Great. Hello everyone. I think we're going to start our meeting by um reading the preamble. Um I think you know we have everyone here. Uh pursuant to Governor's Baker's March 2020 order suspending
certain provisions of the open meeting law. Um, and pursuant to chapter 20 of the act of 2021 and extended by chapter 22 of the acts of 2022 and extended again by the state
legislature on July 14, 2022 and sign into law on July 16, 2022 extended again by chapter two of the acts of 2023 and extended by chapter two of the acts of the
of the acts of 2025 through June 30th, 2027. This public hearing and meeting of the town um C DBZ is being um conducted via remote participation. Members of the public who
wish to access the meeting may do so via Zoom or by phone. No inperson attendance of members of the public will be permitted, but every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings in real time via
technological means. And a hyperlink to the hearing will be posted on the town's online calendar. >> And then you just want to take roll call and then you'll be able to start. >> Okay. So, um, let's see. I'm not seeing everyone on
the screen here, but, um, if everyone can, um, you know, can, um, we have Nate here. Nate? >> Yes, I'm here. I can hear her. >> Perfect. Great. We have Suzanne. >> Yeah, here.
>> Perfect. We have Maya. >> H, sorry. Yes, I'm here. >> Yes. And we have Muriel with us. And we've got a question from the audience. Uh do you want to take questions before discussion or do you
want to do this discussion first? >> Uh I guess we can take the question and then we can do we can have our discussion. >> Okay. Uh Rosanna, I've uh let you should be able to speak. You
might have to unmute yourself. Um hi. Um I am Rosanna Salasal and I am coming from the Ammer market and
good evening and thank you again for the opportunity to speak uh as chair uh in our previous public meeting. The Ammers model market uh was created in response to documented gaps in food access in our
community. Tonight we respectfully request support through the community development blog grant. Um I want to begin uh to begin with the words of a snap participant who shop at our market
and um I use a SNAP to feed my family every month. Every month I have to decide what we can afford. When uh when money runs tight, fruits and vegetables are usually the
first thing I remove from my cart. But when the market, the mobile market h market comes to my neighborhood, I can buy fresh produce at prices I can actually afford. Can I can I can I
interrupt and ask our chair um whether this is a question or what the agenda is today? What are we planning to do? This sounds like a repeat of last time. >> Um I'm having the same thoughts here. You know, are you um um are you planning on
asking us a question or are you reading a statement? >> Um yeah. No, I don't have a question. is only that I have um I um I
wanted to say that what what um decisions people is taking when they they are coming to the mobile market. So is is to give more information about why uh we can be considerate for this grant.
That's it. >> This is great. Thank you. Thank you so much. You know um um this is definitely you know we will add this to the comments you know of our previous meeting. You know it falls under the same preview. >> Okay. Thanks. Thank you.
Right. So I'm not are we seeing any more questions? I'm not seeing anything here, you know, or any hands that are raised. >> I don't see any. Um you can have another public comment um option later after you've done some discussion as well.
>> Um you know if everyone is okay, I would like to proceed with our discussion so we have a sense of which way you know we want to move. Yeah, okay. >> I think that's a good idea. I think because we we did hear the comments last time and I think we were ready to just
we have our rankings in we should probably just discuss that. >> Correct. And I think the reason that we've extended it was, you know, we wanted to rate one more, you know, so have the better, you know, the u the overall picture. Um does anyone have a preference? Do they want to, you know, start this discussion by making any
statements? or you know, have they decided or can they, you know, are they bringing any any ideas to the table? I mean, I guess something that like comes to mind for me, not necessarily as like a decision, but more so as like a
guiding, I don't know, like thought or um like I don't know, a point of like confliction for me, I guess, is like should we prioritize the things that are like are most emerging and the uh I
guess like groups that are kind of like serving the uh I don't know people in our community who like have the most emergent needs and who need the most help immediately. Um or do we want to like kind of like invest in products that are more long-term and that are
providing like additional services like outside of the like lens of like okay these are things that are super like essential and necessary. something like the Ammer Survival Center, which I feel like is more so and even like Craig stores, which are
serving, you know, people who are on like the most margins of society. Um, is that kind of like where our minds should be at or where our minds are at in terms of like what we want to most fund or is it more so we want to think like in like
kind of like a nuanced fashion of like okay well yes there is emergent need in certain groups but also like there's other things that are worth investing in in spite of them not being as emergent. Um so yeah I don't know that's that's what's on my mind.
