[Speaker 2] (0:00 - 0:29)
Evening everyone, welcome to the December 6, 2021 board meeting. We are going to be discussing tonight one item of new business, which is a discussion of possible votes regarding the fall special town meeting warrant articles. So with that, we can just walk through, I don't know, Sean, if you just wanted to start.

[Speaker 1] (0:31 - 2:25)
Yes, I think this conversation really centers around what amount of free cash the board is seeking to recommend as part of the warrant article to offset this year's tax levy. Last week, we had finished the end of a two-part conversation on tax classification. And we talked about the use of free cash.

We've used free cash over the last several years to help offset the town's tax levy. We had a range of value that if we use an amount of free cash, we could effectively reduce the increase in the FY21 average median single-family tax bill. In the presentation that we gave, we talked about using $1.5 million of free cash. We used a similar amount last year. We have continued to discuss our long-term financial stability. And the use of free cash limits our options.

And it was my hope that the board did vote to use $1 million last week. My hope was that the board would consider a number that would be a little higher, but still prudent in terms of the impact on the town's financial reserves. So with that, I would encourage the board to discuss whether or not there's any interest in changing that initial recommendation.

[Speaker 2] (2:33 - 3:06)
So I think, and Peter, I don't mean to put this on you just with the, but here I go, with your initial recommendation of the $1 million at the last meeting. I guess if we can just start from a recap of that, and then if anyone else, Don, I know that you're here now we're not present at the last meeting. If that spurs any questions or further conversation, then we can go from there, if that's okay.

Otherwise, anyone else, feel free to comment.

[Speaker 1] (3:12 - 3:39)
I should just preface. This is article four. And so under article four, it reads, to see if the town will vote to transfer from free cash, a sum of money to the account of current revenue to be used and applied by the board of assessors and the reduction of the tax levy for fiscal year 22, or take any action relative thereto.

And so we'd be looking to amend this.

[Speaker 3] (3:40 - 3:42)
Does someone have a, is someone recommending a different amount?

[Speaker 2] (3:47 - 5:58)
I'm not necessarily recommending a different amount. No, I think why I personally wanted to hear your summary again was just to make sure that all of us, to hear everybody's reasoning for their positions, I guess, to the extent that they want to share that again. But also, I know that you had said, Peter, that, and I supported this, so it's not something I'm against, but if we are trying to sound the drumbeat, I think, as you said, of beginning the process of reducing our reliance on free cash to offset the tax levy going forward, if we're actually trying to do more than just stimulate a possible conversation at town meeting, knowing that the, well, with the assumption that the two numbers are far enough apart that town meeting is likely to, FinCom and town meeting are likely to go with the 1.55, is my guess.

I was just wondering, to the extent that we're trying to do more than sort of stimulate that conversation and actually begin the process of slowly making that change, I was thinking that 1.25 might be more digestible of an amount and an actual step for everyone to kind of get on board with, and then also the initial step in the direction of reducing our reliance. Even if it's, I mean, in terms of the dollars, I don't think it's particularly significant for residents, but I think it's more than symbolic, but it is also symbolic for the policy objective that the board is trying to initiate. And also something that I think is more of a compromise, I think, if we're actually trying to have that passed this year.

Again, if it's just to begin that, if it's mainly to begin that conversation and get people to start thinking about it and weighing that in their head for future years, then I'm not against that either. I just, that's why I was asking, and that's kind of my thoughts at this time.

[Speaker 3] (6:05 - 8:51)
So we can shortcut it by saying I'm fine with 1.25, or we can actually get into the detail of it. I mean, I am, I mean, it's, I understand your reasoning behind that, Polly, and it makes sense to me. I don't have a problem with that.

I think the reasoning is not just, you accurately articulated what I articulated last meeting, which is to begin the conversation. Well, I appreciate what Jill said, which is, you know, we're just giving back tax dollars. We are, right?

But we want to be out of the business of free cash. When I say that, we're always going to have free cash, but really out of the business of how historically we've dealt with free cash. And I also want to make sure that town staff, current and future town staff, right?

Understand that even though there's a separation of time between the annual budget preparation and the fall town meeting, I don't want anyone of us to become reliant upon the idea at the time that we're creating budgets that we will be offsetting the tax levy. We should be creating budgets on the assumption that the full tax levy will hit the taxpayer. And what's the consequence of that?

