 a Cmi productions are only made possible with your support. Visit patreon.com slash a Cmi to learn how you can help. So here here with thinking you're going to tonight. We're going to finish the 2 budgets we have left with his insurance and water and sewer. And then in connection with doing water and sewer we're going to end article 43 and 44 of the line names when we want articles. And there are a couple of other one articles that are pretty minor and quick that I'd like to get done finish with. And I will go back to the more substantial articles that we have left to talk about in the remainder of the committees and working groups whose budgets we still need. Fortunately, I thought I would start with Carolyn doing insurance. Grant, can you do water and sewer right now? He started. Don't we wait until like pen and pen or something? All right, that's right. Can we do the articles first? That's fine with me. And by the way, I meant to say before we're on a certain client for our services loan everybody. I spoke with him a couple of days ago. Says that we're going to find a committee just be contingent of the gold standard. Did you sell anybody out? Well, it's just like an old age or something that was about all of us in regard to again, he's the deputy town manager for a little deputy town manager for a little and he's acting for a while. And I want to point out to people that he also needs to do the water. So that's your future. So come on, you can either be, you know, so look, article 43, we've had a question from the public regarding this article. Well, I actually want to bring up, but let me mention that first. Article 43 is the appropriation for reconstruction of sewer mains and sewer facilities. And what we asked the town to appropriate 900,000 and the water sewer puts in the budget puts in 100,000, so we spent a total of essentially one million. But we're asking the town in this article for 900,000. That's for sure. Yeah, why these things are worded this way in the warrant, we'll have to ask about that. Actually, sewer always comfortable water in the budget of the articles because it's alphabetical first. Why don't we move on there, 44 as well? Yeah. So article 44 is the reconstruction of water mains, you know, water mains and sewer drains. And this is asking for the town for 1.5 million, 1,500,000, and in the same situation, the water sewer puts in 100,000 in there. Could you say the amount again? Sorry. No problem, 900,000. Okay. Or I'm sorry, article 43 is 900,000. Article 44 is 1,500,000. Okay, thanks. Okay, so public asked the question. I wanted to address it because it's a good question and you're right to have it addressed. I think we everyone had to take a look at it and there's a bit to it, but essentially there are two questions that he asked. Will any funds appropriated? He also asked about R39. But would any funds appropriated in the articles 43 and 44 be used for legal expenses for a permit challenge? And the answer to that is no. Oh, no. And the second question is, let's skip the first part and just say, can DPW state that water and sewer projects contemplated in those two articles will achieve their full service life? Or will some of those funds wasted? So Mike's answer, which was very well written, like you just read it, it's essentially the bones of it is this is focused on replacing water mains and sewer drains and Mike says he doesn't believe anyone spent on these projects would be wasted as a scope of repairs would not change based on possible climate change impacts. So that was the gist of the two questions. There's a little some other questions that Mike said he wanted some more time and maybe he could develop a more thoughtful response. But those are the two answers to the questions that were asked. So with that, Jennifer, you have a question. Yeah, I just have a question. So these are the first seven trees steady over the last two years and I bought them here for good and by the file each time. But after the cost completed, so is that true? Can we start to do the same math that we did years ago? Or are we doing less? Do you have any idea? Yes. Oh, and by the way, did you ever get the emails that I did? I got them. I got the original one, but he is fine. This was it. So I asked the same something similar to that and how they do it. I think let's see. Let's see. As our sewer system is vast and continually we will always have a program of investigating sewer lines and making them the third repair. But the workers prioritized for areas where pipe-to-fifth disease are allowing groundwater to do. That's the key, I think, which is causing us to pay to treat cleaning water as opposed to where they wouldn't be. It doesn't say exactly how much. I just wanted for doing less, for level-findingness, you know, but cost we're going to have, like we actually recovered less of how we were going to do it here. It's somewhere along the line. OK. Our ultimate goal, see, it makes the distinction between line pipe and online pipe, and the lining is, I got to say this, seven dishes, seven dishes, products. And it's present on all the pipe installed. So they need to replace all the online pipe. And about 50 miles of the 130 miles is online. And pipe is not forever material there, but they always need to break new places. But his comment here is if we continue to only replace one mile a year. So I'm making the presumption that that is continuing one mile a year. But his concern is if we continue to only replace that, we'll end up with a 130-year-old pipe throughout town before it is going to be replaced. We won't get there. More reasonable goal would be, plus, 1.5 or two miles a year. So that our oldest pipe at any time is only 65 to 85. And this sort of is a trend, I think. This would require a double amount of funds. We're going to do that. So I guess the quick answer is, yeah, we're doing the same miles, but it isn't it's kind of a theme for like we heard with the waterbikes. We're not going to be getting there. And if we double the amount, we get some. My question is that an article 20, 20 and 24, Charlie, and then two down. Thank you. So the new replacement, I just want to say made of sort of all of the old pipes were either clay or iron or rock. And they had a lot of problems with tree infiltration and the new ones are some sort of. Fossil fuel based plastic. Yeah, and they have a much longer. So I don't think that the analogy is perfect. No, he's trying to talk about the lining. Lining of it, nothing, not what's actually made it. Because I guess the sentiment that the the online pipes built that was said said, yeah, I mean, yeah, but stuff. But the new pipes don't have, you know, what their material is much easy to use the layman's term smoother, you know, and they wouldn't leak as much. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I just thought for the benefit of the new people, you might explain where the bulk of the money comes from and how it's paid off the borrowing and the debt service. Well, or you can quote out. You mean you mean the MBA? Yeah. Interest free loans. Yeah. One of the reasons why it's increasing. Oh, that's why I put that in the. It's in the recommended vote, but it's like you might. Right. Now if I put that in the line where they set up that was that. One of the reasons it's increasing is because we want to borrow more of the interest free loans from the MVTA. If you are, would it be nice if it was the MWR? Because obviously it's interest free and we don't have to pay the interest back as opposed to the interest bearing ones when we do. So that's why the water side has increased a little bit because we try to ship that the suicides increase a little bit. But yeah, that's the gist is we like to borrow a lot from the. So for example, for the sewer, we borrow a million WRA interest free and then we pay it back with the water. So the water. Yes, the water seems like you take that back. Thank you for that. Most common gist. Now we want to take a break, just Carolyn's here. No, I don't. Keep it going. I grant any other questions on these two. All right. Well, I was going to make a motion to go ahead. Sure. So with that, I'd like to move the committee appropriate to report that we nine hundred thousand for article forty three and one point five million for article forty four. Any other questions? All in favor, say aye. Aye. Yes, thank you. No, I'm just going to. Okay, three and forty four words or. Does anybody need. I printed out four copies in case somebody would like a copy. There. Pretty much and the attachments. This is quick to be able to. Anybody else want to copy? Yeah. Okay. Oh, the first thing I wanted to do was to fund. What's the fund? I don't know. Paper. Power, I have a printed copy of this. You can use it. The numbers. Oh, thank you. Yeah. I'll pass this over. So we had to calculate with the fund balances because it moved based on receipts and expenses. So we could be doing what we did is we took the audit. I did this based on what either provided. So I could be audited, certified, retained earnings as June 30th in 2023 and you add the receipts. Now, this is around certified. It was around seven million. The receipts were about 17 million and then we reduced the expenses which are almost 18 million and the conferences reduced to 1.3 and come up with a primary balance. And there's either now because she wants this correctly. The one you're looking at. What page of the murmur? I'm I just have. Oh, OK. I'm going to pass it over. I'll pass it around. I just want to say the fund, but I want to say how we came up with the amount because it isn't just sitting there. So it's sort of an ads up. So I have six million, two hundred fifty three. And ninety three dollars, six, two, five, three, zero, nine, three. I want to pass it on to her if you're going to pick it up. Yeah, I think I've been hungry when I asked about the other side of the release. I can email it out now. I can scan it and email it right now. OK. Of course, it's a little easier, but that's it. Right. So that's the fund balance. I'm listening to the bonus. I'll do the same thing here with this as well. One thing I like was about was the. I get a recap. Water meter, the number of actual water mill of meters that we've had last, well, my last five years, even the last three years. And also someone asked for a five year recap of unaccounted water. Someone who we may name when they asked every year. And we got so I'll pass them around. And the unaccounted water is well, I'll pass over to Tara, Tara can go ahead and copy me, didn't that make sense? That's the easiest to do. Unaccounted water is basically what the MWRA says they provide us with. And then we subtract what we said about the meter distribution. And then we deduct what's known as the SCU, which is a certified estimate in this case. That's all the standards. And so we deduct that, not stop from municipal buildings and stuff that you don't have meter. And it's an estimate. And after that, you get the amount of unaccounted water to divide that by the amount of water you get percentage of unaccounted water. It's pretty much around 20 percent, except for in 2021 it was 14 and 15. We went back up in 22. It's hard to say if it's related to water meter replacement or not. Total number of users that we have for FY, it's gone up slightly each year. We have a total of 12,783 accounts, but we have 12,702 billable accounts. So 12,700 billable accounts based on. I use that in attachment E by the way, just to give us a little bonus about the you know, percentage of what the average community of dollars goes to. Passes. As I think a quick look at it, I could pass it around. Thank you, Eric. That's what I think. So I sent the thing out on Saturday, a couple of Saturdays ago, with pretty much the major changes to the budget. But any questions? I don't know. I didn't receive any. So it was just. Um, so all right, so look what we. We can start at the beginning of the budget. So the biggest things with staff that the biggest impact was the staff or rather the personnel chargers. Right. I'm sure could I interrupt it with a question? Go ahead. So fully a fifth of the water that the MWRA charge of Arlington for is. Disappeared. I don't know. We cannot account for it. I think that yes. To have any word from from anyone in town hall that this would be a problem. OK, that's just a issue. Yeah, I knew you're obviously stupid. Does anybody call this a problem? Yes. So what we do is what we can borrow money from the MWRA. I wish we could borrow it from the MWRA. And then we do it in place of water leaks and the sewering. And we're trying to reduce the amount of unaccounted water by doing it. And yet so. And but we're