 Good evening. This opening meeting of this overmeeting of the arms and finance committees being conducted remotely consistent with Governor Baker's order of March 12 2020 due to the pandemic. In order to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19 virus we've been rising directed to suspend public gatherings. And as such the government's order suspends the requirements to the open meeting law to have all meetings in a publicly accessible physical location. Further all members of the public bodies of public bodies are allowed and encouraged to participate remotely. The order which you can find posted with agenda materials for this meeting allows public bodies to meet entirely remotely so long as reasonable public access is afforded. So the public can follow along with the deliberations of the meeting, ensuring public access is not ensure public participation, unless such participation is required by law. This meeting will feature public comment only in writing by email to t bradley at town that are linked in that may not us. This meeting, we are convening by the video conference zoom app, as opposed to on the town's website identifying how the public may join in comment. Please note it note that the meeting is being recorded and that some attendees are participating by video conference. Accordingly please be aware that other folks maybe to see you, and then take care not be sure to take care not to share screen share your computer. Your broadcast may be captured by the recording while supporting materials that have been provided members of this body are available on a town's website unless otherwise noted. The public's encouraged to follow along using the post and agenda unless the chair knows otherwise. The chair will introduce each speaker on the agenda and after they conclude their remarks the chair members provide any comments or questions or motion. Please remember the mutual phone or your computer when you're not speaking please remember to speak clearly, and then a way to help generate accurate minutes. In response please wait till the chair you use the floor to you. If members wish to engage in colloquially or historical representations please do so through the chair, taking care to identify yourself. Due to the size of my laptop screen which I'm still in this laptop I haven't gotten off it yet I may not be able to see all the members at once so someone has raised their hand and I've not noticed. I just want to request the terror Bradley annual court please bring this to my attention. Finally, each vote taken in this meeting will be conducted by roll call. So I will proceed to take attendance. And please members of when I call your name, respond, indicating that you're present. Grant give me in here. Shane Blundell here. Kaiah Healy here. Brian back here. We fed area. He's coming a little late. Sophie maybe as well. Here. Jonathan Wallach. Here. Colleen Crawford. Here. Daryl Hammer. Here. Any record. She's coming late too. Okay. Allen Jones. Here. George closer. Bill Keller. Here. Here. Here. Here. Here. Here. Here. Here. Here. Here. Here. Here. Here. Here. Here. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Let's, let's deal with the minutes from the last meeting. Tara, can you put those up please? I received comments from Al Tosti and I have. Incorporated those below. Are you sharing your screen? I believe I am. It might take a minute. Can. Can anyone see it now? I can. Yeah, I got it. I got it. Okay. What were the comments that Al had? I don't know. I don't know. So on number six and number eight. So. Any. Questions or comments on the minutes. As amended. Charlie. Yes. As Brian. I'm not sure. I'm looking at the parking district budget. I'm not sure what it means. The, the addition. I think what it means is that we endorse the. The spending, but as you pointed out at the meeting. I think it's good enough money this year to fund the expenses, but you're taking money from the. I see. I see. I take it back. I should read the whole thing. I got it. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions on the minutes? Emotion on the minutes. Is it order? Move. Second. Move the second. Grant Ibe. Yes. Hey, Mandel. Yes. John Ellis isn't here. John Ellis here yet. No. No. Yes. Brian. Yes. Reef bed area. Sophie. Jonathan. Well, it is not here. Jonathan. Jonathan. Yes. Shailene. Yes. Daryl. It's the same. Any questions here. Alan Jones. Alan Jones. Yes. George is in here. Bill Keller. Yes. Al Tosti. Yes. Yes. Christine. Yes. Carmen. And Dave McKenna. Yes. Thank you. We have one, two, three, four, five, six, seven. 13 in favor, two abstentions. Thank you very much. So. A couple of. I hope that we can get all of our work finished tonight. And if we can, we won't have to have a meeting on Wednesday. We're under a lot of pressure to get the. Finance committee reports on. I want to thank Al Tosti for the work that he's putting in an effort. In a moment of madness volunteered to get involved about three weeks ago, and he's been, he's been working closely with Tara. So thank you very much for that, Al. You probably won't do that again. But I appreciate the tremendous effort. I have a question for. Christine. Christine. Are you going to release the. Finance committee handbook. Prior to town meeting. The handbook is. Done. And on our website. You can announce it. Yeah. The only thing that that's left to do is put it in a PDF form. But other than that. It is. Done. As far as the working group is concerned. It is the first edition of the Arlington finance committee. Handbook is done. Well, congratulations to the entire group. Thank you for that effort. I mean, it's a, it's a, I think it's a great piece of work. When you say it's on our website site, you mean on the SharePoint website. SharePoint site. Yeah. Okay. But we'd like to do is get it in a PDF form. And then we can post it on the town website. In the finance committee. Section. Okay. That's doable. And I want to take this opportunity to. To tell everybody on the committee that as you read it, or refer to it or going forward, if, if you have. Additions changes, you think we should add this or take out that. Let us know I'm going to put it on. I keep track of that so that whoever is working on addition to. Whenever that is, we'll have that information. So we'll, in the finance committee report, we'll include some comments on that as well as on the operations research report on the. Waste and trash and recycling. Budget and costs and savings and so forth that Al went through a couple, a couple of meetings ago. So thank you very much for that. Christine and now. I think those are the only comments that I have tonight. So let's. We did the minutes. And we. So now we're ready for. Warren article number 11 domestic partnerships is Mr. Meeks here. I'm here. And also Susan. From the. Rainbow commission. Thank you. So. Are you, do you have a prepared presentation? Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Meeks. I think Susan was going to start. Okay. I can start. Please go right ahead. Yeah. It just quick background, the LGBTQIA plus rainbow commission submitted warrant article 11. To town meeting because it strongly agrees with the purpose and intent of the town's new domestic partnership bylaw. And I think that the definition of the town's new domestic partnership is that it's not only the purpose and intent of the town's new domestic partnership in Arlington. And recognizing that the perpetuation of. The traditional meaning of family can exclude a segment of the town's population by depriving them of recognition and denying them certain rights that should be afforded to people who share their hearts and lives. The articles needed to more clearly define the parameters of domestic partnerships in Arlington and the administrative department. And to the extent that the town's new domestic partnership bylaw. And to the extent that the town's new domestic partnership bylaw is always in registered domestic partnerships. As a matter of background, I'd like to note that the rainbow commission also endorsed the warrant article at the 2021 town meeting that created the town's relatively new domestic partnership bylaw. Amos will be taking the lead in answering your questions. I'm able to offer additional clarity. I will. I don't know if you had an opportunity to review the memo as a public issue. I know it's hard to answer that question. I know that most of your questions. Tara, would you put that memorandum up please? Thank you. Has everyone had a chance to review this memorandum. I know it's hard to answer that question when everybody's got a mute microphone. But rhetorically, it was the question I wanted to ask. So, perhaps, Mr. Meeks, you can just take us briefly through this. Sorry, I'm trying to pull it up on my computer so I can see it. I think this just lays out some of the background. So since the domestic partnership bylaw went into effect in January of this year, there have been three registrations of domestic partnerships. The fee to file them is equivalent to the fee to file a marriage license, set it $30. I think I'm very curious to hear the committee's input on this, but I think the main impact of the proposed changes for this year are related to paid employment's benefits for town employees who are in domestic partnerships. And this is basically trying to extend the benefits that are already given to people for bereavement, sick, and parental leave for spouses or family. They're sending those to domestic partners. And so in terms of the cost of this, it's going to depend on the employee. It sounds like the main issue where this would occur, additional costs, would be in positions that would need to be backfilled for public safety such as police fire or DPW during certain seasons. But so far, none of the people who have registered domestic partnerships at Arlington are town employees. And to be perfectly clear, none of the changes would extend health care benefits to town employees and to their domestic partners. This is actually sort of prohibited as a matter of state law. And so that would have to be settled at the state level before it is something that we would be allowed to do as a town. Thank you. Does the committee have any questions on this article? Raise your hand or yes, Al Tosti? Yeah, just to explain our position, the Finance Committee is not making recommendations on the sort of policy merits of domestic partnerships. That's up to the Board of Soakman and I'll recommend in the town meeting to decide. What we are concerned about is cost and how much is this going to cost the town? So obviously those three elements could theoretically cost the town money. We just don't have no code how much. Now, what is the state law or statute that you refer to about health insurance, employee health insurance? It's a case. It's called Connors versus Boston from I think the 90s when domestic partnerships were sort of first being put into practice. I'm not a lawyer. I can't explain the details or point to the specific statute. But I can certainly get you that information afterwards if you'd like to hear more or I think Googling that would probably bring up some information. OK, so it's not a statute. It's just it's a court case. It's a court case that I assume. I mean, I assume it references some statute in state law. OK, Sophie. Oh, I'm sorry. You have more? No, it was my understanding also that the Group Insurance Commission does not provide for spousal benefits unless you're married. So that could add an extra area of protection. I guess that's it for me for now. Thank you, Sophie. Yes, thank you just for clarification. So the presentation mentioned that none of the three that registered in town are town employees. But if somebody registered in Somerville or some other town and they are an employee, is the benefit correct? Yes, I believe that's correct. As currently written, people do not need to register in the town in which they reside. So residents of Arlington could register a domestic partnership in Somerville or Cambridge. And this the bylaw has a clause that would recognize those domestic partnerships and extend the same rights to them. Are there any other questions? Jane? Thank you. So I'm just returning to the health insurance question. And I know that none of the folks that have registered so far are town employees. But there was something in the bylaw, the proposed bylaw that talked about nothing shall impose liability upon a partner for health and medical expenses with the exception of medical insurance contributions. So I'm just trying to understand this is the case. But can you just sort of compare that to the language of the. But I guess what's the goal of that language? I think it's Section 7B, which talks about medical insurance. Yes, I believe that was sort of added by the lawyers that we've been working with in sort of an abundance of caution. I can, if you want more details, I'm happy to get more information from them. Yeah, just yeah, just thinking about. Yeah, and I think this is protecting a domestic partner from health or medical expenses of their partner. OK, so I don't think this would involve the town at all, is my understanding. Again, I'm not a lawyer. It's to protect domestic. Can you make that point, Queen, with. So, Kara, thank you. That's better. Yeah. I mean, I guess, you know, if there's a case interpreting a statute, certainly that would control versus a town bylaw. But if there's anything more that you have on that, again, I'm just thinking about it from a finance committee perspective about like what theoretically could be a cost to the town, which I don't expect to be significant. But just if there's anything more there, that would be helpful. Thank you. I can follow up and I'll send you some information later this week. Thank you, Amos. I appreciate it. So any other questions here for either of our guests? So I have a question if you go back to that. Last page that you had up there, Tara, please. Thank you. So it seems to me, reading that paragraph, that that paragraph exempts anyone in the domestic partner relationship for liabilities from one of the domestic partners with the sole exception of medical insurance contributions assumed by the city or the school department employee who's a member of the domestic partnership. How do you interpret that, Mr. Meeks? Again, not a lawyer have not had much discussion on this part before. My understanding would be that this means if you're if a domestic partner gets sick and, you know, goes into medical debt or something because of that, debt collectors could not hound the other domestic partner to pay that off. And then the second part, medical insurance contributions assumed by a city or school department employee who is a member of the domestic partnership. I think that would mean that the partner is responsible or could be responsible for paying medical insurance contributions. If someone is getting their medical if someone is getting their insurance through the town. Thank you. Again, I would I'll reach out to the lawyers that we've been working with and get more clarification on that. And certainly, I think all of this, you know, if this ends up being a problem, we can certainly remove it. Christine, you have a question. You mute. You mute. I have more of a statement. I think I agree with Mr. Meeks's interpretation of Section 7B. I feel like that second clause protects the town to an extent that if we can require some contribution that section enables the town to be able to do that. So I don't see that as a problem for the town that may be a benefit for the town and since I have the airtime right now, I would move because it seems like there's little financial impact on the town or very speculative financial impact. I would move that we take no position on this article. That would second that. So it's been moved to take no position on the article. So for your information, Susan and Amos, as as Al Tassie mentioned before, we would not necessarily support or oppose this article on a policy basis purely on a financial basis. So if there is no