Sunday, September 20, 2026
Subscribe Advertise Donate Advertiser Log In
Support free local journalism for all of Wayland. Donate Now
Donate Subscribe
Try: Select Board School Committee Real Estate Town Meeting Budget

June 23, 2026 – Board of Public Works – Video & Transcript

play-sharp-fill

June 23, 2026 - Board of Public Works

 
LanguageEnglish
Okay, so it's the June 23rd, 2026 Board of Public Works meeting at 6.05. This meeting is being conducted via remote access only via Zoom. Let's see, the link is in the agenda. The meeting is being recorded, I just noticed, by WICAM. It'll be available on WICAM later after the meeting. So into Chapter 2 of the Acts of 2025, this meeting is being conducted via remote access in accordance with the applicable law. Since this meeting has only remote access, no in-person attendance by members or the public is permitted when required by law or allowed by the chair. Persons wishing to provide public comment or otherwise participate in the meeting may do so at the meeting. I'm sorry, by raising their hand and will admit you. So with that, we'll move to the call to order and roll call. Judy? Here.
John? Yes. Thank you. Mike? Here.
Ed? He was just here. He was there and then he's gone.
Ed, are you here with us? Well, while we wait for him to reappear, I'll note that we have our director, Tom Holder, here, our select board liaison, Carol Martin, and our consultant, Water Enterprise Fund, financial consultant, Matt Abrahams.
Am I missing anyone?
I think that's it. Okay. Ed, if you're there, just either wave your hand, turn the camera on and wave your hand, or say here.
Listed in the participants, in the panelists. Yeah. And he had an argument earlier that he was having difficulty earlier with the video, and I see it's off, but he's not muted. Right. Okay. Tom, do we have any announcements? Just a couple of quick ones. Don Millett was anticipating to join us tonight, is not going to be able to. I guess his father was admitted into the hospital this evening, so he's driving to Rhode Island right now. But he was able to give me some information relative to FY26 expenses, so I can speak to that if needed. And then also, I just arrived back from Marianne Maloney's mother passed away on Friday, so the wake was this afternoon, and so I just arrived back. Several of us made a trip down there and paid our respects, and I did mention that the board also sent their regards as well. Thanks, Tom. Thank you very much. Sure. I'm pretty sorry to hear that. I hope all is well with Tom's dad.
Okay. Public comment. Anyone here for public comment?
Hello. It's Elizabeth Carter. I'm in the parking lot of the town building because my neighborhood's out of power. There's an Eversource power outage, 470-some people out of power. And I understand this is a public comment meeting on the water rates, and Eversource thinks maybe after 8 p.m. they might be able to get it fixed. Nobody's on scene yet. It's been out since 5 p.m. So I'm wondering if you would consider postponing the meeting, at least the public contribution part and the vote, so that that can be done with all people who wish to participate in Weyland, since it is remote only. Yeah, that's the main agenda item for tonight. I understand that. That's why it's important that people can, unfortunately, you made it remote only, so people can't drive down and attend. They don't have internet. They don't have electricity. I had to leave my house even for self-service because I don't get self-service at my house. It's a dead spot. Couldn't even get on the internet with self-service.
Understood.
Okay. Sorry. Do we have any other public comment? Yeah, Casey.
Great. Go ahead. Hello, this is Kim Cook from Lincoln Road in Hazelbrook Lane. I heard you guys mention earlier that there's a new agenda. The only agenda that the public has access to is one that was published last Wednesday, June 17th at 3.30 p.m. Also, I wanted to let you know that one of the town websites for this meeting says it begins at 6.30 p.m., not 6.00 p.m. as the agenda states. So I'm just looking at it from the perspective I see at 7.10 that there's going to be a board discussion on the plans for grading, treating, and material selection for Lincoln Road in Hazelbrook Lane. And I just wanted to comment on that briefly. You know, a number of residents commented a week ago tonight, and then you guys had a discussion. And during the discussion, Joe, thankfully, was talking about how he's looking into, he's planning on new materials. But I also wanted to let you know that the calcium chloride application has worn thin and the dust is starting to materialize again. And this toxic dust from recycled demolition gravel that's meant for other applications that is being dumped on Lincoln Road and Hazelbrook Lane. I also wanted to call attention to something that was mentioned during the meeting. Somebody had asked a question, you know, how much is it to apply the calcium chloride? And the answer was it was a little less than $9,000. And I think John's store said, gee, that's going to get expensive fast. And then there was talk about other roadways that are being treated with gravel and stuff. And it was mentioned that a lot of the other dirt roadways are private. And the DPW is servicing them. And it was mentioned on the south side. It's all in the recording on WACAM. Why is the Lincoln Road and Hazelbrook Lane are public roads? Why is the town expending resources and personnel on private roadways? Private roadways are supposed to be fully maintained and serviced, paved, plowed, you name it, by residents, abutters. That's what a lot of people on private ways are being held to. Why there is a mention of a lot of work being done on other private roads. So my point here is if we're concerned about, you know, it seems like, as Joe said, between 830 and 930 in the morning, remarkable how many cars and how fast they go on Lincoln and Hazelbrook Lane cutting through. So the calcium chloride that was applied last month is wearing thin. We're going to need to pony up some more money. And, you know, if there is money, yeah, if there is money that's being spent on private roads, that shouldn't be the case. We have a private road here with a severe health hazard. And I appreciate your, you know, getting this road treated and fully remediated, treated in the short term and fully remediated as soon as possible. Thanks so much. Thank you. Are we able to verify that the publicly posted meetings are for stating 630 p.m. start? The agenda is for 6 p.m. It was posted and affirmed by the town clerk's office last week. Okay. I see the one that we have from this morning is 6 p.m. But that was that was posted Wednesday or Thursday of last week and affirmed by the town clerk's office. Okay. Thank you.
What do we want to do with regards to the folks that aren't able to attend the open forum tonight? The challenge is we need advance notice advertising for this. My suggestion would be to press on as we are scheduled tonight. Let's complete it. And then tomorrow, you know, I can look into the necessity of needing to re-advertise and re-hold a hearing should we need to based upon a power outage. I'm sure that there is some statute that I can uncover and make a determination as to whether or not we're able to have the water rate hearing.
Okay. Let's see. I know we want to get the rates in place before the start of the fiscal year, which is next Wednesday, I believe. Correct. So. Okay. The time was, I'd say, 6 p.m. for the start of this meeting. Also, I'm in contact with someone who lives on Oxbow Road. They said the power just came back on.
