 All right, are we okay yep. All right. pursuant to chapter 20 of the acts of 2021 this meeting will be conducted in person and via remote means in accordance with applicable law. This means that members of the public body as well as members of the public. May access this meeting in person or via virtual means in person attendance will be at the meeting location listed above, and it is possible that any or all members of the women. I'm sorry I read the wrong. Okay, I read the wrong, where the wrong blurb. Okay. Take two pursuant to chapter 20 the acts of 21 this meeting will be conducted by remote means members of the public who wish to access the meeting may do so in the following. manner. No in person attendee. No in person attendance of members of the public will be permitted but every effort will be made to ensure the public can adequately access the proceedings in real time via technological means. In the event that we're able to do so for reasons of economic hardship and despite best efforts we will post on the town of Amherst website and audio or video recording transcript or other comprehensive record of proceedings as soon as possible after the meeting. I believe that's all I now call this meeting to order. Okay. And we're looking to we, we do not have a member of the public with us at the present time. First order on the agenda, gentlemen, have you had a chance to look at the minutes from the last meeting. Yes. That's a guest can. Yes. Okay. I move that we approve the minutes of the meeting of of July 8 2021. Second. All those in favor please say aye. Okay, next thing on the, I got to pull up my agenda. Okay, public participation we have no, no one from the public. Let's move to the motor vehicle abatement reports. Richard. Sorry. Yeah. Could we, could we go straight to the PowerPoint for the residential exemption so that Sean was sure just just for the record for the meeting. Mr. Mondana was going to present to us a proposed PowerPoint presentation regarding the residential exemption, which I understand is intended to be shown to the town council is that correct Sean. Yes. Yeah. Okay. All right, Sean, you have a floor. All right, so I'm going to share my screen in a second. Again, the objective today was to sort of fill you in on sort of our progress to date, and also get your feedback on how this looks and anything that might be confusing or if there's areas where you think maybe we should provide additional information. I think we can do that as well. So any questions you have, don't hesitate to, you know, ask them because it might be something that a counselor would have the same question, and maybe we can do something to, to the PowerPoint to make it more clear. So I'm going to go ahead and share. All right, do you all see it on the screen. Yes. Okay, is the size. Okay. Sure. I'll make it a little bigger. Thank you. So we're going to cover do sort of baseline what the residential exemption is briefly talk about the study process or the work we've been doing to update this analysis. We'll look at the data, talk about some key points and then next steps. I know you all know this, but I will go through it as practice. The residential tax exemption is a tax policy that exempts a percentage of owner occupied residential property values. So, in town we have a bunch of residential properties a number of them are owner occupied and a number are not the rented. And so we'll see in a second how that split breaks down for Amherst. So it's a decision that the council must annually consider and decide whether to adopt or not adopt. The amount of the exemption, if it was adopted can range between not really zero but between zero and 35% of the average residential property value. So that figure is that exemption amount is then applied to all owner occupied residential properties and we have an example that I'll walk you through a few slides. Yeah, quick question. The second point to town council must annually consider just to clarify that means if it is adopted they must annually consider is that right. They must vote whether to adopt each year is that right David. Yeah, whether it's adopted or not we have to discuss it every year Lee. That's a matter. That's a matter of state law right. Correct. Okay. Can I make can I make a comment here. Yes, yeah, yeah, I can't really see anybody so just call out if. The third bullet point. I'm just wondering whether everybody thinks that's clear or, or Sean do you think it's made clear by the rest of the presentation. Let's go through it then. What you can do is if you know if there's things during the presentation that we can fix those if there's things you walk away at the end and you say, this isn't clear you can email them to me directly and I'll try to fix them up to. So the next one this policy shifts the tax burden away from lower valued owner occupied properties. Again, you'll see that in a little bit residential properties on the lower end are going to save money residential owner occupied properties on the higher end are still going to end up paying more. And then again we have a chart that will break that out for people. Can I make a suggestion you can reject it if you like. Sure. I would say shifts. I would say that wording to the effect of onto the other prop other. Okay. That's, that's the wording. I mean, I think it needs to be clear the burden is shifted where the burden is shifted to. I could do that. That's a good point. Okay. And then the last piece here is just that they're about 15, I can get this. I'll, I'll say there are, I'll get the exact number but there's about 15 communities that have adopted this policy. And you'll see in a few slides that they're all either suburbs of not suburbs but major areas around Boston. Or around the Cape for the most part. I don't believe there are any in Western mass that have adopted this. So the study process, the assessor's office worked to update its records so that we could give you the most accurate analysis as possible we don't. And David correct me if I'm wrong we don't. As a matter of process collect information on a regular basis about whether properties owner occupied or not because we haven't really had a reason to in the past. We have some technology now that we might go to do that more as we go forward. We did need to update our records to get a more accurate count of how many residential properties were owner occupied and how many were not. And so the way we went about it was we identified the properties that we were unsure about there's some that we kind of, we know we're not owner occupied like some of the larger rental complexes. And there's other ones that we, we knew the other way. And so we narrowed it down to about looks like 764 properties that we sent a survey to, and we received about 50% of those back. And thank you very much to Teresa who updated all of that in our, in our database so that we could have an updated analysis. Well, what were the major. I mean what percentage was saying no we're on rockified versus. You'll see I don't have the survey responses I don't know that I mean you'll see the total breakdown of on rockiverse. I'm just trying to understand I wouldn't expect somebody that was on rockified responded and people that were not on rockified probably did not respond very much to the server. Teresa do you anecdotally do you have any thoughts on when you were updated them how many of them were one way or the other. No, I mean we were getting a mix really I mean people that you know that don't occupy work. I was getting, I'm getting several from from people that don't that don't own or occupy so I mean I think it's a mix. I mean I couldn't give me a number start off the top of my head. Okay, good. My question is as the survey garnered the information that we needed. So it did, I would say, and I'll say this to the council as well. So the analysis that will provide will not be 100% accurate it just because we don't have 100% response rate to these surveys. But it did make our analysis more accurate by at least 376 properties so so I would say it did achieve what we wanted to which was to have them, the most up to date analysis that we could. And so that that's what we've done. Sean, how does the response rate to compare. I think David you said last time it was we were kind of shooting for 50% or we had about 50% last time we did this as well right. So