TranscriptSelect Board Meeting ~ February 28, 2023

all okay all members are present any uh amendments to the agenda um I surveyed the members to see if you wanted to have a discussion about um a warrant article uh asking the town if they want to reduce the number of budget committee members from nine to seven so we won't vote on any sending any ordinance uh we'll do that our March 14th meeting is when we'll be voting on the final vote on which ordinances will our articles will go on the uh the warrant but today is just a discussion all right any other amendments Jerry did you have any events at this time okay uh anybody here for public comment if anyone just have a seat at the microphone and uh say your name and your street and my name is Neil Berry I live on stackpole road um what prompted me was from the last select board meeting um it was mentioned that we'd have to create a log to submit invoices to the accounting firm and I got to thinking whether other sort of

unintended or unrealized work would be created if we went with the accounting firm to do um payroll and um and payables so I get poking around the trio site I'll be very quick um you may have already covered this I'm sorry if you have I don't know what his proposal covered what he submitted to you but uh and I'm assuming we use Trio for this but Trio does um maintains and tracks all vacation and sick time it creates direct deposit files if we do direct deposit um it does weekly quarterly reporting it does it manages retirement stuff main per is I guess how you say it um and icma and interfaces with the budgetary system which I guess we probably wouldn't use I don't know that but and obviously those W-2s and so forth so I just wondered if his this guy's proposal included all that stuff uh yes it does yeah and in fact uh my

understanding is that there are modules of Trio and that we we wouldn't uh once the transition is complete we wouldn't have to pay for the um payroll and one other module of Trio so the budgetary the budgetary one yeah because he has his own systems for that so okay thank you anybody else here for public comment is this the right time to talk about our 1A or

the public to speak at all so now is the time so so all right well um thank you Luke poussard run around Pond Road um sent a letter to the board this morning I'm not sure if it's been received but um I was going to read the letter that's okay you got three minutes use them as you like okay um we are opposed to the 1A article

um specifically criteria six um because of the ambiguity subjectivity of it and the lack of consideration for affected landowners um criteria six applies to areas that have concentrations of multiple national resources the beginning for Habitat six plus rating we firmly believe the majority of Voters do not understand the intricacies of this criteria or the habitat 6 rating we were only two out of 20 landowners that requested detailed details regarding our property the details provided revealed that our property falls under criteria six due to endangered blanding's turtle the blanding's turtle habitat includes Forest land vernal pools Wetland complexes and according to the document from the Maine Department of Inland Wildlife Fisheries provided by the town planner we live in an open field Hayfield and interestingly cut the hay about three to four times a year with lots of tractor equipment and in spite of the obvious

hazards of the turtle um that's that's still permitted under this appendix one includes detailed maps which estate in the states in the legend that it offers a generalized and subjective view that should be considered as a starting point for discussion the mdifw also recommends voluntary agreements and conservation tax abatements and incentive projects incentives to protect the blanding's turtle according to the document sent us sent to us from the town planner instead voters will be asked to make a permanent decision forcibly restricting the current and future use of their neighbors land for generations to come land that many owners have purchased and pay tax on for years and then we'll plummet and value do these restrictions criteria 6 is said to be based on scientific data yet as a town planner in the in the and the planning boy public hearing on 215 said subjective judgments in terms of

where to draw those numbers were made in this same meeting a member of the planning board voices concerns about criteria six is based on a large-scale map and that might not be super accurate and landowners can appeal but the onus is on them and they're going to have to spend money to prove that and he heard other things quote that made him question how accurate the boundaries were

responded with if you remember I said no the very first meeting on this particular article but I don't necessarily like revisiting them when they're done in conclusion we'd like to highlight two of the six common themes reported by the facilitator engaged by the committee used to provide direction to the long-range planning process citizens want to see Durham maintain a sense of Independence from over regulation [Music] and provide good information for decision making those are two of the six criteria we believe that criteria six of article 1A is in direct contradiction to these themes thank you okay thank you very much [Music] any other public comments yep

um I'm just here to speak in support of the recommendation the planning board is hopefully making about 1A and 1B today um I think it shows that there's been a lot of effort put forward by the select board and the planning board and Conservation Commission to grab get public comment and input over the last couple years and I think I really speak for a lot of people when I say we appreciate that opportunity to talk with officials and get feedback and stuff like that I think a lot of work has gone into this and you know at the end of the day when you get to the actual implementation of any sort of Regulation is when it stings the most for impacted landowners and unimpacted landowners so it's that we've done our due diligence I just want to commend the board on all that hard work they put in and just advocate for moving forward with the planning boards recommendations 181b so appreciate that okay thanks

any other public comments yes sir why not um thanks for your volunteerism I mean I don't know how I couldn't do what you guys do you put a lot of hours in so uh to kind of follow up along with that theme I kind of look at the town as it's a community so we're almost like family we don't know each other but we've all got wants and needs and you know we've got public we've got private land owners we've got people that have had land for a long time buy it for different reasons it might be like their retirement account or it might be they want to pass it on to their family and I I understand that it's been out for two or three years on this but there are some people that maybe just acquired land that didn't have an opera you know and now it's in their hands and oh what's happened and you know I don't know how many people there are I think there were maybe 50 or more maybe more than that that have been uh this is

going to affect and a lot of these people are older people they don't Tech you know the long and the short of it is um I'm concerned about the boundaries on the map it's like a green there's no you know in in the age of technology that we have where you can put a laser now you know if I have land that's affected by that and I want to do something okay where's the boundary uh you go pay for a surveyor and so we've got people now they've got to pay for surveyors they've got to come into the town I mean I I just don't want to make a mistake like with the people that had their land put into resource protection and now it's got to come out and I I get real nervous when there's a push like okay we've done all this let's get this done let's rush and get it that makes me nervous and I just have concerns about I mean you know there was I I guess the state talked about um consent um cluster housing is a possibility or

incentives just work with a landowners a little bit I want to preserve the land I've been over there for 30 years you don't see it's just Deer uh Fox you know but don't just without without you know having some kind of you know there are people that you know just have some kind of it just happened all of a sudden so I'm I'm hoping I don't know what's going to happen with it but I know there are a lot of people that I've talked with that that are really kind of upset because it feels like it's they haven't had a say so thanks very much

[Music] um I think since there's kind of a theme there I think I would say there is what's the date of the next public hearing or the uh so March 22nd is the official public hearing uh for this um that is if if it goes to the warrant so the board's role at our meeting on uh March 14th uh even though we're having discussion tonight that that's when we'll actually vote which articles go on the warrant um and so that's that's our role it's not our role to you know we're not making a recommendation or whatever but basically we're concerned with is um has uh has proper due diligence been done is is uh do we do we think the question is ready to be voted on by the town or is there still too much you know angst confusion uh late questions come into play that we weren't considered you know whatever it is I don't know but um that's the role of the board and that's what we'll be voting on at our meeting on the 14th and

then if if those questions are put on the um any ordinance question if it's put on the warrant then the public hearing is March 22nd for people to um Express further opinions and then of course the town meeting itself uh first Saturday uh in April

all right we will close public comment and staying with the theme we have uh John Talbot and George DeBarge are here to give us an update on the status of the uh affordable housing ordinance resource protection ordinance and the private road ordinance proposals and to board members um this meeting will be the time for like language questions you know like what about this what do I have you know was this considered you know because um we don't want to be rewriting stuff necessarily or the intent um but this would be the time to you know ask some questions if you have them so okay I will start it off John Talbot uh 636 stackpole Road here in Durham the chair of the planning board and with me tonight is uh George DeBarge our excellent Town planner uh and we're here to just kind of give you as Kevin said a quick update on the status of the uh articles that uh have been worked on uh

for quite a while actually um and so I'll take uh resource protection I think is article uh one a and one b and we started talking about these back in June last year as a result in the quick history and I know everybody's anxious get home and out of the snow but quick history was there was an article before the town uh last town meeting that failed uh and so the concern was we're taking things out not even talking about putting things in so starting at about June we started talking about doing working on that uh the Conservation Commission took the lead and they had a public they had some meetings about it they had a public hearing on I believe it was the 6th of December uh where there was quite a bit of input from uh Town folks pro and con for it uh we have voted on it as the planning board a couple of times we voted on initially in January and then we voted on it again uh last week or two weeks ago and we get to vote

on it one more time on March 22nd because I think I've learned at Durham is you can never blown anything too many times um and so we'll have the final vote and then it will go depending upon what the selectman uh forward as the article so

on resource conservation there were two articles that we considered one a was to take a look at all the resources that we have it up to and including the the plus six which as the gentleman who came before us did a good job explaining there are a lot of things to that uh it comes from a state map and so 1A would would add those things it would also take out those things those areas that should not be uh resource protection that back when the original map was drawn many years ago they were in resource protection changes in mapping uh whatever it may be there are areas that should not be there and 1A would take those areas out and then article 1B is if article 1A

fails which adds and subtracts uh we thought it only right to for those people who are uh have land that should not be in resource protection uh that we we offer an article failing 1A 1B if it passes would then take out those things that are not a part of uh should not be part of resource protection uh and if both fail uh where we live with the map we've got um so that's kind of I think the brief history uh I think Georgia was kicked me into the table if I don't say that the 6A came out of the comp plan a few years ago and that the recommendation was to uh protect those areas consider protecting those areas that are up to and including plus six and I think that's George did you have anything you wanted to add the only you you mentioned the planning board had reviewed this and made a recommendation on a wording change in part 1B oh yes and that was to some there was concern to public hearing

about the phraseology being prejudicial and particularly the word errors that errors in the data as opposed to just inaccurate data So the plan board voted to concede I'll just say we'll make some minor those minor warning changes which don't really uh change the substance of it but other than that the planning board recommended to go forward 1am 1B okay so um stay with one a I want to be a couple of questions you John you mentioned that the planning board will be voting again on March 22nd what what are you referring to there I guess do we maybe we don't vote no yeah right okay all right okay that's fine I was looking forward to another vote yeah so um and then and speaking of 1B um I I have some questions about 1B and how it's worded like you mentioned that um you mentioned that 1B will remove land copies of them yeah yeah people although um if you already have it yeah

