we've got a quorum i'm going to call the may twenty fifth two thousand and sixteen meaning of the word committee order thank you all for coming we will as we traditionally do the minutes first so the may eleventh minutes have been distributed and so if we've  a chance to review those and i will great so thank you jim so active that any discussion on the mail of minutes he said did you get my one comment o or nearly all of our time it is to hopefully actually finish off on the the war started and now i it's entirely possible that we're not actually going to be able to do or finish o that your recollection of there five of them four of them are kind of like grammatical you know theory clarity and improving type of comments one of them is substantive which is the second of the five it's about air conditioners on the side and that sort of thing so i definitely am interested in hearing liz alison's opinion on that i thought i invited her to this meeting although now i'm not one percent sure so if not we'll figure out how to how to remainder from enterprise accounts and this is the contribution to the stabilization fund for those you that were not there last night i reminded everybody that are paid to go ahead contribution for this year in the budget is about two point eight million minutes ago i don't really care about this person i don't care about free cash i don't care about civilization i'm focusing on a fun balance the fun balance of the most important think that's what i'm ready to seize look yeah i understand the is it your belief that we should be adding the general stabilization trying to that ok ok we kept the stabilization so and so what's the mechanism for doing that basically you propose it and then we vote it and the policy you have to other questions or comments on this so i'll just mention eventually that we are getting just under seven million dollars into the pension fund again this year which is again a seven percent increase or we've got in the past we have we did talk in the fall as we did that the pension analysis about ongoing discussions with the retirement board who controls the funding schedule for pension and whether or not there may be some logic to it or to potentially lower the  increase lower the percentage increase and what we're actually putting into pension from year to year surrounded by seven percent growing and by a different over six five for the sake of argument which would potentially push back slightly the pay off y complete on the bonds or on the poor and the expenses of the poor you know i think what you're saying is we don't need we believe the money we already have sufficient is that you're going to have to me and i you know too thought it doesn't jump out at me we have done this before we fed extra borrowing capacity and we get rid of it but the idea was always from the very beginning to have the pool pay for itself and past the pool has covered its run its revenues didn't cover it expenses up until the pool started to grate and we lost membership in a stop doing that judging from the one month last summer how overrun we are to the point where dr closed the gate at one point as we were overrun with people the feeling is that this is going to do well and make money and the idea is to set up some kind of a stabilization fund for the pool for future maintenance because we're not going to need new pumps now but you know fifteen years from now we very well might and it could be a big ticket item if some and so the thought was would it and i sort of wanted to hear what other people in the room about whether this would be a money rather you could bond the full amount and not take out the one twelfth because the people voted to do a bond you know for the full amount and then take that money and put it in a  stabilization fund and or not do that go ahead with article seventeen as it is and maybe take a percentage of pool revenue and put it into stabilization fund for the pool like we do for the ambulances for instance the percentage of those funds go to replace the that exclusion prodigy that that could fall into free cash and be used however so the hundreds of thousand we don't have to vote on it just automatically goes to the project you know what we're talking about here is the fact that the investment bankers created the bottom in interest rate that that let them sell those bonds slightly more than one hundred dollars it makes sense to me to separate the capital side of the pool from the operating side of the pool and i think i think what floyd is proposing makes sense and is a separate question of whether the pool is priced properly to allow maintenance to be sustainable going forward so i think i think of the pricing is done properly and there should be some kind of fun to set aside to  take care of the types of issues that i'm identified and that's really entirely separate from the original construction or part of the new roi so a lot of what i want to say but in addition to that if for no other reason please don't make a motion because it's going to get on timing for you with a set eric discussion i'm having trouble following and i suspect those will too will be there for a place i'm not hell bent on doing it in the stuff i just wanted to get it was such an idea that came up some conversations and i haven't had a lot of time since saturday to talk there and i just wanted to say as a member of the recreation committee that i support putting aside any excess funds from the pool into something that you know would build towards maintenance or even towards you know replacing or upgrading the pool somebody i think that based on six weeks last year we really don't have a sense for where and what the total cost of the pool is going to be and how that might vary or not vary and then  also what the revenue should be but we did increase significantly the fees for nonresidents and we limited the number of nonresidents but my guess is that we will have and we haven't so we've gotten a lot of non resident passes and some residents of the residents typically don't buy them until the end of june my guess is that we will have many more memberships than we have had in the last three years but the question is how that all shakes out we've sold maybe a hundred twenty memberships for the for for residents but typically the residents don't buy them until june and we had sold more than we have sold in the past to nonresidents but we've sold them at a significant paying for the building of the new pool and so we could the membership was the resident membership was the same but we increased the nonresident membership