I'm not sure if that means everybody, but it's usually a heavily affected area in weather like this. Got it.
Sounds like we got Ed. He's chimed in.
Okay. You know, we could start with some of the update sections first. The 7 p.m. We can take these out of order. The transfer station funding mechanism for discussion and possible vote. I did send the draft memo to Tom last week. He's working on reviewing that and fact-checking some of the items. We're also requesting from the consultant on the pickup study, the municipal trash pickup study, if they have any information related to enterprise funds and transfer stations and any information they may be able to provide. And we have a meeting scheduled for this Thursday for that committee. So, Tom, unless you say otherwise, I don't think we're quite ready for this topic tonight, correct? Yes. I mean, I'll continue to review some of the things that were written. I did see your email earlier and saw the notes that you made, and I will commit to reviewing that. And so I would recommend, you know, we can speak to the consultant. We can talk to the working group on Thursday's meeting about what we'd like the consultant to do, since that was already mentioned at a prior meeting. And then on the July 28th, we could formally, we'll have that memorandum, you know, formalized, ready to go for the board's review at that July meeting. Sounds good. Sounds good. And then as the Hazelbrook is under concerns, board concerns, this was intended to be an update from staff on their plans for grading, treating, and the materials selection. So can we move forward with that? I know Joe's not here. Yeah, I'm prepared to speak to that tonight. Okay. Yes. We'll move on to that next. Okay. Yeah, so over the course of the last month, you know, we've been hearing from residents of Hazelbrook Lane of the dust situation. We have been working steadily to develop an acceptable solution to that. Some of the steps that we've taken, we did put down the calcium chloride. You know, that does have a positive impact in keeping the dust down. We heard from a prior speaker tonight saying that that is steadily becoming ineffective. It really is designed to last longer than just a few weeks, which is what it's been. We have had, you know, obviously some steady rains. And I've been out and made a couple of site visits. It seemed that between the calcium chloride, the weather that we've had, that Hazelbrook Lane and Lincoln Road were in pretty decent shape relative to a dust issue. That being said, we're not just relying on that solely. We have engaged our transportation engineer that has a background in roadway materials. We've got a specification aside from the Boston City specification that we've historically used. We do have another specification of not recycled material, but fresh material. We've issued that specification to two vendors that we regularly do business with. We are waiting to hear from them relative to availability and the cost for that. So, you know, it's our intent that we will be able to obtain that different material and we'll utilize that during future replenishment of the material on both of those dirt roads. So we're doing that. We are still looking to retrofit equipment that we currently have that we use for winter roadway treatment so that we can use proper nozzles, whereby we'll be able to apply our own calcium chloride. We'll be able to purchase that. We have tanks that'll hold it. So that'll be more readily available than contracting that workout. So those are some of the things that we're working toward. And I expect a, you know, a favorable outcome of all of this.
Great. Any questions by the board? I know we had been asked about a management plan. And Joe had mentioned about every six weeks or so. Is that just during the summer season or I guess the non-snow season where we come out about every six to eight weeks? You really can't set your calendar by it. It really is based upon the conditions that we observe out there, the weather that we have, whether it's drought, whether it's rainy. We, you know, we monitor it ourselves. We also receive, you know, information from residents relative to the condition of the road when we go out and grade it. So it really isn't something that we say every five to six weeks. It is based upon, you know, the condition of the road and how those particular factors play into the condition of that road. But it's something, you know, we're, you know, continue to be able to maintain that road as necessary.
This is Judy. Are we maintaining any private dirt roads? So what we do is there are a number of private dirt roads in town, and it is a town policy. This board may have voted this many years ago, is that based upon the ability of emergency apparatus to access homes on those dirt roads, we from time to time will grade them. We don't put down material. We don't do calcium chloride. We don't do any of that. But when we receive a complaint from a resident on a private dirt road, we actually have an arrangement whereby public safety officials, police and fire chief, will actually evaluate the road. And if they make the determination that the road is in a condition such that they would have a difficult time bringing their apparatus down those roads, we then will grade the road.
Good to you. Sounds like a fair policy to me. Okay.
Okay. Any other concerns under board member concerns or 710 item?
Okay. I believe we can move on to the water rate hearing at this point, unless anyone objects.
Okay. Matt, do you want to share the updated version of the model?
Yeah. So good evening, everyone. This is Matt Abrahams from the Abrahams Group. We have an updated version of the model for you, and it's currently on the screen. So as the chair mentioned, it has been updated. There was a version that went out yesterday. No, it went out this morning, right, Tom, to the board? Yes, it went out this morning. Yes. Yep. And then since then, there have been additional requests by a board member for some additional updates to the model. And those updates did get into this version that's on the screen. So that means there are now some slight differences between the version that went out this morning and the version that's on the screen. But none of the functionality has changed. It's more just labeling, making things a little bit clearer, getting to the endpoint more succinctly. So I just wanted to make that clear, that this is an updated version, but all the functionality that is in the version you received this morning is still in this one. Great. So I think, Mr. Chairman, it probably makes sense to highlight some of those changes. Do you agree with that? It does. And so just to lay the groundwork, each year we come together to try to predict the future. And through our process, we typically try to target an end goal, meaning our end retained earnings for the year. And typically the board votes what we want to target, and typically that's a percentage of the operating and debt service as advised by the Abrahams Group. That range that we're advised and guided to target is between 10% and 15% of the operating budget plus debt service. So I would imagine once we hear public comment, we're going to close the hearing, and then we'll work on the model and scenarios and vote. We can actually work on scenarios based on public comment while the hearings opened, but in order to open the hearing, we'll have to have a roll call vote to open the hearing. So with that said, I'd take a motion to open the water rate hearing. So moved. So moved. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Thank you. Judy? Yes. John? Yes. Thank you. Ed? Yes. Great. Mike? Yes. And Mike, yes. Okay. With that, our hearing is now open. I think it would be best, Matt, as you mentioned, if you want to quickly walk through how this model works. Not in so much detail, but at least in the input fields and some of the preliminary scenarios the board's already looked at. And then we can take some public comment. Sure. Great. So the model that we are looking at on the screen is a progression from years of work that we've done together. This was originally designed three or four years ago. And every year we add a little bit more, add a little bit more bells and whistles, make the functionality a little bit better, make the layout a little bit better. And this on the screen is where we currently are with the model. As the chair mentioned, there are some input fields which we put in yellow. So any yellow highlighted cells are what we consider to be input fields, meaning anyone that has the model can put into those cells whatever values they want. And there's functionality in the model to take those inputs and ultimately do some calculations and spit out some results that the board, myself, town staff are interested in seeing to see what some of these different runs look like. So some of the yellow cells that we have here up at the top of them of this page are usage fields. So these four fields right here are usage in cubic feet by tier. So tier one through tier four, you can see the labels over here. These numbers are for any bills that go out for all users other than Alta or River's Edge. And the reason why River's Edge was segregated was because as it was coming online, I guess maybe it's not still fully online. We wanted to make sure that we were projecting usage related to that account. So it was separated and was put here. So there's also a projection for usage tied to River's Edge in this area. So if you add those two yellows together, you get your total build amount, which is over here by tier. And the reason why by tier is important is because there are different rates per tier. So once you have usage per tier, you can multiply that by the rates in those tiers to get the total amount that is anticipated to be billed in that fiscal year. So that's usage. Over here is the rates area. You can see by year going left to right what the rates were in each tier. This area right here is the 26 column, the FY26 column. That's the fiscal year we're currently in. Those are the current water rates, tier one down to tier four. You can see it increases as the tiers go up. The next set of inputs is this area right here. The four top cells that I have highlighted are an area to input a rate change in the form of a percentage for the tier. That is aligned on that row. So this particular row right here is for tier one, all the way down to tier four. These are percent changes for those tiers. And the reason why there are numbers there now is because these were the run. This was the run that we did together during the Board of Public Works this last meeting, which was last Tuesday night. So we've carried that run forward into the version that we're looking at right now. The next cell down is a percentage for PFAS remediation surcharge. That percentage is calculated based on water meter charges. So whatever charge is on a bill related to water meter or water usage, that is increased by the 7.5% PFAS remediation surcharge. It's a configurable percentage because that percentage can change. If the Board wanted to look at that, we could. And if you were to look back just a few years, you can see that it did change in the recent past. When it was first implemented, it was 6.21%. Since then, it has been increased to 7.5%. The next row down is the base fee. This is an annual amount. So now that the town is fully on quarterly billing, the current charge, which is right here in this area, is broken out by 4 on each quarterly bill. So it would be $15 per quarter, $60 per year. And again, that's something that the Board could look at as a change. If you look back at the past, it has not changed in many years, and maybe it's never changed since its implementation. I actually don't know the answer to that. And again, with the latest run that we talked about last week, we were looking at a potential increase there, which is why you see an amount greater than the current amount in the yellow cell that I've highlighted. If we go down just a little bit further, now we're getting into the dollars area, the revenues, the expenses. This cell right here on row 45 is total revenue. That includes all revenue line items. We have revenue line items in a detailed format on another tab that we could review if we wanted to. But just realize that any changes that are to any of these revenue items here, whether it's the usage, whether it's the rates, whether it's the PFAS surcharge, whether it's the base fee, all would have an impact on the number that's shown right here. If those numbers increase, this goes up. If those numbers decrease, it goes down, et cetera, et cetera. We have projected also for 27 expenses. Currently, the projections for expenses in 27 are strictly tied to the latest FY27 budget, the one that was adopted, other than the contingency line. So I believe Tom, there was $200,000 as part of the budget for contingency, correct? Yes. Correct. So we have left the contingency area configurable. You see it in yellow here under the thinking that the board may choose not to set rates such that the contingency line would not be funded. I said that wrong. Set rates such that the assumption is the contingency line would not be funded, even though it's part of the budget. So if the board wanted to assume that the $200,000 that was budgeted for contingency would be spent, we could put $200,000 in here. And that would have an impact on the quote unquote bottom line. If we want to assume that it's not to be spent, then again, we could zero this out and it would have an impact on the bottom line. We have $50,000 in there currently, because that was what we had last discussed as a group when we met last Tuesday night. Ultimately, all of this leads to a calculation of comparing revenues versus expenses, really a surplus or a deficit for the fiscal year. That's shown on row 62. You can see if you go back a few years, what has happened in the recent past. We see a mixed bag of deficits and surpluses in the recent past, the last fiscal year. And just a comment on that line. That also includes capital expenses. So I think a fair representation might be to look at the operating expenses versus the operating revenue. You know, line 62, that includes some capital expenses that we had planned to take from retained earnings. So I understand that it overall is the balance, but I think we should have an operating line so that we can see how we did for the year. So you're saying you do a comparison between revenues and expenses with and without capital? Yes, because our plan is typically to cover the operating expenses. And then in some years, we utilize retained earnings to make capital purchases. It doesn't mean we did a bad job of predicting what we were going to do in terms of revenue. It's a plan that we had planned to use retained earnings or savings for some of those capital expenses. Okay. So now you have it. Great. Thank you. So the top row is if you're including capital, that's row 62. The bottom row is if you are not, that's row 63. So in the years where you have capital, which is here, capital expenses, which is here, you're going to see a difference. Any other year, you're not. Sounds good. Okay. One thing that's been updated since last week is we updated the projected revenue. I think last week we were showing an operating loss of about what, 250,000 for the year, somewhere around there. I can look it up, but that sounds right. That's okay. It's just, just rough. Um, with our updated projected revenue, um, more, more is projected to come in than expected prior. So that, that has been, that deficit has been reduced