All right. So first up is public comment. This is comment on anything that's not on the agenda. And just so folks know, this is a brief statement, usually to bring something to the board's attention or to get something out there that you'd like to see on a future select board agenda. So I see one in the audience. Yep, should I go ahead? Where? So my name is John Kaplan. I live on Maple Street. And two quick comments or questions, I guess. I know that the town has a plan to do some sort of long-term capital planning around the paved roads in town, which I am very supportive of that. I am wondering if the town is planning on doing any maintenance to the recently paved roads like Prospect Ave or Elm Street that were paved in the last, say, three years. I think both of those roads could really benefit from some crack ceiling, because, for example, Prospect Ave already has a crack running down the whole length of it, right down the center. And if we don't take care of that in the short term, it's just gonna get more moisture into the road base and break up all that expensive paving that we did on that project. As well as other recently paved roads. So that's just kind of a question, or I would encourage the town to be thinking about that. And then my other question is where the town has any plans regarding street trees in the downtown. There's a number of dead trees, like in front of Northfield Savings Bank. It's not very attractive in terms of, you know, getting new businesses in town and having people visit the town. So just something I've noticed over the winter and just kind of bring that to the board's attention. So I appreciate the time to bring those up. Thanks, John. Is there any other public comment? Okay, seeing none, we'll move on to approval of the agenda. So I just have a couple of quick things for you. Well, really just one, which is with Josh Jerome's impending departure. We've mentioned in the packet before that we're able to get some interim zoning administrative capacity through the two rivers out of Quichy Regional Commission and their staff, similar to what I think Woodstock's been doing to bridge their gap. So we've only got about 10 hours per week, so that'd be one day in. But what would make this sort of formally blessed and make sure we're fully capable would be essentially to add an item where you would name Stephen Bauer, who'd be the staffer assigned to us as the interim zoning administrator. And then I would say make me the deputy interim. And I would just be there as emergency capacity only. So if we're up against the statutory deadline and we need to sign something, because Stephen's been called out of town, we'd still have that capability. I wouldn't necessarily be involved in any of the other elements of that job. They would still run through that. So if you guys would be amenable to adding that as say Jay and your other business, that would at least make sure that we can formalize that process. And there's no issue with issuing permits or doing any of the stuff that really required stuff. And training one. I would like to add appointment of a budget committee member who we have to vacancy. Trevor, we can't hear very well what's being said there. I picked up on yours. You want to add in a conversation about the zoning administrator? Yeah. Absolutely. So we're going to turn the mic up and see if that helps, is that better training? Yes. Okay, sorry. I would like to add one official appointment of one budget committee member where you have two vacancies at this point. Yeah, that would be on their E. Lydia Plutitz, yes, yeah. This is different than the other appointments because the appointment of a person who's usually elected. We'll pick it up under E. Any other changes to the agenda? If not, a motion to approve the agenda? This is Scott Berkins. Are you guys reviewing the alcohol licenses for the local businesses tonight? Not during this. This is the select board meeting. The Elecure Control Board is after the select board. Okay. We'll take them up then. So entertain a motion for approval of the agenda? Loved. Second. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. I would have a public hearing on the land use regulations. So we have an amendment to this based on that we got some additional feedback from the planning commission. They want to spend some more time on some of the provisions in the proposed changes to the bylaws, particularly with the minimum square footage. So the idea of it, because we'd already warmed the hearing, we were pretty close to having it. And in case anybody showed up to speak about those other proposed changes, we'd keep the hearing sort of open with this. The attempt would be that they would, if possible, and if you're amenable, once you close the public hearing, we'd essentially refer those changes back to them. They could then perform any of the work that they want to do to update those to make sure they're where they want them. And then they would still have to do, if they make changes, we'd consider them probably the major variety. It would be a public hearing at that level, a public hearing at this level, so you're not missing any process steps either. But basically that there wouldn't be action tonight. They want to do some additional work on them to clarify some of the pieces, namely the minimum square footage that's referenced in the hearing notice. And then at the end of it, refer it back to them for additional work. So no action, yeah, you would just essentially through consensus, refer it back for that. Because it's one of the things where if you don't act, you've done the one piece that you have to do, which is hold the public hearing within a certain period of time. And so if you don't act and there are no additional changes, and we go a year from whenever the transmittal day was, and you don't do anything for post changes, go away. So there's anything that you have to do, but you can take up anything that some men would expect. Do we have anybody that is at the meeting that wants to speak about the proposed zoning changes? It's funny there. Yeah, I'm here. I agree with Trevor. We've had some clarifications specifically on the change to the Gateway Commercial Building Site requirement. And it'll need some more study and on that particular item. So I'm going to agree with Trevor. We'd like to send this back to the Planning Commission and will we work it and bring it up at another meeting in the future. Okay. Entertain a motion to close the public hearing. So moved. Second. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Post. Motion carries. Entertain a motion to send this back to the Planning Commission. A move that we send it back to the Planning Commission. Okay. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? You have it back, Sonny. Next up is the Consent Calendar. Two sets of minutes and warrants. Make a motion to approve the Consent Calendar. Second. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Next up, presentation of the Maple Street Scoping Study. So we have Chuck and Jenny here with us from Dubois and King. They are, they've been working on the scope of work since its original version, 2017-ish, 2018, somewhere in that area, I think this began. Back in October, we approved the amendment that led to these sort of two final tasks or at least two final tasks for now, which would be the traffic impact analysis. So it's gonna compare the impact of one-way versus two-way travel, both on Maple and Highland, and then updated the cost estimates that are included in the packets as well. So there's gonna be an overview of what this final set of tasks was, or would do that traffic impact analysis to show how those two scenarios could look on the ground based on observation, data, modeling, all of those things. So we've set it up so that Chuck or Jenny, you've been made co-host so that there's a screen share component to what you wanna do, you're able to do that. Scott Perkins, can you mute your line please? It is muted. No, it's not, I can hear you. It keeps popping up and taking over my screen. So Chuck, if you're ready, I think you guys are up. Okay, thank you, Trevor. So appreciate the introduction. So Chuck Goodling and Jenny Austin from Du Bois and King. I'm the civil engineer on the project and Jenny is our traffic engineer. And as Trevor said, we've been involved in this project at some degree for a number of years. The project's been on the side burner, so to speak, but we were tasked with two specific items late last fall, looking at traffic impacts, what would happen from a traffic perspective if Maple Street was made one way in the direction headed east. And also what would the cost differential be conceptually in terms of a one way versus a two way option? So we did that work and we summarized those items in a memo, two separate memos that went to the town back in February. We chatted with Trevor about that and he wanted to get us in front of the board here this evening, so we're happy to report back and about those two items. And so Jenny is going to speak first about the traffic and she does have something she wanted to share on the screen. So Jenny, you have the floor. I can't, she's, she made it while she's sharing the screen, so she's there. You need to unmute yourself, Jenny. That's all right. There we go, sorry about that. Should be used to that by now. Can you see my screen okay? Yes. Okay, so as Chuck mentioned, I'll go over the traffic piece and then he's going to talk about the cost estimate for the two different options. So in terms of the traffic impact assessment, there were three steps basically that we took to get to get to the end product. The first one, the traffic bond, we went out in November of 2021, did some traffic counts and the three intersections that we're looking at as part of this is the Route 12 and Highland intersection and then the two intersections on South Pleasant Street, one with Naples and one with Highland. So those are the three red circles there. So we did some traffic counts and adjusted those to come up with what we call the design hour volumes in the traffic engineering world. So those are our analysis periods and we took a look at the AM and the PM peak hours. We did some traffic counts and then when we're starting to pull all of our data together and got going, we saw that it appears that the midday is also, isn't something that we always look at, but we estimated midday volumes as well based on other V-trans traffic counts that they do throughout the state on a periodic basis and came up with design hour volumes for the year 2021. And then for evaluations, we looked at two scenarios. We looked at one with existing conditions, essentially two-way traffic on Maple Street for the length of the road. And then the second one, we looked at the one-way eastbound option for a good portion of Maple Street between Wiggett Street and the South Pleasant Street intersection. So