 Okay. I'm going to call the order of the Board of Finance at 5.36 p.m. on Monday, March 18. And the first item on the agenda is the agenda. And the calendar on each agenda that's posted has a couple of changes in it in the last. So the motion should just be to move the we don't need to. It has been amended on Civic Clerk to take off an item that was on consent regarding the lease for the Burlington School District of the South Hanger at the airport. That is now a deliberative item 4.5. And we have added item 6 of discussion regarding 200 Church Street. And those items have been reflected in the agenda. So I think we just need motion to approve the amended agenda. I welcome motion. So, thank you, Pastor Barlow. Thank you. Second, I'm going to leave President Paul. So based on that discussion, I don't know that we really need to keep doing that. Yeah. We just had a brief discussion about that now. And Cedars here was, Senator, we at least need to have a discussion about it tonight. Just with like for the record, for it to be said that we should not be having any substantive conversations to laughter people first and allow the new administration and new council the opportunity to have that actual executive session and anything else. Yeah. So, since you and I just met and thought about it, is there, maybe your vision is not for the Council to act? There is no vision for action on the 25th. There is a time, somewhat time sensitive item. So I know, I think Brian and I would at least like to have the discussion tonight and we can, it's just a discussion. It's on negotiation and talk about how to best move forward. I mean, I just, I mean, I'm not really sure. I assume that this is going to be voted on at some point, is that correct? Yes, it will be voted on at some point. Yep. And it's not going to be voted on on the 25th of March. That's correct. So I guess what I understand at least from mentioning this is that we are going to have a substantially new city council. We're going to have a new administration. And I'm sort of a loss to understand why she's having a conversation without the opportunity for input from what will probably be what will be on a board of finance that has potentially only one member who is now sitting. Okay, I mean, if you don't want to have on the agenda, that's fine. Well, if you're going to have a best move forward, I think, you know, that's going to be challenging for the city and we'll just have to work with new administration to make clear the urgency. I think part of it is that there will be some people continuing. And so being able to have continuity and discussion, that would be useful. But if you don't want to take it out, that's not a fair decision. Okay. So if you want to have the conversation, that's fine. I don't want to have it on the agenda for the 25th. That's an executive session when half the people in the room are not going to be there. Yeah, I think this is a challenging conversation with none of us having like all the information, I think. But why don't we leave it on the agenda for this meeting for now and let's get the meeting started so that we don't mind staying. Okay, further discussion at the end. All right. So the meeting agenda has been moved and seconded. And I don't think we're making amendments after that discussion at this point. But I need further discussion about the agenda. Seeing none, we'll go to a vote. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. And we have an agenda. The next item is the public forum. Is there any member of the public that is here to speak to or finance? I'm not seeing anyone in the room. We shouldn't be recognized. I do see that Galaxy SB, which I believe is Sharon Busher, is on Zoom and Galaxy. Go ahead. Okay, thank you so much, Mr. Mayor. I'm going to be brief, but I do want to speak to three items on your deliberative number seven, which deals with continuing or requesting to continue a contract with Burlington Telecom for five more years. I am incredibly supportive of that. So I just wanted to add that. The other exciting thing is item five regarding the request for to have a lease agreement with Burlington Technical Center for the South Hanger. First of all, I want to say thank you, Senator Leahy. And I just think this is wonderful. I looked at the rent pay down, which means that there's a little bit of money left after 40 years. I don't know where, he gave 10 million. I don't know where the 1.5 million is coming from, but I'm not, that's for you all to look at. I didn't look at it that carefully, but anyways, I'm so supportive of that. I just think that's such a great opportunity for people in this community, in the region. The last thing I wanted to speak to is item number three, which is the Conservation Legacy Fund. And this is a request for money from the Conservation Legacy Fund to do a rewrite to include the urban forest plan. And like superficially, this doesn't seem like anything that I would not be supportive of, but I am concerned because this is money. And now we're going to incorporate in the urban forest plan. And I'm really worried because the Legacy Fund was created to actually give the legacy open space equal footing with developers. So if a parcel came up for sale, we could potentially use it like the Myrtle Street Gardens, community gardens, or we could use it like we did with Eric Farrell with the 12 acres off of North Avenue, or as I did when I was a city counselor, using some of the land that was a seven acre farm off of East Avenue and giving some force to UVM of the Centennial Woods and keeping some space open. I'm worried that as each thing we add to what is being responsible for open space protection plan needs management and it siphons off more and more money. And I really hope that the next administration and the next Board of Finance looks very carefully at this because I do want money there if we want to actually acquire some open space. And I know the argument that we have a lot of open space for our community and I don't disagree, but these are pockets of space that are going to be now surrounded by even more housing, which is good, but we will value that open space, that breathability, that livability. So I'm concerned about this proposal. Thank you so much. Okay, thank you Sharon. I don't believe there's anyone else who likes the public forum, but we'll close the public forum and I'm going to move to the consent agenda. We have, I'm sorry, there's a lot of consent agenda. 11 consent agenda items. I would well call the motion if the board is ready to move on that consent agenda. Councillor Jang. So moved, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, sir. Second to the consent agenda. Thank you, Councillor McGee. Any discussion on the consent agenda? Seeing none, we will go to a vote. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? The motion carries unanimously. Okay, this brings us to item 4.1, which is the calendar year 24 paving contract. Please see the consent contract. Would you like to give a quick overview of this? Sure. My name is Dora Vane. I'm an associate of Public Works Transportation Engineer with DPW Tech Services. I'm going to be taking managing paving for the city, so I thought that I would present the information tonight. We're looking for a approval for a contract with ECI to execute this year's paving work. We're looking for $1,317,201 in total. We have an approximately 30% of that for contingency funds, and we anticipate paving North Avenue from Plattsburgh Ave to Shore Road, and then Staniford Road and Oakland Terrace to North Ave, as well as patching very anticipated streets right through the city. And we have a town highway grant, which will be funding $200,000 of the patching or excuse me, the paving work that's occurring at North Ave. Very good. Thank you. The floor is open for questions, comments, motion. There are other roads that are not on those lists that are in really rough shape, and so what would be the plan? Roads aren't on this list to address on any patching that might arise. Yeah, so part of why we have a higher contingency this year is the hope that we might be able to fit some additional streets into this year's patching. Unfortunately, we are in a deletionary environment with the state of Cleveland, and so there's definitely, we have limited funding to be able to reach all the streets that are of need within the city. We also plan on doing crack sealing, which is good preventative maintenance for streets, but it's obviously not ideal. So that's basically where we stand with addressing streets this year. So if, like, I know of some streets and I know there was recent communication, yeah, it's