to order at 7:01 and I will read Jillian Ree sent me the updated remote script so I will be official and I will read it. Um this open meeting of the FINCOM is being conducted via Zoom. uh speakers on the
agenda will be participating remotely and the and the chair or vice chair in this case may allow for the public to provide comment um in accordance with open meeting law regulation 940 CMR 29.10 10. Please be advised that all FINC call members are um attending this
meeting remotely. In addition, members are attending um because members are attending remotely. All votes taken at this meeting will be by roll call vote. Lastly, if any FINCO members are not clearly audible to his or her fellow members or to any members of the p
public, please notify the chair or in this case vice chair immediately and we will do our best to remedy the problem and we'll inform the public whether the meeting will continue. Um all right. So now I will make sure everyone can hear me and I will um take a a roll call to
start the meeting. So Linda, >> yes. >> All right, Nquille, >> yes. >> Uh Peter, >> yes. >> Nathaniel, >> yes. >> And Nathan, >> yes. >> Awesome. And
um yeah, please be careful screen sharing as other people can see it. Um, all I did finally get access to Board Docs like the day after our meeting last time. So, everything should be uploaded to Board Docs for our last meeting. Um,
and we only had a few for this meeting, but everything should be on board docs. Um, if you need to refer to them. So, I will pull up I I think the main goal I mean we have the normal agenda today, but it I believe the main goal is just to go through our um draft comments
and make sure that we're all in alignment with them. Everything has been voted on. I believe there was one more thing that Jillian sent as an update that we can discuss um on her last email, but um it should be mainly comments. So, I will screen share
my No, not that one. Sorry. Oh, here it is. Okay. So, these should be all the ones that um and I'll take off the highlighted, you know, once once we're good with them. Um,
but the first one was article 4. Do you do you all want me to pull up the actual article before we go through the comment or are we good just going through the comment? Is there any feedback on that? >> I'm good with just the comment.
>> Okay. >> Yeah, I am too. Yep. >> Okay. So, this was the free cash appropriation. Um, Peter said, "The finance committee recommends passage of article 4, the free cash appropriation for FY26. Uh, free cash is the department of revenue term for surplus
money from FY25, either revenue that exceeded the budget or expenses lower than the budget. Historically, Maynard has used the funds for snow and ice deficit to supplement reserve funds and for capital purchases. This year we're able to fund additional capital projects
be because we're covering the snow and ice deficit in article 10. The capital projects funded have been prioritized by the capital planning committee. The fincom has reviewed the circumstances leading to the prior year's bills amount of $66,289
and is comfortable they are unique and not a systematic problem. The fincom also believes the 211,000 appropriation for the solid waste and recycling enterprise um fund is a smart hedge for a new program with a lot of untested assumptions driving the budget
>> any feedback uh I'm just curious and I don't um in the second or last sentence you read not a systematic problem Oh, >> I think I wrote it as systemic. >> You did not a
>> I have no idea which is better. So, >> I don't either. It just came out of my mouth. >> I'll read that again. The fin people want to leave that. >> Systemic. It is systemic. >> I would say systemic is is is better as well. >> Yeah, I agree.
>> Okay, just double checking. Okay, >> looks good to me. >> I think it looks great. Peter, did you do didn't you do a little research on like the um was it like the Ford truck or the uh the police cruisers or something and like why that cost so
much? I I thought I remembered some sort of clue. >> So um yes, I got an explanation I think from Justin through Greg. Um, yeah, the the trucks cost that much is
my the short version. So, in addition to I think one of them was, you know, a $70,000 thing with then all these upgrades by the dealership. Um, but then there was a second, you
know, like a $100,000 for a buildout. I think, you know, from the uh uh like a garage that would do all the metal side panels on trucks and you know, with doors that open like I guess the old reading trucks or something. Um
but it all did add up to what they were asking. >> I was just uh wondering since I feel like that comes up at town meeting pretty frequently, people questioning those um like vehicle purchases. Uh, >> yep. >> If if like about that would be good as
well. >> Oh, actually, uh, sure. Yeah, if you want to say we also looked into the high cost of some of the trucks and, you know, that seemed legitimate or something like
that. Would we and would we do that at the end? >> I would almost put it so I call out the last two lines, the prior year bills >> and the solid waste. So I would put it
before that the FinCom has reviewed sentence just, you know, kind of in the natural order of the article. >> Okay. So how should I word? >> I forget what the heck. Uh sorry, I need to open up a warrant.
No, you're fine. It almost was the sewer reserve. One of those trucks I think was from the enterprise funds, not from >> I think it was the sewage reserve. It was the one that originally said 50% truck.
>> So, yeah. So, this has a Ford F550 truck for 27,000. So, I guess we could add something. um does get us because it also could be I mean we could just ask the capital planning committee
and you know they would have reviewed this and thought that the amount really was the 207 or sorry I closed to the wrong place. Yeah, the 207.
I just don't want to I don't know is that exceptional enough to comment that you know we wouldn't say that about each line that we've looked at it and think it's a reasonable price and in this case I am trusting the
capital planning committee >> and that's a routine thing that's generally in the free cash or somewhere within the >> yep >> budget every And we could say so, um, the finance committee noted
the high cost of the Ford F550 truck, but reviewed the estimate documents and believe it's correct. that now I reviewed them, not you guys.
But I Jill didn't send those around at some point, but maybe I don't know. >> She did send estimates of the trucks around. >> Yeah, she did. >> Took me a while to interpret it so I could get exactly what it was.
>> Yeah, they were confusing. I think it was from Justin that we got those. >> Yeah. Does that seem like a good sentence, Nathan? >> Binkcom noted the high cost of the F F550 truck, but reviewed the estimate documents provided and feel it's in alignment with current costs.
>> I would say something about like current market value or something >> currently. >> Well, I wouldn't I wouldn't over complicate it. It is just current. Sorry,
>> but I either is fine. I'm sure >> uh you're you're missing um the word in in between its and alignment. >> Is apostrophe. >> We might want to not use contractions.
