you you you you you I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm sorry. you I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. you you I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm sorry. This meeting is now called to order. All police rise for the legible regions. Before we get started with the discussion information items this evening, I just want to make a few opening comments. The purpose of this meeting is to go over the revenue expenditures for parks and rec, water fund, and waste water fund, as well as a number of proposed changes to the utility CIP plan. Our mine council members that we're expected to behave appropriately when it comes to asking questions of any member of the staff. It will be ruled out of order if you ask a question multiple times or otherwise behave in a hectoring and confrontational manner. So without further ado, I will turn things over to the town manager. Good evening, Mayor and Tom Koso. This is all a turn-... Sorry about that. So I'll repeat, good evening, Mayor and Tom Koso. This is our third work session. As you indicated, we'll be looking at Parks and Rec. Fund expenditure revenue. Also water fund, wastewater, and then we'll close out with a utility C. Okay, we're at no for it. I'll introduce Linda to get into their revenues starting with Parks and R. Good evening. I'm just going to give you a brief overcap of pages 120 to 121 and just summarize the Parks and R. Revenue for you. So the revenue budget is $805,000 and it is a 4% increase over the prior year or a 32% increase which was basically driven by the real estate assessment, the rate stayed the same, and the components of the budget are the general property taxes which would be the real estate, the firements field special tax district of 644,000 or 80% of the budget. And the other local revenue is 161,000 or 20% of the budget. And the biggest components of that are the rent on the property, which is about 9%, and in the programs are about 7% of the budget. Now I can hand this over to, do you have any questions on the revenue. Then I believe Amy is going to do this. I have to add one question on the revenue. What was the stated reason for the 4% increase? Basically the assessment value increased. It was the biggest driver of it. and other component was there was a $25,000 increase for sponsorship ads and the de-renticipated for next year. And is that ticking into consideration the point 192 rate that was that's for the general fund the fireman's field was the three cents and it stayed flat. Understood. Thank you. Amy or there. I'd just be happy to answer any questions you might have about our revenues. Yeah. So Linda, do you want to take it back over? I think it's back to me to give you every cap of the water revenue. So that would be on page 126 and 127. And it is 3.84 minutes before you start. The parks and Rec expenditures start on page 195. Do you have any questions for staff on the expenditures for that fund? Please proceed. the water revenue can be found on pages 126 and 127. It's $3.84 million and the biggest component of that is the usage at $2.8 million and within the non-operating revenue of $431,000, it includes cellular lease revenue of $270,000 and investment income of $1.61. But again, the biggest piece of it's going to be the usage, which is about 73% of the budget. And then the transfer in amount was $615,000 to represent 16% of the revenue budget. Which is the meals tax? There any questions on the revenue for the Water Fund? one thing, jumps out at me. Why were there was local grant and other grants for 2024, but nothing in 2025, just curious. A lot of the grants we don't recognize until we actually know that they're received. And then we'll do a budget amendment for them when they come along. Some of them, if we tend to get them every single year, we might build them into the budget. Okay, thank you. I have a question. I would love to see, you know, every year I ask you this and my favorite ratios are how much our operating costs are versus how much we're charging the consumer. So a member a few few years ago it was it cost the town $30 per thousand gallons and we were or $21 per thousand gallons and we were charging the public $13 so we were in that deficit. Do we have those numbers again this year? We will have them next week with the utility rate advisors coming in we've reviewed information with, and that's one of the questions that we ask is perfect. Thank you. Okay, we're ready for the expenditures for water. We are. Okay, that is on page 206. And are there any questions? And if so, Jason, we'll be happy to answer them. Okay, waste water revenue. We can go to pages 132 to 133 and I'll just give you an overview on that. The total revenue budget is $5,870,000 and the biggest piece of it again is $4.2 million of it is the usage. And in the non-investment or non-operating revenue, in this case, the $199,000 is for the investment income. There's a piece. It's a transfer from reserves, which is the nutrient credit that council decided to move $500,000 over in FY25, $300,000 in FY26. And then the remainder, maybe $180 or so next next year we'll see what happens with the interest and then the last component is the transfer in from the general fund of a million one forty three which is related to the mill stacks for the wastewater fund. Question. What is the totality of the sources for investment income? Is it all reserve capital? That is correct, yes, because the ARPA interest sits in the general fund until it's assigned. Any other questions on the revenue? The waste water expenditures are on page 210. Are there any questions related to the CIP changes then? No question. Okay. So, where there's wastewater plan other, there's another one. So, wherever we see other, is there a further explanation as to what's included in other? Like in this case, it's 171,467. Jason is asking waste water plant other. What is included in that? the other is the you have your plant expenditures and you will see right below other you have your pump stations the other is all the other miscellaneous that feed into that plant. The other buildings and that type of criteria that we have to do maintenance on and operating. And I'll follow up a little bit stronger with that in an email, okay? Just in this maybe out of context but when we help another town like we just did with Round Hill. Yes ma'am. Is there reciprocity as far as billing? Do we build them? They build us if we need them? How is that accounted for? We rarely need them but that option is always open if we need assistance and yes ma'am we do invoice them immediately. Once we get our work order completed, we follow back up with an invoice and they always have responded back quickly. Great, thank you. And then I can give you a couple examples of what's in the wastewater plant. They're like consultants of 18,000. There's some long range planning in there. Other consultants, any property maintenance, GIS layers, software, there's a list of my account-by-account. Okay, no questions? All right. Okay, no questions. All right. We'll move on to the proposed utility CIP plan changes. And that's in a document that was provided to New York's, the other at the Dias. So this year, I sat with the leadership team and we decided to not go the route of loans for three critical projects within the CRT budget. Those critical projects are their tank that will be at the fields form, which is a mission critical asset that we need to put up and needs to be completed. I believe by December of 2026, it's as a completion date. That's one critical asset, our project from the CIP. The second is our screens. We have the core screens and the fine screen. Think of them as trailers within the wastewater treatment facility. The core screen is our first line of defense. The thin screen is our second line of defense before the flows get to our micro fibers, right? Jason correct me, yeah, membrane fibers, right? So those are critical assets that have been malfunctioning for years. So we need to replace those two. And the third is the West End Palm Station. Well, six out. I'll get to West End Palm Station a second. So with those three projects, right, our choice was to go the route of a loan or find cash to take care of them. My recommendation is to look into our cash, take out our cash to fund those free projects, and do a reimbursement loan if council so chooses to replenish the cash