and the day passes were nonresident significant but if you bought it after remember are there not unionized but their salaries are treated as if they are that was a policy that was put in place a number of years ago they have been pegged is it level eighteen is that where it is the town clerk is not maxed out she would if she were a level eighteen union employee she would be entitled to a four percent step and a two percent cola she has chosen not to take all of that so she is taking the two percent for for the step and two percent for the cola so she is taking four percent she has chosen to do that so that's what's  off on the amendments article six and anything else and depending on how many members potentially come in new things then we might have a longer meeting or not put it in an ideal world we would not need to be next week because the bottom line right so we get through this then  or recreation commission and the few things that are being charged for that activities are being transferred to use and used to fund the operations of the activities so some may go up you know be given here and that's a good thing because that means more people are historically participating in that type of activity or program so it's this is not taking money from the general fund things don't and i guess what is the process of creating one like we have these and not others i think it has historically been the  expended and controlled way joining a gym now i realized actually is during this explanation i'm not aware of the audit process for revolving funds to ensure that i take it that there's no growing balances so there's no it's not us there's not there's not a check and a collection of funds that are not being expended on the other hand what are the audit controls to make sure the monies are being spent in the appropriate way their take a look at something like the martin luther king day breakfast it's a small it's a small amount it happens you know five months before the end of the fiscal year i think it's well question for the future to say you know can have the other time that their use is in a like a recreation or a senior thing where you're adding programs and you don't know how to budget for them because you don't know whether it'll be super successful or not and so you need the flexibility to not have to budget a specific amount for that program so when you're growing programs that's often a way that eat you can also use it to make sure that you have the revenues in your pain using it to pay the expenses but you also have the flexibility to grow the program without  sixteen it was closer to be being needed fully in f y seventeen going forward then costs were going to start exceeding the revenues even with the override and so for that there was a desire basically to take money from the  or at least the early year and moving forward so to be available to support budget appropriations in the subsequent year right now as a matter of fact i believe the the plan right now based on forecast for next year is that much of that savings which was the one point six seven four million is likely to be appropriated next year to support the budget expectation right now dave conservative to speak more to that now both one point six seven for  at the time of the or right there were those of us who are also felt however that the revenue projections upon which the over it was based were probably more conservative than they needed to be so we felt that should our finances  financial position turned out to be better than was being forecasted that that money to the extent possible should also be backed if you will to support future budgets as everyone here knows who is at davis presentation i think sometime last fall the white fifteen results are five fifteen didn't fact communal lot higher a lot better than had been forecast revenues are about two point four million dollars higher expenditures about for me four hundred thousand less than the original  forecast but actually one point four million less than what ultimately was budgeted in f y fifteen the purpose of this article is is basically to place as much of that money as is as feasible in again into the general probably one point seven million right now we have seven point six million dollars in free cash one point seven billion dollars of that is being appropriated it to support the white seventeen budget we've we've already recommended federal action on that on those white it's about three hundred sixteen thousand dollars out of the general fund as floyd just said is and we've just recommended would be placed in the open stabilization fund and also at special town meeting last month somebody voted to appropriate one point four five million dollars to purchase modular classrooms at the center school leaves about four point one million in rugged terms our guidelines for free cassy just that we want to leave a balance between three and five percent this would look to actually leave at the lower end of that balance three million dollars in free cash and move the one point one million dollars into the general stabilization fund the reason this is that i'm proposing this is first and foremost will frankly make it harder to spend it at a higher threshold for time meeting to vote to spend that money but also in voting to spend that money it would be done sort of within the context of knowing that money that we appropriate now for particular purposes nothing to be available for procreation at a later time and so that the goal of extending the life of the override to some extent you know reduces our chance of of achieving that goal the general stuff that i'm proposing moves into the general i've just said we're providing a good deal of that money for other purposes the general stabilization fund has the virtue has to virtues in my in my view besides the threshold in threshold to remove money what it is it's not restricted  there are no clear cut restrictions on it it can be voted to support it is my hope the appropriation process in the future year but it can also be voted to support emergency allocations last year we had a couple of different was also voted by tell me to fund a short budget shortfall that year this money can be used for any of those reasons that comes up you can also i believe in i think sammy will agree has as stated this before it could even be voted do for a critical capital need if there's a capital budget need that can't be met with in the capital budget it is then it is undesignated in that regard at the same time if you will putting it in in into this fund sort of creates a