by about 200,000. Um, and there's one more piece that we need to update. Um, I, I spoke with Tom about this earlier. We had about 242,000 on the expense side in encumbrances, um, with only about a week, uh, two weeks left to spend. Um, so I asked if he, uh, I'm not sure if Tommy are able to talk to Don Blatt, but, um, if we could have a rough idea of how much of that 242k. Do you think we'll spend in these since last Tuesday to next Tuesday? Yeah. So with the, the answer to that, and it's really not so much this Tuesday to next Tuesday. Um, it does encapsulate probably about six to eight weeks of, of, of calendar months. But the answer, um, that is important here is that we will underspend the budget by about $110,000. Okay. So we can, uh, we should then subtract about $110,000 from the projected expenses. I think that's line 47, J47. Um, Mr. Chairman, can I ask a question of Tom about this? Yes. Um, Tom, just, just to be clear. So, um, the 110,000 turnbacks that you just commented on, is that net of the contingency line, the 252,000? So that factors that in? No, that, that, that, that $252,000 will be spent. The $110,000 that I'm speaking of is underspending in the other cost centers aside from the contingency. So chemicals, contracted services, electricity, and there was a fourth line. So we, you know, so we had, we had, you know, encumbrances, we had, you know, $242,000 approximately. And in speaking with Don and going through his projections, what we're going to be receiving for invoices, plan spending. Um, it's our determination that we will underspend the remaining cost centers in our operating budget by $110,000. And Matt, your model, uh, when you sent it out this morning said that you were assuming fully spending all line items. So I assume that J 47 right now assumes spending all line items. And so if we subtract the 110 K and turn backs, that should. Right. But what I'm worried about is that the contingency line was budgeted for $200,000. Correct. And we're showing, we're showing a number that is greater than that. And also, um, we had that other piece that, and I have it highlighted here. You can see the comment that 57,000 ish for interest on temporary loans that we did have in contingency. We moved it to the deadline. So that 57,000 is also above and beyond what was in the original budget. Yes. So I just want to be perfectly clear that if we reduce it by one 10. Well, we're reducing the standard line items by one 10, because that's the actual spend projected, just like we projected the actual revenue. So you add, um, J 47 plus the updated debt service, actual projected spend of J 49, plus the actual emergency MWRA water expenses of, uh, J 58, two 52, seven 42. So that should be our total projected actual spend. Okay. Okay. So this number right here, this four, eight, eight, nine, two 30 was the FY 27 budget, right? That's right. I'm just going to put it. I'm just going to put it right over here just for a second. Okay. All right. So if I reduce this by what's the number, Tom? One 10, just even one 10. Yep. Okay. Now you're spending in 26 is projected to be that number. Yes. Which is $110,000 lower than the budgeted number. Yes. Okay. So I just want to be clear that even with the increased contingency and the increase of the debt, the town truly thinks that that's the number that will be spent in FY 26. Yes. And I, can you look at the formula in J 60, just to make sure, is that what you're on right now? Yeah. It adds up all the expenses above it. Yep. Yeah. Those are all our actual expenses projected. So I think to, to provide, you know, some confidence, Matt is the, when we looked at this information and this just information literally was given to me about 45 minutes ago. Um, that's why you didn't have it, you know, uh, for your, your model earlier in the day is that the spreadsheet that we're using to make this determination included and had placed the 252,000 in contingency and the 57,000 in the short term interest. So it, it, it already had those identified and still had the 110. Okay. Under budget. Okay. I'm just being cautious here because we know that those lines were super overspent. So I just want to make sure. Yep. That we're still good. It sounds like there's been due diligence on that. So I'm good with it. All right. Let's make a note here though. I know there was a lot of concern about, uh, the fact that we did not increase rates last year, um, and where we would end up. It does look as though we're going to end up gaining another 50,000 or so. Yeah. That's what's projected right now. Correct. Yeah. And our projected retained earnings is about 1.2 million. And our target was what? Uh, target was, well, if you do 20%, I know this 20% is kind of in a bad spot. Let's oops. I mean, last year's target that we set. Okay. So it was. Well, I, yeah, that's 20% of, um, I think it may be in your notes below. Oh, yep. All right. Let's, let's look there. I don't want to mess up what we have there. Well, wouldn't it be 20% of the budget, which was the 4, 8, 8, 9 number? It should have been. Yeah. Yeah. We both had 20%. I'll just do that calculation. Oh, there it is right there. 9, 37, 8, 46 at the time of fiscal year, 26 rate setting that target amount was 9, 37, 8, 46. Okay. There you go. So about 9, 38 K. So yeah, that might, that might have not included. I don't remember, but okay. Yep. Yeah. So, so we've ended up with, uh, a retained earnings balance, or at least we're projecting a retained earnings balance of about 260,000 above what we were targeting. Yep. Great. Okay. Um, I do see, we have a hand up. So, uh, did, did you have anything else to cover, Matt? Yeah. I just want to quickly point, um, to a new area. That's actually two other things that I think will be helpful as we move forward here, Mr. Chairman. Um, this area right here, I did do a little bit of cleaning up in the retained earnings area. So I just want to walk people through what's here. Um, this row right here represents the target. And this is the, the board, um, the board's policy is the 20% target. That's 20% of operating plus debt expenses in the fiscal year that we're looking at. So this row represents. What that amount is. So these dollars going left to right would be the targeted retained earnings in those years. And then this would be your, your recent certifications. This would be your projected retained earnings based on all the analysis up above. And this is the percentage of retained earnings compared to the operating plus the debt expenses. And I put a green or red on there that indicates whether the target was satisfied or is satisfied or not. So if it's red, that means it's below the target. If it's green, that means it's above the target. The 20%. Sounds good. Just to note that the board typically votes that target each year. Um, so it may change. Um, and it's, you know, your guidance is that it's 10% to 25%, depending on the age, um, and integrity of the equipment in the infrastructure. Yep. So that's number one. And then down below, we do have this user area that has had a decent amount of work. Don't get too caught up in what's here because I did get some feedback from a board member and, um, it was very good feedback. So what we did was we down at the bottom here, we've done a summary in this table of different users to look at and what their annual bill is currently compared to what it would be in FY27 based on the decisions that are made up above. So for example, this row right here is what I'm calling a small residential user. Bottom 5% means that if you were to list out all the usages for all the accounts in a year, this is the, this is 5% into that list. So meaning there are a handful, a good amount of users that use less than this, but this is 5% into that list. And that particular user, 450 cubic feet per bill per quarterly