 It's the record button. So you're all set. So I'm going to call the finance committee meeting of September 15, 2023 to order. And it's now four minutes after one o'clock. And I just want to note that this meeting is being held. By remote means, which is permitted now by current. There's an open meeting law, but we do need to make sure that everybody can hear and be heard. So I'm going to just go through the members present and start Matt. Present, thanks. Yeah, and Anna. Present. Lynn. Present. Yeah, I think. Here. So I want to note that at the moment. House for Walker is that present and we have two resident members. Who I don't think will be here at all today. One for sure. I'm certain about as Bob Hagner and I don't expect Bernie Kubey act. Either based on an email yesterday. So. We. Want to proceed. However, because we have an important agenda and need to get through now. So, um, know that, um, there's other conflicts that are. Um, rounds of people. One member is going to. May not stay. I think that. But I'd like to do is, um. Um, When we get to the main agenda item for today's discussion to bring counselor. Hanna key and to the meeting also, but I, uh, want to start by, um, asking for public for comment and, um, open up for public comment. And, uh, um, if anybody who's in the attendee list who would like to comment on this item will bring in. Uh, Hi, good afternoon. Um, I'm going to, um, I'm not a shepherd live on justice drive in Amherst. And I sent an email to the committee, which I'll. You know, I'll go over it now for public record. And I did send. A question about other towns that I'm sure CRC must have seen that. I don't know, but, um, other towns. Charge for their rental registration permit. Like Worcester charges 15 per unit Boston charges 25 per unit, a maximum of 2,500 per billy Salem charges $50. And well, Amherst, 250 plus 150 for inspection. Um, which is just seems wrong to me. Uh, in addition to those fees with the links that I've sent, um, I'd like to offer suggestion. Um, if you, what if you charge the permit fee per bedroom, for instance, the permit, uh, the permit is my parcel to reduce paperwork, but the fee would be per bedroom studios and one bedrooms, for example, $25 to bedrooms, $50 and so on. Uh, there would be no, uh, parcel cap, especially if the fees 25 or less. I mean, I, I'm assuming people would not complain even if it, there's several units. Um, this way a two bedroom. Duplex would pay $100. The same as a four bedroom house. And less if one of the duplexes is owner occupied benefiting small local landlords. Amherst, each bedroom is marketed between 800 and 1000. Although we've seen the outliers, you know, the $2,000 for studios for the newer fancier places, um, per month. So a $25 fee per year is not exorbitant. Um, there would be no need to discount Amherst small landlords and the cost for bigger properties would be reasonable. Uh, when this reduce or eliminate bias and legal challenges, then you're not dealing with, um, you know, people challenging saying, oh, why are you giving discount for this person and not that person? Inspection fees should also be considered in terms of property size, accessories, condos, studios take less time. Therefore should have a smaller fee than a five bedroom house. For instance. Um, I also believe this rental registration shouldn't be generating any surplus part of the cost should be shared by Intel colleges who have off campus students where the most complaints happen. Um, and even if marginally also by our already very high property taxes, uh, both renters and affected neighbors would benefit from a fair system. Thank you. Thank you for your comment. It was helpful that you were here to offer that in person. And thank you. Are there other comments from other people in attendance who would like to offer comment to the committee at this point? Um, seeing no request for comment. Um, and we bring Mandy into the meeting as, um, because she'll be a resource. And do we know whether Rob Moore is going to be present today? I didn't ask him to attend this meeting. I can reach out and see if he's available now. I don't know if there be, um, let him know in any event that the meeting is happening because he has, uh, an interest in, um, anything. Uh, Rob has an interest in what we're doing. Um, But we did going to get Mandy. Uh, to be able to join us and, uh, she's here. So, um, I just sort of, um, Start with just one observation and then open it up for committee discussion. Um, And that is that, uh, I think what we're dealing with is a very complicated problem that CRC spent. An extraordinary amount of time, um, Delving into both what the purpose of the program is, how to go about achieving the principle of goals that, um, They were trying to achieve in crafting, um, a revision to the program. And, um, then, uh, How to pay for it. And, uh, Receiving, uh, Comment along the way. Um, And it got to the point where they were looking for help to think through the financial side of it. And, uh, We're now in the position of, um, kind of trying to come to the same level of understanding that CRC did, which. You know, I'm wondering about, um, In retrospect about the process, whether we would have been better working together earlier. Or something, but, um, I think that there's some, What we're coming to is the, um, And I think that it was the observation has been made fairly strongly. That, um, The program is a fairly comp is an extraordinarily comprehensive program and has a high cost to it. And we're talking about. Heading a program that according to. Sean's calculations and what we've heard from Rob previously. Is running, you know, well over $400,000 a year to run in the, that's, um, A difficult program to pay for. And, um, Uh, it's a question of whether that's really something that the town can take on. And I think that's what we're struggling with. So with that sort of context, I was wondering, um, Do you have any thoughts on that? So Kathy's been giving some thought to it. Um, in, uh, I don't know if. Anyone else wants to follow up. This next comment or. Yeah, go ahead, Kathy. Okay. Um, I actually started to. Play with the spreadsheet and decided I had to think separately because I wanted to change some of the boxes. Um, so I had a, I had a couple of thoughts. Um, and I think that was helpful to be sent some links to, uh, few other places just to see the fees and the inspection fee structure, um, which is what I was looking for rather than all parts of it. Um, so, um, In general, I feel like we've got to figure out a way to target. And I said this last week, I thought we could minimize the cost for applying and for inspecting where there isn't any serious concern or even minor concern. Minimize the cost in both ways on the, um, Property owner and on the town. So I thought, um, we could work with, and this is where a fraud's not here. Mandy, I know you were walking back and forth with the spreadsheets. And I think one of the differences is that if, if you applied the first time you got your rental registration fee, there was one fee level when you renewed it, it was half and that was in the Boston example. And so I think the assumption is once you do the paperwork and it's online, you can look at it and it's a mental amount of effort, computer time, staff time, or anything else. If nothing changed, you just say it's the same. Um, the other things that we've had. So cutting the renewal rate. So leaving it an annual, um, but cutting the renewal rate down in half and doing it, um, probably for both the owner occupied and then on owner occupied. And I did think this category in between of local owner owned is a difficult one. So I was wondering if we should just get rid of that one and then we can get the other one. And so I did very, very the unit registration such that if you only own a few properties and you're not living in them, it's a minimal cost to you. Then what I, what I, um, So, and then trying to really make sure it's streamlined. And then what I saw and you've done it in effect in the spreadsheet is charging a marginal cost for the additional cost of running this program. So the lower end would, on just the registration. So I was starting to play, play with some of these numbers, but really trying to streamline that. Um, Boston, by the way, the initial is $25. And the maximums that were in the spreadsheet were 1100. And a little over 2000. I think there's any kind of range. Um, and I do that more on the cost of running this program. So the lower end would on just the registration. So that's what the, the average cost of the programs was at $3. $4. And the renewals 15. Um, you know, so when I was looking around, but they fixed them a while ago. So then on the inspection. Um, that's where I think it's, that's the time intensive. And that's where the town costs will be high. If we have a lot of inspectors. And if I don't, I think we're not planning on doing inspections if it's owner occupied, because I didn't see an owner occupied inspection fee and I think that's a good idea. I do think we should be excluding the federal and HUD and inspected and we were sent in a public written comment account on how many of those they go through a pretty rigorous inspection. I know, Rob Moore didn't agree with me when I raised that last time but in several of the other town codes those are excluded so we don't, we don't reinspect places that are being inspected so trying to think of the list of that excluded. And then, then trying to think of per parcel and for additional units and making the additional units marginal pretty small. So you had an example of 150, but only do a random sample and do it only once. And so, so that if I'll give an example if