TranscriptJanuary 26, 2021 ~ Select Board Meeting

good. All right. Uh, good evening. Uh, I'm going to call this meeting of the Durham Board of Selectmen to order on January 26, 2021. We are still in the remote Zoom format. So, I will call a role of board members uh to confirm that everybody can hear them. So, board members, when I call your name, please say something so that we can do that. Rob Hanto

here. Todd Bully. Yes, sir. Mark Faren here. Rich George present. And I will I'm here as well. So there we go. Five board members. We have full attendance. Okay. Any amendments to the agenda from uh board members? when we get to the warrant discussion, uh George, our town planner, is going to join us for a bit and because there are a few um land use ordinance questions um proposed. So I asked him to join uh just in case board members had any clarifying questions on that. Um so we may take some of the warrant articles out of order um up on that.

Is there anybody here? Oh, actually Kevin, I did have a question. Um, well, maybe it'll come up during the warrants or during uh Calvin's report about road postings. Yeah, I don't have that on the agenda uh for tonight. Um, but we if you want to add that to the agenda, I mean, we can't make any decisions tonight because we got to go through the whole public hearing process.

Yeah, I think maybe we'll just cover it under uh Calvin's report, talk about next steps. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Um, anything else before I move on to public comment? anyone here that would like to uh address the board? on or anything. Give it another second.

closed for the remainder of this meeting. Action and discussion items. Um the ongoing email changeover request. Um we have someone from our is vendor BEK here. Uh uh David, I don't want to butcher your last name. How do you say your last name?

It is Blay. Bethle. So, David David Bethle is here um to kind of talk about uh um thought on our email changeover. Ruth, is there some specific proposal we should be reviewing and reacting to here or is this just an open Q&A for board members?

Uh it's mostly an open Q&A for board members. You guys seem to have a lot of questions that neither Tammy nor I could particularly answer. Um, and so I thought it would be good to have David here so he could he could answer all your questions.

Okay. Anybody want to start? Ruth, we we haven't made the decision whether we're going to go with like Google off uh Google Suite or whether we're going to go with um Office 365 or whatever they call it. Now, the only decision we've we've made so far is that we applied for the.gov. So, we have applied for uh durmain.gov. gov. Uh I haven't gotten anything back from them, but you know, it's only been a week or two

and uh and so no, the decision hasn't been made and maybe David can talk about the difference between the two and why you would choose one over the other and and what the cost difference might be. Yeah, that would be that would be a great place. earlier discussions that's what it's centered around David is you know office 365 versus Google and the expense and service associated with each

and the challenge to me is I apologize I didn't expect pricing questions because I I don't have Google G Suite pricings um I can say that historically they are less expensive than office 365 we've been told that at least Ruth has passed along that that BEK even even though it's a little bit more money re uh recommends the Office 365 suite. Could you tell us a little bit about why that is the case?

The biggest difference between the two is reliability and security. Um I'm not [clears throat] sure if people are familiar with the 99.9% up times and that's what a lot of your cloud vendors now are all shooting for. um the platform that Microsoft has been hosting their Office 365 software on and

Exchange services which is all it is in the cloud. Um is scaled across 17 different data centers. Um Google G Suite I believe last count was six or seven data centers. um and they're not reacting to outages until there is at least 5% outages across their entire um base of customers and

that includes business customers and residential. Um that's one of the biggest ones and and then security as well. Google is running with a single privacy policy and that's kind of what they layer on top of all of their G Suite um and their email product. uh Microsoft has that I didn't get the exact number of policies that they're applying to their email specifically and that includes you know um security policies is the biggest one and that's one of the biggest focuses with uh Office 365 over Gmail uh the the investment and there are no exact numbers and I I tried to look this up before the meeting. Um, but they're investing, Microsoft is investing much more money into their office. They're and actually the new name for it now is Microsoft 365, by the way. Uh, they're just dumping money into it left and right. They're gaining they have the market share as well. So, they're just trying to keep ahead of the the uh the

Google and that is showing in the reliability and the security of their product. Um those are the biggest ones and the rest of it you can get into familiarity but you can put Gmail on an Outlook client now. So that you know that that argument is kind of fading a little bit. Um but the ability to get Office to get your email from anywhere on any device very easily without the bumps in the road that Gmail can sometimes give you if you're trying to use it in an Outlook familiar an Outlook type client. So everybody kind of feels the same and there's not this radical change. Um, getting it on the web is really easy. Getting it on your phone is really easy. And those are my major talking points. And and I know Rob can speak to probably the other side, the the G Suite side more than I can because to be honest, our company's made that decision to just we're on the Microsoft trail and you know, as a as a business

owner um and the investment to juggle multiple products, I had to make a decision and that's what we went with. So, you know, Rob, I don't know if if you wanted to give us some pros and cons on the G Suite side of things. I can talk a little bit about it and um just so everybody knows here that uh David and and Beck are they're who I use for my IT services at the Brunswick Sewer District. So I'm very familiar with them and uh you know I made the decision to go with Google uh probably 11 years ago. Um and at that time office didn't even really have a 365 option. um you know so I I haven't used the Outlook format and honestly I didn't even know anybody still used an Outlook format type email but um that went away a long time ago. So you know that is an advantage I guess but um but like you said that's kind of that's kind of fading. Um as far as cost go I looked it up. I mean we can get the basic plans uh which offers 30 gigabytes

of storage per user per month for I think it's uh six bucks a month. I just looked it up on Google and then the next step up is $12 per month per user. Um, you know, the thing about Google at the time was that it was e very easy to set up. Um, no offense to the IT guys, but you don't necessarily need them to get to get up and run running. And I found Microsoft to be much more cumbersome. But with that said, Google has become uh more difficult over the years as it's gone to this enterprise level uh client and and this management style. And I actually use I know David and those guys have gone with Microsoft, but I still use them and and his staff all the time to help me with my Gmail stuff. Um if it's something I can't figure out. So, you know, I know I think whichever one we go with, I think they would still be able to support us. Um, is that correct, David?

Oh, yeah. It is. And the the biggest part of this we have to consider is the migration to whatever platform you decide to go with. You're event you're going to have to uh get your current email up to whatever platform you guys are going with. And we can we can help out with either one. We can do it on both sides.

Yeah. So, honestly, and then do you have uh what do you know the pricing for Microsoft products? uh the business class email which is um just email 50 gig mailboxes um web- based email um I'm going through the list because Elizabeth is very detailed um shared calendars and shared contacts is $4 per user per month.

Yeah. knows it goes up and up and up from there where you can add in the applications, the software and all that good stuff. Yeah. So so that's kind of where we run into the issue is a lot of people still use the word, you know, the office suite products, Word and PowerPoint and so forth. And if you're going to continue using those products, you're you're going to save money going with the Microsoft 365 because buying the desktop versions is is quite expensive. Um, so like what I've done at work where I actually have both, I have a Microsoft account and a Google account just so I can keep that Word and PowerPoint, but I didn't do it for the entire staff. There's just a few of us that have that. The rest of us use G Suite, Google Docs, Google Slides, stuff like that. So, um, so, but I think it does come down to a comfort level. Like David said, Microsoft had the market share for years. People are comfortable with

PowerPoint. People understand Word and Excel. Um, so if we're going to continue down that road, it's pro that's probably the way to go. What's the pricing with um with the subscription to office? I don't think we quoted that one, but last time I checked it, it's somewhere between 12 and $20 per person. I believe the 20 is if you wanted to wrap in a phone system to it, which not many are doing just yet, but that's the next step for these guys. So it would be the same as the midlevel Google which includes the two terabytes of storage and so forth. So

um so I don't know if staff you know if Ruth has any input on this and you know that is something to consider. Is staff going to have a hard time switching to um like a Gmail based or are they Outlookbased? What's what's the word there? I I think that as long as you know there's a there's a icon on your desktop and you hit it and the the email comes up um I think that's fine. You know uh we're used to Word and Excel. I don't really see that that you know it would be worth us changing over to Google as far as that's concerned. For one thing, they don't they don't have an Excel like a spreadsheet platform, do they?