um but it it's more about uh I'm not sure if this is if it's going to get picked up on it's not going to get picked up on here it's more it's really this it's uh so John so the you you said that the that 1B would um you know In fairness remove lands from resource protection that shouldn't be there but that's not the only thing as it's written that 1B would do it would also establish the six criteria in ordinance for what defines resource protection and I think that is a mistake and I think it goes against what the intent of that second question is because again to go back in history you know um the board initially you know has always wanted us to be two separate questions like question you know because we didn't feel it was fair to make removing land from resource protection contingent upon putting other land and resource protection um but after much discussion and public input and whatever it you know there

were sentiment to go the other direction um so we were okay with the combined question which is 1A which hopefully takes care of it all and one Fell Swoop and the only reason we would vote on 1B is if 1A fails so what I'm concerned

about is that if 1A fails um it's pretty logical to assume that it will fail because people had some kind of a problem with the criteria we would then in 1B where we're seeking to provide remedy for people who have land that shouldn't be in resource protection as part of that question adopting that criteria into the ordinance and I I think that is that goes against the intent um of the compromise there so I would much rather see that article worded in a way something along the lines of to see if the town will vote to remove resource protection designation from any land that doesn't meet any of

the six criteria expressed in the comprehensive plan and I think that was that was the true intent of the second question um so that we weren't linking those things uh together so we agree okay fine let's let's ask let's ask the all-in question up front but if that fails we want to provide an opportunity to correct without contingencies the land that shouldn't be in resource protection

questions as they're proposed just uh the first page the first article whatever in it's in the way those get worded it's like do you approve the wording is it is it in the order 1A 1B yeah okay yeah so the third page [Music] um identifies you know the criteria would actually put the criteria in the ordinance and so if it passed like that which would what the end result would be is that you would have you might pull out land that doesn't meet any of that criteria but by putting the criteria in ordinance you would have in effect put criteria in ordinance that was just rejected in the question before and now you would have a map that doesn't align with the criteria that you have in the ordinance so in in my opinion that 1B needs to be simplified as as was discussed at the at the hearing that you know the Conservation Commission had at the Eureka Center to be like the backup plan to provide a way

to pull land out um from resource protection that doesn't have any criteria without contingency to something else so I'll let George talk to you the specifics of that yeah and and obviously Kevin and I had a discussion before the meeting so I was I had an opportunity to pry I didn't want to say anything no it's a fair question um I think it's important to recognize and understand that the regulatory program consists of two main components the first is an ordinance text that's where the criteria are written the second is the zoning map where the town then takes those adopted criteria and applies them to specific properties with it within the town and just as has

happened in the past parts of the Town were designated for resource protection based on what was in the comprehensive plan unfortunately what got into the ordinance was just said as shown on the plan and that creates some real problems for from a couple of different standpoints first from a landowner's standpoint they just see a color on a map and a line on a map but there's no justification or understanding of why it's that way and secondly if it ever goes to court and is challenged and you don't have a clear rational scientific factual basis for that resource protection it could be struck down by court so for those reasons you really want to have both the text and the map in agreement now the question of well but do all areas of the town to meet those criteria have to be put into resource protection the answer is no because that as one of the gentlemen spoke Mr DeWitt I think it was or Mr

poussard there were other quite there are other mechanisms to preserve land voluntary conservation easements land acquisition programs so in some parts of the town are based on some criteria the town could have a land acquisition program that purchased development rights but in other areas it could use the zoning mechanism so for those areas that you do use the zoning mechanism it's very important to have those criteria in the ordinance and so that's why when I started drafting this stuff based on the comprehensive plan recommendations three years ago now uh basically I followed the standard procedure of drafting ordinances which is you draft the criteria and then you either adopt a zoning map or you change your zoning map based on those criteria yeah I I and I'm 100 on board with that you know and I agree that and that we need to get to the point where the ordinance text and the map are in

alignment absolutely don't no argument there at all but what I'm what I'm saying in this particular case as an incremental step towards getting there that and again this is all we're we're only having this discussion of question one fast right and and if it failed then there's something there's something amiss in that question right so we shouldn't in the very next question essentially be asking them to approve the very same criteria that they just rejected in question one so and I also think it re-establishes that uh contingency aspect of pulling land out

of uh resource protection that we were trying to avoid and that I thought that's what the the compromise was intended to do it's like okay yeah let's ask the all-in you know do it all at once question that that was where the energy was but then uh I think people were very in favor of the suggestion of the backup question if you will uh uh to remedy the situation if it if the first question failed so one of the options you and I discussed before the meeting was if you were uncomfortable with putting the criteria into the text of the ordinance as part of this process and you but at the same time you wanted to make the map changes to remove areas that are mapped as res as a floodplain that are not flood plain based on the most recent data then what you could do is instead of putting those criteria into the ordinance you could refer to those criteria that are in the comprehensive plan as your basis for making the map

Corrections right and I think that that provides the um cover is not the right word but the justification in the the argument you need some basis right either so ordinance or the comprehension so the the question could be worded to remove from resource again this is only if the first question fails to remove from resource protection any lands that don't meet any of the requirements listed in the we'd have to cite the specific section just list those uh that was mine that was my intent is to actually list them in the Warren article they're in the comprehensive plan right not amend the land use or ordinance exactly to adopt them the only thing that would be amended would be the man and that would come as a future step yes well the map the map could be a map would be done yeah but the ordinance text then I think then because if question one fails that tells us there's more work to do on um getting people on board and getting

consensus on what the criteria should be um and or not be and then bring that to a vote at a at a future point in time um but not not you know hold back other land that should be you know relieved of that resource protection designation so if I understand it right would you recommend recommendation is on 1B that we would uh not include any thing that

was solely plus six and it lands no any of the criteria so if it's that the wording is if if there's land that doesn't meet any that's that's what we've always been talking about doesn't mean any of the the six not the plastic but the plus six and the five others you know if if there's land that doesn't meet any of those you know as expressed in the comprehensive plan then remove those areas from the resource protection designation on the map because even if

down the road some of those criteria were adopted by the town none of that land's going back in because it doesn't meet any of the conditions or the criteria now that's have two options here I think it's a stronger and more defensible position if you put it into the ordinance as you make the changes but you certainly have the option of holding off on that step and basing it on the comprehensive plan as opposed to the text of the ordinance so that's just another option is aren't you basically putting it in the plan by saying refer back to this to see if you beat this I mean to me there's well to me to me is comprehensive plan doesn't have the power of ordinance well but the ordinance is saying we're following the comprehensive plan doesn't say that isn't that what the under main law it's required to be consistent yes right so it's not a it's not a six or one half dozen of the other uh distinction

it's a real distinction and the question is you phrase that my my understanding was if you don't meet one of the six criteria listed in the comprehensive plan then you're not on the map right that's a map adjustment not an ordinance text adjustment

mean I think to me to me you're saying okay if you qualify to see if you qualify here you go back here and so we're incorporating these into the plan so I I see I see you've you've your fingers right on the the main issue here is that we don't have uh ordinance text in alignment with our map even today and the only way we would get that in this year is if question one passes 1A passes because that would um establish the criteria uh in the ordinance and it would adjust the map okay so what we're talking about here is if question one fails I I understand that but but what you're saying is under 1B you'll be saying that the ordinance would be saying if you you qualify if it wouldn't be the ordinance it wouldn't be an ordinance that's the difference it's simply saying that you um were saying that we it would change the map designation because right now the ordinance says that resource protection is defined as shown on the

map right okay and so and and that needs to be fixed eventually as Georgia said so what we're saying is we're trying to at least take an incremental step again if question 1A fails to for those lands that are currently shown on the map as being in resource protection but don't meet any not a single one of the six criteria in the comprehensive plan that the map be changed to reflect those lands as not being under resource protection and that's an incremental step to getting alignment because then the next step would be okay what is the criteria going to be and then the quite that's a that's a separate discussion because the town had just rejected the criteria in 1A which is the only reason we're having a conversation about 1B and so that's where that needs to be proactive in the map that needs to be a proactive discussion about what the criteria should be it shouldn't be part of the same question that's trying to provide

relief for land that doesn't meet any of the criteria I mean to me you're still basing the map of those six points and yes the map yes right and if you're doing it that way I mean to me there's no difference if it's in if it's in in there or not because you're still basing it off those six points so it the difference is that 1B

would not add any land to Resource protection but it would be adopting it would be adopting those criteria as ordinance that could be applied in the future to land that's not currently shown on the map as resource protection and it's again it's linking the establishment of criteria with relief for other landowners

it seems like you're gonna establish a criteria and then you're going to wind up going back establishing going back to 1A right and I'm not I don't think it's definitely a little bit of circular logic I'm not I'm not saying it was intentional or anything but it but it's what it sounds yeah I would agree with that I'm not a I'm not a fan of ordinances that lay people can't interpret and they can't interpret this that's my problem with this type of ordinance a lay person cannot interpret this it's impossible so people that do own land or buy land they buy land with a representation that they have the right to do this or the right to do that and then lo and behold they have this ordinance that they don't even understand that pops up later on when they go to fulfill that right that's where I have a big problem with this you just it's too convoluted and too complex for the average individual or layperson

including myself to really truly fall established queer criteria well what what is it expected and now we know now I don't know what that clear criteria is but it doesn't say that well it it references so and that's the war article question and it references the text and so obviously you can't print an entire ordinance text in in the warrants so so you reference this so but this wasn't brought up at the last meeting well it wasn't yeah it wasn't on the agenda was enough it wasn't part of the discussion nobody's I'm not saying anybody's trying to hide anything or pull the wool over anybody's eyes or anything like that I know um I'm just saying we want to avoid unintended consequence in my opinion of linking you know this goes back to the original discussion from like two years ago it was kind of like you said okay so the the compromise is we want to ask it in one question we want to ask it one