it's a 50 unit building, or 100 unit building, you do a random sample. The basic systems are great. They get a five year waiver on another inspection, and you just do a random sample and whether it's 10%. I, you know, some small number that would cut down on the some number of units where we're inspecting. And if it's a clean bill of health, it's just a five year, now you're on the five year cycle, unless something changes. It would be the same if it's a duplex, you know that that five year would be a, if it you're clean, you're up to five years. Then the other thought I had is the startup versus steady state issue. If we phased it so I started to try to put some men, but they'll want to talk about these conceptually if we phase this and said, we're roll, we're starting the program up, not all at once. We set up the registration. You know, that's however, whatever we're going to do. But on the inspection side, we phase it in. So I don't, and then I went with what would be a logical way of phasing it in. For starters, I would do any property that has been of concern in the past we've got a list that we think are pro are problem houses I'd love a category called problem house. Problem house or rental is one with any kind of physical problems, health and safety, multiple police calls multiple noise calls something Boston's got a really nice category that books of the codes, but start with that and then maybe, maybe whatever is legal that if we started with single family homes that are not owned locally. You know just to cut down on the size and then a second round could be bigger units and a third round but trying to phase it in a way that we don't need any more than one and a half inspectors a year so I was looking at cutting the inspection staffing down by half as a as a beginning So, and then with my idea of random and then by if we phase it in over five years by the fifth year we would have inspected every parcel once. Many of them would be on a five year cycle, because they would have checked out okay. And we would then have a pretty good idea of what we're doing so that's, I just wanted to, and I don't want to talk a lot more but I was trying to think of a way of bringing this in to align it. The other one thing I did see in Boston, and it may be they can do this because they're a bigger city but maybe in our region. There's a whole list of certified inspectors. So if they need more inspectors in a year, or a complex, they're certified, you can pick one of these people. And so the inspector has to do it at the level that the town would do it, but, but they didn't staff up to do all the inspections. So I had a comment. And I didn't want to jump into how does everybody else do it. But it looked to me like what Burlington is doing and then inspection and reinspection fees really focus again on the problem houses so Burlington has a gradation if you're okay, you get, you don't get inspected again for five years. If it's very minor and you can correct it. And this is mainly at the housing code, then you get a four year certificate. And I'm not sure I want to go at this level, but it's, if you were a major district, and they talk about dilapidated health and safety codes, and you're not shut down, you get six months, and then you have to be reinspected, and they're to try to catch up so they do a more frequent, you know, hit them again, if they've identified the place as really dangerous in habitation. So all of this is to try to figure out a way is that we're mainly using our inspectors to try to address. Places that we think are putting the inhabitants at risk, or putting the neighborhood at risk in terms of trash noise, other kinds of problems. Then the only other comment I wanted to make and I think you had done this in some of the regs but the complaint driven inspection. And at least a couple of them, a complaint didn't generate an inspection fee for the owner if it turned out that there wasn't anything there. You know that it, you know, so they do don't get into some kind of dispute between landlords and tenants that are frivolous complaints. So you don't try to incur a visit, you know, complaint my plumbing is a mess you know we'll get you inside the house it turns out to check out okay. So those were just thoughts on the two things to try to figure out a way if we can focus get the fees way down. So one of our sheets, option one the permit fee was $50 for the, the small units on the owner occupied units, and then the, the, the next step up was $5 playing with any of those were not it just gave us another way of playing with them but trying to get the fees generated. And I'll stop there and the one other thing Lynn, you had mentioned retaining any surplus. We might have to have an enterprise fund. I wanted to check whether we have any ability in the town because Burlington retains it in a fund without calling it an enterprise fund that may be okay in Vermont. I don't know whether it's even possible to do it in Massachusetts, but Burlington had a paragraph that literally said you know if their funds remain at the end of the year they roll over, and they may adjust the fees if they don't need as much revenue to cover. That's it. Yeah, Holly would have to answer that one. So, I, one quick observation about what's going on in this conversation and then I'll see if Lynn had something she was started to raise her hand and that is that we're sort of in getting into a very difficult territory because CRC really did a lot of work and proposed to apply law and then referred, you know, a piece to us that they specifically wanted plus we're generally look at financial sides of things anyway, but we don't should we be, I think we have to sort of come to grips with whether we ought to be putting ourselves in the position of redoing CRC's work or how that happens and that's it's an additional piece of discussion that I think that we need to have and that Lynn as president of the council might have some comment on but if I'm going to look now see if Lynn Mandy or anyone else raises hands, Lynn. Actually, I'd like Mandy to go first. Yeah, I don't necessarily want to get into too much on the substantive of what finances asked to be decided because I'm not on finance but just a couple of things that that might help, given some of Kathy's comments. The CRC did discuss the initial application and then a role a renewal application permit fee being different. The, it didn't end up on the word document fee schedule, but on the samples. I think there is a note somewhere that says but maybe it didn't end up there either that that the fee schedule the Excel spreadsheet bases it on the renewal because the initial application for a permit happens once per property and so we can't really base how many fees the revenue on that one. And so we were basing it on a renewal but it's a good reminder that I'm not sure that initial one made it into the word document that would actually be the final schedule so so I will make note of that. Or we should make note of that and there can be different ones but but I would just recognize as a committee if you're going to propose dollars and I think that's what what the referral was for that those dollars should at least start with the renewal fee, because that's the main amount of fees that will be collected every year not an initial one. But but Kathy is right and I told her this an email that Rob has confirmed and he can correct it if I'm wrong that once you have in the system, the next year the renewal everything pre populate so you're just changing the stuff that has changed. So that would be a justification for different and there's different things he's also confirmed to see I see that there are different amounts of time for staff for an initial application that's never had a permit before and a renewal because of the documents you're submitting and staff is verifying and all. On the inspections, it is the inspection will happen in owner occupied houses they are not exempt from an inspection, but the owner occupied unit is exempt under the bylaw and the regulations, but the non owner occupied unit does get inspected under the regulations and bylaw. So I just wanted to clarify that out. I think Rob have talked about the exclusion of the Fed, the HUD inspections and all and I'll leave Rob if he wants to address that again. The Kathy suggestion that was based on what Rob said last week I guess it is about the random sample would be easy for CRC to fix. The language is in a prior draft and the language got tweaked at the end. And I think john Thompson had approved getting into every unit over five years and I think the original language had every unit over five years but there is language for samples and do you go back every year or every five years and all of that so it's easy to put in and if that's what Rob recommends I would take a guess that CRC would easily make that change, because we have CRC has generally followed the recommendations of Rob and john in the past so that one. In terms of a way to potentially reduce how many inspections would happen and could easily be made a change in the regulations. A fee schedule Excel spreadsheet would have to have numbers updated and linked things updated to give a better accurate and guesstimate as to how many inspections are happening a year then. So then you wouldn't be able to use the current Excel spreadsheet without some calculations being updated. The phase in that he talked about is actually already there. And so I guess that's where I've had a little bit of confusion confusion with that conversation because if I understood Kathy properly that she would she her her, she was saying if I understood properly that over the course of five years