financial impact, we would just have no report. Whereas if we thought there was a financial impact, we would report on it. So Christine special is made and Brian has seconded the motion for no position and no report on this article. Is there any further are there any further questions or comments by the members? They seem none will take a vote. Grant, you have a positive vote means no report, no position. Grant, you have been. Yes. Shane Blundell. Yes. Kaya Healy. Yes, John Ellis is here. Yes, John. Yes, here. Yes, Brian Beck. Yes, Sophie Migliazzo. Yes. Jonathan Wilde. Yes, Traylene. Yes, Darrell. He's not here. Yes. Oh, Darrell's here. OK. And he did stay in there. Sorry, Darrell. I was looking at the wrong line. Is any record here? No. Alan Jones. Yes. Bill Keller. Yes. Al Tosti. Yes. Juan de Nascimento. Yes. Dean Deschler. Yeah. Neal Carmen. Yes. David McKenna. Yes. The vote is unanimous that the Finance Committee will not take a position on this article. Thank you very much. Thank you, Susan. Have a very good evening. Thank you very much for your time. So the next article we're a little bit behind schedule here. The next article is hearing on Article 18, phase out of certain toxic rodenticides on public private property with reporting requirements in public education. And good one, Alicia Russell. Are they here? So Charlie, that's my bad. It's actually Elaine Crowder and Carrie Teal. Those were the names from our last session. Oh. So Elaine Crowder and Carrie Teal tonight. Very good. So it's Crowder or Mr. Teal? Who's on first? I'm on first. Hi. My name is Kate Crowder. I'm a town meeting member from Precinct 19. And Carrie Teal and I are the components of this article. As originally conceived, we had three parts. The first part of it is a reduction of rodenticides, especially second generation anticoagulant rodenticides in a phased out fashion. And then followed by a reporting requirement in education. The select board voted affirmative action on the article and suggested because this phase out, this is subject to a state preemption that it might be a better strategy to lift that out of this and submit it as special legislation. So what I'm going to present tonight are the remaining two sections of this, which is the reporting requirement and education. We intentionally crafted both of these sections to be sort of light on town resources to really fit into sort of the natural workflow of the town, what's already in existence and the current staffing. So the reporting requirement which is there because if the pandemic has taught us nothing, it's taught us that data and transparency about that data can provide the public with information that they need to take preventative health-promoting actions. So that being a rationale for this, we wanted to ensure that that it sort of dovetailed with town natural connections, the way that the town is naturally intersecting with the public. And so the language in this article only mentions that education about integrated pest management and the hazards of her net decides be done during permitting, licensing and inspectional services that are already occurring. We can see that this is being something like handing out a flyer. And excuse me, education, reporting is what I'm talking about. So that we, as far as reporting that we understand that minimal developmental costs would be present. We don't really know exactly the form in which the town will decide to do this reporting, but we are aware that it takes minimal time to produce a Google form, for example, and to use that and the spreadsheet that is automatically generated from these Google forms as a way of providing a link to a pest management professional who is applying saggers on property. And we understand from the Board of Health that data collection is already occurring, that resident complaint reports are being recorded, that the inspection reports from inspections are being recorded and mapped already into a GIS layer of the town database. So we anticipate that with a spreadsheet that can easily be just added into the existing systems and there would be minimal development costs. As far as the personnel for this activity, when I spoke with Christine Bongiorno, she indicated and her memo indicates that these activities can be accomplished within current staffing requirements or current staffing abilities. And then the other one is education. Again, we wanted to make sure that it went into the workflow and it's education that would be handed out, just a piece of educational material during those three activities of licensing, permitting, and licensing permitting. And the other one I mentioned earlier. And in this case, again, when I mentioned it with Christine, she indicated that they're already doing this and in fact, the recent Board of Health, oh rats, fantastic webinar, by the way. If you haven't seen it, I recommend it, that they produced on March 31st is, was done within current capacity for producing a webinar like that and presenting it to the public. This material, of course, will be available going forward on a link and can be, at this point, is a no cost kind of educational material that the town can use. Thank you. Will you take any questions and carry the teal is also here willing to answer any questions you have. Thank you, Ms. Grouter. So do we have any questions for either Mr. Teal or Ms. Grouter? I see no hands. Oh, Al Tossi. You mentioned a specific anti-coagulant poison. Yes. Why is it so much worse or different than other types of poison that might have been used over the years to either human health or animal health? Well, as we're aware, some of these poisons, the actual effect in the environment often does not become obvious right away. DDT, which is an example of that, it too had a particular threat toward bald eagles. These second generation anti-coagulants happen to be a type of poison that are very good at accumulating in tissues. They last a long time. In fact, they last about almost a year, some of them versus a month relative to the earlier form of anti-coagulants. So Warfarin is an example of first generation anti-coagulant. The industry tried to engineer a certain other very toxic features into a second generation of rodenticides. And the upshot of that is that not only are they more toxic immediately, they last much, much longer in the system. They do not kill right away. A rodent will eat it and then eat again and eat again. Only one serving is enough to kill the rodent, but they continue to eat. So they kind of become poison bombs for anything that is then up the food chain. So any foxes, coyotes, eagles, owls, anything that happens to get a hold, cats, dogs, anything that happens to get a hold of one of these poisoned rodents gets quite a bit more poisoned than other foxes or poisons. Thank you. Al Jones. Hi, thank you, Mr. Chair. I just also wanted to point out, and I think Ms. Crowder could probably find specific references, but a number of scientific references have shown that natural predators are in the long run are a much more cost-effective way to control rodent populations. The poisons just sort of keep things going in a steady state, but if you have a good healthy population of both raptors and coyote and things like that, it's sort of a long-term solution. So in the long run, I'm pretty confident it'd be a financial savings. Thank you. Thank you, Allen. Any other questions? So Ms. Crowder, Mr. Teal, am I right in concluding that told us that there's minimal or no cost to the education campaign and the reporting. Is that correct? That's correct. And you have taken out of the article that which might have had a cost impact because it's controlled by the state. I'm not sure that that's the part that has the most cost impact, but yes, it was taken out because of, the need to kind of approach it with a slightly different strategy. Thank you. So, Al Tosti. Because of the lack of significant cost, if any cost in this, I would move that the finance committee take no position on this. Second. Second. It's been moved in a second, there's no position on this article. So, we'll move to a vote. Any further questions, comments? Grant Givian. Yes. Shane Blundell. Yes. John Ellis. Yes. Makayla Healy. Yes. Brian Beck. Yes. Arif Padaria. Yes. Toby Miehlyazzo. Yes. Jonathan Wallach. Yes. Shailene Corporate Procrus. Yes. Darrell Harmer. Yes. Annie LaCourt. Yes. Alan Jones. Yes. Bill Keller. Yes. Al Tosti. Yes. Juan de Nacimento. Yes. Christine Deschler. Yes. Dean Karman. Yes. David McKenna. Yes. Thank you. Thank you very much for your time this evening. Thank you very much for your vote and your encouragement. Thank you. So, next on the agenda. Reconsideration of insurance and other budgets for final adjustments. We have any guests here or is that entirely internal with Alan Jones? Just us. Actually, I think Bill Keller. Okay. Bill. Sorry. Yes. So we need to, we need to revote the insurance tax, the insurance budget. That was approved a couple of weeks ago. And the reason is, is because the insurance offsets. For the rank. Wreck. And water and sewer. Are slightly more for health insurance than originally budgeted. So that changes the. The offsets. Which increase, but in fact, as a result. This is fight decrease. 