question it's like okay we'll ask you one question um but if that question fails and then you know do we leave those landowners hanging right or do we try to fix at least that part of it and then move on to the discussion about what should the criteria be I agree with not leaving the landovers that have and that's currently or or was resource protection pulling that out I mean I think that's pretty clear I mean again I think that somebody could challenge it now if they want to do something with that Land Based on the state right they could say they could do that today right they could do that today I mean you don't even need s change for them to challenge the town on what they have in the in the power plant or the maps but I guess the question I have is back to the comp plan is the comp plan and I know it is how restrictive is that in regards to state law you have to be because George said

inconsistent with it doesn't have to well is it consistent is the question are we consistent with the state law and is the sixth criteria what we're going to be up against because if it is then it's inevitable you're going to get to 1A what if you are not with if the comp plan is not consistent with the state law because because the current plan is consistent with the state law so we can so the six criteria the six plus is what states invoking no no no no so complement is consistent with state law in the in what the requirements for a comprehensive plan are say all the elements are there the the background work is there now the I think what you're asking is and correct me if I'm misinterpreting I think what you're asking is that are the criteria that are listed for resource protection in the comprehensive plan what is required by state law is that what you're asking is it the same no it's not in fact it's more

restrictive no it's yes much more restrictive in the cloud much more so so so again back to what I said that no matter what no wait the comp plan is more restrictive than state law right okay I want to make sure right yeah no so no matter what the vote comes out with eventually we're going to be back with the same question again yeah we've well to that point we need to get to alignment of criteria so either the comp plan needs to be readjusted to match State and then you go and implement this and then the the lines of of where this applies maybe gets more granular it and exact it's not that the comp plan needs to be in alignment with the state I mean it needs to be a state legal plan but it doesn't they don't make requirements on your resource protection must have this in it what needs to be in alignment or consistent with each other is the comp plan and our order so like for the sake of argument like if if people reject

this criteria and and then down the road in the process of establishing criteria the only consensus is on something that is far different than what is expressed in the comprehensive plan um then the comprehensive plan may need to be amended you know and that that can be done so the the state wants it to be consistent with each other um you know but it's a pretty nebulous thing yeah no I understand that I just I am just wondering if the conflict is too restricted to begin with you know even aligning the ordinances to it you're gonna be still as at the six plus even

if you take this this half a sentence out of here that may be the way people see it now no I agree it might be yeah it might be how they vote and I think if we've just been on the comp plan at this point if people don't want to do it or the well I mean I mean it's out to me

this is this is a question of this comp plan was passed in 2018. and do you do you want to follow the comp plan or not and if you don't then we need to amend it and I feel like it's now going on two years where this has been a question and that should be I mean but you're you're essentially right if if the town Rejects at this time then it's like okay what's next like you know then then you got to figure out what what does the town support and is what they support can that be considered consistent with the comp plan and if not then you need to as you say think about adopting the complex that's that's a that's an evolved process that's not like a single worn article question a town meeting that's like you go through the process again and I get it that there's a line you have to draw you have to make a comp plan and you don't know these new rulings are coming out right so you can't just keep on

running back and changing it every time you think right right doesn't match up so um but I think whether the comp plan gets amended or not I mean that's a longer term question right I think the kind of the question before us now is is um the approach for town meeting this year on asking the question because it might again we're only talking what we're talking about the scenario here is if if is if 1A fails and the town says no to um the proposed changes including the criteria and the map changes and so on um which in 1A that question reflects what is currently in the comprehensive plan so the question to us is how do we present the question should that fail you know and the argument I've been trying to make is that that second question [Music] you know shouldn't link uh removing lands that don't meet any of the criteria from resource protection and also uh and embed their criteria in ordinance

text that was just rejected in the question before let's just say to me it seems like we treat excuse me we keep trying to reinvent this question so we can just get it passed well I think we're trying we I mean there's some truth to that in that we're trying to get the ordinances consistent

with the comp plan so in that sense that's that's true and that's what should be happening no I understand that but the problem is for me and I think for a lot of people is you know we make our ordinances in the past or even currently that they've become so confusing to people that they don't fully understand them and it's hard for people to understand this to come into a meeting and say hey you want to pass this and you don't the problem the biggest problem I have with it is really the unintended consequence because there's gonna be many from this okay is this is this map in five years if we if if one B passes as Kevin's suggesting that's going to change right eventually in one way and and the lines on the map are not going to be accurate at some point in the future right well because because under What scenario well I'm just it was when when the map was adopted by the town of Durham it was

accurate right no no that's that's a trouble yeah yeah that's the question so the met so the map that's being presented to us now is what should have been presented when this was adopted well what has happened in the last 20 years is technology has ramped up big time availability of data so we just adopted the town's first mapping system on the on the website and now people can have can obtain their property records and the property maps so 20 years ago the

level of of analysis for topography which is the key to floodplains was ramped up big time with lidar mapping and so those maps that were based that that map is based on is 1980s and before technology which does not show the detail that's available now so let me rephrase the question yeah if we come back in 20 years now this conversation is the map that's being presented tonight is it likely to have changed or is it likely to stay the same it'll probably get more and more accurate as technology does so it will always be changes there'll be policy changes companies instaplan updates so that so then I mean so then to get out of this people challenging it that you know people are going to be able to challenge it and the challenge that they're going to want to know right and to say to not do that don't

you think you need those those benchmarks of this is what we're looking and not I see yes eventually yes and so I I guess my question is why change it why what what well I think we're attempting to adopt criteria in question one you know which if if question one passes you know setting aside how individuals feel about their land but if question one passes it brings everything into alignment right but by passing two we're basically staying in in my eyes we're staying in the same spot so I would get rid of one B that would be my suggestion because we're in the same spot we are now if if one a doesn't pass well with the map that that will likely be or could could very likely be incorrect as soon as tomorrow when there's better technology

if if we didn't ask one B if we did to play that out and 1A and 1A failed we would be right where we are today but um if if we do have 1B we can at least make an incremental Improvement to getting things right and you know treating the people that have land identified as resource protection more fairly because their land doesn't meet any of the criteria that's that's all that 1B should do in but the way it's written puts the criteria in ordinance text George do we do anything outside of satellite mapping for example anything that we propose go into resource protection do you or the board the planning board do they walk that site prior to it being uplifted into this resource protection well I think you have to recognize there are I don't know how many square miles there are in this town no I understand that I just cannot do on the ground analysis of every piece of land that you're putting in resource protection

and the law doesn't require you to do that you should be using the best available data and it's always been the case even before any of this going back multiple years and will be the case in the future that the map is just a starting point okay the map is like if somebody comes in to see the code enforcement officer and they want to do something and and it's okay where's your land and they look at the maps oh it looks like that might be in in you know resource protection or whatever I'm not sure you can do that you know then the uh the owner of the line says well no I don't think I am and and it does it does put a burden as everything is right now puts a burden on the property owner to kind of show that it's not and that that happens you know on a regular basis that's that's how the process works this this none of these questions would change that process that's always been the case yeah it'll be in the history

that we've put things in resource protection correctly if I'm wrong in the past that probably shouldn't been resource protection and now we want to remove them I can see why there'd be some apprehension from people that's land is being put in there without really doing any hard fact checks other than a math you know something like Gis for example it's not 100 accurate I can tell you right now I can click on my house it's not right because I've done it but the data that the data that is being used is coming from technology like that the data that's coming you know that's why George has been saying uh in the conservation pitch has been saying you know this is science based it is database it's coming from the best available you know mapping and data technology resources that we have from the state now and so say if we take that data and we apply it to our map it looks

like you know this you know the the proposal that's out there so it is it's not whereas the the the old map or the current map is roughly analogous to a really old like 100 year flood plain sure uh pattern but there's no there's no specific criteria listed for you know how those areas were drawn those new maps have actual floodplain elevations right topographical elevations so that's far more accurate than the the old mapping right yeah you know a lot of me the problem is you know people that own land and things of that nature you know whenever the government starts taking things back from its citizens I always have issue with it and when you're when you're going to an individual and say I'm devaluing your land I'm not going to pay you for it I'm just going to devalue it I take issue with that I get I get what you're saying and I don't necessarily disagree but I think it's important to point out that you

know what's being put forth here is a result of a voter approved comprehensive plan how many of those 99 of them didn't know they didn't well at the end of the day you know and you know and you when you hear those arguments oh people didn't know and whatever it's like it's your duty as a citizen to know it's your duty as a board member to have done your homework the reason why I was I was comfortable having the discussion tonight about how many board members uh how many on the budget committee because that's an issue is we have the same people on multiple boards and there's not enough and right and that's something that I think needs to change that's hard to change but yeah I know we'll get to that discussion all right so there's nothing for us to vote on tonight I don't think um [Music]

yeah to have some guidance because we don't want to come if in two weeks yeah it's Dead on Arrival um what I'm hearing if I may paraphrase it is the concern there are certain things that we can't whether we want to say they shouldn't be automatic Wetlands uh uh flood plain that right federal government the state government those are those are defined I'm a the number of feed off a stream Shoreline protection those are well defined uh the big sticking point and I'm not and again I'm on the chair but there's four other votes yeah that'll happen um the big sticking point seems to be the quite the plus six criteria or any

any new any new sorry when you say plus six so you mean you mean all six right here I use talking just about the habitat well there's a there's a habitat yeah okay all right just want to make sure I'm understanding six plus uh yes so that's that's not

