 I will call the board of minus order at 507 p.m. First item on the agenda is the agenda. I would welcome. Motion to adopt their minute. So moved. Okay, motion to adopt and second by council McGee. Any discussion. Seeing no vote all those are fair motion to say aye. Aye. Okay. So moved. Opposed. Our agenda is dotted. It brings us to the public forum and. I'm not seeing anyone in the room. I believe it's signed up for the public forum. We have anyone online. No. I don't believe we have anyone online. So we will close the public forum. And we'll move to the consent agenda. We will close the public forum. So, we have a motion to adopt the agenda. That has some grant acceptance. Three three parks. Park Settles. Welcome to the content agenda. Thank you. That's our motion to adopt the agenda for a second. Second by President Paul. Any discussion. Seeing none. We will go to a vote. All those who are there in motion, please say aye. Aye. Motion carries unanimously and we have adopted the consent agenda. This brings us to section four of the agenda. Five items for approval and recommendation to the city council. 4.01 is a CEDO CJC item of reclassification of limited service and youth and family restorative liaison. Rachel Jolly is here. This is a position that's been in the distance for about a year and a half and it's based on a grant from the department of children families to the Burlington school district. It funds a youth and family restorative liaison to reduce racial disparities among suspensions and expulsions in the district. And after the first half of the year we had better understand this was a brand new position. We had better understanding of what position involves. So we really wrote the job description so it's more accurate. So this is reclassification to bring that job description up to, you know, up to grade where it includes responsibilities that it actually, you know, holds. And 100% of the position is paid for through the contract with Burlington school district. Okay. Any questions? Are we ready for a motion on this item? Yep. I would like to make the motion to approve and recommend to the city councilors indicated on board. Seconded by Councilor McGee. Any discussion? Seeing none, we'll go to a vote. All those in favor of the motion please say aye. Aye. Aye. Are there any proposed? Motion carries unanimously. Thank you, Rachel. Okay. 4.02 redstone cottage restoration contract amendment. Great. Same project. Not just about cement. Sure. So in the, as with many construction projects, we put this bit out. It was much higher than anticipated. So we had a value to share a lot of the work out of it. We had a lot of work to do. We had a lot of work to do. We had a lot of work to do. We had to start to begin to wrap up work. Realizing that we really want to enhance the work environment for the conservation team that was out of there. So the primary work that we want to do is basically creating a garage space in the lower level, which right now is just a series of old door rooms. So doing that work and then plus replacing the paneling on the floor, we've got a little bit of space on the west and south side of the building. And then a whole gate job of it. The project's been coming along. It's been coming along slowly, but done been done very well. Fairington construction is really done a great job. I was just there today and. The paint has been done upstairs on the second floor. And it just is really going to be a wonderful. Space. So I'm pretty excited about it. But really hoping to get this part done. And then we still dream in the future of. center in the annex, but we have lots of city needs, so we will get done what we can get done, but looking for your approval to really enhance the staff space, primarily giving them a heated space to work in the winter in a garage check space, plus outside of it. Great. Thank you, Cindy. Floor is open. Joe, sorry. I'd be happy to make the motion as recommended on board docs. Thank you. Is there a second? Second by President Paul. Any further discussion? One question. Thank you. So the only thing I just wanted to ask is that I noticed in the memo that there is, and I've got to get it up now, that when you go to the sources, there's a $293,000 worth of donations, which is, to me, one of the compelling reasons to support this is that this is not just coming from city funds. This is coming from private donations, which I think is pretty impressive. And I'm just wondering if, if you can tell me of the private donations, I mean, is this like one significant donation, or is this, was this like an effort to get a lot of, you know, what sort of was the makeup of that $293,000? Sure. So the first one was, there's definitely one significant donation in there, and that's the original million dollars that was given by John Hale. He specifically called out $250,000 of that was to go to the restoration redstone cottage, and then Sarah Myskins with the Perks Foundation, they took it on as a campaign to help us try to get over the end. And that included part of their campaign was the relationship with Ron housing conservation board for that $60,000 Sarah Myskins and they built that relationship and helped us get over the finish line for that one. And then one just additional 8,000 that we may or may not get that we're working on is the sweet $8,000 for writing the historic registration registration registration grant put it on the list. And we'd set $8,000 aside for that and Jane White would love to volunteer his time to be and for that money to go into the project. So we're trying to see if we can have that in some ways I would count that is that. Well come from BCB in many ways it's also a private donation because he just really believes in the project and wants to be able to give us time and he says any dollar that can go into it to for the construction he's there. Great. Thank you very much. You're welcome. Okay. Seeing them we will go to we have much of this and so we will go to all those up