And are we okay with that without any offset? It drew up, if you will, from prior years. And I just think as though we've been very fortunate to be able to use free cash in recent years to do it.

But that has masked just the inevitable escalation in expenses that comes with municipal government. And it's made us, it's helped us on the budgeting, if so to speak, but really the budgeting efforts have been Sean's and team's efforts on, you know, some line items that frankly, we were probably over-appropriating on, other line items where we were spending money where we didn't need to spend money. But I also don't want people to get confused with the fact that a lot of free cash helped us stabilize the tax rate here, which really was your own tax dollars helped us stabilize that.

And I just wanna, again, I trust, because Sean's the one that showed us the way. So I'm throwing it kind of a little bit back into space. But the, you know, just that when we're creating these budgets in December of this year, that we're not thinking ahead 11 months to November of next year, thinking, oh, that's all right.

We can max, we can use the full 2%. I know we're only using 2% levy and because we're gonna offset that further and it's gonna be fine. I just don't think we should budget based on that.

I think we've got to create the intellectual separation to be able to say, no, we've got to assume that a 2% levy increase is an average single family tax bill increase of X dollars. And people are gonna get hit by that when we're making choices as to where we're gonna spend more money or less money. So, but with that being said, it's academic in the sense that we're trying to curb behavior and just send messages.

But I can be comfortable with $1.25 million and I appreciate the vein in which you bring it back up.

[Speaker 8] (8:54 - 8:54)
Thanks.

[Speaker 6] (8:57 - 8:58)
I'm comfortable as well.

[Speaker 5] (9:01 - 9:27)
I think I can also be comfortable at 1.25 just in the vein of talking about, you know, weaning ourselves off. Is there a structural plan, Sean, Polly, Amy, as to what happens next? If we go to 1.25, what is the plan for the step down?

Can we have some color and some detail there?

[Speaker 1] (9:28 - 12:36)
Yeah. David, last week we presented a slide in the presentation that staff did look at the financial forecast and we effectively, you know, looked at tiering the town off for free cash strategically, you know, having it step down from, you know, 1.5 to 1.2 to 800,000 to 500,000 to zero. While, you know, the town kind of increased revenue.

So we look at, we know that we have projects in the pipeline. We know we have new growth. We have some commercial properties that are coming online.

And so we'd have to see, you know, continued investment in economic development if we were going to continue to think strategically about how we set the levy and how we deal with the tax rate. I like to, you know, frankly, divorce setting the tax levy from budgetary conversations because at the end of the day, when we set the levy, you know, we're talking about how does that impact our citizens? And what are our financial resources?

You know, free cash, as Peter mentioned, these are funds that we've either taxed or raised funds over. And I, you know, to me, looking at that town's financial position and saying, what can we afford right now? And the board's having a very mindful conversation about you've got obligations coming down the pike.

You know, about over the next few years, you've got a capital plan. You've got unmet needs. You've got parks.

You've got places that you have to invest in. And it may not be prudent for the town to really, you know, utilize as much free cash as we have in the past. And that's a decision that you as a board have to make because ultimately, you know, you're managing these prudential affairs of the town.

You've got to work with finance committee and town meeting and there aren't other boards that carry the perspective of a select board in terms of the broader fiduciary responsibilities. With that said, you know, we have a financial plan and we have a debt service that goes out for the next 10 years. And we can see our past expenditures and revenue and we can think three-dimensionally.

But nobody has a crystal ball. And as much as we may want to prognosticate, I think what is clear is, you know, if you spend more money than you raise every year, you're going to run a deficit and you're going to have to rely on financial reserves. And essentially that's what we have been doing.

And that's not ideal. It's ideal for us to generate more revenue than we extend and build up our reserves and address longstanding capital needs.

[Speaker 2] (12:40 - 12:44)
So anyone have questions, other comments?

[Speaker 4] (12:48 - 13:11)
Sean, do you have available the difference between what was recommended the million dollars last week and then the 1.25, I think you said in an email, the average tax bill would go up 129 and median would go up 89 with 1.25. So what was the number with a million dollars of free cash?

[Speaker 1] (13:12 - 13:27)
So on a median, if we used a million dollars, taxes would go up $136, a million dollars for the average single family tax bill taxes would go up $179.

[Speaker 2] (13:29 - 13:31)
Can you repeat the 1.25 again?

[Speaker 1] (13:32 - 13:45)
1.25, the median is $94 and the average tax bill is 129. So $50 difference.