losing ground on that by the way. So he'd like to double the amount. That's I guess what, you know, kind of what we're doing about it. I don't know. We'd have to estimate from town hall. But from my view, that must be what we're doing about. That's a question. OK, we have a couple more questions. Anne and me. That was going to just respond to Michael's question. Is that OK? You want me to answer it? I think we are going to get it. OK, I mentioned. Part of environmental protections here gathered all this information state by put it on their website. I have to ask the question anyway, because I really like it. I actually have one year behind all the information. I'll send it. No, they say this. I mean, every year, that's why every year, the answer is we don't have that. Because we don't have it yet. Yeah. That's a question. Is the water unaccounted for or unpaid for? Right. Because I don't know all the water that goes over. Not the last we paid for it. Right. No, in other words, just 20 percent of you know, unaccounted for it. Or is that we know where it goes. It's just not paid because the city town of Long Island buildings all get water, especially the schools are the biggest ones, but they don't pay charges. Right. Well, those are that's in the CEMU. That's the certified estimated municipal use. So they estimate how much that is. OK. So the 20 percent is on top of all that. Right. OK. And so I mean, the answer is yeah, we do. I mean, right. I mean, the users aren't necessarily it is built into the bill to fix. I mean, this is how much water we use. Someone has to pay for it. So I mean, just to be paid for it. John. I'm just going to say in terms of what you're just saying, I'm noticing on this table that our losses were way down during COVID. So maybe that is actually municipal bill. Well, hmm. I don't know what I was going to say. Smart analysts on the many year. That's the point, Josh. I think that's that's a good time. I mean, I think it's replacements in the water meters. Go ahead. Also had. Well, let's let's move ahead through the you know, in essence, the sorry, Alan, there is one new person here for and you understand about the articles about that we're talking about. One of the things about the water and sewer we've heard before is that it's sort of a mini MWRA. The MWRA gets a whole bunch of water. They just read it amongst towns. They have to have mains and sewers and stuff like that. And we also have to do that users. They're sort of middleman, you could say, or the whole sailor. But we also kind of imitate what we do. I think it's kind of important to notice two things. One is that, you know, they assess us. They do a preliminary assessment and we put that in the water budgets and water sewer budget. Then we have to change the water and sewer budget again. It's not just for insurance. The MWRA also provides a more adjusted assessment around the middle of February. Another reason why this is kind of a better laugh or almost. So it's also important to note that about 60 two thirds of every dollar that we spend goes to the MWRA for the water. Only a third of it is what we spend on our expenses. You can see that on the attachment key. But I think that's kind of important to note that to pay sixty seven cents of every dollar to the MWRA, you know, which we get with water. So the I love doing this because it's so it starts with water and the budget starts with sewer collection system. And this is immediately an indirect charge. And the water and sewer budget is composed of three things. As I kind of kind of point out made operating expenses debt service. And then the indirect charges. And we start up with the indirect charges right at first. And we start with sewer collection. This is just a placeholder for the. Charges that the DPW staff. That don't work for water and sewer, but they provide the engineering motor vehicle. And the other departments and the admin. Provide to the DPW provide to the water sewer. So this is only half the amount that they provide because the other half is under water. But we'll see that later on in one of the water budgets. You will see the exact same amount of budget for this year. I like this print. It's 645 394. And so now, you know, if you look down, this is one of the reasons it's important to think the tide together and so hard to do it. Is if you go down to the water budget. I believe it's on page four. It's under water sewer properties. It's not titled correctly. It's called salary wages. But it's the same amount. And those two amounts, we can we'll see your result of the. The offset table and all the charges that we paid the DPW staff divided by two. So back to page one. This is this is actually correctly kind of DPW staff in your charges because that's what it is. Putting it down to the other ones. It's not so easily typed. So anyway, that's kind of fixed into the. That amount is kind of fixed by a chart that we'll see in the FedEx, the FedExB rather. The next section is the indirect. Charges. And want to point out that I think I pointed out on the sheet to. All these years, we thought this is a placeholder workman's comp and unemployment compensation was a placeholder because it always had the same amount that every year we budget six thousand and fifteen hundred. Well, it turns out in the actuals last two years, so it's made a claim. So the actuals look a little different. Which is interesting. I've never seen the actuals never seen this before, you know, for a number of years. But the budget amount stayed the same. I probably should say the same. People I make the claims only last for less than a year. And they have this is the first claim in a while. The next three lines, retirement costs, health benefits and indirect costs, those are all part of the indirect costs and we can see those. We'll get to those in your classrooms. How they're programed. So the next section is actually some operating expenses. And this is where the budget really gets slapped out. I've gotten. I'm pretty good at even even one of the years overlap or rather than years fluctuate. So this is really the part of the section here for contracting services material supplies, et cetera. It's all flat. And the next section next section is the MWA assessment. As I said that. This goes up. And they provide a preliminary assessment and then a more final one comes out of February. As I say, we did a good job on the town officials did a good job on predicting the assessment and predicting the getting close to the insurance numbers. Not too far off. They didn't have to adjust it by much that the two differences in the budgets, I think, are only about three hundred thousand dollars that would revise the budgets. But so the MWA assessment went up a little slightly and we have no control over that one. We move on to page two. This is the debt service area. And we're doing sewer one first. This is where Alan Jones so kindly pointed out that this is where we pay the well, we pay the principal interest for the non MWA loan. And and also we have debt service where we just make the payments for the MWA loan program. Yes, you'll see that. The non the MWA went up more than the non because that makes more sense. We do the interest through loans than the interest loan. The next section is the sewer rehab for a hundred thousand dollars. This is the hundred thousand dollars that we kick in along with the nine hundred thousand that were asking the town for for the sewer balance. The next section, which is the sewer collection system, the primary reason for this budget is always kind of funny. But this is for storm sewers. And again, very flat. No change in the budget amounts. They do kind of look a little bit like the act needs. In that section, aren't they like twice the actuals? Like 476 versus 195. Sorry, Josh, I can't do. Oh, in that section on the bottom of page three, our budget, our budget, bottom page two isn't the budget twice the actual. Yeah. More than that. Where? I'm just looking at like the bottom page two of the 195 for the last actuals and then 476 was a flat budget. Right. Oh, I see. Yeah. Yeah. I know some some of the stuff is part of the thing one year to the next and the others just seem to be. Well, we only have two years to compare it with, I guess, it's pretty much what the answer is. You know, there are three techniques in budgeting, I don't know, especially this year, right? There's the one that we saw some of the some other enterprise fund where they had really fine tuned the budget to close the mirror to what they spent. Then there's some others that now they have to fluctuate because, you know, we pay the fiscal versus the annual and there's some that just don't. It's cool to to make sense offhand that we're going up to the actuals. Hey, when I was, you know, doing budgets in the private area, if I gave my practice manager a budget that is this flat, they would just said to write back and then you can put in some more numbers. So I can appreciate that this is one of the techniques they're allowed to use. I don't have a good answer for it. I must be from some other years. Thank you. So on to page three, we actually have some real payroll operating expenses, personal operating expenses. This is for the water distribution services. And these are all the salaried wages. Now these were not. This is the one end of I put in their business that went up about nine percent, almost 10 percent. And the basis of this is pretty much a union cell. Plus the hiring of a person, the senior engineer. The next section is the indirect section. And this matches the sewer portion of the indirect expenses. This is where the workmen's comp again looks like a placeholder, but it's a thousand year and never spend it. Not sure why the claim was done on the sewer side and not the water side. And I think it didn't really occur to me that it made a difference in scope of the budget. And this is the other half of the retirement cost, the other half of the health benefits and the other of the direct costs. Like a pretty much familiar pretty much since it's water and sewer, what you have to do with the indirect expenses, you have to apply them all by two. So all these also match people and opposite sewer. Probably ready to do that. Now, please hold on to questions of them. No, I'm sorry, Charlie, you are next. I recognize the chair. She recognizes your chair. So I'm looking at the the increases in the contracted services, training and materials and supply that Josh just mentioned and the actual again are lower than the forecast. But I think you know what we saw in as we went in from from two thousand twenty two going into two thousand twenty four. Remember the fiscal years. There's a tremendous increase in inflation and that might not be reflected in the earlier actuals. And I'm wondering you also saw some pretty significant storms. And I wonder if that has impacted the budget as well. I could inquire about that by the budget amounts. I know that the budget I can inquire about that, but we're also kind of less like the budget. So it's been four hundred thousand. These fences kicked up in twenty twenty three, but I don't know if they've ever ever gotten to the budget amount. I'm not sure that the amounts change. I'd have to look at previous budget books. So that's the indirect charge section. And then we move on to the water, the contracted services, et cetera, the water distribution area rather than sewer areas. And well, these look a little bit more in line. I have to say we're contracting services, trainings, materials and supply. No, I'm not certain how they did the up, you know, whether the contracted services are just for water and just for sewer. They would look like they're. You know, but it's a budget for each, but I don't know how when they bill them, how they might be the same company that provides. I don't know how to split it up. If anyone is interested in further detail, feel free to email me about that as well. So on page four, we have the MWR and a assessment for water. I noticed that increased by the same amount. Same percentage rather. And that's an operating expense. That's the that's the big cost of goods sold. Next is the water sewer properties. This is the salaried wages. They should be titled DPW indirect charges. It would be nice if it said that it doesn't, but that is what it is at these 645, 545, 394. And then. The next line is this 100,000 for the water mains that we put in. That service line comes next. This is the debt service for the. Non-interest bearing notes that we don't see any P and I don't see any principal interest for the water debt service. That's because we borrow a lot more from the interest free program. Or one of the