 We are recording. Yeah, I would like to call the finance committee meeting of November 29, 2022 to order at five minutes after three. And thank everybody for being able to be here for the extra meetings so that we can continue work on the council guidelines, financial guidelines, budget guidelines. So we're going to submit to the council for its consideration. You're soon to chapter 20 of the acts of 2021 is extended. This meeting will be conducted to a remote means members of the public who wish to access the meeting. They do so I assume or by telephone. Every effort number in person attendance members the public be permitted but every effort is being made to ensure that the public can adequately access proceedings in real time by technological means. And I want to remind everybody that the meeting is being recorded. And with that, I want to go through the members of the committee to make sure that everybody can hear me, and we can hear them. And we'll do it in alphabetical order. So I'll start with Lynn. Present. Bob. Present. Yeah. Present, thanks. Bernie. Michelle. Present. Kathy, if you can hear us. Sorry, I'm here. Okay, thanks and Alicia. Present. Okay. The others present at the meeting or Sean. I'm gone or finance director. I'm here at the meeting. I'm here for a meeting. I'm meeting with Lina Keith, quick of the council. And Bill Cason, who's here to take notes and prepare minutes for the meeting. So that said, I'm going to, we should go on. And the agenda is really just an effect one item. Which is the budget guidelines discussion. We will have a period during that discussion for public comment because that's an essential part of our process. And that's all that we have plans other than announcements for additional meetings or anything that people want to raise that's not anticipated 48 hours in advance. So the way that I was going to propose that we proceed is that our last meeting, we made a list of the changes we would like to see or principles we'd like to see adopted in the draft. I worked over the weekend and prepared the draft. And I have now sent it to everybody. And I believe that it's been placed in the packet. And so what I was going to propose that we do, and Lynn is going to help us with this is to go through and identify any items that you wish to include in the discussion today. And I wanted, I don't want to get into why you want it. That's going to be in the next piece right now it's just I'd like to discuss this section, if you say the page number. I think that'll help everybody also. Take notes for us and maintain a list. We will then see if there's any body who's going to have to leave the meeting before in a specific time, so that we can make sure that we get the order to address items that they wish that they've raised. While they're present. And otherwise, once we get going. Lynn is going to identify each section that we're discussing, since she's the one who's maintaining the list. So with that said, I guess what I'd like to do is just has people to raise hands. And if you have issues, you would like to discuss out of the draft. And if, and we'll go ahead and some list. So, looking for hands. Kathy. I'm not sure exactly how to proceed with what you just suggested, Andy, but I had some. I have a couple overarching comments and then I've made substantial edits over moving texts around throughout the document and so I really appreciate what you did and giving us a draft. So I'll just, I'll try to list the kinds of substantive changes or moving around changes that I think would strengthen it. One is at the very beginning. I think I would be much stronger about the challenges we we face and just it's not difficult. We face really major and I would make a stronger statement there and then you have, I think, again in that beginning, you have you softened what I think we talked about. The first time is that given what we're facing over the next several years, it won't be possible to start any new initiatives or we have I to advise against them, I'd like to state that stronger. That would be two and a half 2.2% projected increase in revenue with an 8% health insurance premium with pensions with step increases with inflation is going to be a stretch to meet current commitments and I just want to say that somehow really strongly at the And then throughout the document I found those pieces but I found them to be repetitive so I wanted to stay at once strongly and maybe we expand on it so that was one piece. When I got to the revenue section. It wasn't just about revenues it suddenly switch flipped to an override and budgeting, and I wanted to keep it cleaner to just focus on revenues and make it shorter. So that when we then, so that I didn't get into. Well there's revenues but if expenses were less than revenues we don't have a problem but I just wanted to talk about our sources of revenues and how restricted they are, and then get into the expenses specifically so I found that section. I want to move some paragraphs out of that. And, and I'm willing to make a stronger statement again I thought it was soft that we are, we don't think we should do a debt. We should do an override just for operating budgets we think that's a good policy. So, so I don't, you know, so then, so I'll stop there because when I get to expenses. To what we've done it, I would break it up with section headers and have a section on schools, a section on townwide a section on. I forget what my other section wasn't a section on capital. And then I had places where I would condense make it shorter. So I think we're writing for a general public and then my last comment because I see their three hands have to is as a reader. I find the absence of a table in this document makes it harder to read. So I understand we're cross referencing to what Sean and Paul put together, but I'd like to have a simple table that shows revenues out. The timeline on revenues across the top and something on expenses, so that we're not asking people to go look at page 26 or 27 of another document, but something simple, and I, I can outline what I think that would be, but just so we can see what we're talking about. I'm just going to stop there because then I would be getting into very page specific as we go along so that were some big takeaways. Okay, that's helpful. And then let me know if you need anything more. I need Kathy to go back and say what she said about the revenue section and are you talking about expenses for operating or general budgeting policy or Okay. You know if we're going through pages so when we get to there's an overall, the way it's written is we have a few paragraphs at the very beginning and I would insert this statement so for example I have absent new, absent any new ongoing sources of revenue we're going to be hard to maintain staff and levels provide needed public services including road repairs. I would just make a strong statement, and then the guidelines. When we get, there's a whole revenue section that starts. Revenue, it's under the section Andy has titled fiscal, I mean just, I'm just trying to be able to read my thing but, but there's, there's a really long section and then we get into revenue projections. So, some of that I found redundant but under revenue projections. Andy has because of good planning there's been no need to ask for two and a half percent and overriding. We've been able to manage, but it feels like that's not talking about the revenues and up above. I want to talk about an override. So, I just found some redundant and and I would reorganize it so I, without showing you my markup it's, it's hard to be more specific. I think I want to continue on because spend the whole time on the first section. The first section of courses was labeled executive summary and overall philosophy. It turns for 524. So, if you feel that a topic fits there. Totally, then we should get it into that overall philosophy, kind of section. Michelle, I think I may have misunderstood the instruction so we're going section by section right now and make the comments. So, just, if you had an item like you and I talked about one item. Yeah, particular. Is it okay to meant to, to idly in that item now. Okay. Yes, I want everything out there so we know we can measure our time accordingly. So the section that I wanted to discuss more is section eight planning for future years, I think it's also page eight, depending on how you how your word is formatted. And this I could say a little bit just about my reasoning for bringing this up very quickly is, I think that we need to critically think about how we're framing this particular section in relationship to our higher ed institutions and we know from the town manager evaluation this year that that particular piece was where the town manager evaluation sort of was I would say one of the poorer sections. And so I, I think there might be a direct correlation to how we're framing it in these budget guidelines and it seems to me that there's even a bigger discussion that the council should have about how our relationship with the higher ed institutions. I believe it at that I, I was really hoping to have some proposed language, but I got a flat tire on my way home from seeing you Andy, so it didn't get to it. But I can certainly do that and provide that but that's what I'll say for now for that. Thank you. But it's basically strategic partnerships. So we were talking about. Okay, Bob. The only thing I had was section five, probably page seven. I just wanted to add a sentence in there to on expanding our capital inventory to include buildings and other key capital elements that will need maintenance ongoing maintenance and periodic maintenance in the future. That's all I had. Otherwise, I, I thought it captured our, our discussion pretty