4,748 dollars less. On the budget line. So let me just put this into words. We'll be going, if we approve this, we'll be going from the budget that was approved by. The finance committee of 21 million. 216,786. Down to 21 million. Two hundred twelve thousand and 38 dollars. That's a result of the. Of the increase in the offsets. So I make a motion that we approve. This new. Insurance budget amount. Second. Are there any questions? Alan Jones. I see your hand. Yeah. I just wanted to point out that that's the. Group health component after offsets, but the insurance budget also includes a worker's comp liability and property. And their various offsets. So, you know, I guess. What I would suggest is that we vote. For the total of both of those, which is 21 million, seven hundred seventy two thousand three hundred and thirteen. So that's the 21 million two twelve. Oh, 38 for group health. And five hundred sixty thousand two seventy five for, for the other ones. Twenty one. So I think what we're doing here. Alan is suggesting that we combine. The health insurance budget. With the liability insurance budget. We voted these separately as a committee. But now I guess we're going to have to. We voted these separately as a committee. But now I guess because of the. The way the master spreadsheet is developed. They're going to come back together. So it is a different number. If you, unless you break out, unless you break out the liability insurance number as we did when we voted these budgets. Two weeks ago, what is liabilities workers comp indemnity. There's some other insurance component. But it's not at the bulk of its health insurance, but there's other numbers too. Unemployment compensation insurance, which is the official liability. And property insurance. This makes up the liability insurance appropriation. That budget was voted on and approved. And it's not part of the group health insurance. On the budget books. I agree. I'm just saying that I believe the appropriation is the total of all of those. For budget 26. Only the group health has changed. I'm sorry. I don't follow you. Well, the total appropriation from taxpayer dollars for all of the insurance. Is 21 million. 772,313. Correct. That's the bottom line. If you had the two group health and liability together. Okay. I think that's the number we should vote because otherwise we wouldn't have a vote for the other ones. Okay. So we're really combining two things in a one, which is fine. We're making an adjustment. Two was originally budgeted for health insurance because of the change in the offsets. And we're combining the liability insurance line with the health insurance line into a master. A single insurance budget. Is that right? Right. So I guess I'd like to. Move the taxation total for the entire insurance budget to 21 million. 772,313 dollars. And if you look at the long range plan, that's the number that's used there. Also. So, um, Bill, you made the original motion. Do you accept, uh, Allen's thoughts as a amendment? I do. Yes. I second. And it's been seconded. Okay. So, um, any questions about this, these changes? No. Seeing none. Um, let's then. Vote on the insurance modifications. So would you give us that number one more time, Al? 21 million. 772,313. Thank you. Seeing no more questions or comments, we move to a vote. Grant Givian. Vote. Yes. Shane Blundell. Yes. Yes. Yes. Brian. Yes. Yes. Jonathan. Yes. Jaylene. Yes. Carol. Yes. Annie. Yes. Allen. Yes. Is George Costa here? No. Bill. Bill. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. It's unanimous. Thank you very much. Um, thank you, Bill. Thank you, Allen. Um, the next item is the, uh, commission on disability budget vote. Um, Sophie, are you prepared to. Uh, Uh, No. Um, I didn't actually specifically invite any. I think I, I talked to them and said, we would. I don't think there's any, uh, debate. I think we're, we're going to move forward. I'd just like to give a bit of history for the, for the new people in a reminder. Uh, before we vote on it. That's fine. And give, give a bit of history for the old people too. So, um, just a reminder that what, what intrigued me about this was, um, when I asked for some detail on the 25,000. And then on follow up. Um, We were given some budget information. And when I spoke with the town and I spoke with the disability commission. They both started with a bit of history. That's, um, The budget used to be 3,000 in fiscal year 2020. After, uh, some commissioners on the disability commission advocated for the commission to get a larger budget. Um, it was increased in, uh, to 25,000. And that's the agreement with the finance committee and with the town because there's a law that actually allows disability commissions to be given by towns or allocated. The fees that result from handicapped parking. Um, the town at the time didn't actually want to, to mess with allocating those fees and splitting up things that go into the general fund. And so the agreement with the town was since those fees amount to about 25,000. That going forward, the appropriation would be 25,000. So it's not directly tied to the fees, but it's based on what those fees were at the time that they negotiated this with us. Um, Since that fiscal year 2020 though. Um, the town's full-time ADA coordinator has left. Um, In his, and Jill now is in that position, but she manages three commissions, not just the disability commission. And the advocates that were on the disability commission, we're also left the commission. So you have a, a disability commission with a lot of new members and who haven't been quite sure what to do with. Um, This, this allocation. That they've received. And so they've been depending on Jill. Um, who's also busy with a lot of other commissions. So. My question had been when we saw that the commission was paying for ADA training. For the town. And also ADA software for the town. And ADA, ADA accessibility, uh, fixes to buildings. Um, I just questioned whether that was an appropriate. Uh, allocation instead of putting it in operating budgets or capital planning. And the town's position was. That's really, it's being the work's being done. Um, the training is being done. So it shouldn't really matter which budget it comes out of, whether it's appropriations or operations or capital planning, as long as it's being spent on that. And that really nobody should be telling commissions, uh, how to spend their allocation, right? Their appropriation, that it's for them to decide. And if this is what they want to spend it on, then that's what they spend it on. So then I also spoke with the disability commission. Who said that. Again, um, they're all fairly new to all this and new with numbers. And just a reminder for the committee that. A majority of the commissioners on the disability committee have to have a disability to be on