Finance, Budget, Audit & Bonding Subcommittee - Special Meeting

Good evening everybody. Good evening. Good evening.

Okay. Think we wait a couple more minutes, guys. And if Council McCclary, who we know has a number of competing priorities, um, doesn't jump on, I'd be happy to start the meeting. Thank you. Oh, this is going online too. Is she on this screen?

Yes. Ah, there he is. There he is. Okay. Oh, we're all set for you, Ken.

You're on mute. Ken, mute. Sorry, technical difficulties. Uh, I'm trying to pull up the agenda. Give me a minute. It looks like we have uh council waterhouse, the mayor, the deputy mayor, and council merit. So, all members are present. Um the first item on the agenda is the discussion of possible action regarding the updated tax abatement policy. Is anyone from legal here? Say that again. Anyone from legal? Anyone from legal? the attorney, town attorney,

deputy town attorney, Jeff Smith, Tana. Okay. So, is there a motion to table that? I move we table it. Second. Moved and seconded by uh council uh excuse me, Merritt and seconded by the deputy mayor. Any discussion? Yes, I have discussion. How do we move forward with the next item without the tax abatement policy being updated? cuz currently um if I'm correct it allows up to 5 years with an extension for 2 years with 50% each year and I think this is starting at 75% each year and then going down to 25%

and so that is in direct violation of our current policy. I don't think it matters. I think it does matter.

Well, it may to you but it certainly doesn't to me. I think every historically every situation is different and deserves a different uh response. So I I mean you're going to be updating us all the time and I I think our advice from our consultants uh is is good uh that we take the deal as as it stands and um I you're you're just going to chase these people out of town if you're not careful. They can. Uh, so is the town manager, finance director, is anybody on the line?

I don't see anyone. I don't see our finance director in person.

Yes, sir. How do we move forward without our current policy that was adopted by the town council in 2017 and recently updated hearing everything that Ashley mentioned at the last meeting? If there is no draft to update the policy, how do we move forward? We don't have to update the policy. Council mayor, that was directed at the town staff. I know it was. I was answering it. um as I understand the town policy includes up to seven years five years with an additional extension of seven years if I'm not mistaken.

So the current policy is up to seven years and I understand the request to be for seven or is it still for 10? Seven. It's for seven at the values of starting at 75% if I'm not mistaken going down in the last year to 45%. But our policy says up to 50%. So that's like 200% over what our policy is saying. Yeah. So, as I think we discussed at a prior meeting, um we either conform to the current policy or the council would need to consider modifications to the existing policy to accommodate the request as it I understand it it stands today.

What's the will and pleasure of the committee? We have a my pleasure is that we um deal with this indiv this particular thing by itself and pass it on to the town council as a whole. Second. So we're moving the town policy for the update of the town council to the town council meeting. Okay.

No, I wasn't saying that. I was saying we take this individual. We have altered, we have differed from the policy many, many times. I was on the council when that policy was passed and dealt with the situation we had then. I don't think it's that firm a thing and I think uh I mean we're going to end up having to modify it in every situation. It's a guideline for companies coming into town who want to look for our attorney told our attorney told us it's not in line with the state statute. So if it's not in line with

coming in to see what the rules were and that's it serves that purpose and but we don't necessarily have to uh follow those rules. I hear you councelor Merritt but it also violates the state statute. Well that's a different matter. So how do we move forward? I don't see legal counsel on here. Um so I guess we will table this item. Oh but I see council uh Lori Tan up. Deputy Mayor Lloyd.

Thank you for recognizing me, Mr. Chair. Um, I don't believe that our current policy violates. I believe it was the request for the 10 years that would have been in violation of our current policy, which is why the contractor then deferred to the 7-year ask. Um, I believe that we were um guided that we would be safe within the seven-year request. The only thing I can't debate you about is is it up to a 50% that I'm not positive of, but the seven-year ask does conform and that was why the um the developer said, "Well, let's take the 10 years off since that way we wouldn't have to deal with a um policy change." But I but I would implore um if we move this to council that we do know whether it's the 50 or 75 and whether this ask is in alignment with the policy. And if it is, then we're able to move the ask to to full counsel for review and consideration. Um, I would like to say that I understand what our consultants are saying, but I do also want to say that with the questions that councelor mccclary asked. um it was submitted that there was a significant need based on uh financing issues if they did not get this wherein their initial um application to do this project when it all started there was no indication of that. So I do want the public to be very aware of that and how it has changed over time and so I think it is imperative for us to be really good stewards over the impact financially to our residents and the taxes that would be or would not be collected. So, um, I do appreciate them saying they are in a bit of a bind based on the changing economy and things that have transpired since they endeavored this initially, but I hope they can also appreciate the questions we were asking and that we are asking them because we want to ensure the public that we're making a good decision for them. Um, additionally, I