from the date of adoption to five years later, every unit would get inspected. Our regulations actually say the proposed regulations in section B, one, a one, say for clarity upon adoption of the bylaw all residential rental property whether or not they have a prior residential rental property will need to undergo an initial inspection within five years of the infective date of the bylaw. So we've, we have not written a bylaw regulation that that would require in year one, every single one of the 1400 parcels to be inspected. Over a five year period and so it's already got that phase in for for the annual the renewal inspection and the initial inspection. So we state what we don't know in that first five years and I think Rob would, Rob can speak to that is of those inspections. When we're doing the initial ones, how many are going to in that first five years there's a suspect, it is suspected that more will fail their first inspection then after five years when you've been in there once. That's more, that's the part that I think might require an estimate of more inspectors than going forward five years later but to get those initial inspections in the committee has already proposed language that phases, all of those in over five years, allowing the inspection services department to choose which ones they go in first. So they would sort of be able to do that choosing that that Kathy had talked about. And I would say, I will take the, or the, the committee if they're doing the inspection sheets can take the suggestion of if there's no violation found under complaint inspection that no fee is charged I think that's a perfectly logical one that the CRC did not discuss it all so I that would be something that the committee could decide to put in. Thank you. Now, I want to make some comments as a finance committee member and then I actually do want to talk about what Andy has kind of alluded to is how do we look at this from a council perspective. Regarding the actual issue. I believe that the charge to the finance committee is to look at this and figure out how to make it work. Okay. And so I'm actually eating over into from a council perspective. CRC has spent enormous amounts of time on this, I would really regret seeing us walk away from it because we can't figure out how to make it work. I think that would be really unfortunate. And at some point we may have to decide we're going to spend our time on this and not on something else. And I personally have a problem when someone and I'm not criticizing Kathy that you had to do it this way, but I would like to see the model that you're talking about laid out and versus, for instance, the model that Rob has given us, because I can't. I can't absorb all those different numbers and the different changes and so forth. What I got from it, however, is that you're trying to reduce the number of inspectors needed. And you're trying to reduce good properties from paying a lot more and focusing on properties where there are problems. I totally support that. So, but from a standpoint of I personally as a counselor, not as president of the council, I would be really disappointed if we can't figure out a model financially to make this work. And we walk away from it. That would be to me just a real shame. So, there you have it. Yeah, I apologize. And if I'm stepping in something I shouldn't let me know. I think one thing that, you know, if, if the committee would, or believes that the fee numbers would be more properly discussed at CRC because of CRC's knowledge, given all of the conversations you've had and the notes I'm taking about all of it and any other recommendations. You know, if it would be easier for finance to say things like this part of the structure we like this part we don't rob suggestion about sampling the larger units over a five year period instead of getting into every unit of years is one that's good and would reduce costs and then say something like, and of the total cost that Rob projects or that Sean projected at some point, modified for the whatever modification CRC might make with those recommendation changes, we recommend that CRC or somebody suggest a structure that covers 100% or 80% or 50% of the estimated value or 100% minus X specific dollar amount because we're going to cover that dollar amount within some other funding mechanism. And then if finance would find it easier to do something like that. I think CRC could work with that type of recommendation to come back with an actual fee schedule. But if I'm stepping into roles that I shouldn't be. I'm okay to be ignored but I, I'm just trying to provide some helpful, potentially helpful things that might be able to move this along. Thank you, Kathy. You know, I appreciate that offer, Mandy, and Lynn, I completely agree with you that presenting it the way I did for me was totally frustrating as well, because I went to the spreadsheet and so let me just plug in some and you from CRC and Rob we had a lot of useful information, but I couldn't, I didn't have variables that I needed Mandy, Mandy referred to it that if we weren't going to see every unit within a unit, I mean I know how many parcels there are. And if we weren't going to try to go all the parcels but how many parcels are we going to go to. And are they big ones or small ones because I very nicely gave us numbers on, you know, if I'm in a house with several bedrooms it's going to take me longer to then an efficiency in a building that has just efficiencies, you know, I mean the efficiencies one room on some level. So you, you turn the water on and flush the toilet, I guess turns the lights on and off. I mean it's, it's the building then that's the important one not just the unit. So we don't have what I would normally have to be able to do that. So I had it when we were playing with the four buildings which where we're in the millions of dollars we're in the, we're in the $100,000 here, where I had. What if I did this that are the other thing. So, so in doing this I did have some what I heard from you Mandy I didn't read it that way but it was good to hear that that we're basically trying after over a period of five years to get into every building let me talk at building. Then if I say we're not necessarily getting into the units within the building, we're doing a random sample, and then we don't go back so those, the first round of them if there anyone that checks out. I don't know. So that was, I was trying to get both the registration fee and the inspection fee down for the problem free houses, and dwellings, and that's where I don't have enough, and that was my first question of Rob on the rough guest of how many problems are out there and he said we only know kind of the nuisance houses that we repeatedly gone back to we, we haven't been in to most of the others. So, so that's the, that that's the, the revolving door question here, you know, do we have out of the, the property list, it was the data you gave us was great I just can't do the subsets of it. Easily, but of the actual units. We've got a how many buildings do we have it's about 1200 parcels or 1100 parcels. So, if we were saying 1100 parcels and we're only doing a fifth of them each of the first each year, and then it's, it's kind of a question of what the costs are so it may be Mandy we have to set it up with blanks, and then have Rob do what he was doing for you if my first year as the building inspector would be these kinds of places, you know, not, not the big 100 plus units, but I'd go to some duplexes I've got some places on my list that I'd love to have been able to get inside of. You know, that's where I don't know if we do a fifth, but hearing that it can be phase that was what I was looking for, and then hearing that the numbers you've given us are the renewal not the initial. Then our numbers are in fact on the permit, they're high compared to most other places so. So I think that's the foundation of the permit, plus the inspection that hits the little one. If they don't have to get reinspected that's a one time piece over a five year so trying to rethink that so Andy, I'm not, you know, I'm not trying to I actually tried to avoid reading the word so that's why I missed Mandy's piece on the thought was phasing, but I think these are the, these are the key variables finance should be looking at you know what. What's the fee to register and then renew. How much does it vary by the number of units and is there a cap on it, which has been proposed in the spreadsheet it doesn't explicitly say that. It goes up to a certain dollar level, and then the same with inspections the overall inspection and then if you're doing a random sample what, what's that piece. Those are what generates the revenue, and it's also what's generates the expense, because it's how many times are the inspectors going out to the houses. So, now I did. I did. I can come back to CRC with a larger things on what are we asking people to report on when they register their apartment or the rental because I think we've expanded a bit on what we're asking for in the initial registration, but I just have to go back Mandy, you'll know what we're on a, what do we now ask. So is everyone a first time registration because we've redone what we're asking for in the registration so it's not just an affirm what we've got. So we should try to stay on the edge of that, you know, not do a lot of it so that people can re register pretty simply. So, so, Lynn, I agree, you know, you know, doing it in pieces. I think I'm going to cut the inspection staffing in half if I could with my best guess was if we don't have to hit all those little apartments, every single one of them if we do a reasonable random sample but 