Can I just add a thing too? >> Yeah. >> I think you've got two decisions to make tonight. Um, one is you can only fund up to five organizations. So, and we have, I think, 10. Um, so one decision is which organizations are
going to receive funding at all. And then the second decision is how much funding goes to the organizations that get chosen. It doesn't have to be the amount they asked for. Um, and it doesn't have to be evenly spread, but it it does have to use up the whole amount
obviously and uh make some sense given their budgets. So, I don't know if it makes sense to kind of start with eliminating some of the organization's proposals and then discussing budgeting or or trying to do
>> Can we can we do the um capital proposal first and just kind of eliminate that decision or do we have to officially vote on that? >> You do have to vote on that. You can go ahead and vote on it now if you'd rather just get it out of the way. Yeah. >> And may I ask a question for the capital
project? you know, we have to find we only have one, you know, so it's not necessarily, you know, a hard decision this time, but do we have to fund the entire amount? And if we don't, um, are the funds, you know, staying with the city or this could be a very obvious questions, you know, this is just, you
know, >> if we don't use all of the funds, they'll just go back to the state. We can't use them >> for a different type of project or anything like that. Have to use for capital projects. >> Okay, great. Thank you for thank you for clarifying this.
>> Y >> I I do agree with Suzanne. I think you know we need to take care of this you know technicality and then we can move you know the next level of decisions that we have to make. >> Yeah I mean that'll be a little bit more difficult discussion unfortunately.
>> So true. So true. I'm I'm a bit conflicted you know and I um have a couple of thoughts but we can get there. Um I I really you know I um you know it's not a
competition this year you know and this is a project that we have traditionally funded and there is a part of me that wants to see this to continue and see the full extent of this and um you know we should be you know we should be uh
funding it. That would be my vote. Does someone want to make a motion? >> Sure. I I move that for the capital proposal, we fund the town of Ammerst at $568,750 for the North Pleasant phase 3 project.
>> I'll second that. >> All call, right? >> You do a roll call. Yeah. >> Yes. Um, do I say all in favor or you know do >> you want you want to call each person's name? >> So we did Nate. Um, okay. Maya.
>> Yes. Oh, also my name it's like my yen like civilization. >> No worries though. >> Thank you. Um, my apologies. I I will try. Um, are you in favor? Are you voting yes or?
>> Yes, I am. I am voting yes. >> Great. and Miro. >> Yes. >> It's great. So I think >> I vote yes. >> Yep. And Nate I >> Suzanne. Suzanne. Yes.
>> Suzanne. Yes. A second. Okay. I think all in favor. >> Y. That was the easy part. >> That's right. This year. Yes. >> Um and can you remind us what is the amount? you know that we are funding the
five agencies so we can all be on the same page. >> Don't actually have it directly in front of me but I think it was 175. >> Yeah. I I it was a ballpark that I had in my mind you know and I didn't have it perfect. So, I can pull up the I don't know if
you all have it in front of you, but I can pull up the rankings if you want or read them out if you want that to be something that the public also gets to see or you can just take a look at your emails. >> Did it Did it change at all, Walker? I know you said you got something later.
Did that change? >> Um, I Nothing's changed since I sent it out. >> Okay. So, the top sixish are the same. >> Yep. >> Okay. Thank you. So just um looking at the top five.
>> Yeah. >> Um so that would include Survival Center, Family Outreach. >> Yeah. >> Hmer Mole Market, Center for New Americans, and Big Brothers, Big Sisters.
>> Yes. And so just thinking about Mayan's question or yeah kind of on the approach um it seems like there is um kind of a balance here.
>> Yeah. that you know I would say things like survival center it's the you know food pantry and mobile market which is also about food right very important immediate um things family outreach is about
housing keeping people housed preventing evictions things like that whereas the center for new Americans is a little more long well it's what short and long term so it's people who need immediate help getting educated getting
the jobs, getting assimilated into American life and local community, but then also the longer term impact of that. And Big Brothers, Big Sisters also in some ways very immediate because kids, you know, need the support right
now. Um, but it's a much more longer term benefit I think that that we hope to see there. So, um, yeah, kind of a a balance, I guess. and and it feels to me that we are covering a spectrum here you know yes we
do have a couple you know of food related you know services that are offering but that is a true need and I you know and I think you know that's reflected in a lot of the proposals that we are getting but I think the top five that we have at this point are covering
you know a wide spectrum and also you know if my memory is correct you know for reviewing them is that they're also touching a great number you know of um our residents here um in Ammerst. >> Yeah, I agree.