well. Matt. Yeah, thanks Andy and I'll echo what other people said I really appreciate having something to react to this early in the process. I think I have a couple, maybe a couple clarifying questions so just apologize if this is redundant. The budget coordinating group meeting. Do we have a sense of, you know, when that meeting will happen and will our guidelines have been sent off to the council. What's the timing on that look like just you know, the answer to that is Paul come up with any. So, I will double check but my understanding is that would be requested by the schools at this point. When unless you've heard something else and we can have made the request. Okay, and I don't think a poll has been done they made it right before the Thanksgiving holidays. And so I don't think a poll has been done but it needs to be. And they would want to have that meeting happen, at least between the fifth and the 19th, before the guidelines. December. So there's no dates that yeah but we will connect with them about getting that set soon. And there's actually more what I wanted to know is, is that that would happen in advance of this guideline and then any top page five you said, if BCG recommends a variation from the policy for FY 24 regarding you know equal cases, we ask our finance committee to consider the request to make a recommendation. I'm just, I'm just again another clarifying question for me. Is that prescribed. In other words, is that a prescribed process that BCG makes a recommendation for our review and then our recommendation to the council or is that sort of how we would like to see it just just you can just talk me through that. And that's what the, the suggestion that I had made was that knowing that we didn't have a date for BCG meeting but that the school committee members had requested that we have one and assuming that there was a reason that they asked for it. They would have the meeting. And if the guidelines, if the meeting didn't get scheduled before the guidelines were adopted. That they would have it would have to come back into the process. And so I put in that little bit there to go through the in going through the process, because that would be then incorporated into the council guidelines. So that's, no, thank you. So that's kind of my, I guess my, my ultimate point is, you know, really, I think we really should try to incorporate that, you know, that recommendation or finances recommendation into these, you know, into the draft if possible if the timing works out I think we should strive for that because that's a pretty major, you know, variable. Just a couple of really quick things I'm sure more will come up. Other folks have obviously got a lot of notes as well. Page six, the crest discussion, I think it's worth referencing the study that we're trying to, you know, launch in terms of efficacy and, you know, all things crests I really, I think it's going to be really important for the for folks in the town to see impact and you know, a third party neutral study, you know, being done on that work. So I think if we could reference that on in that section would be good. Oh, sorry, speaking of which, on page four, I wondered if the two new stabilization funds merit their own subsection and maybe even a little bit further explication just because that is such a key part of, you know, capital planning is the is the stabilization fund stabilization fund and, of course, the reparations fund is also, you know, somewhat complex so my merits zone section and I think, as others have said, you know, we really need to reinforce the importance of those reserves as being dedicated reserves to their, you know, respective areas. And then the last thing that I wanted to add for now. Was on was on page seven. Oh, no, I just, Bob had asked about the capital inventory and I thought page seven you were, you were trying to address that on page seven in terms of the vacant buildings but maybe that needs a little bit just one or two more sentences from. Thanks. Okay, thank you. We're going to try and focus on things that will be require a little bit more discussion. The next question that I have is, I know that from prior conversations of Alicia has to leave before. I think at four o'clock. Other members that have time limits, and is the first question. And then the second question I get to Alicia directly on which is of the items that have been identified. Are there ones that you want to make sure are high priority, so that they're discussed while you're present. So first question was, anybody else know that they have a time limit. Yeah, I think so. I'm about to talk in a second. No, it's okay not yet they're asking one question but then they're. I have to jump on to my phone at 440 and then we'll have to be off at five. Okay well I'm hoping we can get done by five but that's helpful and we know that there's at least the one item that you would raise. And then we'll have to be automatically therefore would need to bear that in mind. Alicia. Thank you Andy I apologize for that I am at after school right now so I didn't mean to unmute myself. But I think that I agree with and I would like all of the things that have been raised so far but I would like to specifically be a part of the conversation with maintenance. With the maintenance of other. What Bob brought up and as well as the conversation surrounding crack. Okay. So when does that give you enough of a sense of how to order it and then, if so, we should just go. Yes, it does. I let me just mention that. Dear, I'm trying to find the section. On page three, the second paragraph. I recognize what you're saying, and personally I agree with it, but I also think we need to acknowledge that this is not the desire of many people of several people in our town to expand growth downtown. Okay. That's all. But yes, I have plenty for us to go through. Well I had the new growth question to the list, but go ahead and let's work through our issues. Right. So I guess one of the first questions that I have is. How do you want to deal with Kathy's overall reorganization comments. Okay. Some of it. I would probably in Kathy has to use her judgment as to what she thinks should be discussed at today's meeting, because she can send her edits. And if they don't change substantive policy. But it's a question of the order of presentation. Which is some of what she was, I heard you talking about Kathy. Then, you know, we can, you can send me your markup draft and I can try and work that in with any revisions that follow from today's meeting. Trying to separate out order of items from substance. If you think that there's a substantive matter. That should be admitted or stated more strongly wanted to clarify for us to answer Lynn's question. Okay, I. Some of mine are more what you just said, Andy just I found you stating something more than once and I was trying to figure out the best place to state it. Sometimes you introduce it and then state it later but it so I can send you those. You know, what is substantive when I prefer stronger wording if we are all in agreement for the stronger wording so Bernie last time what I heard you say Bernie is don't. I'm not going to position to start up anything new until we secure what we've got going and I wanted to state that strongly at the beginning and then in the expenditures point out that we've taken on some big initiatives, and that's where the multi years so it's stating that more strongly than there was one statement I just we, you know, on page. And then there are two, when you're talking about the financial indicator report, where you say there are a couple areas that you would change. I don't think I think the sentence you put in is on the arch expenditures per capita that we're low, then you say it's largely because we have a large student population living on campuses that don't a pack taxes, or we're low and financially, I don't think that's the reason the expenditures per person or low I found the. I understood you were trying to introduce that we've got a big part of our population that isn't contributing, but that's not necessarily why the expenditures are low and if we did per capita on school were high. If it's a town were low, if, if Sean broke out those two so that's a sentence. I would just kind of delete a couple things I wouldn't make that statement that wasn't a concern I had with the indicators. But I thought maybe those comparisons were misleading for people so it might be, there might be a different way of framing it. There was discussion at the last meeting about some of the financial indicators and just the comment about expenditures. I agree with you I'm just saying that. Yeah, I just said that let me finish so I added that as I thought about it because if we have a larger population because of the university. If we have a larger population because of what we do, then we otherwise would because we're counting all these people who are living on campus but get counted in the census. Then that naturally is going to put us lower compared to other communities to say, Hey, we're lower compared to other communities. I agree with that math, I'm agree. I'm, it's the rest of the sentence that says it's because they don't play taxes or adequately support the town financially that that is the clause that I'm saying so if, if, if you're saying that we're, it could be divided by 25,000 rather than 40,000, but I'm going but, but when I get underneath the numbers. The reason if we have a large student population the reason we might be low is we're spending a lot less on schools. And that's not true what we're spending less on is the rest of town. So I just, it does artificially decrease it so I would just reword that because of what you're trying to say is that our long term residents aren't 