10% with the building might be more than enough. And I don't know what to do with the smaller buildings, and I'll stop there but I would love to play with numbers. So I just don't have the numbers to play with. So Mandy's posting interesting question. Okay. Does our finance discussion constitute some set of things that we would like CRC to go back and look at. Okay, and that given the time they've spent on this issue. And the fact that there is a model and maybe it's a model that could be improved on that CRC now spend some time on this and I, I personally have no problem with that. I mean, it's, we've never said, you know, a committee that's not finance can't look at numbers. We've just always said, it has to come to finance and it has come to finance. And are there some agreed upon things we would say back to CRC that says, you know, we've looked at this, but we would like you to look at the bylaw. In relationship to the financing with the following in mind. And Kathy, I have, you know, if you want to go to CRC and, you know, have a present them with some model as long as we don't break open meeting law, then I'm fine. You know, just. With that, I'd like to know if others on the committee can agree to that and if that is the case, then I would like us to focus on what are the messages we're sending back to CRC. And I actually have a question for Mandy that is sort of in the same line and that is during the process did members of CRC do any extensive examination of other rental registration programs where they would get into similar issues about the number of staffing and fees charged. So, we had be, we had options for when we started looking at the options for fees we did have a document, it's since been pulled for cleaned up for what came to council but there was a document that basically went through and listed what Hartford did for fees on various things and what Boston did it was in the comments of one of the fee structure documents but it had a number of different cities and towns and where what they charged for what and that and that applied to not just the permit fee or the inspection but we had notes in there about transfer permit fee you actually see some of it in a final item in the remains in it with comments but administrative appeal fees, what did other towns do some charge nothing some charge this where are those ranges. We had in there, you know what our current town policy is and stuff like that so we did in looking at the fee schedule look at and have examples from other towns as to what they were doing in terms of inspections and that that went with other discussions with things like do you charge a permit fee that includes an inspection fee, you know that includes the inspection fee or not. Does the inspection fee include a return inspection fee because it fails an inspection or do you have to pay one another fee if your first inspection got, you know failed if you failed your first one. So the inspectors have to come back. How many times do they come back before you're charged a new fee. We had examples from other towns with all of those sort of permutations as we talked through what makes the most sense and so some of that talk in settling on in particular a permit fee and a separate inspection fee to begin with that really, you know, that that decision or recommendation that came to the Council and you because you have two different tabs was based really on on some of the goals that Kathy stated you know, minimizing fees for parcels that do not have health and safety violations because if you roll that inspection fee into an application fee that is paid every year, they're paying that fee, even when they're not getting an inspection and things like that. So that's one of those conversations. In terms of extensive examination of other programs as we wrote the bylaw, we spent, we referenced State College a lot, I will say that but we also looked at Salem, we looked at Boston we looked at Hartford we did look at a number of others within Massachusetts and now where we had those inspection fees and all to look but but State College was one of the, initially one of the primary models that we looked at it doesn't actually look anything like State colleges anymore. But we used our own current model to. So, I hope that helps. I think that what I've been thinking about is I looked at some of these examples like we were directed one point to Worcester and Boston and Salem. Each of those are different communities. You know, I know something about Salem from having heard our Lieutenant Governor who was mayor of Salem speak on several occasions and the rentals there and their bylaws written around short term rentals because a lot of, you know, they seem to be focusing on short term rentals as opposed to long term rentals for students. They have a, you know, it's a tourist industry town to a large extent. Then, you know, Boston in Worcester so large that they're unique. We're unique because most of our such a large percentage of our rentals are our university students. And so each community has a different set of circumstances and it's hard to look at these other examples and say that they exactly fit our particular set of problems because they just don't. So that's one piece and you've done some work in particularly what you learn from state college because that's probably all of the communities have been mentioned the ones that's the closest to us in the unique circumstances that we're dealing with. It would be helpful to have any thing that you were able to find out and know about it so we don't have to reinvent the wheel on it. Another issue that I wanted to look to so we have time is that I had asked, we usually don't put public comments into our packet and it's not something that we want to do as a regular thing but we did receive the one item from the president or chair whatever's role is of the landlords association and which went fairly extensively into one particular issue which Kathy mentioned which is federally inspected properties and I think that it is worth spending a little bit of time to see if Rob has had a chance to look at that and if not to make sure that we have an opportunity to talk about it after Rob has had a chance to look at that particular comment which is in the packet. Anybody have a direction they want to go in at this point? Yeah Kathy. Yeah, I'll wait to see but I like Lynn's suggestion. And I'd be happy to do kind of a draft for us to consider what we want to look at. I just wanted to put one other city on your list. And I totally of course agree. If we had apples to apples on places we would love to have them. But Burlington was the other place I looked at because in proportion to the city, their university isn't as big but it's a very dense rental and it's a high rent place. So I did like the idea. Lynn I think what I heard you say is that we set down some parameters we want to have looked at that we haven't already seen with some goals. So my starting point is can we cut it down to one and a half inspectors. You know, I just was thinking can we make this program smaller. And, and how would we do that so I went to the random sample method, and my random was how small a sample would we need to make that feasible and then, you know, so, and then I didn't have the variables to do And, and so, and, and Mandy I completely agree with splitting the registration fee from the inspection fee because ideally, the smaller ones would only see the inspection fee every five years, and it could be a, it could be a quicker. When we talk about re recertifying the permit it might be a quick second inspection to if you've got a clean property you're only, you're going to look at it quickly. So I did like thinking it through that way, Lynn, if the rest of the committee was willing to do it. And I'm willing to be, what do we call it an informal member of CRC at the point, they're specifically looking at this modeling because it's, it's what I like to do and I would And I wouldn't, I wouldn't even think we have to vote on it but just trying to think of the variables and what information. I'd be happy to do that. So I didn't know whether others like that idea or not, I did in fact like that idea rather than trying to capture information CRC may already have an already, I don't want to, I certainly don't want to have Rob Moore and his team generate for us things they've already generated for CRC where with small changes, we're in the same ballpark. In the past days, the Rob came in, spoke strongly about not wanting to exempt them and I wasn't sure why but we did get, I do see the other, the places that are already being inspected why not exempt, you know, I'm trying to make the number as small as possible is where I'm drilling down on and I see no reason to reinspect, have town inspector place that's been inspected I can understand if the whole building isn't being expected but just a few units or maybe you, you look at the rest of the building. I don't want to stop there but Lynn I like that, that suggestion a lot, and that would focus us just on what do we want to see. And if we reach agreement of that then we ship it back over to CRC. Once I hear from somebody that doesn't want to proceed with that, given the time crunch we're all starting to feel. I would like to take today's conversation. I've already started a page that I can put up on the screen, if Athena gives me permission, and we could rapidly agree on what those issues are. But again, for at least another two or three weeks, and that puts us in October and that puts CRC up, you know, in a bind as well. So, I think this today's conversation has captured a lot of what people have said just let's get it down on paper and