Wiscasset Select Board Rejects Registrar Hours, Advances Sewer Plant Planning

[1:15] Speaker A (unidentified): Why did she get out the excerpt on there? [1:20] Chair/presiding officer: I'm gonna use it. Okay. [1:24] Speaker C (unidentified): We select a genre. [1:30] Kim Anderson, Superintendent of Schools: I was thinking pop dance. [1:32] Speaker C (unidentified): That's pretty good. I mean Irish jig. Flamenco. That would be so pretty. [2:38] Chair/presiding officer: me don't have to be one i'm sitting there yeah they have to try it before i mean it didn't let you see if the same challenge it means to me all right follow me in the order it's 6 p.m tuesday and it will pay for the pledge of business i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands one nation [3:08] Speaker A (unidentified): indivisible with liberty and justice for all [3:15] Chair/presiding officer: thank you everyone for being here this evening our first item of business is the consent agenda item we have payroll warrants accounts payables approval over minutes and registrar's hours unless there is a comment from the other select members to remove anything your name okay so we have the minutes for the consent agenda can i get a motion to approve second then we have a motion and a second all in favor of approving five zero so our next item of business will be the registrar's hours open for discussion [4:05] Speaker E (unidentified): Yeah, we just got a little bit of information on it that past boards have gone along with suspending this requirement. In principle, I would rather have it as a just government accessibility issue. And it's been a while since we've done it. We now have an economic developer who posts regularly on Facebook, who might have a different need for it and people may use it and so just a general access thing that would be in favor of keeping it in place. I [4:46] Chair/presiding officer: have to say that was my first response when I saw this why would we do that because access to opportunities to vote are critical to a democracy and why would we cut off that time. That we have tried it before and nobody showed up i can believe that too whether we wish to give it another try and see if anybody shows up maybe our population has changed maybe as you say information access has changed i don't know when was the last time you did have it not since i've worked here [5:28] Speaker C (unidentified): So yeah, I think I had similar concerns and questions and appreciated the information, but had the exact same question about how long it had been. [5:41] Speaker E (unidentified): It's also kind of a specialty of election. People may find that they thought they were registered and need to get registered for some reason. whatever reason so that would be important any [5:58] Chair/presiding officer: Other comments? Yes, do you, do you, do you remember why we, I, believe the reason they started waiting is because there was no attendance during those hours at those times. I'm on the fence on it for right now because I question if anyone's going to come if you have them this year again. Maybe it's been long enough that you try it again and see if people do show up because of more publicity on it. But has anyone ever complained that we didn't offer it? So I don't think there's ever been a complaint that we haven't offered it. And many people must be aware that it's a possibility to have that. And the other thing is if the clerk, I just assume the clerk knows her business and the best way things work in that office, and if they say that the hours aren't necessary, maybe they know better than [7:01] Speaker F (unidentified): we do. But so I'm on the fence. I would almost guarantee no one knows that this is a possible [7:08] Chair/presiding officer: option. I certainly kind of like it. I didn't care, so maybe I voted on it. Yeah, maybe, try it again, and if you don't get anybody this year, next year bring off, because we're just talking [7:22] Speaker F (unidentified): about one night, right? Yes, one night. Yeah. [7:29] Chair/presiding officer: They have until seven one night. [7:36] Speaker A (unidentified): So do we need to have a motion? Yes, you need a motion. You do a motion to approve her request. You need a motion to approve her request and you vote on everybody. No man, have a motion. [7:50] Chair/presiding officer: Motion so moved. Thank you. All in favor? All opposed? Five zero, five zero, the motion fails. Thank you, Dennis, for your guidance there. Our next item is we're going to have two public hearings. We have a general assistance ordinance. Actually, we're having one among two motions to adopt the municipal association's general assistance model ordinance revised for September 2026 and a motion to adopt the 2026-2027 general assistance ordinance appendices. [8:36] Speaker F (unidentified): Motion to open the public hearing for the general assistance ordinance and appendices. [8:41] Chair/presiding officer: Seconded. On favor of opening the public hearing. The Maine