the main way that we typically evaluate to kind of come up with an estimate of comparing, comparing alternatives through the analysis as we come up with what's called the level of service at the intersection and along the approaches. And that's basically a qualitative measure that we can use to come up with estimating how the intersections are functioning. And so in the modeling of that, we come out with results level of service. A is really the best option where the level of service is also based on the average delay that a vehicle would be stopped at the intersection before they're able to make that left turn or right turn through the intersection. For these are both or all three of these are all unsignalized intersections. So obviously on Route 12 in South Pleasant Street, there's already free flow moving freely on the main route. You might have to wait a little bit if you want to make a turn at the intersection. So level of service A for unsignalized intersections is assumed to be a wait, a delay time of 10 seconds at the intersection before you're able to make that movement. And then that goes down the alphabet down to level of service F, which is obviously kind of the worst case scenario where you're waiting more than 50 seconds at the intersection before you're able to make your way through the intersection to make your desired movement. So we did the analysis and the traffic analysis results are shown on this cable. There's a lot of numbers and letters there, but the main takeaway is that, so kind of stepping back a little bit for the one way segment. So obviously, we took the vehicles in the design hour volume that we were getting at the Maple and South Pleasant Street. And obviously we're not letting westbound movement on Maple Street there. So essentially we re-rooted trying to be conservative assuming that all of these vehicles instead of making a turn at Maple Street would go up to Highland Avenue and proceed to where they're looking to travel to. Obviously there might be some that would continue onto South Pleasant or might not like the idea of making that turn. So they might make another route altogether but to be conservative assumed that all of the traffic was going up to Highland and then over to Route 12 from there. And then we also, because there are a number of residents on Maple Street within that section, which with the one way would only be able to go eastbound would be able to go westbound. So we took a look at the volumes so we do not have a count at the 12 in Maple but we did look at B trends counts to kind of make an estimate of the percentage of the residents that were already going to Maple Street that might need it or to South Pleasant Street that might need to get re-rooted that live along that section. So that kind of played into the numbers as well in terms of how much traffic gets re-rooted over to Highland with the one way scenario. And the results we found was that there's not a lot of existing traffic during the peak hours currently on Maple Street. So these two graphics, these just show the PM peak hour for existing conditions on the top and the one way section on the bottom. We also have volumes for the AM and the midday which are somewhat similar. Obviously the direction might change on especially the route 12, the directionality might change during the AM and PM but in general, the traffic on Highland and Maple is somewhat consistent between the AM and PM and the midday peak hours. And we found that the level of service for all of the approaches. So this table here, when we do the analysis it spits out the estimated operations for each approach of the intersection at the level of service was estimated to be level of service A for all approaches during both the existing two way along Maple and also the one way segment scenario except for the Maple Street approach at route 12 was level of service B. And there's a lot of numbers in there that you might not be able to read them but so level of service B is average delay between 10 and 15 seconds, which is still pretty low. And if you can read the numbers in the table there they're somewhat smaller but it's still the highest number in there is under 12 seconds. So it's still pretty reasonable delay and definitely meets any level of service from a level of service policy standard level of service B is still considered good. So the minimal increase in the average delay it's pretty low. I think the highest I think was two and a half seconds increase from going from the two way to the one way which is pretty minimal. It's not shown in the table there but we also looked at what the expected cues are. So essentially during the peak hour how many cars are gonna be stopped waiting at the intersection to move through and that was pretty minimal as well for all scenarios under all hours with two or fewer vehicles which was the biggest increase I think was still less than one car length increase with the one way segment. So in conclusion from a level of service analysis standpoint both roads still function well under the one way scenario there was really minimal traffic impacts from an analysis standpoint when we took a look at this and I will go to the next slide and I'll turn it over to Chuck. Okay, we can return to questions maybe when we're done. So this is the cost estimate portion. The basic, the fundamental question was we have to understand we're at a conceptual level here we do not have final design plans, final quantities that type of thing but conceptually what is the cost differential between a one way and a two way option? And we looked at that we, the overall project includes utility replacements sewer lines, water lines, storm drainage we did not take that into account because in theory those subsurface utilities are common to either alternative. So the costs that we're talking about are not total project costs they're really just the surface of the road the surface costs if you will and the costs associated with utility improvements is not accounted for in the numbers that we're gonna talk about here. So I wanted to make that point. In terms of the layout of the project the one way option would start at the hospital and head to the east on Maple Street and the one way option we were looking at a single 14 foot wide lane we would have a sidewalk the plan is shown there kind of on the side but on the north side of the road would be a sidewalk the two way option would be two 12 foot lanes or a 24 foot wide road. So that's the difference in width between the one way and the two way. So wanted to point out a couple things of interest before we get to the cost one is the right away width the available width on Maple Street is quite narrow it varies in some locations but it's approximately 25 feet wide. So this is a we're starting with a narrow right away and we believe the one way option can remain within the right away width that is there but clearly the two way option most likely would not remain within the existing right width so there would need to be some easements some permanent easements associated with the two way option. So wanted to make that note there are a number of utility poles along the road and you can see on the plan view there's some red circles those are essentially where the poles are located. You know right now they're right at the edge of the existing road if we were to put in either the one way or the two way option those poles are gonna need to be relocated to get them out of the way to make room for either option we would probably move them to the south and try to keep them within the road right away but push them as close to the road right away limit as we possibly can. So there's a pole relocation aspect to this project which invariably adds time to the schedule. My understanding although frankly we haven't totally confirmed but my understanding is pole relocations that remain within the right of way the utility company will pay for those relocations and we'll need to confirm that as the design picks back up and hopefully is advanced but there is certainly a pole utility pole ramification of either option. There are also our trees on both sides of the road we didn't do an exhaustive analysis here but there's gonna be impacts to trees either trimming associated with the pole relocations or possibly even removal. The two way option certainly has a bigger footprint and has more of an impact on trees. So again, that's just a factor as we talk about the project that the impacts the trees will be impacted certainly. Not to say we couldn't be replacing some trees but the trees that are there there would be. Looking at the costs again focused on the surface of the road and the altitudes included the roadway with the sidewalk curbs on both sides. And you can see in the bottom left corner again, sort of big picture with some contingencies and a little bit of conservatism. We're looking at about a hundred thousand dollar difference between the one way option versus the two way option. So sort of big picture that's the difference in price cost on the project between those two options. With that, I guess maybe Trevor turn it back to you or to any questions. We can revisit any of this or talk in further detail but I guess we'll open it up for questions at this point. Yeah, treat the eyes and questions. Go ahead Larry. You're showing the diagram goes between Wigget and Earl but the reconstruction would go all the way to South Pleasants. So do your costs and analysis include going that distance or is this really just between Wigget and Earl? This is the cost of the roadway, the surface roadway and sub basin pavement curbs and sidewalks from South Main to South Pleasant Street. So it's the full length of the project. Okay, thank you. And you say that the right away is generally 25 feet wide. Are there places where it's less than that? I know it's wider than that from Main Street down to the approximate South Street area. I don't remember the width but it's a more traditional road right of way in that area. And then once you pass South Street, I think it's Wigget then it narrows down. If the information we're basing this on frankly is town tax map information relatively available information on the right away. We did check that with the town is to sort of help check things because it was relatively narrow. It may vary slightly. I mean, so there may be areas that are less than that but our understanding it would be a minor variations from the 25 foot. It's essentially 25 feet. It may vary slightly over the length. Because I would suggest that if we have 25 feet we could have a 20 foot wide road and a five foot wide sidewalk and fit it in the existing right away and have our cake and eat it too. Yeah, don't disagree. There are six inch wide curves. So there's a foot of curbing to take it to account. And the utility poles as well. I mean, a pole is approximately a foot in diameter. And normally we would try to place the