there. So these are, you know, they have, um, They're new, they're new to this. And they also are dealing with their own disabilities. And they would have been interested in spending the money in other ways. Um, such as studies for the town or updates. Um, other updates instead of spending it. Um, on these items for the town, but because they didn't know what to do, they relied on recommendations from the town. So, um, all. So the disability commission agrees to have. Pay for all these ADA items, training. Fixing access because it's important to them. And they didn't know what else to do. Um, so I think, um, What I'd like to propose is that the commission consider, um, Talking with them about having a liaison, maybe for a year or two to helping the disability commission figure out. What, how budgets work. Um, And where maybe certain things could be coming from operations or capital planning. Um, I don't know if that's appropriate or not. I think the, uh, My next committee had an arts and culture liaison at one point for that committee when they, with their large budget. So I don't know if that's something we would consider for the disability commission. Um, but otherwise. The idea is that. We've already agreed that going forward. They get an approach. Appropriation of 25,000. So I would suggest that's what we move. And do. Thank you. Your hands up. Sorry. Okay. Thank you. The disability commission did tell me there is a 10 year plan. Uh, and study that's done for the town. For addressing accessibility issues. However, um, they don't quite, at least the disability commission is a bit lost as to what to do with that 10 year plan. Because they have been told. That the numbers in it. Are just not accurate as far as what the costs would be to fix things. Um, It, it's other than I've lost what to do with this plan. Because the numbers in it of costs are not accurate. Okay. So, um, Thank you. Any questions for Sophie on this? So I'd like to make a comment. Let me see if I can just summarize what I think I heard you say. Sophie. That first of all, um, the, uh, disability commission is. Uh, Entitled to a certain amount of funds by right. Um, coming from various disability, uh, Uses and fees in the town under state law. In the $25,000. Is the amount that was. Uh, this was determined to be in, in order to facilitate this without spending a lot of monitoring and measuring money, et cetera. Secondly, um, That the disability commission has the right to spend this money. In any way that they see fit. For the benefit of disability. Disabled persons. It's not necessarily something that is governed by. Town management or other organizations. And then the third thing is that, um, Uh, you're, you're suggesting that there should be a finance committee liaison to the disability. Uh, committee. To assist them in the planning of their, um, Future expenditures. And the fourth thing is that you're recommending that we support the $25,000. Is that a summary? That's correct. The idea of the elite liaison is on the agenda. Because the ADA coordinator. The town just posted for a new ADA coordinator that will be full time. But it'll be a new person who won't be familiar with our budgeting process of. Of advocating for certain things to come out of operations or capital planning instead of the commission's. Right. Well, that's the. That would be a sort of a volunteer. A voluntary suggestion on the part of the liaison or whomever. Right. Um, so given that summary, are there any questions that anybody has? So Sophie, would you make. I don't see any questions. Would you make. Um, please for the, um, acceptance of the $25,000. And for the. Determination of a, that we, that we adopt a liaison to the disability commission. So yes, so I make a motion that we approve the $25,000 appropriation to the disability commission. And. Propose a liaison. To the disability commission. Should they want one? Is there a second? No. I don't see any questions. Would you make. Please for the. Acceptance of the $25,000. And for the. A determination of a. That we, that we adopt a liaison to the disability commission. So yes. So I make a motion that we approve the $25,000 appropriation to the disability commission. To the disability commission. Is there a second. So it's been moved and seconded. Any additional questions or comments? Okay. Seeing none, we'll move to a vote. Um, That was a very good. Report. So he's. Grant Ibn. Yes. Jane. Yes. John Ellis. Yes. Okay. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Yeah. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Sophie. Yes. Jonathan. Yes. Jaylene. Yes. Darryl. Yes. Yanny. Yes. Alan Jones. Yes. Bill Keller. Bill Keller. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Juan de Nacimento. Yes. Christine Deschler. Yeah. Dean Karnman. Yes. David McKenna. Yes. Thank you. The vote is unanimous. So Sophie, you've done such a good job here. Can I ask two things? One is that you write up a small paragraph for the Planets Committee report on this matter. We'll figure out where to put it. And secondly, I don't know if you're interested in volunteering to be the liaison to the. Disability committee or commission. Is that something to be interested in? Good. Consider it done. Thank you very much for that. Okay. Article number 63, Harry Barber. You want to raise that. Article. Okay. You know, there's two ways we could handle the Harry Barber program. And I just wanted to throw this out. It's $7,500. We've been appropriating it. Since Harry Barber was a pup. And. We do it each year. It always ends up in the consent agenda. I'm wondering if we should vote no action on the article and no action on it. I think we should get the council on aging slash Harry Barber program. Into the committees and commissions. That would be perfectly accessible with the chair. But I think you'd have to make a motion. I would say first make the motion to revise the committees and commissions. And put the $7,500 in there. And then we'll take a vote on no action on the. That would, that would settle the matter. Future. Future town report town. Finance committee reports and town meetings. Is that acceptable to you? That sounds fine. So moved. Seconded. Okay. So it was moved and seconded. First of all, to put Harry Barber program for $7,500 into the. Committees and commissions article, which is what article is that. 56. Okay. Now, since it's not listed, would there be any scope issue on the warrant? Good question. Let's see. All the committees are listed there by name. And say, take any action there too. Yes. Paragraph above it. It says, or any other committees or commissions. Okay. So I would think that would cover it. I think so. Okay. So we'll. So the first motion is to put the $7,500 into article 56. Yes. Yes. Okay. Is that correct? Okay. Thank you. Good question. It is. Good to have anyone give in? Yes. Team Blondell. Yes. John Ellis. Yes. Kylie. Yes. Brian Beck. Yes. Fried. Yeah. Yes. Sophie, yeah. Yes. Yes. Andy McCord. Yes. Bill Keller. Yes. Al Tosti. Yes. Yes. Christine Deschler. Yeah. You Carmen and David McKenna. Yes. Yes. Okay. So that's unanimous. And then it is no action on. No action on. On. Article 63. So since that's a no action without, I'm going to just ask that. Is there anyone who. Who wishes to not vote for new no action on. Article 63. So hearing none. We'll assume that this is a successful roll call vote. And Mr. Chairman. I just suggest that Alan adds a paragraph. Or comment underneath just explain. All that funds for this article are appropriated under article, whatever it is. Well, Al. Since this is your motion, maybe you should write the art. Write the comment. I was trying to palm it off to Alan. I can do it, but it's not in the budget spreadsheets. It's in the. You know, printed. It's an appendix. It's not in the budget. It's not in the budget. It's not in the budget. It's not in the budget. It's not in the budget. It's not in the budget. You know, we don't. We don't vote committees. Commissions. The two hours. The two hours are going to work that out. We have an Al square. Right. But I see it. If we voted committees and commissions, I think we need to add 7,500 to it. Don't wait. We did. We just voted for that. Okay. We just voted to move. Okay. Got it. We just did two votes. Okay. 3,500 into 56. We voted no action on 63. Okay. I'm sorry. Go ahead. Yeah. Terry. If you could just add comment after that. Perry barber program article 63. And say comment. Monies for the under this article or appropriated under the committees and commissions article. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Oh, I could palm it off on somebody. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Did you have your hand up a minute ago? I did. I, I think we should just to close the loop. We should probably check in with the comptroller. To make sure that it wasn't like, I'm assuming that Harry barber fund. Harry barber appropriation comes out of the general fund. But if you think about our warrant articles, some of them. Are standalone articles because they come out of a different budget. Is the capital borrowing fund. There's special revenue funds that we appropriate separately. Probably just make sure there isn't like a mechanical issue there. I'm just looking under the war or the vote from last year. And it's said some to be raised by general tax and expended under the direction of the town manager. Well, in this case would be expended under the direction of the council on aging, but. Yeah, I mean, everything. A lot of our stuff is general tax, but I, I, I don't know. I just wanted to make sure we didn't like. Well, there's a corollary question there that you raise, which is. We carry money over from year to year in some of these warrant articles. And since we had the pandemic. There may still be money. In some fund there for Harry barber. So I think that that might be a good idea. To check with either to see. If there's a. If that's possible. So article is a Harry barber. What article number. That's 63. And what articles committees and commissions. 56. I'll send an email right now. Okay. So let me just, I'm going to, I'm going to ask that the committee. I'm going to ask that we reconsider the vote. We just quickly took with no roll call on 63. And say the vote being that, that if it is, if it is possible that. That we can shift to. Article 56. Then we vote no action. Okay. In other words, I'm what I'm trying to do is make sure that we vote in a way that we don't have to come back. And have a meeting. How about if we had, if it's upon the German determination of the chair, there was a problem with the prior vote. That the $7,500 be appropriated under article 63. That's a good way to put it. And otherwise it's no action. Okay. I think I'm going to take a roll call vote on that just. This is going to be a worth it. So, that's a more complicated agree. Yes. Shane. Yes. Yes. Larry. Yes. Brian Beck. Yes. A brief for directly. Yes. Sophie. Yes. Jonathan. Yes. She had to leave early. Oh, Davis left. Yeah. Any record. To the left. And me will be. It took a break for a minute. Okay. Alan Jones. Yes. Bill Keller. Yes. I'll pass the. Yes. Wanda Nascimento. Yes. Dean Deschler. Yeah. In Carmen. Yes. David McKenna. Yes. Okay. Thank you. That's a unanimous vote. So basically. Between the two votes. We will either allocate. The 7500 to article 56. Or if it turns out that's mechanically not. Possible or improper in some way as determined by the. Chair and the. Town Comptroller will. Change the no action vote on 63 to $7,500. Okay. All budgets. So. Alan Jones, have you got all the information you need from the various members when you sent the buddy. Oh, I'll toss the every panda. Oh, I since we're thinking about things that could happen after tonight, I was wondering if it's an appropriate time for Dean to make his usual. Motion. I was going to ask him for that later, but now's as good a time for that. So I move. That if. In the course of putting together. The 2022. Finance committee report to town meeting. It's determined that there are small. Clerical or administrative errors and balancing out the reports. The finance committee grants to. The vice chair, Alan Jones with the consent of the chair. And the vice chair. And the vice chair. The authority to adjust or balance out. Those variances administratively without needing that. Another vote of the committee. Second. Moved and seconded. Any questions or comments? Okay. So. I'm going to call this the elastic clause vote. Grant Givian. Yes. Jane Wendell. Yes. Yes. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm sorry. I'm not sure how we're doing this. I'm not sure. Right back. Yes. Reped area. Oh, yes. So. Jonathan. Yes. Darryl. Yes. I need to hear Alan Jones. Yes. Bill Keller. Yes. Al Tosti. Yes. Juan de Nacimento. Yes. Dean Karman. Yes. David McKenna. Yes. Thank you. That vote is unanimous. So going back into the question of the review of all the budgets, did you, are you satisfied that you got all the information back that you needed? Alan Jones. Yes. Bill Keller and I and Julie Wayman are going back and forth with the insurance and believe we got that. Al Tosti came back with some very good suggestions and a reef pointed out a problem with the March 2nd minutes. I believe the vote was correct, but I think we might want to go back and correct the minutes on the Minuteman budget. Would you make a motion for that? So we have a record that they were reconsidering and correcting the minutes that since we already voted. Yeah, I'd like this to be a change for the March 2nd minutes. The recorded vote was 22,395,741, which was the entire assessment. And our length of assessment was 7,947,939. So I'd like to just change the number of the minutes from the big number to the smaller number. That answers a question that we had. Perfect. Sorry. I'm sorry, Tara, what do you think? I'm just saying that answers a question that Al Tosti and I were trying to, we were scratching our heads about that. So thank you for noticing that. All right. I second it. It's moved and seconded. Yes, thank you, Agri. Grant, give me a yes. Shane Blundell. Yes. Ron Ellis. Yes. Brian Beck. Yes. Arif Padaria. Yes. Bukhaya, did I ask for your role? No, but yes. Thank you. So maybe I so yes, well, yes, Daryl. Yes. Alan Jones. Yes. Bill Keller. Yes. Al Tosti. Yes. Wanda. Yes. Christine. Yeah. Dean. Yes. And David. Yes. Thank you. And then it's wrote. Okay. So what about the $43,000 has that was that formally brought to us by the town? But a different by the fine. We have nails back and forth on this subject. I don't notice that they're here tonight. Have they asked for a revision? Al Tosti. Yeah, the. The issue is under the OPEB trust fund. The $42 or $43,000 that is used to pay for the management of the OPEB fund on. Is was included in the retirement. Budget. The state retirement. Board, I can't remember its name. As well as our auditor say that's a town expense. That's not a pension expense. I thought it was a retirement expense and could be it should be under the retirement board. But they argued opposite. Now, I don't know about you, but we're, we're, you know, we just hit the taxpayer over the head for the high school and now we're going to hit them over the head again with the, with the override in a year or two. And I can't see keep spending money that we don't have. So I guess what I would like to suggest is to make a slight change in the article on the OPEB funds. Now, you remember, there were three parts to this. Part A was 500,000 from general tax. That was the non-contrib, which we finished eliminating this year. Part B was 155 from general tax. The board of select when voted and part C was the 300,000 transfer. Now they want us to add the 43,000 to that. We're putting in almost over almost a million dollars that we don't have to put in. So what I would like to suggest is we just modify part A. To say it not only includes money going into the fund, but to pay for its expenses. So it would read appropriates into said other post-employment benefits fund, parentheses OPEB, I'd like to add for investment and