do believe in detail, one of the questions that was answered was a projection on the reduced amount of tax collection with the abatement or tax fixing as council mccclary calls it. And initially, it was set forth at 9 million over 10 years. And now with the seven-year ask and the 75% abatement, um just reading the email earlier, if someone can correct me, we stand to still collect well over $2 million with the current tax fixing aka abatement ask. I may have I might be calling it wrong because I'm not looking at the email right now, but if one of you guys have that number, I would appreciate if you could articulate what the change in the tax collection rate over that seven years would be so the public is aware.

Thank you, Council McCclary. So, if I'm not mistaken, if I'm not mistaken, um, uh, Bloomfield would receive, uh, between 6 to 7 6.7 million and 9.3 million over 7 years without the abatement, but only receive 2.7 to 3.5 w with the abatement. Um, and so I think that is roughly somewhere near $900,000 a year if I'm the mistaken. But we are also for foregoing about $4.6 to $4.9 million in abatements if we don't in taxes if we don't give them the abate if we do give them the abatement. Am I correct Mike?

Sorry I was on mute. Good evening everyone. Um you know I mean if

Good evening it's it's the way you want to describe it when you say that the town would be foregoing it. I mean, if the project doesn't happen, uh, you're foregoing nothing, right? Uh, you're you'll stay at the 13,000 a year that you're currently getting. So, the point in in our earlier emails was, you know, you're right, you're giving up 75% in the first year and declining over that seven-year period by a percentage uh so that by the eighth year, you're paying full taxes. But in those early years, you are uh agreeing to give up some of the taxes that you would otherwise get in return for getting this project. I think the bigger question uh is if the project doesn't happen, where do you stand

and where you stand is you are uh potentially leaving it to the homeowners to cover that 2.3 to 3.8 eight uh that you would collect during the abatement period and then after the eighth year uh when it goes up to whatever it goes let's call it for argument sake uh you know 2 million or a million and a half a year again that's a number that would just have to be carried by the homeowners so council merit one second one second raise your hand and then we'll we'll call you fine I'll raise my hand one second one second one second All All you're going Mary, you're out of order.

Chase them out of town. Council Mary, you're out of order. Okay. I want to be out of order. You're out of order.

Um it is a I I with all due respect um Mike, I think it's a mischaracterization saying that the taxpayers are going to cover uh the shift because the shift already happened. We raised taxes significantly on on taxpayers um already this year. And in your email uh to us earlier um you simply said um that we the town um while the developer essentially um would lower their operating costs then making sure that um they get a higher return on investment. And so essentially um what you're asking um uh Bloomfield taxpayers to do is subsidize these luxury uh apartments so that the developer makes excess profit. um that exact that is exactly what's being requested here and I want to be clear to the residents of Bloomfield. It was said to me earlier in the email well to this committee in the email that bullet number two that it is to lower the operating cost. It's not to lower the construction cost. It's not to lower uh rents on the property. It's simply to lower their taxes then shifting it so that they can get a return on investment. Bloomfield tax mischaracterization of what I've said.

What we've said repeatedly. Show the numbers. The numbers are what they are, Councilman. I mean, the reality is Look, I'm not going to argue with you if you I'm not arguing. This is Look, I'm not arguing. I'm the chair. I'm not arguing. And what it would say is that I can read it verbatim. I'm going to pull up the email and read it verbatim for the r the residents of Bloomfield so that it is not said that I am mischaracterizing what has been said. We all have the information in that email. It said it is to lower their operating cost then helping them get a improve return on investment. That's right. And if that wasn't said in the email,

do you want to you want to finish what was said in that section though? Do you want to read the entire or do you just want to come up with the excerpt that's I'm looking for it. I'm looking for it right now.