I don't you know there's a state map that says this is where we think it is and so on and so forth I'm not saying we're going to do this but the things that are federally State mandated we could make the whole map uh White and nothing's protected except the reality is you can't build in a wetland you can't build a flood plain CEO planning board when you come in is going to do that so is what I'm hearing that you're looking for map verbiage whatever that says we're just going to follow those things that are named mandated by the state no I don't think that's what you're hearing I don't think that's what you're hearing at all I think I think I don't necessarily that might that might not rich might you know want to point that out there but but that that would be a dramatic change from the work that's happening quite honestly you know anybody at this point that says they don't understand it and don't know

what's going on hasn't paid attention I'm sorry well Kevin I'm here every week and I think that's disingenuous to say they haven't paid attention it's very hard it's not that clear-cut if it was that clear cup we wouldn't have this much discussion about it there wouldn't there wouldn't be all these people here it's not that clear-cut I'm not respectfully I'm not referring to changing 1A at all right no and I would could you know might stay the same um so it would be just the cleanup map for lack of a better term because if there's an area that was not on wetlands 10 year 20 years ago it now needs to be on what was I mean that's not necessarily but that wouldn't be land that would be taken off because it would it would be meeting that crisis but there may be new land I think is what I'm saying there may be new Wetlands that's a separate question down the road because question 1B even if it even if it passed as it is

right now wouldn't immediately add anything new to Resource protection that would still require another vote because otherwise you're asking the same question that you asked in number one that it it puts the criteria into the ordinance but it doesn't adjust the map to add those things and only adjust the map to take things out I guess what I'm asking is do we eliminate some of the criteria in 1B eliminate some of the crisis in one B my position is that you eliminate all the criteria and that as far as putting it into ordinance text okay so so

I think I think I finally understand to pay attention I apologize so you're just asking to get rid of the [Music] the and to establish career criteria for inclusion of property that those those few words is what you're looking to get rid of believe it is and so to correct mapping errors based on inaccurate floodplain data well actually the second one here it would it would pretty much be struck completely because we wouldn't be making any amendments to the land use ordinance we'd only be making an amendment to the zoning method the zoning map is part of the ordinance right okay so but looking to keep that language [Music] okay um then but what basically what I want can I just read it to you just okay to read so you're leaving the first part but then in the last three lines third line from the end you know to revise the resource Protection District criteria would be taken out and Boundary to

establish clear criteria for inclusion of property is taken out it would just be to correct mapping errors based on inaccurate floodplain data no that's not what I would say so your what would your recommending for lack of a better term is to to [Music] revise the maps to match up with the comprehensive plan no essentially without use no that's not what I'm saying at all question one a if it passed would do that I understand okay so what I'm saying is is the wording would be something along the lines of to see if the town will vote to remove the resource protection designation of any lands that do not meet any of the criteria

expressed for resource protection in the comprehensive plan and list those criteria and then it adjusts the map accordingly now there might be some legal verbiage in terms of you know ordinance zoning map whatever that needs to be part of that but it's just saying that you know in layman's terms if there's land that doesn't meet any of the criteria expressed in the comp plan for resource protection then don't show it on the map as being in resource protection that's that's that's what did you say you didn't want the six criteria in

embedded in the ordinance you want it to say but it's you're using that as your description for what would come out can I can I just ask on page three the under no uh being B2 resource Protection District [Music] in a b c d e and f

which ones of these are you presently using for resource protection okay so the 2002 comprehensive plan identified 100 year floodplains that's a areas subject to State mandatory sure lands only that's currently in resource protection land within 100 feet of a perennial stream not all perennial streams but most of the perennial streams 100 feet yep state only requires 75. exactly and there was a long discussion with the Conservation Commission on that issue uh land within a forested or emergent Wetland of 10 10 acres or more and currently the there's one note on one version of the zoning map that says swamps as shown on the tax maps foreign

technical than that I agree 100 okay so this uses this doesn't map all wetlands in town that are 10 acres or more it's the ones that the state has said have the most value from the wildlife and and environment standpoint so it's like maybe 50 of those big Wetlands so so that's already in the comprehensive plan and in the ordinance and then the one within 250 feet of uh waterfowl habitat

that is relatively new but it's currently in the in the ordinance under Shoreland zoning and then the only one that's totally new is and based on the 2018 comprehensive plan is the six plus uh natural resources out of the six are in the ordinance right now in this and the sixth one is what's being caused in the most doesn't accurately reflect map doesn't accurately even if you take the sixth one out it doesn't actually reflect the first time that map doesn't accurately reflect much of this so so that's I think what I was trying to get to which is and somehow right on the to include the five that are in the ordinance required they're not just a map error they're in the ordinance is being required and not include um yeah if the the six plus I'm gonna throw that out there and again whatever I say gets voted on we will have another vote now but uh is that kind of what I'm hearing is I'm not saying that's you know what I'm

favoring but is that yeah well I guess what what what makes the first fiber already in the ordinance and that's presently it's laid out if it's already in the ordinance and it's not adding anything new I don't have a problem with that but I'll change anything this would in fact change it wouldn't it and by definition if the sixth one was left in yeah I think the plus six is what's that is what people are hung up on too well and then need to caution that in the comp plan I think that's to refer back to the comp plan the comp plan talks about plus six you have to be careful and I'm not given an opinion on this you just have to be careful that if you refer to the comp plan it's going to say plus six well I think yeah I think I don't think yeah I think if we used your suggestion and essentially left 1B almost the way it is but took out the six plus habitat Factor one then you wouldn't you wouldn't make the reference back to the

comp plan because you would have the reference in the in the article itself um so even though someone may have some land that is now not covered by resource protection they may have some but it's already required I would be comfortable with that as long as we can I can straight face say to somebody that if you vote if again if one a fails I feel like I need to keep making that qualification if 1A fails and if you vote for one B we are not adding any new

requirements that aren't already in the ordinance we're just providing relief for um land that is currently shown as resource protection on the map but doesn't meet these five criteria so I say five assuming we took that six one now I also worry about the law of unintended consequences is there anything that I said that doesn't well that's a cleaner way to do it all on the premise of one a failing right yeah right yeah we don't even have this discussion if 1A passes right right so you're recommendation request directive are you guys what do you guys think is to amend 1B to drop Criterion f

just on 1B I personally yes only because if it's not if it's adding an extra step above our ordinance supersedes our ordinance so which one would follow we have all the ordinance I mean that's my problem with this whole thing is you got to go back in the ordinance you gotta go back say that again if you have this and it's not in the ordinance what which one it would be in the order this you would add it to the ordinance so now you're changing the ordinance that's my thing it's already in there not not F right that's what I'm saying you're basically changing our order right and that would that's my objection that's my objection right so but if F comes out we're not actually adding any new restrictions to the ordinance yes the first Library already there right then that's a clean and I'm good with that if the ordinance is already in play I have no issue I'm not here to change ordinances but in fact

this does change in my opinion that's in my whole point right and I do agree with Josh that it's still still in there and it's still referenced in the comp plan so this yeah but you can't you can't bind anybody to it yeah I mean it's harder too but but the way I interpreted what Kevin said at the beginning was referencing the comp plan as part of that and to me that is binding

yeah sorry if we keep talking we will discontinue right into that meeting um members to uh John's suggestion that the only change uh to 1B is that we change the language um presentation that 1B refers to to that removes f everything else stays the same I don't have a problem with that personally I I would have liked it and there's not not time to do that and I'm not asking you that but I would invite to have seen one be tied with a change in the comprehensive plan and so still wouldn't change the ordinance yeah I'm not sure possible legally well I understand that but I mean I think and there are other way the comprehensive plan itself recommends other options for preserving those lands right such as mandatory clustering land acquisition programs otherwise I don't think you know you would know better than I but my sense is that if if the comprehensive plan listed six criteria which it does for resource protection

and the town adopts five of the six I don't think anybody's gonna successfully make an argument that those are not consistent with each other not in a coral law anyway just have to be consistent so it doesn't mean we shouldn't proceed with you know asking you know if again if 1A fails you know some form of maybe it's four factors if people didn't like six you know I don't know but right right so um [Music] tomorrow night on the affordable housing the planning board has recommended punting yeah until the state because the states

scheduled for March 22nd and we need to know what's going to be presented at that hearing yeah so do not present uh 2A and 2B on affordable housing yeah are you on board yeah I think because I mean we if it's not ready to go then we don't want us yeah I mean I don't know why we would counter that recommendation and then the last one all is private roads and that is simply saying that the Selectmen must approve no uh tell me

board deciding whether to accept roads or not they want town Bend growth district and when the Grove District came out of the ordinance as part of the comprehensive plan and that phrase wasn't anywhere else in the ordinance and it made people uncomfortable yeah so we're just putting it back in basically says you know acceptance of a Town Road for public you know Town funded maintenance um is uh requires a town meeting both so

yeah so we'll knock over one A and B tomorrow and we'll get back to you before the 14th and yeah what the what weekend again I I don't totally speak for the board yeah because I mean I mean I would not vote to send 1B to voters the way it is right now without the change that helps us all right thank you guys appreciate all the work thank you thanks George keep up the good work all right

financial services contract from dairy palette yeah um [Music] um we didn't really discussed it after him he left and right right and we just kind of tabled it and just want to hear what your thoughts are if you wanna go in that direction

your to the to the taxpayers burden and struggling with that also yeah yeah well every time we add something to it it seems like it's going to add more money [Music] to the tax burden if we had if we didn't have if we had the money if we're going to say we're not going to at re

we'd have that money to do that but I'm not really hearing that we're only going to stay with just one person at the front where okay where is this money coming from I think the plan is to not fill the deputy Treasurer position that's currently vacant if the contractor route goes so I think it was kind of presented as a wash right like the the expensive

yep nope okay so there's there's funding to fill that position off that same funding can hire can Outsource it it's the same money as so if you don't hire there would be there would just be Jessica hopefully the full time and then you know do part-time