Just say it is in alignment. And and I would capitalize article 10 in line five. Yeah. I don't think we use contractions at other places, >> but felt
>> and let's say believe instead of feel. was I believe and believe it income noted the high cost of the F50 truck but reviewed the estimate
documents provided and believe it is in alignment with current costs. that gun. >> Goodbye me. >> All right, we'll check it off. The the next one I I didn't know what to put beyond the regular thing that we put
every year and I I kind of Anyway, I think you guys will want to edit this one a bit. So um this is for the town general fund budget. So I said passage of this article would adopt the proposed town general fund budget for the fiscal
year 2027 in the amount of blah blah blah. The table above provides a breakdown of the budget across 10 major town functions illustrating how funds are allocated. The budget development process begins months in advance of town meeting and includes ex extensive discussion at public meetings held by
various town boards and committees. It represents a collaborative effort among the select board, town administrator, finance committee, school committee, and all all the department heads. Finom encourages town meeting voters to engage in these discussions throughout the process. FINCOM recognizes that budget
development involves ongoing constraints and requires difficult decisions. For FY27, planning for certain large future capital expenses was largely um has largely been deferred with the exception of a proposal to initiate engineering work to begin addressing the town's
water system constraints. Finome also notes ongoing capital needs including the highway department garage, which is overdue for replacement, as well as the golf course building and the roof at Fowler Middle School. Despite these challenges, Fincom voted to recommend this article as it presents a balanced budget that appropriately weighs the
town's needs against available revenues under Prop 2 and a half and anticipate a new growth. Additional context is provided in appendix A of the warrant. So, I know we wanted to note like projects that were not doing that we know are going to come, but I don't know
if that was the right way to do it. Um, I would like to include at least a sentence or two on the, you know, changes for FY27. Probably I I have to look up the numbers. cuz I don't have them right in
front of me, but saying something like, you know, of the million dollar increase in the town's expenses, you know, $800,000 went to health to health insurance or benefits. Um, so I I think
that's the major >> thing to say about the actual numbers. I maybe people have other things to add. >> I I I completely agree. I've got the numbers up right here. Um, I mean, employee benefits as a whole, uh,
increased by 942,460. Um, which is like an increase of that line item by like about 9% of what it was the year before. Um, and >> what's the total budget increase? Do you >> That's what the increase is. 942,000.
>> No, I'm sorry. The overall general fund, the whole kitten kaboodleoodle. Uh the whole increase is 3,145982. Um >> that's higher than I thought it was. All right. So health insurance is then
40 30% of it. >> I can't do math. >> Yep. And do we want to mention Green Meadow and that sort of the next round of borrowing for the new Green Meadow School? That must be another big >> Yeah, that's 1.8 billion.
>> Yeah, >> I mean we can mention that that's not really a general fund budget issue. I mean the the debt the payment for debt goes up but also taxes just go up to match it. So it doesn't really
but okay. Um, >> so should I at the the second sentence in the second paragraph after FINCOM recognizes that budget development involves ongoing constraints and requires difficult decisions mentioned something like of the 3,145
that number um increase in the overall general fund 942,000 and change of that is due to health insurance increases. is is that where we would put that? >> Uh well employee benefits overall the
health insurance portion is a little bit smaller. It's a 712,000. >> Okay. >> Ah >> but like >> is that an appropriate spot you think though? >> Like right here?
Sorry. You could do it just as a third paragraph. >> I I would do a separate paragraph if if we're doing like specific information. I think it should be uh right there. >> Maybe right there. >> Yeah. >> Okay.
Um, so we I start a lot of sentences with fin. Um, we noted that out of the >> What about just saying um constraints on the budget for FY27, you know, are highlighted by
the $900,000 increase in health insurance or benefits. I'll fix that. 942 460, right Nathan? >> Yep. >> And we should we mention the debt service. It went from 3.4
to 5.2. >> Yeah, I think I think we might as well mention it. um >> as well >> that doesn't like I mean that's like like Peter said that's that's not about you know decisions we're making this year um how to allocate the money but it
is you know you know that that's what when people are seeing like an increase in their >> you what about doing it as a separate sentence saying while the increase Uh, I don't know. I don't want to say
doesn't affect the budget. Um, doesn't have a net effect on the budget. I we note that I there's some better way to say that, I'm sure. But, um, we note that
>> it's that's a hard argument because it has a net effect on people's taxes. >> It totally does. >> Yeah, >> it absolutely does. But not on the general fund budget, >> right? I mean, it's like we get 3 million, we spend three million. >> Yeah. >> But we're authorized to get the extra
three million in taxes, >> right? >> Um so, uh while the increase doesn't have a net blah blah blah, we note that debt cost has risen from 3 million to 5
million as you know, Green Meadow debt comes into the budget. I I I don't know that I have the numbers right, Linda, please correct me. Um but is does that get to what you want to say? >> Yeah.
And then um you know DPW went up by 900,000 almost as much as health insurance >> went down. >> It went up from uh 2025. It was wait no.
You're right. It went down. I I'm reading them opposite. >> But it only went down because you took the million dollars worth of trash out. >> We took the trash out. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. >> Remind me though. I thought I thought we took the took that out of their budget last year.
>> Did we added it back with I forget some stabilization, some free cash? >> Oh, okay. >> We did something. We did something to pay for trash last year. >> Yeah, we took we took a half million out of our general stabilization fund. >> Yeah. Um, sorry. Before we get too far, Linda, can you do numbers for Katie on
just what the change in the debt was? Or Nathan, do you have them there? >> Yeah, I I have it here. Um, so the change in the debt, do do you want the change or >> I want the original and then the the new >> uh 3,4 This is the This is the original debt.
3,417,266. And then what is the new one? >> 5,257,613. >> Okay, thanks. Um, can we add, you know, largely due to the green new green meadow school? I I would say at the end of that large
>> Say that again. largely due to the new Green Meadow School. >> I think it might be entirely due to the Green Meadow School, right? I'm not >> Probably. Yes. But I I mean I don't But I Sorry, I'm being general to be defensive so nobody can attack us.
>> Yeah. I think in this case we can confidently say it's due to the new Green Meadow School construction. >> All right. Yeah, you could take out largely then. Yeah. Um, wait, is there a second point we would
add between employee benefits and debt? >> Yeah, I was wondering too because there's room for more. >> Fill it out slightly. >> Yeah, I I would say >> second largest budget driver. um this is an increase in that budget line by like
9%. Like that that's a huge amount and it now represents like 20% of the total budget. >> Just what he said. I would >> um equaling a Should I just put it right
there? >> Yeah. equaling a 9% increase and I'll fix that >> over last year um >> increase over last year and a 20%
increase in the total budget. >> No, it it represents 20% of the total budget. Um may maybe put a period after increase in employee benefits. >> Yeah. >> And then say um
>> this is n >> Yeah. This is a 9% increase over last year largely driven by um like I don't know like skyrocket rapidly rising health insurance costs. Um
I mean if I if I want to emphasize any point here it's that this is a market condition that's beyond anything that we can like budget for uh as a town. due to rapidly increasing health care costs.