I think, you know, I think we were hoping to get maybe a little bit higher but you know I think getting 50% as it is what it is. David, when the property sells you try to identify whether it's owner occupied or not. One on the past we haven't but I've been thinking about it. Perhaps what we need to do is in June of each year after all the sale is finished before July 1 send out notices to everyone that we've any doubt about and ask them if the owner occupy the properties. Based on the sale information we have from the previous year. Okay. That's the best we can do at this time. David, we may already do this. But if not on our rental registrations do we ask if their owner occupied those properties or not. Sean I don't know. So that's that's the when I was talking about technology that might be to help us keep this more up to date in the future that's one of the things we're looking at is every year they have to do. So rental properties have to fill out this registration and one of the questions we could, I think, add to that is, is the property owner occupied, and then we could get that data and update our records. So that'll tell us for a lot of these rental properties that are, you know, homes that are those are the ones that are typically harder to know whether their owner occupied or not will be able to get better data on that. Any other questions on this slide. No, okay. So this slide just breaks down the communities that have adopted the residential exemption, and you know there may be more data we want to add to this table, I just did started with a couple sort of factoids about each of these communities. But you can see Barnstable Boston, you know, many of these are either on the Cape or around Boston, if not all of them. And they put next to it because I think it's interesting just to have a sense of how that that community compares to Amherst and so many of these communities have very low tax rates. Nantucket, I don't know what's going on there. That's pretty ridiculous to have a $3 tax rate. Very little proportionally. It's really hard to get too much out of this, because some of these have a split commercial rates to. So you got a lot of things moving about. A rare moment of advanced planning I went through this earlier this morning. And what do we get with this slide. So I think what I'm trying to what I was hoping to convey with this slide is for the people who are thinking about adopting the residential exemption. And I'm wondering how it has worked in other places is that we're not like any of the places that have adopted it. Really at all, I mean just in terms of our tax rate in terms of our, in many cases in terms of the value of our town, the residential value of our town. And then there's other things I could add I could add commercial value so if people wanted to get a sense of the commercial base. But the intent of this slide was to say that Amherst, we shouldn't make our decision based on what other towns are doing, because it would be a different what we do here would probably achieve something different than what it's achieving in these other towns. Sean are the common features of these towns that make them more adaptable to the exemption. And for the Cape, definitely the Cape, I sort of get the rationale, or what I've heard the rationale explained to me is that, you know in the Cape you have residents who live there year round, and maybe more modest homes and then you have vacationers who come in and, and buy more, you know, build more homes and raise the values of, you know everybody around them. And so, you know the people who live there year round or sort of feeling the effects of their tax bill going up because of all these other homes around them being, you know, larger homes more expensive homes being built. So the exemption there sort of tries to offset that a little bit to provide a benefit to the year round residents so that sort of makes sense to me. I'm not 100% sure what the rationale is and like, like a summer bill or Cambridge, other than maybe trying to provide some relief to lower valued properties. I think a lot of these have, you know, an element of a large rental market like we do in Amherst. They realize, you know, apartment owners are going to pay the bigger bill, not the homeowner. So I'm sort of with Rich on this, I think this could raise more questions and that we'd have not have the ability to answer. Because there's so much going on. So do I take it that, do I take it that these are these rates that are showing here are rates that after the exemption is applied. These are their current tax rates. Yeah, so these are from the Department of Local Services or whatever their current tax rate is, is what's shown here. So I mean, right there. Go ahead, Rich. And some of them have split rates. Or yeah, like Cambridge, I'm sure. And some at 35% exemptions and some at 15% exemptions. I mean, there's a lot of moving pieces here. Yeah, no, we, if you think this slide is, is confusing or doesn't achieve. I think the numbers, you might want to list the cities and stuff but I think the numbers can be really pull the numbers out. I mean, a counselor, a town council member who's coming at this fresh. And I think many of them are not would look at might say well gee we need a we need a. I don't know that might say gee we have such a higher rate we need an exemption I don't know that just, I'm just not sure what this achieves and I'm not what I could do is I can modify this slide to just list the communities. I mean, people will still sort of convey the. I mean for most people they'll still sort of see the pattern of what communities are the ones that have adopted this and that it's not really a Western mass. Nobody in Western Mass has done it yet so. Essentially what you're trying to convey is we're different. And that's that's the point I was trying to get to. Why are we different. What is there anything that stands out that makes the decision process, a little bit clear for why these other towns went for it. Yeah, I mean, I think we're different from the from the Cape. Because we're not having a lot of vacation or like for us it's not like a vacation in versus in a vacation community we have renters but they're, you know, 10 months of the year renters. Yeah, we might work, we might be more comparable like a Cambridge. And some of the others have commercial sectors that I assume are being taxed at a different rate. I think that's a good point probably the big ones like Cambridge and Brookline their commercial sectors are way different than ours. Right. Lee, I don't think there's any one story here. That's the confusing part. I think there's, I think they do sort of fit into two buckets. Again, I think you have the Cape Cod bucket and then you have the sort of large urban area around Boston bucket with a large commercial base. Yeah. And so I think I think that's a good point Lee that that's sort of, if we wanted to highlight why we're different those would be the two things to highlight. Yeah, I think if you're going to show the town she had to show what give a reasonable explanation. All right, I'll, I'll modify that and like somebody will just take the numbers off and I'll just list them and maybe I can put sort of the, I can summarize those two themes as to why we're different. Okay, the next slide. So this is just the breakdown of the residential property types. So we have roughly 6200 or so residential units are parcels and so 31% of them are non owner occupied based on the analysis we just updated and 70 or 69% are owner occupied. And the title property types by parcel is, I don't think we can emphasize enough, this is by parcel it's not by housing unit. I agree. Okay, out of that. But does every does each, I'm sorry to ask a stupid question that having been here for this long but he does have each parcel generate a separate bill. Okay. If you look at this housing by housing unit would be flip flop. In other words, not occupied housing units is about 60% of the units in the Amherst versus owner occupied is about 40%. And can you think that's an important point to make. I don't know. I don't, I don't, I think this is clear. This is a higher level it's clear. If somebody asked by housing units, I'm not sure what the answer is, except it's, it's not this it's the reverse. Yeah, that's important in terms of the impact of a residential exemption