I was just adding up from those five that total requests would be 28,966 and we have $175. So we'd have to cut from a combination or some almost 34,000.
So, we could do that proportionally or we could I I know we've done it a couple different ways in the past how we have kind of figured out funding strategies, but I was just thinking that is one way to do it. If we
cut everybody kind of we could um we don't have to, but we could cut everybody. It would be 6793 each. would deduct from their requests, but some requests are much larger than than others.
Um, so I don't know if that's even a fair way to look at it. >> Is it possible to deduct the same percentage from each like percentage of the total and have it like even out to around that 34,000 difference? >> A more fair way to do it. Yeah.
>> Be before we get there, just this is a kind of a question. I'm not sure that I have any particular objection, but um those are the top five that I think we've all coalesed around, but that doesn't necessarily mean that we've all had that in our top five. I guess I'm
curious if anyone has any of the ones outside the top five that they would want to advocate for that that really think they should be included in the five that get funding. >> That's a good question. Those were my
top five. Anyone else? I think I have traditionally advocated for the literacy project because I feel that there is a component you know but I also feel that um in the grand scheme of thing and you know the federal changing
you know the the federal landscape changing landscape at this point you know the need is really you know immediate in some of the other um programs um and Um,
I can't quite, you know, make um a very, you know, adequate argument yet. I will one year, you know, I will. >> Yeah. I I mean, I think that's a great project. Um, and not a huge request. Um, it's just that they're only helping eight Ammeris residents.
>> Correct. that and that's where you know I always stop you know I you know because in in reality you know every proposal that we get really you know >> oh hard >> ties it really well you know to you know to what you know to the areas you know
that to all the social services all the social service needs you know that we want to cover >> but it is the smaller p percentage of client of of of families and individuals that we will be helping >> right that's
So um I guess the decision anyone else you know has any comments you know that do they want to bring forth you know um another organization that is not in the top
five. I mean I noticed that Craig Stores was six. Um, so I was just wondering if anyone had like any thoughts on it. I'm good with the five that we have right now. Like I would say that I agree, but I will say that I think that like if
there was anything that kind of like is on the edge for me, I would say it's that >> I agree. I also had it like pretty high up, but they are requesting the same amount of money as um the Ammer Survival Center, which was I think was 3,000 versus like 800. So
there is like a a bit of differential with the people. >> I I think what was like what comes up for me is like obviously I don't think that like the net benefit directly equates to like how many people are helped in each case. Um but I do think
that like Craig Stores was serving like like 700 something like that. Um uh and I think that like in comparison to um I think like for example like the center for new Americans which is serving I I want to say like around 85
to like 100. Um but again I don't know I I like that we have a a balance right now of of different types of projects. I think that like as far as literacy projects go, I really liked the Center for New Americans and I think that like it had like the highest contingency of
like Ammerst residents it was helping um of like the kind of like literacy related projects. Um, so I don't know. But yeah. >> Yeah. I mean I'm I'm comfortable with the top five that we had identified.
>> I am comfortable as well you know and I am leaning towards you know looking at percentages you know like if we can take an you know percentage you know out of its um we can determine when we get my calculator. >> Yeah. So it's about about 84%
>> um each the um yeah so it would be for example survival center would be at 60,268 family outreach at 41872 mobile market at 25123.