>> Yeah. Health insurance costs. >> The increases 9% over last year due to rapidly increasing health insurance costs also representing 20% of the total budget. um not also representing but um uh maybe
even just like period um this is now 20% of the this has grown to be 20% of the total budget. This expense has grown to become 20% of the total budget. >> Yeah.
This expense has grown to be 20% total budget or this expense has grown to represent total 20%. Grown to be is fine. Maybe while the increase doesn't have a net effect on the general fund budget, it makes it seem like we're talking about the health insurance still. So may
maybe if I start with we also note that the debt um I don't know does that >> you know what I mean? >> Yes, good point. Yeah, totally. >> Um so control copy. So we also
no what am I doing? We we also note put the dead cost scissors up and acknowledge. Um, no. No. You put >> Yeah. I I the more I think about it, you
could take out that whole larry. >> Yeah. >> I mean, and just leave it as we said the numbers. Um, we could have even a line about like this is going to be like the this is going to have like the most notable impact on, you know,
uh, property taxes. Do we want to say something about it's going up 5.8% from last year? And because I think people think, oh, your taxes should only go up two and a half%. But this year it's going up 5.8.
Um, and we're >> Sorry, what's going up 5.8? >> The whole the whole budget went up from 54 to 57, 5.8%. So >> I see. Uhhuh. Okay. >> That that doesn't necessarily translate to your your individual bill will be
5.8% 8% higher though because the way it gets split between like commercial and >> right some of it. >> Yeah. But but the budget should go up 5.8. >> It's not far off. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Might be 5% might be 6% but >> right because 90% of the taxes I think
are homes residential. >> Yeah. Um, >> we we could note that, but I think we also then should explain that the reason is because we voted for a Green Meadow School. >> Yeah. >> Yep. >> Yep.
>> So, I don't mind saying it, but I think you have to put it in context. >> Yeah. I I agree with that, too. Um, do we have the uh do we have the year of that town meeting? Was that 2024? 2025, >> I think. 2024,
>> right? Yes. >> Yeah. I don't think >> 25 was last year. Yeah. 2024. >> Yeah. I don't think you have to worry too much. >> We want to just say that >> nobody voted for it. Um, as at the end of the first sentence, an
increase of 5.8% over the FY26 budget. >> Yeah, I like having that in there. >> 5 what? 5.8 >> 5.8%. It It's um 3 I just said it's like
5.78. Let me just double check. over the initial >> two divided by 54408487 5.78. Yeah. >> Okay. >> It's over over the FY26 budget.
>> Okay. General fund budget screen. Okay. Well, now I'm wondering, do do we want to um like the specific lines that we're calling out that we're writing now, do we want to stick that in right after
that bit you just added in? >> Like this whole paragraph? >> Yeah. Take that paragraph, insert it after the sentence you just edited, and then have a line break for the uh what was originally the first paragraph. just
and then would we that separate Uh yeah, that's good. Um >> and then do we need like the LA do we need to talk about things we've deferred? >> I think so. Yeah, I I think that's a
good good context. I had to look at like past it took forever to like past Capcom presentations and um like the DPW garage I didn't know was due to be replaced in 2006. Like it's really there's some
really deferrals happening. Um >> it's it's bad. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> It's a liability issue. >> Oh, absolutely. Um, I mean, I I would also like to have uh I don't know if the rest of you agree with this, but I think that we we did we
took a really big chunk out of our stabilization fund last year and we are not replenishing it. Um, >> you know, if we're talking about like our preferences as the as FINCOM, I would say I want I want to see like dedicated um line for capital expenses
like we're deferring that again. and um and also re rebuilding the stabilization fund. >> And that could go in the first paragraph, I think, right? Um another concern
discussed um I I'm concerned that that input comes a little late and yeah, I don't know. I I I don't think we voted on that as a priority as a committee.
I'm a little hesitant to start throwing in stuff like that. right now. >> Um, >> can we just say that we note that the the balance in this in the stabilization
fund went down from 2.5 to 2.3 million, you know, from last >> Absolutely. That >> that's just >> just a fact. >> Something we're It's a fact and it's something we're watching. Um, Nathan, I would love to have that
conversation. I'm sorry, but the first thing, and I think it's somewhat disingenuous for us to throw a comment in like that without having the answer to what are you proposing to cut or are you proposing an override? Mhm.
>> And so that I at this point in the budget that's the you know the question that has to be answered before I think you can start saying we should fund more of X me personally. So um that's just part of
where I'm coming from in being hesitant to do that. So just um I mean I think we could argue for it you know earlier in the process but then we do have to answer the question are we saying we want schools see it less or we what are
we going to cut? So anyway, uh sorry >> Katie, the number is it was 2 million 578 335 and now it's 2,ion 332796. >> Um sorry, is that the number that's in
the warrant? Is that where you're getting that from? >> Yeah. Are we adding is it summer free cash going to stabilization? >> Okay. Wait. >> Well, $10,276.
>> So, a minimal amount. >> Yeah. Actually, I think that's fair to say. You know, we used money. I don't know. You could say we used money last year and we're not >> and then and then later on we're putting another 34 from all those old accounts.