It's called Google Sheets. Yeah, they do. Okay. I've never used that one. I've used the Google Word stuff. Um, yeah. The other question I had for you, David, too, is, um, as far as email retention, um, what what kind of things do you suggest for your clients as far as email retention? That's been a concern of mine over the years.

Yep. There are. Now, that's the again getting back to the cloud overall. There's always little gutches in these things. So, if you got just the base business class email for $4 per user per month, there is no retention, there is no security, there's no anti-PAM, um anti-malware, um uh scouring those emails as they're coming in and out. Um, everybody has a product for it. We have settled on, people may have heard of Barracuda. Uh, they do a lot of security stuff. We've landed on those for an email security product where it layers in anti-PAM, anti-malware, and you can encrypt emails if everybody's had fun getting encrypted emails and trying to remember another password. Um, but additionally, it gives you a 10day email retention. So, um,

even if you delete an email, you could still have 10 days to get it, recover it, and that's a $150 per person per month, per mailbox. So, that would make it about the same as the $6 per user business starter that Google has.

Yeah. Does Google have any of that retention or anti-PAM stuff in it? I'm not sure. Uh, it does. this the spam is built in and then the it says on this page I'm looking at right now it says security and management controls. So I don't know the depth or if it's a you know Google usually handles that stuff in house but um you know and I've been and like I said I've I've been using that uh brunwick sewer.org for 10 years and never had an issue. It's It's fantastic. As a m actually Google had its first outage, I think ever that I've known about and it lasted about 18 minutes. I thought my staff was going to melt.

Um but that was the first time in 10 years we were down. So um anyway, so I guess I guess the question would become if we're talking just the email at this point, I guess it doesn't matter either way. Um, but if in the future we're going to look at a uh going more with the business suite type stuff, you know, maybe it makes sense to I'm not a Microsoft fan, but it may make sense to go that way. You know, I'm trying to leave my personal judgments out of this, but it's just a familiarity thing. And then if you're sending stuff out to your, you know, your your residents, I don't know. And it's it's a mix everywhere you go. There's there's a pretty firm line between your Google people and your Microsoft people.

Yeah. Yeah. So, I think it seems like the office staff is more comfortable with the Microsoft products. We we use Microsoft products. None of shaken. So, yeah. None of the people I work with in the office use any Google.

Okay. I did. I thought everybody used Gmail. [clears throat] Once in a while you see Comcast like my grandparents still have Comcast emails and that's about it. I think our email Comcast email Rob. [laughter] Oh, there you go.

Emails are going to have our.gov domain after them anyway, right? So, yeah. So it won't it won't really be apparent I think to mo to someone getting an email whether we're using you know Google or Outlook. I I kind of I'm kind of where Mark is that you know if if the email is roughly a wash but the comfort level with the office staff is more towards the Microsoft suite it it probably makes sense to stay there. And I think you know um Microsoft feels a

lot more stable at least over the next few years as a company than Google. I think Google is um in for a rocky road in a lot of aspects in their business model over the next few years. Um I don't know if that would impact, you know, kind of this core business function type stuff, but um yeah, we don't you don't really hear much of Microsoft is just kind of out there steady doing its thing, whereas Google's kind of in the news lately. But um so Ruth, do we have any idea how long it's going to take to get that.gov um domain approved?

I don't off hand. I can try and give them a call um and see if I can't get any more information. Yeah, because if it's going to be weeks, we may need to rethink that and go [laughter] something where we can make a quicker move because I don't I don't I don't think we won't I think we need to make a move as soon as we reasonably can.

It was supposed to be a twoe turnaround from the time that we submitted it about that now. Maybe we'll see. Um Okay. Thank you, Tammy. Y yeah. So, and then once once we get the.gov, then David, who is is there actually a server that hosts it? And and is it our server that's going to host it or is it a cloud server that hosts it?

I wasn't part of your getting that domain. I'm assuming you guys had to do it being the entity you are. Who are you guys going through? Is it register.com or something like that? Well, right now we're just getting the um permission to use the.gov. Um and then we have to do um we were going to go with godaddy.com, but if you have better um suggestion, you know, to host it and then and then we would uh go that way.

Yeah. No, I mean they're all pretty much the same. So GoDaddy is they do a great job. So you would be registering that domain at GoDaddy and it would be sitting on their servers in the cloud and then we would go up you would have to give up you would have to give whoever is setting up your email access to that domain so they can go up and do all kinds of geeky stuff in the background to make sure email goes where it needs to go.

Okay. And then when you're switching over a whole email system, how long do you usually keep the old emails and forward things uh to the new emails? doing this. Our process is we're copying all of your emails up to the new

Google or to Microsoft. It's all happening in the background. It's making these copies and it's sending out updates to yourselves. is also sending out out up outdate updates to us saying, "Hey, everything's going great or we're having these issues. We tweak it." Um, we can set the range for that migration to be anywhere from one week to three weeks depending on how much email you guys have. Um, and then once our software is telling us, hey, everything is moved up here, we pull the trigger and everything just stops going to your current email provider and then is all 100% Office 365. So, it's kind of invisible to you guys for the most part and nothing is kept because what's happening is we're verifying as we're going along that everything has moved over. So, so what happens when somebody sends an email to my old email address?

Goes to your new email address. Yep. We would set up forwarders they call it. Okay. apologize. Um, you would set a timeline for that. Hey guys, how long do we want to forward emails for you? you know, being a a government entity, I'm not quite sure what if there's any um requirements for you guys to keep that old email address running for a certain amount of time. But emails wouldn't ever hit that old server. It would just be pushed directly to your new one. We would add it as a domain underneath your new Office 365 or Gmail account. Okay?

[clears throat] No. So, I'm thinking that maybe the next step, Ruth, might be uh in preparation for our next meeting to kind of put a you know, kind of based on everything we've talked about so far, a one pager that kind of details the proposal and the um [clears throat] expenses and then the board would vote at our next meeting to approve [clears throat] that and move forward with the transition and hopefully we'll have the domain all wrapped up by then.

from October which has expired, David. So you can look at that one. Um, I thought that that was pretty um all-encompassing of what we probably would want to choose from. me to send another copy or No, no, no. I still have a copy of it.

Okay. But I assume you'll have to renew it when we want to um approve it. And if obviously it's changed, you'll have to let me know. Yeah. Yeah, I think I'd like to get everything kind of staged and set up so that that when we meet next that's kind of like okay, go and then like it we pretty much um start the work the next day. So

yeah, I'll have Elizabeth update and send you a a refresh copy. As I'm looking through it right now, I'm not seeing anything that would be a major change. So Okay, great. Any other questions for for David? for uh for joining us tonight.

My pleasure. Thank you. Give us a shout if you have any other questions. All right, thank you. Take care, David. Thank you. Okay, next [snorts] on our agenda is town warrant. And this and on share on the screen. We'll just kind of go through it as we um

Yep. I think that would be a great idea. Yes. Yep. All right. So, oh, so we'll start with the first f four articles. Um, obviously there's so, so first of all, actually, let's start at the top top because um, Becky and I had talked about when we wanted to do it. Uh, and generally there are elections on the Friday previous to the town meeting on the Saturday. Um, and so we kind of looked at each other and talked about it and we thought maybe it would be best just to do the election on the Saturday. Um, and so I'm assuming that you guys are okay with that Saturday and April.

Well, I think we should talk about that because I'm not I think we should talk about a f a a weekday versus a weekend. Okay. Um that's um what what do people think? Board members, what any any thoughts on doing it Friday the second versus Saturday the 3?

on Tuesdays? Uh not for the town meeting vote. It's usually on Friday. The Friday before the town meeting. What about when we do the school referendum? Those are usually on Tuesdays. Yeah. I mean, we're not bound to the Friday or Saturday. To Rob's point, it could be a Tuesday.

I mean, other than the meeting to elect our local officials in our before our town meeting, every other time we vote, it's on a Tuesday. I don't know why, but it just may be make more sense to people. But I honestly I don't really care.

Well, whether whether anybody personally cares or not, but what do we think would get us what do we think is best for the town and would get us the best turnout? Becky, is there any reason not to do it on Tuesday? I think she's here.