bill. But these numbers are annualized here. These are annual bill calculations, total bill. So that would be the water usage plus the PFAS surcharge, plus the base charge and doing a comparison between those two, both from a dollar standpoint and a percent standpoint. And we have a few other users that we can look at too, to see their impact. And this all flows. So if you were to make changes up above, these numbers would update. And I also have for you a quarterly tier structure that shows current rates plus projected rates based on the changes being proposed. And change the base charge and the PFAS surcharges listed there too. So all these tools are available to you to help make decisions tonight and in the future as well. Yeah, that's great. Thanks for all your work on this. This is great. Anything else? I'm good for now. I'll stop talking. No, that's, this is great. Thank you. Tom, do you have anything to add before we go? Not at this, not at this time. No. Okay. All right. Great. We can take some public input. Let me see participants. I do see a hand up. Lisa, Elizabeth. Hi, thank you. Yeah, I think I understand what the tiers are now. And I'm wondering, first of all, has the bond been taken out for the $38 million? And are our payments in the next few years, including percentage, you know, the, the bond, covering the bond fees, and some put away for the total payoff? And if so, where is that going to be held so that it's not used for something else? And we have that $38 million at the end of the term of the bond, which I'd like to know how long that bond term is planning to be or has been taken out. And, and then I am wondering why the small users have a 52% increase and average user has a smaller percentage of an increase. I don't understand where that's coming from. Yeah. So to answer your first question, we've built in the expected debt service. Once the bonds and debt has been secured for the construction of the facilities related to the dual source water system, the long term water system. So if you scroll up, Matt, we can show the expenses and the debt increase. So these are projected in future years. So our rate setting tonight is strictly for this coming fiscal year. So it's to cover the expenses and get to our target retained earnings over the course of this next fiscal year. We meet again every year and we'll increase the rates as required to cover the next year's expenses. So if you look at is it row 49 is the debt service, you can see that's increased quite a bit this year from 1.3 million to 2.35 million. And that's because of the capital expenses, including the new tower. Um, and where do we see the, um, Oh, uh, and for the dual source system rows 51 and 52, that's where you start to see those expenses kick in. And those are dead expenses. Does that make sense? Uh, 52. Okay. So the debt expenses are the, um, interest and some of the capital putting it away, or, I mean, we do. In principle. Huh? Interest in principle. Interest in principle. Just like mortgage interest in principle. So that's not starting until 2029. Is that what you're saying? Correct. There's a portion starting in 2028. Um, I believe that, uh, well, Tom, I'll answer that. I can speak to that, Mr. Chairman. Okay. So row, row 52, which I've highlighted currently is specifically related to the dual source. Um, that's what this row is projected debt service for the dual source option. The next row down, which we're calling other is everything else that's in the water capital plan for which the town is planning to borrow. Um, so this would be not related to the dual source. Other things like vehicles, water mains and replacement. Um, that's where Tom could definitely speak to the capital plan better than I can, but we, we factored in everything that's part of the capital plan here. So that, um, it's, it's all part of this model. Makes sense. Yeah. So that's the debt service for this, the standard capital purchase purchases that we would make, um, periodically. Okay. Okay. And has a, has a, um, bond, um, length been determined yet? I mean, personally, I would prefer it to be a longer term bond because, um, I won't probably be alive in 30 years. And, um, I think the people who are, should be paying, you know, we shouldn't pay it off for them. Um, so my preference, a longer bond. Yeah. I don't know that that's going to be, uh, our decision. Um, I believe that's up to the finance committee. Um, I'm, I'm, I'm with you. I'd like to see a 30 year, um, bond if possible. Um, but I'm, it'll depend in what's most cost effective for the town too. Um, but yeah, I don't think that's going to be our decision to make. Okay. So what are, what are the 20, 29, 20, 30, um, expenses based on these short term bonds that you've bought or. No, I don't do the short term bonds. Matt, do you know that these are 20 year. Yeah. So we've actually, well, I shouldn't say we've rejected because, um, but we received some projections from the finance director. This is an actual anticipated debt schedule that has been provided by, um, the town's financial advisors. It's a 30 year bond. And these are the numbers that were shown on that schedule that you have in front of you on this row. So this came from the financial advisor. It's not an actual borrowing at this point. It's just a projection, but the finance director in town did ask of the town's financial advisor for a projected debt schedule over 30 years. And that's what these numbers look like. Okay. So they may change. They very well may change. And that makes sense. Yep. It could change depending on what happens over the next two years. Yeah. So we're not getting any of that in 2027. That's correct. No. Why not? We, we don't want to pay now for something that we haven't purchased yet. And we'll have to go out to bid to see what the cost will be. I mean, you could put it aside. You could start. I don't know. Well, that's your decision, I guess. Um, if you want to pay up front, we'll be happy to take that. I mean, and whatever we're paying. Oh yeah. Whatever we're paying my, uh, the other question was, where is that money going to be kept towards paying off the principal so that it's not used for some other purpose in the next 20 or 30 years? Okay. So it's kept in the enterprise fund and the enterprise fund is a separate financial entity that is intended to be efficient and, um, self-sufficient and manage these funds. And that's what, that's what our responsibility is. So, um, uh, again, we meet every year and, uh, we go through this process. So it usually takes two to three meetings. Um, it's a big, big process for us. Um, so the, the Board of Public Works oversees this. So that money will, that, that you collect from us for paying off the principal will not go to anything else as long as you have it. That will be kept there so that it will exist at the end of, you know, when the principal of the bond has to be paid back. And each year we'll collect, uh, we'll, we'll target revenue to cover the debt in interest, as well as all of the other expenses we have to cover each year. Um, you had a second question though. What was, I forget now what that second question was. Sorry. Well, two of them, I don't understand why our, uh, water meters, uh, the new water meters, um, are increasing usage rate readings. Yeah. Yeah. So they don't, uh, they just read more correctly than old meters. So old meters, um, uh, on average, if they're very old, will, uh, let's say, uh, a hundred gallons of water pass through the meter. Somebody, I'm sorry. It's hard to hear somebody near a microphone making noises. That's it. Thank you. Ed, can you mute yourself? Sorry. Sorry. So, so if there are a hundred gallons passing through an old meter, it will typically read on average about 88 gallons because the, it's a mechanical read. It's a mechanical, uh, uh, uh, propeller