horrible. And I know that's just the street that I've driven on, and that's going to require patching. That's not going to last another year in no amount of crack sealing, but would help that road at this stage. So I'm wondering, and I know there's that's like one of many, I'm just, is there, beyond this paving contract, are there other, is there other street cap at all that we can use for that to share? If we don't, I will move to deal with that, because it's not fundamental to our responsibility. Yeah, as we stand, we don't have other funding for that. It's always a difficult balance. Like River Mount Terrace, for example, we were able to do some patching last year, but that obviously doesn't even fully meet the needs of the road. And there are so many different streets around the city of Burlington that are in the same position. We always try to choose the highest neat streets that also have the highest volume and that are in neighborhoods that haven't always been served well. So we definitely try to make our choice for what is selected carefully. But that's within a limited funding environment. I'm happy to see that Stanford Road made this. We're happy about that, too. And it's going to have really nice new speed tables to go on the street, just some good traffic coming. Well, I'll certainly be supporting this tonight, but I'm also, thank you, remain extremely concerned about the state of many other streets. Thank you. This is an area where we have great concern, too. We have put a lot of effort in collectively since the 2016 Sustainable Restructure Plan. Every year, there has been supplemental fund funding over and above the street capital funds to enhance payment. We're in a situation now where that funding is very valuable and almost gone. There is a little bit of money that will be allocating in FY25. Maybe there'll be some remainder in FY26. We'll see where FY25 lands. I think with the new administration, there's going to need to be a conversation about how, whether it's extending the street capital tax or whether it's being able to adjust that in a way that we can do additional bonding. But the street capital tax alone is not sufficient to maintain our systems. We'll be active and helpful partners in that conversation, but it is certainly a conversation for the new administration. Any further discussion or motion? I'll make the motion. Thank you both. This is Bethan. Seeing none, we'll go to a vote. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. This brings us to Bill 0.2 of the Indian. Thank you. This is a request to execute unfairly property use agreement with Friends of Frame. I think I've talked about the Moran Frame a lot with Council, so I will go into a lot of detail, but this is an extension of the work we started with Friends of the Frame through a pilot program over the last couple of years where they have been providing activation of the site with free public programming and additional investments and infrastructure, so it's continuing that partnership in a more formalized way given the success of the pilot. There's two pieces to this approval. One, again, is for a contract to continue providing those activations over the next two summers, and also to develop a capital strategy for the implementation of phase two. And then the second piece is a property use agreement that would give them, again, a more formal relationship with Burlington Parks Recreation and Waterfront as well as Burlington City Arts, the plan is for them to work collaboratively on the site over the next five years to ensure that the site is activated. There's programming available to the public, but also sites like our other stuff, so we can't answer any questions. Well, it's open for discussion. President Powell. Thank you. I think this is exciting, and I'm happy to make a motion in this argument that will submit work. Thank you, President Powell. Second by Councilor McGee, great. Any further discussion? Seeing none, we will go to vote. All those in favor of motion please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Thank you. All your heart. Welcome, Samantha. Record time. All right. This brings us to 4.3, which is the conservation legacy fund request open space plan rewrite. Welcome, Scott. Great. That's with me. Good evening. Scott Gustin with permitting inspections. One of the many cats I wear is working with the conservation board. Here tonight with Sophie Sove, Parks planner, Dan Cahill, our city's land steward, and Zoe Richards, our conservation board chair, and all around conservation rock star. So the request tonight I think is fairly straightforward. The city's existing open space protection plan is approaching at 25 years old. It remains relevant. Similar statement can be made for the city's urban forest plan. To Sharon Bushers comment before, you know, we could do these plans separately, but there sure seems to be a lot of overlap between them. And in fact, we had sort of a false start on the urban forest plan and then sort of regrouped and decided, hey, we need an open space plan rewrite comprehensively. So whereas the parks plan focused mostly on parks, forests, the open space plan is city-wide, so institutional, public, private companies. So we're doing this as joint effort. I'll point out that we're also collaborating with UVM's spatial analysis lab, and they're doing all the data analysis mapping work. And they're doing that at a substantial margin, I might add. So this is an up to ask of $100,000, typically costs less than that. Great. I guess I'll repeat it again. We're getting a huge discount with the spatial analysis labs do this work. So that's our request. We've got the drones, right? We've got the drones. Jarless programs. Great. Thanks for tuning up, by the way. And the floor is open for discussion. I guess one, what kind of timeframe we'll, to authorize this for what's the timeline for when it's work done? Stay in question. We have the RFP drafted and we'll post it. I'll say MNA, so within, I'll just leave it at that. We're going to post it soon. I think we can start this in the spring, realistically. It'll be maybe a year approximately, but I think we'll figure out the details on what that looks like. So post approval, you can go to the RFP process. The new administration had some strong guidance on the RFP. You can go ahead and turn that. We'll definitely check in early on with the new administration, really, really sizable chip. And, you know, I think there's probably opportunity to check in with the new council on the standing climate emergency reports. Because there is a tie in there in the green infrastructure aspect, that you base on the solutions of this. All right. Floor is open for questions, discussions, questions. And we're very grateful for that. It's exciting to see some of the great work of the Conservation Board and getting brought forward and to see what's playing and writing and supporting what you look at. Looking at more housing density and I'm just making sure that we'll be mindful of that and that this plan is up to able to reflect the needs of today and going to the future. This work is going to be happening. We'll be happy to make the motion and it's recommended on 7.30. Thank you. Councilor McKee is our second. Thank you, Councilor Barlow for the discussion. Yes, Mr. Mayor. Go ahead, Councilor Chen. Thank you. So as part of the memo, it seemed that the available legacy fund is around $900,000, right? And it's saying also that potential expenditure of 101, nearly 102 for the Elk Arm Forest project. I was just wondering about what does it entail specifically? I know it's not related, but what's the plan for that Elk Arm Forest project coming up? Oh, look at that. We have Mark's director as well. Welcome. So, Councilor Zhang, that one is the focus for that one is the entrance of the greenway. If you walk past the greenway, you see that the entrance that's been used probably for decades upon decades that's been going up there. So it'll make that a universal access trail access. Folks to be able to walk or roll up there. And then we'll also have a kiosk up at the top so that once you get into that area, people will know where the trails such are. So it's really to make it a much more accessible entrance into accessible and welcoming. In many ways, we think about Rock Point and what happened when they put the stairs in there and all of a sudden that seems so much more welcoming. We hope to have kind of that same sort of feel on the Elk Arm Forest side. Wonderful. Thank you. Okay, any further discussion? Seeing none, we'll go to a vote. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Are there any opposed? The motion carries. All right. Um, 4.4, right? Request to accept and execute a Federal Aviation Administration grant to design construction manager at risk coordination and selection, pricing, construction inspection, construction of the North Forest Placement Project. Project next. Another exciting item on the agenda tonight. Welcome to the airport, neck growling, to the surface. I am going to share my screen real quick and just show you a couple of snapshots of what we're talking about. So yeah, thank you very much, Mr. Mayor. And Board, I'm very excited to present this. Again, you're going to see a couple of new features here for as the mayor referred to it as project next, which is our North Expanded Terminal and Replacement Project. What you see here is of course bird's eye view of our entire terminal with a couple of missing pieces in there because there's some changes that are going to come down in the future of our terminal. The whole premise here is to allow for essentially a couple of things to happen. We had a very big challenge with multiple security checkpoints in our terminal. We've solved that with a brand new security checkpoint system, which is working phenomenally with the technology that's in there, as well as the efficiencies that are brought in the new terminal, which we refer to as the terminal integration project, which is on the right hand side of this screen. We have an amazing opportunity, had an amazing opportunity, and many years of hard planning and work that went into a congressionally directed spending bill of $34 million. Tonight, we're here to request approval and authorization for this particular grant so that we can move to the north side of our terminal. This is going to solve the additional challenges that we had in the terminal outside of the security checkpoint, which is what you see right here, which is the size of aircraft that are coming into Lady BTV. And of course, with larger aircraft, you'll receive some of those planes, which means the space that you hang out, or the whole-term space inside the terminal, no longer fits with what the design of our existing terminal is. If you've flown on American and United, you definitely know that with our hallway wing on the other side. This alleviates that tremendously, not only removing that aircraft away from our active taxiway systems, away from... It's very light on the screen, but there's almost like a roadway to the top of the screen in there. It removes those tails away from that, brings them closer into the building and allows for larger aircraft, more accommodating with our new jet bridges that would be part of this project, as well as the whole-term space. I'm going to take you on a little bit of a journey if there's time, Mr. Mayor. Yeah, go for it. So what you see here is what exists today. This is our terminal integration project, fully operational. Underneath of this floor here is the consolidated security checkpoint. Right now, all American and United airline passengers comes up into this space and starts walking to the north. This north, this is part of our existing 1950s building, would be renovated as part of this $34 million project and completely opened up to additional whole-room space to prepare for future jet bridges that would be attached to the second floor building. Those future jet bridges are not included in this project yet. That's going to be the final terminal phasing of the building. However, you can see that our plan is to carry what we've already built with the Vermont Maple ceilings as well as the polished concrete flooring and additional seating as you continue your journey up to the north. You also see the stylates with the beautiful artwork there that will remain as part of this renovation project. We did just recently renovate this space just this past 2023 summer. Most of that would stay, including the restaurant space. However, in the right-hand corner of this picture, we'll also have a branded jet bridge that would be attached inside of this building. You'll no longer see a small hallway going to the American Airlines, United Airlines wing, but what you see in the far distance there is a much larger space. This is the new building. This is project next and this brings many new elements to the airport. Not only does it include a significant amount of mass timber, you can see it in the wood ceilings and even the light fixtures which would house all of our electronics and security equipment to Wi-Fi signals. Lots of mass timbers to reduce as much as we possibly can. Any embodied carbon as we build this particular building, we have done initial studies to make sure that that is going to actually occur. What you don't see here as well is underneath the building is a geothermal field as well. So the heating and cooling of this building would be part of a geothermal system, which is part of the what we call an apron of the building, which is underneath this floor. You also see some skylights up above. Those skylights do a couple of different things. They go up. You can see down the skylights there. They go up to a third floor area, which will be an event space and a open to the public new observation area of the building. The old observation tower is still going to exist as part of this plan. However, this is a pre-security observation area that will bring that nostalgia back to the airport. Also a potential revenue source for us to rent out for various events. Again tonight, we're asking for the authorization approval for this $34 million grant. Larry, Dave, and the rest of the team are working really diligently to finish this design work. We're not asking for construction contract approval tonight because we don't have those final numbers yet. We're still going through the process of the construction manager and app risk program with Engelberth contractor. And we'll be bringing that at a later date when we finish the design. We're just about approaching 80% design of this particular building. However, the way the FAA works and the way the grants work, it can happen very, very fast. So we want that authorization so that we can meet as quickly as possible the second that we do get some of those final contracts. And that's all I have for you. Great. Well done. Thank you. Tours are open for the board to ask questions. Comments? Thank you. I just have one question. How is that good question? With a lot of coordination, a lot of effort on our security program, it's deceiving. There's actually quite a bit of space between that flower garden and the edge of the building. And then there's about 200 feet before you actually get to an aircraft, you know, of course, you're on the third floor. So working through our department of Homeland Security and TSA Federal Security Director, we were able to come to a very secure open door space on the third level looking out over there with no glass, right? So how do people get out there? So on the right hand side, where our rocking chair wing is, there'll be a new, everybody knows where the rocking chair wing is. There'll be a new elevator system right there. So if we go up there and then you would walk, is that like right above that? That's what's the most exactly. It's almost right. Okay. That's right. All right. It's a little deceiving because it looks like this is a little farther over. Yeah. The North skywalk is right in the case of that too. Yeah. So it's not above that. It's going to be on the other side. You can see the rocking chair wing right here. So this would be the new entrance to a vertical core that goes directly up to the different name. Not calling it the rocking chair. Let's call that forever now. I do like using the word wing for different sides. Well, I'm happy that I'll make a motion to recommend that it's 34 million dollars is a lot of money. And those 15% contingency we're talking a few percent adds up a lot when you're talking about 34 million. It's about 39.1 million. Yeah. Very exciting. Thank you, President Powell. Second by Councilor McGee. Any further discussion? Just a couple of questions. What is the timeline and ideal world on this? And then would there be such a question as how will it impact current operations? Yeah. The timing right now, like I said, we're 80% design right now. We're going to be getting bids probably within the next 60 days on the final pricing. And then coming back to the through the boards and council. We're hoping the final permitting process is completed by summertime so that we can kick off shows the ground by the end of summer, early fall and very, very latest. The construction is very complicated and the phasing is going to be very particular with without impacting our existing operations. The really great part about this particular physical location of the building, very similar to our tip building. It's essentially unusual because the planes are too large to actually fit in that space. So when we start building this out, our existing Jeopardy's off of that American United wing of the airport will continue to operate. Once the building goes in, then we're going to have to demolish the old building and then come back and activate this new Jeopardy system. That's when we're probably going to have to relocate airlines to the new building, which we just added a Jeopardy to that space. The building itself is an 18 month project to actually get constructed. So it'll be well into 2025 before we have to start playing the allocation of space between the buildings. Okay, so no further comment. We can't, Councilor Jang, I can't see you right now. Are you need to be recognized? You're good. Okay, we'll go to a vote. All those in favor of the motion please say aye. All right. Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Thank you. All right. That brings us to 4.5, another airport item request to actually get a lease agreement from the school district for the use of the south hangar at the new home of aviation education at the new home at the south hangar. Nic, why don't you do this up for us as well? Okay, great. So again, another very exciting project at the airport where we've been working on this what we call the south hangar, which is our very most southern hangar on the facility through a competitive bidding. Before I go, if you didn't see the screen, I do have Jeff Glassberg who has helped broken the deal for us as well as Marty Spalding from the school district on the line, where of course David Larry. So again, competitively been this particular building out to occupy generally what is required to be an aviation or what the FAA calls the aeronautical use facility. The Burlington school district was the only responding to the particular bidding process. And through that process, we were able to truly see how they can move their existing aviation use technical program, which is for power plant and avionics, which are the panels on the front of the planets, repair maintenance, everything associated with repairing an aircraft and rebuilding engines of an aircraft. They are existing at the facility today, at the airport today about 200 feet from this particular location. Their new model and their new approach truly fits this and I'll let Marty really speak to potentially some of their great opportunities for growth for that particular program for high school education. They did receive a 10 million grant and that was part of the deal. For us at the airport, we were able to truly see the benefits of improving the existing Southanger as well as incorporate that into the lease payments and what you see on Civic Clerk, the total rent schedule throughout this 40-year lease term. This building is 100 percent required to be an aviation use facility. We had to go through a pretty intense process with the Federal Aviation Administration to verify and make sure that whatever program, whatever use, and potentially future uses all are accommodated through us, which is us, the airport sponsor, requiring aviation or aeronautical use within this facility. These repair maintenance, avionics, engine repair all qualify for aeronautical use facilities and would be located within this 32,000 square foot tank. It's a very, it's a large hangar. Not all of the space is going to be occupied by their program. There's still going to be about half of the hangar that would be utilized for aircraft and that is highly encouraged throughout this process to reduce existing tenants that are currently in that temporary space right now. Jeff is here to talk more about the logistics of the actual lease, if the board wishes, and then of course Marty from the school district to talk more about there. Great, thank you, Thank you. I guess before we go to Jeff or Marty, pause and go to the go to the board. Are there questions that board has for them? I have questions, but I'd be interested to hear if there's is there a presentation that Marty's going to give on the programming? Mark, I don't have a presentation, but I can give you an update of the programs that are moving into the space. We gave the BSD board an update at last week's board meeting that I can certainly share that presentation with you. I guess my questions are around like programming and making sure it all passes mustard with the FAA and then ongoing compliance as well. So in so much as you can sort of address that, I guess. I can speak to that now if you're ready for me to speak to that now, Mr. Mayor. Go ahead, Marty. So as Nick said, there's currently an aviation program that already exists at the property of the airport. That program is primarily for adult ed students. And we also had a BTC student level aviation program that existed at the Burlington Tech Center, which was at 52 Institute Road, which is currently been displaced to the old add-on building in South Burlington. So one of the programs that will be moving into this new space are the aviation student program. And then another program is the advanced manufacturing program. Ultimately, we'll be able to fit four tech center programs in this new Southanger. So it'll be the adult ed aviation, the student supported aviation program, the advanced manufacturing. And there's one program that's yet to be determined. And it's yet to be determined for a number of different reasons. One, enrollments in tech centers fluctuate significantly from year to year. So Jason Reed, the tech center director has not identified what would be the best program to fit into that space. We also know that the program needs to meet the FAA requirements. So there's some discussion about potentially some level of automotive that would fit into like ground transportation. That could be a component of the program that would move there. Or there could be some opportunities for any of the two programs that I just mentioned to expand in size. But it is large enough to fit. Ultimately, four programs and there's four existing or there will be four classroom spaces associated to each of the separate lab spaces for those programs as well as some common spaces, lobbies and spaces for kids to eat lunch. And then as Nick mentioned, a large hangar space to store and work on airplanes that the current aviation program does not have. They have to store all of their airplanes out on the hangar in obviously the outdoor weather conditions. So I guess one of my questions is like, I know from my time on to the board and being part of the regional tech center advisory group that the program sort of coming, coming goes. So I think they've been for a while and then enrollment drops and a new program comes along. What will be the process by which you ensure that any future occupancy of BTC in the hangar is FAA compliant, I guess. Is there a plan for that? Well, we've been working with the airport to confirm that the programs that do go in there get approved by the FAA. So we would continue that process. I believe there's obviously some language in our lease that requires us to meet those FAA obligations. Maybe Nick or Jeff can speak to what that process looks like more directly with the FAA. I'll let Nick speak to the process with the FAA. With regard to the lease, the lease provides for the uses within the space as BSD proposed in their response to the RFP. The FAA was provided with a copy of that proposal. They approved those uses. The proposal is attached to the lease as exhibit D, I believe. And then the lease itself refers to those certain uses and contains a clause with FAA and TSA supremacy to any proposed change of use. So it would be subject to the airport FAA TSA review. And it is strict. The airport, the city, do have grant assurances and regulations that we have to follow, which is, of course, exactly why this language is in the lease in the first place. So even if we do talk about automotive programs or any of these types of things, they have to meet some of those requirements and through that formal process go through not only to us, the city, but through to get the approval of the FAA. And it can't just be a, for example, the automotive program can't just be an automotive program. It has to be supported by the airport system, like working on our snow removal or things like that. Any further discussion? Are you ready for a motion? Excellent. Sir, second. Second by President Paul. Thank you. Any further discussion? Yes, Mr. Mayor. Go ahead and cast your bill. Yeah. I wanted to quickly ask about the rent credit. What