 Did you not hear that? Did you not hear the motion? Okay, great. Councilor Jay, we just called the meeting to order. Thank you for speaking up. And we have a motion on the floor that we're to approve the agenda. Councilor Powell moved the agenda as posted on the board docs with the exception that she's removing item 5.05 because that's on the deliberative agenda for the full council meeting later tonight. So that's, and that was seconded by Councilor Hightower and we were just voting on that when you spoke up. So you're well timed. Yes. All right. Yes, I vote yes. Okay, great. Thank you. Motion carries unanimously. We have a board of finance agenda. Is that a member of the public here that wishes to speak to the board of finance seeing any pictures on that? Is there a word on one? Yes. Okay, Councilor Bushard. Yes, good evening. Thank you. I want to speak to the item where you're going to be doing the overview of the budget. And I wanted to just say as a citizen of Burlington, I'm hoping that many will take advantage of the meetings that you're having over the next week or so. And I wanted to comment on a few things. One is that at this time from the slides that are in your agenda, it appears that the gap anticipated gap, I know it's closing a little bit, but was $2.2 million. And my understanding is that department heads were given the mandate to try to come in with a budget that would help reduce that gap without really cutting any essential services. And from the slide, it looks like we're now down to about a $1 million gap. My understanding also is that in reserve or some ARPA funds, so that if indeed a department is not able to accomplish the goal, those funds would be used only on an emergency basis to make sure that we sustain or we have a budget that does no harm. My understanding also is that the unknown is where you will land with the union negotiations but from my past experience, I know that a budget includes at least sets aside some anticipated percentage of bunnies and anticipation of a negotiation and a settlement. And I'm hoping that what I see on the slides is such a budget and that it would only change if indeed the negotiations exceeded what you anticipated. So I'm appreciative of the information you're sharing. I look forward to a time where you will have more information regarding the revenue that actually has come forward. Once again, a little greater than you anticipated is what I read from some slide. And I'm hoping that by the end of May, there would be a budget that people could really understand. The last thing, Mr. Mayor, is that will the citizens of Burlington be aware of what is left out of the budgets from the various departments? In other words, they're presenting things but in order to accomplish your goal, there have to be some some rearrangement or in order to do that. And will the at least board of finance and the citizens who listen be made aware of how they were able to accomplish your goal? And I know you don't answer those questions, but I would be interested in some time to know the answer. Thank you very much. Great, thank you for Councilor Busher. Nice to hear from you. And I do think a lot of what you're raising, we will get into in the discussion of the budget, which is coming up shortly. So I'm gonna, is there anyone else online that would like this? I don't know if there's any other members of the public wishing to speak to the board of finance. I'm gonna close the public forum and I'm gonna move to our consent agenda. Excuse me, I welcome motion regarding the consent agenda. With the consent agenda, I'll take it. We're done. Second. Great, any discussion of the consent agenda? All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. And we have adopted the consent agenda. So this now does bring us to 4.01, which is the general fund budget update, which we started two weeks ago, but did not get very far into. And Catherine, does this load it up? Are you able to share your screen? I'm going to share it, yes. Do you like to start? Well, I, let's, sure, I'll do some overarching points just to kind of set the season and over to Catherine. So, well, I don't know what's up, but I'm gonna fix that. Okay. I'm gonna, I'm gonna, I've got the, so I'm gonna use the screen, my screen from what's up on board docs, which is a slate modification of what was posted two weeks ago, but it's a very similar document. The challenges, we went into this, we've been talking for some time, we think this is a particularly challenging budget year. Some specific unique elements of it are the inflation, which we really have not been dealing with, dealt with any time in the last decade, anything like this. Pandemic-related impacting revenue show falls were still certainly the fiscal year that we're currently in, we're still seeing impacts in some areas that seem to be getting better. For example, like parking revenues, we're no longer down 50%, but we still are down 30% in some key parking in the Christos, for example. So we're not, we're not at it. We are trying to move away and we got through, I think it is important to remember as we talk about this budget that we essentially got through last year's budget challenge by a heavy reliance on federal funds, about six and a half million dollars. We're trying to cut that way back this year. And we have this uncertainty that was just referenced about the contract negotiations. So of course we have, we are, we are of course, as we've talked about before, budgeting for a COLA, the question is just in this time of volatility, is it, are we gonna be able to breathe in where we've been expecting or not? We have had some, and I think it's a good session discussion about our assumptions. Here are our, I've always found it helpful in these budget discussions to try to speak at kind of the, kind of the principles, the kind of guiding thinking as we've approached this, I think it's, I think it's not too late to take feedback on these