40, we're dividing by a big number if that's what you're trying to say there. And can I just add quickly to. So I think you're right Kathy, I will say it is, it is a unique challenge to Amherst it's not just that we're divided by a larger number. It's that we do also have expenses associated with serving a larger number that we don't get revenues from that, that group, you know, EMT, public safety, police, EMS services, some educational services DPW and roads and infrastructure, all you know having serving a larger population has real costs for all those areas that we don't get sort of the proportional revenue to support. And again, all that was to try to explain how we can have a really low expenditure per capita, but also have a high tax rate is because of that sort of uniqueness to Amherst that really, I can't think of any other communities in the in Massachusetts that have it at such a great effect. I completely agree with what you just said so I would use that to explain why our tax rate is so high. You know that we, we have these needs, and it's not supported by a big base, I'm just saying that it's not the reason per se that the expenditures per capital it was this phrasing so I think the statement Sean just made should be made strongly and it goes with Michelle saying that we're weaker than we might be about the strategic partnerships that we've got a large group of people that are receiving services that aren't fully paying for it. So it's just the wording of this didn't read right to me but some of my. Okay, so the. I also, you kind of introduced that maybe we would consider an override on operating and I would rather just leave it out. I don't think anyone's proposing. And I think later you say we've not done one and they're good reasons why for capital said, most of my others are just where we say different things. I said it. I would move it around a little bit. That's it. So I can send them those are more edits and if people want to go page by page I can call a few things out, and I'll stop. Yeah. Yeah, I think Kathy just answered what I was what I was heading where I was heading which is we should at this point fall through the document where she has substantive changes to make and I value Kathy's opinion I'm sorry I'm not seeing it in writing in front of me. I wish we had it. So we're where we come to a section where she's got substantial opinions we can have a discussion about that I certainly would agree with her that we need to get to section one or some others we need to toughen it up a little bit in terms of, you know, we need a year to catch our breath at least. So if we could just like move through that would be fine. If that seems, you know that seems reasonable. Okay. Then it seems to me given the time Andy that we should probably go to the discussion about crests, and also the discussion about facilities, given Alicia's deadline. Okay. Thank you. So if you call out those pages and I'll scroll to mind. I can show you on the screen it's, it's up to whether people want to be seen or not seen. That's all. So, um, This is on page six, I believe. I think press appears on six is right. Press appears on six, definitely. We probably should focus on that paragraph. First, the facilities is the second piece. So I think Alicia, yeah. I was going to say facilities is on the next page. Okay, so we're going to go, we're going to start with Cress and then go to facilities. Yes. Okay, got it. So we're, we're going to put it on the screen and just leave it. Let people look at their own copies. I'll be glad to put it on the screen. Does anybody want it on the screen. Everybody has their own copy. So go ahead. Anything would be fine. I'm going to listen to Alicia, my one comment here, Alicia was, I wanted to add a sentence that we the, as the workload grows, we need to assess how it's working. And because we really need to know what's being shifted, what more can be shifted. So I just, I just had added a very simple sentence to that effect. And we had talked about it at the last meeting. And you can't, we can't really assess it till it's fully operational till we get everybody up and working. So I would add a sentence and that was my one comment on that section. Alicia, you're welcome to comment or not, you know, it's up to you. Thank you. So just full transparency and disclosure. I have not had time to go back and listen to the meeting that I did not attend. So if anything is repetitive or if there are things that have already been discussed, I apologize and that may be the reason. But essentially, I was looking for something very similar to what Kathy said in terms of like a system for organization and assessment. I actually, Sean has his hand up, but I actually have a comment on this too. Two things. So I think in terms of the comment about assessment evaluation that makes sense. I guess, again, the question is, is that a goal or a budget guideline, or both maybe if there's budgetary impacts we do have a grant that that's requirement of. So it's going to happen. It's just whether you think it needs to be in the budget guidelines versus goals. So the other section, I guess, reading this closer, I just maybe that there should be clarification. It says Crest cannot be funded entirely by reductions and funding for the police department. And so that sort of implies it can be funded in part by reductions in the police department. And I guess the question is, is that looking retroactive to what's already happened in the past, or is that indicating that that should be considered in the future. That should be really clear if if that sentence is going to be left in the guidelines. Okay. Yeah, I can tell you what my intent was when doing it. Some of it was this came out of using the prior. Last year's guidelines and editing off of that. So the reduction, but I guess it's additional reductions. In the police department of beyond what was previously made. Or something, but that was the intent of it in any event. Because we would need an evaluation in the end is what is what is the base upon experience what's the required size of both departments and how do we get there. So, I'm going to let Lisa go back and see if could follow up on that very narrow piece and then continue with the other three people is ends up Lisa. Thank you. First, I just have a really quick question. So was there a previous cut to the police budget that went to cross. Yes. And that was 130. Yeah, that was the original. Yep, that was part of the first year that we funded a couple of positions in cross that ultimately didn't start in time but there were some vacant positions that were not filled in the police department. Okay, thank you. So if I can really just quickly just also speak to the prior topic and response to Sean's comment, I was hoping to see it as a guideline, especially moving forward. In terms of the assessment, just because I think that the results are the results of said assessment once they can happen. Should be a guideline for how we invest in those things moving forward, if that makes sense. So I think that's how I was hoping to see that used. And then just jumping back to crest really quickly I also wanted clarification on what exactly we meant by that line. And so like, if there were any thoughts about that for moving forward as well. I'll respond to that real quick. Yeah. So I think what Alicia said, I completely agree with, I wonder, you know the sentence before it says the size of both departments will be adjusted in future years based on experience. I wonder if you can leave it at that and remove the next sentence because it's, you know, it says the same thing it seems to imply it. And I think it's consistent with what Alicia just said about the evaluation system and using that as a determined determining factor in the future. Matt. Oh, I think I'm now we're kind of fine tuning the sentence but since since we're here as what I was indicating earlier, when I made my comment about the study is in and I appreciate Alicia and Sean for honing in on it. I think that sentence based upon experience. I would, I would encourage us as a guideline to, you know, to base the size of the departments on the implementation study. And in, you know, usage data response data. I might just be a little bit more specific than based on experience. Ready. I'm going to very quickly agree that it should be, should be be clear in the document that community response and police are in collaboration, not in competition with each other either for service or for funding. And what we need to do is find a good balance based on data and then build that. I'm going to say one, just make one point then get to Lynn. Some of what I was doing was quite honestly reacting off of also what we heard at the forum. And I think we all were at the forum and know what the comments were that were received or I reported them to the committee previously but that Lynn. Yeah, I, I want to really echo what I'm hearing from some people. The decision about crests should be based on evaluation data. The decision about policing should be based on policing data. I, I do not. I'm not saying that I don't see crests taking some load from police. Honestly, what I think we're going to see is an increase in demand for the kinds of crest services which are more like social services than, and from everything I have been able to tell from discussions at this is we can barely at this point, staff 24 seven with the police force we have. I want to, I want to put the measure of what, how we assess this, the crests against the crests evaluation, and the police against policing standards, and not sound as if it's playing one off the other. We can clarify that and I certainly will work to do that. The one of the things that we heard a lot at the forum is