I'm getting there. [laughter] Can you hear me? Yeah. Um, well, I guess it would have put on the Tuesday because Well, it would have to be the Tuesday after. So it would have to be the April 6th I think it would be. Yeah, that would be the sixth. So I mean I don't see any issue.

It would just give us a little bit more time with absentee ballots because we'll have them at the beginning of March. You know, the the advantage we thought to Saturday is it less people typically work on a Saturday, so you know, maybe more would come out, but

a lot of people go skiing. True. [laughter] True. April. True. April, that April weekend will be one of the best ski weekends of the year. [laughter] That's what it looks like. Okay. So, probably three of us will be skiing.

So, April 4th is also Easter. I found that out today. So, Oh, we won't be away from that Saturday then. Yeah. Thank you Saturday. Yeah. I like the idea of going to the six. Give them a couple extra days for the ballots, too. But I'm I'm okay with that, especially with Easter weekend thrown in there. Um, yeah, I'm

so I'll need to talk with the Amvets because I did talk with them today to see if the Saturday was open and I want to say that they have stuff going on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Sunday. So, I'll call Ralph on Thursday and and make sure it's open. All right.

Okay. if for some reason the ambance isn't Tuesday, do we want a a backup of the Friday or we just kind of roll with it, change it if we have to? I think we have time. We can change it if we have to. Okay. If if uh if they come back and say Tuesday is not okay, I can just let you guys know. We can just have a really quick meeting maybe Thursday to to change the date.

Date. Yeah. Okay. So, George is here. Okay, great. Then, um let's go to articles um what is it? 8 through 11, something like that. Yep. So, uh, George the Barge, our town planner, has joined us. Thank you, George, on short notice for, um, uh, joining us this evening. So, there are, I think, four warrant articles on here that, and somebody's got to mute themselves because there's feedback coming through. Um, there's four warrant articles on the uh, excuse me, I'm trying to get my uh, bring them up on my uh, computer here that deal with um, work that the planning board has been doing to clean up ordinances related to uh, roads, homebased businesses, appeals, and some other miscellaneous stuff. So, um, I asked George to join us in case there were any questions from board members about what these were. um about um we're uh our role is we have

to actually vote to put the warrant on uh the article on the warrant and so in case you have questions then um now's your now's your opportunity. So do any board members have any questions for George on uh article 8 n 10 or 11? Oh yes,

article and seems like a big departure to me to me, George, from what we're doing right now. Huge huge departure from what we're doing right now. Well, well, both, I guess. uh uh the the thought of four different uh classifications of roads and uh

well let let me explain that as far as the classification of roads is really not that much difference to what there is now because right now you have a public road and a private road standard but the town is not really accepting any roads so it really makes more sense to classify it by whether it is a minor local street, a local street and then a third category for a larger road is uh is added to the to the ordinance subcollector standard. So the lo minor local and local are exactly almost exactly what you've got now and we're just changing it from public private to the the the type of road it is and how big it is. So the road classifications is not the big policy change. The big policy change deal with changes deal with um back lots. Uh the planning board

has reviewed this and and remember this is the planning board recommendation. Um I've been following their direction on what they want to propose to you and to the voters. So uh the back lots right now someone can do multiple back lots if they've got enough land. uh the planning board has seen uh some problems with that in two directions. One is that uh

you can put in a lot more lots than you could if you had to go to uh a subdivision review. So the impacts are pretty much the same. You're having in their perspective uh you're having unapproved subdivisions going in with the private road standards. So they're proposing to eliminate that and say anytime anybody's going to put in a private road with multiple lots, they go through the same process that everybody else does in terms of the subdivision review. On the flip side, if someone's putting in a single back lot, they got to put in a 20 foot ride wide road to serve that one house. So with the with the limitation on only one back lot for one single family dwelling, the planning board felt that and I have talked to the fire chief about it and he's comfortable with that if it's just a single lot going with a 16 foot driveway. So uh probably the biggest policy issue is the elimination of the allowance for

somebody doing a private road without going through a plane board review process. And that was a decision that this was ready to roll last uh February, but then the COVID hit and the town meeting got scrubbed. Uh so yes, this is and the way we've ordered these is the big policy questions are the upfront. So the biggest policy question is roads. The second biggest is homebased businesses. Uh and I could answer or explain those. And then the appeals process somewhat policy related but and then the final one of the miscellaneous changes really not a lot of big policy questions there. Did I answer your question on roads?

Well and a minor road is one one house. You go from up to 25 and then over 25. You're a subcollector road, correct? Yeah, they go Yeah, they based on how many houses are served by that. And the subcollector road is I think 24 feet wide versus 22 feet wide for a uh

local and 20 feet wide for a minor local. So, those are we looked at like all of the surrounding towns and those are pretty much the about what they all average. Yeah. Yeah. Well, driveway ordinance. There's nothing there.

Uh the only thing on driveways is the standards for the back driveway. uh other driveways to just a single family home lot. There there are no driveway standards other than the access onto the onto the road that that is regulated through uh the access management. I would think the fire chief would would uh like to do something about, you know, in the in the future having a driveway ordinance so you know to assure that you can actually get a truck into a house, you know.

Yeah, that that's an issue and many towns have tried to do that. It's a little bit uh intensive in terms of trying to monitor and manage that process. I agree. I agree. George, wasn't there some language in there about um that the

fire chief approval was required for certain things? I know like with was that just for the turnaround or was that for um the driveway serving a backlot itself? Uh do you want to turn my video on? I've got it on on my end. I don't know if people want to see me or just hear me or does that make any

Yeah, if you want to share your share your screen, Ruth, if you want to take yours down and let George share his screen. I I don't need to share my screen. There you go. You've got me. Good. Okay. Uh so um in terms of the fire

department concerns as I understand it um and you remember John Simino Kevin was involved in a lot of this and we kind of listened to he had a lot of background experience and so the concerns for the fire department as I understand it are you know to get get to a back lot you got to go back 300 feet minimum and so that [clears throat] was kind of a concern for fire apparatus emergency vehicle being able to get in there and there have been some bad experiences in town with trying to get into those places. So, uh the the concerns were how wide is it? How many vehicles are going to be using it? And what are the clearances? Um so, what's the width of the road? What's the clearance of the opening going down through there? If you got trees real close, that's a problem. Uh so, all of those standards have been added to the backlot driveway uh access. And so I did

meet I did met with the fire chief, discussed it, and his big concern was you would start out with a you know 16 foot driveway and all of a sudden you got five lots back there and uh and so that was his concern. So I think this provision or proposal has addressed his concerns and I did email him to let him know that we were going forward with this. So, if somebody if somebody does do a um they're doing their single back lot and at that point they can do the 16 foot wide driveway, but if in the future they want to do additional lots, that would uh change they would have to upgrade the road and they would have to go through a subdivision review process. Is that correct?