principles, if people feel like we're missing something or don't have some sort of emphasis right, basically the way we've approached this since town Meany Day and the vote against the tax increase is to, we're working within the constraints that we have within the existing tax ceilings. We are not planning on going back for another, another vote as it sometimes happened in the past, so when increases have passed, we're living within the tax, the tax ceilings that we have in the various different taxes. We are looking to avoid layoffs and furloughs of same place as has been our posture throughout the pandemic period. We have focused cuts, looking to focus some on non-personnel budget life as much as possible. We have few, if any, kind of new initiatives built into the structural budget, this I think is probably overstated to say there's none, but very few new initiatives built into the structural budget, as I think I mentioned briefly last time, I do think there's opportunity because of our various one-time monies, however, to continue the big strategic investments. We will, and that's what the next one essentially says, we can use new and recovery-related emergency, respond to emergency concerns with one-time harpa funds and the substantial amount of funds that we continue to have. We are gonna continue to invest heavily in addressing the climate emergency and significant part through expanded DED efforts. We have been talking about the summer, I'm not sure, we have a whole lot more to say about that tonight, but I think it is important to remember that's our main piece of discussion and we are, of course, there is a resolution tonight that would be continuing to advance those through non-budgetary ways, through new regulatory interventions. I think there is some reason to be hopeful that we are gonna pass this budget and that there may be budget amendments over the course of the year that allow us to, that improve the budget and maybe even improve the budget in some kind of ongoing structural way as the new staff that we have hired to seek out federal grants as they get on the ground and start to do their work, hopefully we will be coming back to you with them. And that is one of the things actually that's gone on and why things aren't as bad as we thought that it might be in March, is that there is already some additional grant money that we're banking on now that we're already able to do in March. So hopefully that kind of trend will continue. And then just the last point again, that's the uncertainty about the union budget. We may, we're gonna have an executive session in 45 minutes about where we stand with the collective bargaining agreements. Perhaps I think in some unions, we are getting the point where we're starting to exchange financial terms and we may have a better, I hope we will have a better sense of where we are before we get to the binding votes in June. So that will, hopefully that will, that uncertainty will be a little bit less by the time we actually have to take action on this budget. So meeting the challenge, why don't you take it over from here, Catherine, since you kind of oversaw a lot of this work. Sure. As we mentioned with the result of the vote in town meeting day, we went back to all departments and asked them to help us address in a proportionate way the $2.2 billion hole in the budget. Department heads did work hard to do that and made up about half of that through either additional revenues or through cuts to vacant positions or operating expenses. There are not cuts to services in the budgets that you will see over the four marvelous nights. And it is not explicitly clear, I see from Sharon Busher's questions and probably some of the rest of you have just too, but what we will see is a balanced budget that other billion dollars has been made up with some of the other changing assumptions that you'll see things like property taxes going in our favor with your changes being made. There were some pilot numbers increasing and things like that. As you know, when we came and asked for the tax increase that is at an extremely early point in the budget process and a lot of those numbers have shifted and you'll see those starting on Wednesday night. The first draft of the budget is at $92 million. Last year's budget was about $88.5 for point of reference and just to reiterate, we are not planning layoffs for furloughs at this point in the process. Again, talking a little bit about ARPA, this is what you will see included for ARPA in the budget. We've talked a lot about the $1.2 million that we'll use for FY23 for equity. And then there's about $550,000 for a combination of continued business support as well as constituent support. And those are for some of those new costs as we are phasing them into our structural budget. We have talked a little bit about this before so we won't dwell on it. We are also proposing that we put $2 million of ARPA money aside into a revenue replacement reserve that we would only use if we need it. And that is to give us a little bit of a cushion because we have built this budget assuming that our revenues, not just the big five revenues that we talk about, property tax, pilot, gross revenue, local option, and franchise fees. But really this revenue replacement fund is probably more for things like DPW and parks. And I'm looking at our friends, the department heads up with Emily because they are the departments that have the most departmental revenue and they're some of the places we've seen the biggest hit. And I'm thinking about parking revenues which we may have talked about. And also some of our waterfront revenues haven't quite rebounded yet, but they're on their way. As we mentioned, and we're just gonna keep eating strong, things are still uncertain. I thought by my third budget I'd have this thing nailed but it's the fact that we are still in the middle of these union negotiations. So because we have not discussed financial