comments about we need to make crest 24 seven. I'm not sure that there's agreement to that until we see whether there's enough of a demand for 24 seven to make it 24 seven. But it's also Andy, I think this is stated well right now I would delete the sentence that Sean deleted because I think in terms of peak load to we may have afternoons evenings they're different times of day or times of the week, and that's all part of, we will do a lot more. Once Chris is part of our regular response task force, that's, that's when you assess, you know, how many things happen at three in the morning versus nine o'clock at night, and does anything happen on Monday morning, you know I just agree with what we're and when I'm agreeing with you as it's both it's both workforces. I mean, you know you don't EMS staffs up for Friday and Saturday nights, particularly when you mass is here. We don't make his friend many trips to the hospital on the weekends once they're not here, you know when they're not here or when you weren't here at all. So I mean we should be. This will inform how we staff in the future. This is a pretty critical year FY 24 Sean so that's why I think it kind of belongs in here but written correctly, because it's going to inform the future these future years. And we're saying steady as we go for 24, since you've somehow miraculously figured out how to pay for it all. There's one other piece of data which we haven't mentioned that is, what if. Should we know whether dispatch is identifying calls at times when there's not press response available. And because that might be useful information also. Linda do you have anything else. No, I don't. Thank you. Andy, can I respond to your comment real quick. One thing we are working on with Cress. I've been talking with her all about is the service levels that they put in their budget document because I know the finance committee reviews those very closely and that's a key piece of information that's discussed in May so you know if there is suggested or recommended service levels I don't know if it belongs to the budget guidelines we can certainly email those over and we can. We can work with our old tech kind of develop with that baseline this will be sort of the first year of baseline data, or half year of baseline data. Once we set it we don't really want to change it very much so we want to make sure we get it right in terms of what's important for putting in that document so again if anybody has any suggested. We can't do too much but if anybody has any suggested benchmarks they want us to try to capture and report on an annual basis we can try to get into that that service level data. Thank you Andy. Thank you Andy. So, a couple of things essentially I agree with most of the comments that came prior I want to emphasize. However, in regards to the specificity of like what kind of information will be utilizing to make these decisions, I think it would be important to put that language in there if possible. And then also in response to what Sean said, I was hoping that I might be able to send over some of the benchmarks that I would hope to see information on and hopefully also be a part of that decision. And then in regards to the Crest funding I would also like to see that line taken out I don't think it's really needed I think it makes it a little bit more confusing. And while I think the goal is to have Crest be you know operating 24 seven I don't think we're quite there yet. So, I would like to see the data in terms of, you know peak hours and then I also just don't think, again I think this would be an important question for Earl to really confirm. But I don't think we're at a place with responder levels with the same number of responders that we could increase to 24 hours. I think that there should be a discussion before increasing the amount of time that Crest is operating about increasing staffing, like before we have that conversation. So I think that those things would be important. I also think that in terms of funding Crest and the PD I also just don't like the language that seems to sort of like to them against each other. Because while I hope that they will work together and they're both a part of our public safety services they're two separate departments and so again like everyone else said we want to make sure that the needs of the departments are being met independently of what the other one is having going on. And so I personally though do support moving some funding from the PD to Crest upon the evaluation if that is what's indicated. Because I think when the Crest department was came up with from the DSLBG the idea was that Crest would be taking on some things that used to be handled by the PD and so that those like the funding that would back those sort of things might be able to be moved over. I think we would need data to be able to prove that that would be the case. But I also think that the other intention for Crest was that for people who don't call the PD. So I think that there will be like a number of calls that the PD wouldn't have been necessarily responding to before, and so that that funding would have to come for or should come from somewhere else. And that we also want to make sure that if the number of calls that goes to the PD is the same because again I think that people who called the PD before and wanted PD response will continue to call the PD and want PD response that those calls can still be answered as well. So again, I say all of this just to say that I think that data is going to be extremely important in making these decisions, making informed decisions moving forward. And so I think I just want to focus more specifically on what exact kind of data we'll be looking at, and how we'll be making those determinations because I think there are like a number of different ways that that could happen. So to be very clear about that so that it doesn't get me moving forward. Yeah, just to acknowledge I really appreciate this conversation. It probably was an error in doing one thing and that is thinking too hard about comments we received at the forum, as I wrote this. I think that we all know what comments I'm referring to that were made from certain people about. We need to make this 24 seven and we can afford to do it if we take this other action, Bernie. Yeah, none of this is none of this search for data it requires anything really new. I mean cities have been doing scoping like this for a decade or more. And so there's probably plenty of models out there that we can look at and choose from. I know that we have a very sophisticated fire EMS group that uses numbers a lot to determine how to best staff their prototype of it. We've had probably a lot of because we run our own dispatch, we can generate our own data from that. So we've got some we've got some advantages here and we really should be asking yourselves what is the data tell us and not getting caught up in the latest and greatest movement. Let the data speak for itself as well as to what's required. And if you look at other organizations, the classic one being kids, which is actually part of the police funding through the police department out there. You're going to see variable impacts and it'll take us a little bit of time to figure it out. And that's what we, that's what where we should be headed is, you know, whether we use the law enforcement action partnership or some other organization or try to do it ourselves. We need to gather data. Thank you. Linda you are not taking your hand down. I'm done. Okay. Do you have a next item that Alicia also wanted to talk about our cap, our buildings. Quickly looking Alicia, you have a particular paragraph Alicia that you were to cut your eye that you need to talk about and if we can start with Matt and I will get back to you very quickly. Okay. So, Lynn, this might be a topic that you want to shuffle into your larger structural, you know, organizing thing in other words, I know Alicia is on the time crunch and wants to talk about the capital. You need to, but, but I just wanted to recommend that these guidelines explicitly speak to the funding level of the Jones. You know, when I, when I ask around my neighborhood and sort of folks in town, I think there's a lot of anxiety about sort of the unknown costs of the Jones. My understanding and you know the truth is I could, I could be misunderstanding but my understanding as a member of this committee is that the town has had one number one commitment to the Jones project all along. And that there hasn't been any real meaningful push for that number to change. And so if I'm right about that and I think that I am. I really think these guidelines are a great place to really clarify that because I have to say and I think that's just because it's such a complex project. There's so many different potential and actual funding sources. Folks are folks are really there's a there's a pretty strong sentiment around table this Jones project we can't afford it and, and I think you know those folks really just genuinely are overwhelmed by the information that they see about the project and, and I think we owe it to them to be clear about what the town's commitment is to that project, and then you know that there's no interest, at least as far as I'm aware, there's no interest in deviating from the number that the town is committing to off the roles. I just want to affirm that the road of the council to absolutely confirms what you're observing and saying that we made one commitment and that is all we have committed and that is all we have continued to commit and there is, you know, at some point, if they can't come up with the additional fundraising, then we look for a different option, not not an option that includes town funds. What I mean from you