here mostly say hi. Hi. Hi. The post which is he is. Thank you. Thank you so much for our work. Okay. So the presentation of a payroll administrator one to payroll administrator to it's quick treasure HR item. Catherine do you want to say anything about this or I'll start and then I'm, I will kick it over to HR director derpy because we maybe should have reordered these items. We're hoping that payroll will be moving shortly to HR. We are fortunate that we have really talented staff running our payroll department. Payroll is one of those underrated but incredibly difficult tasks that we have chosen to do internally. But the every year, or every several years when we do contract negotiations, especially, we add a lot of complexity to the jobs of our payroll staff. And we've had a lot of turnover there. We have someone new who is hired originally as a payroll admin one, because frankly, we did not think we'd be able to successfully recruit a payroll admin two, which is what we were hoping for. And after several months on the job, she has demonstrated those capacities. And so since she is operating on that level, the level of her peers, she is really due for a reclass. What if I miss director derpy? I don't think you've missed anything. This employee, the, you know, the incumbent payroll one is far more qualified. We're very lucky to have her she's done. She's she has a broad level of experience that the city is really going to be able to use. She's already doing some projects, which I won't bore the panel with, but it's really important to have somebody who has her level of experience as we make a few transitional moves to be a more efficient department and she is certainly helping that that team get ready. I'd like to appreciate you're ready for a motion on this item. I have a couple of questions. And the first one is to understand the mechanism of employees getting paid. Do they complete like a time card on a bi weekly basis. How does it work. I'm glad you asked. Yeah, so there are two classes of employees, there's two payroll runs one is a weekly payroll run one is a bi weekly payroll run, depending on your classification as an employee. So we, we basically run payroll all the time every week. So the mechanism we use currently. There's a time and attendance system. We have successfully in the last month brought everybody aboard to use that time and attendance system with the help of Scott. We're using kiosk prior probably just a month ago there were paper time cards. And then payroll manager has managed to get everybody on board except for a handful of employees. And then we use that for time and attendance and new world to actually do the, you know, the some of the processing our hope is to through special projects move this to more efficient process. You know, thank you. And I think the other question is specific to even if you are a salary employee, you will need to complete that time of attendance that you call right. That's correct. Okay. And also my other question is about moving payroll from CFOs, you know, to HR. I do not see, I do not understand, you know, the reasoning behind it. Can someone explain it in details. That's the next. We will we have another item 4.04 which will discuss that in detail. Thank you. Go ahead. My only question is connected to this item in the next one. On the next item that lists a role admin to and pay payroll admin one so would this item then create. Would it be a reclass for the admin one position so be to positions. Okay. That's correct. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Could I just ask Catherine you had sort of said at the beginning that maybe the ordering wasn't the best here. You know, do you want to do the reorg first. I mean, is there it seems like some of the questions sort of go from the other so. Yes, I'm happy to speak to that now. And then we can. If that's amenable to everyone and then we can sort out the motions as we go is that amenable to the board. It's fine with me. Great. So the move of payroll. You'll see it's my understanding that long ago, as many things I'm learning in the city, it's just like writing a merry go around. What goes around sort of comes around and that payroll at one point already was in HR, because I went to the mayor, he's like, we did this before. But why we want to do it now is for a couple of reasons. One is because there is a general move, not only in government, but across industries, because payroll is very much split between finance and HR. And if you talk to people in any kind of industry, you can get a strong opinion, but it's basically split half and half where that's located in the finance department or in HR, because there's good reasons to put it in either one. The trend now is moving it towards HR because we're in a time when we really need employees to be better supported. We're looking towards ensuring that employees from the time that they first interact with HR from the time of hire or recruitment through termination have a consistent, excellent experience. Also, we're really worried, we're really focused on ensuring that CT can concentrate on its core competencies. And that's accounting and finance and so allowing HR to take over payroll allows us frankly to focus on things like responding to the TIF audit and responding to our state audit. We'll still be involved. We'll still provide all of the same oversight and it will not in any way affect the audit capabilities or the audit function of payroll. That's my spiel. I'm open to any questions, comments. I'm going to also add to that just for the board's awareness. We also have identified and moving through the reorganization of clerk CT and looking at some of the HR rules. Some of the roles that I have existing in the office, there's a natural relationship that goes that will create more efficiencies and certainly has some real teeth in making sure that we're using, we're unifying our systems. I'm not just using one system for this one system for that you want to