so you'd have you'd have two full-time and then two part-time that are essentially covering yeah for vacations and that's right and how did that go this past week right yeah everything went real well because we had someone on vacation right yeah it went well of course we had some snow and stuff where it was slow but it went well it went well I mean Devin and yeah Kimberly are really stepping up it worked out good no issues I'm glad to hear you say the same thing Devin did right uh so no issues I mean Devin really has stepped up I mean he's oh yeah he did they're doing good oh yeah this is impressed yeah well so so Todd really it's a wash it's either you hire someone internally and someone externally that's essentially the same I'm not gonna wind up there well that's all my question would be have you done to fill the position in house to get somebody qualified who can do this and to me what puts it over the top is

it's not doing it's doing the bookkeep and all that but it's also going to help a lot with the budget planning and you know the long-term planning and all that stuff right the odd I mean all of that stuff is going to save time and yeah for the audience they're basically going to hand everything right over to the auditor and it's gonna be and it's gonna have a bow on it for the most part and and it will reduce our audit line in the budget too because they won't have to do so much work like they're doing now and and to fill the position with someone who's going to be qualified enough to do something not I mean you're not gonna qualified to do it at this level but close to this level is going to be 70 or more oh yeah uh the well the

um the finance person in the municipality that I worked for before I came here makes more money than I do as a town manager she's been doing it for 15 years so it's hard to find the labor market right now is hard and you know we can take the same money and hire one we'll take that money and I'll have a team of four or five working on on that and they showed the responsibility of something if they mess up oh yeah well they're they're professional CPAs and they do government accounting it's going to be hard to find someone off the street that has that kind of expertise to and it's not so much if everything was really you know reconciled and and had been done well that's one thing but from what I saw coming in and not being able to follow the money I just need some help in this for the benefit of the town and it's in the best interest of the town to get to get this stuff straightened out because you you're all going to be

asking me for financial information and I'm not really comfortable giving it to you because of what I walked into but that's you've never had it done you've always had somebody here to do it but no one I mean when you have a discrepancy between your undesignated fund balance of 2.4 and 1.9 and it's not missing it just hasn't been reconciled in a while these folks can do that it's going to be hard for someone to come off the street at what this at what the town can pay to have that done you know but day-to-day operations are we still going to have are we going to wind up with just one person at the front desk no you have two you have Jessica and Cindy so so she's going to be full-time yeah yeah that's in the budget that's in the budget yeah that was part of the that was part of the yeah that was part of the plan whether the deputy Treasurer was killed or not and it's it's it's not a it's it's a one-year contract

so you can cancel it any yeah and it's mid and it's paid monthly so you can give them a days you don't even have to go the whole year if you did you didn't want to yeah I think you know and then it's I look at it as like kind of similar to what Josh was kind of getting at like I think it's worth it even if it were a little bit more money I'd still think it would be worth it for a year or two just to get the house in order get the um you know normal best practices established get you know kind of get things set and then once you get into kind of you know maintenance anniversary mode you know maybe it's a different thing maybe you can handle it with you know more of a bookkeeper you know level employee versus a CPA you know that we're looking at with um you know this but I I think I think the town needs this level of expertise at least for a while I agree I'm just worried about how much skin Cooks well that's I mean that's the

thing you know you do want to watch out for like you know if you know I I wouldn't recommend showing up at budget time adding another position and still going with the contractor yeah exactly yeah you know personally I I see the cost as something that's easily forecastable versus hiring in-house right you know hiring in-house yeah you have no idea and not only that the turnover margin is high right in the in the world Work World so you know what you're going to pay for somebody that's qualified to do this on top of let's let's imagine they all take the family plan et cetera it's probably going to cost you more money to hire this in-house than to something so if you're concerned take you back to turn over and training and all that I bring that up for you know for Todd I I I I I I I see his concern and I just want to I I actually think you have I think you have um [Music] like I said this is much more

forecastable that you you won't have this black and white it's black and white versus some you have no idea what that number is going to be in the future is unbelievable it is and you know right now with some of the things that we're we're seeing in there we're we're chasing a lot of mistakes we're spending two three just goes on the phone four hours the other day with main hers because the information domain purse hasn't been updated for five years so Calvin's salary was wrong there was other people's salary that was wrong so when you're spending that kind of time you know chasing these things you end up actually spending more money in the long run yeah that's one of those unintended things but you're right right you know and hiring assault there's no workers console if they were to get hurt or whatever you don't have to worry about that there's no vacation no sick no none of that it's no vacations to worry about

um and it's and then this letter sticks with the bi-weekly yeah paychecks and that's yeah [Music] yeah so that's a change because we're paying weekly now right right and most everybody's okay you've had some conversations with Calvin some of his guys you know Mike okay [Music]

and it's going to lessen the burden on the one of the girls in here because they're not going to be we're not going to be doing all of that sort of stuff and stuff and it's really quite a bit that's why the warrant you got late because they're working the window especially during vacation week they got busy

just wanted to tell I don't think it's gonna it's not going to get to a point where it's well I'm not gonna let it get to a point where it's going to cost us more without letting the bullet know that that be you know going different route if we have to but you know and keep in mind I've talked to a couple other Town managers that have done this and they're not looking back at all they love it yeah so so I don't um I'm not sure where people are with this one one uh potential uh uh thing we cannot we can vote to authorize Jerry to enter into a contract um with uh fairy Talbot Warrior you can sit on it you know for a bit longer and digest it a little bit more um

make a motion that we move forward with a contract with these guys and let's get these books straightened out one second contract with these guys and get our books straightened out so yeah so emotions that was going to authorize the town manager to enter into a contract with with Barry Talbot Royer for accounting services for the municipality right and we have a second from discussion the discussion just a quick just a quick note you know

um for the next whatever x amount of months it might take to get these folks on board is there any concern there or will we have to uh maybe employ a third party or outside help to get us over the hump until these people are on board we're gonna just keep uh limping along like we are right now now I've hired um an individual an account to help us uh reconcile the bank statements we're still working on that from 20 April 21 of December of 2022.

okay now my last question I know he mentioned it but um we met with this gentleman two weeks ago correct um have you had any further conversation with them this week as to when because I don't know if other towns in the last two weeks have maybe elected to take his services are they still on board able to um fit Us in for lack of better words as far as I know I know that he likes to know ahead of time because right you mentioned that that's right so if you had further discussion since he left no he is holding a spot for us over the years looking for somebody um Direction on whether we're going to go or not so by June maybe May 1st May 1st thank you yeah that's coming right off that's what that that's what his proposal says I didn't know if that was contingent upon us for right yeah exactly all right any further discussions we all do buddy all right all in favor of the motion at five zero

technology estimate setting up Eureka so we're pushing eight o'clock now um we have department head reports we have the discussion about the budget Community article is this is that one that can wait it can wait if you you yes absolutely any objection to pushing that one off to a future agenda no I would encourage you and and you know prior to that if we could because we I know we've had some issues over at the Eureka Center I just wanted to make sure we Circle back maybe whether that's Calvin in charge of the buildings now and yourself to make sure that those situations in the future granted you can never tell but right we think we got those alleviated best before we dump a bunch of money into technology it doesn't work well with water typically right but some technology does we just want to make sure everything's understood you know obviously if the water's in the seal especially in the

waters in the ceiling we're placing ceiling tiles I've not been there done that so just just to double check the buildings I think the real culprit there was we lost the power that's all right confusion this like if it Spurs a couple of questions um you know you don't have to wait for our next meeting to ask them in fact I would encourage you to go ahead and send them to the town manager I know I have a couple I'm going to send them like for instance if are there other hidden expenses to doing this and like does the Technology support hybrid meetings will is this going to require a security system if we're going to put a bunch of electronics over there you know like some some questions like that so if you know we for those of the Town manager and then he can kind of look for the answers and have answers when we get to the next meeting versus just asking the question two weeks from now and you're

going to ask those because one of those what's that you're going to ask those questions I I am gonna I'm gonna send them an email yeah I won't I won't repeat um all right so we're gonna um we're gonna table number six um all right department head reports Calvin we know what you've been doing

dealing with winter storms you're getting caught up on assault delivery is a good thing but these back-to-back storms this week or it's about 2023-10 the maximum truck was delivered when I'm on that first storm on 223. this is our age Gravel Road the wind got caught up in the plow and it fetched up and slammed back and hit the door in the mirror so the door is on its way and we're going to have it on by first of the week uh take care of the number wait we can't just let that pass out I'm already down here I'm assuming the wings comes down from the side right how does it get caught up in the plow or did it hit the side of the embankment or something and come to the plot up in the dirt and it's okay when when it broke free when it jumped over the ground was hunting it's the wind slammed back and hit the mirror in the door so is that different than our current trucks how they work or was that

an adjustment or something that needs to be made how the last two trucks are they're all uh full trip plows and the first three trucks were not like that so uh we've done some training on how you this was his first he had one of the older style trucks the newer ones and now he's fully aware that if you fetch up again you back up you don't lift the wing because if you do Under Pressure it's going to come back without you I get what you're saying now okay so he knows now and everybody knows we've done a full training on the whole thing trying to figure out how you got the wing in front of the plot oh no the wind came back up to the side of the truck and hit the mirror in the door bring some beans yeah let's get my head mops on and everything buddy I was going to start running around

so we'll have a door on it next week is it operational like it is yeah okay hold on it's got no door on it oh okay well you just said we'll have a door on it next week got a Saran wrapped up right now so you can fly one down the road right now

fully functional so we'll get out 700 bucks either but it doesn't take I mean I work for the Ohio son to deal with questions that she had year-end questions and got those cleared up Eureka as you know had the water leaks uh got a call from Pearl saying that the roof was leaking so I that's below zero