terms with all of them yet, we're continuing to use the assumptions we've talked to you all about. And our next steps, this is the week where we started our four marvelous nights. So I hope to see many of you on Wednesday night. And then free big nights next week. And then we have a couple of work sessions in June and then we'll be passing a budget. And that is what we have to share with you tonight. We are happy to take your questions and any discussion. Yeah, first question is on the fourth slide around the proportional cuts and just a clarification on what the ask and our treatment was of the BPD and RAIV. Basically with the BPD budget, because we have so many kind of programmatic ambitions, creation of new, just think about the BPD budget and when we get into it next week we'll have another slide that will place this out. We essentially are continuing the whole pre-pandemic, pre-pandemic, what was that, before I, 20 budget with some inflation continues to essentially be the chunk of money that we have allocated to the BPD with the exception of the functions that were taken out of the BPD, primarily the parking, not the whole parking. The division is no longer worth it that much. But as with last year, we are continue to have that sort of, kind of amount of money is basically available. We did not cut it. We are allocating it to many different things than we used to go to between CSOs, CSLs. Crisis response, RFP, the Urban Park Rangers. And several other kind of things that we've talked about that. So there's a lot of less money being spent really on officers that's exacerbated by vacancies there. That's the assumption we've held there. With REIB, basically, there's a lot of moving parts in that budget as well, given staffing changes that were a large growth in staffing that there's been over the last two fiscal years. And whereas we said to the other departments, we're trying to cut back the percentage to that 2.2, we said there, I want the structural budget to basically no cuts there. And that's what we're doing. Sorry, so what you're saying is BPD and REIB are different in that neither one of them are getting any proportional cuts, that's right. They're essentially level-funded and you will see how that's been reorganized when you see their departmental budgets. It's also worth pointing out that this I am realizing is slightly misleading in that there are some other departments that were given this and, for instance, the library is a good example. Their cuts were pretty small. It was about $50,000. The only cut that was available to them was a staff member. And in the end, it was our recommendation that that was too painful. So we asked her to add it back so there's no cuts to the library. So you'll see there are a couple of things like that, departments that came to us with cuts and we were like, no, too painful, please add it back. So while every department was, besides BPD and REIB, came to us with cuts, we didn't take every cut or every recommendation that was offered to us on the first try. And then, thank you. And then a comment, which I have made last time that I wanted to say it again, is that wasn't true of the last budget that I saw because we get from PDFs. It's really hard for us to do any of the maps of comparison or at least last time we went through this process to get from its PDFs. So, again, it would be really helpful to see pre-pandemic numbers, last year's numbers and this year's numbers compared. And to the extent that they can have their percentages if we are getting PDFs, that would also be a whole. I put them in Excel and I started putting them all in Excel for almost everything there for Wednesday night. I'm not sure how far back pre-pandemic it goes, but I will double-check this thing again right now. And if you are not getting what you need, just let us know. But you should be able to play around with all of that now. Thank you. Councilor Yang, go ahead. Thank you. Yeah, a couple of questions. And one is related maybe a little bit from Councilor Bush's question about unassigned fund balance. I was wondering, maybe not today, if we can do a cross-comparition over the past five years, how has been the health of our unassigned fund balance at the end of every budget? And also, when would you know this year, when will we have the information? These are the funds that were not assigned to any activities or services. This is a great question, Councilor Yang. We have decided that we were going to add on the last evening, Thursday, May 19th, a presentation on both ARPA and the unassigned assigned fund balance, because those are questions that people have had. So that'll be a new budget presentation. And I think your question about looking at the balance over the past five years is a good one as I'm designing that presentation. So I'll make sure that is included as well. Wonderful, thank you. And I think one more question about the creation of a new department. And I think one slide here was talking about, if any, we'll have only few initiatives. Does it include the new department? That will be created? So, yes, you're asking about the new department we've talked about that kind of codifies the business support that we've had for the last few years. It does include that. It is not, they're not new initiatives in the sense that it's essentially what we've been doing for the last couple of years now. We're not, we're projecting a big further expansion of that. And we are, that is an area where we're, a significant part of the budget is coming from ongoing kind of economic recovery funds, article funds as was known at earlier slide. The unassigned fund balance discussion, we will, it's a, we definitely have those annual figures and we'll show it that way. I do think what you will, what we'll show is that we've for some time been really up towards the, the way our unassigned fund balance policy is written, it says essentially that we're targeting having a 10% unassigned