Municipal Association provides us with these changes and updates, all of which were attached to the agenda, so everyone should have had an opportunity to receive them. The changes this year are pretty much all geared around the dates, just shifting the dates into 2026, 2027. Seven, do you have any questions from celeb four? No. [9:20] Speaker C (unidentified): I have any, yes, sorry, let's just gather my thoughts, gathering my thoughts, so just shipping the dates and then Diana started correctly, the maximums had increased a little bit as well, which makes complete sense given inflation, okay, but otherwise this was probably the longest ordinance I've ever seen, so this was new to me, but I presume there are no, you know, concerns that didn't change, okay, thank you, do [9:55] Chair/presiding officer: We have any questions, comments, concerns from people here tonight about online, seeing none, may I get a motion close, oh, seconded, all in favor of closing the public hearing, five zero, now may I get a motion to adopt these two items, so I have [10:22] Speaker C (unidentified): One option for both, would you like me to say the entire action, do you do action, okay, make, I'd like to make a motion to adopt the main municipal association's general assistance model ordinance revised September 2026 and to adopt the 2026 to 2027 general assistance ordinance appendices A through H, second, and we have a motion in a second, all in favor, five zero [10:55] Chair/presiding officer: Our next section is our public comment section and we have this every meeting, remember that it is five minutes per person. Please state your name and speak so that the audience can pick you up, but also so that the members in our audience and the select board can hear. Mr. Polwarczyk. [11:21] Speaker G (unidentified): Hi. Ed Polwarczyk with SCASA. Last Sunday while we were shopping at the Schroes, I ran into a friend and we started chatting. And I asked her what she thought of the ordinance changes we're going to vote on November 3rd, actually we can vote on that, and her comment, her immediate comment was, what ordinance changes, what are they all about, we talked for some time and I tried to explain to her what they were briefly and what my position was on each one of them, and her comment came back says, did you voice your positions to the select board, and I had a think for a minute and I said, yes and no, what do you mean, I said, well There were three meetings that I attended to where they were on the agenda, through those meetings I did say something, but I came to a workshop fully prepared, look at each paragraph on each of those ordinances, and I was told you are not allowed to comment in a workshop, and I sat there and as I'm talking with this young lady it suddenly dawns on me that at that workshop some people were not allowed to comment but others were, and that was incredibly unfair that you did that, so I never really got The chance to voice my concern about all of those ordinances and I object to that set that aside and it's a real concern to me that many people out there have no idea what they're going to vote on. I don't know how to fix that but that's [13:18] Speaker A (unidentified): A real concern voter guide right there is a good I saw it but that is not for ordinances so that's the town's position on the ordinances no it is not it's presented sorry I shouldn't say anything I just want to make sure somebody I do want people to understand there is a voter's guide it's on the website all of the ordinances and the changes are on the website and they're available here [13:44] Chair/presiding officer: Thank you do we have any other comments tonight [13:52] Kim Anderson, Superintendent of Schools: On yes hello good afternoon I'm Kim Anderson and I'm your superintendent of schools and over the past few months there have been many public comments about the cost per student of Wiscasset schools compared to other area schools and often Richmond with Richmond being identified as something we should achieve to be and that was tested is somehow you know how other space with our cost per student and I would just like to share some information that dispels that notion and this is from the Resident expenditures by budget category fiscal year 24-25 on the main DOE data dashboard that's the most recent information and they break down all of the schools in the state by different categories, including cost per student. And Richmond's cost per student was 18,412, which is indeed very low. Booth Bays was $27,320. RSU Ones was $25,424. And Wisconsin came in at $25,060. That was from the year 24-25. And I just wanted to get that out there because why we are often compared to Richmond I want it to be very clear that Richmond is in fact an outlier thank you [15:26] Chair/presiding officer: Nice people can give me the number for our issue one again please I got the other I got the other three I'm gonna catch it on one [15:37] Kim Anderson, Superintendent of Schools: Rsu one is twenty five thousand