I I'm sorry, but I I you know, our job is to advocate to for the town, not not to support a description of a project as having excessive process or profits, pardon me. I I don't know where you get that conclusion, but there's nothing in our analysis that says that this abatement will result in excessive profits, to use your term. What is said in our email and in all our analysis and and it's supported by the numbers is that this is what the uh is necessary to get it up to the threshold where the developer is able to attract the necessary debt and equity to make the project feasible. So I mean you can describe it however you want but the reality is that without uh and we see this all the time. I mean this isn't unusual to Bloomfield. I don't think we've worked on a project in the uh Connecticut uh region for the last maybe 10 years where there hasn't been some level of uh property tax abatement in order to make the project financially feasible. They've all required it. This is no different than what we see in every community. In in East Harford, it took that kind of abatement plus an additional $20 million to make a project viable. Well, the deal that's on the table here is actually in the modest uh range of what we've seen. So to describe this uh abatement as resulting in uh the developer realizing excess profits is a complete mischaracterization and and it's a in my opinion is u it's it stretches the imagination as to how that conclusion can be arrived at. for that. It says, I pulled up the email, the reduced property taxes improve the developer's return on investment by lowering their operating costs. As mentioned below, this is

particularly important for the earlier years given the slow lease up rates. These improved returns are essential to the developer abilities to discerns to make the profit feasible. So when I hear return on investment, what is a return on investment? profit. Profit. That's what it says. That's exactly what I said. Profit. The reduced property taxes. This abatement helps reduce their property taxes so that they can get a return on their investment. And so, let's keep these damn capitalists out of town. Hold on. Hold on. Let me finish. You guys are out of order. You never finished, Ken. You keep talking forever.

You guys are out of order. He made a point. He he mischaracterized my statement. I'm just articulating to the residents of Bloomfield and I'm not getting into back and forth.

And why don't you let councelor hand up. Why don't you ask you're out of order. It this was simple. All I asked was show us the IRRa and the net operating income before the abatement and after the with the abatement and without the abatement. And then it was said that we were being b unbusiness friendly. If you go to any investor, you go to an institutional investor, you go to a bank, you go to a hedge fund, you go to any other finance person in this country and you're asking for capital, they do their due diligence and it's within this committee's right to do the due diligence. I've offered to have those numbers presented to us in executive session. Our residents just took on a huge tax burden and we're going to give taxes away.

No, this will help. Lord, there you go. You have the floor. Councelor Lloyd. Okay. Is it was it Lloyd or Merritt? I'm sorry. Chair.

Thank you. I'll be I'll be very brief. So, I just want to reiterate what I heard. One of my main questions was what what would be the change in the tax collection rate over the um abatement time frame versus no abatement? And the answer was between 2.7 million and approximately um 3 million. So on one hand we do recognize and and just want to be transparent and characterize all sides of the of the coin here is that that will be monies that of course we may not otherwise collect. So while it is a far cry from the original close to 9 million over 10 years, it is monies that we would not have. But I will also say just for understanding um for those that don't know my background being investigations um I do also understand council mccclary's desire to have a better understanding of the rate of return. Um, I'm not necessarily saying that it says excessive, but I do understand his desire so we can be good stewards for the residents because you've had the conversation with our consultant, but if someone comes and tells me something as an investigator, but they have the data to back it up. I can't necessarily go on their word, right? Or or investigating a crime as a a former police officer and someone says, "Yeah, yeah, I didn't do it." But there's evidence that they can present to me to show otherwise and it's available. It's just a a loose example just to say I understand why he's asking for it wanting to be a good steward for the residents and ensure that it isn't excessive margin. But what I also let me finish but what I also heard was um Mr. GMAN state that the return that will be received based on this abatement he feels in his prof professional opinion will be within reasonable margin and not excessive. So I hope I recap everyone's thoughts there and and with clarity for the public as I understand it. Um I do

hope that this is kicked over to council. Um if there's a capacity to have more information that would help us to make a better informed decision in council I would appreciate that. Um, council mccclary previously even explained that a conversation in executive session would be um amendable to himself. I'd be aminable to that as well, but I do hope this evening this goes over to council for full consideration.

Council Merritt, I I I think our mayor wants to say something. I didn't see I didn't see your hand, but Mayor, you have it. You have the floor.

