 I'm going to call it to order the order of finance on December 12th at 5.07 p.m. And the first item on the agenda is the agenda. I would welcome a motion to amend or adopt it. Actually just getting it up to mine. Move to adopt. Second. Second. Great. Any further discussion of the agenda? We'll go to vote. All those in favor of motion please say aye. Aye. Post. Motion carries unanimously. The next item on the agenda is the public forum. It's around the room. I don't see anyone here in person to speak for the public forum. Is there anyone online? I see we do have a couple of people viewing the meeting currently on Zoom. If you would like to be recognized to give input to the Board of Finance, please raise your raise hand function. I'm not seeing any takers on that. So I'm going to close the public forum and move to the consent agenda, which is simply for approving the November 28th minutes. Welcome to the consent agenda. Move to the consent agenda. Second. Great. Any discussion of the consent agenda? Seeing none, we'll go to a vote. All those in favor of the motion please say aye. Aye. Are there any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. That brings us to the section of the agenda, where we will have six items for approval and recommendation to the city council. Five items for the Board of Finance to act on solely. We'll start with 4.01 authorization to accept grant funds for the operation of the online emergency shelter community. This is a CEDO item, and I think Brian Pine, our director, is here to speak to us. You want to see this up? Can Brian look? Thank you. Brian Pine, the director of the Community and Economic Development Office. I will say a couple remarks and be joined by Marcel again, who's with us remotely. And she can answer more detailed questions. Our request was made to the state of Vermont for funding to operate the emergency shelter at Elmwood Avenue. They were very supportive and gave us full approval. Since then, we've also had some changes that will require increased funding from them. And we've begun that process to request increased funding. But for now, this is the, before you tonight, is the agreement for the funding we would like to see as the first installment, if you will. Great. Thank you, Brian. The floor is over for questions or motion? Thanks. Thanks for bringing us forward and continuing to vote to do the actual work of the implementation, but also working on getting funding. I'm curious, and I apologize if you're supposed to, but I'm curious how much of this project I guess we've gotten funding for and for how long and how much if any of the city is taking on financially. We are still working out the details of how to fund the operations. I'm going to ask Marcella to speak to the first year's operations is a little bit of a prorated period because they fund us for their fiscal year. So we will be receiving a prorated share of funding, but we will we're engaged in conversation or meeting this week with the Office of Economic Opportunity, the Department of the Agency for Services to go through pretty detailed analysis of what we've requested for additional funding. So our hope is we can get all of our additional funding needs met there. If not, we'll be searching for other sources and perhaps coming back to the board of finance if necessary. Marcella, is there anything else? No, that's correct. This is essentially a prorated element of the grant that runs through the state's financial year to the end of June. So we'll be making a re-application for the full year for next year in the early spring and we also now have a better idea of costs. One thing I'd like to note is that the cost on a per bed basis compared to the other programs the state operates is quite a savings to use this model and we provide, well services are provided that are pretty extensive way beyond what the state provides in any other facility. So this will be a very service-rich environment for folks which is a better, we can achieve better outcomes and then the reduced cost of the fact of saving taxpayer. I just said when you put this back at the beginning of the year, it was clear that we were going to be seeking funding from other agencies as well and so we've been partially successful in that. As Brian said, we're trying to secure more and we have several at least a couple significant potential opportunities for there. It is, I will say until we have greater certainty about whether we are going to get any assistance and further assistance from the state or other parties, we've not fully deployed all the ARPA funds for that we've set aside for housing yet and possibly we haven't been furthering those if we're not successful at this. So that's our kind of backup plan and these funders efforts are not successful. It certainly might, I think as also we said, I think we have a pretty strong case as to why we're, I think what we're proposing here is a really innovative and impactful new concept that the state should look to invest in and that is a good value proposition even just on the shelter side and if we succeed in some of these ambitious social goals of really becoming a much better way, a more focused