that's what we do. So, if they know I need to. People are on post. Oh, I am. Yeah, you should be able to do that. Okay, then here you go. Finance committee has looked at the rental registration by proposed by CRC and would like CRC to consider to consider adjustments to the bylaw that would reduce the number of inspectors needed exclude or significantly reduce the inspections. Inspections of properties already that are already subject to inspections to required inspections. What else. Random sample. Larger buildings rather than every unit. And that's where I said, is this 20 units or more, you know, where's what's the threshold of quote larger. And it's pretty easy to look down the sheet and say, where would that be. I think 20 is probably not a bad number but 10 might be lower too. Have a lower renewal fee than initial fee and Mandy said that was already in there but make it explicit. I'm sorry give me that one again a lower have a lower renewal fee than initial registration fee. Okay. It seems built in. I guess, Mandy said the intention was already but fade. I could call it phase in over five years make it explicit that we're facing it in over five years. And I don't know where the wording is on. And I have to ask just on the current way it set up. Do I automatically get a five year. I'm not coming back because that's the way I'd like it, you know, to be so just it cleaned, then, then you, you know, unless something happens. It's, you're not inspected again for five years. And I had originally in my note said why not 10 years I wasn't sure where five came from but you know just trying to. Reduce the number inspectors needed. And I think, I think those are the main variables. I'm just looking at in their sheet. You know, the, the, there were the fees that are their variations lens or just as you're typing it's, you know, the, if I go into a big building, or a multi unit building. There's the, I go into the building, here's the inspection feed, then there's so much for each unit. And I don't know how those numbers were come up with but the last one I would I'd like this to be self financing. So maybe that's so I think they were looking at self financing. And I want to add to that and not revenue generating. And not revenue generating right. Bindi Joe, you've listened to our conversation. How would you, what would you add, what would you note. So I would love to hear the conversation on Kathy's suggestion of self financing. That was one of the areas that CRC got stuck on and wanted input from finance on whether the program should be fully self financing or whether the taxpayers as a whole should incur some of the costs of the program through property tax receipts. So I'd love to have finance, we'll do what finance recommends but that was one particular area where CRC, I will say CRC felt unequipped or ill equipped to have that conversation, not just because we weren't equipped but that's really sort of a finance thing. And also, it came up because, as you can see in the Excel spreadsheets fully self financing, put some numbers up there that we were in some sense fairly uncomfortable with in terms of the price, and the costs of the feet the fees themselves to get it up to self financing. And so that was one of the impetuses for coming to finance so I'd love that conversation. Some of the other bullet points in some sense are already written into the regulations and maybe not the bylaw, but it's fine for you to keep them there, because we can relook at some of them. So, let me follow up on what Mandy just said because there are a couple things that I was thinking about. Lynn, keeping typing but not in the bullet sort of going out to the left where you have the finance committee is look the very thing at the beginning. So, it's the new things that are not just that are a little bit different. One is that we might want to create because I'm going to this could actually be a very useful document as far as where we're going to go what issues we've identified and steps we want to take. I had a question earlier and I had posted to Holly and she really hasn't been able to get at it but it is to determine what is the cost and revenue supporting the current rental registration program. I'll tell you with a very specifically have on mind there without needing to put it down yet in any fashion but the, you know, we know that where was john Thompson salary being paid for was he getting where were there any inspection fees that were going into his salary what were his range of responsibilities for administering the program and if because I think what I'm really trying to get at is what general fund revenues have been going into the rental registration program, if any, and I know that Holly has just been really over the top busy and is trying to do, you know, one and a half jobs hers and half of Sean's job right now and she's, this is a difficult time, time of the year so it's, we have to be careful about what we ask of anyone, including Holly, but it would be very helpful to have that information. The other thing that we do need to talk about which is separate line, but is the amount of whether we should be getting some input from Paul regarding the money from the university through the strategic partnership agreement. But they're what that was one of the pieces that was included was just generally the subject of housing. And if a large part of what we're trying to do is make sure that houses being rented to students are safe and habitable, then using some of or all of that, what is $100,000 is justifiable. But that's just that that's a discussion that we need to have as a part of this. Yeah. Okay. Kathy over your hand up. Yeah, I have to go back and listen to the early the meeting when Sean was still with us at the end of August. But I believe he gave us the revenue side. Andy already. And I did a quick math so Holly said getting the revenue side is really easy so that it's just to make us we want the revenues that are coming in right now and then the tougher thing is what what kind of staffing has gone into either administering. The, it's not just john Thompson, Lynn it's also administering the, when you register that system so we have some pieces of that. So, so I did I did like what you added, Andy on the university but the pieces of the current costs are that computer system that captures it and Rob has a somehow there's a $50,000 legal fee a year for the permit system that we actually have a licensing fee or something for a permit system. So just making sure we were we're getting at the current costs of it that was the only piece Sean gave us a rent rent and I'll just go back and listen to the zoom one because he he had it, because I think he anticipated someone would ask it. So the amount of fees that we've been collecting, I think was what my rock election, but that specific reference loss. And, you know, the question then is, if that is not the cost that is involved with administering the program as it has been, which gets back to because I think it was really substantial. If it's not the entire portion of John's job, then was tax money going into it was general fund revenue going into it. So I understand that's why I asked for the revenue and all the costs and completely agree, Andy, you know, I just, you know, I think for everybody's sake is worth you and I just clarified that. And one other topic that I want to bring up but it's really under. It's a different one size trying to stay with this grouping first. See if there's anything else and then I because otherwise I'm going to. I'll just go ahead and say what it is. I had a separate contact from one property owner. And that property owner was concerned about whether adding substantial costs to administer to running a property would affect what's known as net operating income. The reason that that's important is that in this gets into the question of whether we need to also consult Kim you who's our assessor is that when rental properties being assessed that they're actually alternative methods. We can use for determining what the rent is and one of them is to look at what the net operating income is as a is one of the factors in an assessment and the argument that was basically being made is that if the rental operating costs go up and the net operating income is affected, it could affect the assessed value of those properties. If it did and it decreased than that. The assessed value of those properties. It would actually cause taxation on residential homes. It would go up because that's how that's how the property tax system works. So, we really would need to bring the assessor and to ask if that's a real issue. I think I got it. Yeah, and I can. Please read it. And that's actually what I heard is rental properties might be assessed differently than the end actually I think they are there assessed based on their income. And then the question is, does that lead to a net operating income reduction, which would lead to a decrease in assessment. And therefore, owner occupied homes would be have to be a set would bear the burden. I mean, this also the one that also comes into mind for me in this same category is, is this going to increase rents. That's just a straightforward. Yeah, and I think that's that is one that I thought about too. I would just put on that. Yeah. That question. It's always, I always struggle with it because truly that is at any point raising the rent is the prerogative of the land. Right. And so this is one factor that might do it. And I think that it's, it's hard to control. It's not something that we had to ask this question when we voted for the debt exclusion. Right. Like this is something that is a constant. Well, it's a really, really