default purpose for the money that if it's not needed for something that town meeting deems necessary or important to spend it's going to be there to support on future budgets and to some extent i don't know how much because we're looking into a future where ability to forecast is fairly limited but it might buy the town in the the year it might conceivably by the time the other two years before another operating mode override might need to be requested and especially in the light now what has changed since last year is we know that we're going to have a significant debt exclusion hit the ballot probably sometime in the next two and a half years i'm thinking i'm guessing i've asked and people thinking somewhere in that range that obviously a sizable one so i think that makes it ever more important that we simply manage our money smartly and that we whenever we make any decisions we know not only what what dollar to spending on a visit the purpose but also if you will what the opportunity the next year we have every reason to think that it's going to going to be really planted because this is going to be the first year or three years that we can have a school committee coming to us asking for special ed positive work this year so i'm so i'm confident that that with the certification process that there will be in good shape i mean that will be that we will be present but it's only my word and my before is three years three million dollars over the last six years going from two dozen tended to doesn't fifteen it was two point one million two point nine million three point four million two point four million three point zero yadin four one three million last year so the average is three million of somebody that i took questions in the comment question one i guess following up what dave was saying are we going to need some of the expect expecting to need some of this one point one million next year for the budget at least i think in the back of david's head and it and some of the forecasts that we did it's something that the one point six seven four that was going to the stabilization fund last year would be used in fiscal eighteen and i think that is in my opinion actually formed an open question as to what portion what sucked some or all of that is used because to the extent for example that all of that is used in fiscal eighteen we start getting in a treadmill where you live your going to run out of money because that is essentially one time money that is that they're all has so much one time money that is remaining so i think one of the important questions that we as a community and the world committee what he does think about the physical out of the table for people to think about over the course of the next six months will pick it up again in the fall that's going to form one of the for everybody that exit third question i have been so if this money goes into the stabilization fund supposed being free cash is this being considered one time money then when it's being spent that wouldn't be used we're operating i'm just saying it would if they're going to be somewhere if we have some need in the budget because my mind of the operating override is it's for operating if it goes into the stabilization fund and then some there's some shortfall somewhere we want to take this for operating are we going to get this objection saying well it's one time funds we can't spend a froggery now but we said so we it is a bit of a it's a bit of an illusion that we do not spend one time money on the point is that you can pull out and we know we don't know this you can put a certain amount of one time money into the operating budget so long as you feel confident that it's going to be replenished unknown witnesses so it leads the way i think about  or this last night if you're a clinician would say between two or three million dollars in free fair cash every year you can probably spend you know two if you want to really be kind of regressive up to maybe three in one time money and you can actually kind of you can you can keep up with it what the closer you get to the three you're running into you run into real risk that it's not going to be replenished right and so right now we're sort of spending in that one point three to one point seven ish range or free cash so i don't  kept sandy from talking so you want to comment on that yet and i think i think my comment came up in the discussion which was like taking the one point one million and putting it in general stabilization  doesn't prevent me from creating it for operations or other uses next year or the year after in the event it's necessary now obviously timing can choose to do that i just don't want to dub in a fight on town meeting for over two thirds vote which is what the the i guess the this is intriguing i think it's interesting and i've really been thinking about i'm glad to hear your explanation of it i agree we want to stress the override clearly the i guess and we think about it the question is really really we want to lock this money up in this fashion you put the stabilization funds to the words as you say so here's the question so it's harder to access if we need it if it's something that we thought we would need to tap i would kind of a problem with putting it in the stabilization funds like we know we're going to use it sounds like that may not come to pass which case in this becomes intriguing but then i don't want to get locked up permanently in some way where we have trouble getting it out when the when we have a rainy day that's what i'm wrestling with bob and i want to suggest that that the sort of context for this conversation that we're having is a little bit is a little bit different than the general conversation we have about using one time money for operations and and to speak  this is going to last us two or three years or four years and then expenses are going to dent exceed our budgets again so when we're talking about moving this money forward to for appropriations it's not with any idea this was going to go on and on and on  definitely in i mean unless the financial position of belmont changes radically in the next few years to the to the good and i'm certainly hopeful that we'll have more rather than less trees caches as and we don't know that until the end of each year we are the whole plan here including with one point six seven four which is going to take two thirds vote to appropriate next year it's no different than that it's precisely to put it here in say there is a default purposes money it is to if you will keep faith with the taxpayers that we said look we