We're putting another 34 back. So maybe we could that sentence out. Yeah. If we're adding in 10. >> So that's 45,000. >> Yeah. >> Maybe we just leave it at the balance. >> Yeah. Or we could say two 233 whatever before
this year's edition of 45,000. >> Yeah. um in the last paragraph is it worded okay? So, I wanted to talk about things being deferred, but did note, and I know it doesn't affect the general fund budget directly, but did note that, you know, we are proposing um engineering
work to address the water system, but then we're deferring all of these big things wherever it's going to come from. Um is that worded fine? Yeah, the it the deferral of the engineering work for water is going to hit our budget at
one point in time, but I would say um after constraints I add a comma. I want to keep emphasizing it as much as possible. Say, oh, you were down there. You were right there. >> Oh, okay. Okay. um uh addressing the town's water system constraints,
um largely considered the most important or you know something about I just want to keep hammering that point that this is the water system needs to be fixed >> and while we can defer other things, we're clearly not deferring this for a reason. It's the biggest priority for the town by most town committees,
engineers, etc. But I mean that's just my view on it. >> No. Yeah, agree. Should we say should we just say like we as a which we consider the most important priority for the town? I mean that's true but
>> saying people consider it the most important priority like like what people like what is that >> Justin the DPW considers it the most important Justin's been very clear on that fact >> that's where I'm actually speaking on like our our view as a committee is somewhat important but my view is I
think Justin saying straight up the DPW has one priority and it's fixing the water system is a really big statement. So >> that's what I'm kind of focusing on. Not necessarily people around the town, more
like the DPW, town admin, etc. Instead of largely considered, maybe we could just say which the DPW considers. I mean, just to make that sort of make the implicit explicit, I guess. I I mean I would wonder I mean yes it's true DPW considers it but why why are we
highlighting the DPW's concern? I mean we can speak for ourselves is the only reason why I want to say like we consider but um somehow reads to me as like odd if we're like picking somebody else and saying this department thinks it's the most important thing. But maybe that's all in
my head and and just like my weird way of reading things. >> Being largely considered is fine. >> Yeah. I I think it's slightly weird, too. If nothing else, it's Justin advocating for his own budget, which is >> right
>> less credible than us saying. Um, it's hard to not we I don't know that we've taken a formal vote on this either, but we've all said it a lot, but I think we're good. Do we feel we need to make tweaks?
>> It It should say priority, I think, for the town. >> Yes. Thank you. Proof read these before I send them again to >> uh I I do I I see it says um highway department. Is that supposed to be TPW or is that actually supposed to be
highway? Um, >> it's listed highway department garage on on Capcom's sheet. >> Okay. All right. Do we want to move on to others and maybe come back to it at the end and double double check we're good? >> Yeah, I think I think that's a good idea.
>> Yes, I agree. >> All right. >> Um Peter, uh so like I mentioned a couple priorities I have and you've mentioned that you know it'd be good to have it earlier in the process and like make a vote on um you know positions that the the finance committee has.
Would it make sense to like in the new year, new fiscal year like adopt some sort of platform as a committee like a formal position? Um is that something that we've done ever done in the past? Is that would that be unnecessarily binding? >> Um
I'm sorry. I'm I've been slightly sick. I'm not I there would be an interesting discussion. I don't think we've ever done anything like it that I'm aware of. Um you know I have a broad view of what the FinCom can do. I mean especially because
we have no power and so it's purely an advisory thing. Um but I want to talk about that separately from tonight if that's okay. I if I'm just not ready to talk about it and so forgive me, but >> uh
>> totally sorry for uh derailing. >> No, no, it's fine. I just I'm a little tired and um don't want to launch into that one. >> I think that's a a good thing to discuss though, Nathan, for for a future meeting. Um I like that idea. So, just
so we're on the same page with things, um, and it makes it easier drafting these things and making recommendations. Um, so article 9, we already recommended an wrote this. Um, but I it it not in time for the the printed warrant. So, I
just wanted to make sure still sounded good. This was the ambulance receipts. Short and simple. Passage of this article will move money from ambulance receipts to be used for leasing required for equipment emergency services. I think that one's black and white and we I I believe we already agreed on it.
Just wanted to make sure no changes. >> Maybe swap required and equipment. So, uh leasing equipment required for emergency services. >> All right. It's releasing. Yes. Yes. Abs. Yeah, that makes sense.
and it's not in blue anymore. So, you fixed it. Okay, the next new one, article 12. This was the body camera. Um, Linda wrote this one. We recommended it already. Um, but this is a new comment. So, Maynard
Police recommended acquisition of body cameras to provide accountability and transparency. Article four proposes using 52,000 of free cash along with a state grant of 70,000 and change to support an anticipated 5-year contract for the acquisition of camera storage, maintenance, training, and any other
cost associated with implementation of body cameras. The total cost of the 5-year contract is approximately 124,000. Contracts over 3 years require a special review by the town. And the finance committee recommends an exception to the three-year limit for this purpose because it is limited to a
single instance of a contract for police body cameras. The finance committee was also persuaded to recommend the article because procurement I never can say that will likely be made using a standard state contract with a predetermined length of 5 years. Um the finance
committee is concerned about the use of contracts for more than 3 years particular for technology. I like that. Linda, >> I would say we should change was what was it? Persuaded.
>> Yeah. I don't I don't that I get the the idea there, but that word choice in that just kind of doesn't feels like we can >> the finance committee was also um >> could just say the the finance committee
also recommended the article because >> we can also agreed with the rationale how but or something along those lines for the you know closer to persuaded but >> persuaded sounds more like a sale like we were saying >> yeah exactly but it
>> agreed with the the rationale is closer to that but we can also just keep it simple like uh Nquille said >> yeah Greg Johnson helped me with this one because there were three different numbers for the grant and it turns out
it's a 7011 and then I didn't understand we were doing the free cash plus that what the total cost so that's the total co going to be roughly the total cost for five years >> this year will will cover the five years
of the police >> um the body cameras contract >> so is the idea that like in another year there'll be another $2,000 of free cash used Um, >> yeah, it doesn't quite add up if you notice cuz Greg said he was rounding up.