reserves. Because again, the savings, we put money in reserve for critical issues or events. We ICD's three project is mission critical and they need to be corrected. Okay, so that is what is summarized in the table. I'll quickly go through the first project. The new water tank, we are looking at $983,000. Instead of going the route of a loan, we will use Prophors of 246,000. Oh, we are on this sheet. Yeah, there is a handout. Yeah, okay. Page two in your. Oh, I thought we were all there. I'm sorry. I'm going to repeat. Okay. So the first project is a new water tank. Funding chip, we are taking 983,000 instead of it being a loan from a loan, we'll be breaking it out from ProFers, which would be 246,000. And the investment earnings of 80, 88 K and output interest of 295 K followed by what attached reserves of 354 K. So the benefit there is in short timely project completion to meet output that guidelines December 2026 and it takes us from going out and getting loans. Okay? Any questions on that first project? I'm there. Yes. A couple questions. Once this 295K is taken from the ARPA interest, what is the projection for available ARPA interest going forward? Are there any other draws on it? I should ask in FY26. So the question is, do we have remain in ARPA interest? So the remaining ARPA interest forthcoming. Paula, that uses up all the interest that we've accrued today, correct? Correct. Okay, so that shows how much we've earned to date, so that's utilizing that, but we will continue to earn arpa interest. And it's just going to be dependent on two things, the balance in the arpa account and the interest rate, whatever it is at that particular month. So it will continue to occur as the short answer. Okay, thank you. Second question, what is the source of the proffers? Those are from the Mayfair development. Some of the proffers were for transportation only, which we've been using in the General Fund. there were several that were used or could be used for transportation or other capital projects within town. Councillor Boone. Councillor Boone. I was on the news that all those proffers were gone. How much has left in that proffer account from Mayfair? I believe with this, it pretty much uses up the Mayfair proffers. Okay, thank you. If you need, I can provide an accounting later on. It's okay, I trust that you said it's. I think that's it. I'll just say thank you. Okay. Oh, yeah. Use a water fun cash that's water fun reserves. So That's what's That's what's bringing us down to 88% of policy Because because well when it was previously briefed it was 114 112 I believe believe and this additional draw is now bringing us to 88%. I'll say this is a little confusing because we're dealing with multiple years here. What he's covering in the first section is the current year so it's FY 25 and basically what we're focused on in 25 it's the current year projects and and we can't have a loan in 25, keep calling it a loan source if that's not our intention. So we're cleaning that up and then we're, he's in a second going to talk about some other defunding of projects which also could be thought of as deferring projects. Sure. He's going to talk about next. Then we're going to talk about 26. And there's a lot of moving parts here. So it is complicated. But I think getting to your question is more on page three. And that is the fiscal policy where it was, I think you said 112 in the budget document. Once we draw down cash for these changes, which in the case of the water fund is the new water tank of the 354,000 that we just spoke of, and then something we're going to talk about in a second, which is the well 6F, which is 600,000, that totals to $3.4 million. I'm sorry, it leaves $3.4 million or 88% cash level at that point. And then in red there we're talking about a reimbursement resolution. So we would have the opportunity if Council so chooses once we put this reimbursement resolution in place to pay ourselves back our our reimburse our cash of $954,000 if we choose to do that. And then in the waste water fund which we'll talk about in a second, we are at 86% I believe in the budget cash level. Once we pull the cash out, which she hasn't spoken about yet, for the screen replacements, we're down to 62%. And we have the opportunity, if we choose to reimburse that $1.6 million, with a future loan. A reimbursement resolution, we've provided a little more information here. We will need to get bond council to weigh in on that and to help us have a draft resolution written right now. But there's a fair amount of legal constraints. We don't want to actually issue the reimbursement resolution until about the time they're willing to spend the first of these dollars. Because once you trigger that reimbursement resolution, you only have 18 months to then secure a loan in order to reimburse those dollars. So, there's a lot of moving parts. Yeah, I think I'm ahead around it. So, what are the pros and cons on issuing a loan now versus deferring the loan, pulling from reserves, and then conducting a reimbursement resolution, which is, in essence, issuing alone then? I was a safe speaker. We need to get these bodies down as soon as possible. I understand, but why fund them with reserves now and then conduct a reimbursement resolution via alone, as opposed to just issuing the loan now? What's the trade off? The long day's time is you now. It'll be about taking time to go out into the market together. No, we have this money in reserves today. So we can give direction to staff to go ahead and make sure we fund these projects and set waiting for the loan. And the reason why we do the value proposition of a reimbursement is if we decide, is it 18 months? 18 months. Within 18 months, let's be, let's take back what we borrow from ourselves. So we're basically borrowing from savings. I think the other issue is there's no new debt service for a new additional debt service in the 26th budget, which we really, if we were planning on doing a loan in the short term within FY 26, you would want to include some debt service in there. Right, which there was in the initially presented budget. Was there not? So clearly, when the initial budget was presented, we found it feasible to issue a new loan this year to cover the cost of these critical projects. But now we've decided to do the reimbursement resolutions. I'm trying to wrap my head around what changed here. Why are we going the route of reimbursement resolution rather than loan? Okay, and one part is this speed, right? We can get, this money is already in our coffers, we can take it out in this path. The process is going to be a process again and the loan. And with the process again and the loan, you're not putting more debt on to that rate payers. Which you'll be doing via reimbursement resolution. If you use so much use, you would have an investment resolution. Would we not? So if we don't do reimbursement resolution, this is just a draw on reserves, putting a spillo policy that's not going to be reimbursed. If council chose not to conduct a reimbursement resolution. If it's not to conduct a reimbursement resolution, And then it goes back to the why do we have reserved? So we are giving to be drawn for critical projects as I described well 6F. If we were to repeat the drug conditions of last year. We do not really have a solution. So that's the challenge that Tom Housel will have. Do you really need to re-inverse this money that you've taken out of savings to address a critical need? Well, we do because it's bringing us below policy dangerously. So in the case of wastewater, we're going to 62%. So we'll be approaching half of policy. So I think what he's saying is if we make the changes that are here, what was reflected in the budget, we would be at 86%, but with this change in use of cash, it would take us to a 62% level in the waste water fund and an 88% level which is below the 112 I think that was in the budget Let me I'll just if I can simplify I This is taking us further below policy than where we started when the budget was initially presented and so to me it seems like if we're going to go even further below policy in our reserves for water and wastewater, there should be a compelling reason. And so far, I'm not hearing a compelling reason to switch from issuing a loan to conducting reimbursement resolution because speed of the loan, if speed of the loan was an issue, then I would have thought that would have