is, you feel that needs to be a statement in here that that affirms that statement or that vote from the council. Yeah, and I think I think maybe finance could, you know, provide some language or provide a platform to, to not only reaffirm that but also, you know, I realize this is guidance for the town counselor and Sean, I mean the town manager and Sean but, you know, kind of hedging our bets or or outlining our strategy in terms of the four project for major projects and, and that you know, increasing town funds into the Jones is, is really not a sustainable way to get these four projects done. Thank you. Yeah, Sean. In terms of what Matt said, and I think you may have raised this earlier about the capital stabilization fund. Yeah, maybe helpful guidance to hear from this committee on your views on the capital stabilization fund and specifically whether you know you believe we should continue to grow it to support the project I think that would be a helpful statement. If it's the way the committee feels. I wonder if we can do that until we see the next round of model going forward. I will look at that as to whether we can add that sentence not for the council, because councils already adopted the policy that we're talking about. Again, since it's about the public document and guidance for the manager and budget development. We can add it there it's unnecessary for the second purpose, but for the public purpose it is. So, I'll go back. Kathy. Yeah, I was, I think what I heard Matt say but I actually had a sentence that tried to say that is when we just on the library that when we just gave the library a year until the fall for the to both come up with other money see that we can cut it back the understanding was, or we're going to have to go to a scale back version that that we're not this, we're not going up to the 50 million so I thought we should add a sentence to it so right now it just says we voted on this in April 2021 we just voted on it again to give it another year of life. And so I have, I was, that's where I would add a sentence there to make it clear that the underlying assumption is that if it if it can't be done without increasing the town share we're going back to a plan B, whatever plan B is. So, that that was I had wanted to put something more in there because it sounded like we were full systems go the way it's currently written that we voted on it in 2021 and so did the voters vote on it but this clearly was a big issue this year with the news about the costs. Big issue for the library trustees as well as us not just us yeah. I think that the understanding was that when we had the forest recent vote, we were reconfirming that our commitment is the amount we voted in 21 and that we were not increasing that amount. So I just have an I'll send you in the sentence you to does it's because we did vote again on this is my point you know it wasn't that we think so we, it's not just that no matter what the costs are. And let me just add to that. I think there could be a reference to the MOU that the council authorized the town manager to negotiate, because it also includes in it, the actually the preparation if you will for that possibility of falling back to plan B. Yep. Okay. Lucia. Thank you so I also just want to emphasize the light that I would also like to see that language included in terms of like six. What our commitment is or was just for more clarity. I think the part of the election. Sorry, a really quick question before, are we finalizing this document tonight. No, what's going to happen is though, if we're going to get it to the council for next week, which was what our assignment was that I would have to work on a revision after this meeting. As quickly as possible, probably using Kathy's help not because she has so much on her version. And then send it back to you as a draft to and for not meeting again, but inviting comments from committee members back to me on draft on what will be draft to. And I'll just have to take those comments and work to develop. Essentially what will be draft three, which is what's will then go to the council. And Alicia that will come to the council as a draft on the fifth. We will not vote on the fifth. We will give input. And then it comes back to the finance committee for one more review and then comes back to the council and hopefully on December 19, we will approve the memo. With that caveat that if we haven't been able to meet with the re, the schools in the library that we might have to bring it back up again. Okay, thank you. That is helpful. So I just have a full of comments, not, not all of which necessarily include revisions to this document, but I just thought it would be helpful to bring up. First, the debt exclusion override and I know this document is essentially for the council. And most of whom would probably understand this, but I'm more thinking about community members who may be reading this and might want some more information on the debt exclusion override, because it has like one sentence surrounding it and I don't know, I think that that's going to be a huge event occurring in 2023 and will very much affect a lot of our budget and what we can do moving forward. I think that maybe I don't know thinking about providing education or more explanation to public starting as soon as possible so that we can sort of gear people up for that action to her is something that I'd be looking for. And then I just have two other comments in the first two paragraph sections that just I was a little bit uncomfortable with. And so I think the last part of the first paragraph where it says it's not clear that the town will have the capacity to start any capital building project for many years, including renovation of the Wildwood building after it is no longer needed for educational purposes. I'm wondering if that needs to be in the guidelines only because it's like while it may be true it's also sort of speculation like we have not made that decision and I think those things were still getting more information on those things. I know Sean has been working on the budget presentation that he showed us had some mention of some of these things in the possibilities but I don't think any decisions have been made there. And so I'm wondering if that language is necessary to include. And so then, because of that, I would also be looking down in the next paragraph. Sorry. Give me a second. The amount generated by us. Nope, sorry, wrong. If there is no likely future use it might be wiser to sell them. I'm also just wondering if we need that specific sentence as well, because I think the town, the surplus real property disposition policies that will guide the decisions will make that decision and that we may not need to include that language because I think it is making presumptions about decisions and conversations we have not yet had. I just want to note for conversations from the last meeting that unfortunately, you were not there able to be there. But I just want to note that those two sentences were directly from our last conversation. Andy, I just want to mention that since I was one of the people that pushed this. I, what I'm hearing from Alicia is that. I believe that the committee that looks at property should meet before we make a statement about this. So that it's premature to make the statement, not premature to have the committee look at it. And I, I actually, I agree with that. I think the committee needs to look at our buildings and either decide and recommend, you know what we might sell off or what we might do with properties or whatever, before we make its explicit statements. So referring to the third paragraph, the sentence if there is no likely future use it might be wiser to sell them. Yes, that sentence. Yes. I just want to say, I actually did an editor to sell them or pursue a public private partnership and, you know, to come up with a plan. It's not just what we should do with disposition but a plan where we should we could be pretty creative with our properties. I like to come up with a plan. You know, come up with a plan, you know, so it's, and I think FY 24 is a good year to do it so Sean's question on why is this in the guidelines you know we these become a liability to us if we just sit on them. You know, someone will walk in and the ceiling will fall on their head or. And so, so we need to have a plan. Yeah. Yeah, I don't know it depends whether you take it out or not I will say a critical issue is whether or not we are going to maintain Wildwood going forward, maybe not for FY 24 specifically but for the out years and especially for the five year capital improvement program. We are going to maintain Wildwood going forward there's a whole bunch of capital costs that need to be brought back into that capital improvement program that are not currently there. So, I do like to know, or I think the time Andrew would like to know how the finance committee feels on on the future of Wildwood and whether or not we should be continuing to plan for those capital costs or not. And I think I've shared my thoughts that the way costs are rising and interest rates are rising. I don't see how we make progress on the four building projects and invest in that building long term without making some other major changes so I think it's just the finance committees input on that would be really helpful as we developed a five year capital improvement program. So, but that seems to me to reinforce the idea that we look at these properties, all of them. Yeah, absolutely. Yep. And that and sooner rather than later. And not put it in the guidelines here but put that high on the, we need to talk about this over the next X months, correct. And when we when GL meets tomorrow about goals. That's one of the things I'm going to