That's why it in one place it says 71,000 then another place it says 72,000. So, and he's he estimated the grant the contract will probably cost around 124. So, in future years we're probably going
to have to pay I don't know if we'll come out of the police budget, you know, or someplace whatever the difference is. Yeah, it'll probably be um but he helped with that. I didn't hadn't
totally understood how this was going to work. I think it's a helpful comment. >> Yeah. All right. Are we good? Should we move on? Sounds like we should move on. All right. So, article 19, this one we also
had already written um but just wanted to make sure it still sounds good. This is the um oh the 3 million for engineering and redesign. So, ensuring an adequate and resilient water supply is among the most significant long-term priorities facing the town of Maynard and has been
consistently identified um by the DPW and other town board committees. This project represents an important step in implementing the town's water master plan by advancing the engineering and design of additional groundwater sources and related treatment plant upgrades necessary to meet current and future demands. The finance committee notes
that the debt service associated with this borrowing is intended to be funded through waterpric enterprise water enterprise revenue um and is already accounted for within the recently adopted 7% water um water rate increase with approximately 2% of that increase
um to this project um attributed to this project. The committee further supports the town's decision to fund uh this investment through the water enterprise rather than through a general tax override. Financing the project through water rates places the cost on water usage rather than property taxation,
aligning the burden of payment with system users rather than homeowners. For these reasons, the finance committee recommends approval. Are we still good with it? My only quibble is the uh and I don't know a better way of wording this um so if we can't think of one, we should just
move on. uh but the approximately 2% of that increase attributable to this project. The way I would read that is you know you have 7% and then 2% of the 7% is attributable to the project rather
than we increase the rate by 2% to to do this project and then an additional 5% for other reasons. But I I don't >> Yeah, >> I would say that's a that's a good point because technically percentage points is different than percent. I mean with the
way it's like I think now that's like 0.02 * 0.07. But if you did two percentage points instead, I think that would actually say like what we're trying to say and stuff with this. >> Yeah. Approximately two percentage points of that increase attributable to
this project. Just like replace that with Yeah. Because in the sponsor comments, they say this bond is funded through the recently adopted FY27 water rates, >> which equated to a 2% increase. So they
didn't talk about the 7%. >> Um, so 27th would be 28%. So I don't I don't know if you want to say >> 1 like 0.14% something like that. It
would be really tiny. 2% of 7% would be tiny. >> I don't think that's what they means. It means that >> I think two of the seven. >> I think they mean two and five. Yeah. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> Which would be 28
29% if you round up. Um, >> so you could say with approximately 30% >> the increase of >> you could just remove it entirely. >> Yeah, >> you could just go from with over and delete it. I mean, it's just accounted
for within the 7% water rate increase. Yeah, that might be good, Nathaniel, >> cuz then there's no confusion. It's a good point. I didn't think about that when I wrote it, but it's not that important to say that it's not all of the seven. It's just within it. >> Mhm. Mhm. >> I like that.
>> Just like that. >> Yeah. The only reason I did include it though is because I was wondering if it was important to note that the water rate increase that 7% was not meant for this
and two 27ths of it is a lot less than 50%. I know that you know it's minor percentage points but that relative it's about 20% less of half right as as Peter was saying 30% of the total increase is going towards this not
70% or 90% of it so that's the only reason I did it I don't know if that's important but that's why I threw it in in the first place I mean I guess it is kind of informative that you know when you're looking at your new water rates you're looking at your new bill to know 30% of that is for
this specific project. I don't know. Maybe maybe I'm overthinking it. Leave it in or take it out. What do you guys think? I like it in, but >> yeah, >> could can go either way.
>> I think leaving it in wins. >> And I like the 30% instead of the two of the seven. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Okay. Okay. Good. Um the next one simple. We already wrote
this um this was the sewer enterprise um budget fund. This article creates FY27 budget for the sewer enterprise fund. This budget increase is increasing 2.3%. The budget growth is reasonable and doesn't include any major changes. I add lib any in there. But
>> wait, did I write that comment? >> I don't know. >> It's fine. It's just it's tur >> to the point. I think maybe Jill wrote it actually in a meeting.
Um article 23 which we already wrote as well. Um this is the sewer transfer retained earnings transfer. This article transfers 120,000 of sewer retained earnings for the DPW to use for capital equipment procurement. These funds would
allow for the purchase of the new truck as the existing one is from 2008 and repairs would outweigh the new vehicle cost and this will allow the DPW to properly service the town's sewer operations and repairs. Maintaining an aging fleet of vehicles can add additional cost to the town through vehicle maintenance repairs. Finance
committee supports this transfer to strengthen the DPW's fleet as rates will not be affected. I think we wrote that together in the last meeting. >> Uh why will rates not be affected? I mean if if they didn't make this transfer, wouldn't rates be slightly
lower or don't know the answer to that one. It's a line we used to the last ones, but >> I think it would be if if we wanted to dedicate prior years retained earnings or free cash as a
income source to the following year's budget, then yes, you could argue rates would go down. you know, the same as free cash with the town, we tend to use it all for capital.
And I'm not sure actually, I I think there'd be some arguments, you know, for instance, if we were going to say we want to regularly use 500,000 of free cash to fund the following year's budget, would we think that's good financial
practice? Mhm. >> I I So anyway, that >> do we want to take out as rates will not be affected and just leave it as strength in the DPW's fleet? >> I think that's kind of a stronger
ending. >> Yeah. >> To take it out, right? Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah, but otherwise I think that's a really good comment. Okay, good. Yeah, I think I think it's stronger, too. It makes more of an
impact. All right, this one I believe Yeah, Nathaniel tweaked a little. So, this was the lighting he wanted to weigh in. So, Peter, let us know if you think this addresses some of the other concerns um of people not necessarily wanting to recommend this. Um, this is for the
lighting, outdoor lighting. The committee recognizes that this proposed bylaw is the result of a multi-year effort by the green mayor team and has undergone substantial revisions throughout its development. The sponsor presented the article to numerous town board committees and incorporated
feedback received during that process, resulting in a thoughtful and well-developed final proposal. The committee notes that the bylaw um applies to only uh new and replacement outdoor lighting fixtures and includes a grandfather provision exempting existing fixtures. Therefore, no immediate
changes are required for current property owners. The community further note or the committee further notes that um compliant fixtures are generally available at costs comparable to non-compliant fixtures and that the bylaw would primarily require fixtures designed to a different lighting
standard rather than materially more expensive equipment. During deliberations, this is the part I think he um added. During deliberations, the finance committee discussed several concerns, including the bylaw's technical complexity, the practicality of administration and enforcement, and
questions regarding which um town officials or departments will ultimately be responsible for implementation. The committee also noted that some provisions may require interpret judgment by town staff, which could create challenges in consistent enforcement and may ne um may
necessitate future administrative guidance. Despite these concerns, the finance committee believes this article reflects sound engineering and planning practice, promotes environmental stewardship, improves lighting quality and safety, and provides long-term benefit to the community. For these reasons, the finance committee
recommends approval. >> I think that's great. >> Yeah, >> I do too. >> If you added that paragraph, thank you. I think it's a good paragraph, >> Peter. Not what I expected, but awesome to hear. I've missed every meeting with you. Uh I
think I' I missed the initial vote and then I missed all the opinions on it. So I was kind of shooting in the dark especially on the you know the nays. So glad to hear. >> It's great. You did a good job. >> Thank you.