the roof's not leaking so he said this she goes well the water's coming off the ceiling so I went over there I said well you've got a lot of light on the ceiling I didn't think so but well there is a water line in that ceiling so there's no that water's not coming from the roof I can tell you that it went up in the atticon so why is there a water line in the ceiling they're all on the ceiling because apparently at some point they didn't want them up under the building because it was like a dirt floor crawls faces so they're all run up over and in the ceiling tiles and replaceable so there was uh one in the bathroom or two in the bathroom and then we got the plumber we ended up getting uh Kimberly's husband to come over for less than 300 bucks and repair the and once we get started we took the ceiling uh we got that going back up and then all of a sudden Water started coming out over the kitchen sink so uh we add another one

over the kitchen sinking so we found three or four leaks all together got those uh he came over and fixed those and we bought New Zealand tiles and all copper in there okay yeah [Music] and uh so I mean if we had done it we would have had shockwise but he likes the old sweating and all the old-fashioned air is old school so hey as you can change it depends so

you want to do it that's not how we would do it man we'd take a piece out it's like a shark bite and another one that's choice calling the plumber yeah dangerous than man doesn't know what he doesn't know so especially with plumbing or electricity is even worse [Music] um so we took care of that got that all back up and going then uh the kitchen faucet would then works or something must have busted and they ever changed the faucet then we had to change the cups in the toilet in the other room we were able to take care of that so I I believe what happened was heat pumps uh apparently when they put the heat punch in they took disabled the furnaces that were in there there was only one furnace we took the gas out yeah well there's one Empire on the back left corner and there's the wall tall one in the main entry and those were disabled or put offline I don't know that's some time ago now but uh the heat

pumps were not sufficient to keep up with and 30 below zero weather and she they could have they have to in the future turn them up to like 90 degrees so that they I don't I don't necessarily I I know that system only because I was she asked me quite a bit I think you have six tons in there it's more than efficient but the problem with those heat pumps are if when the temperatures get to what we saw I think that Saturday Chief you would know you were out in it it was what negative 35 or something like that there's not really any heat pumps that are ready to keep up with that yeah so that's why I was asking if the generator were still working so I mean typically you'd want to really put the heat on to that place if you're going to get into that former Doctor Who said that when it's going to be that cold you have to turn them up higher than them that's what I mean you got to put you got to turn them up yeah same thing in extreme

heat you got to turn the other direction so you're more than covered there we've put that extra in there because we plan on having 50 people in there for extra heat on every time that's why there's so much tonnage well uh so anyway next time we have them for us October we'll get together and come up with a plan before she's got some space heaters is the generator working though Calvin yeah the generator was working [Music] uh down east did some work on it recently that you guys paid the bill for so I guess it wasn't working now but it wasn't working that well it was working no problem it was even before that so okay

the uh we posted the roads um February 22nd they're all posted and uh worked with Freeport and probably going the same day I know the other Town started a few days earlier in this recent weather I've been letting trucks roll with pretty much every morning it's cold enough [Music] done all I've got okay except another wrote here that your exit Line's not working

did we ever look into the street light outside the parking lot here I brought a contact that I got a call a CMP contact to see where we stand without it probably uh talk to the neighbor do you think the neighbor probably shot it out

if a neighbor does have a problem maybe we look at a different light different location or something I don't know but anyway I just when he was talking about lights I was that popular okay skies are doing a good job out there hey thank you yeah thanks you don't need to hang out with us anymore

Chief trip um my first note does say attaboy to Calvin and the boys um those are doing a great job they help us out so I appreciate all of them um just had the three things if it's in front of you some people and I probably misspoke about definition of mutual Aid as far as fire goes if somebody calls for a rescue we send a rescue it's easy enough that's ambulance work but definition there's actually called run cards that fire chiefs make to almost nine alarm fires so it'll say if I have a two alarm these are the next two Pumpers and Ladder and then if it goes to a third alarm these are again broadening The Horizon the next two engines and ladders and a rich saw the Lisbon fire up close I think that was more than three three plus um at least at least and we had our rescue standing by our engine company landlines for them taking over and then we sent them back as we started breaking things everything froze up it was minus

40. we sent our Quint over there uh it was the fourth lateral the show as far away as yarmouth's Tower ladder Brunswick's Tower ladder Lisbon's ladder that type of stuff and then our Queen so um Mutual Aid is sort of every own jurisdiction makes their own plan so we have a plan based on the Town based on the schools based on occupancy that type of stuff Lisbon has their plan it also becomes Geographic so The Far Side of Lisbon you're getting into Lewiston more and at that fire there was multiple Lewiston multiple Auburn on

Freeport there's also station coverage so you can just ask for station coverage now I don't really uh advertise enough how much station coverage we receive so when we were at that large fire in Freeport on 136 I actually we had an Auburn engine sitting here so I just didn't say that all you see is that we send everybody to Freeport but it is mutual so when people say oh how much you know we go to Auburn but how much do they come here they have recently several times and it's the same thing with Lewiston recently we've been going to Lewiston station coverage that's their primary for us geographically um because of where we're uniquely located in this County I mean we we're touching two three other counties yeah they're very difficult for the fires service um so Lewiston we've been over there but they've had Auburn at the scene so they call people to the scene we backfill the station coverage with Lisbon and then if

something else comes in we go that's just how it works it's almost a chess match just for people at home and it's also evolving so when smaller departments like Paulo cannot staff a truck then you go to the next truck and that's all predetermined really so and that's via dispatch so that's all computerized they call them run cards but that's all computerized so that's how we've been doing because we have been busy uh Lisbon was a perfect example that definitely required all hands on deck oh yeah uh it did it did um and your fire department was over there to the tune of at least 12 members and that also cry the criteria for me is backfilling here so when we send a rescue out or we send a crew to Lewiston including myself I call back and make sure that we're fully staffed here so we're stripping the town but not a hundred percent we're always backfilling here because the number one priority is

always duramites so that's what we do the Maine Municipal associations Ed McDonald's safety Grant that's a three thousand dollar Grant that's coming I think in April ish so just continue the grant cycle I think we'll be looking at um fall protection but mostly technical rescue fall protection for the firefighters harnesses ropes that type of

we have been so busy even though January February February the smallest month we're supposed to be quiet we just completed call 79 a few times that times six that's 474 projected 9-1-1s that'll be a hundred over already this year that's what we're on Pace for we're on Pace for another 25 increase in calls in each in the shorts to beat that too you know Motor Vehicles are up we did five today I know that's sort of storm related um we did 10 the month before I mean I I think it's just population I really do the arm's growing every Community around Durham's growing um last Monday I did four Medicals four transports the other day we did two Medicals yesterday two transports um it's just Aging in place aging population for Durham as you know um we keep taking taking select board members as you know I'm just I'm just saying again no wow I think it's aging population and I think it's a population increase to the

surrounding area which is just statistics there's nothing it's not like taking sense for you it's not an uptake in like fire alarms or something right right it's just the normal criteria a lot of it's ambulance work yeah okay speaking of ambulance we go right into it um we've been talking about raising our

charge or our revenue for our Ambulance Service um I just pulled today New York FDNY is proposing to raise the price of an ambin's ride by over 50 percent other communities are raising their prices we have not raised our rates in years um the last piece of information you asked for was which I sent to you all

the main departments and what they charge now you don't have names because it's private contractual through our com star our billing okay that's why I was going to ask you that that's why on the left side you see where Durham is highlighted you see what we're charging now uh some of that top is mileage uh at 11 and then on the bottom you can see their average in 19. um this is all of Palm Stars clients

um BLS is an emergency that's just a basic EMT non-emergent ALS one and two they they differentiate that's paramedics and they differentiate between an IV or EKG machine or pharmacological intervention given Drugs That's where those come in um I am recommending and it's not time sensitive we can do this at any time it's not like open enrollment how this started I'm recommending uh that we double every line across and

if you do that on the bottom we still will not hit most of the averages that many departments are charging yeah and so tell me again how does the how would this impact a a Durham citizen if they needed you know great question so I am looking at our

billing company and where they get their fees so there's Blue Cross uh Medicaid Medicare other insurance the VA Veterans Administration there's a hundred percent self-paid insured that's you know private Blue Cross Blue Shield some of those anthems and then there's a hundred percent uh uninsured [Music] Medicaid and Medicare and Main care

rates and they only give you their rates they don't go above it we can charge a thousand but they only give you like 350. per transport or whatnot we sign on that we can't ask for more in the citizens even though we we would bill for the difference if they don't pay it doesn't go to collections it doesn't come out of pocket how does the citizen know that though [Music] I think you get a letter in the middle I get a bill in the mail you can simply take a ride well I know but you know I only relate to this because when my my mother before she she had a nice ride with you guys you know her final ride it was a good time um I hope you played with the siren she did she had a great time but um you know two months later I get up she gets a bill obviously she had passed but you how would one know to like say well geez I'm on Medicare Medicare only pays X why should I pay this difference now my mother would be the person would be

like oh my God they're going to put me in collections they're going to take over my house they're going to do this and she's going to pay you that's that's knowing everybody's own private insurance so whether you have private pay car insurance however that is is taxed that's knowing your insurance I'll give you the sentence that the main Fire Chiefs just put out Medicare and medic main care are the primary insurance for the vast majority of people transported in the Aging population uh social economics the current reimbursement rates a fraction of the actual cost of providing those services it cost us for the town of upwards of a thousand to do that um we would like full collection I I'm not saying don't pay but there is

ways of calling our billing that say it's a hardship can I make payments or my primary Insurance whether that is Medicaid or care says I don't have to pay that is that is on buyer beware it's tough for a senior citizen um

or not they're still getting billed full full ask that's a good point and there's they're only being well right now you're building subsidized but your rates right now are kind of what Medicare pays right it's not even yeah we're not even that's the problem so I mean when Durham we're not even reaching some of the Medicare rates we're we're Below on some of them that's why I know when I said the word doubling people like oh we're doubling right but that still doesn't touch we're under all the main average and and we'll be under some of medicare's allowances when you um are billing company for example they charge a percentage yes they do in collection fees in terms of billing right so so my I guess my question was you're inadvertently perform those unintended concerts you're giving them a massive pay raise do they drop your rate of what they charge for this that's negotiable per the contract

okay so would you be able to negotiate a lower rate yes or what they collect collect they're currently at 85 and a half percent collection rate I'll throw out some numbers that'll help this is this is last year's collection because they're always like roughly six months behind with with numbers so we

charged and this is Durham we charged just shy of 94 000 in our runs we were out of that 94 Medicare Medicaid main care says we can only collect 86. so we're already 8 000 below what we're charged so we can only allowable 86. they collected 74.