roadside of the utility pole about 18 inches behind the curb just to try to help plow the plowing operation and so forth not to be hitting poles as they're plowing the road. So you take into some of those accounts and it gets a little bit skinnier so to speak. So those are some of the other factors that we've taken into account. Sure, sure. I'll just note that we could make it even narrower and that would probably preclude any on-street parking but there's not a lot of on-street parking currently and given the complaints around traffic and excess speed along that long stretch, if we had a narrow road, it would probably go a long way towards traffic calming. Don't disagree. I mean, there's all kinds of traffic calming features that can be brought to a project but a narrower road does certainly translate to slower speeds. That's it for me. Thank you. Any other questions or comments? Yeah, we have one in the room, Trini, from Rich. Okay. Hello, my name's Richard Joolen and I didn't hear, I haven't read your report but I didn't hear anything on the emergency aspect of getting, you know, if you make the road narrower, getting a fire apparatus, the response of the fire department, is that gonna change the route to somebody's house if you do it one way, make it longer response time also EMS and then the police themselves getting in and out. So that would be a concern for myself, you know, just the time-wise and during snow storms and piled up snow, narrow roads, that could be an issue. And then the, have you talked to the residents each and every homeowner if they're on board with this project or not? And that's all of my comments. Another question in the room, Trini. Yeah, did anybody have an answer before we move on to the next one? I know that we have talked with the fire department and they wanted the road, if it went one way for it to be going west, not east. They wanted the quicker access to the hospital instead of away from the hospital. That was the only feedback I remember from them. Okay, well, that was my, I see I didn't know that they had responded. So that's a good response. And I don't know to what extent prior to last April, say, but one of the things we were provided from the Maple Street neighborhood was a contact list. So we've sent certain things out about them, and as I noticed about this particular presentation, I think there've been different contact points in the past. We've been some level about reach that is anticipated, I think in every scenario to continue as we move. And I think this is the important is we're still very much in a conceptual, which path do you want to take sort of moment in the project? And as we get farther down the road more pun intended, it's, you know, we started to develop details. Some of these other conversations would start to take shape and really dig into, you know, what does it mean for response times?  What's the timing? So it's very much, I think going to be iterative. And we're still kind of in a early to mid iteration. We think about proximity to a construction standpoint, say. Would you say you know the five people on the street? Yeah, I had a mailing list. We sent something out Friday at 4.20. And that was the only response we got. No, I mean, I'm the only one here. Yeah, that's right. I saw a couple of neighbors home there. I said, I thought I saw some from here. I can't. May I ask you a question? What's that? I don't know if that's appropriate, but I have more than one question. So, I guess, and at first I would like to say that I support what Larry suggested about a narrow width. And I believe that most of the residents on the street would support that as well. We've gone out, we've had neighborhood meetings and gone out and looked at adjacent streets in the neighborhood with a tape measure. So, you know, I'm not presuming to speak for everyone on the street, but I would, my guess is the general consensus would be supportive of narrower and that having the sidewalk is more important than a wide street. So, I guess, I have kind of a maybe a more short-term question. I saw it in the agenda packet. There was some discussion about kind of an interim, you know, paving possibly of the street. And I saw that a timeframe in there and maybe I misinterpreted this, but it said that it may be worth it to do some interim treatment to the street if it's going to be three to five years before the actual project comes along. If you've been out there, it's way beyond popular repair at this point. You know, on the one hand, the condition of the street does keep the speeds down, but I think most people would agree that it's not really acceptable in its current state. So, I guess that's kind of a question about how the board or how the town has been decided, what the next immediate steps will be and then I am kind of discouraged to hear three to five years for the full project because I believe this has been talked about for, I don't know, we lived on that street for 27 years, so I don't think it's been quite that long, but it's been a long time and I know that there's been kind of ongoing issues with, I don't know if it's water or sewer, but just east of our house, I've seen the town out there a number of times, so there's some issue that's going on there. So, I guess I'll stop there, that's a couple of questions, kind of, you know, the overall, like, what are the next steps? That's kind of a main question I have. So, just to start that, I didn't see Maple Street on the list of roads when we got the last list from the Capital Budget Committee before they kind of dissolved. Other than this project, I didn't remember seeing them on for a temporary fix. No, that was something I raised in the packet, Trini, just in talking with John here as well, Shengra, and thinking about the project timeline and trying to figure out realistically, regardless of everything that has or hasn't happened, realistically, where are we right now? And what does that mean in terms of getting where we want to go? And so this is one more piece of information that helps us solve that puzzle, but if we're realistically between, you know, we've got, say, $600,000 in cost for these some components, and if we have even that much for the other components we took, look, stormwater, water, wastewater, we don't have a million to laying around for the projects, so we're either gonna have to go seek funding, we still had to do design, develop a scope. So we may naturally be, when you just link it up in that frame a few years out. So if we are, given the pavement condition, giving the relatively healthy state of our pavement reserves, one of the things we could do this year, if we think we're three to five years outside is do an overlay, it'll help with winter maintenance in particular from another perspective. And then, at a minimum, we could put it into the paving and see what it would cost in this era of volatile prices. And then that, at least improves the quality, improves the ability to maintain it and tries to marry it up with what our realistic schedule might be moving forward. If we get lucky, I mean, the risk is that we spend the money to do the overlay and we get lucky and find, we've defined a full project scope to have a full cost and we come up with some money from one of the, probably one of the federal buckets that's out there, whether it be in the air marker through an infrastructure bill or whatever. But we don't have that identified currently. So just trying to think of ways if we don't know our schedule, but we think it might be farther out, what does that mean for other options? And just wanted to make sure we raised them and presented some options related to them. But have we, and I understand that the road is rough and I get that, but we've heard from other people that theirs are too. I just wanna make sure we're not jumping this one to the top if we have others that, we should be ranking these and prioritizing versus just going to the squeaky wheel. The question is, where is it at nine? This is the question. And we are gonna do the paving condition index and the inventory, that's on the spring project list, but we just, we don't have that breakdown now at this point. We have to go out and do that assessment. So at that point we'd be able to say, where is it, what's its score compared to everything else? And so that's in the works. We just don't have that at a point. I think that's it. Thank you. You're doing very well. Sorry. Sorry. It's okay. Can everybody just check and make sure that they're on mute if they're not talking so we don't grab the background noise. Thank you. No one has another question. Joanne! Joanne McInnes, there we go. I got it. May I ask another question? Yeah. Go ahead. So, it sounds like Du Bois and King's current work as they are committed to is now complete. Is that, I guess my question, I'm trying to find out like sort of, you know, what needs to happen to keep the ball rolling? You know, understanding that the actual design is gonna take, I don't know. We can ask Chuck that question. Six months? Who knows? So, I'm just trying to find out like, what is the sort of commitment of the town to keep the project moving? You know, at a minimum level, some of the next steps include identifying those utility-related cops. So the water, the wastewater, any of the storm water pieces. And then showing up things like the utility and then moving sort of into a design phase. And so this was an amendment. These two pieces were part of an amendment to that original scope of work. So I believe we are at the end of it. But anybody who was here sort of longer correct me if I'm wrong. I believe we are kind of at the end of the initial plan to run with these amendments. We'll go back and check and make sure that I end the task. Cheney, this is Pat. I have a couple questions. Okay. Yeah, can I head back? Chuck, I understood you to say that we're looking at the sidewalk along the northern side. And right now it's partly on the northern side and partly on the southern side, isn't it? It's all on the southern side. Yes. Isn't just the sidewalk in front of Jocelyn, I'll say. No. Well, sort of. This is a very short stretch, but it's not really a sidewalk. So. It's all on the southern side. Be changing sides. Who says it's changing sides? This is very conceptual. Yes, Pat, I guess I'll chime in. I'm not sure exactly what the question is, but about the side with existing sidewalk. I know that there's an existing sidewalk and portions of the area and maybe quite deteriorated in others. Again, the design is by no means completed, but we show, and this version, we show the sidewalk on the north side. I believe it's on the south side and front of the hospital area. So there would be a crosswalk right at that South Street area, which is right where the two lane would go to one lane, one way under the one way scenario. So it's a good spot for a crosswalk. It keeps the sidewalk on the hospital side, you