That is correct. Right. Okay. So, it's basically to uh it gets out of the um kind of backdoor subdivisions that happen with the a lot of these back lot um developments. And let me just clarify, look, a lot under the state subdivision law in a lot of towns allow someone to do what they call gift lots to relatives. And there is an exemption if you've owned the land for five years. And uh the I think the problem is for Durham is that in order to do that effectively, the road is is the big issue uh and the drainage and those sorts of things and your uh private road standards and process for approving them doesn't really effectively deal with the issues. So, I think you could, if you going forward wanted to put in some provisions to allow private roads outside of subdivision, um, you could do that. The planning board is concerned that you may not have the capacity from a staff standpoint. Uh, and certainly in the

ordinances currently, you don't have the appropriate standards to really do it effectively. So, at this point, they felt and the other concern they had is that there's no public process for reviewing these things. And again, you could incorporate that. Felmouth, where I work for many years, the priv planning board approves private ways and there's notice to a butters and you don't have to meet all of the subdivision standards, but what they're doing more and more is applying a lot of those subdivision standards even though it doesn't go through that full process. So, it's a it's a big issue. The planning board uh reviewed it, debated it, and this is where they ended up last year and what they're proposing for this year. Any

guess we'll take these one at a time. You could you could have a uh private driveway, you know, 600 ft long and have the same or double the problems that you have in a uh as far as fire trucks getting down it that you do on a back lot driveway. you know, matters how big the big the uh lot is. You know, I can think of many that are at least 600 ft long and

it's not a back lot like that is the lot and it's y a lot. Yeah. And the planning board wasn't ready to go to the issue of driveway standards other than the back lot getting it down from a 20 foot road to serve a single house. coming up with a reasonable and maybe going forward the town could look at this these standards for all driveways

I I don't think with all this stuff nobody's saying like this is like the final time we're going to look at this. I mean I think this is um a step in the right direction and there's you nobody's saying there's not more work to do. Um but it's a uh this and and some of the other thing they other issues they have on or proposing for the warrant have been some of the biggest issues that the planning dealt with in recent years. But any other questions on uh roads about the um the home business

article? Did anybody have questions on that one? Rich? Yeah. My question only comes in the form of it. It seems to to encompass. how um forefront is Kevin probably remembers and maybe some of you do as well was a was a homebased daycare and that just generated a lot of concern, confusion. Do you treat if somebody's just got a home daycare with six kids? Uh they're just going in their house, they're doing that, but when you get up 15 kids, 13 kids, uh all of a sudden is it is it more of a commercial business or is it a home business? And so after reading that issue to death over the last year, uh the planning board kind of said, look, in order for something to be considered a homebased business, it can't change the character of the residential property. So whether it's in an accessory building, if there are very strict limits on how much area you can use, whether it's in the house or whether it's in a garage, uh you know, a

lot of people put in a workshop in their in their barn. And uh so they kind of felt like it was appropriate as long as it's strictly limited in terms of how much space you can have, how many employees, and particularly outside storage and parking of vehicles. So what they did was uh they put in those limitations and these are the ones that can be approved by the code officer without a public hearing without going to the board. Anything beyond these very precise limitations uh has to go to the planning board for review just like any other business.

that. I just, you know, for example, it says up to 50% or 1500 square foot of the residence or or structures. That that seems like a lot for a homebased business where where typically a homebased business isn't um you know that that size or that somebody usually working an office or maybe they have a small workshop or something of that nature. Um, so it just it just seems to be a little bit like we're we're now taking a homebased business and we're wanting people to maybe build a, you know, garage or whatever it is out back to house a daycare or something of that nature.

lot of time on this policy. Uh, no, I understand that. And this is what they This is what they came. They've scheduled a public hearing for uh February 8th. [clears throat] Um and you folks may want to weigh in at that because they can still make changes.

Yeah, that's a good point there, George, because what we're voting on tonight is whether to just to put the question on the warrant or not. And the warrants are worded to refer to um uh I'm losing the word right now, but an actual draft ordinance. And so they have some time, a given amount of time um as long as it's a certain amount before the actual vote where they can change the text of the ordinance um that people would actually be voting on. So we're not putting the text the actual text of the ordinance on the uh on the warrant. So,

I guess I'm confused, Kevin. So, what what exactly are we looking at here? If we're if we're to approve this to go under a warrant, we're not we're just approving the the the heading. Well, I guess that that would be one way to put it. I mean, that and that's typical with ordinances. You you're you're you're referencing the draft ordinance. The question on the warrant is do you want to approve this um uh the

amendments to the ordinance as presented in exhibit whatever and that's the question the exhibit whatever and maybe Ruth you could jump in here that doesn't technically have to be finalized until I want to say uh 30 days

before the election because we have absentee ballots in this case. Is that correct, Ruth? Yeah. Yeah. So, we would need to finalize it so people would have a period of time to look at it. And actually, George would probably know better than me. I I think probably 30 days. You definitely want it before the absentee ballots go out.

Um maybe even a week or two before then. Uh can I clarify? I think what you're doing is you're looking at these are policy issues, for example, roads. So the question is did the board of selectman and and as I understand it you control the warrant and therefore if the planning board said we want to make all these big changes on roads and you said look we've got a lot of other issues uh kind of like the marijuana do we really want to put this before the voters at this time so to me as I understand it what you're doing is you're looking at is this policy for roads being changed at this point in time an appropriate thing to put on the warrant and if it because then you know the planning board has spent more than a year on it and uh and you feel like they've done their homework. There can still be some changes and that's part of what they're going to do a public hearing for on February 8th is to give public input on

this and if people are concerned with the road standards are too tight, they're too loose, uh the planning board is open to making changes before going forward and as long as you meet the statutory requirements that Ruth uh mentioned, you'll be fine. Yeah, it's really it's really not our role to determine whether we necessarily agree with what the planning board is proposing or not. Um it's more our role, as George said, is um is this the appropriate time, you know, for the town uh to be considering this and do we think that, you know, the board has done their homework and um whether we agree or not at least is on sound footing in in what they're looking for. Rich, did you have your hand up?

Yeah. And I I guess it's just my lack of knowledge or experience with the town as far as ordinances go. Um we've had a few of these over the years, but why wouldn't we do the public hearings, etc., and get all that knocked out before we draft an ordinance?

They they did they did have public hearings before the ordinances were drafted. And then the public hearing that comes now is once once an a warrant article is out there um you have to have a public hearing at that point as well.

We had we had public hearings on homebased businesses and so forth as of late. Yeah. The planning board they they've had uh public hearings in their meetings several times over the last Oh, in their meetings. Okay. But it wasn't like like we're talking now like after before disclos we're going to have a public hearing like we would do typically for a public hearing. We would we would send it out to residents andor you know the town to say hey we're going to have a public meeting on X Y and Z. I understand there's public discussion at their meetings but did they have a a notification and a public meeting like we we would typically do if we were going to change something? Well, that they will they yeah that will be part of the process but it is

right but it's after after this process is what well in this case depending I think they're planning on their public hearing Ruth is looking you guys are they looking at the first week of February February 8th it's scheduled already

okay so at that point if something came up in that in that hearing rich um they could make a change in their proposal that's what I was I was referencing earlier they they could change language in the text of the exhibit. Um, but the warrant article question would still be valid because it's referencing the draft exhibit. It's not verbatim text on the

warrant itself. So, there still there is opportunity coming out of that public hearing uh to make an adjustment. Yeah, George, I think part of the problem here is your schedule of your town meeting. I mean, this this is the end of January. the meeting is in April. Um, so it's not like this is like the last minute. The problem is you have to get your warrant approved in order to start the process very early,

right? So the planning board I think having a public hearing in early February for something that's going to be on a warrant for April is uh is very appropriate in terms of time for public to process it. Yeah. because people will be able to start voting in early March with the absentee ballots.

Really not that much time really. Yeah. I mean that's it's the same thing with budget. That's why everything is everything is pushed up like at least 30 days this year because of the um because of COVID and and having a ballot town meeting versus an in-person town meeting. So

what if there were changes to the a the ordinances? Would they have to have another hearing? or the board of selecting probably would be a question of how much change if you know right if it's a minor change you probably wouldn't if you had a major policy change say on homebased businesses. Yeah, because I think at this point at this point it would be

if it was a minor tweak that's one thing, but if it's a major policy, if it's a major change, then it's like at that point, well, it kind of is what it is. And so if if enough people feel that way, then they vote it down,

right? I just How do you know what you feel comfortable with until you actually I don't know. It seems the draft is on the web and is and is out there now for review. It's been out there for a while if anybody wants Okay. else. But

one? Um, amendments to the appeals process. one. I think the main change here is that the board of appeals can um essentially grant or deny an appeal, but they can't modify the action of the planning board. They would have to, you know, it it would have to go back to the planning board for review and further action. they can't um replace the planning board's judgment with their own. Is that is that fair?

That's the biggest change. It uh it really clarifies that what is the role of the board of appeals and many many towns uh it's very unusual to have a board of appeals that can that can hear appeals on virtually every board and I think it might even include yourselves

uh on certain issues. And so this says, look, if if a decision of a code officer or the planning board or anybody else is appealed to the board of appeals, the appeals board should not be secondguessing that group or that official that knows this. That's their job. Uh what they should do is make sure that that official or group followed the ordinances uh and based their decision on the record. And so that's the primary role. So if they found that the board didn't follow the rules, say the planning board provisions for a subdivision, then they have the option of sending it back to the planning board called remanding it.