type, uh, mechanism that measures and it doesn't measure accurately after years. Thanks Ed. So, um, with new meters, we expect to read a hundred gallons when a hundred gallons pass through. So it's not as though, um, it, it's increasing the amount of water that's going through, uh, your home. It's just recording it properly. So that will reflect in anticipated, uh, larger bills. Um, we expect it will. Yeah. And, and yeah, I think the question that you forgot what it was is, uh, why does the smallest user have a 52% increase, uh, compared to using more? Yeah. Yeah. So the, the, the, the main reason, uh, the smaller user is seeing a greater increase is because the current scenario we have shows an increase from $60 per year of the base fee to $120 per year of the base fee. So percentage wise, that's going to more, um, uh, dramatically affect a smaller user in terms of a percent increase. Again, this is just a scenario. We haven't voted, uh, these rates yet. That was just a scenario. We, we floated last week. Okay. I see. So, so everybody's in terms of usage, everyone's charged the same rate for the amount. Okay. That makes sense. Correct. Yeah. Thank you. Sure. Uh, but, uh, you know, the, the recording of the, you know, the more accurate recording of water through the meter. Yes. It, it should increase the usage amount. Um, but we're factoring some of that in. So it's not necessarily a one to one, like it's going to go up 12% if your meter reads 12% more water. Um, we're factoring in, uh, to our rates that, that expected increase. Right now we're, we're, um, we factored it in at 3%. Last year, we factored it in at 6%. We weren't seeing that early on. That may have been partially because we didn't have all the new meters in. Um, so, so we've, we've, um, pulled that back a little bit to 3%, uh, for this coming year. So you're still charging 3% more than what the meter reads. No, no, no. We're, we're, um, projecting 3% more usage. Oh, I see. Yeah. It, so then when we set our rates, um, it will account for about 3% more usage. And again, that's just one scenario we're looking at right now. Uh, the board may change that in, in the final analysis, but, um, that's, what's been proposed, uh, uh, last week. I see. Now for some people, um, a single elderly person say on a fixed income, uh, may struggle with these bills. And, um, I understand there's some kind of, uh, um, a trust fund or something in the town. I don't really understand it because I'm fairly new here, but is there some way that, um, people can contribute to, um, a fund to help out people who are struggling with their water bills? Um, since they are local, I guess, I don't think the state would help with that. Um, has that something you can say? I don't know that there's a way for folks to donate, uh, through, through our system. I don't believe there are, but there are some tax relief, uh, options. Carol, I see you raising your hand. Do you want to jump in and handle that one? Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Carol Martin, uh, Lake Road member of the select board. The town of Whalen actually has a wonderful program called Whalen Community Fund. And this is for anyone who is having an issue with, I think, bills, I guess is the right word. Um, you apply, you submit a bill. For example, if you were having difficulty playing the water bill, they will review it. And if they think it's appropriate, they actually pay the, the bill or a portion of the bill that's submitted. It's been around a really long time. It's a terrific program. Whalen Community Fund, I think is the name of it. And where does that money come from? Resonance. So people can donate to that. Right. Got it. Mike, this is Judy. Yes. There's also the circuit breaker. Um, so for people who qualify and the qualification requires, uh, income verification and et cetera, and certain assessed value of your house. So, Alyssa, I applaud you for trying to watch out for people. Uh, there is that program called circuit breaker that I hope, uh, anybody who does qualify will apply for. It's about, uh, not quite $3,000. I think it's around $2,600 a year from the state. Okay. And the town of Whalen matches it. So it can be around $5,000 a year. Okay. Well, um, thank you. That's good to know. Um, and in terms of people who don't qualify, but you know, maybe they have a large, uh, family and they're using, you know, they've got a bill of, um, you know, $4,500 this year, $5,800, you know, in 2027. That they haven't expected or, you know, save money for their water. Are they able to go to the community fund, the Whalen community fund, or is that, do they look at your, um, your income and all that other stuff for the Whalen community fund as well? I think this is philosophically off the discussion of the rate here. Yeah. Well, no, it's, I do believe, I do believe. Well, it's not under our purview. So I think you're right. It is. So I think it's not something that we manage and don't have a lot of information on that, but I think it's helpful. Carol doesn't know that. Yeah. Okay. All right. Great. Um, do we have any more public comment? Okay. If not, I'll take a motion to adjourn from the public hearing. So moved. Thank you. Second. Second. Thank you, Mike. Um, Mike, uh, roll call vote. Mike? Yes. John? Yes. Judy? Yes. Ed? Yes. Mike? Yes. Great. Thank you. Thanks, Matt. Okay. So with that, I think we can move into a board discussion. Um, and it sounds as though the board couldn't, um, chime in during public comment. Um, so if we have any more board discussion, we can do that now. Um, if there are no more questions, um, I think what I'd like to do is vote a retained earnings target percentage. Um, so that we can use that to, um, facilitate our rate setting. Mike, before we do that, can we see what happens if we change the one 20 to a different number, whatever it is, let's say 80. And then I want to see what this percent becomes on the bottom. Sure. I, um, yeah, we can do that. What I'm saying is, can we vote a target for our, our retained earnings target. And then we can, um, look at rate scenarios and see how close we can get to that. But, okay. So what do you want to change it to? How about 80? This number right here. Yeah. The one 20 to 80 change the, um, base fee to 80. Right. And then if we look down at the table, that kind of evens things out in terms of the, and I understand Judy, what the, the reason you were interested in, in bringing that a little bit higher is because you're concerned that people use less water with higher rates. And then, uh, you know, then we're, we're going to be, um, stuck. Um, that is possible. Yes. I agree. However, if I, if we go through the, uh, with the 80 instead of the one 20, I think we still are projecting a surplus. Correct. Uh, let's see. Yeah. 1.2. I'm sorry. 13,000. 13,000 over. And how does that look in terms of the target? 