factored into the initial budget presentation that took place two weeks ago because you guys have been working on this for months. So I'm not understanding why now two weeks into the process, we're switching from a loan to a reimbursement resolution. It seems to me there should be a compelling reason to go this low on our reserves down to 62%. That's pretty low. And my- So this decision was made before two weeks ago. We set down and we decided that this would be the best course. Myself and the expertise of staff said, do we have this money to prevent going around alone and incur more debt, right? And we make that decision about the month ago, right? So excuse me, a month ago, then it would have been on the original sheet that we were given. The original budget included the loan, and that was presented two weeks ago. Yeah, but we said, two weeks ago, did you know that we would make it as changes? I talked to me, but we stated that we'll be making the provision. So in the meeting that presented the original meeting, I said they will be changes coming for the CIC because we made those changes. You decided to make the changes, but they hadn't been implemented into the spreadsheet. So now they've come into the spreadsheet and we're switching gears to the reimbursement resolution with the benefit being that it takes too long to issue the loan whereas we have cash on hand right now and so it would take too long to do the loan so we're switching to cash and we're going to reimburse that via resolution. If we decide otherwise we're just drawing on the reserves and not replenishing that. So will it be your recommendation in future years if you look at the because this is a multi-year plan obviously we're not just planning for 12 months is it your intent that we would conduct reimbursement resolution? Yes, if we do not so it's 18, you have 18 months here. When. When I sat with staff, that was in our direction. Yes, we have, of course, your guidance was when they take very low. But my recommendation would be, put the replenishment money. Hopefully, we'll get revenue from some other source that we don't have to replenish. So do the cash now, because it's quicker, and then conduct a reimbursement resolution via loan, which was the original plan, but we're just kind of getting through the same place, via a little bit of a roundabout way. It's good, correct. And I'm to give you folks an update on the CAB. Got it, thank you. Okay. We've good things. Okay. So we are going to do question. Question. Okay. So we want to do some questions. So everything I was here is it affects a bond when we go below that magic number and our reserves. Correct? Can impact a bond rating, which impacts? That is our understanding. Davenport will be here next week and they have a lot more experience with credit rating and so they can definitely respond to that question. And my question and maybe cannot answer now is, maybe you have to wait for them to answer, But we take it down to 62% and then we go out for a loan theoretically they're going to look at that and say wait a minute you below your set threshold or your set thing you're not following your own fiscal policy we don't feel either comfortable with giving you loan or we're going to jack the rates up because you're going against your own physical policy. So how do we sure that doesn't happen? Yeah, so I was saying we don't tell the comment. I didn't see a preliminary view from that report. I would rather have that conversation when that report is there. But be, first, to make a decision on this. That should be an answer we have before we make a decision on this. But we have time to make that decision. That will be presented all of the rates. And we can add that it's 62% what that trigger us going below when it required for the tri rate? So, to follow up that question is then, as you said, a reserves, which I'm not 100% sure I agree with you 100% about the reason we have reserves. The reserves, my understanding is for emergency items, not for known CIP improvements, which everything in here is a known improvement that just got delayed over time, correct? These are not emergency, we just found out about this yesterday type improvements. These are improvements that have been on the books. They just did not get funded over years. Am I accurate in that? Yes. Okay. So my understanding of what the funds balance is for emergencies, and especially since right now we don't have a means to replenish them of evidence source to be replenished them. We're taking out other loans. So we'll be taking out of this reserve with no set or known way to replenish them at the moment. OK. So we will, if except for loans. So we do have an emergency. We're taking more and more money out. Our plan is to constantly use these reserve funds to fund known CIP projects down the road. Because if we're doing it for this, which is not an emergency, it's just something that got delayed. OK, there was not funded in past for whatever reasons. So there's still more. And if I remember correctly, there was about $30, $40 million worth of CIP needs in the wastewater and utilities part. If I remember the budget correctly. And all those have been delayed for reasons. Is the plan then to continue to fund by just pulling out of reserves? No, that's kind of his bad. Go ahead. No, I'm just curious because I mean, it concerns me that we're pulling out of savings to do this as opposed to taking out a loan to ensure that we keep our bond rating and follow our fiscal policy. So, and I apologize if, in my head, I'm just not wrapping around it, but it just doesn't make a lot of sense right now to me to pull out of savings to do this, understand their critical. But what's the length of time it usually takes to get alone? Can you just ask for a question? What's the length of time? I would say between just depending on timing of meetings, it would take between two and three months, maybe two and a half months and the reason why I say that is council would request that our financial advisor, Davenport issue and RFP they'll send it to all the different banks, they'll get their results, then they'll come back before the council because it does take council resolutions in order to issue new debt. So they would give you a summary of the RFP results and make their recommendation and council would then. So these projects cannot wait for three months. It's what you're telling me. Because they're going to wait a month already because, well, theoretically, they're going to wait a month because you can't do anything until we approve the budget, correct? Until we approve that you can't do anything, so right there is the length. So these projects cannot wait three months to do a loan. It's what you're telling me because you say, you know, do them with the money now because we don't have time to wait for the loan. So my accurate saying, these projects cannot wait three months. Does it say it's okay that we cannot wait three months? Well, six out. If we do not connect that line. And we have drought condition. As I stated in my BPL days, we are tracking that. We don't have enough wind in three months're waiting for three months. I'm not sure I fully agree with that. There's a lot of what-ifs in there. It's been what-ifs we've been. Do you have any additional questions? I'd like to hear from the experts. I mean, truly, can this, can this... Jason, can we wait three months? I'll attempt to answer the best I can. I'll start with 6F. We have been working with this project for a while. If you remember last year that we took some of the ARPA funding and we did a filtration that was on wheels. We did like 280,000, 300,000. Is that me with the static? Yeah, take somebody else as much. Sorry about that. So we've already made a commitment to bring that well online. If we want to call it putting it in phases or stages, we got that filtration in place. We had to do some modifications to one of the buildings up at the water plant. We got all that up and running. The hiccup that we came, 6F would have been online probably already, but when we did the nutrient bank, we had to go through some paperwork of getting that line because we made that commitment and we have to honor that commitment. So we had to work with our Davy Trees, leave that's the name, of the nutrient bank ownership. that we're officially getting all that done. And now to connect that well is actually the piping. So the cost