way for people to access permanent housing, jobs, drug treatment, mental health treatment, you know it could, hopefully they see that value and it becomes even better proposition. So that's the case for making, I've been trying to help the CEDA team and that had some high level state conversations as well and I do think this is one of the most innovative things the CEDA is doing right now and it's often been pointed to in a variety of contexts like what the state response most significant sort of response has been to trying to deal with the current challenge so I hope we get more assistance for it. Thank you. A full overview where we're at unless Joe or Karen. I'm happy to make the motion. Excellent. I recommend number of docks. Second. Great any further discussion? Just apologize for leaving out Councillor Dangan that didn't see us. Okay okay I'm seeing no further discussion we'll go to vote all those in favor of motion please say aye. All right. Very opposed. Motion carries unanimously and we'll go to I am 4.02 which is keen overlook improvements. This is part of Battery Park and I think you're in Cindy White. Parks Recreation, waterfront director here and can you give us a quick summary of that. So we're excited to finally get this project move forward. I believe it started in 2016 is when the city first named the overlook over for Merckane. We're finally getting back around to that project. It'll include right now it's just an asphalt area so we'll be pulling that out putting granite pavers down fixing all the buttresses which need to repair that's actually kind of the most expensive part of the project is repairing all the buttresses but basically what that will do is just secure it for decades to come. So that's kind of the synopsis of that project and it may be a small one but we're looking forward to getting that project done wrapped up and looking a lot nicer than it could be. Buttresses if it's not clear anyone. The structures that hold up the brailing on the edge of Battery Park and are made out of redstone that distinctive redstone but that has all the mortar joints are kind of crumbling and haven't been repaired. They've been pointed in a very long time and so this is sort of a structural element to this holding while in place and holding the railing. And they're much taller than one would think looking from the front because they go since it's an overlook they go all the way down so it's actually quite a bit of work and it has to be done historically. Great, thank you Jecini. The floor is open for questions. Councilor McGee. Thank you Director White. I just had a quick question. I know Battery Park is due for excuse me a comprehensive plan and I just assumed this work is required separate from that. Correct. I mean the sense is that we need to get the buttresses fixed up to do that and then at that time we might as well fix the fact that we've got you know just paper and there doesn't look very nice in that space so while we're in there doing that buttress work we might as well finish up that project and have that wrapped up but then the sense is that it'll fit right in when we go to do the comprehensive plan for the park that that won't doing that work ahead of time won't take away from what we're looking to do for the entire park but thank you for asking that. Great, thank you for that. I'm happy to make the motion as recommended on board docs. Thank you Councilor McGee. Seconded by Councilor Hightower. Discussion. Great team now we're going to vote. All those in favor of the motion please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Thank you Cindy for your work on that and team's work on that. It's 4.03 least of vendor space in North Beach for three seasons. All right she just want to press check. Alec it's actually here by North Beach. Yes of course. Great. Thank you. This is just the this is the second lease from this vendor at North Beach. Very popular attraction people come there specifically to use the paddle board and kayak so we have another lease at Oak ledge and we get it at both ends of the bay so it works out quite well. We're very happy with paddle surf as a vendor there. Excellent. It's large opening for questions or what? Not a question just a comment which just appreciates the continued transparency on how we're opening it up to other vendors and so I appreciate the memo. Thank you Cindy so thanks for that and with that happy to move the approved and recommend that the City Council approve the and authorize the execution of all these assets to our board docs. Great is there a second? Second. First of all discussion. Seeing none we'll go to a vote. All those in favor of the motion please say aye. Aye. All right any opposed? The motion carries unanimously. Thank you. Thank you. This is 195201 Flint Avenue MOU and CSWD drop off center in Burlington. Council members want to talk about this before you. Welcome back. Thank you. Great. We're here seeking two actions and this is all in service of improving the solid waste management of Burlington and our residents to seek two things. One is a six month extension on a memorandum of understanding with Chittin solid waste district for the 