reasons why we borrow. Then we have operating expenses for both water and sewer properties. Electricity, natural gas and our favorite. Great Meadows Expenses because it's such a large item in the budget, I thought I'd take the time to talk about the actuals. I did notice because of the question before that the actuals have kind of state that look like they could be $2,000, maybe $3,000 a year, but they peaked a couple of years ago in another constant of 2048. And I tried to anticipate a question that somebody might ask the why. So I asked. And seems that there used to be two parcels that we paid for, paid money toward. Now we're only paying for one parcel. So my things, maybe they combine the parcels together or something like that. That's the mystery of the Great Meadows Expense. OK, so now the next. This is where the you know, when they give this to me, which was great. And I wonder if by the way, thank you, Carolyn for inviting me to the meeting because I got this budget right then and there. As opposed to getting up next day at like 10 o'clock this morning. But I could put the page numbers in and that sort of stuff. So it looks kind of, you know, messy, et cetera. And it doesn't print the same way. So we have page five that just has the debt service for water. On it, this is the one for principle of interest. Notice how this has gone down 19% because we're borrowing more interest free loans. Moving along this pretty flat budget. Page six, which has the this is the heightened replacement and small equipment section. Capital. That wasn't as well. And the one thing I want to point out here is that apparently it looks like they retired a truck. No longer on the budget. Now we get to the good part. This is the on page seven is the summary page. Now, if anyone especially those with the pandas. I'm going to take a look at attachment E. But what I wanted to do with this is I am the attachments are basically an arithmetic exercise to check the offsets, make sure that they match and to make sure that the numbers are all accounted for in this water distribution system sandwiched. So what I did on schedule E I'm sorry. Attachment D is I put the I broke down for each of these line items. I broke down which expenses in the budget. Make up this and also throw them in per user number to with the spreadsheet so we can see how much this sort of costs. But I didn't want to jump in too much, but that's how these attachments tie into this. So actually if we could it might be nice if we could jump to the attachment E just so I could someone had a question earlier in the session about this how hard it is to scroll to attachment E. It's hard to look at them both at the same time, but so if we're looking at attachment E, if we're looking at the type of the top this is called the water sewer budget summary breakdown for Hawaii 24 to 25 and the personal service summary includes both the indirect and the personal charges and I think someone asked we might be Charlie asked me about what the total was and what it included and this might have been a while back this might have been what it was but we also want to take a look at the far right of this attachment knows per dollar users based on 12,7002 users. It's the idea that per year user base 51 is 102 dollars for the indirect charges that is 123 to the water to the actual personnel. If you look down the bottom of the page it looks like at the very bottom right hand corner looks like each user average user base almost $2,000 for you not for sure a user being a household user being a household billable account not a household like a two family house meter right but it's not per person right correct per user per billable account wouldn't fit in the sorry it wouldn't fit in the columns but very accurate so the subtlety is up and again this is where you can also see that the health insurance number they're half beach and when you put the two together they match with some of the other attachment if we go back to page seven which is the summary page we have a sub we actually have the revenues and we also have the expenses and we need to vote on both so at this point I could go through the attachments and see how the interaction put together if one would like or you could entertain any questions as well why don't you make the motion to approve what you want us to approve and I'll open it up for questions very good all right so I moved out the committee approve 24 million 637 thousand 529 dollars for the water sewer bucket expenses okay and I want to revenue at the same time and I want to make a motion to approve the same amount 24 million 637 thousand 529 for total revenues oh early in the second all right questions Dean John what do we need a replacement for oh and the deployment system allow me to read from the script got some good detailed answers on that let me get the exact number here here if I may let me do it this way I asked him in this order water meter replacement all meters still using informants until the last what remaining water meters replaced like said as the meters are Neptune and the old reading system was itron not informants but it must run on the informants platform the new technology will not work with older meters how many meters are still using informants this is an evolving number as the last report a couple months ago we still had almost 894 meters to replace he doesn't say this but based on the previous this is kind of behind plan based on stuff that we said last year he says the problems in these remaining accounts that the most difficult to gain access to we were on six notice these properties requested to meet putting me oh no I thought he has replaced after six notices we get there so so so 893 meters still in place perhaps what took you to Ian also I'll tell you if I make a comment on that though just so cool grant so like I noticed my water meter broke because I got an estimated bill and I went over and I wanted to understand the town's ability to compel a resident to to do it so I just lately refused to replace it for two years and I realized they could send you a harassing letter after a harassing letter but they can't do much more and they would call they would bag I think this one actually knocked my door one day and I was like no and then and then when I finally realized that they well they couldn't do anything I think about it replaced right but what was really fascinating about it is because along the way you start to hear about resident to complain about these spikes in their bills so I noticed the estimated bill was clearly going to be lower than the usage because like when I started on strike I had kids who didn't shower every day and now I suddenly have kids preparing for it so low the giant bill showed up $1,000 $1,100 taxable and everybody gets mad because they put it all in that fire bucket the deer system and all that all right well I deserve to pay it right because I played this game for two years so you know when stupid games get stupid when stupid games win stupid prizes but I thought it was insightful because it does change that meter and couldn't come about me to do it until he can't compile the other 894 people to do it so it's it's going to turn into an issue Informic system is here for a while but well there's another reason too and that the old meters don't work as well it's just I mean it's a moving part they don't work as well they don't measure so people get more water just a lot of cattle and poor water oh water water 890 890 Do you have any more questions Josh I if they were to doubly one mile to two miles would where would that how much money would that be where's that budget um that's a great question Josh it's not it wouldn't just If he was doing double, let's say the water, it would be instead of 1.6, because they put in 100,000 on their own, right? So they put in 1.5 plus 100 of their own. So they probably asked for three, and then put in 200,000 on their own. He's not asking for that, by the way, obvious reasons why he really been asked for that, but that's the math, that answer that you were giving. I guess I don't know why. That would be for water, it would be 3 million. It's a small number. But 10% increase in the water rate. What do you mean? It would be a 10% increase in the water rate. 2,500 million dollars, right? We're spending 2.5 million, so if you double it, it's 10% increase in the water rate. No, I guess I'm confused. I thought you said this and we'd go from 100,000 to $200,000 to be out late. We're borrowing money from MWRA, and that's 1.5 million and 900,000, so that's 2.4 million. So if we double the repair rate, it's called 2.5, right? So we have to add another 2.5 million to the budget. No, we have to add more debt service to it. Yeah, but it's a constant number. They borrow it every year. Yes, but they're not paying that. Out in cash, they're paying debt service on it. But am I wrong? Yeah, no, you're right. But if you have this money that you're borrowing every year, it's the same amount. The debt service stays the same every year. I mean, the 2.5 million here is in the budget. Money coming in and money going out. You mean they'll we're borrowing it? I'm sorry. What you're saying is you doubled the debt service. No, if you go back to, is it all right if I get to the question? Yes, that's the limit to what this budget is. So if you go back to the the 5760 water debt service, MWRA loan. Yes. It's it's a million dollars a year. And you're saying that if we doubled our borrowing, we would double the debt. We double the work, right? Then we have to put out that much more money into the budget. If you if you're borrowing a certain amount of money every year, fund the work, then it's. It's it's it's expense. I think it's not like a building a building where you borrow 30 million and then you pay it off, right? It's like every year spending that same amount. And that's why. I don't know why we're calling it debt service. Why are we getting for it? All right, just you have any more question. No, thank you. What was it? Any other questions? Charlie. So I probably should have sent this ahead of time, but it only occurred to me on last week's meeting. So there was a discussion about the town engineer putting in these clever infiltration trenches. And there was also a discussion. I think it was the water bodies committee about the CSO crop. Oh, it was also in the email of this fellow stock. Where where is the expense that the town encouraged because of the CSO? You know where that shows up and how much it is. I guess I'm like that last year or something that what which what kind of expense? I don't know what the expense of this one is doing something. Lastly, you asked with considering something for legal expense or something like that. But I believe last year he raised one of the budgets on storm sewer a bit to accommodate that. Then actually might be, is that the 400,000? He did raise the storm sewers by, I think, 100, 200,000 to accommodate for that. That might actually be the. Could we have a response? That one doesn't see it. CSO, they're not on our side of that. They're not ours. Great. I'll put these on now. Well, we do have a range of 400,000 students. Those nasty CSO, but we still have sewer storm sewers that were replaced by log nested as well. Other questions? All right, we have a motion for 246-37529 for expenses and revenue. It's been seconded. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? unanimous. Thank you, Grant. That is a lot of work that you do. All right, Carolyn, you're up. You don't have any. I don't think I've received anything. No. You emailed me. I can put it up and send it out. We've got the HRC instead, and then come back to this. Sorry, I'm working on it. What's that? And we've got the HRC and then to the other items, and then come back to this. No, I'd like to do this. Get this out of the way. We need a few minutes, Carolyn. Yeah. All right. So, all right, we'll come back to insurance in a few minutes. There are a couple of one articles that I'd like to knock off, but pretty simple. All right. Article 21, we've discussed that he was going to date a man. This involves the senior citizen property tax exemption. He has informed me that they are withdrawing that article. So I propose that I'd like a new action on Article 21. So moved. And for a second. Any second? I'm sorry, what was the motion? No action on 21. It's only five. All right. All in favor of no action on Article 21, say yes. Any opposed? The other article is Article 65, collected for arming. Yeah. Are no contracts. So. You want to vote for the court? What do you want? I mean, I have an option. The. I was told this is next meal happening. It's not fair. So we know it's not considered. But I just like to get these things. I'd like to get, if we really aren't going to deal with it, we should have no action. Don't send it. So I move no action. Second. All right. Any questions? All in favor say yes. Yes. Any opposed? Another one is we've taken this up. We voted to, this is Article 58, local option taxes. We voted, I think we voted for a report for a town meeting in case there would be. But I talked to the town manager and the municipal empowerment act, it's highly unlikely to be passed designed for how many people did. So his view is that there will be no local option taxes available. So I suggest that we move to reconsider and then we vote no action on Article 58. So I move reconsideration on Article 58. OK. Any questions? All in favor move to reconsider. Is there Article 58? Aye. Any opposed? All right. Reconsidering it, is there a motion for no action? No action on Article 58. Any questions? All in favor say yes. Yes. Any opposed? Carol, how are you doing? All right, do you have it? Yeah, one sec. I don't have it yet. Oh, yeah, it's so slow. I'll let you know which one's in. You can send it to my personal email. You send it to me? I'll send it to everyone. I just need a minute to do it. It's just so slow. Put to the tone. I will send it to everyone's town and personal email addresses. Well, we're doing this. I just told all this to Rebecca last week, but our distribution list is still only working for town email addresses. So just to know that. Something from somebody, Carmen, stating so long to load, I can't seem to get this thing open. OK, you want to start, Carolyn? OK, so can we pull up just the first? Or is everyone looking at that? That or the budget? Not the budget. Yep. Yep, we're looking at the managers. It's the one that you set the hand out. You're doing a good job on the rest of it. Yeah. OK, take it, Carolyn. All right. So group insurance went up significantly this year from GIC. We're anticipating that it tends to go in the cycle cycle. Here and also with inflation, we think that the insurance companies are simply doing that to offset the cost of insurance of inflation from past year. So, normally, it's not that big of a change. The employment mitigation went up significantly. And that's because they haven't funded it as much in the last couple of years. And what employee mitigation is, is for those who end up with an absorbent medical cost, when we switch to the GIC, we do not have people's medical expenses significantly impact their ability to pay other bills. And so that's what that change is. That has been in place for 13 years now. We had a conversation about, well, wasn't this just a transitionary process? And the HR person's view, director's view, was the same as, and it's head nodding just now, which was that, particularly for those making lower amounts of funding, which should not have staff or employees who are ending up destitute because of health insurance and by response was, well, should we only allow that for people making under a certain amount? And the moment the answer is no, I mean, in this country, an entitlement is an entitlement, even if you're a multibillionaire. So we're only living with it that for now. The insurance-official liability, someone might want to correct me on that, but is that around liability for management and decision-making? Yeah, director's and officers. Director's and officers. They know insurance is the cover. Yeah, right, right. Property insurance went up a teeny bit. And these insurances, the liabilities come from what we're selling in the company. There's a lot of local insurance. And their rates are great compared to others. And every once in a while, every other year, our HR department would set other comparable to see how the rates are and they are still doing well. And that's it for the comp line. The offsets are, again, what are offsets, but we can go through these pages a little bit. The next page is how offsets are calculated. So you can see that. These are the health insurance offsets. And then the next page is pretty crazy, but if you go up to like 160% increase, you can actually start reading it. The last column means nothing. So if you're looking at that last column to the right and thinking none of those numbers add up, it's something bizarre in the way that system works. She's never looked at it and she doesn't worry about it. She doesn't seem to be relating to anything and she gets all of the numbers. She means in a different way. But some of the things to look at, if you look at the very top line, you will see December 23. It's back in the middle and it's December 22. Just to the right of that, these are the closest numbers we can get and the way that you anticipate next year's numbers is they take the, actually they take largest numbers and then they switch them with the FY25 numbers that just came in from the GIC couple weeks a week and a half ago and they apply them and that's the rates they come up with. We have a question on the floor. We have a couple of questions, keep going. Okay, and so that's how they calculate what the rates will be for this year, for the coming year. So the numbers that they're using are these December numbers. They're March numbers based on what families and your employees have chosen for their health insurance and none of the package numbers that have been purchased. If you look at the very, not the very bottom, the first grade, you'll see active plans and that number really is a change plan. It's 1-107, this is most recently and 1-113 and they don't usually see those change much. If you look a little bit lower at the next grade, you'll see Medicare supplements and again, 893 versus 888. And then you look at opt-out families and individuals and I can explain that because I don't know what it is. Those numbers are also fairly consistent. Go to the next page. It's a group health projections for not just health insurance, but group life, flexible spending and the Medicare report. And we love people being on Medicare because it costs a lot less and we have to pay the Medicare penalties for anyone who doesn't jump into it soon enough than that is because we want them on it. So, and the state wants the one. The next page is some full health care insurance rates for the plans that we're using within the GIC right now and what employees are charged. Next, if you look, Medicare rates are significantly lower because they're mostly 80, 15 for the majority of people in tech. No, I'm sorry. 75, 25. 75, 25. Then there are some that are 80, 20 and there's a tiny amount that are 80, 50, 85, 15. And those are all longer standing employees and so we'll see that just a few more over time. A number of other towns do 80, 20 for the majority of their employees but we're sticking with 75, 25 for now for the majority of them forwards. The one with the purple line on the top is the Medicare. And again, look, you know, the numbers are so drastic you can miss that. Or another Medicare page. Then there's a non-Medicare page. There's the contributions and that gives you the breakdown, sorry that I just mentioned without even getting to this page. So there are breakdowns by amounts of money. Page 10, more of the same thing. 13 was a printout from Unis. The printout from Unis we print out. Back to the top page, I'll start taking questions from the Board of Trustees. So do you have a motion, Karen? I move that we accept the budget as is presented on page one. With a group health insurance appropriation of 1547212. Yeah, so the group health taxation total is 1263121. Well, that's the change. 22 million 760. So that's for that. What is it? 22 million 761873 dollars. Hi. Second. Questions, Annie and then Rebecca. Oh, I was just going to do 10 seconds of history on the fund to outtake the co-pays for the employees. He started that fund when we moved to the GIC. You have to remember that when we moved to the GIC, we got us three million dollars. We said, I'm going to have to turn it back in. And that the employees really did not want to give up some of their bargaining rights in order to move to the GIC. But the government had the state government divided us with a law that allowed us to move in because it was going to save us money. So I think that continuing to support their co-pays is a small price to pay for that food reset and we have reached it next to the other app with terms of increased taxes at this point. So in the self-expression. Rebecca. What's wrong? I figured it out. Thank you. Sean. Is there a breakdown of how returns cost related to current employees and retirees? No. That would definitely be one. Yeah. The 20 million is everybody. I just wanted to know is it like 25, 75, or 50, 50? I can just ask for that particularly. I was just curious because that's essentially what the OPEP is for the cycle. If that ever gets out of control. OPEP is the other. Oh wait, yes it is. It would be in the report, the OPEP report. But at the same time, OPEP never actually funds. It's kind of like in case of emergency break, right? That's what OPEP is. Charlie? You can actually figure that out yourself, John. There's a chart in the front of the manual that's about who the active employees are. Yeah. Number of active employees. And on the second page, it points out that the total number of enrollees here, family, or single active plans is 1,107. So this is practically, I think it's 600 employees in current employees. Yeah. But this also includes a school employee. 400, yes. It's over yet. It sounds like the poll. Actually, maybe no. Yeah. It's about 1,000 school employees. Well, you could. Right, right, right, right. Helen, John, go ahead. OK, this is unfortunately going to be a tricky last minute question. It's about the email we got from Alex last night in which he says, we are proposing that the remaining $127,655 in the Health Claims Trust Fund uses a funding source in FY25 as a direct offset to a higher-meditated health insurance cost. So it means draining the rest of the health insurance trust fund and deducting it using as a direct offset insurance cost. Now, that's one question where I think it's a good idea, but that's a proposal. The other one is, where do we put that? It can either be as a general fund revenue and just against it, or we can add it to the offsets in this budget, which would take the increase down to, I believe, 6.3% instead of 6.92. So first of all, Karen, what are the offsets in this sense of budget? Do you know breakdown? I thought it was on the next one. Yeah, it's on the next two weeks. The offsets are from the end of last month. OK, so I don't see anything from the health care. It's not in this. I said, we got this at 10 o'clock last night. No, it's not included in the $1 million, $148,521. It's not in there. So then, do we need it? So what Alan's talking about is, last year, you may remember how many appropriated $4 million out of the health claims trust fund, leaving about $127,000 left in the health claims trust fund for individual grants. Last yesterday and last night, the town manager and the deputy were talking about depleting that fund and using the remainder of $127,000 to help offset the insurance budget. I want to know, do we need that offset? Number two, the problem I foresee is, do you have, as I understand, we have to vote that money out of the trust fund to be able to put it somewhere. And there's no warrant article to do that. So I think that may be problematic. And then we have your, so how do we put it? Right, we put in this offset to drop from 6.9 to 6.3, which might look good. Or just throw it in general funds, but was there an article last year? Last year was an article. OK, so you're right. Really, we can't do that. So that's a problem, Charlie, that came up next year. I'm sorry, this is the issue of taking the money out of the trust? Yeah. Because we did that every year in the OPEB fund. The health claims? Yeah, the trust fund, right? That's what you're talking about. You can put it in your OPEB fund. Sorry, we put it in the OPEB fund. So I would think here, you could just put a wine item on the budget. And the trust funds are here by transferring then why do we need a warrant article last year to move? Why do we need a warrant article last year to move 1.4 out of that? Also, we did it, so we did it for transparency's sake. We did it in the OPEB fund. I mean, in the OPEB fund, it just says appropriates into set fund the sum of X dollars to be transferred to the remaining balance of the health benefit trust fund. So I don't see why we couldn't just add that. And then that wine into the budget. And so then we get to your question. Yeah, then it was added to revenue to sort of put it in