and it's actually broken down it talks about you know uninsured insured VA all that stuff they have it all broken down yeah I'm looking at it right now yes I sent you that now the 85 is pretty good yeah I thought so too for that for that Capital that's that's their data for that one year but I yeah and why I guess like but they still would get big rates in theory that they would have increased Revenue yes as to tell what because they're not but they would get some it wouldn't be a huge because even if we even if we charge a much bigger number you know we're not that same amount away from Medicare and Medicaid so they would get extra on the whatever the difference is right now between what our rate is and what medic there is you know what you know what I mean yes and no it's confusing I get it you know sorry if you haven't but the only other question I would have who or what mechanism triggers whether or not

somebody goes into collections I don't have that information and that's why we almost unless you're locked you're almost every smaller apartment has a third party in this case com star do all their billing I don't take information from the firehouse we send all their you know reports the billing information and they do so you don't know if like 84 of that or like 10 of your um 86 000 or 74 000 yeah was received from 5 000 of them came because you sold 30 collection accounts so some attorneys

know like for does if if somebody has to go into the hospital and they're on Medicare and they need a they need something a walker and The Walker costs six thousand dollars but Medicare is only going to reimburse two thousand dollars does that person get billed by the medical equipment company for four thousand dollars if it's allowable they would only build the difference between what's allowable and what they pay okay so so if they recover if 2000 is allowable and they'll pay 1500 they can build for 500. I get is how I understand it right so I guess I'm I'm asking about a scenario analogies to this one where the amount that would be billed is well over what's allowable do they are they billing patients in that situation I don't think they should be that's right so why why do we do that with ambulances I don't think because of the cost of doing business well it's the same thing for them then you're not discriminating

against your only discrimination is what insurance you have you're not not against it's kind of this kind of Falls I am I I share I think Rich's concern is that you know that somebody's going to get a bill not realizing that you know they really don't have to pay it but they're but they're gonna pay it because they think they have to pay it I cannot help people's Insurance those

are private questions those are Life Choices those are retirement things that type of stuff I cannot help um answer any of those I'm looking like you are if you have VA insurance they're paying 100 I don't think we could set rates that that matches what insurance that would be an issue at one point there used to be I'm told you know towns people got a free ride in the ambulance I think when they start well oh really yeah and this is 18 19 years ago um or members you know from the fire department that volunteered type of thing and all that's gone by the wayside we cannot say oh well if you live in town it's different than out of town if you're a motor vehicle accident that's different if you have VA it's straight across the board our our billing like per mile per BLS that type of stuff

um don't lose sight though I think we did 272 911 transports so we only Bill if we transport there are 911s that we go a lift assist you know help you into the house there's those things recently I I picked up a long time member at the hospital and brought him home in a private vehicle you know we those things happen I don't I don't

encourage it um but these things happen this is a small town in the fire chief certainly signs on for whatever needs to be done um we're not even reaching the average in Maine so I know these are questions you've been asked but if you've done the math if we doubled our rates we wouldn't be even but we would be below most of the average of all the main clients okay I'm not looking for hardships for for the Durham but there is a cost in that cost of of running the rescue has gone up yeah yeah and whether that's private or not yeah I mean on the one hand you know I mean we've been kind of focused on the individual and what's fair to the individual but we also got to consider what's fair to the taxpayer too you know in terms of covering the cost of service so yeah when we started the Amazon service it was just only getting taxed twice supposed to be fair no I get that we're supposed to like paper so this is

how much it's going to cost but if you use it it costs this one exactly yeah yeah obviously I'm bored but I'm all in favor of what's fair like if for example the surrounding towns or communities are charging X and we're so far below Market well obviously there's something wrong on our end in my opinion I I don't think thank you for that I don't believe we've raised in in years and years and it's never come before now now we're in conversation but we've never now and uh we'd like to do educated now with the EMS conundrum especially around this private ambulance is charging rates charging us you know even Freeport if if an ambulance comes into town like they did today Freeport and if they were to transport then that's okay they take that fee but if they provide us a paramedic or United provides us paramedic or the towns a city of Auburn provides as a paramedic they charge the fire department they

charge the citizens I need to recoup that money that's fair the paramedicine side of it is and then we've negotiated with with towns like Brunswick not to charge us you know Mutual Aid type of stuff but there has to be a revenue of of and it will not pay for the entire Rescue all right this is just subsidizing the what we provide and again to the town's people if we double our rates we're still below average yeah below average of all the main and we're looking at roughly 20 something here so is it will your correct me if I was wrong your recommendation is for us to double yes double all our rates [Music] because they have not increased in a long time yeah and again the the doubling won't even touch the aperture [Music] what comes close on some stuff

is 19 you're above average [Music] yes but if yes but I mean look at that one that's mixed there's one or two where it's six weeks over yeah there's outliers but that'll be but you know if you double the next line we're 46 below but the advanced life support one there that we wouldn't even be close on that one those are the Manhattan numbers right

the Lifesaver ones absolutely all right I agree well does anybody are we ready to make a motion tonight or do people want to sit on this or some are we and don't forget I think in 2019-ish the ambulance Revenue was put back into the general fund so all this Revenue it goes back into the general fund which goes back to the towns right right and your discretion shows up in the Rev and the revenue it's not a line item for the fire department to spend again right it completely goes back to undesignated for you all so it does in theory go back to the township yep [Music]

looking for something on this today when were you looking to adopt this was this something you want to be it was my suggestion again it's not time sensitive so if you need more questions answered I know we brought it up before and of course we took some time because it was budget season I was looking tonight if you all make a

motioned on my recommendation to double our fees and then I can handle it from there if there's other discussion or questions we can do that so I uh I'm going to make a motion to double the fees double fees for the Durham fire rescue and my reasoning is is part of that uh unless you're only wait for discussion but yeah what actually is there a second all right Rich seconds okay go ahead all right so so as part of that discussion um you know we've been hearing a lot about people paying attention to their finances so I get what you're saying uh but I do also get what the chief says about the buy and beware Everybody is watching their expenses and what books really closely they typically know their insurance is very well and I I get it there are some much Liars that don't um that don't um you know that need help figuring that out and I have to assume that those folks do get the help from family or

friends to figure out their their billing Cycles I I I think we are behind the times I think the fee structure in the town has been below average the entire fee structure which I think is another item that we've we've discussed recently um that um you know we need to just at least get up to somewhere close to the average um not um not marketably below the average

kind of my my two cents on it any other discussion or I I was kind of stopped when when you mentioned the double taxation uh but then I realized I haven't utilized it for the years that I've lived here uh and so I'm sub I don't it's the same way it's not fair to double tax that's you know we're subsidizing talking and brought to the hospital and and I don't want I don't think

it's already been mentioned a few times [Music] comment got me thinking but I you know I I would be in support of double in the fees because I think it's recouping the usage um and that's not necessarily what's being taxed my question though was you're not talking about adding fees for the last two items were the charge is zero right correct and those are we do not offer those okay

um those are like transfers we've talked about that yeah right from the hospital to home that's usually private ambulance um I know Mid Coast is in contracts with people that will do that from the hospital if you can't drive yourself home or have a family member that type of stuff we don't offer that so correct the last two that you see on that um okay we don't offer so it's not a concern yeah the only thing I would add on the double taxation thing is that you know I I completely get that and I guess the way I look at it is that you know the tax revenue gets you to a point right and then

you it's it's it's not unlike trash tags right if like everybody pays like kind of a base fee for the trash but if you produce more trash you pay a little bit more because you're putting cost onto the system and so you got to buy a trash tags so it's kind of similar kind of okay what's that okay yeah

it's 8 30. all right any further discussion on all right all in favor of authorizing the chief to uh double the current uh ambulance fees date when it would start I I don't um again it's it's not time sensitive so that is filling out some forms making sure I have the right signatures um and getting hold of our billing company so I and I don't know their lead time but it's I I hear it but it's it's not like something somebody can plan for because you don't know when you're going to need an ambulance ride right you know you might get a discount if you go to the next 48 hours but after that you won't be paying details

in the store how's that all right all in favor all right five zero thank you Chief thanks for patience with that walking us through it no very important yeah appreciate everyone to angle thank you for all the uh guys doing all their jobs out there guys