195201 Flint Avenue parcel that is behind metal works and a two year extension on CSWD's lease for 339 Pine Street which is where currently they only accept compost but through this two year extension we plan a path for them to get additional space at 339 Pine as is attached to your document that would allow them to reopen trash recycling yard waste the basics at least the basics and Lee Perry and I have been working to improve both the city's soil management as well as the public's availability of drop off centers and this moves us in the direction of both though as counselors know this has been a long discussion between CSWD and the city. Okay. Thank you. Welcome, Lee. The floor is open for questions, comments, motion. Go ahead. First of all, just to confirm. So this did come before the two. You left early. You know, just, yeah, heavy night. Yes. The two did discuss this. There was no formal action taken but general support for the concept. Yeah, I'm happy to make the both motions as recommended before. Second. Great. Further discussion? Seeing none, we'll go to a vote. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. All right. Post. Motion carries. You next slide. Thanks. Thank you. Okay. This is a 4.05 now. It's a property lease with paradigm corporations. 74 Valley Road. And welcome, Nick and Shelby. There is that as well as open for questions, comments, motion. Can you kick us off? Sure. Absolutely. So this is what we refer to as our valley area. If you recall, we had many tenants earlier last late last year that came to us with some concerns over other tenant expansion as well as the future of this particular area. Arrow Dime. I'm happy to report that we were able to negotiate over many, many months, but able to negotiate a brand new lease. This is a three-year lease with two one-year option agreements, essentially a five-year agreement on this particular site. This building that they're currently leasing today and of course with this new approval is a over 60-year-old building. This is the oldest facility that we have on the airport. I know Councillor Barlow had a question just before this regarding the per square foot rental rate of 19 cents a square foot. And that is the largest reason for that particular reduction in rent. Is this particular hanger is scheduled to be removed? The facility is not anywhere identical to any other facility that we have on our airfield and this tenant has been a long-standing tenant and this is essentially is existing rate with with our escalations. This does include a small small portion of ramp space for his business and that is pretty much it today. Great, thank you. I would like to proceed to questions, comments, motion. I would like to deal with this. Thank you. I mean is there any is there anyone that this lease is infringing on? It is not. This is the existing footprint that he previously occupied before at the same footprint, same buildings. Everything is identical to his prior. Please, I'll make the motion. Thank you, President Powell. Your second. Second by Councillor Haithar. Discussion? That's a discussion. Go ahead, Councillor Jiang. Yeah, thank you, Director Longo. I was just wondering if you have been approached by Transportation Utility Committee to talk about the general aviation in general and also their leases. We have one in front of us and we know there are several other that are there. What are the studies of their leases? Are they still all there, some of them left since data came and was just wondering what council committee are you working on to give a general sense about what's going on there? Yeah, great questions. So, yes, the two committee has approached me. Councillor Barlow requested a presentation not just on the sustainability study that we're working on, but also status updates of the valley as well as the neighboring communities over on the west side of the airport. So, we did that a couple of weeks ago. Thanks for the holiday. We didn't talk too much about the valley area, those tenants. I am happy to report that all about one tenant down in the valley has accepted and negotiated a lease extension in that area. So, the Vermont Flight Academy, Civil Air Patrol, the Hangar Condo Associates, Aerodyme, we have an existing tenant in this very facility that we're talking about with Aerodyme. They're all remaining and have extended their leases with the airport and have been approved by the board and the City Council. And then the final tenant, unfortunately, we're not able to negotiate. Thank you. I think we need to access those minutes, but thank you. Of course. So, Councillor James, to understand you would like to see that before you're able to vote on this item. Is that what you're saying? Not at all. Nope. Nope. Okay. We're ready to vote. Yeah. Okay. Great. Great. Any further questions? Do we have a motion and a second? There's no further comment. We will go to a vote. All those in favor of the motion will please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries unanimously. This brings us to 4.06, another airport item, request to authorize a budget neutral amendment to the airport's fiscal year 23 budget in the amount of $190,193. Welcome, Marie. So we'd like to take this one off. Sure. So, Marie Freeman, CFO at the airport. We have before you tonight a budget neutral amendment. We are looking to, we are very excited that we were able to build with federal money, specifically an earmark from LIHEAP. We were able to build a terminal integration project, which was a large expansion and now houses are on the first floor. It is a consolidated TSA screening checkpoint that is now, everybody goes to the same screening point with all state-of-the-art equipment. And then the second floor is going to be holding space and other such things. With this new space, our cleaning contract, which is what Jam is having. We have a contract with them that goes into the end of this fiscal year. They, it's a very large base. I don't remember the exact square footage and I wish I had looked that up, but I want to say. It's about 40,000 additional square feet to the terminal. So it requires a fairly extensive cleaning crew to keep that looking good and up to our standards, which required reasonably so additional charges that our, that Janet would like to, to have. So we will be, that is what we put here. And I'm balancing that because we had, I'd come to the committee earlier this year and we are going to be doing some extensive renovations in our garage to upgrade our fire alarm system and we're upgrading all of our lighting system. And that contract is not starting as early as I thought it was. We don't just, and with winter now, we'll be starting that in the spring and it will go over a period of time. It will cross the next year. So I had budgeted monies that I don't anticipate using to the following fiscal year, which allows me to shift them around and cover this increase by reasonable increase to our janitorial services. And the only thing I'll add is Janet Tech has eight months, less than eight months at this point left on their contract. So we'll be going out to bid for another multi-year contract inclusive of this area in just a few short months. Great. Thank you. Laura's open. Motion, questions, comments. Councilor McGee. Thank you. And thank you both for the overview. I just have a quick question about the 118,000. I understand that we're not going to spend at this fiscal year on that project, but assume that at some point we will need to spend that 118,000 on the garage project. So if we could just have some guesstimates as to where that money might come from next year. That's a great question. And we'll be adequately budgeting as we get closer to the budgeting season. We'll be looking at what we are. We'll have a better estimate of how fast we're able to do that construction work and improvement work. And then we will appropriate the correct amount of money in the garage cost center to cover all those repairs. So it'll, it'll, we'll have, we'll make sure we have adequate balances and checks with our revenues to cover that debt appropriation. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor McGee. Further discussion? You ready? Ready for a motion on this recommendation? Yes, I make the motion as indicated on the product. Thank you. Second by Councilor Anatar. Discussion? Seeing none, we'll go to a vote. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Can we oppose the motion carries the notice? Thank you, both. All right, now we're moving into the section five of the agenda, Board of Finance approval on lease taken with the airport request for an 5.01 is a request to execute a contract for design and bidding with Freeman French Freeman Inc. for the TSA administrative office relocation. Can you tell us a little bit about this? Sure. So working with the General Services Administration, GSA, who is technically the lease holder for TSA, the Transportation Security Administration, we have very specific requirements to relocate their leadership and administrative offices. Their offices are relocated because of the new terminal opening. The hallway and some of the entrances into the existing building impacted their office space. So this has pretty significant, as you can see, this is a $64,000, up to a $64,000 potential contract with Freeman French Freeman to design and set us up for a bidding process for GSA and for us to retrofit existing office space temporarily for TSA. This is just about completed. We did already sign a contract, a small contract with Freeman French Freeman, which was under the $50,000. However, we had some amendments due to new GSA requirements, which brought us over the $50,000, up to the $58,995, with the contingency. And that's the reason we're here today, including the requirements in the memo. President Paul, thank you. I have a question. Maybe I missed it in this. Was there a bidding process where we could select it? So we did a qualifications process with the architect engineer Freeman French Freeman. And then with that qualification, Freeman French Freeman within the terminal building, Freeman French Freeman was determined to be the qualified bidder or the qualified engineering provider to help us bid the actual contractual work. The only ones have been? I don't recall if they were. I think we've had a few particular qualified