know, up on the western end of the project and it moves to the north end on the center and eastern end of the project. I kind of think the sidewalk on the north end gets better sun and probably is maybe a little bit potentially less icy in some scenarios. It also goes by the Jocelyn House there, which was another potential factor. My other question, Chuck, is, I think I heard Jenny say that the overall conclusion was that it wouldn't ask if it was one way on Maple or two ways, it wouldn't have a big change on Island. That was the conclusion of your analysis. Yes, yes, there's a lot of numbers and so on, but I mean, fundamentally, I think that's a correct summary. The data we have and the analysis that we did doesn't show a dramatic or even a medium level of impact of one option over the other. There are minor impacts, but I think minor is a correct characterization of that. Any more questions or comments? Well, I, sorry, I came in a little late, but I want to say that it hasn't been paved, it's only been paved once. And that was, when was that paved? Does anybody know? 50 years ago, 70 years ago, and I don't know when the sewer and water went in, that's only been once also. Was that 50 years ago, 60 years ago, 70 years ago? Does anybody know? I would also say that on our street, on the hill, hospital hill, in theory, we seem to pay our share of the taxes, and our share of water and sewer, and I have asked, how much does Mabel Street pay last year? How much did Mabel Street pay in taxes, and how much did they pay for water and sewer? Wasn't able to come up with that number, if anybody has it, that's lovely. And because we were on the docket in 2016, because I saw it, upstairs in the town manager's office, so we're now on our six year, is that correct? Six year, so six years of us paying taxes and water and sewer, times however many tens of thousands of dollars that just our one street pays. I was wondering if that matters to anybody besides me, and you John. I think there's plenty of people in town that pay a lot in taxes and don't live on a town road too, so I don't know that that's how we judge projects. And this project was started, and I'm not sure how it all got mixed up, but there was also a lot of conversation that needed to take place within the different neighborhoods, because there was disagreement about one way versus two way, some of the streets didn't want it to go one way, because it was gonna put more traffic onto their street, they didn't want that. So there was a fair amount of internal discussion within the neighborhoods that needed to take place too. I think it's back on track, we're at this point, and we're moving forward, so I guess what I'd like to hear now is what are our next steps, Trevor? Yeah, I think one of the things that we need to do is we need to figure out what the cost would be for those subsurface utilities, we need to start to flesh out what the whole cost budget would be, and from there what that timeline would be, because I think cost is gonna dictate timeline, because it's gonna come down to what resources will be available at the moment that we're ready to go. And so this is another piece of the puzzle, but there's still detailed work to be done, and I think there's still some maybe engagement on the design and the different options for the roadway itself, but we at least have a sense of what those entail and what the cost would be. And so to really start to advance, until we have a total project cost, it's hard to answer the two questions of when and what. And so we could be only up to half of that level. The scope that Du Bois and King had was to take it to this point, is that correct? Or does their scope have the costing of all the utilities in it also? The scope that was originally laid in, and this is four or five years ago, the definite, at the time that we responded to an RFP from the town, the development of the project was very specific. It was one way in a certain direction. And I mean, those things were defined by the town at that time. So we responded to a very specific scope of work, which did include all of the design and permitting for the project. So at the end of that, we'd have essentially bid, ready, final stamped plans, and we would have the permits that are needed to build the project. We got into that about maybe 15% of the way we did the survey, and we did a conceptual layout of the project as defined, which was the one way approach. And that's where other voices were heard and the projects just stopped at that point. So we literally haven't touched this other than this amendment piece for four years now. So yeah, our original scope does include cost estimating and so on, but it's for a specific project. And that project didn't include an evaluation of alternatives and so forth. So there's some subtleties there. If we can pick the project that we want to design, we can pick it back up, but I guess I'm not totally sure if we're at that point yet or not. So utilities, the cost estimate for utilities shouldn't change that much, whether it's a one-way or a two-way street, right? Other than if it's gonna be impacted by the placement of a sidewalk. That's correct. I think you're right. The one thing that comes to mind is the stormwater. I believe there are certain stormwater treatment requirements if there's disturbance more than an acre and this project was right on the line, right on the limit of that. And we may be in one permitting scenario with a one-way street, we may be in a different permitting scenario with a two-way street, which could even include an off-site stormwater detention basin. That was an alternate in our scope of work because the potential for that even existed four or five years ago. The stormwater rules have all changed since then, but that was at that time was still a potential. So the cost of the utilities, at least in terms of the stormwater, may vary depending on the one-way versus the two-way, but the water main replacement and sewer replacement, I think would be pretty straightforward. So Trevor, it sounds like what we need to do is get an actual meeting together with the neighborhoods up there and figure out what our preferred alternative is of this. Are we gonna keep it a two-way street or are we going to a one-way street? And I think it would be beneficial from the town's perspective if we kind of had at least a rough idea of what we're talking about here for cost. I know it's easy to say the difference is $100,000, but I think your cost estimates are extremely low for what we actually are gonna need. And I can tell you from experience that putting bids out right now, they're coming in in two, three, four times what the engineering estimates are. So your two-way street is probably creeping up towards a $2 million project right now. In the environment we're in. And so that's without any of the utilities. So I think it's in our best interest to figure out what this number is. And I don't think it's something that we ought to be slow on because all your grant funding is opening up right now. And we're sitting here just taking baby steps. I think we really need to engage somebody to get this sorted out for us, get us a good scope, plans, and budget so we can go after some of this grant funding and get this project done.  And you know, and maybe not everybody agrees, but if we got to take down 12 trees, then we got to take down 12 trees. I mean, it's, we either need to move this project or figure out something else it's, but we're not gonna move it if we don't take that next step. And I think we got to, we need to take that next step and figure out how much money do we need for this and what does it look like and what's the preferred alternative to the users of that. And the neighborhoods are important, but there's others in the town too that should have a say in what that is. And granted, we don't live there, but we do help pay for it and we drive through there. So, you know, I think we need to move this to that next place. Does that mean we have to renegotiate a scope of work with D and K? Yes, I think given the passage of time and just the scope of the project and picking it up and down and so forth, sure. I mean, it's a different project now than when we first got underway and with the passage of time. Sure, we'd have to define the project and look at our scope and budget and see if it's adequate or if we need to make adjustments accordingly. So, Trevor, we probably need to look at the town's procurement policy and see if it's renegotiating with the existing or if it has to go back out, if we're changing it drastically. But unless somebody disagrees, I think we need to pick up the pace on this one and get it to where we can go after some of these grant funds that are out there. You know, the town can't afford to redo these streets in today's bidding environment if it's gonna cost us a couple million dollars a whack on our own backs.  Somebody's gonna end up with it. It might as well be Randolph. I agree, Trini. We've been talking about the street for 15 or 20 years as I remember. That was before me, but... It'd be nice if you're not still talking about it after me. No, no, no. Trini, do you need more direction on that one, Trevor? I think I got it. Okay. All or if you need help. Keep this moving. We got a big agenda tonight. Consider election, electing the ARPA standard allowance. So this is, standard allowance is part of the file guidance issued by Treasury a couple of months ago. I think they issued that and what standard allowance basically is it allows municipality or non-entitlement unit or whatever we're defined as under this particular act. If we have $10 million or less in lost, or that we can, we're essentially, there's a $10 million threshold for lost revenue. We're well under that. Our ARPA award that we've been given is 1.37 million in change. So we'd be saying essentially through the standard allowance, declaring sort of all of this under that lost revenue category. And this is open for every community. It used to be to claim lost revenue to go through a fairly specific and detailed worksheet that showed how you lost those revenue pieces. In claiming the allowance now that it's allowed, we have more flexibility in the use of these funds. We can use them for what are broadly defined as government service. So that's anything we traditionally do. So it provides the most flexibility. There is still that guidance to try to make sure that any use of ARPA funds does reflect some of the intention with the money, such as building toward projects that have a resiliency component, for example. And one that came up the other night that wasn't maybe as exciting as some others, but hit this just to give you an example, was a project that looked at sort of a website upgrade, digitization records, and routing the capability to take payments online. Because that enables us to, if we have to close the door again in a pandemic