Center for New Americans at 16749. Big Brothers Big Sisters at 39.85 >> and that adds up to 175, >> right? >> Yeah. the the thing that that um I mean it's all I think we it's >> hard we had different approaches in
different years and yeah >> so the one thing that um >> I guess we can consider and I don't have the numbers right in front of me I don't know if um >> Walker has those but but some of the continuing things so for example we've
funded the survival center for uh the food pantry >> for many years and the need is only going up. So, I'm >> okay. >> I'm kind of want to ask the question, okay,
well, what were we funding last time and can we avoid dropping it too much? >> Yeah, because that would be a pretty big drop. Last year we recommended 78,256 for the survival center and they asked
for less. They their proposal was 71966 but we funded 78 256. So if we did do >> if we did the percentage it's a tremendous drop and a very different course you know from the previous you
know years. Um it is a dramatic you know difference and you know you're absolutely right versus if we take the 6,700 you know off of its organization this will
yes it will not be sata I think maybe what we did previously too and that you might remember is did we give points so first ranking ing second ranking
and then proportionally fund that way because I'm just thinking last year we we funded Ammerst mobile market at $9,175. They asked for quite a bit more than that.
Um >> they had asked for quite a bit more than that last year too. >> Correct. Right. That's what Yeah. Last year they asked for for almost 49,000. >> This year they asked for 30. >> Yeah. Sorry. Suzanne, do you have the
numbers for like like last year the family outreach? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So last year Ammer survival 78256 big brothers we recommended $30,13. Family Outreach
37,483 >> Center for New Americans $15,73 >> and Ammeris Mobile Market 9,175. And those were our five last year that we full recommended. >> Correct. >> Yeah. Um,
and it must have been >> actually that comes out to 170,000 >> we had less last year I think. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Right. >> Yeah. Um, yeah. I wish I had my notes from how we
came up the numbers last year. the points I don't remember but I but I remember um not funding um the full amounts and um but coming closer to you know to what
they had you know but indeed if we take the percentage up roads it does drop down you know with the exception of the big brothers you know who stays pretty much consistent I also feel you that the uh mobile um market, you know, um
gets more this year, you know, with the percentage approach than, you know, than last year. Um, yeah. So, like Ammer Survival, I think we funded like 94% of their request, but
we obviously didn't do that for and they were ranked first last year. Um, so it was a proportionate proportional rating I guess.
Yeah, I'm just looking at so just kind of at different um uh points here. But but um if we use the same percentages as last year but using um
175,000 then that would for survival center they're asking for 71966 but >> 46% was what we gave them last year. If we gave them 46% this year, it would be well over their ask.
So, that methodology doesn't really work. Oh, if we gave them 46 of the 175. >> Oh, I see. I see. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Oh, yeah. That wouldn't really Yeah. >> Okay.
It's a bit tougher this year. >> I think redoing the same percentages as last year would give the same groups the same short end of the stick. Like especially if the ranking is similar again because the proposals are like the written proposals are probably pretty
similar like the budget might be different and the amount of people might be different but giving the same percentages as last year I feel like is going to maintain the same like discrepancy in asked and received. >> Yeah. And I'm not sure what the rankings were last year. I don't know if you have
that handy walker, but I think Ammerst Mobile Market was not like it's third ranked this year and I don't think it was third last year. >> Yeah, it's definitely moved up in the rankings last year. Um, so that
I mean I like the idea of like the point values and kind of like I don't know increasing the percentage that we like take out from the request based on the rankings. Um, just because
I think that for something that like we're ranking first, like I feel like we should try our best to give them the fullest extent of like the budget that they're requesting. Um, and also like to my understanding they're requesting less this year than they did last year. Um, so I don't know if that's because like
they knew that the likelihood of them getting like full funding if they had made like a similar request to what they had made last year um was like not very feasible. Um, but yeah. So, I don't know what was the percentage that like if we
were to like equally remove from like all five, what percentage would we take out again? 6%. >> Uh, no. So, that would be um um basically 16%. >> 16. >> 16%. Okay. Okay. >> Reduction >> because we would fund them at 84% each.
Um, and then what's for the for big brothers, big sisters. So here's just again I'm just throwing out some numbers here but so if for example we took the top five
and went down the list and these are again >> random but 95% 85% 80% 75% 70% >> then that gets us to just over 175,000 Okay. So that would put Big Brothers Big
Sisters at So if we did, did you say 70%. >> So Big Brothers Big Sisters would be number five at 70%. That would be 25,900. >> Okay. >> Center for New Americans would be at
15,000. >> Okay. Mobile got last year. >> Yeah. Mobile market would be at 24,000. >> Okay. >> Family outreach at 42,05
and then survival center 95% would be 68367. >> Okay. Right. So the biggest kind of loser in that would be >> big brothers.