does it specifically means? Is it the school district doesn't have to pay the 11,500,000 or? I'll take that. Councillor Jang, what it means is that the school district will spend at least $11.5 million on improvements and receive that back in the form of a partial rent credit every year. So the market rent was set. It was based on a market rent study. And then the cost of those improvements, the $11.5 million was spread out over the 40 years and applied against the market rent. So there's some cash rent and then there's a credit for those improvements every year. Yeah. Now, if the school district received like around nearly $10 million from the United States Department of Commerce, and basically, how are they going to? Where are they going to find the rest, basically? Yeah. So the additional $1 million committed through the BSD budget. I can't speak to that as well as obviously Nathan Lavery can, but it was committed almost two years ago and was actually identified in the school district's audit as money that was set aside specifically for this project, because we went through a schematic design estimate about two years ago and identified that the project was going to cost roughly $12 million and we only had $10 million from the congressional grant. So Nathan found those additional funds and it's been set aside for this particular project. Unbelievable. And I think this leads to my main question, which is about finding a way in which that the city and the school district can be a little bit smart about just how do we still keep on supporting you without on the back of the tax affairs. And I think this has been a problem for quite some time and it doesn't seem we are making any type of progress. And I was just wondering, Nick Longo, understanding that you are an enterprise fund and the school district also is solely run by the tax affairs, what are the opportunities to elaborate the difference and not put it on the back of the tax payers, what opportunities are there, creativity to make it happen. We actually looked at that initially in the project. So throughout the schematic design phasing and the initial conversations after we were starting to work with the school district, the airport did expend around $600,000 to make sure that the design work was moving forward. This was not on the school district. This was airport funding through an older grant, a grant that the airport received and the school district received about 14 years ago. So there's additional funding that was already been put into this project that is not on the, it's an additional grant, so it's not put out the backs of the tax payers. We'll also continue to work with the school district significantly throughout the remaining portion of the design as well as the construction to see where we potentially could help. Right now I think there's an amazing program put together to improve not just the building, at that $11.5 million approximate number, that supports both the school district and the airport. Okay, wonderful. And you know this is just like a simple request maybe to document this type of you know work collaboration between the entities and be able also to communicate it with the tax payers so they understand also that you're all doing your best to make things happen. Yeah. All right, thank you and happy to support you. Okay, I think we're ready for a vote. All those in favor of Councilor Higgins' motion, please say aye. The newest motion carries unanimously. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you all. Thank you. Okay, this brings us to 4.6, which is the authorization for a budget amendment for emergency phase of sewer cycle and brake response. And it's like we had Chief Ben and Megan here to do this. Megan, would you like to kick this off? Sure. Hi everyone. This is largely I guess sort of a housekeeping financial effort. So back in July 2023 when the sewer cycle broke, obviously we had to spend money on a variety of things in the early weeks just to get things moving in the right direction. I've enumerated what some of those are in the tables that are in the memo. All of the big purchases, everything that was on its own over $50,000 has come to you via various board of finance and city councils. But in order to bring the budget up to this point in time, we needed to go back and authorize these or get official authorization for the about $50,331 worth of expenses. I'm also taking this opportunity to officially encumber a portion of our fund balance to cover the local match that is anticipated or up to the local match that would be anticipated for the expenses that we have incurred to date. The good part is that shortly after the river siphon broke, the Vermont Bond Bank called me and said that we had this opportunity, I guess, I don't know exactly how it works with the bond stuff, but we were basically owed some money and we could sort of either take it out over time or take it as a one-time refund of what we would have otherwise paid on our FY24 debt service. And so our books, our cash is up by about $640,000 because that was money I budgeted in the FY24 budget to pay for our debt service. And so that's where the money would be coming from for this as well as potential other future local matches depending on how much we have to fund of the eventual long-term fix. Great. Thank you, Megan. Lore is open to the board for questions. Motion. Councillor Jenner. Happy to make the motion as indicated on City Clerk. Excellent. We have a second from Councillor Barlow. Any further discussion? Seeing none, we'll go to vote. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Thank you, Megan. And I think this brings us to our final deliberative item before the budget work and our tertiary discussion, and that is 4.7, which is a contract renewal for continuing engagement with Burlington Health Conference. Welcome, Scott. Thank you, everyone. We need it. We can jump into a dang, but I just wanted to kind of bring up three pieces of why we want to do it, why we want to extend to that agreement in five years. In fact, it's over and we need to. Service and partnership from... Shocked it's been five years. Costs both asked and future costs and complexity and barriers to change. So service and I have those two people from Burlington Telecom. They are... Their view of Burlington Telecom and the partnership and relationship with the city are that as the city goes, so does Burlington Telecom. They look at this as a partnership more than as a vendor and as someone who is sat on both sides of that table as a vendor and as a customer, I can tell you that I always tried to be the unicorn vendor with my customers and give them what they needed in a way that provided me to be successful and to be successful. I'm not sure I ever got to a level that brought it to us. So their service delivery, their uptime, everything that they've done and everything they do continues to encourage me and recommend that they keep going in terms of our partner. As important as that is the cost they had in the original contract, the ability to charge us $84,000 a month for the services. In that period of time, they've only charged us $64,000 a month. They have not only done that from that perspective, but over the last five years over $250,000 of free services, including 500 project management hours for the removal of the Burlington Telecom Networking, if it meant out of a more auditorium. We didn't have to pay for any of their project management and it was one of the most professional projects I've ever seen and been a part of. So all of that plus the idea that they provide almost $20,000 worth of Wi-Fi signal across all 30-some-odd buildings in the city, city hall park, battery park, waterfront park, all of that Wi-Fi is pre-o-charge. They're not only able to hold fiber or everything else, but they also make sure that they're on all the time. And then finally, the prohibition of bearer and bearer is a change. If we look back at what we went through for the last 18 months to move out of Memorial Auditorium and into the new facility for our networking assets, it's probably about that complex to move from one ISP to another. When we did all of that work with Memorial Auditorium, we did not have to change any of the internal networking infrastructure. We didn't have to change any of the IP addresses. If we were to change all of to go to another ISP, all of that would change. We did it with almost no, look, we did it with no unexpected downtime and almost no life actual planned downtime to move out of Memorial. I can't say that that would be the case with another ISP. It's going to be a huge lift and one that I don't relish thinking about. So I, with all of that being said, I'm open for questions, but I'm recommending that we go ahead and engage with them for another five-year contract. Thank you, Scott. Yep. Explorers, everyone, for questions. Discussion, doesn't fall. Sorry, a second. Second by Councilor Barlow. Discussion. Seeing none, we'll go to a vote. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Thank you. All right. That brings us to monthly budget to actuals report for the general fund. This is the perspective that this is going to be monthly. It's been sometimes just going to tell us and this is, but this is second to happen with the board of finance. It's going to make the budgeting and auditing of future years. We approve it to have this, this, this point going again, Catherine's worked part of this and I will turn the presentation together. Yeah, I think we can keep this brief. The purpose is really to see if you have questions after you've had a chance to review the material. And yeah, I think as we get back into the swing of producing these every month, you'll see this month for the actuals ending January 31st. I put together an overview memo with what I saw were some of the highlights and sort of the big picture, which is at this point, the general fund appears to be on budget. In chart one, I went through several revenues that we don't expect to realize in FY24 and that do also have an impact on FY25 and you'll see those as we budget for next year. But table two also shows a corresponding amount of revenues that are exceeding budget or expenses coming in less than anticipated. And then in a more detailed budget review, I go through each of the department budgets and big items that stick out. I try to explain them. And then of course, there was a detailed budget report for every general fund department. So with that, I will stop talking and see if there are any questions from the board. Well, I didn't have my hand raised. However, because if there anyone who's been talking about this more than I have, probably not. This is great. And I'm only sorry that I won't be here for the 25 budget discussion and have all of this in front of us. This is, I think, what I had always hoped we would have. And I hadn't gone through every single one of these. There are a lot of them in terms of all of the other attachments, but I've gone through several. And I think these will be, I do think these will be helpful in addressing the three million dollars worth of expenditures that are going to need to be defined and actually before the operational assessment is done. Because it really has to be, because that won't be done. That won't be available in May. Really let me just start, obviously. So I think this is great. And hope that others on board, the four to finance to come, will sort of appreciate it. You'll appreciate it, right? You're the only one that will potentially be here. So no pressure. So I think this is a great category. But anyway, thank you. Thanks for all the separate. I do think that this will, this should have sent a pretty good place for being able to, I mean, it's not everything. So still need to do those journal entries. Yes. And I think this was a very useful tool as our auditors had wanted it to be to see where there are journal entries that either need to be made like the ARPA ones around REIB or assigned fund balance with the police. And then just where there's errors. And so we're going through that now with department heads and the CT office. So it is also very useful just internally, even know none of you even read this report, but I know you are. And that's really helpful as well. I mean, if you are closing your books, you know, and then, you know, then obviously, this is extremely helpful. So anyway, thank you. Thanks very much. I have a question. Great. Go ahead, Castle. Yeah, I have one first. It's a comment to just say really, Catherine, thank you so much. I think we, I told you about all of this via email, just to say how appreciative I am. Maybe this is my last meeting with you, but you have been an amazing city cause city staff. You have been very diligent and you were new, but you came also in a time when it was not very easy. But I think you work substantially to do great work for the city of Wellington. And I want to say how appreciative I am again. Okay. Thank you. And I mean, I wanted also to understand a little bit about the city insurance premiums. How many do we have with who and how is paying the insurances are working? How does it work? For example, I wanted to also understand, you know, where is it increasing, where it has been stable, right? And where we need to basically pay some attention, some level of attention. Maybe not tonight, not here, not right now, but I wanted to have a picture of how those type of things work. That is a great point, Councillor Jang. And it was probably six months ago at least that we had our insurance agent Paul Plunkett here to talk about a lot of issues around our kind of workers compensation and liability insurance or property insurance. And that might be helpful. We also work with someone from a different agency on our health insurance. And so I could see as we're going through especially the FY 25 budgeting process that it might be helpful to bring both Paul back and someone on the health insurance side, which I'll be meeting with them later this week. As we've seen on the school budget, health insurance costs have continued to rise across the country, across Vermont. And we're still waiting on updated numbers for our premiums for next year because we are self-insured. And so those numbers change every month depending on how our employees and their families are utilizing the plan. But we are experiencing pretty large increases because that's just the way it goes. But exactly how that works gets pretty complicated in terms of exactly how many people in the city are what we call high claimants with claims over a million dollars. And it gets into some kind of complicated things that we could probably all benefit from understanding further. So I can make sure that we get some of those resources in here to talk about that. It's a great point. Thank you. Catherine Marlowe. Yes, thank you. I appreciate this as well. I can appreciate it now and maybe I'll appreciate it next year. But of course what I had was around like I think I talked to you about this Catherine. When I was on the board, school board, we had this red light, green light, yellow light report, which essentially gave us like a really quick look at, you know, where there's an area of concern. Because in the school district, I mean, maybe there's some dynamics in the city, the revenues and the expenditures aren't necessarily level throughout the period. So you may get something that looks like really scary because you use like 80% of your budget early in the budget year. But that's the only time you may actually be 20% to the good side because you'll never have another expense in that category. So it's hard, it would be hard if there are similar kinds of things in city finance, then it would be good to be able to understand that. And in the district we had like even though it would be green in that case, because the case, the example I just gave you, because it was everything was fine and there wasn't a concern or it wasn't an area to watch. So I'm just, I mean, I'm not trying to create more work on this either, but I know that the high level one sort of gave the narrative to that effect. But I'm wondering if there might be fine tuning that wasn't too obvious. That is exactly what I am trying to get at and I used your idea of the red, yellow, green. I don't know if you saw it, but if you went in, yeah, each of the budgets and I have that. And I took that same approach and one example I could think of is with Scott's budget on IT. It looks like computer licensing is a disaster because they're at like 90% spent. But of course, they spend that on like July 2nd, and then you're done. So I put that as green because I was like, it's not going to overspend even though it looks bad. And then on the other side, permitting and inspections, rental registrations are due on April 1st. So that is $1.1 million of revenue that doesn't come into April 1st and then it all comes in. So it's 0%. And that looks really scary, but feels like we always made it. Don't worry. So I think we have actually quite a few revenues that come in fairly regularly. And then we have ones that are really irregular. And through this process, we are going to all become more familiar with what they are. And I will try to continue to highlight them as we go. You know, there's ones that people are really