that we're looking at that, Mr. Frazier's talking about, is bringing that well online. That is going to be a good yield for us of 100,000. It's going to, it's much needed. And I think that's where the timing. It's not only the drought that we're dealing with. We're also dealing with the PFAS recommendations as coming down or the PFAS rules and the laws that would be coming down. So we have some of our wells offline now. So we have that need of that well of bringing it online. We're really, really close. This funding puts us over where we can get that. The drought is an issue. If we look at the past trends, we have probably what the last two years and going into this year early, we're seeing drought conditions. We're being under they're saying a not a volunteer about a drought watch to start watching that. So all these factors are coming into play with the wells offline that we have the intangible of a well going down. We need that 6F, that yield, that well to help us with the day-to-day operations. Did that help? It did. I mean, to me it's again, we've been out without it for this long. It's two to three months, that bigger difference is what I was sort of getting on. Would I'd like to have that well online right now, absolute. I would like to have it online last summer. We were on a fine line. And there is an importance of getting it, or we're talking about months or days, me personally, for an operational standpoint, and my team, we would like to have that pipe in the ground now. I could go into the fine screen just a little bit, if you like, where I could go into the fine screen just a little bit if you like. We could add I'd like to know the fine screen is a big one for me. The fine screen which is probably the you know it's it's the larger amount of funding and you probably will not see it in the outdated years of of CIP and it's been recently put in because we've noticed noticed the failure coming in more and more. The first thing is we're really at a safety protocol of how we're making them cleaning that system now. The failure of the system, we are doing some manual work that's probably not a good standard to be doing. We did create a standard operation practice. Mr. Frazier had brought, I think we've talked about in the past council meetings or budget meetings with that. The more important, important also is number one, the safety of our staff. Number two is that this type of screening process saves us in the long run of protecting our filters. We were just in here about what, three years ago, replacing a big part of our filtration in that plant because it branded cycle. This screening process helps us keep the years of service in the filtration, the filters, I should say. If we do not protect them filters, we do not want to be coming back to future councils and saying, hey, we did not get our life expectancy say all these filters because we did not replace this screen process. We talked about the cost savings of doing both the fine and the course screening. We talked about that a little bit I mean earlier in and I believe a CIP meeting that we were combining all them together to get the best pricing because we needed to do that design so they're designing them all together. We have encouraged our consultants to have this ready July 1 because we understand the importance and as if the funding opportunity comes up that might be one of the reasons why you might look at if you're going to use your funding now or Alain, I don't know that's not my my will house one what at that process, but The the need of them to and of course Andre I can speak on the importance of having the elevated tank and where you've committed Arpa funding So the follow-up question then is is do we have to have to do the reimbursment loan? You can begin the loan process anytime you want. We can ask staff important next week to start an RFP. We need to be very clear on what the plan is, how much we want to borrow, what projects we want to borrow for, whether they're capable to move forward within the length of time you you need to spend down alone. And the other issue is we would need to put debt service into FYI, additional debt service into FYI 26 because if we issue a new loan we are going to be required to pay the debt on that new loan. So the reimbursement resolution if we were to do it six months into FY 26, we'd still have to do that anyway correct? Yeah, yeah. And just a clarification, what we're talking about is a loan versus cash here. A reimbursement resolution is just a mechanism to reimburse ourselves. You have to have that in place. If we got a new loan 12 months from now, the way the IRS regulations are for tax exempt bonds, you can only look back, I think, 60 days. So if we spent something six months before then, oh well, we can't reimburse ourselves. So all that does is just provide flexibility, but really the mechanisms and with the utility funds, you're down to two options. Cash and loan. For the tank itself, because that one is just absolutely so critical, it is ongoing right now and it's with the ARPA funds and we have a deadline. That's why we looked, you know, what we're sort of saying in the FY25, in the current year, we're saying we're getting a new loan. Well right now we have no intention of getting a new loan. We are at least no plan in place to get a new loan. So we need to find the funding source for this stuff. And that's sort of what we're doing. So we're moving things around, but we only have a limited window to change the budget for 25 because we're doing. So we're moving things around, but we only have a limited window to change the budget for 25 because we only have three more months of 25. So that's kind of, I guess, it's a complicated plan. It's moving, it's deferring some projects, some projects have already got some cash funding, and we're kind of reallocating those dollars, but there's a lot of moving parts with this and I apologize. It's just how it is. The other thing is that I think you're sort of asking why this came up and I believe once the plan was sort of finalized, the public works and engineering departments had real concerns about deferring some of these projects for a longer period time. Clearly the tank, we have a contract, it's underway, we must pay. We have obligations and commitments there. And then these other two projects, which is the well-sixth and the screens, the public works department has said these are critical they can't wait and that's what kind of drove us back to the drawing board. Thank you. Okay Jason just remind me have the screens been ordered? No. No we're in design. That's we're in design. Where are they coming from? Can I just add so for these are all, well, the screens and 6F waterline are FY26 projects. That means I cannot put them out on the street for bids to be received to award them till July 1st because they will be approved as an FY26 project. So my goal is to have both of those projects 100% design and ready to go out on the street by July 1st. Their neither project has had any funds besides design funds committed to it because they are FY26 projects. If you guys vote them as in this CIP FY26. Okay. I was just. Tara's went in today and so if they're coming from overseas we're talking 35% raises and costs so like these estimates could be wildly off if still it costs to see for more money. That's what I'm worried about right now too. This is they could be wildly different. Yeah, I don't know where the you know with that as for the water storage tank that project has been awarded you know so that one we shouldn't see a change as for, I don't know if the piping for the waterline project would be affected. We haven't heard anything yet from our consultants, but I think there's been just so unknown about the tear of so far. It's kind of, it's a little hard to. I would think that the piping for 6F would be US steel. And I think one of the vendors that were, well, I shouldn't, I would think that the improvements that we need with the fine screens would come from the United States, but I'm not 100% sure. Brilliant, thank you. Okay. One final question. I think this is for Liz and you may not be able to answer it. What is the typical operating expense and your operating expense capital reserve? kept for utility funds outside of Percival inside the state of Virginia. It's very much varies depending primarily on the size of the locality. Davenport has recommended, are you