valid point. We need to make sure we have programs that are available for folks who need rental assistance. And that is where we should be focusing the energy, because we cannot control whether landlords are going to raise their prices or not. Well, we have really, really great landlords in this town. We also know that this is, I mean, I'm back on my capitalism. So box y'all, but I think ultimately landlords are going to do what they need for to make the profit margin that they need to make if that's their intention. And so I really struggle with that being it should be a consideration. But ultimately, I don't see how we can control for that. I agree with that. We need to do all the other stuff. You know, so, so I don't think that that's ever going to get the answer that we want it to get. And I think whatever answer we give it is totally completely hypothetical. And, and, and it shouldn't be. It's hypothetical in both it, it might not happen. You know, on it just on yours years ago it was that the minimum wage goes up prices go up and the answer was not necessarily. In fact, we had to do 10 year retrospective to say no it didn't happen. So I do have just Lynn on that first part. I think it's written on the rental but what are the issues here is if the net operating income of the property is lower, our tax revenues are lower. You know, so it's, you know, unless it goes up someplace else. But I think that's written clearly enough but if, if yes or needs it needs it to be explained we can explain what we mean by that. Yeah, let me just explain it real quickly. Because I think we Lynn had it right. We increase the amount that we are going to tax each year by 2 and a half percent plus new growth. That determines how much we're going to tax which is the town revenue from taxation. How that gets distributed, then depends upon assessments. And that's where the assessor piece comes in. And so if residential property values fall for any reason. Then the burden falls on homeowners because that's where it goes up. Yep, so given the reality is that in going back to CRC, it's really the top set of bullets that we would like them to consider. In order to consider it, they may need to look at the second set of bullets. But the reality is the third set is not necessarily a CRC issue or even frankly a finance committee issue. That's my assessment but Mandy Joe has her hand up. So I would say the second set of bullet points under revenue is where CRC needs guidance from finance because I think it's finances role to recommend at least on bullet point number two, right. You know, hear from the manager what his plans for that are and recommend then whether that should go forward or not for this program and if so how much because then CRC can take that number. What CRC really kind of needs is to figure out what number are we aiming for revenue wise and that that second set of bullet points goes to that. I think it's a, it's within finances purview to make that recommendation not within CRC CRC can come up with a fee schedule recommendation once we know what revenue we're aiming for. One other question Mandy I had a view is, did you do any inquiry with the international town gang association as far as whether they have any resources developed in this area to help communities with this sort of setting up this sort of program. No, not specifically the ITGA has recently had a number of webinars about things towns can municipalities ways to address college demands on on college towns and I know many of our committee members were watching all of them so indirectly, but not directly. Interesting Kathy. Yeah, Mandy just on a, you know, I think our first bullets are clear but I was, Lynn, if you don't mind, I'd like to see if we can. Can we come up with a way of doing the reduce the number of inspections needed is reducing the number of inspections those go together but I was going to see can we can we get down to 1.5, you know I was going to try to get it from three down to 1.5 what would it take to do that. And the answer may be impossible, but instead of tripling the staff for this going up. That was the 1.1 and 1.5 one in a half a person would be really a miracle. And then, you know the, it's the combined costs on the non problem. So it's that interaction between the, they pay their premium registration and they pay their one time. Hopefully one time inspection fee every five years, you know, trying just playing with that right now I think it's is it 150 Mandy right now that when we went up on the registration fee. I think I'm just, I think we're 150 for owner occupied and 250 for non owner occupied right now. So if we go down on the registration fee because we're including a separate inspection fee trying to see how much we can keep that fairly neutral. Is that a bullet that people are willing to do, you know for the, for the owner occupied so if they're 150 now the combination trying to not make it any more than 150 between the what they pay for registration what they pay for was just a trying to as a potential. I was looking at figure out which bullet you want me to go to or is this a new bullet. So another bullet Kim, is there a way for the owner occupied, keeping the combination of the registration fee and inspection fee to be no more than what they're paying now. And I think perhaps it happens as long as they only have to do the inspection fee once every five years. It's basically trying to make it neutral for for for now, compared to current will not pay any more than current. You know, it would be helpful to know to get input from landlords as to if you're looking at that combination and the way you just stated it would they prefer an even amount per year or do they think it's better to have a lower registration feature and then the once every five year. And that's where I asked, you know, could the reinspection for an otherwise clean, what's the right code compliant property is probably less intensive, you know, is there a different. Is there a different rate for a reinspection of a good of a good property. I don't have a problem free property. Yeah, and then any staff who are in the call of they want to offer any comments they should just raise their hand so we know. We haven't had any of our staff participating in the discussion which is okay we did not asking questions but offering the opportunity. So, if what I would suggest that we do if there's no further comments is in Lynn, thank you for doing this. Holly's here is raised your hand so Holly I get you in a second is to take this document and give it some kind of formal status and also make sure that it's available. For Athena, make sure that it isn't might make the minutes function better easier for her. Holly. Hi. So I just wanted to just briefly explain with the, with the, the costs and the revenues of the current program, the revenues are going to be pretty easy to find because there is a dedicated line to the rental registration. fees that we collect each year but as I briefly explained before I will have to work with Rob more on the cost because the costs are just embedded within the inspections department there's not necessarily, you know, a separate line. You know, we do have estimates for everybody's pay but it's going to be more than just the inspector it's going to be the administrative people it's going to be Rob's time it's going to be portions of people's time so we're going to have to come up with a, with a, you know, good faith estimate on what those costs are. There's going to be technology costs, office supply costs, other costs where if this was to be a separate program we would need to make sure that all of that was charged appropriately and captured so I can work with Rob to get the estimates on costs. The estimates on revenue will be will be pretty simple and I can pull those numbers together for you folks as well. Thank you. So anybody else want to raise anything today about the rental registration discussion. Because we do have a couple other items to address. I think we should just agree that, I mean, maybe we make a motion that we are officially sending this back to CRC. My question before I do that is, do we want CRC to come back to us. I'll just without way to my hand I'll just say yes. I mean I'd like to see how far we can get on this because I think that because the couldn't without getting into the text. Since we weren't asked to look at the text. I'm trying to target this program and make it get at the problem houses has always been my concern so trying to see how close we can get to that Lynn matters I think for us to say you know if we can't finance it without putting a huge burden on those rental accounts out there. I'm not sure there's an appetite to taking part of a share of our operating costs are operating budget so it's these are, these are interactive issues for what else we're facing when we're looking at guidelines and where our spending priorities are. Okay, so our, so the motion is the following. The finance committee is asking, I recommend is asking that CRC look at the rental registration bylaw as proposed and consider the following as contained in this memo and I can make it into a memo and report back to the finance committee. What's reasonable. The 19th is pro CRC can probably have it done by its meeting on the 19th of October. Okay, so let's just say and and communicate this back to the finance committee. By the end of October, by October 30 or 31, I guess it is 2023. The motion is made and seconded. Excuse me. The motion has been made and seconded. Do we need a restatement of the motion to make sure that we have it right here. I didn't hear that. You don't need to restate it. I'll use the video to make sure I