four hundred twenty four dollars and ninety two cents you can [15:43] Chair/presiding officer: Thank you round up thank you yeah do you have any additional comments tonight online seeing none let's move along to our next item of business which is new business we have a northern border regional mission grant fund and to authorize the town to accept the grant this is to apply to apply for the grant for the purpose of planning for the wastewater treatment plant relocation move to authorize the town manager on behalf of the town who's passed it to apply for and accept grant funds for the Northern Border Regional Commission for the purpose of planning for the wastewater treatment plant relocation. Okay, we have a motion, a second on open comment. We have anything we like to explain to our citizens as to what this is? It is all in the material for today being known for the comments. Can we make the motion? We've got a motion. All in favor? 5-0-0. Next item of business is the debarment suspension certificate. This authorized the town manager to execute the debarment suspension certificate, which is required for certain grant applications and financial matters. [17:24] Speaker C (unidentified): Make a motion to authorize the town manager on behalf of the town was passed it to execute the debarment suspension certificate. [17:34] Chair/presiding officer: We have a motion in a second. Do we have any items to discuss here at Slump Floor? Do we [17:41] Speaker A (unidentified): have any? Yes. Was that certificate for a specific individual or for the entire board? Or it's for the whole board but make it sound scientific. Do [17:55] Chair/presiding officer: you have any additional questions online? Line seeing none, all in favor? Five zero. Your next item of business is the wastewater treatment plant selection action plan. I'd [18:15] Speaker C (unidentified): like to make a motion to accept the discuss that we started here in a plant site review and selection plan. Sorry, we have a motion, second. Do we have any [18:27] Chair/presiding officer: Any questions or discussions here at the Select Board? [18:31] Speaker E (unidentified): I have a question. Yes. I'm wondering about the format that we have where we're focusing on Mason Station. And the statement is in there a few times that Mason Station is the focal point, but that doesn't mean it's gonna be the place. And so I'm just wondering why we're focusing seen on Mason Station and what other properties you might be considering because I was kind of that's what I was expecting sort of like a table that had all the properties and the advantages and disadvantages of each and which ones most suitable. So I'm just curious why we're why we have the why it's designed to look specifically at Mason Station [19:23] Speaker A (unidentified): first and foremost because it's town owned and because it was the next site that was chosen in a climate adaptation report that was done in 2022. [19:37] Speaker F (unidentified): And we don't have anything else on the table that's for that we have no but that's part of [19:45] Speaker A (unidentified): This plan, oh wow, right, so we would go for an RFP to see if anybody wants to sell us land on that would be suitable besides major station. And as I've tried to repeat in this plan, this is, this is kind of the focus at the moment, but it's not the be-all to end-all. It's just where we're headed during that, because I do feel like we've got to keep this moving forward and keep [20:11] Chair/presiding officer: start with us. Yeah, I was also going to say that trying to look at other town properties that are more distant than the original plant from where it is now, or even if they're, I don't think you would want to study more than one property at a time. It's expensive to study property, and why look at five properties, spend that much money, when this one might be the next one that fits? So it would be, to me it would be a huge waste of money to study more and more [20:45] Speaker E (unidentified): property at a time. Yeah, I thought about that. I was thinking it was like, you know, like that works if Mason Station ends up being the place, but if it isn't, then we're, we end up doing that again anyway. [20:57] Chair/presiding officer: But if it is, then we've already spent that money once instead of five times on five different properties all at one time. So I believe that this plan does envision looking at other pieces of property, but they are just saying we already have a lot of work done on Mason Station. I read it as, it looks pretty darn good right now, not a final decision for it, but it's looking pretty good, it's already an industrial site, that's like how he ranks it right on up there. But there may be other sites, and they're going to look at that to see what other sites there may be that are appropriate, and maybe even better. So this is not, I did not read this at all as closed-minded. [21:40] Speaker F (unidentified): it right. Yeah, because I, tell me if I'm wrong when I'm