talking about utility or general? You're talking about utility or general for your public utility funds right now. Davenport maybe could provide more information. What I will tell you is that originally when we came up with our fiscal policies, there was a 200% requirement due to our size. This was probably in 2005. And then we lowered it down to 100% policy. And Davenport is prepared. We've already talked to them about, because I know that you guys have had questions before, as can we lower it from 100%. And I believe their answer is going to be possibly, but I want them to sort of go into more detail with you guys about that. Fair enough, thank you. Mayor, one more question. I'm still gonna start on the timeline. So if we're talking about FY26 EIP, and we're talking about two and a half to three month lead time on alone and we're talking about passing this budget this month Like to me that works, but help me understand why it why it doesn't what am I missing? And that decision is made safe and everywhere. That will come into play by Roger that. Which is when the FY26 budget starts. We did when the FY26 budget starts. July is the summer season. Jason has a minimum minimum, needs to start already in parts for that pipeline to bring the wrong home. We don't build, we get the money, because we have to show that we have the source of the money, so we can put it there. Right? So, that money will be ready by July 1st, and that's when we can go out and get this. Today we have that money in our reserves. We can go out and start getting bits for these projects. I have said for it in the squeeze. Okay, so we could run the loan but then by the time that Jason you're saying you want to buy want to you want to buy that today You don't wait till July 1st Even though it says so because it's under the FY 26 tab. That's where I'm trying to understand are we buying it today? Are we buying it July? I mean go buy it today like I don't I'm an issue with that. This is all critical But I'm trying to understand like FY 26 FY 25. We still got some process to do with design and some work with the county commission report. I think permanent or something. We got some work to do. So maybe my hang up is that this is under FY26. I'm thinking about it as you're starting it in July, but you're saying you want to go out tomorrow. If I had my way, yes. But we are ahead somewhat with us having the design started and I'm most completed. So early on it was said that there wasn't a whole lot of faith in the numbers for these projects. What assurances can you give us that we are going to nail down costs that are true costs as opposed to? Can I speak to this please, these have all one project is already awarded. We know the actual cost that we are required to pay the contractor. The other two are cost estimates by professional engineers that this is what they do for their life. So these projects you are not going to get a better cost estimate than what you currently have for these projects. And that was to a lot of the shelter go. Yes, and I told you that on that. This is not one of the projects that you had a question on. OK, thank you. Uh-huh. I got to just want to clear up something. You said we can't do anything into July 1, because it's FY 26 budget. You're saying we can start buying stuff to make the budgets approved. So where's the difference? We can't. Can we spend any of this money before July 1st of 2020? I'm going to let Paula come in here because there's a lot of moving parts. But that is one reason why there's an FY25 budget amendment we're freeing up cash so they can start. They can't complete the screens for instance. They'll have some preliminary money in this fiscal year. But they are going to need more in next year's budget to finish it, but I'm going to let her at those projects. That's fine. So you just saw me's a little bit of money coming out of FY 25 to start the project but the only way to finish it is to do the FY 26 stuff. So the tank can be fully taken care of in FY 25 except for the $354,000 that we will be borrowing from our reserves that we have the potential to pay ourselves back. With the screens, they're defunding two projects and they're reallocating dollars from those two projects. That's the VIP pump station and the West End pump station that provides some, let's call them preliminary dollars to get them started on those screens. But then we need to then change the FY26 to get the balance. Originally that project was funded in FY26, correct? Yes. Okay. So this gives him preliminary money to at least start the process. Obviously you would not want to start that process unless you had a clear plan for finishing the process. So what you wouldn't want to do is defund these projects, start working with a contractor, you want to be reasonably certain council is going to prove the balance of the funding. I would like to say one thing, both the well-6F and the screens, there's already money in FY25 that Andrea has started design on those two projects. The 2.5 million in FY26 for the screens was then to actually build the screens and get them installed. But with the 980,000, once her designs done, she could technically start construction in FY25, but more than likely she's not going to have the design done before 26 anyway. That's OK. Thank you. Appreciate it. So that raises another question, though. I'm sorry. I'm this timeline. I can't. So I get the argument we want to do reimbursement resolution for what Jason wants to go by tomorrow. And I want Jason to go by tomorrow. That's awesome. Let's do it. So we're going to do reimbursement resolution instead of that's now. But we're talking about VIP pump station, million gallon tank and West End pump station. All of those are defunded to fur. These are not being addressed in FY26. Why not issue a loan for those? Because it's not like we're doing, we're even doing reserves for those to do it in the short term and reimburse. We're just kicking it to FY27. So why not do it in FY26 and issue a loan for it? Okay. So team, what about this $900,000, $3,000? Can we go out and get a loan? The tank needs to be done, Andrew. I'm talking about the tank. Yeah, so if I read the document correctly, there's three projects being deferred. So I get the argument on the reimbursement resolution to make it quicker. But to me, doing it in FY26 is quicker than doing it in FY27. So for these three projects, why wouldn't we issue the loan? You can. So why are we using it? Well, I should say you can, given that 2.5 to 3 month period. You can at any time you want to, but I would first ask if they can finish that, if they are ready to go borrow money. Because there also is a limited period that we can draw down. they have to be pretty shovel ready. Now are these projects shovel ready? I'm not sure if they would be good. All right there. Okay. Well I should say VIP pump station improvements in Weston pump station is both are 100% shovel ready. And Mill gallon tank is, is there a percentage on that? Million gallon tank is under construction now. So it's, It's a question of getting money to pay for it. Because we've heard. Oh, I'm sorry, which one did you ask million gallon tank now? Million gallon tank sales. That one, um, defer until new loan is issued. So I'm saying why wouldn't they? Million gallon tank cannot happen until after the new water storage tank is completed. So the soonest that we would be able to start that is probably in July of 2026, which would be FY27. Which would be FY27. Okay, so for the other two, if there are 100% shovel ready, why are we deferring them instead of issuing a loan for them. So the Western Palm Station, there may be an opportunity for the Palm Station to assist us in that conversation. Okay. Maybe doesn't help. We spoke about this last week. We can say hope should be, could be, that it may be also means may not be. So why would we gamble on something that may or may not happen? Because if it doesn't happen, when we're just deferring Weston pump station for a year with no plan. So why not do it issue the loan and then maybe if we get that help later, great, that's awesome, but otherwise we're deferring it and rolling the dice. And then MVIP same thing. So maybe the word for all of the family. When I say maybe there is a thing we are certainly in that, right? In my mind based on the conversation that we have had with the company, I will say it's about a 75% in the real certainty in