fund balance in reserve. It can go as low as 5%, it is high as 15%, but 10% is the target. And we're above that target. So I do think there is an opportunity there with, to make, especially when we have, yeah, I think, we'll get into the discussion next week, but I think there's an opportunity there for some one-time investments to get us closer to that 10% target and to help us get some strategic investments. Thank you. And sorry if I sneezed or anything. So this is the last question. And Catherine and Miro, I was wondering if as part of the presentations, as we move forward to also identify what are the positions that have been advertised over the, let's say past two years that have not been filled by department to gather the data, how many in, let's say airport or airport is a different, but just by department, how many positions that have not been filled yet in the past 12 months or 24 months? I think it will give us a sense whether or not we need to pursue it or those job requirements to be divided within the staff that exists already and try to see if there are mechanisms of saving resources there as well. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Jayne. We'll follow up on that idea. Any further discussions? Any other, to be on the number of councillors here, any other councillors have any questions this morning? Sorry, Councilor Berkman, go ahead. When you provide details on the constituent initiatives and the council initiatives, I forget which slide might be the next one there. I would just like to constituent support and if they're just being clear about the DSTUD. In terms of the cuts, it would be helpful, maybe it's only in a narrative, but to understand the challenges that departments are facing to maintain services within this budget. And I say that in the context of being a real pain to department heads, some of them were sitting here and I keep pushing and they say I got no money and I want to really understand that and have that laid out. Case for the need for all of our employees, it really needs to be made, I think in a much stronger and clearer way so that will help do that. And then with regard to the new business support officer department, I would like also in a narrative to have the responsibility and I'm not assuming, I don't know whether you're doing this or not, so this may be something you already built in. Clarifying the responsibilities and which in CEDO's charter are gonna remain with CEDO and then the legal basis for creating a department that already has those responsibilities assigned to CEDO under the chair. Thank you. Seeing if there's no other thinkers, you have some other business to do tonight, so I'm gonna move towards adjourning, start closing this part of the, closing this part of the meeting and I look forward to resuming the budget discussions for you all and more details. A couple next. I'll now move to 5.01, which is authorization to submit 2022, grow into one year action plan and then to 2019, grow into one year action plan, so CEDO item. Prime plan is here, if needed, how does the board like to proceed on this? That's right there. I'll move to recommend the state council appropriately attached resolution as found on court docs. Thank you, is there a second for that? Second by President Paul. Discussion? Okay, seeing none, we'll go to a vote. All those in favor, motion please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. 5.02, which is authorization to accept grant funds from the Woodland House for Water Assistance Program and one of the money to CEDO's office, Chief Irmangan. Great, I'm gonna turn to division director Irmangan Moyer and now we also have Jess Lavalette here as well. And I'm gonna pass it to Jess, as she is the one who has been most involved in working on these assistance programs for our customers. Hey, hi everyone. We are seeking authorization to participate in LIWAP, which is low income household water assistance program. Helps eligible households pay their water and sewer bills. It's income based and run by the department of family and children and family services. It's a new program launched at the end of last year and we're very excited to participate. We've been participating in every other program that's been available for our customers and participation has varied across the board depending on the requirements of the program. I'm unsure how many of our residents will participate in this one. It's six, the income based requirement is one of the more strict of the programs, but we've had robust participation in some of the other income based ones. We don't have our accounts correlated with income data, but I am hopeful we have been spreading the word about our participation in these partner programs and once we have the approval tonight, we will be advertising this one as well as our recent participation in VHAP. And we're doing this in advance. We are similar to BED, on the most slightly more delayed schedule lifting our disconnection moratorium. So we're gonna be reaching out to customers, letting them know about their balances, letting them know about their options, as well as the option to set up a payment plan with us and anybody who's on a payment plan and stays current with that, it's certainly not gonna be disconnected, but we have had this disconnection moratorium for well past when the state required it as a compassionate effort towards our rate payers. Okay, thank you both. Why don't we go to the board now? How would the board like to proceed? President Paul. Make a motion to approve and take action as recommended for Jocs. Great, thank you. Seconded by Councilor Hightower. Discussion before move. Yes, yes, and thank you, Mr. Mayor. And this is a question about, what will be your staff participation into managing this program? Will it require a new position or will be able to do it within what you have? We can do it while we have. The program is administered by the state. And so they do