on on on units, right. And maybe we can just emphasize that orally we can say that just be really clear this is parcels not housing units that would look much different. I think rich what it does is, if they get into that much discussion that means that they need to have more study and stuff is we just don't have it at this point to feel comfortable. It's my feeling. And that's fine that's what we concluded the presentation with, you know, more study if they really want to look into this. All right. So, you know, I think this slide probably can use a little more work to make it. It's meant for me to walk people through it but it is a little maybe confusing so let me walk you through and then we can talk about how to adjust it if needed. And this is an example of how the exemption would work. So right now the total residential property value in Amherst is 2.3 billion. Right, is that correct. Yep. And the average value based on 6259 parcels is $376,000. Currently. So, in this example we are saying what would it look like if we did a 15% residential exemption. And so you take that 15% times the average parcel value in the residential class to get the exemption amount of $56,413. And so that's the amount that you will apply against every residential owner occupied property to as an exemption at the amount you'll apply against them so it's for house that's worth $200,000 you know it's a larger percentage exemption versus a house that's worth $400,000. So that's part one figure out the exemption amount 56,000. So the second piece here is just more for information FY 21 residential levy 50 million 508,000 so that's how much we raised in taxes from the residential class. The single rate, the tax rate effective tax rate for that amount was $21 and 46 cents per thousand. Going to the next piece the total exemption amount so if we take the total owner occupied residential parcels, which is in the 4000 something and multiply it by 56,000. The amount that we are going to exempt from the residential property value of 2.3 billion up here is 244,943,962. So that's how much of our value goes away through this exemption. And that's what this number here total residential property value after exemption leaves us with 2.1 billion essentially. So if we have only 2.1 billion in value now because this large portion has been exempted in order to come up with the same levy the same amount of tax money to support town operations this of 50 million. We actually have to have a tax rate of 2395 in the residential class. And so that's why some people want to pay more under this situation. David anything you want to add to that. No, just that we will have to stress this is all in the residential class. Does the $25 cap per thousand cap under prop two and a half affect how much we can, how much, how high the percentage could be that we could do. No. No, it doesn't so this is an exemption Richard so anything. I mean it's the same as the split tax rates on the commercial we can go up to $35 or $40. Okay, so we could we are under an exemption we could go over the 25 per thousand, as long as our base and other words the total valuation divided on the total budget is not above a single tax rate of $25 per thousand. Okay, as long as the 2146 doesn't go about $25. Correct. No, sorry, I'm correct. The 2146 is on the residential class. Yep. Okay. It's on everything. Yep. We have a single tax rate. Okay. So, you know, but, but the thing to that we do want to stress is it will raise, you know, a rate that's already high in the residential class even higher, you know, the sort of effective rate that people will be paying so. So why did you pick 15. So we picked 15% because it's sort of in the middle. You know, between zero and 35% we, you know, we went with sort of something that would be in the middle. Right. So what do you think it's necessary to provide? I mean, we could put this in a table that says 15%, 20%, you know, that has different. It's sort of complicated to go through one analysis. So I just, I didn't want to put too many numbers on here, but if we could easily add more columns that just have different exemption amounts. If you find that helpful. I have a hard time arguing for more numbers. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So. I'm not sure that average value number means anything. The 376,000. Yeah. That helps people understand how the exemption amount is calculated. So that's how you get that's how you get to the 56,000 is 15% of that number. I might add some more parentheses and these this chart to kind of, because I can do some more there to say how we're getting to certain numbers. Yeah, no, that's all right. It's just, you know, the initial average value is really skewed with apartments in there. It's not anything to do with a single family. No, it's not single family. No, this includes all residential. You're quite right. I think if you make that comment to make sure nobody goes that way. Yeah. Yeah. What do you think median is David was median much. David. All right. So you don't have that number off the top of your head Dave. That's in the retired portion. So, I mean, do you have any such, like was that okay the way I walked you through it with this chart would you do you think it was I know it's a little bit complicated just because it is a complicated sort of analysis to for people that don't do it all the time, because it was all of us. So, would you add anything else to this, just to be affirmative. I like it. So, yeah, yeah, I mean, I would have like calculation done in the back on notes so you have it available and somebody said well, what if it was 35% No, that's a good point what I could do is I could add a, I got a table at the end of the PowerPoint presentation after the final slide that if anybody has a question on it I could pull that slide up that has other scenarios. Sean, do you think there'd be any benefit that just as a look at this nine I know look at the before, where it says total exemption amount. Could we put in there based on 4259 occupied properties or whatever it is. Yeah, no I think you're right I think. So going through this is I can yeah I can put more in parentheses to say where that comes from. I might pull this piece out in the middle where says FY 21 residential levy in the single rate and put that in a different spot so it's not in the middle of the, because all this other this other pieces all sort of part of a calculation so. So I might just rearrange it a little bit but who do we think is doing this presentation. It will probably be David and I. Okay. Right David, I can sign you. Okay. And do we have a. No we have a classification hearing David of October 4. Yeah, and I did talk to Paul David about maybe doing it that same meeting while tax, you know property taxes aren't people's mind. Maybe doing the initial presentation of this i'm not sure if that's definitely yet but just as well. I agree I think it should be part of that presentation. Okay. We can mark our calendars October 4. Yeah, we can talk about a meeting before them. Just to go over the whole classification meeting hearing. If you have this at the same same meeting then your classification presentation would be a lot shorter and right to the point, because you wouldn't include all this stuff. We would hope can we would hope. So one of this was covered in your classification presentation. So you can, if you combine these you can really shorten that thing. And what we envision is, you know to be one meeting where we present this and then there'll probably be a follow up meeting for for the board, or for the council to actually make a decision. Okay. Wait a minute that I can't be at the same classification meeting now. Yes, I can. Well if you're going to have a follow up meeting after that for. So just the classification hearings we can either discuss everything and vote on it at the same night or we can cable the vote until the next meeting. Okay, I didn't really we've always had them where you're both the same night. Yeah, we've been lucky before but I'm not sure by this year can. Okay. Okay, that's fine. So that's the exciting bridge between the Tom Brady game the night before. And the Boston at Boston Red Sox at the New York Yankees the night after. That's not, that's not the Brady Patriots game is it is that the, that's the night before. Oh, okay. I have to rearrange this. All right, so