did in my mind. And so based on that, and you're folks taking for what it is, the decision we've come from you all. So I'm saying that's common manager. There's about a 75% chance that the county can assist us through the West End Foundation. And if we were to do the West End Foundation today, as design, We have half to the West and the West and the West and the West and the West and the West and the today as design we have to reconfigure it to be the means of their county with their allows and records in the center. So we could build it today and then have to change it in the because of the capacity needed for that not only recreation. Yeah Andrea Andrea, and you want to weigh in on that. So, West End, it is Blue Ridge pump station that needs to be changed. So, in order for, I don't know when to say, for West End, Latin Ruck Center to connect to our sanitary sewer, when we did the modeling for that, it was assumed that Western pump station was complete, so we need that project. It also stated that the Lurage Pump Station needed upgrades and additional infrastructure upgrades were required for the sanitary sewer infrastructure piping, you know, going to the wastewater treatment plant. So those three items needed to be, will need to be done in order for that connection. So it's kind of like three separate infrastructure upgrades. I guess I'm seeing the argument on Jason wants to go by, I set up a well tomorrow, I want more water, I don't want another drought situation. Go do that. I get that. But for the two pump stations that we're deferring instead of doing a loan as was originally planned, I'm not sure. Because if it takes three months to get a loan, it takes three months to get a loan. The current plan in this document from tonight is we're going to wait till FY27. So three months to get alone is a lot quicker than FY27. And if Andrea is saying they're shovel ready, I'm not sure why we would defer. Does that make sense? Yeah. a lot quicker than FY27 and if Andrea is saying they're shovel ready I'm not sure why we would defer does that make sense? So how would maybe suggest a straw? Go ahead. So if the county had a 70% chance of helping us with this, there's a 70% chance they can and also reimburse us for this. If we go ahead and do it, as negotiations and negotiations, it's whether they spend the money to build it themselves or they reimburse us for the building of it, to them makes no difference. I can guarantee you that. So I agree. Why put this off when it's a no need. We should be looking at doing this loan. I agree we should probably do a straw vote to determine, it's an important enough CIP project. We cannot continue to kick these items down to the next following fiscal years, fiscal because they start to add up and prices go up so To me it's more physically responsible to do it now than continue to put it off year after year because it's going to continue to price The rise which in turn It's going to cost the taxpayers more money except million gallon tank because you can't actually start that I'm sorry of I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. So I think those should both be funded in FY 26. V alone. I know it's a straw poll. I want to bother making a motion. Well, this is the result of what happens when you defer and defer for projects is that they all become now emergency. I mean, I was talking about this four years ago, even before it got elected, about some of these projects. 75% certainly, like Kevin said, could be reimbursed and it's not even that is the one that needs to be renovated, as you said. That's the bluerage one, so that's completely separate project. I am all for making sure we get these projects done in a timely manner and if we can take a loan out now which do I want to add debt? Absolutely not but do we have to because we're draining on all our serves looks like we have to and we should do it while we still have a triply bond and could get decent rates so I'm all for funding these two projects so we don't defer them anymore and they get more expensive. Council member, right? Your vote all vote. It's drop. I didn't bother with the motion. It's drop, I'm sorry. So yes, I vote yes. Vice mayor No, not this time I think it's a little premature we have more discussions and Councilmember Luke I To would like more information on more of the whole overall funding and where all of our money is going to be going before I make that decision. Council Member Colliel. It's a lot of projects happening simultaneously. Do we have the manpower to oversee all these projects find out our cells. And I would vote no at this time. I think we lose leverage with the county if we just go ahead and fund it ourselves in terms of negotiating for something that they seem to be agreeable to in terms of covering their costs to add to our infrastructure. So again, I vote no know. Mayor if I may. I propose a second straw poll for solely the VIP pump station because town manager that's not something that's being discussed with the county correct. Okay. So I would propose that we add VIP pump station to FY 26 CIP via a loan. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. No for the same reason to get some of the Luke. I agree with that. I think I'd rather have more information first. Council Member Colliel. No. Council Member Stout. Yes. And Mayor votes no. Can I ask Mayor can we provide staff some guidance if we're asking for additional information. We have a document in front of us that's hundreds of pages. Can we specify to staff what additional information we need to make a decision on this? Because they have the answers and can bring it back next week or in an email Well councilmember blue cuz the one who was asking for more information I Would like to know what our total expenditures are by the time we're done with all of this budget stuff. And there's something that we know are critical. And those I would like to address in the sequence that you would like them so that we have water because we all know how scary that was. But other than that, I'd like to see what are all our other bills that we're going to have. I'm not clear on that question because the other bills are included in the FY26 budget. So that's presented unless there was a specific question, unless you're really just focused on the CIP projects. That's a yes on CIP focus only. I don't understand what the question is. For the CIP additional information. We have the projects, the two additional projects that are listed are originally FY25 projects And now we've moved into FY26 and they're 100% designed so they're the best cost estimate. We can obtain so what other additional information do you require? I guess what I'd like to see is the totality of the budget. Okay so it's not really a CIP question. Yeah, it's the whole thing that we're going to be doing. Okay, thank you. Oh, we're ready to move on to the proposed park and rec see IP budget changes. So, I just want to make sure that the staff is there on the committee. Is there something additional for the board? This is the CIP. We address the CIP and that's all the money we have to worry about. No, we have to worry about how the things go. Exactly. That's what I'd like to know. So in the end, when we settle this, we know where all our money is going to. And we've got this amount that we have to address to keep our wells and water going. Parks and Rik will take X amount. I'd like a balance of all of the money that we spend. That's what we're thinking. So I'm just not reading it right. Is that what you're saying? So what we presented is the total budget package that includes all of the CIP. Today we have talked in specifically about some changes that we've made to the CIP. Are you saying that we need to insert those changes to the original CIP? Well, what I'm saying is if I were spending this, I'd like to know, okay, do I have that money? And if I don't have that money, where would I get it from? Alone. And that's where we're addressing the loans, correct? All right, so we've already voted on this issue can we move on to Parks and Rec CIP budget changes may or we need to ensure we're giving staff clear guidance Because we had to straw poll vote on the IP fund station, which is a critical shovel ready project that there are no leads with the county on for funding It is a critical Shovel ready project and this is the time for editorial commentary. I'm asking if we are ready to move on