all of the applicant verification and qualifying them. What happens on our end is we will get an email from the state with the residents address and they ask for their account balance and proof of the water bill. So it's very similar to what we did the Vermont COVID or real assistance program where we received notice that someone applied and then we just submitted their recent account balance and then we received money. And lastly, because of the income requirement, how many people do you think in Burlington will take advantage of this? It's uncertain, I don't know. I will say that, and I was looking at this before the meeting, VRAP, which is the rental assistance program, its eligibility was 80% of the median household income. So that was renters and it was 80% and we have 28 participants in that. This one is open to anyone, homeowners and renters, but it's 60% of the state median. We had the most robust participation with VCAP, but that didn't have any income base. It was just you had to attest that you had COVID related financial hardship and those numbers were well over 100 in each program. I suspect it may change once we let people know that there's this connection moratorium, right? People haven't necessarily had a huge incentive to enroll in these programs, even though we've let them know that they should take advantage. So I'm hoping that will encourage anybody who is eligible to leverage these programs. But let me now ask the question differently. And sorry, Mr. Mayor. And this question is specific to overall in the city without even pandemic related hardship. What has been the rate of some people having the inability to pay? Like in terms of percentage, 5% less than that? Like over, it's increased like our past due or rearch balances has increased, I would say over the pandemic by about 12% mixture, not all residents. That's just, I didn't break it out by class, but it varies from month to month, but overall it's been about 12%. Thank you. Yeah, you're welcome. Thank you. Okay, are they not seeing further hands for the questions? I think we're having a motion to second rate. So we're ready for vote. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? The motion carries unanimously. Thank you all. 5.03, reclassification of one role within the Fletcher free library. And we've got Tony and Mary here. Top of surface as needed. Are we ready? We're ready for a motion here or? Okay. That's right there. I guess I have a question. I know we got an email a while ago from asking to, I guess generally have, and I looked at the chart, but it's still not clear to me that there was no full time staff at the North Branch library. And I guess I'm wondering how rethinking the org chart is in line or not in line with that stuff, like staffing the North Branch differently. Mary, did you hear that question? Are you the first one? Yes. Well, the North, the new North End branches only open 16 hours per week. And right now we do have admin that are staffing it. So it really hasn't had a huge impact on staffing. I do have an email out to CAO Shad. Sorry, Catherine, help me to throw you out there. And we are having some conversations back and forth about what we can do moving forward. But right now, I mean, since it's been open in December, we haven't really had any staffing issues because we have had reduced use here at the main branch. So does that answer your question, Councilor Hightower? I think so. Maybe the general question is just like how folks are feeling about splitting their time to whoever is doing some of those 16 hours at the North Branch? Yeah, right now it seems to be working well. I mean, I would love to be able to come back in six months to a year and say, no, we need more because the business has picked up, if you will, but we're not quite there yet. Great, thank you. Further discussion or motion on the side? Yes, the man. Councilor Hightower, go ahead. Yeah, along those lines, thank you, Councilor Hightower for asking that question. And I feel like we need to look at this into the perspective of the bargaining that will be coming and to expect a question or a requirement from us to have like a fully staff dedicated just there. And also I know Director Denko that you know that expanding the hours has already been requested by some members of the new North End. So basically I think we have an opportunity right here as a budget process is about to unfold to make sure that we extend the hours one and also to have a fully staff there for more than 16 hours a week. It's just a thought and to look into the details will be much appreciated. Yep, thank you. Thank you, Councilor Jang. It definitely is another one of the moving parts I think in this budget. And yeah, we hope to expand it too. So thank you. Okay. More questions or a motion? Yep, I. Go ahead, Councilor Jang. Yep, I move the motion as indicated on the board. Okay. Second by President Powell for the discussion. We'll go to vote. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. And that brings us to 5.04. Reclassification of two clerk-treasurer positions in the HR clerk-treasurer office. Catherine, do you want to? So where is this proof? I was thinking this is one customer service associate position that we use to split with parks. The employee is staying in parks for health reasons, leaving CT and in order to open the building back up for lunch, we need to make that a full-time position. The other position is the new position. It's a licensing associate and police commission position. We have not been successful in recruiting for this at grade 13. We also put in some extra duties, including helping to cover the front desk. That brings it up to a 14. So we're asking for a request. And we think we do have some internal candidates would be interested at a grade 14. President Powell. Thank you. I motion to recommend the council approve as the recommended action on the board. Great. Senator Second? Second. Second, I cut some high