the results at late in sports cards comm on the results tab. Thank you everybody for joining and good luck Let's see what we got I was like in my head I was like, oh wait. Oh, yeah, I was shipping that's wherever I'm Math test is probably All right Sean Wright JC Horn a blue wave for the Giants Darius Slate in the 199 Washington Silver Logan Thomas Rookie's 2-2 at well Frank Darby red wave for the Bengals Tyler Boyd to one night 149 Cardinals Silver Chase Edmonds Rookie's Justin Fields Got a Ussukura moa purple ice rookie going to the Jets Elijah Moore nice one there. That's the 225 And lockdown Rokwon Smith Rookie's ETN Brightwell orange wave for Washington landing Collins to 60 fireworks Aaron Jones Justin Herbert Chargers. So who's everyone's like top five in fantasy football overall this year Schwartz, Reverend Jordan orange for the Jags, Tony Bacelli 249 and red wave rookie auto Panthers Chuba Hubbard It's a 149 there you go Panthers I haven't thought about it a whole lot. You would think Jonathan Taylor's probably what number one I guess Unless it's like a unless it's like 2QB or something like that Certan minors blue wave for the Vikings Randy Moss to 199 Break CD land like I'm in dynasty leagues, but I just don't think about season-long and stuff But I'm gonna do some I'm gonna do some best ball though for sure Which is my favorite Marquez Stevenson Mark Kenney one blue with off a oh a hyper rookie to 175 Ravens and blue ice John Taylor flashback auto to 75 giant or Niners Bold of you to take Tyler Boyd over Joe mixon and T. Higgins.  Nick Bolton Kellenmont hyper for the Cardinals Kurt Warner to 175 CD lamb Yeah, Jefferson. I think we'll be a top five receiver. I'm not so sure about Chase Roundtree. He's gonna be great. I don't know if he's gonna be top five got Devontae Smith rookie green scope for the Texans Vernon Hargraves to 75 and silver rookie Colts Sam Ellinger No specific order. Okay. Okay Yeah, good call. Good call Side gray Devontae Williams rookie orange goes the Eagles of Ante Maddox to 249 Marjaxton you're taking Geno Smith number one. Yeah. Yeah, I'm gonna start doing best ball drafts I'm not good at season long. I can't keep up man Rashawn Slater pat fire move blue ice rookie for Washington. Jamie and Davis to 99 and silver for the Giants Daria Slaton We'll have to set a time in like August to do the Layton fantasy football drafts. I think Michael Carter Ernest Jones red wave chiefs John say hall to 149 and rookie emergent Kellan Mon Vikings I think winner should get a box of like prism or something Or it doesn't have to be like that much. It could be something less like a box or you know, that'd be cool Boxing contenders or something Yeah, if Andrew luck display, I'm taking Andrew luck Come back. I'll take Gronk. Number one Antonio Brown number two Brady's Brady's best weapons, man At Amber Thomas Amari Rogers orange for the Ravens Marlon Humphrey to 249 Jalen hurts Yeah, and I think Chase is great But having a slump from what he did wouldn't even be considered like a slump I just don't know like and also that's an offense that could spread it around He might not have the biggest number of second Davis or so purple ice Cardinals Isaiah Simmons 225 and Vince young nice Titans color match blue ice auto to 75. I Don't know that on now that I'm talking about it. I'm like, maybe I'm just completely wrong. Maybe I'm just overthinking Maybe everybody that offense is gonna be great. Who would be number one receiver? Little Herbert's Quitty pay blue wave for the Titans Anthony Berkser to 199 and Russell Wilson probably I would imagine Cooper cup, right? He's healthy. He's gonna be the best or the best receiver fantasy wise in the league for sure Pick one Matt Patricia And what and what regards this is Matt Patricia go number one and anything Seth Williams, Kenneth Gainwell hyper Eagles rookie Devontae Smith. There you go. That's to 175 and Red wave rookie auto Texans Brad and Jordan the 149. I like Joe Mixon a lot Mixon I like tea Higgins a lot people sleep on tea Higgins man Ellinger Wallace blue ice for the Vikings down and cook To 99 Gevante Williams rookie chase probably does get drafted in top five receivers though. I think I think you would have I can't think of many other people. I think you can us you can Hope Devontae Adams can replicate what he did in Green Bay in Vegas, but receivers switching teams ain't always a Ain't always grasses greener, you know purple ice Bradley Chubb Broncos a 225 and silver for the Lions rookie Almond Ross St. Brown Take a look at what people are thinking Probably Jonathan Taylor Cooper cup It's like one of these years Derek Henry. I mean he got hurt last year So one of these years he has to like not do so great, you know Jefferson waddle orange for the Cardinals Kurt Warner the 249 Yeah, we keep saying that but they also haven't played together and like over a half a decade man Different offense. I'm look I think Devontae Adams is a very good player, but like what him and Rogers had how is that gonna happen again? You can't assume is what I'm saying. You cannot assume that Orange rookie Cardinals Rondale more to 249 and silver for the Browns is Brian Sype When he was at like the peak of the