get away from using systems as repositories and have them all talk to each other. And I have a lot of experience in that realm and hope to really take the department into a place where together with Lori Thompson, where it can really be, you know, we got rid of the paper time cards in less than 30 days so we're really hopeful. That's your on you. Thank you. I'm not sure which motion I would make but I do have just one question and that is related to the the union. So there are in the memo that you gave us there are three. Four positions. One of them is a payroll and compliance manager which is non union. And then the other three are either senior payroll or payroll administrators one and two, which are asking employees and just wondered how, you know, if there's a, if there are any concerns with that or anything that was voiced by the union or if it is generally supportive. So President Paul. Thank you for that question. There's been some back and forth on this and I've spoken internally with those employees with the CEO and, you know, others and we really feel that a there's there's not a there's not a reason to move these employees out of the union at this time. I didn't, I didn't mean moving them out. I meant, if, you know, that's not what I meant I what I was asking is just simply, these are three union positions. I don't know if moving them from payroll from CT to payroll really impacts them in any way that would be of concern and just wondered if that conversation had been had that's all. So to move them we have to ask the union and ask me has given their full support. Okay, that was, that was the answer that was the answer that I was, that was the question that was the answer I was looking for. They've been supportive all the way through so. All right, even better. So, based on that and based on the history and all I mean I'm happy. I don't know what you want me to do I mean I'm happy to make both of the motions but I don't know if you wanted maybe go with the reorg I think if we confirm that. Sure, let's start with it every will, will sort of all. And we are on 4.04. Are there any, just go ahead and make a motion for 4.04. Okay, so I would make a motion on 4.04 to take the action as recommended in board docs. Okay. Second, second my counselor Mickey thank you sir for the discussion of 4.04. Yes, go ahead. Yeah, I mean from my perspective it seems that only thing that is changing here is less responsibilities from city and now more responsibilities to the HR director. So, I am a little bit, you know worried about this is this is not based on any study, this is just based on a study that has been done into 2020. And it's not taking into account the realities of this small city as well such as Burlington. I will be voting in support of it, but also one to this to be stated in the, I only will see further issues with the point of system. If it is moved suddenly from CT to HR. And also, I see that the correlation between increasing the salary of HR director without having an understanding of why we need more responsibilities on that director's plate. Let me just leave it to that, but I will be supporting this tonight, but further issues will be coming around this specific drastic move. I just want to make sure I heard you correctly you are going to be supporting this tonight, or you will not be spreading the same. I will be voting in support of it. Yes. But you think there's more issues talk about it. Yeah, and I think this this move should come with a level of supervision and to not be just now HR now payroll is now in HR. No, I think there should be like a liaison until we we make sure that it is, it can run successfully in a different house. And just not transfer the employees there. I think there should be some level of discussion, a tie or marriage until we we we know that things will will work smoothly at HR. But we'll be supporting it. All right, thank you. Any further discussion of item 4.04. Sorry, President Powell. No, I'm not. I'm letting my husband know that our dog has a toy under the couch. And I can't get up to get it for him. All right, no snow for the discussion. We will go to a vote on 4.04. All those are favorite motion please say aye. Aye. I already post motion carries unanimously. Now I'm going to go back to 4.03 and ask for a motion or 4.03 or right there. I'm happy to make the motion is recommended on board dogs. Thank you, Councilor McGee. Second. Do we have a second second by President Paul. Any discussion. All those in favor of the motion please say aye. Aye. Motion carries unanimously. All right, this brings us to the 4.05 you got two more items tonight 4.05 reclassification and the title requests. This item. And are. Are you able to speak to this? Lynn or Karen. Catherine. Lynn. I think Glenn, you're here for this. Yes, yeah, yeah. Sorry. I didn't realize that the chief was not there. Yeah, we're bringing forward to the board tonight. We're going to be talking about the creation of a new management position. Community service manager. We are looking to. Eliminate one of the AFSCME union positions. We have support by the union for doing so. And using one of those FTEs to create the management position. We feel like the. Oversight by a non sworn. And we feel like we're going to be beneficial for this group of individuals and provide them the more oversight and attention that we feel like they are deserving of. The second piece is reclassification of the criminal. Identification technicians. And then a reclassification and retitling of the. Uniform bureau support and administrative coordinator. Great. Thank you. The floor is open for discussion. I'll make the motion to take the action as recommended in board docs and just what to ask. If you're just be able to make a comment after a second. Thank you. Go ahead. Yeah, so we, we discussed this to some degree at the public safety. I think it was a great opportunity and was, was really swayed in terms of the loss of the community service officer. Wasn't