tower. Thank you. Thank you for Catherine for bringing this forward. And I'm hoping that these are both needs that it's impacting pretty significantly right now. It's, I don't think about this building not being open to public during the hour. I think it's when a lot of people are able to get in here. This will address that if there's a police commission in class for that position if it's really problematic that this has been unfilled for a number of months now and hopefully this gets done. So any Councilor Jay, go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I was just wondering, you know, as part of this budget season was just wondering why now and why couldn't we wait until FY 23 in order to bring this position forward? If I might, we are in a very unique position in this job market, Councilor Jay, where we actually have two temporary employees working in the Treasurer's Office. I'm not sure how long we can retain them in that capacity and I didn't want to risk that for two months. So we have the money for it in the CT budget office by the CT budget. So given those factors in a sort of normal year for recruiting, I probably would have waited, but when we have good people who I think are gonna apply for these positions, I didn't want to risk them getting other jobs, frankly. Yeah, I am happy to support this right now, but I feel like as we move forward until July 1st we may be freeze hiring until we have a better understanding of our financial state. Yeah, but thank you. Okay, further discussion? All those in, we have more straight. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Motion carries unanimously. So in 5.05 that's been removed. So we're now on to 6.01, which is engineering, design, marketplace, garage, repair. I think we'd be good for the board to get a little update on what's going on here since we're not going to have conversations with others. I'm Jeff Hatch, I'm with the Department of Traffic and we're here today to get approval to fund engineering, design work for the marketplace garage. Well, Tanner earlier in the year on a $40,000 scale contract to garage repairs as they began that project, they discovered that there was some more in-depth repair that might cross over to the replace category. And also there's a brick here on the side of the kind of bigger ways to get repair, get stabilized. And we haven't been able to find a contract for that. We talked to the head of the base and said, well, we need to wrap this brick in here to work into this contract. So as a result, we went from about a $40,000 contract to a $59,000 contract. So now we're here in time to use so we can get approval for this. And they are at the gate ready to go with the big documents. We need to get this on the street for construction to do it this summer. We want to get it done August, September, October, time frame, of course, so it's a season to appreciate that. But it is our extra repair that needs to be done sometime. As part of this, they've done a track control plan which will limit the contractors to restricting the bridge to not eliminating more than 80 spaces during construction. So it's less than 25% of the ground that's going to be constructed. So I think that's that stuff. I love that stuff. Questions? Yeah, it's a little bit of a third question. Thrilled and jumping up and down. Do this, but it has to be done. So I'll make the motion to take the action. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I get to turn it over to Kester. Second. Oh, I haven't heard. We got the second. Great. And. I think that's probably not more discussion about the marketplace. Mark. So all those. If there's no further discussion, all those of fairly emotional. They say hi. Hey. Thank you, and final item on the agenda is an authorization, execute and maintenance contract for stormwater dredging and vegetation removal services. Another TPW item, let's take this. Yes, we have both division director, Megan Moyer, as well as our stormwater program partner, James Schirard, and Ty Colesman. James, take it away. Hi, everybody, thanks for having me. The city is lucky enough to have a number of stormwater systems that are treating our runoff here in the city, and a few of them are sediment capture systems. The short version of that is they gather a lot of the stuff that runs off our roadways and parking lots, et cetera, and captures them and holds it up, and that sediment builds up over time in these systems. So intermittently they need to be dredged and cleaned out. A similar effort, although a little bit smaller, was done about five years ago, but two of these systems have never been cleaned since constructed. So we are looking to do a fairly large push in a dredging effort, treating, cleaning both pond 08 and its forebay, in addition to two components of the pine barge canal. So today we're asking for approval to execute a contract with the contractor that came in with the loss bid for this particular effort. Great, thank you, James. Questions? We're most present. Thank you. I'll make that motion. It's actually not on onboard docks. It's actually a document. It doesn't really matter if I have that at some point. But anyway, there is a motion on page three, unless you want me to read it. Fine with that. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Thank you for work on this. I think it's exciting that we're going to improve this. As part of our maintenance. Which has some residual benefits too for things. I guess. Is it. This is the same thing that also presented for me to bike lands or is it really. This, these, these are different storm water detention facilities, usually outside the right of way. But as you saw in the memo, some of these are part of our agreement with EPA and the state on the pine barge canal. And so we're pleased to do this maintenance that we need to do to preserve the lake. Okay. All right. Without a, a jession. We are adjourned before finance at 5. 7 PM. All the time.