Thank you. So, in in listening to to all sides, um I am certainly in favor of uh this going up to council for full discussion. Um I know I just want to know what is the prevailing issue that we're trying to address right now. We know we have a proposal for 7 years, 17 uh apartments and uh the issue right now is is what I know we're we're also talking about the possibility of hiring some uh uh Bloomfield residents, not a PLO. Okay. Okay. So, that's off the table. All right. Uh I do believe this is a very very important uh project for our town. Uh in particular that region of our town uh not just for that apartment but for the potential of CIF, excuse me, tiff uh um groups developing other kinds of uh businesses in the area. But I think when we look back and we have had these apartment dwellings come up in our community, there has been major uh tax abatement. And I know we don't want to do the same thing. And I know we want to make sure that we're great stewards for the town because, you know, that's money that we could have had before. But I I'm just concerned that we're weighing too much on this one project when we know it's it's for 55 and above. These are seniors that we're talking about. Now, I do realize that some of the apartments

are are luxury apartments. And so the the 17 that we're talking about uh are affordable housing. And we couldn't get to the 20 because that would have brought us to the 10 years. But I just want to find a way that we can discuss this and make it work because I think it's a very very viable uh uh project for for our community and we have another one coming up soon that will test us as well down the street uh you know at First Cathedral. So um I just think we we need to have others join in the discussion which would be at full counsel. Um thank you.

Thank you. May I speak now?

Thank you. Um I I think we are not going to settle this here tonight and I think it probably the best thing to do is pass it on to full counsel. The problem we have is this company needs some kind of an answer soon. You can't wait another month or two. I mean, you basically you're telling them to leave town if you don't give them an answer. If they are they've done what they can do and if if if we look put this up to town council uh sooner rather than later uh we can have this discussion there because we're not going to resolve it at this level. I I would move that we pass it on without a recommendation to town council.

Second. Is a motion to pass this on without a recommendation to the town council. There has been a second. Any discussion?

I have discussion and I just want to I want to be very clear um that I think this is a viable uh option. Well, I think this is a viable project in the capital free market. None of these questions would be asked if they wasn't asked from Ford tax subsidies. I want to be clear why I am deeply concerned with both the proposal and our consultants response. First, this agreement is not like a tax incentive uh financing project. A tiff to typically reinvest in infrastructure or public good. We're not getting a public good here. They told us no to the jobs. They told us no to the uh additional uh housing, affordable housing. The abatement simply lowers the development's tax bill, the developer tax bill so that their investors can achieve higher returns return on investment. So they are comfortable with their return on investment. The abatement for me does not add to Bloomfield's infrastructure, no services. It's just less revenue. It's just a little bit more revenue. I get that for 50 years we've gotten a couple of thousand dollars and we survived. Second, the consultant admits again outright that the reduce in property taxes are designed to improve again the developers return on investment by lowering their operating costs. This is not about construction affordability which we heard at the beginning. They came in saying that they needed to do this to make it viable, right? Not about the public benefit. It's about, in my view, a direct transfer of about $4 million in taxpayer revenue into how they classify it as a better return

on investment. Our role is not to guarantee a better return on investment. Our role is to protect our taxpayers. Third, the suggestion that asking about returns is a distraction and insulting and is not good for business. As I mentioned in my earlier statement, no banks, no hedge fund, no institutional investor would ever commit millions of dollars without viability or looking into NOIRR equity contributions. To say that the taxpayers of Bloomfield should accept this less due diligence is unacceptable to me. Our job is to protect the residents who just who just saw a significant increase in their taxes from 4% from commercial to residential. Bloomfield is not a rubber stamp in this deal. I've asked for two to three months. It was simple. Show the IRRa. Show the net operating income with the tax abatement and without the tax abatement. Fourth, there was an email earlier that says the town bears no risk, and I think that's flatly wrong. Residents just went again through a 4-year revile. Lastly, I won't be supporting this moving to council without the stipulation that in the and I would like to make a superseding motion to add that at the next council meeting in executive session, we can put the executive session first for the consultant in Gorman, New York to submit the IRRa and the net operating income with the tax abatement and without the tax abatement. if they don't want to do it publicly because it's proprietary information, we have a venue and we owe it to the residents of Bloomfield to include this so that we make sure we're doing our due diligence and I so move

we we we already have a motion on the floor, but I made a superseding motion. I've never heard of that. Or I made an amendment to the motion. Oh, it's not accepted as a friend of the amendment. Okay. Any more discussions? Councelor, Deputy Mayor Lori. You're not.