>> Big brothers. Big sisters. But based on the ranking, I mean, that's that could be an equitable way to try to get to the funds that we have. >> I also Oh, sorry.
>> No, go ahead. I am now >> in the past like just like looking through like from 2024 and 2025 uh like it looks like they've been allocated usually a little bit over 30,000. So, I feel like allocating them
like like roughly like 26,000 doesn't feel like I mean obviously it's $4,000 less, but that doesn't feel like a crazy departure from like you know and I feel like I would hope that there are like alternate forms of like funding to like
make up the discrepancy of like that like roughly $4,000 that like wouldn't be funded. Mhm. >> Um >> yeah, I mean in all of them their request is is you know we're not funding any at 100%. So um
>> there's a fairness, you know, piece to this. >> Yeah. And that would be a nice boost for Amoris Mobile market for sure >> from what they from what they received last year, not from what they requested.
And I think for like Ammeris removal market especially like I think it's clear that they've put in a lot of like work into like the presentations and like in explaining like why the funding is necessary and like how it'll benefit the community. So I think that I agree
with Morel that like it it would suck for them to kind of give them the short end of the stick like another year in a row. Yeah, particularly since and you know like you said like it has moved up. They've they've put in um they've
demonstrated the impact that it's already having. >> I mean that might be a good way to do it. N >> I'm leaning more towards that than you know equal percentage you know from from it. I I I like this. It takes into
consideration the ratings. How How much is that over 175? >> Uh $767. >> Okay. >> So, if we're if we're going to >> haircut one of them, 76770.
>> Okay. Would that be the lowest ranked one, the highest ranked one, or would we? >> Well, what if >> split it by five? >> I was going to say for the I mean, it's like 700 bucks. I feel like that's not going to take I mean, okay, 700 bucks is a lot of money, but like I feel like if
you split that up amongst the groups, it won't hurt anyone that much. >> Yeah. Or cut 140 from each of them. >> Yeah. How does everyone feel about that? I I feel good about it. Yeah, I think I I just need to like I don't know, Nat,
if you have the numbers, you can share them somehow. Yeah, let me just um so that would be okay. So if we as we said we went 95%
85% 80% 75% and 70%. And then we subtracted 153.54 from >> each one. That would leave us a lot of
um change at the end. But um so it's 6821416 42346.46 46 23 846 46
14 84646 and 25746.46. I mean, that looks good if you're comparing to what they requested. So, it's about 3,000 for survival center.
>> Yeah. >> 8 I I'm okay with that formula. I am okay with that formula as well. Walker, do you see any reason that this would be not a good way to go? >> Good question, Suzanne.
>> Um, yeah, I think it makes sense. I guess my only thought is that sometimes the the higher ranked ones are also like it's higher ranked because it's bigger and it supports more people and it does great work, but maybe they also have
more options for alternative funding than some of the smaller groups and you know some of the smaller groups may rely more heavily on funds like this than >> rival center which is you know were a small portion of the budget for some of them and were a big portion of the
budget for from other groups and I don't know if that's worth considering at all. Not to derail the entire process because I do think you're those numbers make sense. I I think it's a they have you know more options and they have more resources to devote to you know grand
writing you know and alternative sources of income um versus the mobile market you know that is relying on a smaller you know board of directors >> and um really seeing the impact you know um
>> yeah it makes the money go farther potentially if you have a bigger staff and more resources but it also can kind of end up I think funneling all the resources into one direction not not spreading it out quite as evenly potentially. >> Yeah. Although I would also say that you
know so we're we're funding the survival cent's food pantry um for Ammerst and they do a lot of other things. So but if you look at the entire organization our funding is such a small >> percentage they do so much. So um
>> but on the other hand I I feel good about the fact that we've increased the amount we're proposing to allocate for mobile market um because they've shown some success. We started small. They were starting out
small and they're growing and we're kind of I think um validating what they've done by recognizing >> that they could use some more funding. >> Yeah, I agree. >> Yeah. And I guess that's kind of the point I'm trying to make is that maybe some of the smaller organizations
it might be worth investing in them a little bit more so that they can grow and continue to see results. Um since we know Survival Center is capable of delivering results and really does do a ton of great stuff