to the parks and Rex the IP budget. No, we are not because we have a critical Shovel ready project for which no funding has been identified So I'm trying to understand why we are hesitant to direct staff, direct the town manager via straw poll, to include the VIP pump station in the FY26 CIP plan. Now the reasoning I heard was we need more information. So if we require we have already voted on the issue. Yes, and we also said the reason some of us said the reason for our votes was we need more information. So if we need more information, we need to direct staff to bring that information. Would you let the chair speak? Yes, I will. Thank you. We've already voted on this issue. It doesn't matter what reasoning was articulated during the vote. The votes were yes or no. It does if unclear guidance was provided to staff. If councilmember said I vote no because I need more information. Staff needs to know exactly what additional information is required. And that can be handled offline. Yeah. That's a no. Yeah, disagree. That's what the purpose of this meeting is to ask questions and get answers. Otherwise, there's no reason to have a budget workshop. And in our real state, that the body of seven have the direct staff, not individual members of the body. So we all have to decide how to direct staff, not just one member. We've already given direction via the vote. No. So she needs more information. We asked what information can be provided offline. No, it cannot be. No, it cannot be. The people who are on the, as one person cannot direct staff to do anything. Directing and getting information are two different things. If they have to go out and get information, that's directing them to do work, correct? So therefore, it should be the entire vote of the body, whether this is the direction we want you to go. If not, then all seven of us can ask anybody at any time to provide us information and tear up their entire day chasing questions for no reason. So again, if there's questions, and you said if there are questions that you have that staff needs to provide answers to, then as a body we should say, hey, these are the questions, these are what we need you to answer. Please spend your time and why is they answering these questions? There, if I may. I think you folks are at the end of the day. If I may, I think you folks are at the end pass. And, come to clarity, you can provide us questions. Because, and if you provide us a question, we could even have a sit down with you to understand exactly what this additional information is. Because right now, it's 7-Eleven, and I know you folks want to move on to other things. I'm not clear on exactly what your request is, but we do have a way of obtaining questions from you to clarify your request. I'm looking forward to what I will suggest. I would appreciate that. OK. And now, to the reason why we are here, we need a signal on these three critical projects, the tank, the screens, and also the 6F water line. If there is some indication to us on that. I'll also add that the packet that you have before you tonight, I guess we need some direction as to whether council wants to move forward with this because our utility rate models that are going to be presented at the next meeting are built on this right now. And if this is something you don't want to move forward with, we need to understand that. Otherwise, we're going to, the consultant stand tax going to be giving you some information that may not is what the modeling would be from Stanford. And so we need your direction on that. So when Stanford comes before us, it's included enough. So my question is, so we're drawing down on reserves. We're using up, I get using our profits, great. Using the investment or the interest on our big great. But now we're drawing on reserves. They're refusing to say that we should take out a loan, but then we have this just in case we can take out the, or the reimbursable resolution coming up. But they still, their original direction was to model at 0% utility rate raises. I would like to see what if even just inflation or simple just re, just re getting back some into our CIP fund, 3% utility raises would do to the actual rates because that means zero is coming back in. It's all going out and nothing's coming in, nothing to refund our CIP fund or savings account, even to keep up with operational inflation. So I would like to see a model with just with 3% this year and what the difference in rates would look like because I just think it's really inappropriate and dangerous not to even put minimal amounts of increases in. Yeah, we can get that done. Yeah, 3%. I have a straw poll motion. Oh, council member Stout. I was just going to say I think the question council needs to answer tonight is if we're unwilling to issue death for FY26. Tonight, are we going to be willing to issue debt for the reimbursement resolution? Because if we're not, that changes the trajectory of this discussion substantially. So that's probably something we should discuss if we're willing to do that or not. Because otherwise we're leaving reserves for wastewater at 62% with no plan. If we're unwilling to do the reimbursement resolution. So I would say that's a question we should probably answer first before any of the rest of it. I mean, if we're starting that vote again because I win little sideways is we need this done. Like Jason needs this money. He needs to get it done. We need to issue the loan whether if we and so we need to I'm willing to say yes to it because we could issue the resolution tomorrow. We could issue it in three months. It's ready to go but we need the money. I'm not happy about further depleting our reserves at all and going even further down our fiscal policy But we need to get these projects done. We're done deferring them Mr. Mayor, I would support funding for the three projects I'm not prepared to make a decision on the funding source. I have other ideas about how we might go to the justice. Yes, however, we need to get that answer to stand tech. So with that in mind, we definitely need to hear their modeling next week. That tells us, gives us the big picture details about what's going on both with respect to the various reserve funds and the utility reserves. And with respect to the financial health of both of our enterprise utility funds and with that in mind, have a straw poll motion to accept the water CIP changes, wastewater CIP changes that are proposed for the tanks, the screens, and the 6F water line as presented this evening. Do I hear a second? Second. Clearification. Okay. Clearification on the motion. That includes how they will be funded. It has to be. Yeah. We can't model it without that. Yeah. The funding sources are clarified on page two. I just want to make sure that is the intent of the motion to Income. That is the intent of the motion. As detailed on page two under water CIP changes and wastewater CIP. Mr. Mayor would it be your intent that we proceed as though we're going to conduct the reimbursement resolution be alone and if by 26. That would be a separate motion at this time. Can I get your vote, council member Rainer? Yes. Can I have your vote, council member Wright? Yes. Can I have your vote, Vice Mayor? On that specific information provided, yes. And what is your vote, council member Luke? Yes. Council Member Colliel? Yes. Council Member Stout? Yes. Mayor votes yes. Question for staff. So now that we've taken that stall vote, it gives you the direction and also locks the funding correct. So funding source cannot change correct. So with the straw poll vote it allows us to work with stand-tech on the models presented to the council next week. You really aren't adopting anything tonight. You are, I guess you're giving us direction as to what to bring back to you for the CIP when you ultimately pass the budget. And again, what we're kind of doing here, just to be sure everybody understands, we've used some cash dollars that have already been allocated to some projects and we've moved them to the critical projects. And we're also going to use some of our cash reserves To go ahead and make this happen Reimbursement resolution will be triggered at the point they start spending these dollars to make sure we're covered and Am I missing anything follow? Okay, that's pretty much what we're doing. Mayor can we have a straw poll on the reimbursement resolution? Please go ahead. I think we should