reading, but the authorized staff to issue a time-limited request for site opportunities for willing property owners and other public entities with desktop screening before detailed stuff, right, but you're not going to do detailed [21:55] Chair/presiding officer: studies on everything that's out there right now. Yeah, okay, cool, we're not talking about [22:05] Speaker E (unidentified): putting this in the Mason Station building, right? Yes, we'll get a suburb, it would be a suburb all [22:10] Chair/presiding officer: Right, yeah, a lot of times for the for the cobalt, for everyone, when we say Mason Station, we just mean the whole swap, yeah, the entire property, yeah. First one, first point, right, we also know our first point because of course we can't use one consistent name. Well, most people are going to, more people are going to recognize it as Mason Station than Brackett. Absolutely, yes, the, and if I [22:37] Speaker F (unidentified): can just throw out there, because a couple people talked to me about this recently and I don't know if it's further or whatever, but the main DOT site on Edgecombe on Vegas Island has been thrown out there a couple times, so given that we're saying other public entities, if we could throw that out there, is I don't know, it may be even further than Mason Station, therefore much more expensive. I can't figure it out visually, but under a river, I don't know, but again, either, I'm just I'm just throwing it out there because a number of people have mentioned it and it is also an industrial [23:14] Speaker C (unidentified): site. Yeah, sure, no one who doesn't need one to his cancer getting it across the river, I know, [23:19] Speaker F (unidentified): but that's no different than a property that owns is owned by a private owner, so do we have any [23:27] Chair/presiding officer: comments here, or how about from ourselves tonight? Go ahead, yes. [23:34] Speaker G (unidentified): My name is Jim Crowley, I'm the staff resident, and we already have a pipe coming from Asham under the river to here, although it's a smaller pipe than what would be required if we were pumping the entire flow to the other side, but it can be done. It's not it's not technically your engineering or even in some cases most cases cost prohibitive, but it can be done, but so it's don't discount it because it's just throwing it out there. Yeah, okay, yeah, along with the Mason Station site, were there any other sites that have already been evaluated in terms of their potential application in the relocation project? So we looked at [24:16] Speaker A (unidentified): maybe putting up Little Street down by the school and that was kind of quickly dispelled because it was close to the school, some of that land is still in floodplain and the park and whatnot, so that's when they went to the public works site is the second site, which we know what happened there. Well, and so then you know the third site, well so the third site that was identified when this study was Mason Station, yeah, okay, and we kind of discounted Mason Station from the beginning because it was more expensive to put it over here. [24:56] Speaker G (unidentified): Well the public works site was originally voted on in 2024 and passed with a 63 majority in favor them and the select board was five nothing in favor there. And I know there was the subsequent event that occurred the first vote had something like 2200 voters voicing their opinions. The second time around was somewhat less there were 970 something voters that weighed in on the issue when they rescinded the original decision. So that was much lesser much lesser group of people in terms of the number that made that decision. Is there anything that prohibits us I know it might be a little difficult but is there anything that prohibits us from including that site with our ultimate list of potential sites to locate treatment plan [25:50] Speaker A (unidentified): I think I put in the plan that the public works site was not completely closed off I think I tried. I didn't. I know it's a I tried to put it in there to say that, you know, maybe that we have to come back around that but it's not completely off. [26:08] Speaker G (unidentified): You've got you probably have a list of criteria by which you're going to take a look at everything we're going to look at. And that's I evaluate it. You basically weigh the pluses and minuses of all potential sites against each other. And I would think that even though it may not be on the top of some people's list there may be reasons why that site is actually a competitive site with other potential sites in the community. So it shouldn't be just completely discarded off the table it can be re-evaluated and we'll [26:40] Speaker A (unidentified): ultimately decide for the reasons we decide yes that's basically what it says in this plan who said you know yes we recognize the talent yes it however yeah 15 or 20 or 30 million dollars [26:54] Speaker C (unidentified): Thank you thank you any additional