I'll keep going we're almost done. So, I tried to summarize the impacts of this example is, you know, in an understandable format but I might have missed the mark so if there's other ways you think we should show this let me know. So what I did is I just, I broke. We did that example we looked at each parcel and what that would do to each parcel. And then I sort of tiered it based on how it would change their, what they currently are assessed in taxes to what they would be assessed in taxes. Under this new system or I should say David did it. So we tiered it, the impact so, for example, 58 communities would see or 50 sorry 58 parcels. And I think the question to do is change this to number parcels 58 parcels would see a reduction of $1,000 or more from what they're currently paying 3843 parcels would see a reduction somewhere between $1 and $999 and so on and so on to where down to the bottom where 23 parcels would pay more than $10,000 more than what they're currently paying. I like this format. A couple suggestions would be at the data up top put 15% exemption example with the number 15%. And then I'd add two more columns. The third column that you have by number of parcels, but the next one I have number of owner occupied parcels. And then the third column number of non owner occupied so they can see how these numbers break down between owner occupied and non owner occupied. That would be the same numbers. Well, we're going to add together to be a total of 58. Once we get into the increase area David though it'll be a little bit of both right. Once the once we will start looking at the tax bill. That's quite correct. Yeah, yeah. So we can we can do that I think that David do I take did a good job set it up that way. I'm going to go back to the number of reductions correctly. The reduction, the number of reduction, the total number reductions and the total number of increases do not change. Due to the amount of the exemption, correct. Correct. Okay. Yeah, the savings might change right David the savings and the reductions. Yeah, okay. Yeah. Is that right there? David, does the breakeven, does the breakeven move at all if we have a different exemption level? Well, the breakeven's gonna move, but the number of parcels, like the 3901 would stay the same for the people that are getting the reduction. Okay. But if the breakeven moves higher, wouldn't it then there'd be fewer again, the reduction? I mean, the good thing is we can play around with it because we've got the Excel sheet. All right. The breakeven's within 10 parcels of each other and I've tried all four. I've tried it with five, 10, 15, and 20. So it's always with a little bit 10 properties. So it's not a big change at all. Okay. And that's a number you wanna have handy because they'll definitely ask you this 15% exemption, what is the breakeven? Right. That's available. Yeah. Yep, no, we'll have that. I mean, this is being, well, obviously this is being presented to the existing council. And I think the existing council generally, most of the existing council gets this stuff, I think. Yeah. Well, they've got a fairly, they've had exposure to it, and particularly the people who were select board members before are very familiar with it. Yes. Good. All right, so I'll add those two columns and then maybe I'll even put it like a little breakout that says breakeven is this amount. So people, it's right there. Yeah. Right. All right, so key point. So this is where we, so I took the approach of at this point, we're not necessarily making a recommendation. I'm just trying to lay out facts. I think one of the things we wanna talk about with this group is whether you think a recommendation is in order. And I think Paul, you know, that's something Paul's also thinking about is whether we should have a recommendation. But let me go through the things that we lay out as facts and then see if we wanna add anything. So this policy shifts the tax burden based on the assessed value of a property and its ownership status. It does not shift the tax burden based on ability to pay or income status. So wanted to hammer home that this is, you know, if this is something that's trying to target relief to low income individuals, it doesn't, there's no way to guarantee that's where the relief is going. Large apartment complexes are non-owner occupied and therefore we'll see a large increase in their tax liability if this policy is adopted. And I think the reason we said that was important again is because there are many low income individuals who live in large apartment complexes. And so they could see an increase in rent as a result of this. So again, that just speaks to if the goal of this policy is to provide relief to low income individuals, it doesn't necessarily do that across the board in a fair way. There are numerous situations where a property may be owner occupied for reasons other than renting to students or casual visitors of the town. So David and I actually had sort of a firsthand conversation with somebody, which really I wasn't even thinking about, but the more I think about it, there's probably are a number of examples like this in town where a sibling or a parent or a child is the owner of record on a property, but let somebody else live in it. So, you know, a child maybe could own the property for a parent, but the parent still lives in it or the parent could own it and is letting their child live in it, but they live somewhere else. And any of those situations those would be considered non owner occupied and they would still have to pay the higher taxes. And you think we have more of those than we might have thought before, is that, is that? Yeah, I mean, the more I think about it, because I just think about my own family situation where I know like my parents were put on the, my grandmother had transferred ownership of her house to my parents, for example, before she passed away. So my parents were the owner of the, technically the owner of the property, but my grandma lived there. And so, but in that circumstance, the taxes would be higher because that would be considered non owner occupied. So I think there, I don't know how many of those situations are, we know there's at least one. And I'm sure there probably are more like that in town. There was a few of those residential exemption applications that came in that had stated, they had family members living there. So, not a lot of them, but a few. The next one is this policy will increase the residential tax rate in order to make up for the exemption amount. So we sort of spoke to that before, but just wanted to hammer that point home. And make clear that it's residential. I mean, one thing we need to make sure they realize it's not going to amount, it's not going to change the amount of residential taxes we collect. It's just going to reallocate them. Yeah, that's a good point. I can add that. Yeah, because people think some way a higher tax rate, we're going to get more money. We're not going to get more money. The revenue, the total revenue is the same. Correct. That's right. It's just reallocate two pays for who, where it comes from. Yeah, that's a good point I'll add that. Within the residential. And then there's two more. If adopted, the assessor's office will need additional resources, at least in my opinion, you know, in planning time in order to implement. And we'll need to develop a more robust mechanism for determining the ownership status of a property. So, you know, if this does become going to effect, we'll want to have a, you know, other than a survey that we do periodically, we'll want to have another mechanism for really verifying, you know, because it does could have a significant financial impact for property owners. We would want to have some sort of system for verifying whether it's owner occupied or not on a regular basis. And then the last piece is just outlined what I think we've talked about in the past, which is the council should include in its consideration what it hopes to achieve with its tax policy and whether the residential exemption supports that intent. You know, I could remove that one because that's not as much of a factual thing. That's more of just a, maybe a guiding point. I think that's key. It's the council that makes tax policy. I get very uncomfortable when we're, you know, sort of implied that assessors should make the tax