familiar with. People know gross receipts are pretty seasonal because you can see it on the street. And I think people now know about local option tax because I just talk about it all the time. And it's like, we get four payments a year. And until we get the next payment, it looks uneven and sharp. But it's a great point. And if you have questions or there's things as you review this that aren't in there or not clear, let me know and I'll build it into the next report. Part of it may just be learning how to review reports. As you have feedback, like this, maybe there's too many words, you don't like the chart, whatever, let me know and we can make it more user friendly. There's no further. I'm not sure you have a question. Oh, sorry, Councillor Granat, I can't see you. But I have to recognize you. Go ahead. Thank you. So I was just looking at the city council page. And if this is for FY24, then that looks like it is that one of the things that will be updated? Tell me what you're looking for to be updated. Well, for example, Perry Freeman is listed as the Central District Councilor, Jack Hanson is still listed as East District. So it doesn't look like we've been updated. And I know that I've used some funds, not a lot. Yes. The names being in there, I've been trying to get out because it's just confusing because we have changes. So yes, thank you for pointing that out. I will try once again to get the names removed. And perhaps you and I should have a conversation, Councillor Granat, because I know you've been working on spending your money because you and I have been talking about it. I'm not sure why it hasn't shown up if you had submitted those expenses by the end of January or not. Forgive me for interrupting. I was just going to say that I haven't submitted everything yet, but there's definitely some that have were submitted earlier than January within, I believe, within the current fiscal year. Let me go back and look what I sent over to AP. So otherwise you're feeling this is correct. It's just the names that are wrong. Yes. Okay. Okay. So I'll check if it was the previous year. I feel like there was something, but I'll double check on that. I just had a quick question, health insurance wise. So the city needs self insures. Does the city use health reimbursement accounts? Is the city able to use self reimbursement accounts or health reimbursement accounts if it's self insured? I don't think so. I'm not familiar with that term. Okay. Does the city is a self insured plan a high deductible plan? No, we have several different plans that people can choose from and I don't think we have a high deductible plan. So the city doesn't offer any high deductible plans. So this might be something that the city wants to look into because essentially health insurance has become like car insurance in certain ways. So we're all familiar with the fact that if we insure our car and we elect to have a higher deductible, we can have a lower premium. So with health insurance, you can do the same thing. You can take a higher deductible plan, have a lower premium, and then with the savings on the premium, you can put as long as your insurance plan meets a certain amount of the deductible, you can choose to create a health reimbursement account or contribute to a health savings account for employees. Now if you do it as a health reimbursement account, you're using the money that you're saving for the premiums, you're putting them in health reimbursement accounts, and you're not going to have, in general, you don't have full usage of that money. It ends up being where depending on individuals' needs, you might have an individual that has a high usage, kind of what happens now. You're going to have individuals who have high usage, you're going to have individuals who have no usage, and you're going to have people who fall somewhere in between. So given the situation with the deficit, that may be something if the city, I don't know if the city works with a broker to have a broker. Yeah, that's a grant. As you can imagine, this is a complex issue with many years of collective bargaining behind it. I understand that. Employees do have flexible spending accounts as what you've described Councilor Grant, we do tax-earning flexible spending accounts. Okay, so I'm talking specifically about health reimbursement accounts, which can be offered and are offered at municipalities who have collective bargaining. Yeah, and I'm really excited. Do you want to take the details of the way the city's health insurance works? Happy to have you follow up with who on your team? It's actually handled from HR. So you should probably start with Karen Dervey or Lynn Reagan. Okay, I can do that, but I would recommend that that be something that HR is looking into. Is the city's benefits on the fiscal year or on a calendar year? Well, it is on a fiscal year, as the Mayor mentioned. It's not, I think it might be difficult for us to make changes because the health insurance has already been bargained, but it is something that... That's fine. So I understand what you're saying about that. I just want to be very clear. Health reimbursement accounts are used by municipalities who have collective bargaining. Yeah. So there's no question about that. I'm just saying that this would be something that we may want to look at to control. This is something that is used in the benefits marketplace to help control the cost of insurance premiums. And I just think we would be remiss if we're not looking into this. The collective bargaining won't be an issue because you can say that if you can have an HRA for all the people that are in DPW, you can have an HRA for people that are in the police department based on what their collective bargaining says. I just think with the deficit that we have, that something like this, if it hasn't been explored before, I mean, maybe it doesn't end up working out for the city, but not to explore it. I have great concerns about that. Thank you. Thanks, Councilman. Okay. There's no further discussion on the budget actuals. Yeah. So thanks again to Catherine to get into this. I'm excited that this we're able to do this my last political finance meeting and that we have this system going for the new team coming in. And with that, we will close that item and move to the final item of the night, which is the discussion regarding 200 church team. So Director Pine, Brian, you weren't in the room yet. I think we talked about this at the top of the meeting and just maybe get it ran it way wide and coming into discussion tonight and actually just helpful given that it's going to need to be a new mayor, a new council. My understanding is the idea was not to act next week is to have an executive session. Sure. And that's a fair point of fair question. I think that reason for doing it now is talking about this topic can be sensitive to talk about city assets. And it's always good that it seems to have that conversation maybe earlier rather than later. And even though as pointed out earlier of this board only Councilor Barlow remains, it's really a matter of socializing this concept and getting it out to folks earlier rather than later. We've been negotiating. So until now, we haven't felt like we had anything to report. And now that we're closer, we thought it was a good thing to share. But if you all decide to postpone the next council, the next board of finance, it just pushes everything out. I mean, I think the goal is to get some feedback now. And if we can do executive session to at least lay out the business and field terms, going down the wrong path, we need to know that we're expected to sign a decree really soon. So they know whether they will be buying or processing that. President Paul, I just met today about it's likely to be a very chiseled way with the form and numerous delivery of items. And it does that strike me that I mean, you know, pretty different council and administration, but I wonder if it's best. So is there immediate time sensitive? You're just trying to get the process started. It's not the thing happening in early April or? They would hope we would have a signed agreement in April. And their reason why is because they're going to need to sink some significant money into what is now a city asset, because we don't have the capital put into it. We have about a million dollars of pressing upgrades to do. We do not have a million dollars available to do that. So we're really faced with essentially an HVAC system that is basically held together by duct tape right now. And if we allow it to continue and it breaks down this summer, where it's on our dot, so we're trying to avoid that scenario. So obviously that requires action probably by the end of April on a legal agreement so that they can put the work out of it and contract and get it done. And I think yeah, we know that there's a lot of change happening, but that's not everyone. There's a lot of people that will continue to serve on the council. So the opportunity to have that discussion, but those who will continue to serve, I think we thought would help us just be. Now it's just actually the outline, the overview to be followed by the executive session next Monday with her. So that would be the deal. This is not the sale of an iconic city building that people have some memory in. Perfect. Oh yeah, we'll email to Councilor Chang. Yeah, and even Councilor Grant. You're with us still? Councilor? Yes. I will need to go break the pass. I'm going to step out. Sorry. I'm still here. Okay. So we will email to Councilor Chang and to Councilor Grant. Any other counselors? Counselor Travers is on here. Hello. Travers. Travers. Travers. When did she get here? Travers. Thank you. All right. Just in case you didn't hear me, this is Milo. I'm still here. Thank you. All right. We thought we would hit the highlights here, which are pretty straightforward. 