want to see in the town manager's goals is looking at our properties and Andy if I might just speak one more time because I have to head out. I think when that clarification was exactly what I was trying to go with and so I also just agree with Kathy in terms of I'm just saying that I think well and Sean, I think that these conversations need to be had but I just don't think we have an affirmative decision yet. And so I just think we should not put anything about it, like specific in the guidelines until that decision has been made. And so like once we have that decision and we can say, like, affirmatively this is what we plan to do that we can add that to the guidelines like Kathy said I'm not sure that would even be in these guidelines for the next year. So I just don't, I just don't think that it benefits us to have that language in here right now. And also thank you all for your time I do have to head out now but I also really appreciate you all moving the conversation around so that I could be a part of things that are important to me. Thank you. Thank you. Sorry, that you're having to leave. Yeah, I just wanted to reiterate my comments from last time which is that I do think we are here. We ought to at least talk about a expanding our capital inventory to include all the buildings and you know there's a focus here on the surplus buildings, but there's other buildings that we have that aren't surplus, and we have to maintain them as well. And so I think a, an inventory where we really look at what the maintenance requirements are over time. And, you know, try to put a price tag on it and I know that's effort and maybe we don't do it, other than very qualitatively, initially, but I mean we need to know what are we, you know, what are we signing up for five years from now 1010 years from now in the buildings that we already have. I mean, there's surplus buildings. Yes, but there's also other buildings that we need. So that that's my point. My point is, let's not be surprised five years from now that we all of a sudden discover we've got a big expense. We should know that's coming so we can plan for it. So I just invented a process underway. Yeah, so you know the board right here. Bob articulate what he, what he meant by his original comments so there is a sort of a comprehensive facility by facility review that I think I don't know if it was a town council goal or I know it was somewhere that the facility department has begun it's, it's a very very intensive process to do it at the, you know, to get to the granular detail that's helpful to know how long a heating system will last or how long a cooling system will before it has to be replaced. But that is currently in the, you know, in the planning for the next, you know, as soon as we can get it done is to update a facility. It's not so much an inventory but it was the last person to do it was Ron Bahana with our facility director back around 2015 to the building by building evaluation. And so we're working on doing an update of that it'll probably be some time before the next update is done but it is underway. Okay, well thanks for the verification. And I had some, just a minor edit on this Bob, you know, addressing it because the other thing is we, because I'm sitting on that joint capital planning committee. You can see Jeremiah is going through building by building the outside the inside and for some buildings like the Crocker form school. But, you know, 10 years worth of an investment on when are we going to do the this piece of it not that piece. And he's starting to do it with the police so he's doing with all the major town. So I think trying to cross reference it so people don't think that it doesn't exist at all but you know where we're we're we need to be doing this. So it was kind of impressive what that one school was going to take. I just put something in the language in here to say that we'll use this information to, you know, in future guidelines or something like that. You know, I just think we want to make sure that people understand. We, I'm sure the council understands this but I think we need to communicate this that we do have these buildings that need maintenance and we can't forgo maintenance, just because we don't want to spend the money this is, you know, when you need a new roof on your house, you need a new roof on your house, you know. So anyway, that's all. Thanks Andy. So related. And I think we may need to sort of divide out this. The school question from this capital inventory conversation. Actually, I just flipped through this several times because I was like, I know that he addressed the school override for override. Yeah, I read through it there's, there's two or three references where you make that reference as a one clause in a sentence like we don't want to do a operations override. I would argue that the school vote in May merits a paragraph of its own in here with some considerations for strategy, overall planning. And, and I certainly take Bob's, you know, good point around the need for an overall inventory. That being said, some of you guys might remember some of you all might remember when I joined the finance committee. The, the, my motivation for joining this committee was, how are they going to do this, you know, I mean I moved from to town, when counselors are doing this road show on these four capital projects and, and I really wanted to just, you know, from a learning perspective be a part of this committee and see the work and see that you know that I hate the term the sausage being made but you know see see how this work was done and so to me. And one I would say that just from a messaging perspective, the override vote for the school needs its own paragraph and then should be, you know, I mean there's a lot of work to be done there communications wise and others. But I would also say that, you know, part of the part of the way that we actually could build off four of these and the school in particular was to, you know, reduce our capital and operating costs for the from those school needs, you know, from from three to two, three elementary to two. And so, you know, I think that there is obviously Wildwood sits within the inventory question, but I think it also, you know, at least from my experience sits within the larger strategic question of how are we going to do all this stuff. So that's I guess I guess I'm advocating for a paragraph. Anything else here. Um, well maybe it's not here but it's related because it when we talk about going out to future budgets. I think that we specifically are going to want to see from the schools, the impact of moving the sixth grade, which will be within this next fiscal year. And then actually three fiscal years out, I believe, Kathy, somebody else correct me if I'm wrong, we won't see the benefit of having two elementary schools, instead of three. But at some point we should start seeing that in projecting out budgets. And my concern is that we'll realize savings, but they won't be seen as savings to the whole town. They'll only be seen as savings that the school can go spend that money elsewhere. And that may be the way we go at the time. But I, I, I think I'm, I'm among the group of people who would like to see some savings in general. I mean, that's, and that's all the way down in your last second to last section called planning for the future. Yes. Okay. What do you have when is the next item that we should take up. Okay, so let me just go back up to the top I think we've covered the reorganization. I think we've talked about the Jones library. We've talked about a school override paragraph we've talked about relationship to the university, although I don't think we've come. So maybe we should have turned to Michelle now for that discussion. Yeah, let me try to, let me try to find that section very quickly before we jump. I got it. Michelle. So what I'm questioning here is I guess, a broader discussion about how we are thinking about our relationship with the higher ed institutions and I think Kathy may have assumed that what I was saying was maybe a little different than what I am saying. So, I think that we, as I said earlier, have seen that whatever guidance we're providing to the town manager on this matter may not necessarily be getting us where we where we want to be. And I feel like the town council needs to have a broader discussion about how we're approaching this and in particular and this came up in the discussion of town manager goals, looking at what role does the council play when it comes to advocating for the maximum amount of pilot, asking our delegation, Mindy and Joe to advocate at the state level for the maximum amount of pilot. So what I'm really trying to do is determine who is responsible for what in this puzzle, you know. So what should the council be doing. What should the town manager be doing with respect to the partnership agreements. What should the university be doing and so I, I'm not sure how I feel like whatever guidance we've been providing is not getting us to where we need to go and so I'd like to think about reframing the way we're thinking about this and reframing the guidance that we're giving to the town manager and the finance department. I know that's a bigger discussion and so I guess I'm looking to Lynn to really help navigate how we might have that bigger discussion. I think that's one question. That is, are you thinking about since you're also chairing GOL, GOL is talking about the question of the goals. Part of the goals discussion that's happening at GOL and if so, should the finance committee should just be referring to that process and not trying to recreate the process. I think that we will be discussing this in GOL as part of the town manager goals and looking at if we're