policy. I think it's the council that should be deciding what they want to do. I agree with Keanu. It's very important to stress that we can recommend, but the bottom line is the council has to be again. Can you go back one page, Sean? Yeah. Please. I think if we're presenting the facts, after the second bullet where we say large apartment complexes, not owner occupied see large increases, I would add another bullet below that saying, you know, okay, these see large tax increases, who benefits? And so I'd say, I think it's like 90% of owner occupied properties would see a reduction in their taxes. So that's where, you know, here's where it goes increases, but here's where the reduction is in the owner occupied home. And David, you can come up with the exact amount, but it's a very high percentage. Thanks, Keanu. I appreciate that. Is that all of the points from that page or is there one below it that we're missing? Is there? That's all. No, that's it. I thought you made a reference to a public input process. That's at the, we have a couple more. That's at the one more slide. All right, that's the recommendation at that. Okay, all right. David, you've made recommendations in previous presentations. Is that correct? Yeah, we always have recommendations at the last part, yes. Yeah, what do you think the expectation will be this year? I don't know. I think they'll expect the same recommend, well, they'll expect a recommendation on all the things that split time throughout the olden space and this. And we should make a basic, you mean it's basically gonna be, in my opinion, same recommendation that we've made in the past. And that's not the same as making policy. That's just- No, no, no. Making, yeah. Yeah, yeah. I mean, I appreciate Ken. I think Ken wants us to be- Yeah, real clear, yeah. Sort of taxation Jack Webb figures, just the facts. I get that, I get that. So I don't know. I mean, do we, I think they expect the recommendation, right? From the principle of lesser. Yeah, they do expect the recommendation, yes. Okay, and I don't know whether the board is supposed to sign on to that or not. I don't know. Well, we can just, that's what we're meeting for, to discuss if we can by the end of the month. Okay. Yeah, and I don't know, it's just me, in the past years, I sort of felt that recommendation carried a little too much more weight than it should. And therefore it sort of, the council just said, oh, let's go along with it. And they didn't generate their own discussion. And that's where I'm hesitant to recommend myself personally. I'm fine with the commercial and the split rate and that stuff, recommending those. But this one, I'd really like the council to take a little more ownership of what they're doing there. We can certainly do that. Ken, that's not a big, you know, the recommendation has always been there because we thought we should do it, but you, are you all right? I mean, you could, you could still go ahead and make it yourself, David. I just personally feel that, and we can make a recommendation on the first two items. Or we can have the recommendations come from Paul and the principal disaster feel like? I'm sorry. I mean, I really feel as though on the residential exception, we're essentially sitting on the lid of Pandora's box here. You know, I, if this, if you open this up, it's changed and you'll have a human cry like you wouldn't believe. But I don't think it's worth it. And I think there are a couple of, I think there are a couple of council members who, the former select board members, I think get this. And I think most of the rest of the council does too, and there might be a couple of people who, who want to give their neighbors a tax break. This is one of the things that I mentioned a while ago. We have not contacted any of the apartment complex people who do know this is going to go on. All they're going to see is a notification on the paper and on the webpage. And to be frank, most people don't pay any attention to that. So this is inside the council alone. The people that will unpack the most are not going to vanish there. Well, that's the 90% of homeowners or I don't have any say either. That's why I think we need to, here's the increase in tax liability, but I think we need to put the other side saying, you know, 90% of homeowners occupy their homes, we'll see a decrease in taxes. I mean, I don't think we're getting the whole picture if we're just saying this, here's the increase, but we're not telling where it's going, where it's being reallocated to. Well, I think on the last page you did, on the page before you did, I think, didn't you? Well, these are key points though, these are summaries of the whole thing. Right here, doesn't that give you a place over here. Their eyes glaze over when they look at this. I mean, I'm serious. No, it was the next page after that where you say what, yeah. So this page is this one here or one more? No, no, the one before that, this one. Yeah, if adopted. Yeah, my thought is that they do show interest in this and they want to move towards adopting it that we should strongly encourage them to propose adopting it for the next cycle and that we would do all the like work to get it through all the mechanisms in place to have it ready to go for the next cycle. Oh, that's for sure. I think they still need a lot more information before they can vote to accept it. Absolutely, absolutely. And the other thing about the situation now is that we don't really have that much journalism in town now, so the work getting out. Here's where you put the weight on the council, these two points. This is where you put the weight on them and let them know that they're the ones. But what would your answer be if they asked for a recommendation? I would recommend against it, speaking for myself. Yeah, right, right. And that's what I'm saying. I think it should be prepared for that point of being able to respond to the recommendation question. And I can work with Paul to find out if he wants to put that recommendation in this PowerPoint. And if we do, we can be clear where it's coming from. We don't want to misrepresent the board as a whole. So we could say this is a recommendation from the principal assessor and the town manager, like David said, so people are clear. And then if you guys are in attendance that night, councilors could certainly ask you individually how you feel about it as well. I mean, for me, the unintended consequences continue to be the rentals. Now, I think David has a way somehow to calculate this, which I just don't understand, but I think the intended consequences are for owner-occupied properties and you can pretty much identify those. But for the rentals, who knows what that would be? I like that description. I think Sean's last statement is the key. I mean, I'm not recommending against it. I'm just not recommending for it because I don't think we have enough. If I was a council person, I don't think I have enough knowledge to know whether I should vote yes or no on this. And I think Ken, one of the reasons why I would lean towards recommending against it myself is because I never want to be the first person to do something in a lot of ways. And I think if we were ever going to do it, we would want to see a community that's similar, like a Western Mass community, like Northampton or Eastampton or a community that's sort of similar to us in some ways implement it. And then we could actually really see the specific impacts directly. We could look and see if rents went up or how the benefits were distributed. Right now, we don't really have a great way of doing that because there's not really a comparable town to us out there. I bet on that list, there is somewhere with a big university, college presence. I think the problem, I think the biggest difference again, I think the ones that might compare are the ones around Boston, but it's just, I think if I thought about putting the commercial base on here, if we put the commercial base on here, they're gonna have huge commercial bases, would be my guess. Yeah, we'd have to dig down and the trip line, the Cambridge, you know, those with big university populations. Yeah. So I'm unclear the point you're making, Ken, about you're saying you wouldn't recommend, what is it that, what is it your position on this? I wouldn't recommend we approve, that council approve an exemption this