1958 building, built as an office building, never built as housing, wasn't built as a city building, was built by the private sector 15,000 square feet. Think of it as essentially a working ground floor or basement by what they call the first floor with offices. And then those are all city offices on the first floor, the second floor is all Burlington telecoms. Took ownership really out of the whole workout resolution in 2014 regarding Burlington telecom. Took ownership in 2014. Burlington telecom, as I mentioned a minute ago, not only did they operate out of the second floor and they're essentially their entire operations, but their network operation center, which is really the central nervous system for the whole system, is in that building. So it's fairly, I think easy to grasp that it's significant importance to Burlington telecom to both control and own eventually. And obviously they're concerned about maintaining that facility. The city has the community justice center, the human resources and payroll, occupying the first floor. CJC is, if all goes as planned, and there's a lease that will be also decided by the council in the coming month for the CJC and a building that Champlain Housing Trust is developing at the former VFW, that will include on the ground floor offices will be the community justice center along with some space for the VFW. The asset purchase agreement is like a 90 page document that lays out all the terms of the transaction. It counts with all those as well, and certainly the barren ones are really well-come. You've forgotten more about it than any of us will ever know. But there is a really important thing in there, which is they write a first refusal. It isn't just like a right they can exercise if we have to invite them to, but they actually have the unilateral right to exercise that option in the next lease term that begins in 2028. You might ask, why would you advance it if you can wait until then? And the reason why is because we don't have the one and a half million dollars of improvements. We don't have the money for that. So we're trying to not get stuck with making the improvements and then having a transaction, but instead have them sell the building, I mean own the building, have them take care of the improvement. And they would be letting the city remain until the end of 25. That's our getting into deal terms. Want to get a sense of it. And just to come a little bit more background, we're just that sort of interesting here is like this building had because of the flow of funds back when the system was being built out and the vagaries of how the litigation unfolded, this asset ended up being separated off and we were successful because of the facts involved here and basically keeping this separate from the rest of the burden of telecom settlement. So that gave us full ownership over this asset as opposed to all the other assets of Burlington, which we not to make us all relive it, but it's very complicated division of a ownership based on, you know, all the water, the water, the bridge there. But so it's sort of a little bit of an accident in history that this is sort of a unique that this was separated off from that. And it is the only part of the Burlington telecom infrastructure that is not owned by Burlington telecom. It's a little ironic given that there's enormous amount of Burlington telecom infrastructure to that building and its head ends. So, you know, it's something that they are very, you know, they have a greater first refusal that was sort of doubt as part of the settlement agreement, part of the separation with them. And I do think it makes sense in the context we are today where we're struggling to counsel Barlow your point before to put enough money into our core assets, our roads, our sidewalks, our buildings that public activities are going on to be thinking about this, as opposed to having to pour new capital into this building. That's sort of how we got to this point, knowing that we generally are reluctant to sell municipal assets this one, I think it's at least worth consideration given given the financial pressures that we face with the school district and the limitation on bonding. And, you know, the fact that this is not going to be a place for a lot of public activities beyond a little bit of office space for the deafening picture. I think you mentioned, you know, there are two main users in that building, the CJC and HR that are not BT, the CJC, you know, there is this plan that we're working towards an office plan for them. So there would need to be something to be figured out with the HR office space, there's plenty of time to do that the way this is being contemplated here. So that's why this is coming forward. And I hadn't, you know, and there is some real external events of that if we're going to do this agreement, the BT needs to get control of this and start making the improvements relatively. And that would be the forward purchase and sale agreement. All right, so any further discussion questions here, President Paul and I can talk offline about what we do from here. I mean, you're not looking for a we're actually going to have to socialize this with the board today. So a very quick question, Mr. Mayor. Yes. Yeah, the building, yeah, we know the building, but what about the parking lot behind it? Is it attached to the building or it's not a city property? Excuse me for a few vans right against the building, but that's really because the owners of the hood plan, if you will, are amenable to them using that, but no, it doesn't go with the building. It's just the footprint of the building is what the city owns. Thank you. Any further discussion at this point? You wish you in the parking lot would be fun to open that? Especially now. Especially now for being sewer. We are. We're very proud of the parking lot. It's quite, if you haven't, I will say for any lumber infrastructure that we're all responsible for, you should go walk down a little church here right now and see this bypass that has been constructed for the sewer. You can actually see, you can actually see as of what, it's meant that I actually didn't walk down there at the end of last week and you can actually see the historic brick work of like this. You can see it from there down at the hood plan, right next to the BT building, actually a little bit south of there. That really is quite something. I mean, it's this enormous sewer pipe constructed out of, you know, that's pretty, pretty, it's a young basin that's worked on this. I someone said we have a video of it today. Yeah, I've heard that stuck in her mind. Maybe doing something out of this, so that will be popular. I think it's going to be well done. You can also see the old railroad ties on the main street where the cable cars are ripped out. That's right, I think we're doing a lot of archaeology work. Yeah, I have to go check it. You're going to go on a field trip tomorrow? Yeah, it's worth it. All right, I can't see any counselors on the screen. So I'm assuming there's no more hands there and I'm not seeing any more hands here. So without objection, I close this item and adjourn the Board of Finance at 7.10 p.m. This may be the final meeting of this Board of Finance. There is, I think we are thinking we'll need a brief one for the current item before we get going with the sequence of next week. Our work is nearly done. We take it seriously. We're not slowing down, so. Thanks everybody. Thanks.