bidders on that, on that terminal project. But I don't remember if Freeman French was the only one. I could definitely find that out. Well, if they were, then that would be a sole source. So that would be this moment. If we put it out to bid and there was only one bidder, I'm not sure that gets captured as a sole source because we put it out to bid. Yeah, maybe not. But, you know, I mean, I think there are, I mean, I personally would be interested in knowing, I mean, these are, these are, these are very good contracts. Yeah. You know, and there's lots of architectural firms in town. I mean, I'm just wondering if there were any other architectural firms that bid on this. There were. And I, we do have it in the memo here. And I apologize. I didn't remember prior to, but we did send this out for a qualifications just a few years ago with 11 consulted respondents. I think there's I see that it does have that 11 responses. That's true. I can list them next time. You don't need to. I mean, I should have read that. So that, that is in the memo. And my apologies. I read that about that as well. Yeah, that that's fine. That's my answer. It's one thing we kind of struggled with. There's two memos that I think this was affected by the airport where this pre qualification process was at play. And we didn't want to go too far into the weeds, but thank you for that. And I think we're trying to make sure to show that it has been competitive without going into the weeds of the process that happened some years ago and how we kind of got to this point. But appreciate that. I mean, I do appreciate the fact that you, you know, you thought that, you know, most of the is, I mean, I don't know that there's a requirement to do so, but I, you know, other, you know, projects that go after bid and we know what those bids are on, you know, so was this person selected, you know, I guess it's, it's always nice to know where they selected. I mean, NFA Q is not the seven and RFQ is not the same as RFP, but, you know, it is nice to know that, you know, that we're, that we're, you know, doing the best we can to be efficient. I won't go on and on. Thank you. That's, I answered my question. I don't maybe have a motion, so I didn't. Yeah, right. So, I'm happy to move to authorize the Director of Aviation to execute a contract with Dr. Brehman as recommended, as listed in that recommended action. There are second by Councillor McGee. Discussion, seeing none. Discussion will be able to vote. All those in favor of motion please say aye. Aye. Are there any opposed? If the motion carries, you know, the slide. And 5.02 is a request to execute a contract for an engineering study with Sarah Associates, Inc. for the study of snow removal equipment, building, citing a federal study and budget neutral amendment to fiscal year 2023 budget. Want to do a quick summary of this? Sure. So, this is, this is another exciting, really essential project for the airport to kick off our SRE building or snow removal equipment building as defined by the FAA is essentially that is to store the FAA funded pieces of equipment to maintain the airport specific to snow removal. We did go out, FAA does require only in RFQ a qualifications based package. We did go out for a five year capital program qualification based package in which Pacero was selected for a few projects at the airport, but also this snow removal equipment building. This is step one, stage one due diligence, citing locations. Where can we cite this right now? Our priority location is to the very northwest quadrant of the airport, not in any residential areas or any adjacent to any residential areas. In fact, we move this even further to the north with this scope of work with Pacero to be in a commercial industrial zone to area and adjacent zone to area. It's essentially a pretty basic design. This is just the beginning of the contract stage of just shy of $100,000 just to kick things off. FAA has preliminary said that through bill funding and other transportation grant funds that this project would be eligible for a design only grant, which we need this particular scope of work just to get to that stage and then eventually abiding in a larger contract for the new building. But this is step one of really citing this new building. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. This board is open for questions, comments, motion. Motion to take the action is for how to get involved next. I second that. Second by Councillor McGee. Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, we'll go to a vote. All those appear on motion, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Okay. Thank you. Thank you both. We are down to the last three items and meetings. 