>> Good. We can move on then. Don't have that many left. All right. Um solid waste enterprise um funds. So, this is a new one that Nathan sent me. Um, all right. So, the finance committee recommends the proposed budget for the
solid waste program. Massachusetts faces very high trash and recycling costs due to landfill closures, limited competition among haulers, and rising fuel costs. As a town, we have little control over these statewide issues. But this budget has made significant savings by switching to an automated cart
program where residential trash must be placed into trash carts that can be mechanically lifted and emptied by trucks. A secondary effort of this change will improve the public health and reduce litter. The new carts will help keep animals out of our trash by
limiting the use of loose trash bags and adding new public trash cans downtown that will be emptied um twice weekly. Finance Committee notes that this article um concerns only the overall budget of the solid waste program and not the rates paid by each household which currently which is currently
managed by the board of health. A no vote would leave the town without a solid waste program. Residents would be forced to contract trash services privately at a much greater estimated cost. >> I think that's pretty good. >> Good. I think it's good too. >> Yeah. I I like it as well. I have a
question though overall which is do we have I know that the outreach has just gone out. I just did the link right before we got on this meeting. But is there like a blurb or something somewhere that we can use to send out to just people we know in town? You know,
friends and neighbors, etc. Does anyone know? I mean, I can just shoot the link to them and write something myself, but it'd be a lot easier to just have something pre-written that I could just copy and paste in. >> Yeah, I >> think that will come.
I haven't been in touch with everything, but I think very much they're trying to drive people to these meetings and they don't have like a two-pager that lists all the fees and options. I I maybe there is and I haven't seen it,
but I think they'll have to do that, but I'm Yeah, I'm a little surprised they don't have it. >> Okay, that might be something we want to note as a question for um Greg or something. Just >> how can we help get that word out? Uh I
mean, I can write something myself and take care of it on my own. is kind of like, you know, I have a few friends and neighbors that I know are interested in this but don't they don't go to any of the meetings at all. So, being able to push it to them and have them push it to their respective circles is probably pretty important and having something
from the town is a little better than written by me. But >> that was interesting. my husband and I were talking about this morning because we we have um four cats which equals a lot of litter and sometimes we have a we put stuff into a third can and that
wasn't an option on um like what do you do with extra if you overflow the two some random weeks and so I um asked neighbors who live off um a road that they have to do private and they pay 120 a quarter which is 40 a month which
would be cheaper anyway it just it yeah the cost to do private was not that much more expensive um in the end which I found interesting but there might be you know more things I'm missing too um so I'm not completely up on it either and would appreciate more information but
and and to follow up on that I'm bothered by the phrase significant savings because it's a larger budget than last year when we when it was included in the ta um in the taxes and our sticker fees >> um and I'm trying to think Um I I don't
think anyone was is going to see this as a sa a save. >> No, I don't think so either. >> Um and I'm wondering I'm just as a town we have little control over these statewide issues, but this budget has made even significant strides by switching to
an automated car program or something. um strides or significant changes >> gain deficiencies >> has limited the increase. >> Ah maybe
>> this budget has limited the increase. >> Yeah, >> budget has >> has had limited rising costs. >> Yeah. Yeah. I liked what Peter said about efficiencies because isn't that what it
is? You're maximizing your efficiencies to effectively promote savings. It might not be >> actual dollars saved in the sense of a cheaper budget, but it is dollar saves rather than being inefficient. >> Yeah. I mean, they talked about they can
retain like it's driver retention um is better. >> Yeah. Actually, I like Nathan's plain language better. What? >> So tell me what what you said. >> No, what you had that N
>> Oh, okay. What I just took out. >> Yeah. Limited rising cost. >> Yeah. Now, they're still going to have bags. So, it's not like you're going to must be placed in trash carts because you can get overflow bags, too.
>> But, can you I don't Can you get over? >> Yes, >> you can get overflow bags. I think you have to have signed up for a service in order to use the overflow bags, though. >> Yeah, but like if you had two carts and you needed um another one, you can get an overflow. You have to have the cart,
but you can get an overflow bag. >> You need a third cart. >> You have to have a cart first. You have to have You have to sign up for the program first. >> So, you have to have at least one cart, but then you >> Oh, I see. Overflow bags. >> You can't How does the automated thing
pick up the bag? >> Well, that's it. That's, you know, >> because that's the thing. It says were must be placed into trash carts or overflow bags. I I don't know that the bags can be mechanically lifted and
emptied. I know we always put out a bag and they scoop it on with a scooper, but >> and I don't think it listed the cost for an overflow bag cuz I don't remember. >> I don't think it did either, but I I thought Greg said it was $8, but it seemed kind of high. But
>> yeah, I remember it was $8, too. >> Did you hear $8? Yeah. >> But do you get a sticker then for that? Like how do you pay for that? >> You have to buy a bag. >> Oh, I see. Okay. Okay. So, should I add, Linda? Do you feel I should say must be placed into trash
carts or overflow bags? >> Yeah. >> Really? >> Well, I don't know. I >> I don't want to get I don't want to get too much. Yeah, >> we could say will be placed into trash carts. >> Yeah,
>> instead of must be if there's like >> a rare exception >> or even is placed into trash carts. All right. Are we good? >> Yeah, >> I'm good. Okay. Um, this is a Peter one. So, this was
the bylaw amendment for the dog licenses. We recommended it already. Uh, the finance committee recommends passage of article 29, reworking our dog license bylaw. The primary driver um of the changes is a change to state law that requires annual inspection of dog
kennels. There are also modest increases to dog fees and late fees proposed to keep the fees in line with rising administrative costs and to incentivize timely registration of dogs and prevent the extra work of chasing down registrations.
>> So yeah, sorry I missed the meeting where you all voted on this. So maybe I didn't say something. you guys all thought was important. >> The Julian made the point that these it was an unfunded state mandate which I
think you've got there that the state law is requiring these annual inspections of dog kennels which is going to be extra work to the town. But I think this kind of covers her sense, her concern
>> and we did talk about how they are in alignment with >> Yeah. >> rising costs of other towns as well. >> Yeah. Um actually just in the interest of tursness do you need to say sorry uh
second sentence um primary driver of the change is a change to state law should it just is state law is a state law that requires >> I don't it's a lot of changes in that sentence
>> primary driver of the change is a state law that requires is a um new state law. >> Sure. >> Primary driver that of the >> we could um merge sentences one and two.