1, 1, 1.2 is the target. We would be projected to come in at 1.2. Yeah. Just about perfect. Um, this is, this is all projection. So it's, uh, a little bit of, of, um, magic wand here. It's a lot of magic wand. Um, but luckily it is, uh, I hope folks can see from the, the operating revenue worse expenses. We've been pretty solid over the years. Um, pretty successful. So Mike, if you look at line 78, we're actually, uh, we got a red. It's 19.9% versus 20%. So. Oh my God. Okay. Yeah. We're in good shape. Um, so yeah, we could potentially make this very quick because we did a lot of work last time. Um, but before we move too quickly ahead, John, do you have any, any scenarios you'd like to see or any questions? This is such a hard one. And I do want to applaud Matt Abrahams for his patience. Um, the detail here is just incredible. And it's so laid out so well that you can, you know, and it's dynamic that you can, you know, make, Hey, what ifs right on the spot. My only one concern I want to raise with the board is, and it's, it's a big one here is is that in very short order here, we're going to go from a positive on this for tender earnings to in like two, two years, we're going to have a 1.2 shortfall. So I, I, I kind of think I have to, you know, my old finance committee hat on and have to say, we might want to look at just not just this year, but you know, how do we deal with that, that issue that's coming. Um, it's going to be shortfall of a 1.2 and 29 and a 3.9 and FY 30. So is that something the board wants to discuss something like that? Yeah. Um, sorry, I was just going through board discussion, but, um, right. Happy to have you chime in here. Um, so yeah, those are considering maintaining rates at this new proposed rates. Uh, schedule. And I highly doubt we're going to do that. I will be here in another 12 months, uh, going through the same exercise. And I fully expect we're going to have to have some other, some additional, um, significant increases, uh, for this coming year. Well, we'll see. Cause right now we're looking at, um, even with the existing rates, we'd, we'd be at a little over a million, but then, yeah. So we're going to have the, yeah, we, we visit this each year. We go through excruciating detail, uh, to get to where we end up. And, and, and so, yeah, we do have to look ahead. Um, Mr. Chairman, can I just, I'm sorry. Can I just chime in one thing? I just want to make sure that we're clear on one thing. The numbers that are in future years, 28, 29, that's based on the rates that are being set for 27. So for example, it's based on these rates. It's not based on current rates. Okay. So to make sure that we're clear. I'm sorry. Yeah. I said that. Okay. What I meant is it's going to carry forward the rates we set tonight for future years. Okay. And that's not going to be the case. We're going to come back next year. We're going to look at what's our target. What expenses do we have to deal with and, and go through the same exercise again. Okay. I guess I'd want to know if 20% is enough. Enough for. Retained earnings. Target. So our guidance from Matt, uh, Abraham's and Abraham's group and his father, uh, is 10 to 15%. So 10% to 15, sorry, 10% to 25% of your operating plus debt service. That's the target range that is advised. We've typically targeted 20%, um, on the more conservative side. Um, so that's where we're at, but that's, that's what I was getting to a little earlier. Is usually we start by setting that target to make sure that, um, we're all on the same page. And then we work on scenarios that will help us hit that target. Um, can you, excuse me? I'm going to hop in one more. Carol, can we just, um, I just kind of want to get through the boards. Right. But I really want to make this one point. Cause I think it's key, especially for those who are new. Uh, great. Thank you. The town of Wayland is a AAA rated community. And because of that, our bond rating agency, which is Moody's, uh, wants the town to have a minimum 25% of retained earnings. It's going to be a very big challenge here as we go forward and we're starting to fund this $38 million. But the guidance that you get from DOR and what have you 5%, 10% is for the 351 communities of Massachusetts. Wayland is one of, I think it's 17. It used to be 20, but I think it's only 17 in the state that have a AAA rating. And that means that we enjoy a much more favorable bond, um, expenses. Our rates, you know, the rates, the bond rates that we have are much more advantageous, which will be very helpful as we go forward in funding this construction project. So the town has formalized its financial policies and everyone, including the enterprise funds is supposed to aim for 25%. So we've had this discussion before. I just want to say, cause we have a new member and we will go from there. Thanks, Mike. So, um, does it answer your question, John? I guess it does. Yeah. My understanding is that an enterprise fund is supposed to be self-sufficient and efficient. Um, so it's supposed to be able to sustain itself, not raise capital to support the free cash balance of the town. Um, and I know that's been the, the understanding of prior. Um, we have enough on our plate, uh, trying to increase rates to cover the huge expense that, again, the select board voted to put all on water rates. No, none on tax. We had proposed a split fincom had proposed a split to the select board. They said, no, throw it all on water rates. So we've got a challenge enough. Uh, I, I feel, um, without having to try and hit a free cash balance, uh, surplus. Okay. Mike. No, I feel similarly. Sounds good. Um, Ed. Yes. Do you have any comments or questions? Uh, my comment may not relate to it, but I always thought, uh, we, I haven't seen, we budget much money for take care of the leak. Okay. In the long run, if we can fix the leak, uh, we definitely save more money. Yeah. Based on my experience, uh, water main. Uh, also replace the old age water main and a PVC type of water main. Corrective system. So Tom, uh, so Ed, we do have a regular water main replacement program that we coordinate with the road repaving program. Um, now we have the new dual source system. We're going to be putting in so much new water main in town. Um, we may need to pause that for a little bit, except in those, uh, stream cases, uh, where we're having tons of leaks. Um, but we do have a program to replace the water mains. Um, in terms of leak detection, um, I think we're going to be able to do a better job now that we have the automated system in place. Um, Tom, do you have any comments on that? Yeah, certainly. And I, you know, just to speak to what Ed is talking about, yes, within our operating budget, we allocate sufficient funds for an annual leak detection program. Um, and then should we find that we've got leaks even in between that those, those surveys will bring in, uh, a firm to actually, uh, pinpoint some particulars that we're, that we're, you know, uh, conscious of, um, through the MWRA connection process, through the inter-basin transfer efforts that we're going through right now with the water resources commission. Uh, they are holding us very close to the line relative to proper management of water use, um, proper management of leak locating and repairs. So, um, we're in pretty good standing in that, uh, in that regard. So, I, I think, uh, everyone should feel very comfortable. Thanks, Tom. Mike, this is Judy. In terms of the 20%, I just wanted to bring people's attention to line 78. In fiscal year 24, 25, and projected 26, we, we actually either hit or exceeded the 20%, and actually at 26%, 20, you know, 26.8%. So, I'm thinking that if we aim for 20 and get 25, we're, we're probably in good shape. It's a great, uh, great point because we, we typically, our standard expense budget, we underspend that typically. Um, so right now we're, we're projecting, uh, covering all of the standards. We bring all of the standard expense line items fully, not the, uh, contingency, but the standard expense line items. And we typically come in under by about 200 to 300,000 each year. So the end result is we're targeting 20%. We, we end up coming in a bit higher than our target more often than not. In fiscal year 23, we see that's lower. That was actually planned. Um, that was to, um, that was to, um, facilitate a town meeting vote using cash, which is a majority vote versus a town meeting, uh, vote that, uh, includes debt, which requires a two thirds vote. And that was for our new automated metering system. So that was a strategic move. We understood that we would, um, maybe, uh, dip a little bit below our standard target, but we also had planned in the subsequent years to come back and recover from that. It's both short-term, long-term, long-term. Any other board