capture every word. Thank you. And just second, let me. I mean, it was probably my throat to the same time, unfortunately. See if we can get a. So the members of the committee that are present, I'd only have to just go through second. All right, so why don't we go ahead and take a vote and start with Lynn. Hi. And I'm Andy. I said hi. I'm sorry I didn't hear you. Thank you, Kathy. Go through. Yes. Yes. It will know that Alicia is absent. And that at this point. We have no member resident members to fall. The motion carries. With four votes. You think. So it's four to zero. No input from resident members. Let me see if I can get back to the. With that said, is there anything else that we need to talk about today on rental. Registration, I think that we have. And then really covered it. So I can't think of anything. Then I'm going to stop sharing. Okay. And I think that we'll then turn on to. Next topic, which was to see if there's any comments that people want to offer. To the draft of the. Committee report. It was regarding the September 8th. Conversation this in vote regarding. Council compensation. Funding for council compensation. I'm hoping everybody got a chance to look at it. All right. I will leave it at that. I'm not going to. I don't think we ended up putting the document into the packet. Did you put together regarding. The future plan scheduling plans for the committee. I think it is in there. I think I did put it in there. But then you should have it in word as well. I do. I don't want to bring it up so we can look at meeting dates because there is one. There's two dates that were uneither or. Let me just. We find it. That's not it. Here we go. Finance. Okay. I'm ready to bring it up. Okay. Okay. By doing what we just did this freeze up this one. I had put in rental registration fees for the, the next few just because I didn't know how long the committee was going to take to get through it. So you'll see that. And then the 20th. And 27th was. In my mind and either or unless the committee wanted to consider doing both. What do you think, Andy? Kathy has her hand up. I don't know if I have it. I don't know if I have it. But I think we should. I think we should. Put it back to is the street light. That's what that was my hand. Yeah. And. We should. Should we also try to look at the. Surplus prop real property just. Yes. Yeah. Dave's on. I said that he would have. For the second finance committee meeting in October. And then. Please let me know which meeting you'd like to take that up so that I can ask him to be ready. So the real question is. But you're really asking is, are we going to meet on the 20th? And the 27th. And or. Yep. Kathy has her hand up. Kathy. Hearing Mandy say that they. We're meeting on the 19th. I would prefer it off October. I would prefer. Meeting on the 27th to make sure. There's enough time between now and then. Since I'm saying. That's when Reynolds. And. And then I have a. Yeah. So I would of those two. I would prefer that one mainly to give us enough time to give them time to work. And then my question on street lights. Andy is. We shouldn't look. I don't think we should be looking at street lights again. Until it comes out of TSO. Because my understanding is there were substantial revisions in it. Or potentially substantial revisions. And that would. Effect the financing question. Questions. So that should be dependent on. TSO finishing. So. That's why my hand was up and just those, those two issues. The referral. The referral to. TSO was with input from finance. So it. It might be wise the. TSO's committee is going not going to look at. They didn't look at street lights this week, but they will the week after actually honest here, she can speak to this. And so I think it would be. It would make the most sense for finance to give TSO input before TSO makes their final recommendation. But. Let me just say. I mean, Anna can talk about it, but my understanding is that a lot of. That there was a meeting to look at some of the safety standards. And so that the proposal may be more expensive than what we saw the first time around. And our comments. Yeah. So. So, so, so looking at what we initially got. Would not, would not be a good use of our time. If it's going to. Right. That's why I'm suggesting that finance look at it after TSO has had their next meeting to talk about it. And then give feedback. After that, so that TSO can make a recommendation with finance and. And. TSO have their next meeting where they look at street lights. It's going to be. Sorry. One second. The 28th. Of. September. This month. Yeah. Okay. So we could do that on the 13th. Okay. So here's my suggestion is let's. Continue assuming we're going to meet on the. 13th and the 27th and mark the 20th as tentative. And we'll decide on the 16th whether we need to actually meet. Decide at the council meeting or at the, on the 13th at the finance committee meeting. It's committee meeting. Thank you. This committee schedule are on meetings. Is that agreeable to the rest of the committee members present that we. That's fine with me. Cause we can always drop it. We're going to have a. Large burden at the end of the year when we're trying to get the guidelines done. And then, and then my question is now too. And if we're meeting on the 27th of October, I think, I believe the third of November is the following week. So my question is, do we need that meeting? And it's just a question mark Andy right now because. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. Surplus as I understand what's coming to us on surplus deposition, it's not going to have some of the things that I would like to set up in motion. It's just a revision of the old one. So. I'm not. I'm seeing whether we could combine what you have for the third of November and the 9th of November and have just one meeting there. I have a. There's no meeting on the 9th. Oh, there's no meeting on the 9th. So the next one would be the 13th. Okay. It's just a week. The next one would be the 17th. I got it. Okay. But it would be two Fridays in a row if we meet on the 27th and then on the third. It's just, we have a school building committee meeting in the morning of the third, but it's all right. It's, I won't be brain dead. I can do it. Yeah. You know, we probably won't get free cash certification and be able to address the questions about supplemental appropriations. 17th with strike me as the earliest possible date of the meeting dates. Yes. The 13th. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that the council meeting on the 13th. We are slating that to be really very much financial. And not have any referrals. So you're right. The 7th, November 17th is when we would wrestle with that. Well, theoretically, if you got pre cash certified earlier, you could take it out. You could take up the supplemental appropriations earlier in the year. That's the three cash distribution questions. Yeah, but we aren't going to. Have free cash on the council budget on the council meeting until the 13th. It's not a council question. It's a committee question. Certification. Is the first discussion of sort of, of what to do with free cash comes into the finance committee and done to the council. Okay. So you want us on 11 three. Or 10 27. To discuss. I would say on 11 three. We could put. That's a tentative though. Yeah, I know. But it won't be tentative if we haven't. If free cash is certified. Sort of extra bullet right there. Yes. Yeah, you can just leave it at that. If available or something like that. Because we don't know when free cash will be certified. That's always what the question is. So free cash is certified prior to that date. We could start the, we could have the discussion. And if it's not. That might be immediately reason not to meet that day at all. Yeah. That's just the easy way to handle it. Yeah. Yeah. I have a. I think that's fine, but in this context, I remember what the discussion was like last time and we didn't probably spend as long on the free clash as we might have, but one of the places we distributed to. Was a specific use for the regional fields. And is there a deadline on that? You know, if it's not used by a certain amount, does it come back to us? So it is purely a question, Andy. We'd have to research that one. It's just purely a question of it was a big enough amount of money. You know, CPA has a. It's not quite a user to lose it or use it. Or tell us how you're going to use it within a certain time period when, when they make an allocation. I think in CPA is three years. Right. So CPA is going to be in a similar situation on, is the intent to use it or not. So that was my question that it might be useful to have an answer to Andy. I think that given what the school committee is going through right now. I'm not putting it back on their plate. I just, I just want an internal answer to it because I'm thinking that it's money that's budgeted, but unspent in. Two big buckets. And so I think what we need to do is just ask Athena to research our motion. Yep. For the frequency of transfers of free cash. Yes, particularly specifically the one regarding the athletic fields. I have a question Holly, I'm glad you're still here because it sounds like the committee is considering taking up those. Transfers from free cash to the different stabilization trends and for athletic fields. On November 3rd, which means that they would come to the council. They would need to come to the council on. The last meeting in October. We usually have an initial discussion and they go to finance, then we have our public forum on the appropriations before the council votes. Is that feasible? Yeah, I don't think that that's what we have scheduled on our end. That's