for some other limited capacity situation, we can fill off quite a bit of the functionality of government at a basic level, whether it be dog license, records research, all of those pieces and provide information on public health or any sort of other emergency components. In a presentation at the ARPA committee from Katie Buckley at VLCT, she's their ARPA guru, essentially confirmed that this was an option for municipalities. Lots are starting to put this on agendas considered. Hey, I think I saw Barry Town was doing it. I think I saw it on an agenda for Woodstock as well recently. Montpeliers at that point that they did it the other night if I recall right. So it's becoming a more common action. There's a specific motion that's been recommended by VLCT that we'll use. And then what we have to do while there's a time element to it, is that you have to declare that you're gonna take the standard allowance in this first reporting period, which expires on April 30th of this month. So we are queued up to do that. If you take it, we'll go into the system to declare that. The motion seems to be all you need to do. The ARPA committee, which met with Katie, talked about it as meeting on Tuesday night. They made a motion to recommend that we take the standard allowance as the option with a six nothing vote. So the recommendation from that group that you've tasked with digging into some of the nuances and the details of the ARPA funding. And then it will still go through the process that they're in the middle of creating in terms of intake, discussion, priority ranking, some of those pieces. So everything that comes in still goes through that same grist mill and then comes to the board and then there may or may not be another public component after that depending on what you wanna do. But this would give us great flexibility in how to use those dollars while also easing that reporting burden too. And it may help satisfy, I won't really know this part for short, but if you recall the original rule that's in the adopted final rule and in the act itself is we have until 2024 to obligate the funds in 2026 to spend them. There's a thought that if we take the standard allowance now, we've at least taken care of the obligation threshold and that we've said it's all lost revenue. Therefore, we're gonna accept it in and then consider it obligated at that point. We'll get clarity from that and obviously follow the Treasury's guidelines. But it may hit another process marker along the way. So we're not worried about trying to figure out what constitutes obligation in making sure that we do that. That's some future point if we can kind of do it all in one fell swoop, which is the hope. Harry, anybody have any questions on that? If not, anybody wanna make a motion? I'll make that motion Cheney from Wines 83 through 86. We have a second on that. I'll second that. All right, motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. I just checked. John, are you there just for the excavator discussion? I'm just, yeah, I'm just kind of, yeah. He heard how much fun you guys had. It couldn't help himself. So excited to come. Let's talk about it. Let's jump down to item G on the agenda and then John can either hang out or recall it a day because I'm sure he's had point one. This is ratifying the trade-in of the dozer and purchase of the excavator. So the basic idea here is we've got a good lead on an excavator that is in great shape. It's not terribly old. John could give you all the details on it. It has a functionally something that we've wanted for a long time that we would benefit from. We would use it in a lot of applications but notably ditching and culvert replacement. One of the things we can do to help lower the cost of this piece of equipment which is around $70,000 for this particular used model is we have a bulldozer from 1987, 86 or 87. It's still in good enough shape to have some trade-in value and this offers the one that maximizes that trade-in value so we'd be able to get $12,000 back for that. We're recommending splitting the cost between the highway equipment reserve for obvious reasons but also the stormwater reserve because our primary deployment will be on those ditching, culvert, those types of projects that are really about water quality as much as they are about road maintenance and then it's always available for emergency situations for the highway or for other departments. Let's the back up kind of slide into sort of a backline capacity and be more available for water and wastewater needs and may help at least help us limp that piece of equipment through as that's similarly aging into ailing. And so that's the proposal before you and that we've mentioned in one other form before is sort of to make sure we weren't so far off the ranch that you're not gonna let us back on. And so that's the proposal before and then the other thing that has come up since then in a similar vein that just wanted to mention to you and get sort of a general feeling about we also have an opportunity to pick up a street sweeper in a similar manner.  The reason we started looking at streets we've presented in large part is that when we went out to try to figure if we could hire a piece of equipment and a driver, what was the first cost system we got back to? So I had a couple of different contractors come in and just, you know, I bought them around town and showed them our streets, you know, the curbable street that they would be sweeping and whatnot and he estimated there was between four to 500 yards of material. So his price, both prices were really close. They were between $16,000 to $20,000 to $2,000. Just to get swept for the spring. Now that's, you know, hopefully he settled four or 500 yards of material on the sides of the road.  The only reason we started looking is because we're like, well, we're gonna spend this much money on the sweep one time. What can we spend to better ourselves?  And even, you know, a fall sweep is pretty important. You know, the cleanest streets best you can before the snow and everything like that falls. So just an idea, but we came across this sweeper that's having a jersey. So you looked at a couple others and saw a few other models and we've been using a resource that we've got in another municipality that has sweepers and has used them for years to try to get a sense of, hey, this model, this unit, these things, what do you see? What are the things we should be asking about? So we try to do some of that due diligence as well. But the idea of being in a similar vein, we thought we'd pitch it under this one just to get a sense of where you're at is that, like John said, for the cost of one contract sweeping just this year alone, we could do three. And there's a real water quality benefit. In addition to sort of the aesthetic, you can probably a little bit of an air quality benefit when you think of less particulate being available to be up and out there. So trying to be enterprising with some of these pieces of equipment and fit some of our needs. And then there's a possibility that if we needed to, or we were able to lend it or essentially rent it out to neighbors, for example, we might be able to offset some of the operating costs of nothing else as well. The excavators, the primary one, and that's the one in motion, but we did also want to mention the sweeper because we can make that happen. There's just a little bit of a time element there as well based on others might be interested in. We'd have to arrange transportation if you are with us. Let's take these one at a time. The first one is trading in the dozer and purchasing the excavator. So I'll make that motion. You know how I love equipment. So. More than happy to make that motion. I'll second that. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. And now the sweeper. I'll make the motion to purchase the sweeper so long as it meets, I guess, our expectations, which I've heard a little bit about this already. So I've been a little bit involved in this conversation. So it seems like this unit that they found in New Jersey would fit the bill. So I believe I'll make a motion to fund that unit too. As long as Trevor knows what's going on. I have a couple of questions first. How old is this equipment that we are considering? What year was it during? 2003. We have a sense of what kind of life span it has been in. It has, I think he said 2,000, not quite 2,100 hours. So it's got like. What does that mean, John? That very low, I mean, you know, the usage has been very minimal from the time it was new.  And he's at the point where he's retiring and he's just, you know, he's selling his equipment slowly. You know, I found it, I looked at it, it's very clean, he shows me plenty of videos. I mean, it's in a lot nicer shape and it has a lot less leaks, you know, like hydraulic motor than, you know, equipment for five years old. It's in immaculate shape. I've looked at a few of them and I mean, the guy did a really nice job, he took care of it, you know, I mean, you could tell he owned it and he operated it and he wanted it to last. The only reason I looked at it is because of the shape it's in. You know, the between the hours and the miles, it's not like it's got 13,000 miles of the original pumps on it that are about ready to explode.  Okay, yeah, yeah. And we've had contracted Sweet Clean Street, Sweet Think here before. Is it always this expensive? I think, do we know, like what we've paid in the past? I mean, some of it I think is because of fuel. You know what I mean? Because fuel prices are high right now.   So that's all they did. You know what I mean? So I didn't go, we went around to every street, every sweepable street that we had and look, I mean, would it cost that much to have somebody just do Main Street? Probably not, but, you know, looking at the other streets surrounding as well. Trini, we have a question from the public. Yeah, the only other thing I was gonna add to that is, it's also a convenience item. So it's there on your schedule. You're not having to work to somebody else's schedule if you already have the equipment, okay? Right, and what I was gonna also add is, you know, we could sweep it at our own leisure, you know, like we could have somebody come in, two guys for that matter, early in the morning before Main Street got busy and we could go up through and do the congested parts of town when we wanted to. And then we could, you know, kind of get out of town away from, you know, congested areas and just able to bounce around more and take care of more spots at the same time. All right. You had another comment? Yeah, hello, my name's Richard Dooling here and I have a question for the gentleman that looked at the machine. Was that machine housed in a garage of some sort? Yes. Okay, so that's a value right there, that the tires and et cetera did not get dry rotted. It was used a fair amount but not a ton. So the hoses and all that stuff have been well exercised but not abused. So, you know, on that, I think that's a great deal. He's retiring, so he wants to just dump his stuff and that's fabulous. The other thing on Purchison said unit is, you know, I'm on School Street and, you know, having the windows open at my house is phenomenally dusty and dirty. If you drive from, you know, jump off the highway, come down the hill and up to the four way stop, you start seeing a lot of dirt and muddy water like during the downpours or rain. Those roads are never, ever clean. There's still debris all over them. There's still residue of salt throughout the summer. So that's not a good thing for the general public, for their automobiles.  