Uh they can uphold it if they found that they followed the ordinances and and made a appropriate judgment based on the uh the you know the neighbors might not agree with the decision, the developer might not agree with the decision, but the board did their job and they followed the ordinances. um they can they can um overturn it uh completely if

they feel like the ordinance was not properly applied. In most cases, they're either going to send it back or they call remand it to do additional documentation. Uh but what they can't do, and this has led to some confusion, they can't say, "Planning board, we disagree with your position on the site distances on that road access. Therefore, we're going to approve the subdivision uh with a different site standard than you applied. That's what Kevin was. This takes away the ability of the board of appeals to modify the decisions of other boards, including yourselves.

A lot of towns go to district court and sometimes it seems that that would be more effective way of doing it sometimes. Sometimes it probably would be. this is is this kind of a catchall for a bunch of miscellaneous stuff? Is that how I understand that, George?

Yeah. The main thing is that we you overhaul completely the end use ordinance and the planning board's been working with it for a year and it's identified some changes such as requiring digital submissions so the doses can be posted on the website uh just clarifying some of the administrative procedures. So yeah, most of that is all that type of thing.

Yeah. Oh, and it did include the shoreland zoning. The D has approved it with one small one small change. And so that will then get it completely uh in cons in compliance with state law and shoreline zoning. Any other questions for George before I let him go?

you uh joining us on short notice to answer some questions and provide a little context. You're very welcome. Thanks, George. Thank you, J. All right, so given that discussion, I am going to move that we approve articles 8, 9, 10, and 11 as presented for inclusion on the warrant.

I'll second that. Second. Any further discussion or any discussion on that? indicate your vote if you're in favor of the motion or not when I call your name. Todd Buller, no. Rich George, Rob Panto, yes. Mark Farren, yes.

And I am a yes. So they will um the motion passes and they will go on the warrant. If um I will say if a member if a board member has a concern with one article, you could move to consider one of these articles separately and um then we could

have a separate vote on that if there was one particular uh article that you were concerned about rather than I mean my motion was all four, but if if somebody's got a con if it's a concern about one of the articles Um, we can entertain a motion to that effect if somebody wants to make one.

Yeah, I I think it should go to hearing myself. It is going There is a hearing, Todd. Yeah, I know. I know. And rest assured, there has been and there will be there will be a hearing. Yeah, I know. I know. Well, you say that it sounds like you said you think there should be. No,

no, this stuff, that's all. And I'm not sure a lot of people do. [snorts] the homebased business. I think it's I think it actually makes it even for me as you know somewhat of a lay person in this it just makes it very um I think I think it adds ambiguity like now we're taking it from a home base to an outside structure um which I never thought was the intent of a homebased business but evidently it you know like I said what do I know but that's my only issue with the the grouping is just really the the definitions and how they've determined the homebased business Um, everything else I didn't really have an issue with.

Originally, I believe it was supposed to be in the in the principal structure and somehow along the way it got added to any structure on the list. Yeah, I know. But it it seems like even with George, it seems like we're making uh one case study into the that happened in the town all of a sudden into a law. I just I don't know if I prescribe to that theory.

Yep. I agree. I think there's a lot there. motions coming out of that? Nope. Yeah, I'd make a motion that we remove the homebased business, that is article nine. So, Rich is moving that we So, is your motion that we not put article 9 on the warrant?

Yes. Okay. Is there a second to that motion? All right. Todd has seconded it. Is there any further discussion on the motion to remove article 9 um current article 9 with regard to homebased business warrant article changes from the warrant? Any further discussion on that?

this case, if you vote yes, that means you want to remove article 9 from the warrant. If you vote no, that means you uh want to uh you don't want to you want to leave it on the warrant. Okay. Todd Buller, yes. Rich George,

yes. Rob Panto, no. Mark Farren, no. And I am also a no. So, article 9 will stay on um the warrant. Okay. or any additional motions on any of these articles? to start. Um [snorts] again, sharing again. And we'll go we'll go back to the beginning.

Yep. Absolutely. So, one and two are normal. Three is Ruth, why would those be on a Why do we need a moderator to preside? There's no meeting. We still need a moderator to preside during the election. I know it's kind of a silly thing, but

Okay. Is there going to be a name filled in there at the time or Well, the in the last one that we did, we just had our warden serve as moderator. So, Gary, who was our warden during the last election, also served as the moderator. Okay.

It's it's just a a legal thing. Okay. So, number two is we're electing, you know, the municipal officer, school committee members, and budget committee members. Uh three is moving from the undesated fund balance, the amount that we were over on the solid waste budget in 2020. Um, article four is the one where we will vote to raise an appropriate amount not to exceed the 2020 durham municipal budget for any budgetical art budget articles not approved in this warrant. So that's the fail safe where you fall back to 2020 year uh if anything's not

passed. Y okay hold on. Let's stop take and vote as we go. Um, any anybody have questions on articles one through four? Pretty straightforward. All right. I'm going to move we approve articles one through four as presented for inclusion on the warrant.

I'll second. Mark seconds. Any discussion on that? Okay. When I call your name, please state your vote. Todd Buller. Yes. Rich George. Yes. Mark Farren. Yes. Rob Panto. Yes. And I am a yes as well. Okay. All right. So, then we're going to move on to the capital improvement articles. Um, and you'll see that it has the transfer of the $60,000 from the the capital fund for the purchase of self-contained breathing apparatus airpacked replacements. um the $30,000 to the fire department capital fund and the $30,000 for the public works fund. Sorry. Um and

okay. Um and you'll see that that uh on these articles, the select board and the budget committee um agreed on all three of those articles. Y any questions here? I'm going to move that we accept articles five, six, and seven as presented for inclusion into the uh warrant.

A second. Todd seconds. Any discussion? Todd Buller, yes. Rich George, yes. Mark Farren, yes. Rob Hanto, you're muted, Rob. Yes. Sorry, I am a yes as well. So, those will be on. we'll go past that. Uh, and then there were a number of fund warrant articles um on the warrant last year that got removed. And so, uh, you guys had asked me to put those back on. So, article 12

is just to do away with the old old home days. Uh, there's $59 in that fund now and it would just lapse into the undesated fund. Well, let's go through the fund warrant articles al together. Ruth, if you want to give a little explanation and then we'll circle back.

Yep. Absolutely. Um, you know, we can we can go this route or not. I don't know what you guys would like to do. you do need to use the snowmobile funds towards the snowmobile um club. Um that's a legal thing if there's a club. Um but I was going to um get rid of the recreation fund. So it used to be that the recreation fund included um the state park fees, uh the snowmobile fees, and the boat excise fees. And uh there are no state park funds any longer. Uh so that just leaves the snowmobiles and the excise tax. Um and so this article asks that uh we just do away with this fund um and any of the balance that's not appropriated laps into an undesated fund, which doesn't mean that we can't use the funds uh from the revenue for the excise tax uh for these these

articles. Um, it just would mean that it would not be a non-lapsing fund any longer. But it would still have revenue sources that can only be spent on recreation. Uh, just the snowmobile funds. Okay. just keep track of it as a like a balance on the ledger.

Well, yeah. It's it's like the excise tax uh goes towards the um public works department. Okay, it's the same thing. It's a revenue u appropriation. Uh this one, my only concern here is that um people may not understand this and they're going to think that by getting rid of the recreation fund that that means we're not going to fund recreation anymore. Um I am I am concerned about

that. Um I'm not I don't I'm not concerned from an accounting point of view. I think it's fine, but I am a little concerned about the public reaction to it. I was on the fence about this one, frankly. Personally, I'd rather see it stay as it is.

Yeah, I think I'm kind of there, too. Okay, that's fine. People are going to see that $6,300 and say, "Well, now it's in the regular fund. You're going to use it for something else." Right. Right. Right. it's going to be perceived.