comments tonight I had a question for Dennis on I know you included some helpful information on what you see the role of the outreach reach committee to be. And I was wondering what your thoughts are on sort of how they will fit into the public engagement plan, which was very hopefully laid out. Okay. [27:25] Speaker A (unidentified): Approve the platform, we'll move forward from there. Do you have somebody who wants to speak? Oh great. [27:34] Ryan Hagen, Mason Station redevelopment: Ryan, go ahead. Hi, this is Ryan Hagen with me as a station redevelopment company. Is it safe to assume the site plan review document you're referring to is not yet public? It's still being considered? [27:54] Speaker A (unidentified): The plan that we're talking about now? Yes. Is that it was posted? It's public information. It was posted with the agenda. [28:03] Ryan Hagen, Mason Station redevelopment: Okay, I did notice in your town meeting manager says it's attached, but I couldn't find it. So I'll take a closer look. I'll send it to you Ryan, I appreciate it. And on the topic you know as a the potential you know landowner out there on Birch Point, I'm absolutely willing to collaborate and find creative solutions should that be the likely location thank [28:28] Speaker I (unidentified): you any additional Ryan you should already have a copy of that actually that's the thing that I gave you [28:36] Ryan Hagen, Mason Station redevelopment: that meeting that we had with Kristen great thank you I looked for the physical copy and looked online and didn't see it yet, but I appreciate it. That's all, thanks. [28:49] Speaker F (unidentified): Yeah, just a comment. I forgot to bring this up when we were talking about the Northern Border Regional Commission item. And is it appropriate slash can we be a bit more strong with our language about basically saying the state is forcing us to do this? I know we can't say those words exactly, but I know it says the Maine DEP has been strongly recommending the location and supports the project but I'm saying just relevant to any of the funding we're looking at I feel like they should know that we're basically being forced to do this that we don't just feel like putting it out of the floodplain I think I'm maybe I'm the only [29:30] Speaker C (unidentified): person who feels very strongly it needs to be moved this is possible but I agree that it just needs to be even though it's it's hard so i don't know if i'm good as strong like entire select board must be decided to the room [29:47] Speaker F (unidentified): i just feel like that's i know what you mean and i know where you stand i'm just saying that's the fact of the matter that we didn't decide that a seawall was not feasible we were told it would not be fun or any other option to keep it so are you [30:06] Chair/presiding officer: proposing a part of a document that we have laid out the history in three sentences or something [30:16] Speaker F (unidentified): or i'm not really proposing anything formal i'm just saying if i'm the person who i'm the grant form that it would be meaningful to me to know that we have been put between a rock and a [30:33] Chair/presiding officer: hard place and that this isn't up to us okay i think it's also important that the citizens realize that every mile you move that plant is you know another 1.5 to 1.7 million dollars per So when they fight over how far they're going to move it, they're fighting to up their tax bills. [30:59] Speaker F (unidentified): So yeah, so I guess i'm not asking for anything I guess i'll just bring it up the next time there's an a grant application. [31:05] Speaker A (unidentified): If I feel like okay it's all but yeah when I was writing a letter support. [31:12] Speaker I (unidentified): I used the word order, but I didn't know, and I wanted to chat with Mandy about that. That, but where did I write it here? I actually made my letter align with her application, but I had the main DP has ordered the town to deal with that. Would be an [31:37] Speaker F (unidentified): inaccurate. Yeah, I wasn't sure. I guess my whole point is I don't want somebody to not give us a grant because they look at this and say, well, yeah, the main DP wants you to move it, but they [31:49] Speaker A (unidentified): don't really have to. That's what I'm trying to get at. I don't understand. I'm just trying to figure [31:54] Speaker I (unidentified): out, like, because you seem to be unhappy. We strongly recommend, and I went to the other end of it, but I don't think that matches it either. So that's why I removed it. I think that let's take [32:07] Chair/presiding officer: Yeah,. And this one as far as I didn't speak out. So this is a good point to keep reiterating, which is that we are in this position not of our choosing. It is because of the state's rulings and their position that we will not be eligible for any of their grants or support. If we don't move this, and that's I think worth repeating every time we discuss this, because I [32:41] Speaker