Yes. I I I I don't necessarily disagree with the information you're seeking, Council McCclary, but there's always more than one side of the coin. It sometimes is two, but at other times it can be more perspectives. Um, and because I like to look at all sides, I do still want to reiterate that there will be a tax collection. Although I am in favor of better understanding their profitability perspective or position. I will also say on the other side of the coin, I have had so many residents that I can't count come to me about the most recent reval and how it has impacted them and that more business revenue or taxes tax revenue will certainly be beneficial to help lower their taxes because we know there was a a shift as you just mentioned. So, not that I am in favor either way, but I do want to put that perspective out there as well. I suspect as we move this to council, we will probably have many of those people come to the council meeting to speak to this project and I do welcome their input. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Is Daryl still in is the uh finance director still in the room? I have a question for him before we vote on this. Daryl, uh quick question. After the exemption that we're exempting, the value of that exemption, where does it go? Does it imp will this impact who pays for the increase in who pays for the increase in value to the grand list? But the exemptions is taken away. Who pays for that? Um the exemptions you're referring to or what? Yeah, after we exempt that, right? So if there's a dollar an exemption and the value of the property I apologize. Nope. Go ahead.

Are you referring to uh standard exemptions that the assessor applies u after application and a review and approval or are you referring to the tax abatement for the Arbella project? The tax abatement for the Arbella property. Okay. Could you repeat your question? So the value that we're not including into the the grand list still grows even though we're not including that value in the that exempt value into the property. Right. Correct. So ultimately who pays for that because nothing is free. So would it be the other businesses and the residents of Bloomfield paying for those exemptions and the value that we exempt?

No. It's um as I think about it, the the question is the current state and the current state is vacant land with 12 $16,000 of taxes coming in after a project like the one that's proposed uh the tax revenue while it wouldn't go to the full value if council were to approve an abatement it would increase to I don't have the email in front of me that$123 million over the life of the tax abatement. um those revenues are all positive and will lower the tax burden for current residents and businesses. It's an increase in assessed value and increase in tax revenue by virtue of the project. So, uh, to say it slightly differently, instead of looking at what the full value, what the full tax receipts would be without an abatement, I'm looking at it from the other side, which is the 12 or 16,000 that the town is receiving from the property now and the hundreds of thousands a year that it would receive in the millions over the seven-year period. So, it's it's positive and it funds a portion of the town's budget from revenues that do not exist now, which is how I conclude that current residents and businesses would have a lower tax burden by this new construction.

So, if this was to go through today, what is a what does it cost to raise a mill to lower one mill? What is that? Is it $2.1 million? Is it 1.8 million? I believe it's value of a mill fiscal 26 budget book. I think it's page 14 is 2.514 million. Don't quote me, but close to that. And we're going to get an additional $900,000 a year, but it to lower the taxes, it takes 2.4 roughly estimated.

Well, it's a about a third of a mill or a little less than a third of a mill depending on, you know, what number. That's at 900,000. And then and then with the revile and with the revile this year we did a 3.8% increase and then the four-year phase in over four years was how much? About 7.1%. What the effects on the reval? Um the reval on average residential and commercial from memory was in the 40% r 50% range. the four-year phase in the council approved uh takes that to be about 12 and a half% annually for each of the four years phased in.

So So 12 and a half annually plus the 3.98% increase in taxes, right? So that's what 12 and four is what about 16%. Yeah, I'm I'm thinking back to the presentations in front of this committee and council with regard to the reval and um those are two separate things. The value of a property that deres the assessed value and then the taxes.

Yeah. But what I'm getting to, what I'm trying to get to is what was the the combined uh tax increase with the four-year phase in and the operation the budget increase of 3.98%. So the 3.9% operating uh for the town's growth in the budget, but there was an effect due to the increase in the in the value. And so we're doing a 12%. So next year phase in taxes is going to go up what if we do a zero sum budget taxes going to go up how many% next year just with the with the four-year phasing? That's what I'm trying to get to.