5.03 civic purchase. Welcome, Scott. May I kick us out with this? Sure. This is a request to purchase Civic Clark, which would be the replacement for Board Docks. We've seen several, several iterations of demos and things like that. This will be $20,000 for year one, which is including maintenance and support as well as all of the implementation and moving 15,000 documents over from Board Docks and other places into a new system. And then there will be $12,000 a year ongoing for maintenance and support, which is at least $5,000 less than what we currently spend for Board Docks. So we should get more functionality and better accessibility and better responsive design than we have today for less money. Great. That's a great question. Um, it's just a question of how far back $13,000 documents will take us? We, that's a great question. We don't totally know because it's, we're taking everything from Board Docks, but also because we want all the boards and commissions that are running on websites, everything else to move this way as well. So the $50,000 to $50,000 is for the first $15,000. They will do more than that if we want them to or need them to for $0.35 a document, which is exactly what that cost is as well. So we can do as many as we want. We just know there's going to be at least $15,000. But great question. Thank you. And I'm sorry, did you have any comments? Sorry. So how do you transition without it being ugly? It's a great question. We're going to have to have a big, a good solid plan. We won't move anybody off of Board Docks until we're ready to move on to Civic Clerk. And then we may actually run one or two in parallel just to make sure, but work with them. They've done this many, many times and they have a very solid process. So my take will be that as much as we can go out of the box with them and follow their best practice recommendations, we should be fine. We'll definitely make sure we've met that all the way through. We'll have our own project master on our side as well. Okay. So like there's, you know, we have a gap with no meeting. This is just the council forget about all the committees, you know, we just put the council in that we don't have another meeting until the 9th of January. Now, are you, are you anticipating that this wouldn't happen to the next one on the 23rd? This won't happen for a while. We're not talking about that, right? So not in January. No, I can't imagine us being ready. All right. Well, I really didn't know. No, no, it's a great question. You know, I mean, I know you've been working on us for a while, probably raring to go. We're raring to go only from the perspective where we want to sign the contract and get through this. But we won't be anywhere near January. We will want to move everything over first and get everything ready and set up and we'll do some training and some vetting and some testing before we go. My expectation is that probably March is a more realistic timeframe. Definitely not January. Do not have to worry about coming back from the holidays or the right end of the new system. I was more just thinking from the perspective of when we went with board docs, which was so wild ago, we did have a council meeting where everybody got their login, everybody got their password, everybody got, and we did it all together. And it worked. We all sort of worked on it together. But remember, we weren't using a computer at all before that. So we will definitely have some time for everybody to get in, get trained, get their logins and everything else. But yeah, definitely won't be in January. Excellent. Okay. Thank you. Just I was also surprised at how cheap this was, generally. But I'm excited, I guess, that we're moving at all of the boards and commissions and committees and everything to one platform. I think that'll make it, that as much as anything else will make it more transparent for the public to know when meetings are happening and what's going on. And I think we talked about this a little bit at your presentation, but to the extent that that can also be maybe a moment when we standardize how we do things. I think that could be. That's our goal, is that we, as we bring boards and commissions over, as we bring the council to modify everything into the system, that not only will there be some uniformity in terms of how everything is used, but it'll be uniform for citizens to get to the information, find it, have accurate calendar entries that won't have to look at different places. Right. And just my small, my small addition to that is that it's usually just the PDF documents. I think both just on ordinance committee working with resolutions, it's never on the same line and always gets very confusing. Yeah. And then I think, generally, it just, I think, makes it more accessible as word starts to be a thing that is questionable if people have downloaded on their computer or not are paying for. Right. I'll make it more. Excellent. Great. It's exciting. If you're looking for a motion, I'm happy to make one. If that was you making. And so I think you answered this question already, Scott, but this does within this contract, we will transfer all the documents currently on board. Yes. We will sign the contract for the initial purchase includes 5,250 for the first 15,000 documents. And then there are more documents in that that we do want to move over. That will absolutely get everything in board docs. We know that much. I just don't know how much is out there other than in board docs. And that means we'll go back to on board docs goes back to at least 2014. So we'll move all of that. And then anything over and above that, they've already committed to helping with it. It's just a matter of, we just have to know how many it is and they'll bill us 35 cents document. 