its expenses. And then comma authorized and it goes on to the rest. So we make it clear that this $500,000 that we're putting in into the OPEB is both to be invested and to pay for expenses. There a second on that. Second. So it's been moved and seconded. Any questions or comments? Jonathan Wallach. Thank you, Charlie. I guess I would like a little bit more explanation of what we're voting on here. And let me let me try to implications. Let me try to answer that question. I think I think the retirement board and the deputy town manager were correct that that $43,000 does not belong in retirement fund. And that's because the Arlington Contributory Return Board's fiducial responsibility is for the pension fund. The other post-employment benefits that we have been saving up is while it's a retirement, it's a benefit for retirees in an indirect sense. It's not directly by law the responsibility of the Contributory Retirement Board. So I think what the auditors and what Sandy Poole are saying is that they're in agreement that this is not a retirement Contributory Retirement Board or the pension fund expense. OK, it's a it's a different expense. So that's so let's agree. You know, I'm going to say rhetorically, let's agree that they're correct on that. Then the question is, what do you do with this money? Now, my experience in life with and by the way, I tell you also my experience with the Arlington Town Pension Fund is that when you have a fund like this, whether it's your 401k or whether it's an investment fund or broker's fund, whatever, the fees come out of the earnings of the fund. They don't you don't somehow get the fees from somebody else. You don't get a bill in the mail to pay for well, maybe you do for certain types of funds, but most of the time you're, you know, your Schwab accounts, your fidelity accounts, the fees are sort of internally generated and they reduce the earnings that the fund accumulates on your behalf. And so what Al's proposal is here is that this $43,000 expense that's incurred gets treated like every other investment fund or investment account. Now, years ago and I and at that time I was I was reviewing the pension budget. We did pay the expenses out of the town budget. It was a town line item budget every year. And we used to go through the retirement board expense and the administrative office expense, etc. Invote that as a line item in our annual budget. And then, you know, I have to go back as is probably 20 years ago, the state mandated that all of these expenses be transferred into the funds. So we negotiated at the time an agreement that said we go along with that and because we had to, but in exchange for granting retirees a certain minimal cost of living increase when the rest of the town employees got an increase that the retirement board would report to the finance committee they're operating budget every year, which they have done. We we see it, make sure that they're, you know, living cleanly, but the retirement pension fund is paying for all of those expenses, including the administrators, the various fund managers, everything is contained in that total contributory retirement article. So I think Al Tosti's motion is completely in order. Alan Jones. Thank you, Mr. Chair. You know, you brought up the point that in your Schwab account, the fees tend to be hidden and taken out of the net out of the returns. I'm wondering for the sake of transparency, if it might be better in the article to say $457,000 to the funds and $43,000 to management, just so that everybody knows what the management fees are. That would I think that's a complication that since we don't have none of control over those numbers and they may vary from time to time. I think we should just leave it at the simple expenses. No, OK, I just it seems to me that the town meetings should know what we're paying for management fees for that fund. But we didn't tell them when it was in the other fund. I understand this would be an improvement, I think, in my opinion. Well, I mean, when Schwab hides the fees, I think they don't want you to know what those fees are. I'm not trying to hide the fees. I'm just trying to say that they should be paid by the fund as opposed to by the town. In other words, these fees reduce the earnings on the fund, which is appropriate. It's the way the world works. I understood, but it'd be nice to know what percent, you know, what percentage is going to the management. But you know me, I'm Mr. Super ultra transparency with finances, but I'll leave it go. I'll vote for else motion. OK, let me make a suggestion. Let's figure out for next year how we can get that information reported and managed and then then we can consider earmarking it. Go ahead. You is adds that to the comment. And in the comment, we could add the current balance in the OPEB fund and the approximate amount of expenses. I agree. OK, so I think Al's motion has been moved and seconded. Are there any further questions? Who asked that question? I was Jonathan. Did that answer your question, Jonathan? Yes. OK. Al. Oh, go ahead. Sorry, I just I want to think I'm close. So the can you just remind me? So what this 40 plus thousand dollars? What it is running to the purpose? Who is paying for where? Where does it coming from now? And where would this go? OK, we have the guy who might know the answer to that question is is Dean Carmen, if you remembered. But we have an outside firm. Malita or something like that, Makita, Makita. Yeah, no, that's Malita is the firm. Makita is power, power, so, you know, the power drill. Maybe. Malita is this as a financial advisory firm, and they invest the money and they, you know, they put it in different accounts and treasury notes and supposedly, you know, pure estimates and they charge for that. And that's what it is for. But remember, it's not just the money of the five hundred thousand dollars we're putting in, it's the, you know, the eight million dollars in total that's in there. And we had a scandal about. Two thousand nine, when. We didn't have a fund, you know, make people mad in this, it was being managed sort of off the cuff in town. And when we had that financial crisis in 2008 or 2009, that fund lost a million dollars or something like that. You know, there was a big drop in funds and everybody, especially the finance committee got very upset about. So that's what the money is used for. I will check with the retirement materials. I'll find out the last balance in the OPEB fund and the exact amount and purpose of the expenses. OK, it's in the it's in the CAFA report, you know, the comprehensive annual financial report. OK, any further questions? Shane, did that answer your question? Yes, thanks. Any other questions? OK, we'll take a vote on the OPEB trust fund to include the language that that Tosti recited to us before, which I'm sure our executive secretary has carefully copied down in which will determine that the forty three thousand that's been raised as a question by the finance director is going to come from the fund itself. So I'm going to vote. Green and give in vote. Yes. Chamberlain Dell. Yes, John Ellis. Yes. Tanya Healy. Yes, Brian Beck. Yes, Arif Padaria. Yes, Sophie Migliozzo. Yes, John Wallach. Yes, Shailene Pocrus. But she left Daryl Harmer. Yes, any court left? Alan Jones. Yes, George Kosar. He was not here. Sorry, I'm on a different sheet. Bill Keller. Yes, Al Tosti. Yes, Juan de Nascimento. Yes, Christine Deschler. Yeah, in Carmen. Yes, and David McKenna. Yes. OK, thank you. So now Alan Jones, we have and we got all of the loose ends tied now on the various numbers. Yes, you mean to, well, we need to vote free cash, right? We need to vote free cash. We need to vote the Override Stabilization Fund. Yep. And you think all the corrections and feedback, et cetera, from the budget have been made? I believe so. And frankly, there's always some last minute changes, offsets, or things. And that's why Dean Carmichael's motion. So we have the Carmen Amendment to the Constitution. Yeah. OK, so Al, will you make a motion on the free cash? I move $5,539,215. You do the free cash, which is article 70? 