have a straw poll on whether we intend to move forward with reimbursement resolution. That's detailed in tonight's packet on page three. Mr. Mayor, before we go through with that, actually, I would like to hear the vice mayor's ideas on other ways to fund it besides the loan. I'll address that in the subsequent meeting. I'm not prepared tonight. Well then my vote is to say yes to prepare the resolution to enact when the time comes. I made the motion. Oh, it's a straw poll. New reimbursement resolution. A straw poll. A straw poll on the reimbursement resolution. Yes or no? Council member, right? Yes. Vice mayor. No, I think it's pretty maturemember Luke no Councilmember Colliel We have to wait to hear from stand-tech Davenport before we know for sure that we need. So what they are going to present to you are the utility rate modeling. So what they are presenting to you, we are telling them the dollars we believe we are going to spend, which is basically reflects what is in this budget and what I am also saying it is based on the CIP packet that we gave you tonight. And so they're just going to be running models of the rate increases you need to sustain those changes. So that's kind of what it's doing. So they in no way tell us what we need. The reimbursement resolution, it's not a commitment on the part of council. It just provides flexibility to reimburse cash that's spent on capital projects at a later date via a loan. So it doesn't tie you to anything, it doesn't say you must reimburse yourself with a future loan. you're preserving the right if you meet all the IRS requirements to go borrow those dollars after they've been spent. And just to clarify, this helps you guys plan as well, right? If you know this now versus if you know it a month, two months, three months from now, you can factor that in a little bit better. Yeah, and I would say that it would be important. Where it would affect modeling a little bit is what's driving your rates, you know, and if you're using cash and you had plenty of reserves, it's not going to take you down below a fiscal policy target. Well, that won't directly affect your rates, right, unless you have to rebuild those. But if you issue alone, that will affect your rates. Why? Because you're going to have those additional costs every single year, just like if you go by a car. You're going to have those additional costs every year. It's going to affect your budget. And so we're going to need to generate more dollars. So yes, it's going to cause those rates to go off. So whether or not we do reimbursement resolution is going to impact what STAN Tech presents next week, potentially. I would say we would, it would be very good to know. And we've had this discussion with STAN Tech. It would be important while we won't trigger the reimbursement resolution yet because of the expenditure dates. It would be important to know whether council is committed to borrowing those dollars or whether they're going to be using those cash dollars and that will have an effect on those models. And so I think you do need to sort of indicate whether you are going to truly use that cash, which means that we've got to, we're going to have to drive our revenue quicker, our revenue collection quicker, you know, as opposed, if you were going to, you know, utilize cash and you felt like you could do that, then that's not so much of an issue, but you're starting to look at, that's a question you're going to have to have with Davenport because you're starting to draw below that 75 percent. You're asking me. if you ask my professional opinion and I'm not Davenport I'm not your FA you don't you can choose whether to listen to me or not council has that grogative but it would be my recommendation that you not go below 75% cash level in any of your utility funds. Which we are currently without the reimbursement resolution. But if you're committed to reimbursing it, then it's a temporary loss of cash. And if we do it, it doesn't mean we have to do it. Did I hear you say that? Yes. If for some reason, if you put that in place and you get a great endowment from someone, We wonderful grant you know that's going to offset some of our other costs you aren't required to. Until you until council takes the vote to issue debt there is no commitment. Okay. Okay. Okay. Then mine is yes. Okay. Council member Stout. Yes. And Mayor of Staines. Yes. All right. Are we ready to continue? Yes. Are we ready to continue? Yes. That was it. We did parks and practice water. Please water that. Thank you. I think folks provide a direction on park and rec here just to give you an overview is that we're pushing those two projects out into a future year because funding was not Allocated by Loudon County. So that's just deferring projects until funding would be available at a later date So did we request it of Loudon County and they said no Do we know why Sorry Amy Whenever loud and county and they said no. Do we know why? Sorry Amy. Whenever loud and grants their CIP funding to the towns, they don't issue provide a reason to the towns if it is not funded. I mean, we may be able to engage with the county to see if we can get an explanation. Thank you. Thank you. Is it the sense of this council that we provide direction to parks and direct to reach out to the county to get an explanation? Can I add a little bit to that? When the county came back, that was those projects were submitted with all of our other CIP projects. The town submitted, I believe, five projects. They only funded one of the projects that was for the 21st Street Trail project and it was because the 690 interchange project caused an increase in that project. And then their response was when we asked why they did not fund more of the projects, the response was, well that is, you know, to have our elected officials reach out to Loudoun County's Board of Supervisors and try to get additional funding. County came back to us and they, and we ended up getting funds towards the Berlin Turnpike roundabout project, you know, when I guess another project got dropped, and then the County funded that project. A lot of times those county projects are typically transportation projects. So, when we put in something in there for something different, it may be a little bit harder to get, unless we, you know, you guys probably really advocate for that project. Because a lot of times that letter says, therefore, you know, like a public transportation type project, sidewalk, trails, roadway type stuff. Is the warning track anything we could go to the cany's with? I think Andrea's direction is that we'll need some lobbying from youth folks to your elected officials, on board and supervisors, to see if there's a way to fund that. Okay, in and out. If I can just add that, we need to be extremely careful when it comes to farm and field, and what ask for because the county is doing to say huge huge huge huge favor by maintaining that something that we have no ability to do ourselves are even fund ourselves. So whatever we do with farm and field I think it needs to be well discussed at this body before we start approaching the county for anything for the farmers field other than for them to remain the maintenance people for us and continue to maintain that field. Because they don't need the field, they don't want the field. It does nothing for the county as a whole. It's just basically a favor to the town for them to maintain it. And it's costing them around $70 to $80,000 a year to maintain it. And that's just to maintain it, not to produce upgrades to it. So before I would hope that this body, would before we go asking the county for anything when it comes to finance field, we have a long discussion about it to ensure that we don't burn the bridge again. And then step away from it, because if they do step away from it then that field will have to shut down because we cannot afford to maintain it. It's proven it's not a profitable, it's not a place to gain profits so you're not going to find somebody to take it over and be able to turn a profit on it. So, just telling you, no forehand, and I believe it's been told they're doing us a favor to maintain it. That's it. Thank you, Council Member Wright. I will be sure to add that to a future agenda for discussion. Very good. Do I hear a motion to adjourn? Can someone second that motion? Second. All in favor. Aye. Thank you very much everyone. This meeting is adjourned.