[Speaker 2] (13:48 - 13:50)
And then the 1.55, sorry, just so we can.

[Speaker 1] (13:51 - 14:00)
1.55 for the median, it would go up $53 and on the average single family tax bill would go up $80.

[Speaker 2] (14:04 - 14:06)
Lower, you're muted Peter, sorry.

[Speaker 6] (14:10 - 14:12)
I'm good, I'm hearing what you're saying.

[Speaker 4] (14:14 - 14:46)
Last year, we mentioned at the meeting last week that we use 1.55 last year as well. Did we, I meant to ask, I mean, it seemed like this year the plan is essentially we're gonna be at the bottom of the range of the guidelines with our use of free cash if we use 1.55. Were we at the bottom of the range last year, do you know? No, I don't remember.

[Speaker 1] (14:47 - 15:23)
I don't remember, but I believe we were close to the bottom of the range, but I'll double check. Okay. We had last year we took in 4.7 in free cash and this year we're estimating 4.1 in free cash. So we're definitely generating less free cash. And so that is a reflection of tighter budgets, but also some tighter revenue.

[Speaker 3] (15:29 - 15:38)
So I'd make a motion to recommend amending our prior vote to recommend the usage of $1.25 million in free cash under article four to offset the tax levy.

[Speaker 6] (15:40 - 15:41)
Is there a second? Second.

[Speaker 2] (15:43 - 15:52)
Is there further discussion? Okay. Okay.

All those in favor, David Grishman.

[Speaker 8] (15:53 - 15:53)
Aye.

[Speaker 2] (15:54 - 15:55)
Neil Duffy.

[Speaker 6] (15:56 - 15:56)
Aye.

[Speaker 2] (15:57 - 15:58)
Don Hawes.

[Speaker 6] (15:58 - 15:59)
Aye.

[Speaker 2] (15:59 - 16:25)
Peter Spellios. Aye. And I am an aye.

Great. Thank you everyone for that vote. Quickly, efficiently.

Okay. And then I believe we have, sorry, I just misplaced my. Is there an update on article two?

Should we do article three?

[Speaker 6] (16:25 - 16:26)
Yes.

[Speaker 2] (16:26 - 16:33)
Okay. So, okay. Sean, do you want to provide that update?

I think you could probably do it more.

[Speaker 1] (16:33 - 17:24)
Yes. You know, I'm pleased to report that, you know, we have successfully concluded negotiations with town union. And we're recommending that that contract be funded through the use of free cash.

We currently have a number of other collective bargaining contracts that we'd like to fund through a strategic use of free cash in the amount of $67,576.88. It would be my recommendation that the board recommend that amount of money for this one article. And that will help us, you know, ensure that we recognize some of the extraordinary contributions that men and women in a number of town unions make in Swampshire.

[Speaker 2] (17:25 - 17:28)
So to, sorry, were you going to make a motion, Peter?

[Speaker 3] (17:29 - 17:30)
I was going to make a motion.

[Speaker 2] (17:30 - 17:30)
Okay.

[Speaker 3] (17:31 - 17:36)
To approve that amount that Sean just said for Sean, say it one more time for me, 67,000.

[Speaker 1] (17:40 - 17:45)
67,576.88. Under article three.

[Speaker 2] (17:47 - 17:48)
And can I just clarify for.

[Speaker 3] (17:49 - 17:51)
Yeah, you can have as much discussion as you want. I'm sorry. Okay.

[Speaker 2] (17:51 - 17:53)
Well, yeah, sorry. Is there a second?

[Speaker 3] (17:53 - 17:54)
I can.

[Speaker 2] (17:54 - 18:04)
Okay. So in terms of further discussion, I just want to clarify, Sean, that this is, you said this is for one union.

[Speaker 1] (18:05 - 18:15)
Nope. These funds would be for several of the town unions. We have successfully negotiated a contract for one of the unions.

[Speaker 2] (18:16 - 18:28)
Right. That's what I was. Yes.

So I'm saying the same thing, but in reverse. So one of the, this would cover one of the unions in full. And then the funds would go toward, this is all in the town side, right?

[Speaker 6] (18:28 - 18:29)
That's correct.

[Speaker 2] (18:30 - 18:35)
It would go toward the other union negotiations.

[Speaker 6] (18:36 - 18:37)
That's correct.

[Speaker 2] (18:38 - 18:50)
Okay. Any other questions, clarifications? Okay.