71. 71. Second. So it's moved to second. So just for the record, the free cash those of us who are newer, the free cash is the money that's left over from was left over from fiscal year 21. And the total amount was $11 million in change, probably $11 million, $80,000 and $430. And the policy that has long been practiced by the finance committee under the direction of our former chairman, Al Tosti, has been to, and by the town, has been to take 50% of that money and treat it as revenue in the upcoming fiscal year. And that's what Alan Jones just moved. And then the balance of the $5 million, an equal amount, $5,539,215 is retained in the general fund as a reserve. Okay. Now, the reason why we're just doing this for fiscal 21 and not 22 is because we're still in fiscal 22 and we won't know how much cash we have left over until the end of the year. And then it has to be certified by the, by the DOR I guess, I don't know exactly who does it, but has to be certified. And then when it's certified, we know how much it is. So then we can, we can keep half of it and we can put half of it into the following fiscal year's budget. Any questions? Moved and seconded. Okay. Grant Gibbian. Yes. Shane Lundell. Yes. John Ellis. Yes. Kai Healy. Yes. Brian Beck. Yes. Marie Padaria. Yes. Sophie Gazzel. Yes. Jonathan. Yes. Darrell Harmer. Yes. Alan Jones. Yes. Bill Keller. Yes. Alan Tasti. Yes. Juan de Nacimento. Yes. Christine Deschler. Yes. Dean Karman. Yes. David McKenna. Yes. That's the unanimous vote for $5,539,215. So I think the last article that we have to treat is Article 72. And this is the Override Stabilization Fund. So Alan Jones. I moved $2,946,000 in $037. $2,946,037. $2,946,037. We moved from the Override Stabilization Fund into Revenues. Correct? Correct. Any questions on... First of all, is there a second on this motion? Second. So it's been seconded. Any questions either on the amount or what's going on? No questions. Okay. We'll move to a vote. Grant Gibbian. Yes. Shane Blundell. Yes. John Ellis. Yes. Craig Healy. Yes. Brian Beck. Yes. Arif Padaria. Yes. Sophie Migliazzo. Yes. Jonathan Wallach. Yes. Daryl Harmer. Yes. Alan Jones. Yes. George Bilteller. Yes. Al Tosti. Yes. Juan de Nacimento. Yes. Christine Deschler. Yeah. Dean Karman. Yes. David McKenna. Yes. So unanimous vote for $2,946,037. Is that right? Yes. Yeah, okay. So thank you very much. So I just want, do you know the balance that's left in the overhead stabilization fund, Alan? Give me a second. I've got the long range plan here. After that, it leaves about 16 million. Or maybe. That sounds high. I guess 9.289 million. Okay. Let's hear which years this lines up with. So it runs out in 25. It runs out in 25. Yeah, that's what he said. We get another year. I think another year or two out of that. Okay. So in fiscal 25, we have to have the override path. We have to have the override pass before fiscal 25, right? Okay. I think that covers all the warrant articles and covers all the budgets. Have we voted local option taxes? Which is probably no. No action. Thank you. We didn't. Let's see. That is article numbers for no action. 66. I moved no action. I'll second Grant's motion. No action. Okay. So. 66 is moved and seconded. No action. Green giving. Yes. Jane Blundell. Yes. John Ellis. Yeah. Yeah. Yes. Yes. Karen. Yes. Yes. Erik. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Okay. So no action on article 60. Okay. Now I think we're complete. Thanks for reminding me of that. It's right here on the agenda. Okay. So we've gone through all the. Budget. Budgets by number. We've gone through all the. More and articles that are financial and. Spent a fair amount of time deciding others were not financial. And I thank everybody for their great work. So we have a. We have reserved. Is it the 13th or the 15th? What is it? Wednesday, the. The 13th. The 13th. Wednesday, the 13th. The week from this coming Wednesday where we serve. For possible finance committee meeting. Depending upon the outcome of the. Houseways and means committee on a. State budget and state aid. In the meantime, we're going to try to get the press on the. Finance committee report. And then if we don't meet on the 13th. Then likely our next meeting is going to be the first night of town meeting. And we will meet every Monday and Wednesday night. At 730. Prior to the town meeting at eight o'clock. Until we until we finish the financial articles. And then I think we probably can pass on that. So. So I have one request. Before we sign off for the night. What time is it? Are we. Schedule here. We are. Yeah, we're ahead of schedule. Wow. So. Are we. We're not having a meeting Wednesday. We're not having a meeting Monday just to be clear. We're not having a meeting. This, this Wednesday, the six and not this Monday, the 11th. Correct. Correct. Okay. Great. Thank you. So we need a subcommittee to. We're working group, I should say to organize or break up dinner. And I'm looking for volunteers out. So you have your hand up. I was going to ask about the special town meeting. If there's anything we could do. Well, we have. I think we'll leave that for the 13th. We have. We got a preliminary. Preliminary draft warrant. And there are, there are two financial articles in that one, which we discussed extensively, which is the transfer of the $1,095,000. That was not used. For the school department student growth. And the state budget. Last year. Move that to the, to the. Override stabilization fund. That we just took money out of. Which if we don't do that, it'll go into free cash and then it can't be used or. For next year's revenue. And then the second, there's a second item. Item. And the informal information that I got from both. Doug Hyman Sandy. Is that it's going to be funded by the state. And so we're going to have to take a position on it, but it's not going to cost the town money directly. I think I sent the draft. Foreign out to you. I just can't remember what the subject was. So we will have to take a position on those two articles, but I think. We can. If maybe on the 13th, we'll just convene a quick meeting. To do that, but I, I don't, I think the. The warrants only being reviewed by. The court of selection tonight. So. We don't really know. The status of that. Okay. I don't think there's anything else in that. Particle that's financial. I'm sorry. In that warrant. That's my name. Okay. Any other questions or issues? To bring up. Okay, let's go back to the question I had. We need to have a volunteer group. To work on the. Break up dinner. I see. I see any hands. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. What do you think. Mr. Chairman. Yes. I'll volunteer. Oh, thank you. So we have one volunteer. We need another volunteer. John Ellis. Are you going to volunteer? No, no, no. One of the questions is. Do we do it like last year. At somebody's house where we're sort of outside and spread around. Or do we go to a restaurant? Or do we have a little bit of a better understanding of where we are. And if we decide to go to a restaurant or whatever, we can decide that to be outside too. So. I think it would be nice if we have another one or two people working on this. Change. Those hands going up. I see hands going up. Okay. Your hands up. Sophie. Okay. We have three people. Good. So tower will probably be leading most of the charge on this, but thank you very much for volunteering. I hope I didn't put you under too much pressure. No, it's only because I want to work with Sophie now. And you worked on this. I think you did. Yeah. Good. Okay. All right. I think everybody's really been great this year. It's been good, good effort. We have a little more work to do on the, on the, get the finance committee report out, but thank you very much for your, your diligence, your, your attention to all of the details and your hard work. So. Motion to adjourn is in order. Do I hear a motion to adjourn? So moved. Hearing no objection. We're adjourned. Thank you.