Those roads are clean right now. It's clean water. If you were down there during the downpour, it would be just water, not dirt. So where I'm going with this is, I think this is a great deal and something that this town needs. The only thing that I would want the town to think about is lending it out to other towns. If you do that, you send an operator. Well, yeah, that's, yeah. You don't, you don't. If you find Brookfield DPW, you don't hand it over to me and let me drive it because I don't know what I'm doing. If he's the guy operating it, he's the one that gets subcontracted to the other town at the dollar point that he gets paid, which would be a fair, fair deal for other towns. It'd be a total package lend. Right. Driver and equipment included. All right. Do we have any other comments? If not, we have a motion. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion carries. Back up to Kimball library's application. Amy Grasnick, I'm the library director. Can you hear me okay? Did anybody hear? Yep, I can hear you. Great, thank you. So there are actually four grants that I want to report on. The first of them is a $300 grant from the department of libraries. The application already went in. So this is my maya culpa moment to ask if you would retroactively approve applying for this $300 grant for summer reading program support. Shall I keep going? Yeah, they got to quit those little bitty grants. They take more admin time than we get out of them. The second grant is a second round of ARPA funds also managed by the Vermont department of libraries. I don't have a deadline yet for when we apply for that. It's about $3,000. The ways that it can be spent are fairly defined. So I thought I would get a jump on that and see if I could seek approval both to apply and to accept that grant. The third branch is a $50,000 grant request that I'll be sending to USDA Rural Development. This is one that you approved me seeking to help pay for HVAC upgrades. So just FYI, I will go in tomorrow. And the final one, we're going from $300 to a half million dollars. This is the first time that I have put in a request for congressional directed spending otherwise known as an earmark. Senator Leahy has invited folks to make requests. I think that's his swan song before he retires. The Vermont department of libraries encouraged public libraries to make requests. So I went ahead and did that again without select board approval. What will happen with those requests is absolutely not clear. There are many paths that earmarks can take. The requests that I made were for historic preservation work at the library and they could end up getting sent to existing grant programs with USDA Rural Development like the community facilities grants that I'm applying for tomorrow. It could end up with shoot the National Park Service for historic preservation. It could end up being bundled together with requests made by other Vermont public libraries and the department of libraries itself. They could design a new sub-grant program that the department of libraries then administers. Or of course we could get nothing. So just, I guess this is just informational at this point that I went ahead and made the request. We may not know until January or later when the federal budget is hopefully finally determined what happened with the earmark requests. So that's what I have to tell you. I think the action that I'm asking for is to retroactively approve the application for and approved acceptance of the $300 Department of Libraries grant to approve applying for the Department of Libraries ARPA money and I guess that's it. So I'll move that we approve the acceptance of the application for and the acceptance of the $300 grant for the summer reading program. Second. I have a motion and a second on the summer reading program grant. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. I suppose I'm staying to motion carries before we take a motion on the next one. I think we need to chat about that one a little. That one has a match requirement, correct Amy? The $300 grant or the $500,000. So the $500,000 earmark request that I put in the ultimate way that could be distributed is completely unclear at this point. Their potential is that my request could be pushed over to the USDA rural development community facilities grant program in which case there would be a 45% match required assuming that they approved any or all of the projects that I would then apply for. So that's kind of the most expensive scenario. There's also the possibility that the town or the library just gets a $500,000 check. And then there are other possibilities in between including the Vermont Department of Libraries could get a whole pot of money and decide how to distribute that. We could be directed to the grant program that's administered by the federal parks department. I'm not aware of there being any kind of match for those grants. So what will ultimately shake out of the earmark requests that I made is we'll be unknown probably until January of next year assuming that the federal budget doesn't get approved until then. So what you're asking us to approve is that you applied for money that you may need another $400,000 in match for? I went to the 45. No. I think what I'm asking for is retroactive approval for me to make this earmark request. I'm concerned though, if it goes into the pot where you need a 45% match, how are you making that match? Because if we approve it, that means the town's on the hook. I don't think the town is on the hook in any way shape or form because if what ultimately happens is that earmark request goes to USDA for all development, I might actually have to apply for a grant. In other words, this is kind of a preliminary step. It's not really a preliminary step, Amy. I think it is. What happens is everybody puts in their request and each senator is given a pot of money, a value and they pick projects that they want to fund up to that value and then they figure out which program that project fits into. So what you'll actually know a lot sooner than January, we usually figure find out around July, August, the projects that the senators have selected to be their request through the earmark program. And then they tell you which grant program they're sending you through. So we don't apply, when the earmark comes through we don't apply for it, we've already got it. What we have to do is then get a better defined scope, budget and data together to give to the funding entity that they've chosen, that best matches what our project is. So, you know. What I'm describing is the information that was provided to me by a staffer at Senator Lakey's office. And he emphasized to me that there are many possible outcomes for this earmark request, including all three or four that I just described. He also emphasized that because the federal budget won't be finalized until January and less for once Congress gets it done before the fiscal year starts in October. So it's like there's nothing certain about this process. That's true. It's not a guarantee until it actually is in the budget bill but you'll know which projects they're supporting and which funding sources they're going for when they decide which ones they're putting forward. So you'll get a heads up. And it's usually, you know, in that July, August timeframe and I've been through it a few times and we've, you know, we've got four right now that we're gonna be, that we're working on that were awarded this last year. So I just am concerned, you know, I think what you're asking for is retroactive approval because you applied. That's one thing as long as that's with the understanding that the town is not committing to any match funding at this time and that there'll be a process to figure that out if it's a selected project. We just don't, I don't know, unless somebody else has an answer to this, I don't know where we have the worst case scenario level of funding to support a project like that. Trini, if I may ask a question on the item form for this at the bottom under cost, it says the cupola restoration project has already fully funded $20,000 grant, $40,000 library funds, 140K town funds. If the CDS request is approved under the USDA grant, the $180,000 in pledge funds would go most of the way to fulfilling the 45% match. So with federal grants, even through these earmarks, you have to go through a process by which you submit all your environmental documents and you get cleared for the grant and then your costs are eligible from that point forward unless you can get in there to get pre-award authority. So if they don't have pre-award authority to allow those expenses to be eligible in this grant, then you can't use them as match either. And the ones that I've been involved in until you get through the environmental document process and you get cleared, your expenses aren't eligible. So yeah, unless there's something that's come in from whichever one of these entities ends up being the granting entity that says all these expenses or will be eligible or if the library wants to hold off on all those projects to see if they get the earmark and then get them cleared as part of that project for match, then I agree that they would be eligible. The way it is right now, I don't think they're eligible. So it's very clear to me that the costs for restoring the pupil are not gonna be incurred until next construction season. There's no way they're happening this year. So timing-wise, it seems likely that A, we'll know whether the earmark mark went through and B, under what mechanism the money could be distributed. So in a sense, there's no, this is not kind of an imminent decision or an imminent concern. More like, I thought this would be good news, that potentially we've got a half million dollars of revenue that can help with some major restoration project at the library. It is good news, Amy, but it's not as good news if it comes with a, for a 55% match. Yeah, and impossible to know at this point. Right, then that's why I think I go back to my comment of if what we're asking for is approval that you've applied, but no guarantee of the town making the match, then I'm all for it. Yeah, that's all I was looking for was retroactive approval. I just