member comments, Carol, any additional comments? Yeah, I, I just do want to have, because it's on the tape, I'm going to have to, um, address the comment that they're supporting that town's free cash. What you're not, you're supporting that town's bond rating. This is from Moody's. This is not the town saying, please support our free cash. So, and every, everyone is supposed to have 25. Actually, Moody's wants us to have 25 to 40. We're aiming for 25. Thank you. Um, Tom, Matt, any other comments? No, I think we've covered a lot here and I think we're in a, in a pretty good place. So Mike, this is Judy. If we do 25, what, how does this change? So I just want to see the number change. So then we will have to increase rates more then. We'd have to increase rates more. And as you mentioned, we typically come in above what we target because we spend less than we budget for. Yeah. I think, I think Carol, we should be okay. Because if they look at actual, we're at 25. Yeah. I'm just worried about how you're going to raise up 1.2 million in FY29. That's all. So, yeah, we're going to have to raise rates a lot in FY28. That's for sure. Yep. Anyway, thanks, Mike. Sure. Um, so I think, uh, the first, well, we, we can vote on everything right now. Typically we vote the target percentage and then try to hit that. But at 20%, Matt, if we put this back to 20%, um, and with Judy's tweak there to our, our rate discussion last week, we're essentially on target. Um, are we fine with voting these rates and that target together? The 20% target and the rates above, uh, if you can scroll up at, uh, $8 for tier one, $11.50 for tier two, $14 for tier three and $22 for tier four. Uh, can I ask one more question? Um, some couple of months ago, Tom, we talked about what, uh, we're charging municipal, uh, at the, at the tier one rate. And the break even was closer to the tier two rate. If we charge municipal at tier two rates, so we break even with that flow down to the bottom and therefore I even hit 30%, right? Yeah. If you adjusted, I guess if, if we no longer offered that municipal rate at tier one, and we just let those accounts fall into the tiers that their consumption patterns show, then the revenue would increase. Right. Right. No, I'm, I was just thinking instead of charging tier one to be charging tier two, but is that something we would decide at this meeting, Mike, or is that a different meeting? No, this is the meeting. No, this is the meeting. Um, I think what Tom's suggesting is instead of charging at a certain tier, if we charge, uh, or if we, uh, revert, um, instead of having a municipal rate of tier one, we just, um, uh, have them as commercial follows the standard rates. So if, if, if, if, you know, if, if you'd like to make a motion to accept these rates and, um, revert the municipal rate to follow the same as residential, um, then we would also see an increase in revenue as well. And if we do that, then doing the 25% would be probably doable without, without changing the rates again, right? It's my guess. Yeah. And hard to tell. Just moves the tax from one pocket to the other though. Um, I think Mike, excuse me, we probably want to have a sense of the dollar costs cause I'll have to, you know, pass that through. That's coming. Yeah. One other, the one other thing too, is that all of these departments that are impacted by what you're considering have already set their FY 27 budget. Um, so really providing no notification that we're going to be doing this might not be received. Well, it might be difficult for them. You know, some of these, some of these accounts are pretty large. They're pretty, uh, those payments are pretty large. So it's something to consider that they're not positioned for it. You know, what you could do is either, you know, consider doing it, voting it tonight and putting it in place for FY 28, or just making a note on our to-do list that we, uh, discussed this further, um, as we're, as all of these departments pretty soon are going to be developing their FY 28 budget. So that, that might be, as I'm sitting here talking, we might want to, um, consider doing this effective FY 28. And that, that allows all of these departments enough time to, to plan for it. Yeah. So, Tom, um, I guess the onus falls on you, unfortunately. If we could get an idea at our next meeting, if charging them as commercial versus charging them tier two instead of tier one, how big an impact that might be. I think that would help us make a decision. But at this point, I will table it, uh, for a further meeting. Um, yeah, I think, um, I think maybe Matt would be able to help break that out right now. We don't have a broken out, um, municipal rate. Um, so I think, yeah, it would require some updating to the model. Yeah.
Okay. Good point. Uh, budgets are already in place. So, uh, and, uh, a lot of these would affect our budgets with parks. Um, so I would assume unless they, unless that goes to, um, REC. Yeah. So, okay. So I would accept a motion, uh, um, to approve rates for tiers one through four as, as seen on the screen here, uh, with the annual base fee set at $80. And the PFAS remediation surcharge at 7.5%, uh, and the target retained earnings percentage set at 20%. So moved.
I can second that. Thank you. Judy. Yes. John. Yes. Mike. Yes. Ed. Yes. Wiggevauer, aye. Okay. Hey, well, we have new rates in place. So hopefully everyone can use all the water they plan to use for the year between now and next Wednesday and store it up because rates will be going up.
If I could ask for a housekeeping, uh, assist, uh, could you, um, name a board member that can come in at some point. But, uh, we'll have a rate sheet prepared for FY27 and just, uh, somebody put, uh, ink their signature on it. If, uh, somebody would be kind enough to come in and do that, uh, over the course of the next couple of weeks. We'll, I'll reach out and let them know when it's ready, but we'll have that squared away and then we can put that up online. I can do it when I come in to sign. Oh, you want to do it, John? That's fine. I'm around all the time. So. Okay. Great. I'll reach out, John. Once we've got it prepared, you can come in and visit. Thank you. We'll make a vote. Uh, if I could, I could take a motion for, uh, uh, uh, either Mike Spelman or John Storer to, to, to sign the, the new water rates. So moved. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Great. John. John. Yes. Mike. Yes. Ed.
Ed. Uh, Judy. Yes. Wicketpower. Yes. Ed, uh, are you, uh, approving Mike or, or John or Mike to sign the rates?
Thank you. Great. Um, so I think that covers it for, for this evening. Um, Tom, anything else? No, I think we covered everything. Uh, just a heads up. Uh, our next meeting would be July 28th. It's a Tuesday. Uh, Mike, I'll reach out. I just marked on my calendar, probably Monday, the 13th. Uh, you and I can do our usual, uh, phone call midday and, and start formulating the agenda for that meeting. Sounds like a plan. I heard a compliment. And I was hoping Joe would be on the meeting, uh, call tonight, but someone was saying how happy they were that, uh, he's doing a lot of work to get their, uh, fence. It's, uh, Susan Weinstein. The fence actually is a town fence, not out of property owner's fence. Um, and also she noted that the big tree that fell across the street from her a couple of weeks ago has been speedily removed. So thank you. I will pass it along, Judy. It's great. I just want to say thank you to Matt and thank you to Robbie for moderating tonight.
Yes. Thanks. A lot of work, Matt. And thanks, Robbie. Okay. With that, I'll take a motion to adjourn. So both. Thank you. Thank you. Great. Mike. Yes. Ed.
Ed, motion to adjourn. Approve. Yes. Just raise your hand if you can say yes.
Um, Judy. Oh, thanks, Ed. Judy. Yes.
John. Yes. Wiggenbauer. Yes. Great. Thank you, everyone.