really too happy about losing a CSO position. However, I think the number of CSOs that are. The way that the position is now working, it really does need a manager. You know, normally it's usually like, I think eight to one is a reasonable amount and this is more than that. So, you know, I, as I say, I wasn't too crazy about losing. A position on so to speak a position on the on the ground, but I'm was swayed to consider that because I think it's important to have a civilian oversight on as a civilian manager. So that's why I am supporting this. This motion. Thanks. Thank you, President Paul. That's Jay. Was just wondering if director right from parts and recurrence and waterfront is still there. She's no longer here. So, yes, I will be supporting this, but I just wanted to put a comment and also a question. It seems that we're talking about CSO CL CL O's and also park ranges. I think it is about time for the city to look into public safety from the perspective of non police officers. In terms of the training that they all would receive because we're talking about the police and parts and has like similar position, but how do we bring them all to basically receive the same training, have the same rules and responsibilities I think it is about time for the city to look into that in making sure that this works and the beaches and everybody's safe from the perspective of non police officers. It's just a comment that I needed to add here. I think it's interesting point. I think I agree with you to a certain degree and it's why you may have seen in the, you know, in the next steps of public safety plan. I would like to bring to the board and the council very soon a proposal to create a new assistant director position, civilian position within the police department to oversee these non police resources within the department and to better coordinate with other public safety resources in other departments and with outside parties like the street outreach team and this new crisis response team and so I do see a need for greater definition and and planning and coordination and that's, that's why I'm recommending this proposal. I am not sure I quite would characterize that as giving everybody the exact same training responsibilities actually think we want some differences, but I do think we want a system that all fits together in a rational way, and it makes sense and I don't not have that right now because we've created all these, all these new resources quite quickly so I think we're well I think there's a good chance we're more or less on the same page and we'll be diving into that further. When we bring that position at least if not in other ways as well. Thank you. I think we got a motion, a second on this item, if there's no more discussion, I'm going to go to a vote all those of you are willing to motion please say aye. Aye. Aye. Anybody there any opposed motion carries unanimously. Okay, this brings us to our last item, which is 5.01 contracts for the black experience and Juneteenth 2023. Welcome Sydney and I'm sure we've had due to the more clients before. Thank you for having me. Thank you for being here. Thank you. Yes, hi I'm Sydney and I'm the financial and administrative coordinator for REIV. I started a few months back so I'm glad to be here. Thank you so much for the help. Pre-district description of our memo or presented on tonight. Our first request is to execute a contract with okay okay, marketing creative for $64,750 for the production and management services in connection with Juneteenth 2023 as a local black owned agency with Juneteenth in 2022 we received sole source approval for this contract. Our second request is to execute a financial sponsorship agreement with New Wave equity corporation for $75,000 as a sponsor for the black experience in February 2023. New Wave is a black owned organization and are the original organizers of the black experience and before we receive sole source approval for this financial sponsorship. We're excited about these two partnerships because they allow us to ensure planning and operation costs stay within the budget. We are also particularly excited that these funds will be invested locally with black owned businesses. Thank you. Great. Thank you Sydney. Thank you for your discussions. We're motion and then just to be clear this is where this is for mortifying it's approval only because of the size of the contracts. How the board like to proceed. I have a couple of questions, Mr Mayor. Yeah, and I believe that I sent those earlier to members of the board and also to CFO Chad, including you Mayor as well. And I think my first question is about the $64,000 to okay okay. That went that we are approving without an RFP and I was just wondering if anybody from the legal team is here in order. Are we are we doing it this right this way. Councilor Jay is primarily the CEO takes a lead role in determining whether sole source policy has been followed so maybe Catherine could you start and then if there's need to talk to the lawyer after that. Absolutely. Your question, Councillor Jang that's part of why I sent you a response back and you'll note that we don't have very precise language around sole source purchasing in our manual but I sent you back what we have. So it's always a little bit of a judgment call, but really it's if there is one provider or a uniquely qualified provider or an emergency situation. And while we don't typically include the full body of the request from the department and my approval in these requests. I'm happy to, you know, forward it on to you it's of course a matter of public record. But in this case, are you I be noted that this is a vendor that worked with them last year. I did, of course, both from their perspective and the CT perspective that there was a significant overage if everyone wants to ensure that Juneteenth remains on budget. And this is one way we intend on doing it. While I can understand there may be some concern about using some of the same