wanted to be clear that the town is not committing to making the match on those funds until we know more about what it is. Absolutely, yeah, that is absolutely true. I'll move it, we approve of the grant application. That one, a second. All those in favor? All right. All right. Abstained, motion carries. And then there's the third Vermont Department of Libraries ARPA distribution for just less than $3,000. So it would be great if I could get approval to apply and to accept. I'll move that we approve application and acceptance of the Vermont Department of Libraries ARPA funds. Second. All those in favor? All right. Opposed? Abstained, motion carries. Great, thank you. And across this USDA Rural Development Community Consolidates Grant that I'm turning in tomorrow, bearers free, I will let you know. Thank you. Appointments and reappointments. So Trini, I think we missed the local emergency management plan on 6C. I crossed it out already. I was one ahead of it before I skipped. Consider adopting the LEMP. So we've mentioned we'd relay any feedback after sending out the stuff that I've gotten back today has been about to make sure we update some of the contact changes that have happened. And there were two, a school and a daycare that aren't in operation that are noted as such in the form itself, but there are no other changes that are at least in any of the versions that I've seen the data that were proposed on. It's mostly changing, essentially Adolfo contact to me and a few others, you know, John's, I'm sure John Schengraus is in and stuff like that. So same as last year. It's essentially the same document as last, yeah, last couple of years. Any questions on it? Question. Richard Duhlin again, emergency management, coordinated for this town, director for another town, and director for the county, for the sheriff's department. So that document can be updated at any time. So as the year progresses forward and your board members or somebody changes, it's just one easy call to rivers and they can update that information for you at any time. So just keep that in mind. And what I saw on there is basically repeating the last few years, no big changes. And we do, as a town, we do need to sort of find more resources. I have found more resources, but haven't put that in there. I've been using it sort of like a tri-town idea with being involved with Brookfield, Braintree and Randolph Emergency Management and starting to look at taking a little bit of county for a director aspect and sort of just really updating the whole system to help everybody that's around us, but we do have resources that, like I said, aren't on there that we do need to put on. And that's it. Are you gonna get that information to Trevor so I can be updated and then tell them to me? To him, I gotta, this will be the third year of my contacts of food shelf and other local areas that have resources that we can draw from, which is double checking with them seeing if they're still on board. And we can move forward with that. Okay, so you'll begin to Trevor soon? Yep, as soon as I can make a solid appointment with them. Okay. We're both very busy. And then I'll comment. It's not, I'm trying to motion to approve. So moved. Second. All those in favor? All right. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Now we'll do appointments and reappointments. You got an updated list in the packets and was there another version after that that was the most recent? That was the most recent, yeah. And the only other change to note was the appointment of Tamara Morgan to the Budget Committee as part of this to essentially fill sort of a major of the year until elections are held. She was a writing candidate who just missed the threshold for the category she was listed in. Even though she told us that we were writing votes across the two positions was enough. She didn't have them, it was four votes shy. I think it was the one of the, of election. So that would be the other one that would be in the mix. And then we did try to build out some of the, the list you saw prior was heavy on the advisory committees and other boards. The yearly appointments list has been included and filled out as well. So with some of these committees, I think we need to work on doing some updated charges for them and kind of get them back focused and help them understand what the expectations are and what we would like to see. We seem to have lost the energy that was behind some of these committees. I'm not sure if refocusing them can kind of bring them back in and that's, some of them needed, some of them don't like the water sewer committee. Clearly we don't need to do a new charge or but maybe the energy committee and the rec committee and economic development for starters. And so if anybody wants to look at a format for that or wants some help sort of pulling some ideas together and whatnot, I'm more than willing to help do that. But I think we need to, we got a lot of energy when we did the R3 process and we just seem to be losing it. So it'd be good to get some of that back. Yeah, so pre-COVID, pre-COVID Adelpo was trying to put together some monthly or semi-monthly meetings with those committee chairs. And I'm just kind of wondering if Trevor has, I think we might have discussed this but just curious if we can maybe get back on that track again to try to get them in there so that these different entities know what the other entities are working on and what they're doing and maybe they can assist. So what do you think Trevor? Sure. I'm happy to help too. I mean, I kind of, but I think Trini's right. We talked about this a little bit there the other night at the ARPA committee meeting when we were talking about projects and we did circulate that R3 document and just going back through that and kind of refreshing that in my head. COVID has definitely took the wind out of our sales here and I think that we need to kind of figure out how to reboot that. And I think there's some people that are working on some projects and I do know that RADC did engage some of the downtown business people together for a meeting a couple of weeks ago and I heard some good energy that came out of that. So I think it would be a good idea if we can figure out how to drag a few of these groups together again. I think some of that starts with maybe looking at some of the vacancies we have and see if we can't target some people that might be able to bring some energy to these committees and I don't have any magic names tonight. Either do I. But I'm thinking there's got to be there's got to be something out there and I think there's some work that they can both do. I actually sat and started writing a list of things that I thought kind of that we could be looking at and committees that maybe could do some projects together and that might start some new energy and whatnot. And I think like the rec program and the conservation committee, we got some town forests that could use that people don't ever use. Some will run this side of the hill that you might find somebody once in a while up in there that recreation and conservation could work together just to try to the recreation committee in the East Valley Community Group would be a good one to put together. Yep. The energy committee working on the town building audits and doing something around community plans which could involve all the other committees also. We do need some folks for the economic development committee because we've taken a substantial hit there. We've lost some participants in that area. So we're gonna need some new blood over there. Yeah. Looking at the energy committee that's down. We've got three members left on there. Yeah. So I don't know if anybody has any people in mind or anybody's come forward wanting to be on those committees tonight, but I must think we're gonna have to do some target recruiting. I would agree. Did we have anybody with any names coming forward on any of those committees? I thought we just didn't know the number. Okay. Hey, this is Scott. I would be interested in the Economic Development Committee Council. So tell us how you're gonna bring energy to that committee in action. Well, I've already started discussions with I've had discussions with Mr. Hooper already about the possibility of a river walk from the town forest or the RACDC property all the way up to Brook Street, including the property at the foundry. That's recreation, conservation. Plus my chef is wanting to work with the Randolph High School students that are doing the culinary program, not the technical school, but the high school. And I also have my prototype shop that they've shown interest in sending some students through right here on Prince Street. I know Ken Cato really well. Yeah, unfortunately, Ken is leaving the community here and he's no longer on the Economic Development Committee after he leaves.  So that's more related to that kind of thing. The river walk project, something that's been in the works for a long time, but there's a landowner issue there. So, you know, I've been trying to work on that, trying to get that cake and carrot, but it's a pretty difficult situation to change. So what am I hearing? I'm hearing that you do not want me on that council. And I'm not saying that, I think you submit a letter and, you know, we can take, but what you're talking about are not things that are related to that council. So that council, you know, is supposed to be in support of the Economic Development Coordinator, which now we're seeking a new one. We'll be looking for one as soon as Josh leaves.   