Okay. Um so article 14 um this consolidates uh the municipal building account, the title searches account, the town office reserve fund and the parameulation into one fund, a new fund called the municipal capital fund. And that fund can be used towards any municipal building infrastructure equipment or vehicle capital expenses.

This one makes a lot of sense. Yeah, I think it's pretty straightforward, too. So, yeah. Yeah. Okay. Um, so article 15 is to vote to discontinue the practice of transferring the unspent department fire department operating funds. uh and uh those funds

would then go towards uh the undesated fund at the end of the year which would then leave the CIP process to determine uh the amount of money that should go in the capital fund. of these and then I'm going to bring it back for discussion to board members on if there's any of these that you have uh concerns about. So,

okay. Uh article 16 uh is the vote to discontinue the practice of transferring fees. So, all of the receipts, the revenue that comes in from the EMT rescue now goes into the the fire and rescue capital fund. Um and that is a town meeting vote. So, this would um change that and the funds would go into um well, they they'd go into undesated, but then that revenue fund can be appropriated uh for anything, but but specifically, it could be appropriated for the fire department operating budget as well as the capital budget. Um so, that's what that one's for. Okay. And then 17. So this is the same one as the fire department except for this is with public works. So it would vote to discontinue the practice of transferring the unspent public works operating funds into the capital fund. Um and so it would make the uh growth of the capital funds more um planned. Um, so you would be able to take what you wanted and uh

put it it on the the ballot and appropriate funds for uh the capital fund during a town meeting. And then article 18. Oh, I didn't I didn't include a little square box here, but I was going to. Um well, I guess it doesn't really need it. um so to see if the town will vote to discontinue the bridge account and transfer the balance of the bridge account into the capital fund for public works. And so we've carried this bridge account for for a long time, over 10 years, I believe. Uh we do own a couple bridges in town. Um,

Ruth, do we have you back yet? Okay. All right. So, moving forward, we have all the board members back. Um, fund warrant articles. So, this is uh 12 through 18. Was any one of those that board members wanted to have um had some questions on or um

discussion? Yeah. 13. Okay, let's talk about that one. The recreation fund. Um, I'm I'm with Todd. I I think I think we would create more headaches than we would solve if we uh if we got rid of that fund. Ruth's not wasting any time. Ruth, we haven't even voted on it yet.

We got to change all the numbers too, Ruth, though. What? You should change all the Yeah, don't worry. I'll change them as we go. Well, I think we need to make the motion to approve the numbers based on the draft, don't we? Oh, and you have to change I think there was a date on one of those. It referred to I think number

Yeah, Ruth, I wouldn't I wouldn't edit this now and because I think Rob is right. We're because our motions we keep making motions as presented. Um and then then if you know if the numbering changes that's fine after we're after we're done [snorts]

and yeah one of them yeah see 130 you were taking that out anyway so the date won't matter. Okay. So, right. Yeah. So, is there is there any uh board member that feels like they want to keep article 13 that wants to make an argument for keeping article 13?

fund articles that board members have uh an issue with that they uh don't think should be on the warrant that they want to talk about? move that we approve article 12 and articles 14 through 18 as presented for inclusion in the warrant. Is there a second on that?

I'll second it. Okay. Rich seconds. Okay. So, we're open for discussion. Um any con uh with regard to that motion? So, we're saying we'd put them all on except for number 13, which we wouldn't put on. Um leave the recreation fund alone. Um any other um questions or

thoughts or concerns on any of those other articles in the motion? a vote. If you're in favor of the motion, say yes. If you're not, say no. Todd Buller, yes. Rich George, yes. Mark Farren, yes. Rob Panto, yes. And I am a yes as well. So, we're 5 on that one. Okay, Ruth, I think this brings us to the budget articles

up high. to make myself busy here. Budget articles. Um, okay. So, the first one is the fire and rescue department budget. Um, and you'll notice that budget committee's recommendation is different than the select board's recommendation. And I did pass this by Jack. Um, and so the I think the cleanest way to do this is the select board recommendation, the budget committee recommendation um or neither recommendation which is required.

That's good. Okay. Uh, article 20, the select board. Hold on, Ruth. I said for budget, I think we should take we'll take these one at a time. Okay. So, on the fire department, you can see there is a difference between um what the budget committee recommended and what the board recommended. And I don't know, Milt Simon sent out some budget committee notes um earlier today. I don't know if folks had a chance to read them, but um basically their primary issue was in the labor expense. They felt that um they were basically wanted to keep labor flat with what it was in

2020. Um whereas our recommendation accounts for training coming back online fully and kind of getting on the other side of COVID and and funding normal operations. So that was um the essence of of the difference. so the there have been times in the past where we get to this point where um the select board has changed its recommendation to align with the budget committee. Um so if somebody's interested in that, they can make a motion that we change our recommendation.

So Kevin also just so you know, Jill raised her hand. Um, okay. Jill, what else? Okay, go ahead. What do you got, Jill? I just wanted to clarify real quick, um, that we wanted to keep it flat with what was approved in 2020, not just in that employment line because it was

30,000 more than what they actually spent last year. So, we thought that would be enough to cover for increased training, etc. Okay, thank you for that clarification. committee number is basically a is a flat flat fund to the 2020 budget.

approve article 19 as presented. Second. I heard uh Mark first. [laughter] So, any further discussion on that? the motion, say yes. If you're not, say no. Todd Ber, yes. Rich George, yes. Mark Farren, yes. Rob Panto, yes.

And I am a yes. Okay. budget committee aligned with um our recommendations. So we're both recommending the same amount. So I'm going to move that we uh approve article 20 as presented. Second. Rich seconds. Any discussion?

All right. I'll call for a vote. Todd Buller, yes. Rich George, yes. Mark Farren, yes. Rob Panto, yes. And I am a yes as well. Okay. Article 21 is administration. And here again, the budget committee and the select board are in alignment. So, I'm going to move that we uh approve article 21 for the warrant as presented.

Second. I heard Rob that time. Um, any further discussion on this one? All right, I'll call for the vote. Todd Buller, yes. Rob Panto, yes. Rich George, yes. Mark Farren, yes. And I am a yes as well. budget committee and the select board are in alignment. So I will move that we accept article 22 as presented.

Rob seconds. Any discussion? [clears throat] Call for the vote. Todd Buller. Yes. Rob Panto. Yes. Rich George. Yes. Mark Farren. Yes. And I am a Yes. Article 23 is our uh debt payments and what we owe for the various bonds that we have out. Uh again, select board of budget in agreement. Uh so I'm going to move we uh approve article 23 as presented.

I will second. Rob seconds. Any discussion? Call for the vote. Todd Buller, yes. Rob Panto, yes. Rich George, yes. Mark Farren, yes. And I'm a yes as well. All right. Uh 24 is okay. This one I think we uh I think Ruth missed or whoever typed this up missed that

at least right now the budget committee and the selectment are not in alignment on general assistance. Um right I didn't miss it actually Kevin I'm sorry I kind of was anticipating wishful thinking. Yeah. [laughter] Okay. Um, so on this one, the uh the budget committee, that's good, Ruth. The budget committee, um, typically we just do a

thousand in this every year and, uh, we rarely, if ever, spend that. This article is one that if there's a need to overspend it, you know, for general assistance, um, then we can just do that from undesated, you know, so if somebody's in need, we can help them. we don't have to have a special town meeting uh to do it. Um so given that

the budget committee said well then let's just uh raise you know what we've actually been spending in recent history and not raise extra. Um so that's where their $600 comes from. Um, and given that we can go back to the well if you if you will for funds if we have a greater need than this. Um, that's I think that reasoning is perfectly sound. So, I'm actually going to move that the board of selectmen change its recommendation for general assistance from $1,000 to $600. Um, still with $420 um, transferred.

I'll second. Mark seconds that. Any discussion on that? Call for the vote. I can interject. No, we've called for a vote. Todd Buller, yes. Rich George, no. Mark Farren, yes. Rob Panto, yes. And I'm a yes. So, it's four to one with Rich um being opposed. All right. On article 24, now we are in alignment with the um budget committee.