here, which would drop a percentage of all that. Right. Charlie, then Topher, then Dean. So I think the reason they brought this up is that they're looking for money because of the shift in the governor's budget. So if we weren't going to do this, then this wouldn't be fleet deal. It would cause an increase in the transfer from the overall stabilization fund. So it's got to come either from that or from someplace else. The thing we had a lengthy discussion about this at the health insurance meeting. And one concern was that this is supposed to cover claims that arose from pre-existing conditions prior to the transfer of the GIC in 2012, those dozen years ago. And if my memory serves me right, but Karen always said there was only one claim that came out of that period. And that was five or six years ago. And I've never known more since then. So if there were future claims, that would have to be dealt with somehow, probably from fund transfer or respect to warrant or depending upon the nature, reserve fund transfer or depending upon the nature of the expense. The other concern was that at one time we had a health insurance trust fund committee, I think it was called, that negotiating with the town every year, how much money to take out of the trust fund, how much to appropriate into it, how big the fund should be, and how we would pay these expenses. And there were a number of union representatives on that. I can remember Ken Hughes was on it from the, he was the employee representative on the contributory retirement board and there were a couple of other people. So it was a very formal process. According to the town manager and Karen Malloy, they have reviewed this $127,000 transfer with somebody reminding the town council. No, with a double bind here. Who proceeded to do it in the capital budget role? John Wallach. Pardon? John Wallach? Yeah, John Wallach's way. Who's name, I can't remember. Can I have your answer? Yes, hopefully, thank you. Who is it? She's the, is now or was the head of the teachers union? Yes, she was, she's the head. When this press took place, she's okay with this change. So they feel that they've communicated to the union representatives and there's no disputes. Go for them, Daniel. Yes, I've probably covered a lot of what we talked about. One question was whether this would go to the district group health, I wasn't sure maybe I misunderstood that. But I think another thing was that this was taking, last year when we did this shift, it was saying we were taking long-term investment and putting that to OPAB, which is a different side of it. So it's like we're taking it from one, but two similar things. It was going from one long-term to another. And this is taking it to a much smaller number. So you're putting it into, you know, and operating. Is there a money that operates? See? So the DOR has told us to stop netting things. And that stopped netting things. So that's why we have to vote the Paggable Access Budget because we used to just net it. We'd get the money in, we'd send it out and we'd net it to zero. They told us to stop doing that. That's why I told every time to stop doing it. And so if we net it, then we're not following the instruction to it again, which is to stop net accounting. Alan, say something. The other thing I was going to add about the fact that this money was left for those with pre-existing conditions prior to switching to the GIC. At the time, they had told us it would take about seven years for that process to finish. It's been 13 years and we haven't had any requests in the last four years. So their indication that it would take about seven years appears to have been accurate because we haven't had any requests in the last four. So we don't really anticipate much more based on not just our own thought process, but. How fast? Question, is that the balance left? Yes. So, yeah, I think having little pieces of money just sit in line was our usual. Other questions on the insurance budget? Down the street. We should have a vote that deals with how we want to hand it over to my side. Any suggestions on. To transfer the money. The insurance budget at 22761873 and using as part of the offset with one time. Yeah, so would it be one motion to approve the health insurance budget at a lower number and move the remainder in the health claims trust fund to the general fund to be applied as an offset to or would it just be to offset the health insurance budget? I think you just said, what's the amount? 127,000. Okay, so 127,000 to change to be transferred from the remaining balance in the health benefit trust fund. That's the exact language we've used for open. As a transfer to where? Well, we have it as a line item on. It would be used as an offset. To be, yeah, so offset. Just add it to the 1, 1, 4522 or call it as a separate line. Okay, so to offset the group health insurance costs. Of the insurance budget. Of the insurance budget. So I make that motion. Second. Can you repeat the motion? You're moving to move the remaining balance in the health insurance point use point. Health benefit trust fund. 127,000 now and what's the rest of it? So 127,655.9 to reach to the general fund. Offset of the health insurance cost of the current health insurance. Yeah, we can have the one offset. Maybe we should do any data and then have this. Right underneath it. Well, in actually in the in the, in the, in the phone report, I break it down into all the enterprise funds. So it would just be an additional line under the enterprise funds. This one's. Okay. This is the self fund group health insurance. 14522. Right. If you look at the fake one report, you'll see it's broken down. It's like it's expanded. It's like it's like it's like it's like it's like it's like it's broken down. It's like it's expanded in the enterprise funds. So people can see that when the office is coming up. Yeah. So I can hear would just be an additional wise. Okay. So add that trust fund to the enterprise fund. Okay. Right. And then that would change the numbers. Health insurance. So would increase offset number. Yeah. Decrease. One is 2, 2, 7, 6, 1, 8, 7, 3, minus 1, 2, 7, 6, 9, 9. That's a good question. I have 2, 6, 5, 5, 6, 9. Right after under municipal building trust fund. It's the offset is what 1, 2, 7, 6, 9, 9. 1, 2, 7, 6, 5, 5, 4, 9, 3, 5, 5. So what is 2, 2, 7, 6, 1, 8, 7, 3, 1, 5, 5. Oh, that. Yes. Yeah. So it's increased the 1, 1, 4, 8, 2. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. We should check with the, with the town account. And make sure because otherwise, you know, you end up with three cents left in the account. So if, if. Updated number from her. If it's if interest accumulates. Number. So 1, 2, 7, 6, 5, 5 added to the offset of 20. Right. So. I get like 22, 6, 3, 4. Sorry. Yeah. That's what I have. That job. 22, 6, 3, 4, 2, 1, 7. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay, but we need to change this number too. I'm trying to add up. Okay. The program after school once program. Or the nice. You know, we only vote whole numbers. So. So we'd call it 1, 2, 7, 6, 5, 6. So we've got 1, 2, 7, 6, 5, 6, I'm using 1, 2, 7, 6, 5, 5, plus 20, 6, 2, 5, I get 1, 4, 8, 2, 8, 0, and not set. Does anyone agree with that or not? I'm not sure those are right. I can't believe we don't have a calculator. I've got a calculator. I just keep mistyping. I come up with 1, 2, 7, 6, 1, 7, 7, point. Yeah, I did get that too. Yeah. Okay. 1, 7, 8, I guess. What do you know? Great, Tara. Sorry, the new offset will be $1,276 dollars, or sorry, 1,276,177 or 78. And then the final would be $22,634 and, or sorry, $22,634,217 if we round down. And if I could add to that, that the finance committee authorizes the chair and vice chair to put it into the finance committee report as they deem appropriate. All right. So there's a motion seconded. Everyone follow what we're doing now? Yep. All right. Charlie. So are you suggesting that you're moving the money from the trust fund in the insurance article itself or are you going to move from the open? I think the article itself. Yeah. Well, the open market is pretty general. It says it can move money from any funds to support other post-affirmative benefits and expenses. And with all the retirees that are in the health insurance program, we're supporting other post-affirmative benefits. Okay, that's not going to open it. We just restricted to that. That has to be, it seems like clean it's man enough to go through. Or you can also go already get the map. The question, I'm going to have to put somewhat of a legal question. That is, can you in the article move money from the trust fund in that budget article? The budget article is pretty broad. See if the town will vote to make appropriations to the free town obligations, liabilities, outweighing expenses, especially for relating to any board departments, purposes, matters here under management to provide a responsible motor vehicle and other personal property going into the town. Determine how the money shall be raised or expended and take any action related there too. May require a two-thirds vote. Two-thirds vote. It's not a meeting to move money from a trust fund into something else. We've never done it with the open article. It's never been a two-thirds vote. I don't think so. I think it's always been a majority vote, but it was always unanimous. But I don't remember ever having to, I don't think we've ever had to take more of the majority vote. We have appropriated money. It's just appropriating and transferring. It's not a stabilization fund. That's what we'll do. Stick with the plan. Any other questions? Dean? So I think we should, I guess we can do this. I would suggest that we show this to the control because while I think we can all sit here, right? So think about this structurally. Part of the way we're basing this offset theory is we're saying that, you know, the enterprise, we're saying we'll give an offset line, right? But everything in the offset line are enterprise funds, which are roll-up into the proprietary fund group. We transfer it over to the government fund group, which the general fund is housing on. Trust when you're talking about is in the fiduciary fund group, not in the same group as an enterprise fund. And so we may not be comfortable when we look at this and be like, you got a problem, you just lowered your budget without a mechanism to actually put the money into it. So I would just like to suggest, based on that, that at least after we vote, if we just shoot it over to her and be like, hey, is this going to actually work when it goes into the fund? And if it doesn't, we'll just fix it. All right. I agree. And Alan, can you remember when we deal with Alex McGee to make sure that we check that? Just remind me and try to identify. All right. Any other questions? All right. All in favor of approving the insurance budget as we just have to say aye. Is this the group health taxation tool? Okay. Any opposed? All right. All right. I think that does it with the departmental budgets. We need to vote the liability. So I moved the liability insurance taxation tool of 607.713. Second. Any questions? All in favor say aye. Oh, did you want to abstain? Yeah. Did you want to abstain on this one? All right. All in favor of the previous vote, raise your hand. 15. Any affirmative? Any opposed? I'm sorry. I can't hear. Any opposed? But I have to abstain on the first motion. One. So 15-0-1. All in favor of the second motion regarding the liabilities, raise your hand. 15. Any affirmative? Any opposed? One abstention. 15-0-1. Sorry. Did we vote on the motion to transfer? Yeah. It was part of the group control. Oh, okay. All right. I think that does it with all of the departmental budgets. All right. Now let's deal with the remainder of the warrant articles. And if I recall, we were in the midst of our discussing article 50 of Communicization Act. I'm sorry. 50? 50. 50 CPA. We had a motion on the table, right? You know, on the top of it. All right. So I, my notes said that Annie and Charlie had questions or they wanted to say something, you know, on the CPA. Okay. Yeah, me too. They had us responding to something going on in the room at the time. I don't remember what it was. So this is the Community Preservation Fund. We are being asked to endorse it. And the legal? Article 50. All right. Any further discussion on CPA plans, which has a full expenditure of 21790. All right. All in favor, raise your hand. This is the CPA. Okay. I thought we had done that. All in favor of the CPA, raise your hand. 11, affirmative. Opposed? 1, abstention. 