So I mean, those are projects that you need to work with them on. We don't have any jurisdiction or any opportunity to really influence anything that happens at the Technical Career Center. So Scott, some of what that committee would look at is ways to organize folks around solving child care challenges and looking at ways the town could help with grant funding, different pieces. Well, is the town aware that before I opened the restaurant, I had considered an adult daycare center and there was no interest from the town? What's an adult daycare center? So, no, never mind, let's draw my request. But I don't want to be on that council. Thank you. Okay. Okay. So, at this point, we, the changes we have are people that have been identified in the various positions. Was there a highlight in red as well? The reds are still a vacancy, a note on a vacancy, a new appointment or a question. So I think looking at the names, the reds are. The reds on the first page are people that have been identified to be in those slots. Right. But we had not voted on them yet because they weren't the first batch that we got. So is there any concerns over anybody in that first page? I'm sure you need Milo Kotler does not need to be appointed to Lister. She ran for Lister in one minute. Ten minutes. That doesn't have to be on there for Lister. We temporarily took care of the two ZA pieces earlier tonight. But those eventually, when we do fill that lot, we'll be back for that once it's permanent. Permanent interim. That's so. Right. He's taking on Woodstock, too, so. Yeah. He's going to have a sense of it. Any other questions or comments? On the list? Hearing none, we'll entertain a motion to appoint everything on the list, except for the Lister because she doesn't need to be appointed. So move. So move. Yeah, we'll cut out a motion on a second. All those in favor. Bye. Bye. Bye. Opposed? Motion carries. Adopting the annual B transforms. Were we going to do a budget for any person under the... Yeah, I was going to ask you if it was... Were you including Tim or Morgan in the appointment list? We'll make sure it gets noted or did you want to do a separate motion to... I think we should do separate, since it's an elective position that we're appointing a person to till next down the... Is that a motion? I would nominate Tamra Morgan for them. It's the three-year term, but it's till next down the... I'll second that, but I have a question. Also, who are the vacancies? Tamra's has been in this position already. Right. I was on the budget committee. And I think it was what... There's reference to their two vacancies. Right, Dave's siloed a seat, I think is the other one. But it had been Dave's until February when it was. Right. It's the one remaining vacancy at your point, Tim. So there's a two-year vacancy that's available for somebody that's interested? I'll second the motion. Pass the motion on Tamra. Thank you. Motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? Thanks. Motion. Before we move on, Trini, I just had a quick question. If you continue on with the list here on page two, the entire design review advisory commission is highlighted in yellow. I just wondered what that means. I did that because there was a question about whether... He still needed it. That just came up as a question. He's sorry, just to put it in yellow. Yep. I haven't had much to do with it in a while. No, sure. Any questions on the decision form? We have those in the room for the 380 here to sign so we can submit them. If you would mind presuming you approve. They're required, so there's not really much of a choice. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And retain a motion. So moved. Second. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. A bit permit. This is... One for the 4th of July parade. One for the high school club. And one for slabs. Did he not invite? Is there a reason to take them separate? Anybody have a question? Or questions on any of them? Very none. I'll take the motion to approve them all. I'll move. Second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Any other business? Do you want to just think about the liquor license meeting after rather than go into executive session and have your conversation come out and have that time? What if we got to the end of the regular meeting, you recessed the meeting you're in, became the board of liquor control. Did that one closed it out and then you could resume your meeting and go into executive session. That way nobody has to wait for anything at that point. Opposed? Motion carries. Any other business? Do you want to just think about the liquor license meeting after rather than go into executive session and have your conversation come out and have that time? What if we got to the end of the regular meeting, you recessed the meeting you're in, did that one closed at that point? I was going to make exactly that suggestion. Great minds think alike. I was very aware. Is that it? So, is there a managers report? I was, yeah. That was my thought too. Well, I knew that the forage is waiting for the liquor. Yeah, because we have others too. Just a quick note, I wanted to under the assembly permits, we call it out in the town managers report, but one of the write-ups was provided by Will Weiss, who's been our intern from the UBM, I think we call it the local democracy project. He's been working on a project on Firesale. We got really lucky, I think, with the assignment. What a great guy, very diligent to ask good questions, was engaged throughout, asked if, you know, it's part of the project, if you could contribute something to an agenda. Very thankful, he's a senior and getting closer to the end of his semester and wrapping everything up. So, we were pretty happy. This is still an early set of, still early in that program, they're still trying to figure out all the different components to it, but we've already said that we'd be interested in next fall as well, if they have enough students. And we'll keep going. So, it was a positive experience for us for sure, hopefully for Will, and wish him luck in his next endeavors. What did Will do? Most of the project was centered on some research around Firesale and the whole project, it maxed a little bit, but there he was after what we had available and his interests. And then with some general tasks like this one and some regular meetings. So, it was kind of a neat idea and I'm glad we could be a part of it and I'm extremely happy that we got Will out of it. We didn't realize had a little bit of a must action until he finally came in en masse and we've seen en masse up and set to the last time we saw him. And then the other one was that mentioned that the North Wales Reservoir project, we had the bid opening today at two. We had one bidder. We had been thinking, when originally this project a couple of years ago went out, we were under the two million dollar mark, I think we were in the one six to one eight range. The December estimate brought that up to about two million, at least if not 2.2 million. So, we were going to have a bit of a challenge because we had about two million dollars in funding when we think of the SRF loan as approved, the Northern Borders Grant and the CDBG funds that I think were available as well. The bid that came in today and the treaty sort of hinted in this direction with road projects was about three million dollars. So, we've seen that cost from December to now jump up even yet again. So, we've seen from the start of the project to now it's staying within 1.2 to 1.4 million dollars in additional costs. In addition to not sure what the timeline would be because we're hearing certain materials or there's quite an order window you have to be thinking of. Dr. Lyon for other projects has been quoted at least six months out if you can get it all and depending on the price. So, we're at about three million dollars. Where this leaves us in terms of what do we do next and where we go next is still because it's pretty new. But I talked to Naomi with Dewframe Group tomorrow at some point. There's the possibility when we went through some of the early rounds of funding for the SRF program. So, that's the biggest component of our funding, the million and a half dollar loan. They hadn't completed an income survey yet. That's been done, submitted. So, there might be some subsidies and other things that can help lower or at least provide some way to cover some of those costs. Unlikely, certainly couldn't value engineer 1.2 million dollars out of it because this project scope is fairly spartan as it is. We're not talking about a lot of complicated and or additional pieces. So, those came in not shocking still a little disappointing. So, we'll know a little bit more maybe about some potential funding scenarios and we're going to try to dig in a little bit to at least get a rough idea of what a schedule could be. You know, obviously not asking me whether it feels timeline when you, you know in the ground when you're out but we're talking this summer or next summer really is sort of, you know, what's feasible at this point. That was one of the questions that came up in the in the pre-bid stuff was how attached are you to the summer of 22. So, we'll keep you posted but that was the piece of news on that and based on what everything's been doing the bids everywhere wasn't entirely shocking. So, yeah. So, just the one better and we thought we might have to get only the one, so. Can you tell us who that was? It was Kingsbury Construction out of primarily out of Weitzfield and some offices in Middlebury too. They're doing a few projects like this trying to make sure they're involved in the one down in Boyleton there's a wastewater project for example. It's underway right now. So, we'll keep you posted. Hopefully there's good news from the subsidies front but it may mean that we need to figure out if we're off a year what does that mean in addition to trying to make up that cost delta you know our northern borders funding is set to expire in the fall so we have to see about an adjustment to that timeline. Thankfully we're early enough out because we needed more wrinkles thrown at us. We never just provided you a review of what we always needed. Testing our adaptability. Resilience. I'm all for it. That was all I had. I entertain a motion to recess the select board meeting. So move. All those in favor. Aye. Opposed. Motion carries. Call to order the liquor control board. That's public comment. This is on anything that's not on the agenda. Hearing none. We'll move to approving the agenda. Would you approve the agenda? Second. All those in favor. Aye. Opposed. Motion carries. New business is considering the liquor license renewals. Is there any reason we can't take them all as one? Not that we have. Any other business? Any other business? Aye. No motion to approve the whole lot. So moved. Second. Whatever. In a second. All those in favor. Aye. Aye. Opposed. Motion carries. Any other business. For the liquor board. Hearing none. Entertain a motion. To adjourn. We adjourned. All those in favor. Motion carries. We'll now open back up the select board meeting. Entertain. Before we go. Onto the next one. Trevor, we have to. We have to first have a motion. That finds. We need to go into executive session. And then a motion to go into executive session. Is that right? Yeah, we've, we've, there's a category of executive session items where we should have the finding first. So we've got a couple that hit that marker. And so you're just essentially finding that it's. Necessary in the language is sort of the standard from BLCT. Modified for our purpose here. First we'll entertain the motion to find that we need to go into executive session. I will move that we find that we go into it's executive session. That's sufficient wording. Yeah. That premature general public knowledge regarding the executive session topics replaced the town at a substantial disadvantage. But he said. Anybody want to second that. I missed that. I'll move that motion in a second. All those in favor. Hi. Hi. Post stain motion carries. And we'll entertain a motion to go into executive session. I'll move. All those in favor. Hi. Hi. All those. Motion carries. We'll take a five minute break. And go into executive session. Thank you.