not what we had scheduled. That's what we had, what I had plugged into the dates on the finance committee meeting calendar was what we had talked about. In our internal meetings. Yeah. So I guess I'm a little bit confused or. Are you asking about when does free cash go away or when does. Well, I think the creation that is unspent go away. I think that we got the uncertainty that always exists. And I don't know if you have any guidance on this. Whatever. And certainly not holding it to it, but do we have an idea of when free cash might be certified. And because there's things that trigger after that. But. And right now I don't. Yeah, so what we've been saying, Andy, is we just don't know. It's going to take longer this year. We know for a fact. And we tried to put a calendar together working with Athena on. What we thought were reasonable targets for the staff to hit. And it sounds like what finance committee is trying to accelerate that. And I don't know we can meet that. No, I don't want to accelerate it. That's that's why it said if certified. But if it's impossible to have it happen, then we might as well not even consider it right there. The other thing I think we're debating is whether it comes to automatically to finance before it goes to the council. Or is it presented to the council and then referred to the finance committee? What are we, what is that? We're talking about the transfers of free cash into stabilization funds or spending a free cash. And those have, those have in the past come to council for a discussion and they go to finance committee. And finance committee has a recommendation on. Usually at the time of the public here, we have a public forum. And we do the forum and the council vote on the same evening. So let me just observe that if we're going to have any extra council meetings. I mean, finance committee meetings, it may be between the 13th and the 20th. So I mean, my hope is that it will be done by the beginning of November, but I can just not make any guarantees at this point in time. Right. And it's a problem. And this just is a, it's just a quirk. Okay. Because of holidays and stuff like that. We meet on October 16th. And then we don't, as a council meet again until the 13th. We originally were going to meet on the sixth and then. Whether it was wise or not, I suggested be not. And my problem quite frankly is, is that once we get to the 13th and we've had the financial indicators beating them, the pressures on the finance committee to. Start working on the guidelines. And I think the guidelines discussion is going to be different. It's not going to be easy this year. It's never easy, but it's not going to be easy this year either. And as a consequence, I don't want to short change our time. To work on the guidelines. So I was just trying to see if there was major things so we could push before November 13th for that very reason. And so. Certified by the third. Then we'd certainly like to start. We'd like to deal with it then. But if that pre cash isn't certified, then we'll have to just. Find another way. This might be an odd question suggestion, but could you start working on the guidelines sooner? I mean, without. The details. I mean, there's a lot of policy things in the guidelines. It's an extensive document, but. Does it make sense to start talking about those things that you know, you're going to put into the guidelines and start to review those before you start to get into the substance of the matter. I mean. The reality is the numbers are going to be similar to last year. They always are. That's one option. Let me just suggest another one. And that is we break our custom. And that on 10, 16. The council. Have a motion. That. Refers as soon as available. And then we can. The certified free cash. And the proposed spending of that to the finance committee. So that the finance committee might in fact. Be able to. Discuss that on November 3rd. And bring it back to the council. On the 13th. It does. It's doing everything a little bit backwards. I think that's an option. If the council can do that, the council can do whatever it wants. If you want to refer something that, you know, upon the certification of free cash. It gets referred, you know, that's, that's, that's doable. I think you could also have a, you know, read last year's finance. Financial guidelines that one of your October meetings. To get people primed on that instead of waiting for a. The first draft to come through. We actually have a initial discussion at the council. For the financial guidelines. Okay. I'm sorry. It's not, it's for the town manager's goals. But they're. In. In. Extrubly linked. So. We have, we have a couple of if needed meetings on financial guidelines for finance committee in between the 1st and 2nd discussion at council. I'm a little bit uncomfortable with. The. The, it, what feels like pressure on our finance staff to get those free cash. Appropriations in. So quickly, which is ahead of the schedule that we had planned for when. Our finance staff are, are really. Doing so many jobs. So. I, I. I don't know what you're suggesting, Lynn, but. I think consideration of our staff who are. Who are really working hard to get everything done. I think that. Might feel very uncomfortable. I don't think that's what was tended and I would. Yeah. I hope that it wasn't what we're, what we were merely saying is. When free cash is certified. And we find a way to get. The finance committee working on it as quickly as possible. We absolutely don't want to put any pressure on. The staff to get free cash certified any faster. To satisfy the committee. We just so it's. That's not what was intended. So, so why not if, if it does get certified, you can add it to the agenda at the time versus, I mean, if it does get certified. If it does get certified. Right now it looks like a target. So. The only thing we need to make sure is that there is a motion. Here. That allows us to look at it before the next council meeting. And it can be a simple motion. If. I don't know what that buys you, Lynn. I mean, if the vote is scheduled for November 13th. Right. The referral motion. Yeah. I don't know. I think that we have the opportunity. To look at it before the council discusses it. Andy, I'm going to suggest another option here. And that is that we may have to have two finance committee meetings in one week. During the week of November. 13th. I think we've gone as far as we can go right now. I'm not sure we're going to solve this. I agree. We leave it as a discussed item without. That final resolution. Do you want me to leave this initial discussion if certified up here. Or not. You can leave it there because we. If it's not certified, it's meaningless item. Okay. Got it. Hey there. Just quickly so we can finish up. I did review the minutes of. That are listed on the agenda for today of April 18, May. Fifth. And May 9th of 2023. I have versions of those minutes which have. Corrections. It's in word format with the. Better available. They were just done over the last couple of days. None of the. Corrections that I have made the amendments that I've. Inserted are significant. They are all. Sort of. Word one word changes. Corrections on. How things were designated. But not substantive. So. It's up to the committee, whether you want to go ahead and approve minutes as amended, or if you want me to. I can send you the track version and you can look at the changes themselves. Okay. I'm going to go ahead and make the motion. Okay. Well, then I would move to. Adopt minutes for April 18, 2023. May 5th, 2023 and May 9th, 2023. As amended. By the chair. Second. It is motion mid second. Any further discussion. Kathy. Yes. Yes. Anna. And yes, so that's done. And. I don't think we have any unanticipated business. So. Andy, I have just a quick suggestion on minutes when the draft. A super draft is available. Can you put it in the packet so we can all. So maybe the drafts aren't just, I looked, we've kind of. We're slow on minutes. But I don't mind seeing a rough draft. In the packet. I like what you're doing. I'm just saying that if there are drafts, go ahead and. So everything's been posted where there's a draft. So we're. Cause I didn't see July and August yet. So it's just, we're behind on. The ones that are listed for approval. Nothing's listed for approval on minutes that hasn't been provided in the packet. Committee. Okay. I'm. I like what you're doing. I'm just saying that if there are drafts, go ahead and post them. So they are, but they, it is in the packet. Oh, so everything's been posted where there's a draft. So we're. Cause I didn't see July and August yet. Okay. I'm. So if there's a draft, it's not listed for approval yet, because it hasn't, something hasn't happened or there isn't even a draft. Kathy, I think I put a bunch of drafts in an earlier finance committee folder. I can go back and check. Okay. And then, and then Andy and I had talked about just doing a few at a time. So there weren't quite so many for the committee to be looking at every single meeting. So we're trying to slowly catch up. That's the idea here. But I think if you go back. And look at a couple of meetings ago, there were maybe seven different drafts in there. So. You're answering my question, Athena. I can, I can go look at it. Cause a couple of times I just want to go to them rather than go to Zoom. That's perfect. I can do that. No problem. And if you're looking for a draft that, that you can't find online, just let me know. And I'll get you whatever draft I have. Thanks. I didn't mean to take up any time on this, but thanks. Okay. So I don't think that there's any other business for today. And therefore we're adjourned. Thanks. Thank you.