Yeah. So the reason that I and it's coming back to me, the reason that I separate the two, the increase in the mill rate to support town operations as opposed to the revaluation, the revaluation is based on property values, the statemandated every 5-year revaluation. Yep. That we equalize the mill rate. So there is no

No, that's not true. the the mill rate is equalized based on the new assessed value with the revaluation increase not the full one but each of the four years and then we equalize to determine what mill rate is necessary to generate the same tax revenue as the prior year and that effect

and based on that equalization right we keep talking about tax increase that equalization is what levels it out we have a a new assessed value and we figure out with that new assessed value what mill rate generates the same taxes as now which is why we separate the two. We do that equalization so that we can then look at what the tax increase is to support operations. Tax increase relative to revaluation is based on property values. It can go up or down each revaluation.

Darl, I have that. But what I'm saying is if we did a zero if even if we had a zero spending growth the effects of the revile even with equalization would have been somewhere near 12.7%. Correct? because it is with the council's approved phase in with the phase in right so they would see with a with a 0% spending growth it would have been a 12.7% increase on average

on average over four years right and so with the 3.98% in addition to that all I'm saying is that our residents just took a major burden in tax increases and we're basically giving away tax incentives right now in a time where they are really really hurting in their property and we're talking about four or five years down the line. But I rest my case until the council meeting. Um and I see councel Cooper and then we'll get to we'll call the vote. Councelor Cooper.

Uh thank you uh Mr. Chair. I uh I do have a question for um our finance director and it's uh I just wanted to go back sort of to the beginning of of that conversation. Does it um the the um the tax abatement and the the grand list? So does it work where if you're providing that tax abatement are is the grand list still going to grow by the actual uh value of the completed project or is there any release um for counting that because of the tax um abatement that the town is providing or or is it is that fully on the books? Is there any pressure relief

tax is different from total grand I'm saying that the taxable grand list is uh excludes those payments the total grand list includes them. That's one of the procedures we go through every year for doing taxes is we come up with a new grand list and then we say how much of this is a taxable grand list and the in the taxable grand list the abatements are obviously not included

and the taxable grand list the abatements are not incl the property can be valued at I'm just I'm just giving uh throwing numbers out there. So the property is valued at 100 million but you've given a um for that particular year say uh a 45% um abatement right does that have any impact on the 100 million of this property being taxed?

Yes it does. So uh as the full value using your numbers the 100 million is uh let me take a step back both are reported the full value at 100 million and then with the 45% abatement the 55 million we report both I understand your question to be about the revenue generation and that's based on the net number so the 55 million in your case in your example. Okay. So, all right. So, so we we wouldn't be on the hook for the whole and when I say we, and I'm talking about residents and neighbors of Bloomfield would not be on the hook for the whole thing.

Well, I I um I do not believe that is an accurate characterization that Bloomfield residents are on the hook. Right now, Bloomfield residents are benefiting from 12 or $16,000 of taxes from this property. And developing the property and generating significantly more revenue is positive to Bloomfield taxpayers. That's the that's the simplest way I can say it. Or you can say it like this. There's no no such thing as a free lunch. Well, that's the top down look, right? If

that that no such thing as a free lunch says if I give you a dollar, wait a minute, I'm going to hold 45 cents back. If I give you 55 cents, I'm 55 cents to the better. I could have been a dollar to the better. Or I could stay like I am now and have zero. My suggestion is looking from the bottom up, going from zero or the 12 or $16,000 annually to what would be hundreds of thousands of dollars annually. That's why I refer to it as being positive for Bloomfield taxpayers. I call the question. I moved. All Yep. All signify by saying I to move this to council.

Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I didn't I didn't hear. I'm sorry. So, we're voting to move this to the town council with no recommendation from the finance committee. All those council mcclary, councelor waterhouse just joined. I'm sorry. Oh, no. She was on. She was on. She was on. She's been on the entire discussion. I thought I heard her say something. Can I respectfully ask for a roll call vote, please? Yep. I'm gonna ask for a roll call vote for to move this to the town council without a recommendation. So, we're not saying to the town council we're supporting it or we're not supporting it. Uh, Council Merritt, I. Mr. Mayor, I.

Council McCclary. No. Council Lloyd. I. Council Waterhouse. I. The eyes have it. It is moving to town council without a recommendation. Uh, next item on the agenda is public comment. Is there any public comment? Is there any public comment? Is there any public comment? Seeing none, we will move to the next one. The approval of the minutes for July 21st. Is there a motion? Some move. Second. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. I have it.

Thank you everyone. Have a good evening. See you guys at the town council meeting. Thank you, Council McCclary. Bye.