vendors engaging local vendors and ensuring that we engage them early with a good plan is part of the REIB team strategy to ensure that we stay on budget or even come in under budget. Yeah, I mean, my concern is just that I think our policies made it very clear that anything over $50,000 will need an RFP sent out. And this it seems we're talking about 64,000. I am just, I just want some level of clarity as is this going to be an ongoing thing or I guess I just need the city to stay away from any type of liabilities if any, these type of contracts. I think I understand your question and certainly you're not by proving this contract we're not committing to this for for future years beyond this. I think that so you know that's that that's not being decided tonight whether I think it's certainly possible that if things go well again this year. We use these venture vendors in the future but there's certainly no commitment in in tonight's approval. And so, you know, that's a wonderful. Yes, and I think this this this memo also it's bringing two different basically contracts and the second one with uni new waiver. I mean I believe that the city need to outline a very clear memorandum of understanding, because for those of us who recall. Last year there was some issues, and the city ended up paying, you know, to solve that problem. And people like me and pet we spend a lot of time trying to solve this issue, but I think Catherine Chad very quickly gave us, but I just, I'm just asking. If we are going to contract with them or just support them 75,000 the city is not liable. This is their organization. This is their event we just supporting it to make it very clear so that their subcontractors will not come back to the city trying to receive some compensation. It's just a request that I respectfully bring forward. That sounds like a print contract clarification. Yes. Yep. And also I'm very happy to make the motion as indicated on for that. Thank you, Councilor Chang. So the second councilor me. It is okay for further discussion. So I have a question. You know, obviously we're giving. I mean this money is not. This is just a sponsorship. And it's in terms of new wave is this the, is this the same event last year on that was held with the Flynn. I'm actually, I'm not sure. This is okay. Yeah, this is a new wave is the black experience brought Angela Davis. So they were the ones who contracted and brought. That's the event that they were, they oversaw and they were responsible for a number of other. You know, everything around that project they, they sort of push forward, you know, they did some marketing, they did some, they brought her here. So that's, that's what that that was the expense for new wave last year. So that was last year. It's not the same event this year. Is that right? Right. I don't director Carson's not here but I, I, I do know, you know that they are, you know, one of the reasons that she selected them is their ability to facilitate and get big name talent to the for our Juneteenth celebration. Okay, all right so so it's not the same event it's just a, it's the name of the event is the same of course just like. Any, any event but the, the event itself is not the same. Okay, all right. Thank you. Yep, Mr. Mayor. Yes. Yeah, and I think console up all that is also a great point, because two things. One, I am a person of color. And I do not think that these events are contributing meaningfully to my well being all the well being of people that look like me. They have no definite real meaning. And at the same time, we having similar events in the year, at least three times. And you think about it. The multicultural center is bringing big speakers in the city of Burlington. New wave is a new organization or at least starting to contract with the city is bringing new speakers here. The event itself is doing exactly the same thing, but let's think about it how that is changing the lives and well being of people of color celebration is great celebration is perfect celebration is needed. But it seems we are increasingly receiving requests to support this type of events. I think the city need to look to have like a comprehensive approach about Juneteenth $400,000 or more was spent last year. We don't even know exactly how much we supporting bringing like Patrick Brown and his work. I think investing in the well being of people of color that live here. So these resources can go directly to them, I think is a way that we need to go in order. Instead of just bringing speakers who will inspire you for one day, two days, and then your life become to what it was. People need really definitely the support and I think, let's think about it that way as we move forward. But thank you. Thank you. So, thank you for those comments counselor Chang I appreciate that perspective and would tend to agree with you that, you know, one day events are are important but that, you know, just like just like a lot of things in life they are celebrated and then people go back to their lives. And, you know, but I do I, and I do want to also just be on the record that I was, I was disappointed with the event last year. I don't, I won't go into all the reasons why but I was disappointed, mostly with the speaker that was brought forward. I do not think is reflective our of everyone in our community and do not agree with the positions that that person holds, and I was not happy that that person receives that they that this receive $75,000 of taxpayer money. When I did hear from people who were very upset about the way about that event. So I'm trusting that that is not going to happen this year, or I will vote against it. I, and I, and I'm looking for clarification to make sure that we are not going to see that happen again, because I, I can't support something that brings forward speakers who don't reflect the overall on well being of everyone in this community. Does anyone know the answer to that question of what is the plan for the speaker for this year. The