year. Okay. I just don't think they have enough knowledge and therefore, and it needs to be not just the council, but the town talked about it. And so you would agree with me that you would have to somehow figure out a way to measure the impact on rent. Oh, I don't think that's too hard. David's done it. It's a matter of whether you want to present. I mean, these are not small spreadsheets. No. And that's where this needs to be in a committee town with town people. Yeah. Digest all this spreadsheet stuff and you know, who are the renters? We can easily count calculate that back to the red, but who are the renters? You know, that's not something you can do easily. So that's like a separate task force. Yeah. Which, you know, with this year what was going on with everything, it was not a good year, plus with COVID. So you almost have to wait until after COVID to be able to get a town group together and do stuff. David, are you prepared to lead that residential exemption task force? I'm retired, Sean. Wait a minute, wait a minute. We need him as a assessor. So I'll be honest. I was hoping we provide them some data this year that the council can use as a basis to make the decision for the next two or three years. And then they can revisit this every so often. But I do worry about this becoming like an annual study process. You know what? Yeah, you know what? Are we required by state law to revisit the residential exemption every year? We are. Yeah, that's why we want to provide sort of some data that can inform a few years ahead, you know, at a time. And then we can update that data every so many years. So we think this year we've updated enough where we have a solid foundation, at least on the numbers we're looking at, that we could make some projections for the next couple of years. So Northampton goes through this every year too? Everybody was, so every municipal family? Oh, yeah, that was my question. Yeah, that was my question. You have to do this every year. Yep, part of the classification. You have to address it. You don't have to go into detail, right? Correct. But I think if you look at most communities, it's a, you know, 80, 90% of their homes are owner-occupied. So it's not a question. You realize the challenge. But you know, the other thing is that, our residential tax base is only going to get bigger and it's going to be in the apartment complex. You guys can see all that's happening all around you at the minute that are in university driving and those. So the residential class is going to keep you getting bigger. And the biggest portion of that will be rental units. We could possibly pass this on to their talents. And that's why our rental, our single family rental market's going to grow and grow. And we're going to have fewer and fewer homeowners because they can't afford the homes. Oh, that's possible. That's right. I mean, that's my biggest concern. You know, over 50% of our home stock now is investment properties rented. And we're not going to have people, people can't afford to live in town. Because the investors, the price is up. Every time a house comes for sale in North Amherst, they buy it. No, I think that, I mean, that is probably one of the biggest challenges with the housing stock is, and the rents aren't much more affordable either, right? So it's both sides are not very affordable. But that's, I mean, that goes back to that housing study that was just done, you know, and they looked at a lot, but... All right, well, let me finish up just so because I don't want to take up your role. Yeah, stop the chew on the straw. And I don't know that, I wouldn't recommend doing it this year. That's for sure. But I really would like the council to pick up a little and talk more instead of just, oh, you recommend, okay, we approve. So I might add a few more next steps, but the main one is if there is, you know, before they vote, if it does seem like there's a lot of interest in this that they do need to do some public engagement around this topic where they do invite rental complexes in and homeowners and get input directly from people on this topic. I just want to say based on my observation of sitting in on classification hearings, I do get the sense that most of the council gets this stuff. So I guess I'm a little different than Ken. I think they just some early dispatch the issue, but I do think that most of them understand what's involved in the uncertainties. I think the old timers do, but I'm not sure when the new timers do, but who knows. Yeah, I'd be curious to see if there was no recommendation what they would, would they come up with their own vote or would they say, wait a minute, what are you guys recommending now? No, I think the two select board members would speak up. And only one of those is rerunning, right? Yes. Yeah, so, yeah. All right, well, I- Good discussion, Sean. Yeah, I really appreciate all of your input. So what I'll do is I'm gonna make some revisions to this based on everything you guys identified. And I'll send you another draft just for your information at some point that's updated. And I think, David, we're gonna try to have one more meeting before the fourth. Yeah, I wanna talk to the board about that, yes. Okay. I hope we weren't too hard on you, Sean. No, no, no. That's exactly what I was looking for. That's what I was hoping is run by you all first and then fix it up. Thank you very much for your service to the board of assessors. Thank you. I appreciate it. All right, have a good day. Thank you. Thanks, Sean. Okay, we're back on our agenda. If I can find it. We're going to, we're gonna take it from the top. If that's okay, David. Motor vehicle abatement reports. Yep. Well, let me get you a spritz. Share that. Let me share the screen. So this is the first time David has not been shoving papers at us across a table. All right. All right. Trace, thank you for putting together all like this. So it's... Thank you. Thank you. Hope it's easier. I'm sure it's gonna be easier. Sure it's gonna be easier. Yeah. David, I'm impressed with your technical expertise here. Wow, sharing the screen. You're doing real well. You, do you know how much training I got? Well, then I mean, we're doing the motor vehicle accident. Now, I'm not quite sure how the vote goes. Have you guys been voting line by line or coming to discuss them all and then vote them as one? We vote, we vote, we vote a week by week. Okay. Do we need to do that? We have five votes. Do we need to do that? I don't know. David, do we need to do that? We just look at all of them and vote them as a group. Well, I would think so as long as we vote just on the one particular group at a time, you know, like... It's essentially five signatures, right? Right. But I mean, if we discuss them and then vote to sign off on all of them, as long as we agree on all of them. Yeah. So... Go for it, David. Let's streamline things there. All right. Well, the first one's obviously the abatement status for the... Can you blow that up bigger? One more time. Can you make that bigger? Oh, nice. Oh, yeah. Now your testing is... Sorry. That doesn't mean to have them. Let's go sports. Football. See, you get confused, man. Go back to the first tab. There you go. Bigger, smaller, there it is. Somehow I lost my... The plus sign. Do the plus sign, David. Do the plus sign. That's what... There you go. There you go. That's good, Richard. Yes, I lost my... One more, David. I lost my agenda. Lee, okay? I'm okay. Let's go. That's great. Slide it over. Right there. Slide it over? You can't sign. I don't think you can slide it over. No, I'm done with that. That's something you have to do, Ken, by changing your screen. Oh, okay. All right, well, this is the motor vehicle access abatement for the first week of July 1st to July 9th. And as you can see, there are the usual reasons, out of town, change of ownership, cancel plates, so... And that's for $1,277.11. 12, yeah. So, we can go to the next one. Unless you have any questions in these, I'm just gonna go ahead, okay? Yeah. Yeah. This is the second one for this week of 14th to 23rd for $2,753.61. As you can see, this one, we've added quite a few from UMass in there. And then we've got the week of this 28th to 30th, short week. It's $364.88. And then the following week for the second to the 6th, 2,890.42. And then from the 9th to 17th for $1,232.88. And these are all regular motor vehicle access abatements with nothing out of the ordinary on them. Okay. I move that we approve our signatures on all five of those abatement reports. Second. All those in favor. Yep. Yep. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. That's unanimous. Okay. I just can move some paperwork here. Okay, let's see. What's next on the agenda here? Commitments. Commitments, you're right. All right. These are the motor vehicle access. And as you can see, we've got one for FY 2020 for $76.67. And the first, this one and this next one are both recommits from other communities or late building from the state for whatever reason. So the first one, $76.67. And there's the warrants and the commitments. Okay. Can you explain this to the highly educated but thick former attorney? These came from a, these came from another community. Can you explain that for us, please? Yes. Well, sometimes people, sometimes we, like for example, let you shoot spray. They have the same zip code as us. And the people may get a bill from us or may get a bill from us to them or vice versa. And then the community of Bateson and sent it on to the community that does belong to. And then we've got some people who've moved during the year and didn't notify the registry of motor vehicles but they were living here and they weren't living in the whole community. And so they're debating that there and sending it to us so we can build them. And that's what they're called rebuilds, right Treason? Yeah, they're called recommits. So the one you see for FY 2020 and FY 2021 are recommits. Those are all the bills that I had gotten from other places that needed to be rebuilt because they were built in the other community and abated and abated there. Okay. There are two of them. Yeah, the $67.67 and the $6.42.84. And for different years, that's where there's two of them. Are these about cars? Yes. Yeah. What a vehicle access. And we have to fix our signatures to these, correct? Yeah, and the next one. And this is the commitment number three from the state for this year. And that's why it's so large at $81,625 and so more it sounds. It's from the state. That's all of those. Sorry, David. Go ahead. That's just the third commitment for fiscal year 21 that we received from the state. We received like seven commitments during the year because people who are getting new cars during the year, the registrar will send us on the bills. And these are the third, this is the third commitment for the fiscal year, I mean for calendar year 2021 for motor vehicle access. Okay, so these are, this represents the tax bills for the taxes for new cars. For motor vehicle access tax bills that were registered this year. All right. During the year. Yeah. So we have three of these to do. No, we just as a one of them nearly $1,625. Okay, and then the 76 that we have to fix them. Yeah, the three. You gotta sign all those. All right, so I approve. I want to approve our signatures on all of the commitments there. Second. Who moved that? Are you following Ken? Yes, I'm listening. Richard moved and I seconded. All right, all those in favor please say aye. Aye. Okay. Right. Here we go. I hope you've read this one. This one's interesting. Yes, this one is a, this is a, this is a very thick plot. Well, the plot seconds. Can I ask whether, can I ask whether the fourth bullet point is that is not a typo on the date? No, it's not. Basically what this boy was down to was the old owner used a credit card to pay for something. And then they withdrew it at the closing. And we can no longer close it against them because they don't have the bill in their name. We've nowhere collecting it. So we'll do what the, there's two different types of A to 58 and you're going to get a lesson on both of them at this time. This is an A to 58 from the collector as being on collectible. She can't find it. So what we do is she asks us, the board to obey this bill and it goes on to a status where it's not really obeyed it all the way. It's going to be sitting on the background all the time. So if there's ever an opportunity to collect it in the future, we can. But at the moment it leaves the tax bill clean for the new owner as we're coming to. So as I understand it, the old owner paid a bill with a credit card or whatever. That led to the title being clean, so to speak. And then so the property was sold to the new owners and then the old owner essentially said, oh, this is fraud. My payment was fraud or what's listed as my payment was fraud. So the company refunded her the money. Yes. And so that can then created a cloud on the title or whatever. Okay, all right. So the money is gone basically. At the moment, yes. And what's the amount of the money again? $2,950.55. Okay. David, what would be a circumstance where you could collect in the future? If they get back in the town and bought a new property, we could move against them. We could reassess it. I don't know if they will or not. So it's really open the air. And we have a mechanism where that would pop or the bill would pop up on something. Yeah. Yeah. So how do I avoid this in the future happening again? We tell the attorneys not to take credit cards. I don't know, I really don't know if we can or not. I mean, in nearly 30 years this is the first time I've come across this. I mean, online payment sounds like it was made to the town of Amherst online. Is that right? Yeah. Okay. That's crazy. Boy. So that was real estate taxes and water sewer bill? Yes. No. That's a lot of money. Yeah, it is. I guess we have no alternative, right? So we're being asked to approve what? Abating on the section of chapter 58, $2,950.55. All right. Second. Any questions? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Yeah. So that goes to the dead letter office, right? Sir, get our file, but don't tell anybody. Okay. All right. All right. This is a different eight of 58. I don't think I really got any paperwork on it. And all right, this is just going to be explaining for now, discuss this eight of... I don't do this first or do you want to do the... We've been through this before. We've been through this before. We've been through this one before, I believe. And can raise some interesting questions at the time. All right. No, I shouldn't have gone that far. That's the exemptions. I want to discuss eight of 58s at the minute. The second set of 58s below the residential exemption on your agenda. Can you go back? Well, there's no paperwork for it. That's what I'm saying. It's just a discussion. Okay. All right. There's no audio visual for this one. Not for this one, though, because it really is a discussion. All right. There's been a property in town that appears to have been over-assessed. Well, in fact, it is over-assessed. So they didn't file on time. And it's quite a large amount. We're talking $60,000 in taxes. We don't have any room to act on it, and there's two days for them to final abatement application. So we can ask the Department of Revenue for special circumstance under our volition to go ahead and abate the money and send it back to them. That is the eight of 58 that we have, and the DOR must sign off on it. And that's why it's different from what we just did. What had happened was, you know the new apartment complex in Northampton Road 408 Northampton, the second one out there for the old hotel used to be? No, at the bottom of the hill. No, right across from Stop and Shop. Yeah, yes. Okay. That one, whoever went out and did it the first time, only assessed the first floor of the property that a 40% completion rate for FY 2021. And that came up with a value of somewhere in the region of $3 million, including land. I was reviewing some stuff and noticed that the second story should have been really added to the property. And I went ahead and talked with Liz at the time and said, we need to do a no-mitted-revised assessment bill for this. And I added $5 million to the second floor. But I didn't realize that we were 40% of the market value. So it should only have been $2 million. The people themselves never discovered this, never caught up with it. And so the bill was sent out for the $125,000 in taxes or whatever it was in that region, instead of $65,000 in taxes. It's too far along now for us to debate it. So we need to ask the Department of Revenue to help us with this, if they will. In fact, I actually had a phone call just from the Department of Revenue and I'm wondering if that's what it's about, but I didn't want to break off from the meeting. So that's where we are on that. If they give us permission, we will abate this at the next meeting. If they don't, I'm not quite sure what we'll do. We'll need their help, but we'll figure it out. And that's what a native 58 is in this case, getting permission from the state. I vaguely remember we talked about this at the time of lease. I don't think we did, did we? I don't think we did either. I remember that there was a discussion about only the first four having been reviewed. Yeah. Really? Yeah, I remember, but there was no, we just let it happen. When I say let it happen, the bill went out, obviously. Yeah. The omitted bill would have gone out at that time. Me and I was asked to be discovered that it should have been by 40%. That's a hundred percent. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I don't understand why we got involved. I don't remember being involved. I don't either. Well, the only way you should have been involved at that point was getting told that you had no matter of assessment to sign off on. Yeah. Exactly. That you would have done that as a commitment to the, to the collector. Right. Do you remember doing supplemental tax bills? Signing off on those because they were all done at the same time. We could go back in the minutes and verify it. I mean, there's no biggie at this point. We have to go forward with it. But we have. So we've overbilled the. We've overbilled on the property. Right. That's essentially what it's going down to. Okay. The second floor was the full value instead of 40%. That's correct. Yeah. Right. So all I'm doing at the minute is really putting this in front of you in case it comes to the board next month. Okay. Right. So there's no, there's no action that need to be taken. No vote that needs to be taken. No, there's a purely advisory. You say at the minute. Okay. So do you have some alternative route to get to where we need to go if the state says no. A tall building and jump. I'm not sure, but I'm sure that I'm working with Lauren Aldridge and her and I'll work it out between us and give it a short night. Okay. We'll vote next time. We'll vote next time. Probably yes. Property owner aware that he, she or he was overbilled. Not even know they seem to be quite content. Oh, okay. Okay. I got a bird just trying to get into my window. Well, so this is one of those occasions when the government actually. Without any prompting comes back and gives money back. Yeah, well, you know, we're talking a fair bit of money here. Yeah, the government it's David. Yes. That's us. Anyway, that's that if you're all right without going to the Exemption or the, the abatements. I mean, I say what I say what I said about that because I have a father who basically paid state income taxes that he didn't have to pay. No, no one came back to him and gave him his money back. So, Well, we will try our best. Okay. These three abatement applications are for three properties of the. The town purchase from Ken, and all the first three quarters of all of them were paid taxes. And the town bought the property before the fourth quarter was due. So all I'm asking you to do is to be at the taxes. We're not going to change values because all we're talking about here is taxes. And I think Ken raised the question months ago when we saw this last as to why this wasn't all included in the closing. Now this to us never paid, right, David, right, that's correct. The other one was paid. Okay. It's a difference. So that's all three of them are basically the same we're asking you to a bit 1726 and 3540 and CPA. Okay. 740 21 and 587 one CPA. And the third one is 1421 34 and 2630. All right. Where are these located. All in belcher trying to root Ken there's a little complex there. He can add on several properties 72 to 80. What's the town going to do them to the land. Well that's the last I heard and this was as early as yesterday. We're looking we're going to sending out requests for people to build low income housing on it along with the old East street school. If you remember that. Oh yeah. Okay. So that's a thought that obviously these are going to be torn down at some stage and new housing put up. So I need you guys to make a decision. So it's essentially three separate abatement. Yep. Okay. I move that we approve those three abatements. Second. Any questions. All those in favor, please say hi. Hi. Thank you. No, there's just one other thing we need. I would like to have another meeting before the end of the month. If we can. Before the end of the month. Well, before the fourth. The fourth is a classification hearing. Okay. And the agenda, David. Okay. Yeah. Why? Discuss the classification hearing. Okay. And that would be the only top. Well, unless Theresa comes up with some motor vehicle exercises. That would be the only topic. Could I suggest. Well, do you have a general range of dates? I'm fine. You know, you want to do it the week before between the. 20. Seventh to the 30th. Or the first. We're starting our, our little medical adventure of the two of us. On the 28th. So what about Monday, the 27th? Well, I'll be here. The 27th of September. Ken. Yeah, I'm here. I'm somewhere to zoom, right? So I would much prefer it in person, but the manager has said no. Right. Okay. Change is not from, but I'll let you know. Can I suggest 11 a.m. Yeah, it's okay. Great. What's the purpose again? To discuss the classification workshop. Okay. And gentlemen, do you. So we would, we would essentially attend. So I take it that October 4th classification hearing is going to be a zoom meeting. Yes. Yeah. Okay. And we'll be invited. Oh, of course you will. That's a public meeting. So. Yeah. Well, you have a short. You're going to do both of them at the same meeting where you have a short presentation available that Monday. For. Yeah. For the classification hearing. Yes. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. The classification hearing is the. I actually like the format that Liz put together last year. So I'm going to use the same format. But it can be, you can dump a lot of pages. I'll do my best. Yeah. I'll do my best. Yeah. I'll do the other one at the same meeting. Yeah. Do we, do we have any other business to do on that meeting on the Monday took the 27. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I'm sorry. I didn't hear what you said. I'm sorry. You're right. October 14th. We wouldn't need the meeting then. Okay. I'm sorry. I didn't hear what you said. I'm sorry. You're right. October 14th. We wouldn't need the meeting then. Okay. I'll let me propose 11 a.m. for that day. I think I can make that although we're in the middle of what I'm going to be doing my Boston commuting thing. Well, I hope that it works out very well. Well, it's the treatments are there. They're less of them than we thought. So it's once a day for 16 days. So. Oh, wow. You got to go to Boston. Yeah. My wife. So, you know, so we're, I'm coming back and forth. And since she's, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, I'm coming back and forth and since she. Enjoy staying in a hotel by herself and not with me. I'll probably come home. Some of it. I'll be home some of that time. So. All right. Then I don't have anything else. So we have our two, we have our two schedule dates for the record, September, September, Monday, September, 27th at 11 a.m. And Thursday, October 14th at 11 a.m. I got one quick what what time is the classification on the fourth 630 630. Okay, and we will not have to sit through all kinds of stuff with do you think we get moved up to the front. We're time certain that we have to have that time yes. That's where we started last year but they moved us to the end. Well, they really shouldn't wasn't working. Do I need to wear my tie. That's really up to you. I'm not wearing my tie. I'm not even going to be in the office. I'm going to be at home. All right. Teresa, really thank you for everything you're doing. Thank you. We love the format of what we got in the email. So that worked out beautifully. Don't go anywhere, Teresa. I won't for at least a year and three quarters or so. Okay. All right. Thank you. I call this meeting adjourned. Second. All right. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Dave. Thank you guys. Have a good week. Bye.