Uh we have sentence one reworking our dog licenses bylaw, which is necessitated by a new state law that requires. >> Sure. or as required by a new state law. >> Totally spelled that wrong.
>> I like required better than necessitated. >> Yeah, >> easier to spell. >> Um, which is required by a >> Oh, but now we get two requires. Sorry.
>> Which is >> required change. Uh >> that mandates annual inspection of kennels. >> Yes, mandates. That's a good one. >> Which mandates? >> Yeah, that's fine, too. Mandated, right?
>> Yeah, which is mandated. >> Oh, okay. Thanks. Sure. Yep. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Is that good? Yes. >> Um, I actually didn't look very much at
the substance of this. At one point I watched the select board meeting where they got all freaked out about the fees and the bylaw committee was going to rework it. Do you guys know was did they end up reducing the late fees or how quickly they >> they did? They they did reduce them.
Yep. >> Got good fun. >> Okay. Article 31. We do not we are I think this one won't change. We did not recommend um primarily because um as drafted now Jillian did want to talk um
to she did want to a conversation because they did they're going to alter it on the floor. >> Um >> oh for this part of it >> Oh, sorry Nil. Yeah. >> So Oh, go ahead, Peter. What are you
saying? Uh, sorry. I was reacting in surprise to the comment. I didn't know that that that had happened. >> Yeah. Just due due to how it was drafted, town council said that it was not like on the up there. There was things that had to be stricken and they
they did, but not in time to um make the draft. So, so they're going to um amend it on um at the town meeting. So, you know, we had said as a committee, we probably should come up, you know, so we're not um clueless of of how we want
to vote on this one of, you know, how we feel overall on it as a committee. Um but for this, you know, our in added comments, this won't change. Um >> um was there any consideration of the idea
that if we know the text of what the amendment's going to be that that we would be better off doing a formal recommendation on that, you know, tonight or probably not tonight because we didn't notice, but
next week, you know, after the public hearing or something. I just the idea that we're going to do a public meeting on town meeting floor. >> Yeah. >> And as I recall the last time, you know, all of a sudden, you know, we're like talking amongst ourselves and somebody said, "I can't hear. I can't hear."
>> And it it just becomes >> So, you know, we did talk about it, but Joel said that we couldn't have a formal recommendation based off of what wasn't in front of us because it hasn't happened. It could change on the town floor, right? It's a sure it's going to
happen, but >> it hasn't. So, >> but if if I would argue with Jill on this a little if if they presented us with a text >> and they stuck to that text >> and that's what I said. I I I asked as I
can have an idea agreed. Can we have an idea of what we would say assuming that that is what happens? And we didn't really get an official comment from her on that, but it sounded like, you know, yes, we can talk about anything we want right here. And yes, we can come up with
opinions based on that text. So >> yeah, we also actually could arrange for a very efficient meeting, I suppose, if we're all agreed that Jill could make a brief statement saying, you know, the finance committee was aware of this potential amendment. You know, we've
discussed the substance of these issues numerous times. Um, and you know, any member wants to make a comment, fine. Otherwise, we're going to proceed to a vote and you know, could be fairly quick and efficient that way if we all agree going
in. >> But yeah, I suppose we can talk. Is Jill here next week? >> She is. Yes. >> Oh, good. >> Yeah. >> Um, so yeah, we can talk about it again. But actually, maybe you could make a note to throw it on the >> Sure. >> agenda just to
>> Yeah. in case we do want to talk about it. >> So, add article 31. And I think right in the email that she sent to us, let me you won't see it cuz I'm not screen sharing, but um
she said, "Please note that article 31 has been updated in the final version of the warrant attached um and will be amended on the floor as described there." So, I guess it's in the warrant. We should be ready with a vote on town floor for the amendment as
our current vote/c comment is on the original version of this article. So, we won't change maybe what's written, but we should yeah be ready with how we're going to vote as a group. >> So, Katie, where is the new language? It's in
>> Let me um >> It's in the board. Yeah, let me stop my share and reshare and see if it's in this. This was this was attached to her email, the new um Let me go down cuz it's article 31, right?
24. That one's so low. >> And I thought the big thing was they're going to strike E and F. So here's 30. Oh, like past it. All right. >> Is this it? >> That's his comments, right?
>> That's really long. Um, >> yeah. >> Oh, wow. >> So, there's F, there's F, and there's E. What does it say now under E? Financial hardship. So, I thought that was what they were going to strike is >> I thought so, too. So maybe this is the
final that got printed and they're amending this on the floor. >> On the floor. Yeah, >> cuz right it's still in here. So I guess we just have to discuss knowing that those things are going to be strike. How would we still vote on it?
>> Yeah. And I thought there was one other change like a a word but >> like land instead of parcels or something. I I don't >> I know I'd have to pull it from past emails, but right there there was a few there was like there was a handful of changes.
Um but yeah, that looks like the original one we we already saw. I feel it is. She seemed to say it wasn't. But um unless unless I misunderstood that they were striking E and F, but maybe I
misunderstood. I could look in board docs on last week. Um, right. That should be in there. Board. Why is Why are these things coming in here? Oh, it's not going to let me. There we
go. Um, let me go to my board docs. uh select board finance committee. So it was April 27th um and it would have been
stock license trash and recycling email. Is that the MMA update? No, I I would I don't know. I'm going to say I'm going to probably have to look for that and I don't know where it is at this moment. >> We're talking about the what was taken out of that. >> Um
>> what was what was like what we were just saying that what was >> by town what what amendments they're going to make. Yeah. I mean, is that something that we want to search for tonight and talk about or do we want to table that for um the public hearing prior to the public
hearing next because that's next week, right? >> I think we could table it if we can't found it easily. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Um and I'm sharing that. Let me >> but also it might give us a chance to
collect you know what's going to be the final amendment >> right >> if if they haven't >> right >> oh did I get Oh N you can come back I guess for now hi
>> did I did I get this last one from Um, yeah. So, funnily enough, the version of this of the stock that I have, it does have it written there, so I can just read it out if if that's easier. >> Oh, sure. >> Um, passing this article would spend uh $22,423
of the Oh, sorry. Yeah. >> Well, I guess did um is is this somewhere where I could copy and paste? Did I miss it? >> I I I unfortunately I may have only sent it to Jill. Um so >> Oh, that's fine. That's fine. So passing of this article,
>> but can you just email it now? >> Oh, that's a good idea. Yeah, let me do that. Sorry. >> There you go. Thank you. >> We can come back to this. >> It's our last one. >> Um, I had a thought on the budget article comments.