3. Does that Dean Allen Jones? No. No. Dean Michael Allen. No. Okay. Well, that's come staying as you're going to not get named by. Okay. All right. All right. Let's do article 55 next. And this is the library. So to recapitulate, the library wants $150,000 to use as a grant. And that's a grant. The town manager had proposed, was going to propose after an appropriation of $50,000 connected with the master plan. He withdrew that to free up $50,000. To go towards the 150 that the library was looking for. We heard last week Monday that the 250th committee reduced their ask by $25,000. So that creates $75,000. And I think you all saw a memo from the library director saying that the other $75,000 they can raise. Rebecca. Thank you. So I met with the library director, Anna Litton today. She's your friend. We met with me. And also with Julia Lane in the treasure. And while we were there, just to confirm the $75,000 can come from the library trust fund. So that has been the library trustees have agreed to that. But also she's confirmed it with the NBLC. I'm wrong, but the library building authority, that that is an acceptable place to get the money from. So remember, we had all these questions about where could it come from? And they feel strongly that it needs to be a warrant article to demonstrate town meetings support for this, but that using $75,000 from the library trust is acceptable to run. I also wanted to get, again, a firm answer from her. This has been the frequently asked question that I asked to turn to some of them about why it needed to be this year. And she said that the last time they opened up the grant program was 2016. They expect that they're going to get a lot of applications. She wants to be in this round. She doesn't think it's going to open for another few years. So it's not that we can just say, you know, put it off for another year. And then I also discussed with her this question of capital planning. And she's quite sure that even though the capital planning committee doesn't put placeholders in the capital plan for these large projects, that they're certainly on their radar and that they're going to be ready to discuss it once we do have a plan that we will purchase with this 158. I can say definitively. It is not on our radar. Other than a data protocol, this is out there. But if there's any expectation that there's a placeholder. Not a placeholder. No. Depending on this for the new, the new plan, depending on those top, the strong possibility that the capital was couldn't support that amount. The 150? No, not the 150. No, no, not the 100. About the ultimate final, the actual cost of constructing. So she had said that, I don't want to go there. That in her discussions with Chris, you know, that they had talked about rebuilding the Fox library several times, several years ago when they had talked about the physical planning and so forth, but that they, they won't put placeholders. Right. But I'm just the level of satisfaction. Yeah. And I don't know if anybody at this point know, even has a decent estimate of what those costs are. But I don't think it's very, I don't know whether other commitments in the name. But I would put them to think that we could support the capital of those who support those costs without crowd. Everything else out. Any demand. So also how we could build in would come from private funders, some combination of private funders. And of course the state matching. And then there would be some question about how much the town would put in. And then there's this larger question of whether it's housing portion or. They really come down to take that. That is exactly. And I don't want to suggest that capital planning was was saying that the money would be there, but she felt that she had conversations with them. And it's on the radar that it's not, you know, coming out of that way. But you're saying it's not the only sort of on the radar I've ever heard of like this, this is out there. And we couldn't account for such a big capital budget. Couldn't support. We're going to take a charge and come. We'll make it to be bonded. Or that input. Yeah. But this is for not that, but planning. That's what we're deciding right now. Annie then. So I just want to say a couple of things about this. So first of all, if you look at the argument that Anna is making, what you're saying is we spend this $150,000, $100,000, perhaps to make a plan to renovate the Fox library. Nobody knows exactly what that will cost. But we then have the possibility of applying for a grant of up to $17 million as one of the sources for paying for that building. We lose that opportunity if we don't appropriate this money, which is not only $75,000 on the budget, and 75,000 others from the larger trust fund. I don't think that we are obligated to apply for or spend any money constructing a building after we've done this planning. If that seems inconceivable, we are not obligating ourselves to some huge huge expenditure to the taking advantage of the possibility of funds that we will not have access to if we don't do this. So this is like, as someone who works for a lot of nonprofits to do a lot of grant applications, this is kind of what you do. You take the shot, you can always turn the grant down if it turns out it comes with two new certainings or whatever. And Anna is very clear that she understands that a portion of this building costs will have to be privately raised. I know that the Kerry Library in Lexington was renovated just one year ago entirely out of privately raised funds in the town of Lexington. I don't think Arlington supports the library's less than Lexington does, and I don't think we're talking about as much money as the Kerry Library costs. And then there is the question of whether or not any money will be available in the capital budget. And I think that the reason that it's not unregistered is because there's nothing to put on the radar and we have some private money that works at a cost. If there is a housing component for this, it is not going to be something that's paid for and with the amount of funds that's going to be paid for by a private developer, either HDA or some similar organization that's going to then purchase those air rides and build the building on top. And so with putting that whole youth together in a performant, it is the complicated part. So it feels to me like appropriating this money, especially when it's only $75,000, how many are already identified, is low risk for possible high return and no obligation to continue beyond the public stage. So there's my pitch. I'll pass. Will this money be spent if we don't get the grant? Yeah. No, that won't be spent. You mean if we don't get the $100,000 grant? Yeah. I don't think so. And not only the $75,000, our $75 wouldn't be spent until the other $75,000 is raised to match the $150,000. And nothing gets spent unless we get the state matching grant. Right. Because I think maybe we could donate that. No money to be spent absent the grant or we draft the one. So far. Okay. So is the matching, you say it's $100,000, explainer from you, it says here that the grant will be worth October of $50,000 for players to use. Is it $50,000 or is it $100,000? No, I think it's $100,000. Well, Virginia was saying it's $50,000. $100,000 was what Anna said when she was here. Yeah. We're going to make the return. Right. But it says it. You're talking the state grant. Yeah, the state grant. But in the response to the FIMPOP or is that the she instructed today at the memo, I'm just trying to get clarity on the amount. Can you just start? You're referring to this. I do not know unless that means that's the first. I wrote down that it's up to 60%. Maybe that's $100,000, 60% of $150,000. No, I think the 60% is of the building cost eventually. And capital sum. And capital sum in theory. So if the building costs $50,000,000, we're not going to get it. Yeah. Yes. Well, we're not going to pay out of it. You have the answer to that. I'm sorry. I was going to help. Okay. No. So when, so any other questions? No, that's not quite. Michael. Well, I was in favor of this when the library people came and made their presentation. And I changed my mind after listening to the town manager talk about the amount of unknown maintenance, not even deferred or assessed or off book, just unknown maintenance at Town Hall and other town properties. And then looking back at what the library proposal was, sure, I understand the appropriate loop. Fortunately, a little bit of money now to get in line to something potentially much bigger brands later. That's what leaps over the question of, do we need grandiose design that the library presented to us? Yeah. They do not have design. There is no design. No. There will be a design. Yes, that's the purpose of it. That's right. And it will be mining in much more grandiose than the problem they presented to us. The building is not ADA compliant. And it lacks good meeting space. Yet they did not bring to us the alternative, even between the zero option of do nothing and the plan they presented, even the intermediate option of what would it cost to make the building ADA compliant and provide some more meeting space? But that's not before us. We're not voting in this instance to build to build any type of building. I know. The only thing before us is appropriating. 23 years in time. Michael, wait a minute. Michael, we're being asked to approve an appropriation of $75,000 to be used for a match up to $100,000 I see in what was given to us for a design. That's it. We're not being asked whether we think there should be a new building or not or what kind of building that should be. We're limited. Do we want to spend $75,000 for design? Well, it's $75,000 to match an additional $100,000 to be used for design. That's all as before us. And I don't think we should be talking about whether we want a new building or not a new building, whether we want housing on top or ADA compliance or not. The question is, do we want to give the libraries this money for a matching grant for design? So Alan Jones is that shoulder. Daryl. Do you know why they didn't put in a cap over a request for them? Because probably look at that funder. So they need a vote of timing. They require a need in order to meet the secretary. In order to meet the requirements of the Massachusetts public library instruction program at the warrant. And so then I asked her, could the money be moved serious to more articles from capital planning to, you know, could we have a warrant article to somehow move money from the capital plan to this and then extended it. And she was slaughtered with the impression that that could have been done. But the construction program requires that it be a warrant article. Daryl. Next time with Rebecca. Oh, thank you. I just wanted to point out in response to Alice's question about whether we're only spending it if we get the match and at the very bottom of the town warrant on article 55 that specifically says if said NPLCK grant is so only if we get the grant. What was that? Charlie in the office. Madam chair, we will do respect. I think your limitation of the question is drawn. We can't legitimately discuss spending this money if we can't discuss what the ultimate goal is. Otherwise we'd be voting to spend $50 or $75,000 for no purpose. Now that's nothing. I was against this until the library as they say put their money where their mouth was in the trustees. And I share some of Michael's concerns. But I think getting it down to $75,000 in general fund money makes it a reasonable gamble, especially since none of it gets spent unless we get the grant. So I'd like to make a motion that we appropriate on $75,000 to be used together with $75,000 worth of library trust funds. So in the article it has the whole amount to be spent for library assessment planning feasibility. You could use the language from the article provided. I would say to be spent to obtain a matching grant. That's even more effective. Provided. However, no money shall be spent absent said grant. Second. Any other question? Josh. I think Alan Tossey originally had a question about the timing. In the FAQ it said they need both by the 24th of May I think. And I thought there was an issue with the secretary the time meeting ending later on or whatever. And I mean we might have whatever we do might not get acted on fast enough. I asked her about that specifically and she has asked the relevant person there and if the vote has taken place by their deadline, they're not worried about certifying each other. Any other comments? All right. There's been a motion by Alton. Seconded by Annie. All in favor raise your hand. 14. Any opposed? One. Opposed? Any abstain? One abstain. 