F (unidentified): need to give to your point, Cassie, even if 100 of us were like, yes, no matter what, we want to move it, the point is I don't want a grandpa to say, well, you don't have to. Yeah, so [32:53] Speaker G (unidentified): Yeah, it's simple. I can make another comment share the probability of the of the concept of the seawall comes up with. The Boothbay Harbor project, so far, phase one of it has doubled in price. Phase one of that project is not build a seawall yet, but just to lift equipment up higher from its current conditions. Phase two is build a seawall. The way it looks now, the price for phase one is about eight million bucks. It's about twice what the original cost was, and I think they budgeted 12 million bucks for phase two, but they may not even get that because phase one is having so many difficulties and cost overruns and structural issues and construction issues that they might not make their October 27 deadline, and they might not get 12 million dollars to build the seawall if it's even doable at that point for that amount of money. So essentially at this point the community may be looking at they bought themselves 20 years or something like that with only phase one. They may not ever actually get the phase two. So it's the concept of the seawall is careful going there. Rob reminded me, correct me if I'm wrong, but did not [34:18] Speaker A (unidentified): Mandy say at the meeting that we had a DP that they do not want to allow who faded the commissioner [34:23] Speaker J (unidentified): Her, the commissioner herself, said they are not getting any funding for the seawall on the bus, and Mandy Brandy, who was their financial person, reiterated that. So when it's coming from the commissioner, she said also we licensed their sewer plant and we would have to sign off and license any seawall. Well, we don't want the seawall, so anyway, that was coming from the community. [34:51] Speaker A (unidentified): I mean, and a government was planning to do a seawall around their facility, and that's when they're not asking as well, they have to relocate their facility. So we're not, we're not the only ones that are reporting this prison, but somehow it's still [35:08] Speaker F (unidentified): out there for some people that, well, we should just do the seawall because it's cheaper. I know everybody in this room [35:16] Chair/presiding officer: understand funding. You just want to say that's 30 years, right? I just want to say it for the 800 times that is a bad, yeah, idea, that is not possible today. So what do we need to do in the last month? Do we have any further comments? No, say none. All in favor, five, zero. Move along to the next item, which is these repairs for our pump station. Can I get a motion on that? Move to approve the special town meeting. More? Yes. Oh, yes, it is, sorry. Move to approve the special town warrant for October 14, 2026, for additional help station improvement project. Second. One, we have a motion in a second. [36:14] Speaker F (unidentified): It, do we have any comment? I understand that the November warrant is already out there and people are voting, but is there any reason we couldn't still do it on that day and people just get an extra piece of paper? Oh, yeah, no, it's, I realize it's complicated, but people hate [36:40] Speaker A (unidentified): special town meetings. So because it would be considered a referendum question if you're asking them to do it by written thing, that has to be done 60 days before you're, that's just a can of worms that I think would be a nightmare. Okay, I mean, I can check with the town clerk, but [36:59] Speaker F (unidentified): I can't proceed. I was just trying to do whatever possible to avoid a special town. Well, things come up during the run of the year. I understand that, but you know as well as I do that [37:12] Speaker A (unidentified): but things come up in the run of the year and business needs to be done and just actually done two days, I'm here, I'll be here, so yeah, that's what's going on. [37:22] Speaker C (unidentified): Is there another reason to hold it on the 14th specifically, or is that just, no, I had, you know [37:31] Speaker A (unidentified): I when I was doing the agenda I ran this by Lisa and I said you know we could do it another week later but we do have to get it done the bid from T-bot to do this they have they have 90 days to pull it back so we've got to get it done before November 11th before they can pull that bit out so if you wanted to put it in another week you could. And you could put it on the 20th, which would be the next regular slide board meeting. And we have done that in the past. We've done them up at the community center because the senior center is a little bit bigger. [38:13] Speaker C (unidentified): OK, I just feel like a little bit more notice would be really, helpful for like information sharing on this particular one, especially given all of the complex cost considerations so I don't like the domain [38:31] Speaker A (unidentified): to see what the schedule is I'm pretty sure I asked him about the 20th and he said you know I've built it for something we could do it in the gym but that always turns into a complaint [38:49] Speaker F (unidentified): no because hopefully the this would be way too small Can we just do it the 21st? Is there a reason we have to do it on a two-step? I agree. [39:06] Speaker C (unidentified): I think that would be good. that's more time yeah that way we can maybe get some things and then use the mirror and do your own [39:17] Chair/presiding officer: the senior [39:29] Speaker A (unidentified): center is used on like for us because that's there [39:42] Speaker C (unidentified): the night they do their dinner oh it's important you guys want to use the gym at the high school [39:52] Speaker A (unidentified): I have to check it and see if he's got something going on already planned for that [39:57] Kim Anderson, Superintendent of Schools: let's not basketball see if it was possible we want to check he [40:12] Speaker A (unidentified): said he could do the 27th or the 28th I [40:19] Speaker C (unidentified): almost wonder if having it coincide with something like a community dinner just very close five would get more turnout because people could swing by say if it were at the school and then the school or the community center pretty gross [40:35] Chair/presiding officer: no you don't think people would I don't think we plan our meetings around other community events I you know I mean I recognize the thought process there but I just I don't think that's really going to be a draw people are going to a dinner they're not going to kind of mean first and then go to a dinner or go to a dinner and [40:56] Speaker F (unidentified): I don't know well as long as we can get mics I'm fine with the high school [41:04] Kim Anderson, Superintendent of Schools: what's the area of matches [41:05] Speaker C (unidentified): just what's [41:19] Speaker F (unidentified): our regular meeting so we'd hold the whole meeting [41:33] Speaker A (unidentified): okay you've been able this for an hour I'll have to call you back for a special meeting to [41:39] Chair/presiding officer: Sign of warrants, so can we, can we withdraw our motion in second and then vote to have it on either the 19th or 20th depending on availability of revenue because you don't [41:57] Speaker F (unidentified): have to say where you are or can we just set it on the 20th and we'll figure out the venue? [42:03] Chair/presiding officer: Right, and then we could use the elementary gymnasium which is also a nice one or the other [42:08] Speaker A (unidentified): or a cafeteria, it may be easier just to set it for the phonga and if it needs to change for them and [42:14] Speaker F (unidentified): you know we'll get out of court and change it, so did I second that? I think I did, no I moved it. [42:22] Speaker C (unidentified): Can I see what I'm going to do? I withdraw my second, remember I got an emotion. [42:31] Chair/presiding officer: Move to approve a special town meeting warrant for October 20, 26 for additional funding for the compensation improvement project, seconded. We have a motion in seconds, do you have any additional? Don't plan that success, anybody online from here seeing none, all in favor, five eyes, so move on to our next item. I'll be sure, I have a question and I think it's, it's just I wanted to [43:08] Speaker J (unidentified): get rob from the sewer department by the way so is what you just did setting up the special town meeting that will then inform the public and then there will be a special vote on that 's separate from the november voting is that correct in other words they have this thing and then they vote and then the contract would be signed with t-bug yes well it would be on the agenda that we signed okay but it'll be in time for the 90 days that they have okay [43:42] Chair/presiding officer: Yeah, thank you, yeah, that's our end date we're working back from, gotcha, okay, thank you. Yes, so our next item is the Larabee fund request, motion to approve the Larabee fund request from [43:57] Speaker F (unidentified): the Wisconsin school department in the amount of one hundred and ten thousand dollars, second. [44:02] Chair/presiding officer: Then there's a motion and a second, do you have any questions, comments, special? I have a question, yes. [44:10] Steve Christensen, public commenter: My name is Steve Christensen and I'm, I'm under the impression of reading this but this is also funding the band director now, I'm not sure how Mrs, I mean I knew Mr. Clarity and I'm not so sure that funding was for a director, I thought it was for equipment and functions, not to supply a salary for a band director, I could be wrong, I'm not saying, however have did you guys look into this bequeath and see what it all said because I thought that this is specifically it was for equipment, am I right or I that's all, oh that's also what I originally [44:56] Speaker F (unidentified): Thought and the