So, I am going to move that we approve article 24 as presented. Second. Rob seconds. Any discussion? yes. Rich George, yes. Rob Ponto, yes. Mark Farren, yes. And I am a yes as well. Okay. Article 25. Thank you, Ruth. Um, here the select board and budget committee recommendations are different. The difference is that the budget committee is recommending that we use $2,264

from undesated funds because last year we indicated we were raising that money uh to replace or fix a door and the work didn't happen and we want to do it this year. And um they they don't want to raise the money twice is is the reasoning. they want to um take that money from undesated that was raised last year. So that's that's the difference in the um recommendations.

to get it started, I'm going to move that we approve article 25 as presented. Okay, Rob second. So now in discussion, we can have a discussion on whether um if somebody thinks we should change our recommendation or not or just approve it according to the motion or any any discussion on this one. Rich,

I'm not really one for aligning with the budget committee. Not because I don't like the budget committee. I just think the two committees serve a purpose. Um and that's the only reason. I kind of agree with him on this one that if we've raised the money already then it's kind of like taxing somebody twice in my opinion. So I would be in agreement with the budget committee on this.

Okay. Yeah, I would agree with that. Mark a Todd does too. Okay. So hearing that um then we should um vote down uh if you if you want to make that change that Rick suggested then we need to vote down the motion. that's on the floor and then we'll um have a couple more motions to uh to take care of take care of things. So if

I have a question on that, Kevin, what's that? Rob, just have a quick question for Ruth or if she remember was there something else planned though for that money like it actually was for the door. Yeah. So So the back it's it's been an ongoing thing. The back door needs to be fixed. Yeah. Um, I I don't really know much about it. I think it's out of alignment and uh it needs to be squared up or something to that effect.

Do we have an actual though for this? Because I got a feeling we're not going to be able to fix it for the same amount of money we spent last that we budgeted last year. Construction costs are double in a year almost. I do not Todd might have a better idea about that.

That's my feeling. I don't think you're going to get a new door for $2,200. But yeah, especially a six foot wide door commercial. Um might get it fixed with something less than that. But yeah, um the trouble is I don't think the

I don't think the footing is real good underneath that door. I think the the floor moves so it messes up the door. I think the foundation moves. Uh, so that's why I have avoided doing too much with it because soon as I do, the foundation's going to move and go back.

I'm not sure what the I'm not sure what the uh fix is. Well, I'm um not we're not going to solve that tonight. So, I think No, we're not. No, I just My point is is I feel like we're going to cut the bud. We're not cutting it short because the total amount is still the same.

Y but that Yeah, that was all I was trying to get at. Yeah. And if we do run into um if we run into something more significant um that puts it into um a capital expenditure that needs to happen, then we have avenues to access capital funds during the year to take care of that. if it if it ends up being a bigger thing than um just you know a divorce. So

okay any any further discussion? The motion is to approve as presented. Um so if you don't want to do that um then you want to vote no on this motion. Okay. All right. Calling for the vote. Todd Bolier, no. Rich George, no.

Rob Panto, yes. Mark Farren. No. And I'm a no as well. Um, so that motion fails. So I'm going to move that the select board the transfer amount from $490 to $2,754, um with the total appropriation still $6,813 and approve this article for inclusion on the warrant.

Second that. All right, Todd second. Any discussion? Calling for the vote. Todd Ber, yes. Rich George, yes. Rob Panto, yes. Mark Farren. Yes. And I am a yes as well. Okay. So, we're in alignment on that one now. Uh telecommunications. This was the star of the show the other night. Um the uh

Yeah. And this this was the one. Um so the uh budget committee is recommending a lower expenditure here. The concern there and it's a valid one is that we are spending money in this account at a pace greater than the franchise fees are coming into the account. Um and we've been doing that for I don't know threeish plus or minus a couple years. Um there's also concern on the budget committee um that the whole concept of

franchise fees may not continue in the future with the next contract. So, um they want to be a little bit uh they want to spend less of uh here even though there's no tax impact this year to this account because the entire appropriation comes from a transfer of franchise fees. They just don't want to tap that account as deeply this year as originally proposed. So, that's their um

that's their uh reasoning. motion they want to I I'd move that we approve it as written. I'd second that. Okay, Rich. Uh, we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? of article 26 as presented, say yes. If not, say no. Todd Bolier,

yes. Rich George, yes. Rob Panto, yes. Mark Farren, no. And I am a yes. So, four to one on that one. appeals. Um I believe on this one Budget committee is recommending an amount that is a um 2% increase versus um this budget last year. Um, there's money in here for projects and they felt they didn't really have enough information on on like what specifically that money was intended for. Um, so they felt that, you know, a 2% uh increase versus what they spent last year um was uh was good enough. So

that's that's their reasoning for the number they they landed on. as written. in favor of the article as it is presented, say yes. If not, say no. Todd Boler, yes. Rich George, yes. Rob Panto, yes. Mark Faren, yes. And I am a yes as well.

I move that we uh article 28 is kind of is a legally required question. Um when you're uh anticipated tax levy is above a certain threshold. Um and so this is a question that's typically on the ballot. Um, we didn't have to do it last year because we cut a lot of money out of the budget because of COVID, but normally this is this is a budget the question every year. So, I'm going to move that we approve article 28 as presented.

Second. Second. Rich seconds. Discussion. Boler, yes. Rich George, yes. Rob Panto, yes. Art Faren. Yes. And I'm Yes. business articles. Ruth, any changes here versus what has been in the business articles in years past or are these the same group of articles?

Uh it's the same group of articles. Um the there is a change in the interest rate this year for delinquent taxes. Um last year it was 8%, this year it's 6%. And those are these are figures that are allowed by law. Um that's that by the way is the highest figure that is allowed by law. You could do from four to six this year

um is the the uh amount. And then there was one other Oh, and then the overpayment of abated taxes uh would be a interest rate of 2%. But that that question was on the All these questions were on the ballot last year almost exactly as is. Um the only differences are the percentages really. Then I'm going to move that we approve

articles 29 through 39 as presented for inclusion on the town warrant. Second. Rich seconds. Any discussion or questions from board members on these? Yes. Todd Buller. Rich George, yes. Rob Panto, yes. Mark Farren, and I am a as well.

And that concludes the warrant votes. Nice job, Kevin. Thanks. Yeah, good discussions. You you a little horse right now or are you good? I'm a little parched. Yeah. Have a cocktail. I'll drink my It is Seltza water. I assure you

there. Back to where we were here on the agenda. All right. So, we are to department and committee reports. Is the chief with us tonight? Yeah, I see his name there. So, right here. You are up, sir. All right. Uh, good evening. Uh, we just continue to work with our CO 19 response and preparedness. Uh, recent calls. Uh, we continue to have multiple call days. Um, starting off the year kind of the way we left last year. Uh, very busy. Uh, I also need to, um, specifically recognize the crews that responded this weekend uh, to the mutual aid fire in Lisbon. That was a long seven hours of, as I said in my report, the worst of New England winter firefighting. Um, and uh, not only the crews that were there, but the crews that stayed in town and covered. Uh, they they really put in a lot of effort that night. U, we're working on a project through our current budget to upgrade radios for our staff. Um, so all

members have uh have a a working radio. This is critical for fire ground and emergency scene operations. So, we're working within the equipment that we have and the budget that we have to get that reallocated and uh firefighter EMT Chris Higgins is put in a lot of work for that uh collab. We're also once again with the budget and within within the pandemic um limitations, we're reworking our technical rescue capabilities. Captain Salv has a lot of experience with both water rescue and and rope rescue. It's something the town's always provided, but it's it's one of those things that that can fall off the the map easily when there are other things that we have to do. Um, and so we've fallen off a little bit on that. So, he's reworking that um to kind of bring us back into compliance and alignment uh to increase our technical capabilities there. Um, this month training has just been focused on our our DO mandatories uh

that are done every year. Uh and we're currently hosting the Tri County Firefighter 1 and2 program. Uh we put a lot of work into working uh with the uh the leadership group from Tri County to make sure that we are operating appropriately once again within the pandemic confines. Um they're handling all of their uh student evaluations, you know, prior to them coming in. They're masking. They're cleaning the station after they use it. Um it's it's going to be a good working relationship for us and I'm keeping an eye on that to make sure it's run appropriately. Um the fire service review RFP did go out last week. Um so we'll be expecting some of those to come back here shortly. I'll be putting in uh for a fire act grant. Um I'll be bringing that to the board at the next meeting uh to approve. It's it's a it's a 5% matching grant. Um, this year we're going after uh a replacement for the turnout gear washer

and an improved dryer. Right now the one that we have is kind of the kind of the early model. Um, and we can do one set of gear at a time, but like when we come back with five guys with a set of turnout gear that need to be washed, that puts people kind of out of service for a day or so until that's done. So just looking to improve that for us.