55. Now I'm going to. What? Disability submission. Sophie. So I'll set a stage here. My understanding and correct me if I'm wrong. Is a disability submission to Tara. They're not asking for any more money than what they got last year was 20,000. Correct. And we've gotten some budgetary information from them and it shows about 18,000 plus that they spent or are spending or may spend. Right. Won't have anything else to add. I think you would note. So for those that are relatively new, we've been looking specifically for disability commission. This is part third year sort of focusing on them to see if the funds are being spent according to the mission sort of profession. And it was determined that some of the funds were being spent where maybe the facility should be spending the funds. So after a look the first year and try to get more information, we voted the same level than the second year. We brought it down 5000 saying this is really money that should be coming from the town. You guys need to be spending it on other things. This year. I have not spoken to anybody on the disability. I've only spoken to the coordinator or gotten email from him. We haven't gotten responses to questions that I've said. I looked at their website Monday. That's compared to when I looked at it at the beginning of our meetings and mission has really decreased and this is something they've raised before. They're down to four members. One thing is how appointed. And three other members or the chair. It's a new chair this year. Her term term ends in 2026. And then the three others end in 24. There's a fallout to the vacancies, but it's supposed to be nine people. So we have, I think we, you know, I have, we have questions on the budget, but we don't really have anybody available for you after those questions. So I think my recommendation is go ahead and we level. They gave us some detail or Tim rusted. I don't know if he did it himself or if he had participation. I think we give them one more year to see how it goes and really try to see what's going on with filling those vacancies. It's very difficult because general law requires that a majority of the board have disabilities, right? And so what I told us before is it's very difficult to run things when the majority have disabilities if there's not also the anybody or, you know, help from other volunteers. My difficulties, I haven't been able to go to meetings. I would love to. They have recently with those new chair switch to zoom meetings. So that should make it easier. But of course it's when I have all my kids. So it doesn't for me. If anybody on inquiry would like to help me in reaching out to them more during the year or attending meetings or those meetings. I find many in the past, I mean, the law is right. It's a big, big factor. Right. I mean, so they had, there was a, you know, all right, passed in December. Yeah. He was just perfect. Right. And he was very involved, although he's not quite that way. But I have some flexibility. I've gone to a lot of the meetings in the past. So I know, I may not know anybody now, but I think they need help to continue. So I recommend loading the 20,000. Any questions? All right. All in favor of 20,000 for the disability submission. Say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. I know shortly it's been up. It's been sure for you. And thank you, Jennifer, for willing to help out for the next new budget. Um, all right. Um, so a couple of more committees. What we have, we've had the water bodies working to come before us with a request for 120,000. And we had seen it by way with a request for 5,000 at the total. Yes. And human rights was a request for 10,000. Yes. That's correct. All right. And I believe along with the 250,000, because it's my $5,000 request. Those are the remaining committees that we have yet to approve budget for. This is what I understand from speaking with the county management and deputy was that there was an email sent out to all of the committees back in December saying, do you anticipate asking for any more money than we can have? And he heard nothing. So when I talked to him yesterday and said, did you understand water bodies that seemed behind 120,000, he was done and he did not know about the team by way or the human rights mission either until I guess we reached out to him about the human rights mission. So, um, I, I, the, the, we'll have his discussion. We'll have his discussion and voted yours, but I'm feeling that there's sort of an end run around the town manager by the system that we have that people can come directly to us without having it vetted with the town manager. I'll also point out that, um, if we increase the budgets, it has to come out of your work. There's no other place to find that money. And I just want to put out there. We just had an override. We're likely to have another one maybe sooner than we promised the voters. So, um, I just want to put that out for you to start accepting these three budgets. So we'll start with water bodies, which is the biggest, most complicated ass. So, uh, Annie and then Elfossey. Did the town manager say how much he thought they were going to ask for 50,000? So the 70,000 is unexpected. And this would throw the budget out of balance or because it's more an article, it will be just taken out of one of the reserves, you know, we're going to take it out of the override. That's the, that's the bottom line. I'm zero. Well, yeah, that's enough. So, yeah, you finished, man? Yeah, I'm done. Okay. Okay, um, the latest five-year plan says in 2027, we're over $18 million on the whole. In fact, we have a million dollars and 26 we need to deal with. And so that's without solid waste. So, uh, you said that the manager had asked all these committees, whether they want an increase back in December and nobody responded. That's what he said. But I think, uh, we need to level fund and I'd make a recommendation of as much as a lot of what they're doing is really good. You know, we've been funding them right along and sometimes we've been doing is really good. You know, we've been funding them right along and sometimes they'll have to spread things out. So I make a recommendation for the water bodies of $50,000. As much as it pains him in a second. All right. Dean and then Helen. So I agree with Al's recommendation. Um, I just want to say, I think I have a slightly different rationale for getting there, which is if I recall, um, Mr. Chapter Land where he was town manager, stopped wanting to hear about committees and commissions. We need to send them right here, right? Which is why they just come here. Um, we have a new town manager who wants to see them ahead of time. I think one of our obligations as a committee is to support the new town manager in his ability to sort of, you know, the proverbial hurting of cats, right? Like, so, you know, just, you know, it is what it is. It's a change here. We've changed here with a new town manager and you got to just say no, because we've got to, you know, reform a process so he can have the authority moving forward. Helen. Um, I understand where you're coming from, Dean. On the other hand, um, in my email to him when he said, wait, I don't know anything about this. My response was for the first town manager in the last three that I've worked with who's ever asked. And so I'm not quite sure what's going on. And I don't know enough of the history. And so that's why he didn't hear from anyone because that wasn't the policy. Now we're going to level fund them. That's fine. We're going to level fund them. The HR director and the, and Alex are working on a back of the envelope cost for liability and staffing for a harvester. So we'll actually have real numbers future. And I'll spend this year with them getting their act together so they can do a little better with a present presentation and talking with the town and the TPW in the meet dirt over the course of the year. I'll also point out that the working group and I can only comment too that there is a ton of employees on that group. He's been on me for three or four months. So that's why he hasn't been involved in the last four months. And just literally Jessica back. He was in our meeting the day before, but that was his first interaction with us aside from a couple of emails on Monday. I'm also point out, and please correct me, Alan and so far we have level funded everybody else, right? I think we dropped too. Was there, I can't get into that doc. I can't like get over to that tab. Was there, are you in there right now? Oh, who's A.L. Oh, you're in there right now. I don't know what it is, but I just, the bandwidth on the internet is just really that, but would you mind going to the committee and the commission staff down there? And then we'll test for an increase and then just roll over to the left for quality. So conservation commission asked for an increase. You went right to commission scenic by way. Yeah. So no other increases and two decreases. Anyone else have any questions? Grant and then I don't know. Yes. Thank you. The concerning. One, when you get together with the religion, I don't have to see just have not, but they should maybe watch that video of those. They presented everything so well. I mean, it's been great instructional thing for them. The concern I have is kind of the direction of the, they're not making any progress. It's kind of like the Milo pipe, you know, kind of like using ground and the Milo pipe, but they're not making any progress. Maybe they should try something different or something. I know we keep saying that, but if they're not even, this is not even working. It's just so, so maybe she should try something. Some other, other, other alternatives. Another thing I'll add in my discussion with Tom manager, he, he mentioned, essentially, Dredgen. Dredgen as an option that may be more long term solution, but way more expensive. So that goes to your point, Grant. Let's see alternative here. Alan Johnson and Sharon. Well, a couple of quick things. You remember a couple of years ago, they came to us with a proposal for a harvester. It sort of got shot down last year. So we can't, you know, I'm not surprised they didn't come back. And the other thing I can just point out, they do have $47,000 at their fund, which if there's a, how much of your emergency or something, they could maybe draw a fat and then come next year with a crest and, you know, something else to replenish. I was saying at the end of the year, $47,047, and they were planning on spending $20 on it. They're planning to spend $141,000, $120,000 from appropriation and the other $20,000 coming from their retained earnings. I'm just saying they have $47,000. In case, you know, one of the issues in the water body is you never know what the hour is going to do next day. Part of the other reason for that fund is because their, their budget carries six months different from the town's budget. And so they always have an act of six months in there to cover it inexpensive because of the way the contracts work with the contractors. So that, I'm not sure that $47,000 is actually just lying around. I'm wondering if that's for the next six months of last year. Well, no, if you look at $25,000, the total expense budget is $141,000. They're asking for $120,000 and the retained earnings going down $21,000. So they were planning on spending it up by $25,000. But the point is that, you know, it's like slow removal. There's a lot of uncertainty in their thing. So they need some buffer. I think they have some sort of buffer. So I'm wondering how you're going to get that going out. But yeah, let's stop buggering about the harvesters. We turned that down last year. Maybe going forward, it might be a good thing, but that's forward. Sophia and then Karen. I think my concern, what I don't hear enough about is what we're trying to get less and definitely to pay, right, for the rest of our piece of it. It seems like we're just willing to pay the whole cost. Because if we do half of it, it's not going to work. And so we just are like, okay, so I guess we'll pay all of it. But that really annoys me. Because why would lessons have paid if they listened to our meetings and the presentations? And they're like, okay, well, we're going to pay if I like some time. Okay, we'll get it. Yeah, why minus balance? I think we're going to have to double as much. Right. So, hey, I'm not sure I'm happy with that piece of it. That's the message. Kelly. So I basically opposed Mr. Tasti's motion. And several reasons for that. One is that I don't know the number, but we just spent millions of dollars over several years to rehabilitate the Arlington reservoir, putting in new sidewalks and buildings, etc. Maybe you know what the total number was, Darrell. I don't