last time it came up a few months ago or whenever that was, we had the language Dennis had pulled it for us, and it doesn't actually specify. I think we had just always said that's what it's for, but it is, it's language to the effect of for the betterment. [45:12] Steve Christensen, public commenter: Know what did Mrs. Larabee say? I thought like, again, I thought she back in the day, because I was in high school, Mr. Larry died and I remember her, I knew her anyway, but I thought it was just for, you know, if they wanted to go on a trip, yeah, you know, a band trip or buy band equipment, you know, pianos, flutes, whatever it was, not to, not for a salary for a band. I could be wrong, I know I'm trying to, I just need some clarification on that. The language says the funds to be used for the [45:51] Speaker A (unidentified): maintenance of the game that's all it says that's all that 's all it says it says well i tried [45:58] Steve Christensen, public commenter: to find some stuff on that. I thought I might have seen it in my eyes, but I didn't, I, and when this we [46:04] Speaker A (unidentified): did this last year too, I think, and when Kim brought the request forward last year, I could go through a legal review and say this is okay, and the attorney says it says maintenance of a man, you can't have a baby, you don't have to be an instructor. Well, we did it for years without this [46:20] Steve Christensen, public commenter: doing it so i mean that you know the attorney can say whatever they want i 'm just i'm just questioning that i just it just doesn't sounds right to me i again i thought it was just equipment school functions not the director that is literally and when we never i guess in years past incorrectly if i'm wrong we'll probably know people here that wasn't the way that it was done and then all of a sudden i don't know how long this has been excuse me on that but i don't know if they've been doing this five years, one year, this is, I don't know, but I'm just questioning that, and that's, that's my [47:05] Speaker A (unidentified): concern. Yeah, this would be the second year that request has included the band director, and I think it's, you know, it's maintenance is pretty ambiguous, so there's a lot [47:19] Steve Christensen, public commenter: of room for interpretation in that and you're sure that 's exactly how it's spelled exactly [47:25] Speaker F (unidentified): exactly. Okay, yeah, I remember looking at, he had a copy of, literally you could tell it was an old [47:30] Steve Christensen, public commenter: document, yeah, and I couldn't find anything, and I was just curious, and just so you know, there's 1.1 million dollars, I know, I know it's in the fund, and I know that, but I was just questioning that, you know, directive, you know, sound versus anything else. Thank you, do. [47:54] Chair/presiding officer: we have any additional questions comments online seeing none we have a motion on the table and a second all in favor five zero on to our next item sewer abatement this will be a motion at the board's discretion we have a request to abate sewer funding this has been reviewed by staff and they recommended that we approve it the amount is 143 dollars and 15 cents do we have any questions or comments we didn't see a reference number from our motion yeah and so 778 where is it on the platform yeah No, 778. [48:59] Speaker F (unidentified): Motion to approve the abatement of the class ID number 778 and the amount of 143 dollars and 54. [49:07] Chair/presiding officer: Cents. We have a motion in a second. Do we have any questions comments etc from our citizens here tonight, online, seeing none. All those approve, 5-0-0. Our next item is the planning board liaison appointment. We need to have a select board member be the liaison to the planning board. Do we have anybody who would like to raise their hand to do that? Heather, no, I think we're great with that. We need to vote you in but I think we just, I know we don't know, I didn't remember voting before. But all righty, next is our town manager for fourth. [50:09] Speaker A (unidentified): The only thing I have to add is I will not be in the office tomorrow, Thursday. I will be attending the MMA convention, not that I have stuff. [50:20] Chair/presiding officer: Do we have any other questions for Dennis on his report? Do I don't like that but a conclusion for the public, right? So you're ready for a motion? Yeah, it check. Move to enter into executive session pursuant to one MRS from section 4056e through the discussion with council regarding the illegal matter. Second. On favor, go. Thank you very much for attending tonight. [51:04] Speaker F (unidentified): Sir, you're appreciated. Susan will want to know if we're going to have a ghost after this. [51:09] Chair/presiding officer: Us, no, you're confirmed and you want the gem, is that what you want? Yes, it was. Thank you very much. So Jackie, you're going to have this the time that the executive session actually is absolutely not.