>> and um um organizations like the U mobile market um can absorb some of the impact you know that we're seeing you know at the state level. at the federal and state level, you know, um if people are aware,
you know, I think the state currently is under um tremendous pressure, you know, to you know, reduce the error rate. So, SNUP, you know, can be continue to be available. Um so, um places like the mobile market can make a tremendous
difference, you know, when um you know, um people can no longer qualify for for benefits. Okay. >> Should we make a motion or do any other
comments Mayan or Mel or >> I'm good. I feel like I made my views clear. So I I'll make the motion then that we allocate Survival Center 60,000 68,214
and6 mobile or sorry family outreach 42,346 and 46 mobile market 23,846 and 46 center for new Americans 14,846 and46
and Big Brothers Big Sisters 25,746 and46 Six cents. >> I'll second that. Um, Mel. >> All. >> Yes. I
>> Suzanne. >> Yes. >> And yes for me. >> I vote yes. >> Right. >> I also vote yes. >> Perfect. Right. >> I think what's
Okay, great. >> So, Walker, can you kind of remind me what is the next process? I know we still have uh participants, you know. Um >> Yes. Well, we actually have another hearing tonight. >> Okay. >> Um this is just the environmental review
hearing for um the Kendrick Park project that was approved in the last grant. Um, we are required to have a hearing because the project expands the scope of the infrastructure by more than 20% of what's already there. They're adding an
an additional sidewalk um, beyond what's already there. So, they ask us to do an entire environmental impact assessment and I sent out notices to various like state and town agencies and um, posted
in the newspaper and whatnot. The finding was that there was going to be no significant environmental impact. All we're doing is adding a sidewalk. Um it's not going to impact any historical properties. It's not going to impact any health or safety for the people around it or anything like that. Um so the
we're combining this notice of no impact with a request for the state to go ahead and release the funds for that project. So, um I am happy to take any questions or public comments on that that topic or if anybody wants like a quick overview
of the project again. Um but again, there's no impact expected. So, it's should be pretty easy. >> Is this the final step in that project? >> That's final step in getting the project approved by the state so we can go out
to bid. Yeah. Okay. >> I don't have any questions. >> I don't have any questions either. >> I'm glad that can uh go forward though. >> Yeah, it's it's getting there. >> Wait. So, remind me that um that work
doesn't include the um what's it called? The Portland Loo. Is that what they're called? >> It does not. That's that's separately funded. Separate. >> Yeah. Right. Right. But that's that will be happening at >> it will be happening uh this this summer I believe regardless and this project
should also be happening this summer or fall and continuing on in the next spring. >> Great to see all the activity there. >> And if we get this proposal that we just put in approved, we'll be expanding the scope of that and doing more work there. Mhm.
>> I'm always amazed how many kids are playing there. >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> Great to see. >> Okay. So, if there's no comments or anything on that, I will go ahead and report that to the state and they'll be able to release the funds. Um,
and that's it for what we had on the agenda, I believe. Um, so Nate, can you email those numbers out too so that we have them? >> Make sure we're all on the same page. And then I'm I will put that all into a
spreadsheet and post it on the website and um the next step is for town manager to approve the recommendations. And then I start working on the state application. >> Great. And are we having is there another meeting or another hearing?
>> There is another hearing next week. Um we do have a hearing just to give people once I've got this up on the website um to give the public a chance to come back and make further comments on your recommendations in case. >> I do remember that because I remember you know last year they came back and
advocated you know as to >> you have the opportunity to revise um your next meeting essentially which is next week. Sorry. Um, I have it on my calendar as the nights. 19th. >> Oh, the 19th. Okay. It's in two weeks. Yeah.
>> Thank you. Yeah, that's what I had to. Okay. >> March isn't going that fast. >> I know. Yeah. Please. We want this weather to go, you know. >> Yes. Um, so if we completed our agenda and we
have, you know, do we make a motion to dismiss or, you know, am I dumping? >> If there's no more public comment and no more discussion, then yeah, you can adjourn, make a motion to adjurnn. >> Okay, I'm making a motion to adjurnn or I cannot, you know, since I, you know, I
don't >> you can make the motion or you can make the motion entertain a motion. I would second that motion. Thank you >> everyone. Okay, >> great. >> That sounds great. >> Yeah. >> Good night. >> Thank you everyone. Thank you.
>> Thanks very much. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Bye. >> Bye. Bye.