Okay. So all those in favor of Peter's motion. Seconded by Neil, David Grishman.

[Speaker 8] (18:51 - 18:51)
Hi.

[Speaker 2] (18:52 - 18:53)
Don Hawes.

[Speaker 6] (18:53 - 18:53)
Hi.

[Speaker 2] (18:54 - 18:55)
Neil Duffy.

[Speaker 6] (18:55 - 18:56)
Hi.

[Speaker 2] (18:56 - 19:14)
Peter Spelios. Hi. And I am also an I.

It's article three. I believe the only other article is two, correct? Am I right on this?

God help me. Right. So we have outstanding.

So I don't know if there's an update.

[Speaker 3] (19:15 - 19:23)
I think that one we may, that's the balance budget, correct? Transfers. The pedestrian safety.

[Speaker 2] (19:23 - 19:23)
Pedestrian safety.

[Speaker 3] (19:23 - 19:29)
Oh, sorry. Pedestrian safety. My fault.

Yeah. So I'm going to recommend a definite postponement on that.

[Speaker 2] (19:32 - 19:32)
Okay.

[Speaker 6] (19:32 - 19:32)
Second.

[Speaker 2] (19:34 - 19:44)
Any further discussion? All those in favor of recommending a definite postponement on article two. David Grishman.

[Speaker 6] (19:44 - 19:44)
Hi.

[Speaker 2] (19:45 - 19:46)
Neil Duffy.

[Speaker 6] (19:46 - 19:47)
Hi.

[Speaker 2] (19:48 - 19:49)
Don Hawes.

[Speaker 6] (19:49 - 19:49)
Hi.

[Speaker 2] (19:50 - 19:50)
Peter Spelios.

[Speaker 6] (19:51 - 19:51)
Hi.

[Speaker 2] (19:52 - 20:03)
And I am also an I. Okay. So that's it, right?

We are done. Anyone?

[Speaker 3] (20:03 - 20:08)
So Polly for next Monday, can we just really quickly go through who's doing what?

[Speaker 2] (20:08 - 20:21)
Yes. Sorry. I just wanted to make sure.

Yes, I was going to do that. I just wanted to make sure we're done with, we've covered. I just wanted to have a catch all here, but I'm not missing anything with respect to the warrant.

We are done on that. I'm voting.

[Speaker 3] (20:21 - 20:33)
I'm going to jump in a minute and go to fincom meeting. So I guess, and I'm happy if you guys do whatever you want, but I will take care of article 12, which I think is the national grade article.

[Speaker 2] (20:33 - 20:39)
Okay. And great. I'll put you down for article 12.

[Speaker 3] (20:40 - 20:44)
All right. If you don't think there's anything else, I'm just going to jump and go to fincom.

[Speaker 2] (20:48 - 20:55)
I don't know, but that's fine. I don't think it's overly complicated. Thanks.

Goodbye. Bye.

[Speaker 8] (20:55 - 20:55)
All right.

[Speaker 2] (20:57 - 21:09)
Okay. So, yeah, so at this point, I just want to kind of go over who's going to cover what? And Sean, please chime in with what's usually.

[Speaker 1] (21:09 - 21:40)
I probably should be going to finance committee too, but I think whatever board members are comfortable with, I think that would be great. Typically finance committee recommends on financial warrant articles, but it's always great to have a select board member, you know, tee it up and, you know, this is your warrant, your articles, they don't get on the warrant without your approval. So I, I happen to think, you know, the select board should figure largely and how these are presented.

[Speaker 2] (21:42 - 21:43)
Yep. Sorry, go ahead.

[Speaker 1] (21:44 - 22:10)
To amend the fiscal year, you know, that's, you know, there's some housekeeping there's some budgetary, you know, changes that would help us. Typically we do this at the end of the year, but we're midstream and we figured, you know, let's get some of those out of the way so that we can, you know, stay consistent with, you know, keeping our budget balanced. These aren't, we're not asking for any additional funds.

It's just basically interdepartmental transfers.

[Speaker 2] (22:11 - 22:27)
Yeah. So can you just stick with us for two minutes, Sean? So I think we can do your end.

I want to confirm is everyone. So FinCom would do article one, right? We're just going to be there essentially for that.

Okay. Article two is off article three, Sean, you're going to speak to.

[Speaker 6] (22:27 - 22:28)
I will. Yep.