remember, but it's fairly expensive. It was multi year product funded by both capital plan and the CPA. And the water chest nuts, the water chest nut problem at the reservoir is a maintenance issue. And if we're not going to, I mean, maybe John could recommend that we spend this money maintaining the town hall, but it's really a maintenance issue at the reservoir, where we've put in an enormous capital investment. And it's a facility that's used by the citizens, extensively used. And I think it's unfortunately, you know, maybe the manager sent that email out, but I think that if the manager was really interested, he would be talking to this committee to find out what they're doing. And what I learned the other day is they're sort of operating on their own. I don't see them getting a lot of support from inside the DPW or elsewhere. Well, I'm just sorry about what I heard from the committee. So I'm going to make a motion that instead of $120,000 that we take We take $35,000, they're proposing to spend $70,000 on the on spy pond. Last year they spent $22,000. So if we reduce the $70,000 by $35,000, that gives them $35,000 for spy pond. It also lets them spend the $35,000 that they want to spend on the reservoir, which to me, if we spend X million dollars to rehabilitate that reservoir so people can use it, we can't have them go out there and not be able to walk around the beach or go into the water because of water chestnuts. So the total they ask for is $120,000. I would say if we go to take $35,000 off, they're having $85,000 that they do that, right? And so the $35,000 will probably prevent them from doing the fragmatics work. Well, I can spread that out. The last one again next year. It's their fragmatics that they have to take out at St. Elizabeth's, the land near St. Elizabeth's, and the land by the Alps or whatever the plug is that's right there. Well, the $35,000 was bringing them back up to what was appropriated in fiscal 24. They only spent $22,000 this year. So, I mean, I think it's a case of trying to come up with a reasonable response to what the need is. So Charlie, what's the amount of the most? $85,000. I just want to point out that we can't tell them you have to spend X number on that pond and that X number for fragmatics over there because they may, they're going to be planning to take $85,000 and put it all in whatever. Right. And if you, if we vote for $55,000 or $50,000, they can't spend it on anything. Right. So this is, this is the money that they've been using for this past year to the two weeks of harvesting of the reds plus other stuff. Which doesn't solve the problem. You know, I think, I can solve it. I think if we email both them and David Morgan and I tell them, I mean, I don't think they're going to say no. They have to come back next year and ask for more money. Besides, if you notice, this isn't the type of group of people who's going to say no when, when another group of people says, please don't do that. If you get that impression that this group is going to run off and do something all by themselves, the way they present it. No, I don't feel like I have the expertise to decide what to do. All right. So we have a motion to level fund, which has been seconded. Charlie has a motion for $85,000 and has it been seconded? Just a second. Any other comments, questions? All right. We'll go with Alta's motion first. All in favor of level funding, wanted bodies at 50,000 raise your hand. One, two, three, four, five, six. All those opposed? One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10. Fails. All in favor of Charlie's motion to appropriate $85,000 for the wanted bodies group, raise your hand. 12. All those against? One, two, three, four, and eight, same. All right. Water bodies gets $85,000. Scenic by way. They are looking for $3,000 on top of their $2,000 that they got last year, which state are going to use for the website that we share with multiple towns. How do people feel about that? Well, I'll make that motion. Second. Make the motion of water. All right. I move that we approve a $5,000 budget for the standard bylaw for me. I second. I'll show you how much. $5,000. Caroline. Oh, no, no, no, sorry. I was just saying five. All right. It's a motion to give student by way of $5,000. Then seconded. I'll ask you. Is this because of, I'm trying to remember, is this because of the 250th anniversary or they just wanted from now on? Because if it's one year for the 250th, and then it goes back to the 2000. I think that they wanted to do some work on the website to connect to the 250th. And coordinate activities with other towns along this, as I mean, in route. And this will be another website. The town. The 11th of the night says, we asked if it might be increased from usual 3,000 because of the upcoming 250th anniversary, right? We need to update the DRSP website. So Chloe activities to 30th. So I think it's not going to work. And their budget is $2,000 after 2000. They say it's $3,000 over days in 2000. Yeah. Yes. Yeah. So they're asking more than double their budget. Caroline. I'm concerned that. Clarissa sort of described the situation where they lost control of the website, which is a little, a little concerning, but I, you know, I, I guess I support this because I, I trust that Clarissa moves or the appropriate amount of pressure to cover it. If not, maybe get Alan Jones. They're paying for a website. So, so do I. That's a word for us. Other comments. Can you, can reverse engineer it in yourself? We don't have much time. Other comments, questions. There's a motion for $5,000. It's been selected. Anybody else have anything at. All right. All in favor of giving the scene of fly away is $5,000 with your hand. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. Any opposed? One opposed and exhaling. All right. That seems by ways. Let's do the 250th. They are looking, they are, have reduced their budget request. 25,000. I can show you which one she is. This is the 250th made. Is there a motion for 25,000? So moved. Second. All right. Any question? Friendlier. So they've reduced their budget really to accommodate the library. All right. All in favor of $25,000 for the 250th. Many raise your hand. 15. Opposed? Staying. All right. That's true. 25,000 for the 250th committee. And the last one is human rights commission. And now it does in Carolina. Okay. So they want an increase of $2,500 to get their own email system. And I had two objections to that. One is I don't think it's a good idea for anybody representing the town, particularly human rights that go off and have an unmanaged email system. And second of all, that's two and a half times more than they should have paid. So I went back and forth with Jim Feeney. And he agreed that having an unmanaged Google system is probably a bad idea. But also he said, no, the IT department will provide them with the email systems. They want that it's more than they need. That's what we're using. So I'm going to propose their original budget was $7,500, not thinking for the email system. Now, in a perfect world, it may be that each commission, and including us, should have in our budget the cost of the email and have a great backup, a regular backed IT. In an ideal world, we would increase the IT budget, the expense budget, to handle an additional so many accounts. But Jim doesn't seem to think that's necessary. So basically we have promised an email of the IT department will provide them with the email and shared servers they need, which is why they need to take the $25,500 up. Carolyn and Manny? Just an aside, which we just chose not to mention, was that cost for those emails for them would be $1,200. So yes, they're still off by double. But it's still a $1,200, just for the email. Not to them, to the IT department. Well, for now, because at one point he was saying, well, maybe, oh, was it you? Well, not with me saying that. I think we should probably be billed for the email accounts for years. But we're not. So the precedent is that the committees and commissioners do not get it, IT just sort of gives it to them. In a fair world, we'd increase the expense. Email's free, right? What? Email's free, right? Well, six bucks a month. So I'm just here where you guys are going, Alan, but it doesn't speak to my concern, right? And my concern is twofold. One is that emails from the town, town email address are FOIA-able. And us don't believe that a person sending a complaint to the Human Rights Commission would have sufficient privacy expectations if they're emailing to a town email address, unless we address that in some way. Okay, let me finish. And my other concern is that there are people who may want to report an incident to the Human Rights Commission, who might hesitate to send said email to a town email address. The person they are, have had a bad experience with as an employee of the town. So that's my one concern with this. And I don't know whether or not the IT department can speak to that in some way, mask the emails, do whatever. But we gotta do something. Alan? Well, does the town's legal department and human resources department, one of the other things like that, have a lot of town email addresses? Otherwise, I think that's a problem that's easy to solve. This is different than that. An answer to that is just things when you don't email it. That's what we know. But anyone who deals with the government body, legally, there are public records. And in fact, because there are public record laws, we probably should have town emails and not any butt-tongued emails. That's what we use. Yeah, right. And that's exactly why it's happening. Topher? That's just kind of similar to the FOIA concern. I think that Human Rights people said, like, there are HR, you know, the non-town emails that they still think are for real. I understand. I think they're very, very aware of that. So I don't think any other concern. They're just not recoverable in a certain way. That's great. Which is a legal problem. Anyway, other questions? Alex, do you have a motion for a little funding? Is there a second? Second. Second. All right. Any other comments? All in favor of level funding? Human Rights Commission, I join in. 15. Four against. One in absentia. We did a lot tonight. Thank you. What we have left is the Prudence Investor law and article. We have the FY24 amendments and what the schools and the commentaries would like is for us to make that $400,000 difference to the schools through our reserve fund. We have a school budget and we have the last override last budget. And I think that's it. Hopefully we will do all of those on Monday. If we do, we're done with our business. And then I'm thinking we won't. We might have a meeting scheduled for the first week in April as a backup in case we need to re-vote anything or take any decisions. But I'm kind of hoping that we'll meet on Monday, finish all of our business, we'll get the report done, and then we won't have to meet again. But we can talk more on Monday. COVID. Could we be prepared to go beyond have a talk on Monday? Yes. Yes. I think and I think I don't know how much the prudent investor will take. But I think it's doable to do our business at 10 o'clock. Will we have the school? I'm going to send. Basically, everybody knows the schools lost their CFO earlier. So they've been kind of struggling to get it. Mike Mason? Yeah. Mike Mason. His family had a child a few weeks earlier, three weeks early. He saw the year. So he was going out on Eve early. And then this was like in January, February. And then sort of in the midst of that leave, he announced that he had a new position and he's leaving. So actually, Friday is our last day. So that is kind of, you know, made it more difficult for them to pull together a budget and the budget's been kind of revised at daily basis. So I can send it out. And then this is going to change. So anyway, I will send a copy to Tara tonight. If any of you have downloaded an earlier version, there are changes. I would expect there to be some changes before Monday. But the basic bones of it are all there. It was trying to kind of make sure it's 100% correct. All right. So we'll be the main force of business now. Okay. Good question. That the, if we approve the $400,000 transfer, would that go into the article advising FY 24's budget? That will go into the article, I don't know. There's one that we voted no action to revise the FY 24 letter. Is that another level? I don't think we voted on that. I think we have not done that yet. Because I knew that we would figure out where that funding is going to come and how that will come from. Anything else? Yeah. That's what they thought. That was good. All right, for a turn. Thank you.