40 degrees that's the coldest fire I've ever been to yeah in a very long time uh we did break some stuff but I think every fire department did yeah um and they needed our help so we shouldn't have fires at 40. yeah that was my consensus that was enough that was a 10-hour day for all the volunteers so yeah at that time that was just crazy all right thank you Jesus thank you all right so 7A was the one we added to the agenda that was um just discuss if we want to put a an article on the warrant asking the town if they want to reduce the budget committee membership from nine to seven um and we would reward that in a way where we would elect two members instead of three and 24 and 25 and it wouldn't impact any current members you know they they're you know nobody's going to have to end their term early or anything like that but it does say if someone does end their term early by resigning or whatever that we

wouldn't fill that scene we just leave it um and so the mainly for the benefit of somebody who might be watching this meaning later you know the the reasons for proposing This And discussing it you know have nothing to do with current budget committee members or the role of the budget committee nothing about the role the budget committee would change it's just kind of a recognition of the reality that we're having a hard time filling nine seats and that there are other committees that exist now that need that we need people for um that we also have a hard time so there's a there's a limited number of people willing to step forward for any of this stuff and to you know have like nine slots taken up by the budget Committee just seems a little out of balance you know this board is five planning board is five CIP committee is five um you know that's and then oftentimes there's a couple of alternates

um but you know bringing it down to seven it would still be the largest Committee in town um that would be at least a little bit more in line um and their mission is different now you know in 1933 or whatever where the budget committee was formed they were probably actually writing the budget you know doing the financial piece they were probably dividing that up because we didn't even have Town administrators back then um you know the board and committee's board appointed like did all of that stuff yeah um yeah yeah their role was quite different yeah so that was kind of the impetus for putting it out there I had asked you guys if you wanted to discuss it you all said yes and so here we are [Music] yeah I mean I I mean I did take a look it was kind of funny because I was I was just doing some research on on um you

know selectball itself and I was looking at some older paperwork that came through and it has you know I'll say I had Kevin's name on it from almost 10 years ago or it must have been a budget committee right and then and Mill's name was on there so you see this like you say the same names get rotated around these committees continuously over a 20-year span right even with the folks that were here when I first joined the the planning board there's a number of us still here rotating through you know 15 years later doing doing other jobs or sometimes the same job and go back you know I I look like Alan Puritans done a number yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah every committee and board uh just about um that I know of um so yeah it's it's I think it's having spreading spreading having a couple of those people maybe get interested in something else that would be a good thing yeah and this year there's three open seats this year but

there's only uh two um names on the ballot so and that's the way it's been really the last several years you know this you know so some people might I'm trying to think if there's been a year that we haven't invited somebody I don't well notice or written in written in yeah yeah yeah um I don't think their husband yeah I cannot remember a time when there were three open seats and three people submitted uh nomination papers for that you know and so you know you might have people like get up and say oh my God you can't do that you know whatever but the town is telling us that is not the interest to fill nine seats so what what do we really need nine yeah I don't think it diminishes the product no at all you know say that you get more efficient well the process yeah the process is still possible right right so I I don't know I don't know obviously it's up to the people of the town I haven't I I certainly think it's worth

posing the question yeah yeah that's and that's really all we're deciding it's not up to us it's like do we want to put it out for a vote or not the people in the town can say I think it's worth posing the question based on the history of the lack of participation for lack of better words foreign [Music]

like CIP grabbing you know somebody I'll say mandatorily getting somebody from the budget committee be on CIP yeah all the time so they have that upfront uh Viewpoint of of I'll I'll say all the questions yeah that's that's a good idea you start bringing these people in earlier into the you know we've talked about that and we always get into this as everybody describes it the rush at the end but if you stop pulling some of these key members into those other committees earlier it's really not that much more time to spend to look at it you know five months four months in advance if you're doing it at the right time in August yeah this year was a weird one but um and there's more pressure oh sorry I thought yeah no no that's fine and then that would make you know again that would help things help and there's more committees coming is what I was going to say that's true too George has talked about putting together

an ordinance committee I Know Rich is going to be first in line for that one and um we've been talking for a while you know the board is about the church the trying to put together a committee to figure out what to do with that buildings committee yeah maybe it's that I don't know but anyway so we've talked about that a couple times yeah is there is there anybody who doesn't think it's a good idea to at least put it on the question on the warrant and ask I'd rather be talking about having too many people but I I think you're right for me it's the same people and uh you know not here but I didn't

apply to be on any of these boards because in my former where I used to live uh you know it was a popularity contest and it you know and I was told essentially you know through a third party basically you know I'm going this way because of the you know the political benefits for me and that's why I'm appointing this person so that turned me off from even doing it here uh but we see the same people

but I you know to me it's the same people and I think foreign formulating committees because you can formulate all the Committees you want but if you don't have the people to staff them or if it's the same constant regime constantly making policy nothing

really ever changes in the town because it's always the same opinion is there a policy against being on multiple I mean you see people on the planning board the budget committee you know there's in there's a couple of Inc things that they call like incompatible offices and state law like you can't be on planning board and select board at the same time I don't think or board of appeals and planning board obviously at the same time but there are many of them um you know for like I'm assuming you're only on select board and budget committee actually you can you can see because the thing about budget committees is that budget committees barely even exist in state law there's they're like hardly in the text of Statute at all they're kind of a a leftover from older town meeting days and um when they actually did the budget yeah exactly and so the only thing it says the state law says is that you know if

there is a budget committee then um their recommendation for anything that involves spending money uh needs to be on um the warrant right so but you know [Music] um you know you don't have budget committees and where they're the only place you have budget committees really is where you have town meeting still in person town meeting and then um it's kind of in a lot of it's evolved into like Finance committees that have actually more like Financial expertise and actually you know do a lot of that type of work but um so anyway but you know we still have the

um got what we got so [Music] um so I don't think we need a motion because we're gonna I think we'll just you know we'll we'll send you the text the question and included in the draft warrant that we're going to vote on on the 14th and um that'll be part when we officially vote on put it on the article if we weren't sitting here we didn't have a consensus 5-0 consensus sitting here then yeah we would we would do it but would that change the term well that's just curious there's no little term limits he's saying that the numbers

committee members no it would still be it would still be three years I mean just like it is for us you know some years you elect two and there's one year I think it's Rich's year that you just select one okay so like next year so Todd and I are up this year and neither one of us are running again but there are two people that did put in papers so um there that you know good chance that's what it ends up but next year there's only one open seat so and the budget committee would be this a similar they'd probably be like three three and would be three three and one or three two two and three it kind of depends yeah it kind of depends on how it falls out yeah it would be two two three I think it depends on like if somebody resigns like just because you can just because you legally can be on the budget Committee in the select board at the same time I don't necessarily think that's a good idea but that's you know

it's nothing legally to stop somebody from doing that there's really no conflict doesn't they tend they don't make any decisions they make a recommendation and they you know can articulate their recommendation at a town meeting but they're not it's not like the planning board that is a quasi-judicial right board that actually makes decisions that we don't have any power over that a lot of people don't understand that um you know or um yeah or anything like that I guess that's really the best example board of appeals would be similar yeah so all

right okay so moving on then managers report yeah don't a couple things um talk a little bit about um they've been doing good we uh yeah Jessica was out on vacation Devon and Kimberly stepped up they alternate days because uh Devin goes to school on Monday and Wednesday and Kimberly comes in on those

days and Devin's in on Tuesday and Thursday been run on the window it's a good plan it really worked out well right so that's awesome yeah um they picked it up pretty quick so that's good they've been working hard especially Kimberly on Putnam Town annual report together there's there's a lot it's been it's been really busy in here the last couple of weeks getting everything put together and uh there's a lot to us so yeah just shout out to them for being patient and putting it to putting it all together it's great it's going good um the only other thing I had so that I just need some I'm pretty sure I know what to do here but Calvin's truck so

you know 220 89 and then we raised 21 9 11. okay so long story short is we have 71 7185 left does that go back into his Public Works Reserve this is for the truck yeah for his truck so what do you mean so what do you mean so part of the money was was transferred out of Public Works into what to to pay for the truck but now there's 7 000 coming back I don't well that's the part I'm not following well so we transferred on a public works reserves to pay for this chart 220. we have we authorized that right so if you didn't actually take it out to pay the bill like if you only did so where's the 7000 coming back there was other money out of the general right and we when we raised 21 we've raised a total of 242. to pay for the truck well well not really between the two so you raised 20 21 90 right and 220 come out of his right but what I'm saying is that that shouldn't if you didn't need the whole 220 then

the whole then then 213. 213 should have come out right that's what I'm saying that's just what the the warrant said when you when the town meeting vote so we we paid for it we paid right for the so the total on the warrant come to 242 242 000 between what you asked the voters for right okay the truck come to 234 8 15. so there's 7

185 left from that amount right so it's so the money but so that so basically on when a capital expenditure warrant article basically is an up to authorization right right so um if you didn't need the whole 220 you just spent 213 then that seven never left reserves right right right that's basically I mean yeah there's on there's an unspent column spent appropriation yeah so I 21 gets spent first yes the raised money yes

six 21 has to be spent first right that 7 000 should show is still being in result it's just the way it's set up the thing is you you appropriate it right because that's what you do because it was actually last year and we just got it this year so the show that it was transferred out and appropriated for the truck yeah but then there's another column for unspent appreciation right and that's the 71.85 that's what I'm getting back in yes yes that's awesome

and that's the same thing and I just want to make clear because there was some folks saying that the municipal reevaluation that we took all the sixty thousand okay that got put in the operating budget last year okay typically when that's on spent it goes back in undesignated it probably never should have gone into the operating no because there was a student as a capital exactly so again I'm just putting that back in under the unspat so it's not missing we're just putting it back yep okay yep gotcha and now I believe and it needs to go back into the account it came from so for instance and actually if because if the all the capital questions are successful this year you're going to need to set up a new Reserve account specifically for the full valuation because that's how that's it's that's what we're saying is we're setting we're reserving 60 000 this year and maybe I think it was a 60 uh and then it's probably going to

take two or three years to build up what we need right so you're going to need a new Reserve account right where we're saving the money for the full Market revaluation right so that sixty thousand though I believe that's going to go back into the municipal capital okay right exactly that doesn't go into the reserve right we can we can at a future town meeting you can you can propose that but just like you could trans you could propose to transfer money from undesignated to the revaluation Reserve fund you know but yeah then you just shipping dollars right at that point yeah right so

I'm right that's that's that's all I got for the this two weeks all right not much have changed okay um consent agenda just has the warrant in minutes I would entertain a motion to accept a consent agenda as presented so moved by Josh we have a second from Joe all in favor okay and upcoming meeting select board meeting March 14th and March 28th 6 30 here at the Town Office plenty board tomorrow night at 6 30 at the Eureka Center and historic district Commission on March 9th at six o'clock here at the town office and do we need an executive session tonight no no entertain a motion to adjourn make a motion to adjust your Joe moves Josh seconds all in favor or adjourned okay don't leave without signing the warrants though Joe thanks for hanging out