will try to stretch this out as long as we can on a practical level maybe it'll maybe it'll push i don't know twenty to twenty twenty one and that might be optimistic you know we may be looking at losing this money in twenty nineteen i don't know for the twenty one thousand budget but i don't really think it's a  is in fact one time money at least this particular nature of this all we're trying to do is put it off to to use it when we really need it and so i think that this is a very important goal operating budgets at some point in the future this kind of identifies it as such it doesn't lock it up it doesn't prevent access it doesn't mean that town meeting will not go i mean i don't if we have an emergency need for money i just cannot see town meeting night after seeing this money as it would free cash i don't remember what the votes were like last year the seven hundred eighty came out of free cash you know only with a fifty percent threshold to two hundred fifty if you had a stabilization for the two made it's going to happen oh and i think this is in keeping with what we told people last year that you know if we have a more positively we will save it and we will save it for this purpose to extend the right so i do support doing this i also feel like while the free free cash and the reserve a stabilization fund both technically can be spent on anything that tell me the appropriate i feel like there is a perception of difference and i think that gets at what adam was talking about i feel if we look at free cash and we think of free cash as one t funds and so we look to spend free cash on other than the portion we are looking for the budget we look to spend that when we need to on things that are one time like the modulus this money that has been put already in the stabilization fund we're putting it in there knowing that we're going to need it and that we're intending to spend it for operations and so while it can be spent for anything and while it is one time funds it is attached to that idea and so i think it sets to do it and i just want to reiterate although if it's called one time funds it's not like the sale of would fall or something this is generated by operations by an excess of revenues and lower expenses than what we're forecasting at up much in a bigger amount than what would have been what was forecast and what people thought so i do i do support that this would go into something that with the intent would be to extend the override or to paid for unforeseen and having been in the end scott committee you know in looking at our special education needs and that kind of thing it could be used for these kinds of things that come up or given  the other things that are happening it could be used for that to extend it as opposed to you know having to go out for another overhead so i think that i support this i think this is really important i think it's what the voters were it was represented to the voters that if they were excess funds they would go to law to extend the override and i think this is an important way again as ellen says to sort of make a conscious movement of funds from free cash to what in effect it's doing is converting the free cash guideline from a range of two to three million i mean if we were to apply this idea each year it would be to keep free cash at three million and anything above three million to put a percent or three percent but so currently with close to three million yes three percent and anything above three percent to put into this separate fund the general stabilization fund with the expectation that it will be used to meet the operating budget a future date so it's it's a change in our free cash policy it seems to  and it would be a no brainer to follow article nineteen if free cash was above the upper end of the range above the five percent than that that seems to be clear put surplus money that could be safely put into the general stabilization fund for a future date but it seems that before we were discussing a range three to five percent was discussed as kind of a prudent zone to be in but now it's in a in effect we are saying well no actually three percent is the right number for the coming year and anything above that goes into this separate fund but again it's all almost form over substance because there's there's no assurance earlier in putting in the general stabilization fund doesn't insulated from a choice it's it's putting money into a separate fund sort of questioning the judgment of town meeting to thinking that it's made to make a rash decision by taking money out of free cash so putting it in the one with is a two thirds requirement will make town meeting take a more considered decision and i  reluctant to think about town meeting in that way it's hard to enter the university but i would just say on the on the free cash guideline of three to five percent i think i feel a lot more comfortable going to the three percent and in the street from high percentage sort of a number that the dior has thrown out there without really putting it in context but it really is really generated to four pounds of don't have the kind of reserves we do we are way above what our policy is for reserves  percent we're at seventeen point three percent and so i think that you have to look at those things hand in hand and i think that  you know on the table during the i p o of during the overnight we could have chosen to finance the modulars and we would have had a lot more free cash to go into stabilization funds or do other things we chose not to do that we chose to spend out those but we could we could have done that and had and met met the four percent or five percent guideline here sorry i thought i was just going to add roy this notion of kind of doing it and run on town meeting not trusting them with cash money versus that was a sure money raising the barrier you needed two thirds vote to get the money into the stabilization fund so it's not a simple majority to get it in the stabilization portion of the ward committee report i try to focus on to make topics that that that that have a very big play on on what the possible changes in the school which it all and it's and it's more on the operating lesser concern than what the future budget i think we told the voters that we would save the overall money which i support i don't think we told them what kind of bank account we would put it in and i think that's what this is getting out i don't think you go against the will the voters by leaving it in the fifty percent to take it out account versus a two thirds to take it out account which is