plan for the speaker this year that black experiences bringing is Angela Davis about the person that you're concerned about. Yes, that is, so I will be voting no point of life. I wanted to add, I think, I think consular Paul, I completely understand your point. And I also received the concern from the Jewish community about that event. But also to clarify that it was another person who was supposed to be but it was not specifically Angela Davis. It was another speaker that did not make it maybe blend is, is what blend is trying to. I believe that other speakers Tony Morrison. Yes. Paul, I think there is some confusion on who you're referencing I, and I don't want to contradict you it may not be Angela Davis but it may be some confusion on someone else that they thought they were bringing for the event last year, who wasn't actually the person being brought, but I'll give you clarity on that. I don't, I don't honestly know what happened. All I know is that I received a number of phone calls from people who are pretty upset, and I'm just trying to understand what happened last year, and to make sure that it doesn't happen again I just don't know what the circumstances were I wasn't in town that weekend and I admittedly did not follow it closely enough. I'll give you some clarity on that probably in the next few minutes and I say, actually, I do remember that comes from all the emails that received was funny. I'm sorry I can't hear the person speaking right now. I can remember, I believe like the speaker that was close to come through the hip hop museum was Tony Morrison that was supposed to receive a award about the hip hop museum and I end up speaking to the organizer to let them know of how upset the community was and ended up not having her. So just for clarity here. Thank you. Today. I'm not sure it's Tony, of course, but I said Alice Walker. Alice Walker. Yeah. So, okay, what we're going on tonight is it is it for money that would be supporting an upcoming event on February 26. Yeah, I can clarify it so what we're voting on tonight is there's on February 25. There's an event that will be bringing a speaker that speaker is not the same speaker that maybe you're referencing Councilor Paul. I think there will be no conflict in the way that there was last time. Alice Walker is the person that was recognized through another part another Juneteenth event, and that we, we have since taken in public feedback and like ameliorated that part of things but that person is no longer kind of irrelevant at this year's programming. Okay, I mean, I, again, I don't, I, I was not here when that when the event was held, and I did, I did, I heard about it after the fact on, I just want to be on the record that that I, I do not support using taxpayer money to bring forth to bring to pay for speakers to come to this community who are not reflective of the needs and concerns of the entire community. And I just want to go on the record is saying that I just hope that we do not find out that after we give $75,000 which is a lot of money to an organization which admittedly admittedly. I think it's great to celebrate the black experience, but I don't agree with bringing forward speakers that cause great discomfort for other people in this community. So I'll vote, I'll vote for it, but I hope that I don't find out that it is going to support on speakers that a great many of us do not agree with. And just to clarify, Angela Davis is one that you don't agree with the community doesn't agree with just so that we're clear. So is Angela Davis coming. Yes. Okay, thank you. Mr. Mayor. Very quickly. Yeah, and this is just also about the importance of the memorandum of understanding that I, you know, mentioned earlier, giving them the money I think we need to outline couple of points to not bring some type of speakers that will hurt some members of the society. And also their subcontractors are not reliable to the city, but to the organizers, I think those type of things need to be outlined. If possible, by Ari Ibi. All right, so, um, I have some questions about the part of this motion involves the new way of the contract. We, we can say counseling makes money and we can be sure for financing for them. I'm almost, you know, kind of uncertainty concern that that'd be my preferred route and post having a vote on that. I mean, it's I am, I see that the dates coming up quite soon here, but it's not clear. We have to trap that. Okay, great. So, my suggestion to the rest of one would be that we table the new wave piece of the motion solely on the Juneteenth related contract and we postpone action on the other until potentially next week when we can get some questions answered about the new wave contract. I support that. Yeah, I support that. Thank you. So, um, we ever got to a motion of this. We did. So, I guess, can we think motions on the team that includes both contracts so can, um, let's just, let's be formal about it. Can someone make a motion if we agree with this course of action to amend out. I would like to further amend the motion by tabling the new wave contract request and just moving forward, the, okay, okay, contract with the city of Burlington. And I think tabling is fine because the chair can bring back a table request for anything. Okay, so that's, I think that wording is fine. Is there a second for that, that motion amendment. Can we just call that a friendly amendment. Okay. I don't know I'm confused whether or not we are from the amendments these days but it sounds like we're all in agreement on that so I'll use my discretion as a chair we are just be clear. We'll be voting on the okay okay contract, the new wave contract will come back after we've done some initial work on it. Any further discussion. Seeing them will go to vote all those in favor of the motion please say aye. Aye. Are there any opposed. The motion carries unanimously. And we have now completed all the work. So if there's no objection, I will adjourn us at 559. Great. Thank you.