so just for the benefit of the non voting resident members. We're looking at splitting the town manager goals so that we're more clear on what town council policies are versus what the sort of management goals for the town manager are and so that we can really clarify our roles and be more productive and take more ownership over our particular roles and so one of those items that we'll be discussing is the goal that's been there of the partnership agreements with the universities and so but I still am uncomfortable with the frame the framing of the language as it stands right now and like I said I wanted to try to get some language over to you before the meeting but I wasn't able to so I'm not sure how to reconcile that at this point. I come back to that in a minute. I think Michelle is making a very appropriate statement. This is not something the council has discussed. In terms of what is our role with regard to these relationships and the negotiations and I think it if nothing else needs to be discussed so there's a better understanding of roles. And maybe some new ideas come out of that discussion as well. And my sense would be that the time for that discussion, maybe when we see a MOA from UMass. And also as we talk about the goals. So I'm, you know, I think this is a somehow or another I don't I don't know that we reflected in this document as much as we do in the goals documents. Thank you Lynn MOA do you mean the strategic partnership agreement. Yes, I do. Thank you. And just as a former member of the select board report to that. This has been a town manager go for quite a while even when we had a select board the select board was the executive branch of government and employed the town manager to assisted with this work as the executive. And we always delegated the negotiation of strategic partnership to town manager. And so sort of has been pretty much of a non role for other parts of the community because, and I think the feeling has been throughout that it's easier for one person to be in charge of negotiations. A whole body that has to meet in public and just to comply with open meeting law, Bernie. Yeah, the question here is who speaks for the community. And I think the counselors have to be careful about voicing their opinions. And that, you know, the pushback that we got from the chancellor is a case in point. You know, so if the town manager is going to negotiate memorandum of agreements with UMass in particular at my college in New Hampshire is on a moderate. It needs to be the town manager, and not people making individual statements at different times, be a different story when you get the MOA in front of you, and then you can critique it. I would just be careful about doing that. And using the term pilot, by the way, is toxic for nonprofits, tax exempts like Amherst College and, and the like. I refer people to refer people to the Lincoln Land Institute's very comprehensive book on payments and taxes and they've got some suggestions in there for approaches to help pull this together. I would strike the sense about Burlington and the University of Vermont. It's another state for one and for two Vermont has some very particular instructions to municipalities is to how you can calculate the value of state property and what you're losing, which is a feature that we don't have in Massachusetts. Kathy. I'm sure I would strike that sentence Bernie as much as maybe move it to a later section. And Michelle I know you said you would like to write language. What this doesn't have is what Vermont has they have a state legislative action that is supporting the local municipality. And they have that paragraph here saying we're on record with a resolution supporting it as a council, but saying that this isn't just sending our executive in. And I think if it is bargaining from a position of weakness and saying what what might you like, you know, strong arguments but what can you give us but as saying, you know, is there something that could be more powerful. So I just would insert a sentence, a little paragraph, advocate that ever should advocate for statewide efforts to enact legislation. And then I could move and then I can move such as that that helped Burlington, because that is what was helpful to Burlington. Yeah. And that when Claire Higgins was mayor of Northampton she proposed and some of us responded affirmatively to her and then she went on to greater glory. That we take the communities in the state and there's probably 20 years so that are in the same situation as Amherst where the Commonwealth has substantial amounts of non taxable properties, and that those 20 communities, then form a more of taking action in terms of of moving the legislature, because you're bumping up against some very powerful forces here. The University of Cambridge is the original state constitution referred to as one party that doesn't like this. And they pull a lot of strings as does the other of our time managers of a matter of MIT. You know, it forming a network for me the statewide network does help move things along, and it also gives you a broader legislative delegation and just our senator and our rep. It's something where you know the council can play a role in talking to the governing bodies in those other communities, and doing some one to one interface there to help help this matter a lot. But in terms of negotiating yeah, the time manager does negotiation I agree that it's from a position of weakness. That was it. I didn't take my hand down sorry. Um, to be exact there's 29, 29 municipalities with this problem, because there's 29 public higher ed institutions, and that doesn't count for other state ones. And I think that one of the things that needs to be recognized here because we're not going to solve this tonight and that is that how we deal with private institutions is different from how we deal with public. The private institutions, there has been legislate legislation introduced in the past about nonprofits, which they are. And frankly the moment you mentioned that group the very healthy health network in Massachusetts, which also is a backbone of nonprofits rears their head. And so that's one thing but the legislation for public land is a different piece of legislation, and it has to be separated out in terms of how we go after both pieces. Um, I, I literally was working for the University of Massachusetts last time, the nonprofit one reared its head and was asked to do a piece of quick research but it died so we never did the research. You Michelle. I just really wanted to support everything that's been said. I wanted to clarify that I absolutely agree with Bernie that, you know, what the town manager does in terms of the strategic partnership agreements is for the town manager to do and then maybe for to respond to. But this piece about working maybe even as Bernie suggested in, and I think absolutely as Bernie suggested in coalition with other communities to try to get the state legislation to push the state legislation to get the maximum amount is something that as a council I would really like to see us discuss and strategize about making that a priority. With so many things that we have as priorities right now I think this one would be a really solid way for us to advance the goals that we have. So, thanks. And I think I'm hearing is separate out the nonprofit colleges from the university and actually make it to separate pieces that are more appropriate for each as opposed to trying to run them together and look to the what what comes out of to tomorrow and make sure that we're consistent and possibly even just referring to GOLs work and talk about the need for more revenue because of the amount of tax exempt land and then refer to the GOL piece and not get into it at all. There's two things that are. And of course there's been good points made about the different strategies that you apply to the two different kinds of institutions that you know, because without saying we have to deal with that and other contexts. So is there anything more to say on this top is our list have more. Yes, I'm going to skip over the new growth question because I think we'd be here all night on that one. Do you want to discuss the issue about do we want to grow our stabilization fund in which stabilization fund both. I believe it was the capital stabilization fund. And what page. It is page three at the bottom. We get into general budgeting policy. And Sean raised the issue about stabilization and free cash. And see I so let me just start since I, I think it's a good question. If we say do we want to grow it, I think what we want to do is make sure that we continue to identify appropriate funds that go into capital and recognize that that fund itself may go up and down so it may, it may feel like it's growing, but we may be continually adding into it but expending out of it. So for me the question is, do we want to continue to have a separate stabilization fund for capital versus operating and my answers, absolutely. Can I clarify quickly when I raised that. So the, what the council's approved when they approve the capital stabilization fund. I don't know if it was a formal approval but you sort of what we presented was our policy will be. If we have a surplus at the end of the year. We maintain 5% and free cash we maintain 10% in general stabilization for a total of 15% for sort of rainy day reserves. We honor commitment to the reparations fund, building that up based on what's been agreed to. And then anything above beyond that would go into capital stabilization. So, I guess, to Andy's point that policy is sort of there, or at least we've proposed it. The question is really when we looked at the four capital projects and look at some of the planning. Last time, there were