[Speaker 2] (22:28 - 22:35)
Okay. And with somebody speaking to this, nobody else needs to speak to anything on the board. We don't need to just add things, right?

[Speaker 1] (22:35 - 22:44)
I think it's always, you know, your comments from select citizens are always in order. You're leading the town, you're leading town meeting.

[Speaker 2] (22:45 - 23:03)
And we don't need to, I'd like to, like, it makes sense on the financial articles, like you said, Sean, I didn't mean to just totally interrupt you to have them speak to it. So we don't, obviously board members can say something if they're compelled to, but do you, we don't need to assign someone to each one. Would you agree with that?

[Speaker 1] (23:07 - 23:21)
Yes. Whatever you feel comfortable with. I do think, you know, if, if you're comfortable assigning it to finance committee members, somebody, somebody should be prepared to speak to each of these articles.

[Speaker 2] (23:21 - 23:22)
That's all I wanted to know. Yep.

[Speaker 1] (23:22 - 23:26)
Someone needs to move it at the very least.

[Speaker 2] (23:28 - 23:41)
I thought, okay. All right. Then isn't that a fine finance committee moves the recommendation.

We have to move. Okay. We have to do that for the board as well.

I'm sorry. I'm like totally rusty.

[Speaker 4] (23:42 - 23:42)
Oh no.

[Speaker 2] (23:43 - 23:43)
I mean, yeah.

[Speaker 4] (23:44 - 24:03)
So I guess they could move like article three, for instance, if Sean's speaking to it and maybe you move the recommendation of the select board and then have Sean speak to it. I don't know if our recommendation and finance committee's recommendation is the same. So I don't want to assume.

[Speaker 2] (24:04 - 24:25)
No, I didn't know if both of them, anyway, I can do this offline. We can assign somebody to these. I don't mean to be confusing, but I just thought if we, if it's, well, anyway, if we have, I think you're the chair, you can assign your, your, your, your board members to each of these articles.

Yeah, no, I know. I just trying to avoid unnecessary.

[Speaker 1] (24:27 - 25:18)
So free cash, you know, that might make sense for you to present probably because I think you've recommended a prudent use of town revenue. You've got the board to reconsider an earlier amount that was lower. And I think you've found a Goldilocks amount that makes sense.

You know, free cash, you know, again, for article four to adjust the tax rate. I think that makes sense for you to do that. You know, you know, the appropriation from transportation infrastructure fund, anybody, you know, that's kind of generic, but it's just $3,946 housekeeping.

This is Uber and Lyft and ride shares, not glamorous, but you know, I think you're right, Polly.

[Speaker 4] (25:18 - 25:22)
That feels to me like Tim Dorsey.

[Speaker 2] (25:22 - 25:25)
I know it just feels so redundant to be. There's no reason.

[Speaker 4] (25:25 - 25:25)
Yeah.

[Speaker 1] (25:26 - 25:32)
I think Neil's got six and seven. He's done such a fantastic job with the rates.

[Speaker 2] (25:32 - 25:34)
Neil, how about five, six and seven?

[Speaker 4] (25:36 - 25:39)
Yeah. If someone needs to do five, I'm happy doing it.

[Speaker 2] (25:39 - 25:46)
Okay. Perfect. Six, four.

If someone needs to do that, Sean, I'm assigning Peter to three.

[Speaker 1] (25:48 - 25:54)
And I think David probably can do five. I mean, he should have David.

[Speaker 2] (25:55 - 25:58)
I'll do eight because that's mine.

[Speaker 4] (25:58 - 26:03)
Okay. David, you got five. I'll do six and seven.

Sound good.

[Speaker 2] (26:03 - 26:10)
God, I'll do nine too. If that's okay. Does anybody else want to, I just feel like I was kind of, yeah, you've got eight, nine and 10.

[Speaker 4] (26:10 - 26:12)
Yeah, I think that's good.

[Speaker 2] (26:12 - 26:19)
Oh yeah. And 11.

[Speaker 1] (26:22 - 26:26)
Peter's got 12. I think we've done it.

[Speaker 2] (26:28 - 26:36)
You can go, Sean. Thank you. I know you're due at another meeting.

I don't mean to cut you off. I just don't want you to feel like you have to be here. Thank you for your input.

[Speaker 1] (26:37 - 26:41)
All right. Have a good night. Reach out with any questions.

[Speaker 2] (26:41 - 27:18)
We will. Thanks, Sean. Okay.