really what we're talking about here and fam worried about putting the money in a place where we're tying her hands and making it harder to access should we need it on the other hand i'm not really looking to spend it so i can i believe you're going to some mind dissipating spending and it doesn't sound like we will next year anyway it's just a tough call i mean i trust us and you know i think if if this like me come in very verbal on us and we come in favorable on this i think time eating for two thirds very well might put the money in there i don't want to end up regretting it two years from now when we can't get two thirds to take it out like this and we've never pulled through it so really created the general stabilization fund to put that money in last time so i'm really torn on this when i say that this is kind of a tough call because we're good we are deliberately time our hands on some of this money to make a little first of all if i recall correctly last year we spent down to three point three million wreckage a second so i don't think this is violently different from that and what it says is that we did have a really good year and that's why we are as high as we are and so we think it's reasonable to bring it to a profitable level and i do think it is surplus in that case not because it's necessarily over three percent the other just point i wanted to make is that with you know we're going to put out i was saying i do think there's a temptation and not necessarily on town meetings part but for all of us if it's in free cash to think about spending it on something and i also think if it's in free cash there is a something of a resistance to spend it all operating and i don't think that would be the case for the money that's in the general stabilization fund technically any of them to be used for anything but to qualitatively it's different yeah that was my that's my point too is that you know when we have the street cash and the work maybe doesn't really get a chance to discuss how that gets spent we get presented  bar to put this money aside and so after everything it's sort of a net after everything else has been spent and so i think that this does separate it and say ok this isn't going to be you know  stabilization fund in a record the same fifty percent minority just so it basically in that sense equal to free cash i would still favor putting in the stabilization and the reason is if you recall this this this is just sort of my way of year and a half ago i voted against it maybe you'll want to remember but my reason wasn't because i didn't think almost it was a decent idea my reason was i was concerned about appropriating money because i mean i suppose it's possible stabilization fund whether it's fifty fifty or if you search really is not just is this a worthwhile six spend it or it is this is the best thing we should do this money because it's not going to be available for this other purpose doesn't mean the decision will be made in this thinking any emergency situation will always be made to buy it will be spent but on projects that are more discretionary if you will they just got to be weighed against that there is a consequence when we when we when we appropriate money so i like the general stabilization fund for that reason as well is simply saying that that's what we're going to take it away from doesn't mean won't happen doesn't need to have to happen but it leaves it in people's minds  complex decision the right question for i don't know whether it's david or semi or or the chair but i'm suddenly not clear on the expectation when the override was passed one point six million was reserved so to speak with the expectation that it would be needed in the employ but it wasn't there it wasn't that staged over time so that there was an excess and excess amount was collected so to speak from the overriding that was going to be saved up for two years but when there be an excess or the current fiscal year that would also save to carry forward so that the f a eighteen to be funded as a result of two or three years i why we assumed that i think a decision that we as a community will have to make is whether that in fact that assumption was made here in africa oh it's still something we should continue to do a year from now because a year from now we will know a lot more than we did two years ago and if we had back spend all one point six seven four we will certainly increase the likelihood that the override funds will run out  fact in rome and still continues increase at a significant rate if special education classroom a significant rate if we keep growing pressure that seven percent if they feel competition increases in the way that we anticipate may happen or if it grows faster than rather let's put it that way if it grows faster than revenue so if those things come to pass we will run out of money and we will need another river and i don't act for just speaking for myself i don't want to assume that we are going to have to do another override in two years i want to extend the override as long as reasonably possible that doesn't mean we should starve them out but we should actually be prudent about spending money wisely so speaking purely for myself i don't go into next year assuming and i realize this may be controversial to say i don't go into next year assuming that we are going to spend all of the one point six seven four billion right i also don't go into next year assuming that we're going to assign one point three million of free cash in fiscal eighteen because i think arguably that's not the right number either portion of it so it was it was more like i had to get into the petition was filed her early yet i mean i mean i think the board of selectmen were satisfied that we were within the three to five percent range the recommendation know when bob raised that idea as you know we came close to the time when amendments had to be filing and if you came a parent that even with costs article we are still within the three to five albeit at the lower end you know i mean we were persuaded with the argument that we want to try to leverage funds to make the override last as long as possible particularly since we don't want to in two years be coming to the  taxpayers and asking for an override and exclusion for a new high school credit record putting the money in the stabilization fund doesn't change that equation if you don't spend it it's free cash and you're in the same position we're talking with a bank account to put it we're not talking about saving you for suspending an article  account it really doesn't matter