10 years would be wonderful. But I don't know if that's possible. 10 years. There isn't, I mean, we're moving everything in board docs. It goes to 2014. So if there's other documents out there somewhere else that we want to move in, we can definitely approach that as well. I know there is a system for logging resolutions for a lot longer than that. It would be wonderful to have those available to the public. We can work on the magic list. That would be great. Sure. Little known facts, probably most counselors aren't aware that there is a way of searching for resolutions that happened a very long time. I'm not even sure how to do it. I think only a few people have access. I think it's a really good point to open that up. Yeah. And we're going to try and migrate there over for all the sub not just the council. Yes. For all the boards and committees, even if they have not been on board docs to this point. And then we'll work to bring all of them into board docs so are into Civic Clark. So they're going forward. We'll all be on the same platform. Everything will be in one spot for citizens and commissioners, counselors, everything. Great. Okay. There's no further questions in this discussion. We'll go to vote. All those in favor of motion, please say aye. Are you opposed? Motion carries. Yes. Thank you. Absolutely. Unfortunately, the board's just getting started. Request for approval to execute contract for replacement of control panels for Queen City and Apple Creek and I'll stay stuck. Back to you. It's actually going to kick us off. Yes. Absolutely. Let's take it away. Yep. So we are looking to execute a contract with Pratt Smith, who will build and install two new control panels at two of our 25 pump stations, which are Apple Tree and Queen City. These are significant upgrades. These control panels are the brains of the operation and the existing control panels are original to the stations. So this will bring, these are significant upgrades that will bring these two stations closer to new and we've been piece mailing those upgrades to completely revamp those two stations. Floor is open before. That's right. Great. Thank you for that. Second by Kelser and Geedy. Further discussion? Seeing none, we will go to a vote. All those in favor of motion, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Thank you, Ashley. Thanks, Ashley. And that brings us to the final item of business, approval of 2022, Junction Contracts and Salary Budget Adjustment, REIB item. And we have a bit to be jumping in to speak to this. Ed, do you want to do a quick summary of this? Sure. Hi, everybody. Bringing with you today just some few FY22 REIB budget items that will tie up our fiscal year. First is we have two vendors that the city paid out, REIB paid out for Juneteenth. That was over 50,000. And so bring it to Board of Finance to do a retroactive approval for that. And also there's a accounting error that charged one of our budget lines, salary lines from limited services. And it was supposed to be taken out of seasonal. So those are my items. Great. Thank you. Thank you, Pat. Now the Board likes to proceed. Floor is open. A quick question and happy to make the motion. And this is maybe the second list of retroactive pays that, you know, and was just wondering if we have anything else in the work coming again, or this is. This is it. This is it for Juneteenth. Yes, we caught it. And the reason why is because it was under 50,000, they were throughout the scope of like the first of the year to the end of the year that were paid out to individual invoices to these companies. And I'm happy to make the motion as indicated on board that. Thank you, Pat. Thank you, Councilor Jennings. I believe that was a second for Councilor McGee. Any further discussion, Councilor Hightower? This isn't actually a Board of Finance discussion, but just noting, I know that none of the participants ever got pictures from any of those events. The Juneteenth or the Angela Davis or the Red and Black on the green, which I think was also part of the Juneteenth event. So I've sent a few emails for just noting. I think some folks would love to see some of those pictures that were taken. Yeah, definitely. We are working with the company Black Hub and they're the ones that took the pictures and videos. So we're hoping to get that out soon. It was led by our event planner who had to transfer all the information to us. So we're hoping to get that out to the public and any community partners come soon. Thanks for letting me take that various side comment. Appreciate it. What's the word on that situation? So, good. Are we ready for a vote on the item? Looks like it will go to vote. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Are there any opposed? The motion carries unanimously. Thank you all. You got there a lot tonight. And without objection, having completed full agenda, you're on the Board of Finance at 5.56 p.m. I think we have a little gap between 6.30 and 5.56. Well, no, we're starting at 6. So a few minutes, yes. Just like a