You don't just do each other off afterwards. You actually got to wash them. Well, you know, they did that several times with the ladder truck from Lisbon. Um, and then once the ice thawed, we were we were doing okay. Um,

um, and finally, uh, because it's been approved, uh, to move forward with the CIP projects for this year, uh, I'd like to send out the SCBA uh, RFP ahead of time so we can kind of hit the ground running with that because in speaking with uh, some of the manufacturers, they're all behind um, because of COVID. So, the the sooner we're ready to go, the minute the budget gets approved, um the better off we'd be. So, I'd like the committee to review that and if we can get a discussion on that at the next meeting to get that approved, I'd appreciate it.

I I don't I don't I think we objective just go. Okay. We any money? No, we we have we have No, we have we have worded it specifically. So it says this this does this does hinge on the approval of the budget in April. So yeah, I I looked through it. It looked very thorough, well written. So I would say I you know I think good good to go

and and once again I have to thank Captain Salv. He put in he put in the work getting that put together. So Ruth and we'll get that out this week. Anybody have questions or for the chief or anything? [clears throat] All right.

All right. Thanks, Chief. Thanks, Chief. Thank you. Calvin, you're up, sir. Hello. I finished uh I finalized the budget uh and presentation this year. I I hope the uh I I've been working on with the engineer on getting the paving specs docks ready for the 2021 through 23 paving bib. Um he had the final draft today put together, but uh we should have that ready for next meeting for the board to review. Um we've been uh updating all of our diagnostic software, heavy equipment, trucks. They all seem to come due about this time of year and upgrading to the newer versions. um sending uh a mechanic to a freight liner in uh in Bangor, Freight Liner of Maine in Bangalore next Wednesday for some all day uh training up there for the software. Uh so crews uh have [clears throat] been busy training roads. In fact, it's snowing out now. They'll be out again here in a few minutes.

It is. Look out in your driveway. That's what I keep looking out the window for. [laughter] It's dark out there, buddy. The parking lot's white now. So, u [snorts] [clears throat] u So, we've been uh uh updating all of our SDS books, safety policies, uh getting uh those ready and trainings. The uh the new 2021 Wheeler is here. Uh it's going to be it's going it's going on its uh maiden voyage tonight. So, [clears throat] uh hopefully that uh goes well. Um the

uh [clears throat] and then finally the road postings. Uh I sent you the email. I've [clears throat] given you my my view. I know Rob wanted to weigh in on that. [clears throat] Well, well, my question is is so it sounds like it's just action of the board. We don't actually have to go to town meeting on that because we already have the ordinance in place.

Well, it's one of those uh powers that leg that that has been given to boards to protect their roads has been given to selects and councilors so that they don't have to go to town meeting. This is one of those one of those instances where getting that authority to protect roads and bridges.

Alan, I haven't been able have a chance to read through all while all you sent in detail, but in there do you did you provide a reference for you know the statute or or whatever that um provides that power to the board. Yeah. So, the I I've gone through the folder and looked at the correspondence back in 2012 that went back and forth between Jack or Curtis Weber was the attorney at the time between Janet and and he went back and forth. He made some amendments and that's the final version that was adopted by the select board and he starts right out with the statute that gives that authority. [clears throat] So, that's all referenced in there. It's all gone through the legal process. Okay.

So, I don't know how everyone else feels, but um you know, it's definitely I think you're right. We probably ought to at least have a public hearing before we make a final decision on that. Um, but definitely I I mean I walk Rabbit Road and I can see the stress cracks from the trucking now that Dugas has opened up his pit. And um and then you know other roads such as uh um I don't know, Davis Road's a tough one because I don't see many other alternatives. You know, they can go around Rabbit Road, stay on Route 9 and 136. But Plumber Mill Road, that's one that really doesn't need to have trucks on it and we just rebuilt it and there's no reason trucks can't stay on 136 or Route 9. So I think that one I would definitely say Rabbit Road and and Plumber Mill Road, you know, and obviously I live on Rabbit Road and I and it is personal, but um I can't deny

that. But I know I know know about roads and I walk it and I can to own it, Rob. Yeah. Yeah. I love it. But I, you know, and I'm I'm in favor of others as well. Like I thought about maybe Davis Road from Runaround Pond to Bowie Hill. So trucks could still go out from, you know, from Boy Hill Road out Davis to 136. But, you know, if they're going there's that's a possibility because they can go around um you know, they can go around the other way and come down uh Auburn Powell Road. So that section of Davis Road possible as well. But um that might be getting to be a but much. So

um Brunswick, so we don't have to worry about that. Old Brunswick's already posted, isn't it? Already posted. Yeah. sort of public hearing, but I don't think it needs to be the type, you know, like a separate dedicated standalone public hearing. I think it can be part of a selection much like we do for junkyard permits and stuff like that. So I think if we maybe at our next meeting if we as a board kind of settled on a proposal like we're proposing to post these roads and here's why and then

say I'm meeting after that we'll we'll take um you know public public comment on that and and uh and then vote um I guess it would be two meetings from now. Yeah. So Calvin, can you pull a proposal together and just list that statute and then list the roads that you feel I mean you may agree or disagree with what I have but I think it's best if the board acts on the road commissioners

propos to be clear if you look at the ordinance that we have in place all we'd be doing is adding additional names of roads and that's fine that if that's the proposal then then say the communication to the town would be you know the board is considering, you know, in accordance with whatever ordinance the board is considering adding these roads to the posted road list. They'll public comment period on that at the meeting on such and such a date for people to you know offer their opinion or ask their questions and then once we have that we can um we can take a vote.

Yeah. Okay. All right. Well done. So the next step the next step for you Calvin is is basically is to you know it doesn't have to be elaborate you know a one-page proposal you know um referencing the ordinance and the statute and what you're proposing and I would actually list what's already posted just for reference because otherwise people say well why are you posting those two what about this other one and we say well that one's already posted so let's include what's already posted um in the uh in the communication okay

okay Great. All right. Anybody have any uh questions for Calvin? Oh, how much [snorts] snow we getting? Uh, one to one to two. Okay. Thanks, buddy. Enough to be paint off a new plow blades. [laughter] Calvin. Thank you. All right. Now, the consent agenda. Uh, I'm going to move that we accept the consent agenda as presented.

Rich seconds. We'll call for a vote. Todd Buller, yes. Mark Farren, yes. Rob Panto, yes. Rich George, sure. and I'm a yes as well. Okay, selectman's comments. Upcoming meetings. Uh the next regular board meeting is Tuesday, February 9th at 6:30 p.m. and

Tuesday, February 23rd, also at 6:30 p.m. And Ruth put a plug in for the uh put another plug in for the planning board public hearing. When is that? February 8th, you said? February 8th. Yes. Ruth. Yeah. Are you Her screen seems to be frozen.

Oh. Oh, there you are. Okay. Yes. February 8th. Is it at 6:30? Yes. Okay. So, February 6:30 also on Zoom. uh link available on the town website uh will be the planning board uh public hearing on the proposed ordinance changes um slated to go on the warrant uh in April. Okay. So at this point I am going to move that we enter executive session pursuant to 1 MRSA section 4056A

for discussion of personnel matters. Uh, call for the vote. Todd Ber, yes. Mark Farren, yes. Rob Panto, yes. Rich George, absolutely. And I am a yes. All right. All right. So we will move into executive session and give