>> Okay. >> You said we'd come back. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> And realizing what I was trying to say and why it wasn't working so much. Um, and you know, sorry, Nathan, but I think I'm relying on you if these numbers are easy. Um,
so I want to compare the $900,000 or whatever it is for benefits increase to the overall town budget increase, but without the change to debt service, because that's like fake. That's not real money that we
get to spend. >> Sure. Do you want to include the $900,000 decrease from public works? >> Yes, I think that's I mean >> actually that is so that we get to spend the 900,000. We're
certainly spending the 900,000. So yes, I guess we should include it. And again, if people don't think this is important, we don't need to revisit this. I'm not trying to drag the meeting out either. So, um, but I realized why the number wasn't as shocking as I
thought it should be, and it's because there's an extra 2 point something of debt service in there that warps. >> Yeah. So, it's it's 72% of the increase if you take out um or it's 72% of the change if you take out
the debt service and include the fact that we're decreasing public works by 97,000. >> So, I may I that's the that's more the statistic I was trying to go after. Now maybe we've covered it and we don't need to say anything more and I'm certainly
not trying to rework this late at night. >> Do we want to add it somewhere? You know, it's just uh that percentage is a little bit odd because you know the
that 942,000 that's 72. >> I see. Yeah. Maybe we say enough with the 9% and the 20%. >> Okay. Yeah, never mind. Fine. Um let's not change anything. Now when I click on word you guys
disappear. Are you are you able to see like do right now are you seeing article 7 in front of you? >> Yes. >> Okay. Okay. Good. >> You only see half your face but >> it's the weirdest thing I still don't get that there's like nothing. All
right. Um so let me go back to Nikil's comment at the very end. So he said pass it um passing this article would spend 22,000. Oh what is this on? Oh, capital stab stabilization. So, passing would um spend $22,423
of the $416 currently in the um capital stabilization fund to help purchase two police cruisers. The capitaliz capital stabilization fund is a savings account specifically intended for purchasing capital items. Fin recommends this article given the relatively small outflow and the importance of keeping
emergency equipment up to date. Um, wait. I think you got to say we're spend uh what was it? Article 4. We're spending way more than that with free cash,
right? So, we're spending 121577 out of free cash. Um, and wait, so Oh, yeah. This is just cuz that wasn't enough, right? >> Right. I mean, this isn't the only >> Yeah.
>> This this is only like part of the cost of of the cruisers. It's also being like, you know, that that cost is being expended with sort of other money. But I guess I don't I guess like for this for like this article sort of as it exists like on its own or whatever. I mean I guess like would we like would we sort
of want to make a reference to like the other articles then or would we want to just keep this sort of focus like on its own? I mean, I'm I'm I'm finding way, but >> what about just a sentence that says the total cost of the cruisers is I'm sorry,
get my calculator 140 something with the other 121,000 coming from free cash. 121577 plus
22423. Oh, it's 144,000 even. >> Okay. And then how much um with the other what was the amount from free cash? 121 >> uh 121577.
>> Okay. >> I just don't want anybody to, you know, think, oh, we got a cruiser for 22,000 or something. >> That's fair. That's >> Yeah. Yeah. Isn't it article cruisers for 144? >> It is I think it's two cruisers. We get
>> Yeah, there was an email from like the middle of April that said it was two cruisers was my understanding. Um, would we want to say like in parenthesis after coming from free cache uh like C articles uh insert number? Um, so people know that what we're talking
about. >> Article four. >> Article four. Good. We good? I mean, do we want to leave small outflow in there? It's a small outflow of this, but could say given this relatively small
outflow since it's about this specific article instead of given the relatively small outflow just to change the the to this to make it more >> focused on this particular article I guess >> just a random sort of something like this. Are any others we want to go back to
other than Well, we decided the citizens position will we'll wait until next week, right? >> Yes. >> That's all of them. any of them really bothering people that
we we want to discuss one last time. All right, I think they're good. Then should we move on to other um agenda items? So, I think the only thing is um
approval of minutes, updates from chair. It's public hearing next week, but there's not really any planning we need to do for that. I'll just let Jill know that we want to add article 31 on as a topic discussion for um the next meeting. Anything else to add to the
next meeting other than the public hearing? Let me stop share. All right. I actually didn't pull up I know your meeting minutes, Linda, are in on board docs. Let me pull that up.
Finance committee. View the agenda meeting minutes. Save. All right. Um, so let me come back to here and I will share.
All right. So these were the media minutes from April 27th. We were all here. Peter was out. Mainly we just voted on everything that we hadn't yet and wrote a couple comments. So, it looks like Linda, you have the
list of those. >> Yeah, we went through every article. A lot of them we could skip, some we voted, comments, and these were the who we assigned to each articles that we then discussed tonight. routine agenda.
All right, future meeting plans. So, next week is our regular meeting at 7, public hearing at 7:05, but potentially later than that. I don't know if she'll put adding this article in the beginning or the end. Um,
May 18th, annual town meeting. 25th we'll be off for Memorial Day and then June we start regular meetings could start planning non-T meeting stuff. All right. Does anyone have a motion to
um approve these minutes? Can I make a motion? I'll make a motion to approve the minutes for April 27th. >> Second. >> All right. I'll take a roll call vote um
to approve April 27th. Linda, >> yes. >> Nathan, >> yes. >> Um Peter, >> yes. >> Nil, >> yes. and Nathaniel. >> Yes. >> All right,
we are good. Um, I don't think there was any other things she noted for us to talk about. Um, let me go back to her email
just see if there was any chair updates. Um, no, just the trash and recycling update and when all the um meetings were the grill and gather mayor public library um council on aging. So, we have a list of that that we can share. Um,
and nothing else other than article 31. So, I'm going to stop my share, make you all bigger so I can see you. All right. Is there anything else we want to discuss tonight? I am not hearing anything. Um, do we
feel ready to um adjourn at 8:33? I see thumbs up. All right. So, we will All move second. >> Okay. >> All right. Linda first, Peter second. I will take a roll call vote to adjurnn. Uh, Linda, >> yes. >> All right. Nathan,
>> yes. >> Peter, >> yes. >> Nquille, >> yes. and a Daniel.