So I just wanted him to, I know he was feeling pressured to go. So, okay. So if article one is, I can't imagine that anyone other than Sean and Fincom would need to say anything, but I don't think so.

If they do David, Don, sorry about that.

[Speaker 6] (27:18 - 27:18)
Yeah.

[Speaker 4] (27:19 - 27:21)
If we need to say something, sure.

[Speaker 2] (27:23 - 27:24)
Okay.

[Speaker 4] (27:24 - 27:28)
I don't think we, I don't think we do. We do, but, but yeah, I don't either.

[Speaker 2] (27:29 - 27:30)
Same with five.

[Speaker 4] (27:30 - 27:39)
I mean, I don't think we will have to say anything with five, right. But I don't even know if we're going to have to say anything for six and seven, to be honest. I mean, it's pretty, but who knows?

[Speaker 2] (27:40 - 27:47)
Yeah, that's why I, I agree. I just, I think I wasn't sure based on what Sean was saying.

[Speaker 4] (27:48 - 28:01)
No, you're right. I think the, just to be safe, the two that we just talked about three and four are the only ones that there might be some differences where there may be some explanation.

[Speaker 2] (28:02 - 28:51)
Yeah. And if Fincom we'll see what they do tonight, but if they are on board, then I don't see why they can't give the financial, I don't need to, they will do a better job of explaining it anyway. So, and it's obviously their area, but obviously if we don't agree on the amount, then we'll be presenting it separately.

So that's fine. Okay. So article one, if necessary, we have Don, but these are just backups.

Article two is off. Article three is Sean. And then Peter, if needed article four is me if needed after Fincom article five is David articles six and seven is Neil articles eight, nine, 10, and 11 are me.

And article 12 is Peter sound right to everybody.

[Speaker 8] (28:53 - 28:54)
Yep.

[Speaker 2] (28:54 - 29:12)
Okay, great. So all right. Is there any other we have nothing else on the agenda for tonight.

So I just don't know if anybody has any questions or comments before we adjourn.

[Speaker 5] (29:12 - 29:14)
Just a motion to adjourn.

[Speaker 2] (29:15 - 29:29)
I have a question. Is there, can we do board time select board time? Or can I make a few updates if it's not on the agenda?

Does anyone know that? Sorry, I'll clarify ahead of time.

[Speaker 7] (29:29 - 29:32)
I wouldn't, I don't know, but I would say probably not.

[Speaker 2] (29:32 - 29:41)
Okay. But I mean, unless if it was like super inconsequential, maybe, but no, it was just an update on a couple of grants and, and such, but that's fine. I can wait.

[Speaker 7] (29:41 - 29:44)
I play way too safe, though. So whatever.

[Speaker 2] (29:44 - 30:01)
So do I, and believe me, I don't, it's, it can wait. It's nothing. It's no huge news.

It's good, good news for the town, but it's nothing major. So I can wait. Just an update.

All right. Thank you all for next week.

[Speaker 5] (30:02 - 30:02)
I hate it.

[Speaker 2] (30:03 - 30:05)
I hate a grant tease.

[Speaker 1] (30:07 - 30:07)
Nothing worse.

[Speaker 2] (30:10 - 30:16)
Live streaming now, you know, this is only our only continued suspense that we can offer.

[Speaker 1] (30:16 - 30:23)
So by the way, just to remind everybody, the Christmas parade this Saturday, not on the agenda.

[Speaker 2] (30:23 - 30:23)
Dawn.

[Speaker 1] (30:23 - 30:24)
Oh gosh.

[Speaker 2] (30:28 - 30:32)
You're right. The Christmas parade this Saturday. Sorry.

Holiday parade.

[Speaker 4] (30:35 - 30:38)
I will second David's motion.

[Speaker 2] (30:39 - 30:40)
Did he make a motion to adjourn?

[Speaker 4] (30:40 - 30:41)
He did. Okay.

[Speaker 2] (30:42 - 31:07)
All right. Thank you everybody. And thanks for your patience.

While I figured out how to be chair, this meeting, especially it seems so second all in favor, David Grishman. I am also an eye. All right.

Thanks guys again for your thanks and see you again. And talk soon.

[Speaker 6] (31:08 - 31:08)
Okay.

[Speaker 2] (31:08 - 31:09)
All right.

[Speaker 6] (31:09 - 31:11)
Good night. Bye-bye.