sport like that expectation is too hot Stokes Jalen Phillips hyper for Washington Chase young the 175 Or exactly Chris exactly he might be top five and he will not be Drafted over cup or Jefferson. I would think Probably Chase too. Yeah, I like Ben caro Jacob Harris Chris Evans purple Jordan Poyer bills to 125 and silver Terry McLaurin of Washington Yeah, okay. I couldn't tell you're trolling illegal. I should have known but that's what everyone always everyone that wants to say That's all they got that went to school together. That's all they got Chew you know who went to school together and you're looking Kobe Fliener. Okay, I meet your felton orange way for Washington Chase young to 60 and silver Texans Brandon cooks Overall, if you want anybody from the Raiders, you want Derek Carr first of all You don't want to like put all your eggs on one of the weapons. You just want Derek Carr You want the guy that is gonna benefit the most from all of it Trask, it's real Cox blue wave Steelers rookie Pat Friar Muth to 199 and Chase young Yeah, I mean even leading like into the draft like up until like the like the final few minutes It was like the Baker Mayfield thing where Like everyone thought Donald was gonna go number one that year and then like a few hours before it's like Baker's the guy And there were like signs like odds kept going up and we're like why are the odds going up that bank arrows gonna go You know Like why are the odds going up? He's gonna go number one Got crazy one whoo sir tan hyper rookie Jags Trevor Lawrence boom It's 175 And RPA Chargers Josh Palmer to 49 what a pack Yeah, should have been Josh Rosen Kellen Mond Marquez Stevenson orange for the bills Devon single Terry to 249 Justin Jefferson Vante Smith rookie for the Eagles Nick Bolton purple ice for the Broncos is Teddy Bridge water Out of 225 and silver Titans rookie Caleb Farley rookies Gary Brightwell Justin Fields are now the real question first kicker off the board Hyper for the Packers Adrian Amos to 175 and blue ice hype Ravens JK Dobbins to 99 Revan Jordan Travis E. Tien purple for the bangles drew sample to 125 Gold bucking ears on a Rob grunk house key boom 10 of 10 huge Gronk Monster for the Bucks there a day after he announced his second retirements Got ourselves a regular Brett Favre right here Congrats. Sook beer a whoo that's sharp get that magged Yep, always get one player retirees like that. Oh, well good time to get it. There's a Schwartz screen scope dolphins Devonte Parker to 75 Zach Wilson break rookie for the Jets Evan McPherson first kicker taken Hmm, who else would be in contention for first kicker taken? Who's the Rams kicker? That's another one They always just You always pick best offense right for the most part and dome doesn't doesn't hurt either You know Cowboys kickers always a solid one to keep your eye on Cardinals kicker Collins McKinney red wave Ian Thomas to 149 Panthers fireworks Jonathan Taylor Colts the Patriots kickers always a good one because they can never score in the red zone So they're always kicking field goals Buffalo, oh, yeah, Buffalo, but I get tricky. You don't want to think about whether you just want to think about offense But then later on in the year, you're like, oh, man Can I play my kicker this week? Got horn and Sewell orange wave Blake Martinez to 60 for the Giants and silver for the Raiders Josh Jacobs We were talking about receivers the font digs got to be up there and top receivers do man Oh, yeah, we in the Sean right orange young. Hey cue to two 49 Falcons silver Russell Wilson Seahawks Tucker, yeah Tucker's a good one too because they moved the ball But you know running offense is don't always punch it into the end zone Don't burrow a second year Plus he's just a good kicker, you know, and it helps when your guy can hit 65 yard field goals Purple ice rookie Dolphins Jalen waddle the 225. This has been a really good break Good Dolphins bolts just put another one on the board. It's 2-1 now. Yeah, don't ever drop the bearish because that's good advice Got trey Lance rookie for the Niners bar more blue wave bills Devin Singletary to 199 and Emergent rookie Zach Wilson Jets Who's the Dan Carlson's the Raiders kicker? He's another he's another good one So playing domes a lot. They play in a dome at home. The chargers have a dome Get to play in Denver with that thin air to got Brady for the Bucks Najee Harris Steelers Eli Mitchell orange rookie Cleveland is Anthony Schwartz at 249 and Panther Silver Sam Darnham Chargers kicker. Yeah chargers will move the ball for sure. It's pretty safe Pretty hard not to with you know Herbert and Echler and Keenan Allen and Mike Williams Also playing a dome. That's always good Yeah, actually my Autos Josh Palmer Brevin Jordan Vince young John Taylor Chuba hovered. Did we have one base auto in this? I think they're all Yeah, all all autos were color I believe they were got purple ice rookie Jalen waddle Dolphins the 225 With a gold sensational SIGs Rob Gronkowski auto to 10 for the Bucks Hyper rookie Eagles Devonte Smith the 175 and a hyper rookie Jags Trevor Lawrence to 175 Fantastic three box break every auto was numbered. That's awesome. Thanks again everybody more football coming up