some options that looked at building the capital stabilization fund so that we could potentially pre fund or, or not incurred debt for one of the building projects. And I guess the question is, you know, if the, you know, have to, you know, in this document if you don't want to but if there was, you know, the committee did agree that we should explore that then maybe say that in the document if we should continue to grow it so that we don't have to borrow for one of the building projects. The other is to say that we want to be clear about what our plan is to build the four capital buildings and make sure that we have a stabilization fund that is consistent with that plan. Kathy. I think that wording is a little better to show what I'm, what I'm worried about. And I'm just, I've got a marked up copy that I'm looking at so I can't even find what where I would put my put what but I played with what if instead of 10.5% into capital this year what if we were at 10.4 or 10.2 because what we're doing is squeezing operating budgets as you will, as you will know and anytime we don't squeeze operating budgets we've got them starting at a new level the next year so we need to be thinking that way so to continually grow something as we use it. And that would be partly keeping this pressure on so I, I'm hoping at some point we can go back to the 10% you've already got that in your piece. And that that 10% would then be doing what Bob is saying is we've got these buildings let's keep maintaining them we could start doing roads again and we wouldn't have. We've got these four buildings done we wouldn't have a major building we would just have all the roads and sidewalks and maintenance but so I'm queasy about stronger wording, even though I love the capital, say, this, this fund. So, I think the policy we have if we live with it this year and next year we can see, particularly with what funding are we going to be able to find for the elementary school you know as we grapple with, where is what. So I guess I'm, we're, I like, and he said we will assess what we need to do rather than a commitment to put more money into it. What you had to do to get it this year was actually if we look past year we were really tight the last couple years which yielded this free cash for you. You know, I took, I took what Andy said and I said we want to be clear about our plan for major, and then I put in parentheses for capital projects and make sure the stability stabilization fund is funded and managed consistent with that plan. Something like that. That's all. Going on to the next one. We've already talked about override and be more clear. We kind of clarified that the paragraph where the school committee about BCG. So I don't think we need to do that anymore. We've talked a lot about crests. We've talked about our capital inventory. We talked about the wildwood school. And even that it's a little premature. We've talked about the relationship with higher education. We've talked about Burlington. We're done. Done with the list. Is there anything else that people want to talk about that they feel is missing from our discussion today that I want to call for public comment. But then we go to public comment then and indicate to those members of public who are present that we have a policy of welcoming a brief public comment to meetings and it should be a topic that is within the responsibility of the finance committee, but doesn't necessarily have to be about the guidelines. And if anybody would like to make public comment, please raise your hand so that and then we'll recognize you by bringing you into the meeting and letting you make a comment. So that we can hear what you have to share with us. So pause for a second waiting to see if anyone raises their hand. Seeing no hands raised and I'll keep an eye on that box to make sure that nobody does comes in late with it but we'll hear the public comment issues. Our next meeting, the way that this is planned to happen. And goes into it our next meeting is because they're both tied together is that we're trying to get something together for the council for discussion on December 5, as indicated earlier. And I will do my best to try and turn around quickly. And it's off of draft one that will be draft to my asset. Kathy send her suggestions to me to work with and if you have any notes, send them along to and anybody else who has notes or suggestions. Just email them directly to me do not to emails to the group just send them to me. We have to be very careful about open meeting law compliance and then I will turn it around as quickly as I can so that I can then get your comments back to draft to. And I will make changes based on additional comments that come in on on draft to draft will be in effect draft three which is what will go to the council, or the meeting next on December 5. We do have a meeting coming up a week from today, December 6, and that was specifically scheduled to be the day after the meeting. So that if there is additional topics that we need to discuss based upon the council meeting or edits that we need to do based on the council meeting that we have the opportunity to do them. The council always has the option to make amendments and adopt at the time. It's usually not a good idea if it's a lot of changes. It's better to go through the process of having the committee do it and come back to the council so it's more likely that the council final action will be on the 19th of December. We have some other agenda items scheduled for next week. And I need to talk with the counselors who are sponsors, but at least we want to start getting a first discussion and presentation of what was a proposed real estate transfer fee. And so that that is a definite for the, for the agenda for next week in addition, as we move forward with that. And I think, Sean, if I'm correct, the other thing is, are we taking anything going back to sewer regulations. Yeah, Amy and Gilford are planning to attend and I think the committee's looked at water already so this will be the sewer getting input on those. And there have been revisions that were done by the TSO committee. And we were going to get the current versions from TSO out but that's not the critical point for this committee though I certainly want to give us an opportunity. If anybody has any comments on them. A lot of the flow from our prior discussion. At the last round on water and sewer regulations. We spent a lot of time talking about what were the options for having the fund itself, the enterprise fund, accept responsibility for repairs that were essentially under the streets of between the main and the property line. We did some calculations with the help of staff on understanding what would be the best approach to use and what would be the effect on future rates for water by making that change. We did not have that discussion about sewer. And so the one piece that's missing from our prior discussion is what this is about for next week, which is from the home to sewer main or wherever we, or what we recommend in that regard. What would the effect be on sewer rates for. So that's the discussion. Sean, do you think that I have stated it correctly. I know. And I think, again, as you said, the effect on rates and on sort of the future trajectory of our enterprise funds we've already have rates that are trending up because of large capital improvements. And so this will, you know, amplify that and so, you know, whatever ultimately is approved will try to forecast in our enterprise budget projections when you look at water and sewer rates later in 2023. So, yeah, that's staying on this topic. So will we be looking at projections for what it would cost additionally, like we did for water, what it would cost additionally to go from the main to the property line. So we have those for next week. So what what I think we will have for next week is Amy and go for it have estimated increases in cost on an annual basis, and we can translate that to what it means to the water rate. And we can translate that to you know what that means in terms of actual dollars for maybe the average consumption in town, we have enough information to do all that. When we do, when we looked at water, they gave us some figures for what the amount of increase would be that we would have to consider an FY 24 or 25 whenever we're going to implement this. If we go from the main to the property line for water, are they going to have something similar for whatever they. So I think they have comparable information for the changes in the sewer regulations as they did for the water. So that's all I wanted to know. Thanks. So, I have, we have no minutes on the agenda. I know we have the think backlog of at least three from the fall. We took care of everything that was through the June meetings. We've usually done the summer meetings and the first fall meeting. So, we're getting caught up. And we'll try and try and get back to that. But I frankly was spending so much time on this draft one that I did not have time to do minutes. So, just leave it at that. And I have no unanticipated business to discuss if anybody else is things that they want to raise under an anticipated business raise your hand otherwise. I think we're done. So seeing no hands. Thank you Andy. Just thank you again for all the work that you do getting us these this prototype document and managing the discussion and being so gracious so thank you very much. Thank you, thank you Andy. It's not easy to put yourself out there like that. Absolutely. So, Kathy'll be interested and see what you have. Your edits are always very thoughtful. Thank you. Talk about other issues too but anyway, talk to you soon and thank you, and we are adjourned. This time is 455, I believe. Thank you. Thank you.