that much it's just money i do think that i mean obviously there's a higher standard is as adamant and bob has pointed out there's a tutor standard as opposed to fifty percent stared i don't think that that standard actually as a practical matter matter that matters that much if there's a good use for this money i think town meeting is going to go for it so i don't think that math that matters i think that symbolically and it matters some but i don't think it matters enormously i think that when i was one of the symbolically by putting the money in the general stabilization fund we're basically saying we want to use this money to extend the override we're going to use it for reasons that the override was used for whether that's because they're extraordinary special education costs whether that's because and roman is growing we need to hire more teachers it's going to potentially go towards operating i think it's the worst consciously saying that we're that this is about essentially the overriding the reasons for the override and i think that we as a comedian are going to talk about how do we intelligently spend both free cash and general stabilization fund money over the course of the next several years so that so that we actually do in fact extend the override as long as we can and the giant unknown is what's happening with the health keep it with the contracts what's happening with special ed  percent next year versus two point eight percent in regular instruction like we saw this year will we have we had seven hundred twenty students and i'm not mistaken the last ten years with four forecast well that in fact happen or will not happen there's a lot of the know and so i think as the community knows more we're going to have to be smart about what we do and you know if all those things happened we were here growing students especially keeps growing and healthier grows if we don't change pension we probably already did override you know pretty sensible so we're going to have to but we'll see what happens then we expect to replenish that is simply setting the clock to running out of my right and so i think that is a discussion that we will have to have my bias will be to err on the side of not doing enough of it if all possible but to the extent that that means that we are going to starve the town because we have you know an enormous number of special education costs or new students coming in we're going to have to deal with that with that reality that's any other aspect of the revenues that we don't know how that's going to play out exactly that the uplands coming which will come and we could have a recession for all we know so we keep making assumptions that everything is going to look good and we have intersectional on time so we don't know what's going to happen so that's exactly right the revenue is uncertain as well ok so we have a motion was that we have a second any for this here that has a significant financial impact on the town i'm not inclined actually to have us comment on this is there anyone the feels differently enough that it would want to discuss  now that's been finally clarified and we have the significant expense to undertake for remediation which needs to be done coupled with the post closure  not because we contaminated it and it so this basically allows us to take ownership of the property that we're going to clean that we're going to space or we must clean this regardless of whether we own it it is in our interest seems to me to own it so that we can then  so i support it i'm glad we have four million dollars i'm assuming that amount can change is you know we go out did a i think you said that we have to understand the purpose of it before we can actually write it it know what we're going to do with it  question i have is that we're going to accept a transfer down i don't know what the timeframe is that we're expecting to do this do we have any requirements on what that timeframe is and does except expected even though we haven't spent the money or know what this can be used for while there's a restriction on its uses because it's coming from the state because of the restriction is going to be for recreational purposes if you  cap it in order to meet that deadline we are going to need to commit to spending whatever it's going to take for our intended use in whatever timeframe is required for us to catch it yet we are under a ninety hike to either accept or not accept the conveyance and hence the special town meeting where you are right i mean that doesn't mean we can sit on it for what is good what is the latest that we can decide how to use the will post but we will not be next week unless there is some you know several minutes to come up that are going to dissipate it just to be clear by the way and jim williams is with drawing oracle eighteen if i didn't make that clear so that's one reason to talk about for   at our last meeting monday night to provide for a retail parking holiday for the month of june two thousand and sixteen so retail customers will be able to park in our municipal laws for two hours at a time without charge i'm also happy to report that belmont savings bank has also you know come to the table and they've offered to  advertising and discussions about possible advertising and sponsorship and things like that the school so we had a very sentence that we made a little bit so setting aside the with their withdrawing communities the different communities there are nine of the handling many communities are good for the sixteen to twenty person school and we're the only ones of those of that town that have not and so i think the discussion that's happening right a possibility is that that the right answer for the ten pounds is that dublin is actually not in the district anymore and so it because we are the one town that is actually in the way of a concerns it's already there there are serious discussions that we'll talk more about that but you know it's a challenging subject and we'll tell you more about it as a develops any questions about the thing i think we have some i think the vote was very smart by town meeting and we have leverage now that could be applied maybe i don't know how strong is being applied but i think if they want their schools of badly they need to play ball with us and them this is activities be i think the answer is you just refuse to leave  people like watertown that doesn't make sense for the for the town of goma and so that that is a fundamental challenge so either we have a district that actually properly service the number of towns or or we don't have this school