Okay, the time is 7 p.m.

And I'll call this meeting of the fiscal committee to order.

Uh committee members present.

I see representatives Bouchard, De La Cruz, Dorsey, Goldberg, Le Pine, Co Chair Zachary.

I also see Representative Stone.

And myself, Eric Morrison.

Okay, moving on.

Let's start with item one, F 33.

Sorry, we also have Representative De La Cruz with us as well.

I did say that.

And Representative Parker.

I don't.

Oh, yes.

Representative Johnson is here as well.

Okay.

Okay.

Item one, F 32.089 for 324,646.

Additional appropriation grants, Stanford Police Department.

Funds from SAMHSA through recovery network of programs to cover salary and fringe costs for a police officer assigned to the behavioral health unit.

Entertain a motion to take up item one, please.

So have a motion.

Second.

Second.

Thank you.

Discussion.

We have uh is Anita with us tonight, or Jean, are you covering this for us?

I am not covering that item.

I don't see this.

Anita's on vacation, and she asked that we send invites to some alternate staff, which we did.

I don't see them present right now.

Okay.

Does anybody have any questions on this item?

I can answer some of them.

Representative Dela Cruz, go ahead.

Not on the item itself, but any chance of displaying the agenda.

Thank you.

Any questions on this item?

Representative Le Pine.

Just just to be crystal clear on it.

This is a fully funded grant funding, right?

So these are all external funds.

The MOU states that this is a fully funded program.

It is, yes.

This is this is years two, three, and four of a five-year fully funded grant.

The first year has already been appropriated and taken care of.

This is years two, three, and four combined, and it's salaries overhead and so forth, all wrapped up into this number.

And so essentially the the approval is to approve the acceptance of the funds and continue the program.

Exactly right.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any other questions on item one?

Uh co-chair Zachary, go ahead, please.

Uh yes.

Thank you, Chair Morrison.

Uh the question is really one for I wish uh Anita were here, but all these are federally funded grants.

And I'm curious, is there been any pushback from the federal government about the funds themselves or any issue about them being cut or reduced or let's say put in abeyance?

And I obviously this we're too far down the chain to know, but I'd be curious if she knew uh how secure these grants were for the future.

Uh I can't speak to year five, but the money for year two, three, and four is on hand, hence the appropriation of it now.

I see.

Uh thank you, and I yield.

Sure.

And I see we're joined by Representative Weirs.

Any other questions on item one?

Okay.

Call us to a vote.

The voice vote.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

Okay, that passes by a vote of uh 800.

Okay, item two, F 32.090, 62,566.

Additional appropriation, grants office, state funds for LGPQE, quality enhancement through Shine Early Learning to support contracted services, direct services, conferences and training, and program supplies.

Motion for item two, please to approve.

So we have a motion.

Second.

And a second.

Any discussion on item two?

Okay, seeing no hands.

I'll take this to a voice vote.

All those in favor say aye, please.

Okay.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

One abstention from Representative Lepine.

Okay.

That passes 701.

Okay.

And our final item on this short agenda this evening, item three F32.091 review, municipal tax services, MTS, motor vehicle registration and tax collection program.

Uh can I uh Barbara can you take the agenda down off the screen so I can we can see everybody here please.

Thank you.

Okay.

Has Greg joined us?

I guess I've joined you um I'm my video though it's on is not somehow recording so I I apologize you can't see me.

All right.

So we have uh Greg Stackpole and Steve Parenti with us this evening.

So you can hear me okay?

Absolutely yes.

Wonderful.

So good evening Chairman Morrison and members of the committee.

It's a pleasure uh to be here tonight and discuss well the number one topic of the night taxes.

Anyway for those who don't know me my name is Greg Stackbull and I've been an employee and the assessor here um for two 32 years now and as you know the assessor is is kind of charged with maintaining and valuing the three tax rolls of real property which we have 40,000 accounts personal property business assets which we have 4500 of they have to be annually valued each year and about 12500 motor vehicles as well.

So how are motor vehicles added to the list well traditionally we receive um a couple files from the DMV each year.

The main one is for all vehicles registered in our jurisdiction as of October one and the second which is subsequent to that and uh it's for those vehicles registered after October one but prior to the next October one assessment date okay so um I would say on the main one we get about a hundred thousand cars and the supplemental list we get about 25,000 on average now it was about in 2018 I think that the board of reps at the time had um you know with all the building instruction that's going down in the south end of the city with uh the apartment buildings with BLT uh there was um some witnesses of of New York cars that were coming and going from these complexes so the question was that that arose at the time was how are we going to ensure that these people get on the tax roll um and so we went to RFP and we found that there was a company at the time uh municipal tax services which uh provided this service and investigative service uh for municipalities so by January of 2019 we went to contract so what would occur is that the MTS vehicles that were equipped with a camera and plate reader technology and they would drive throughout the city on public roads and to capture vehicles with um their plates and with the technology they could then do a full sweep of the city they would sometimes go and at the end of a call de sac and they would wait for cars that passed out to go you know to work in the morning or they would wait outside for example out of a complex and they're coming out of the garage that's uh you know guarded and protected whatever they wouldn't go on private property and watch them come out and read their plates they would match that information um from the the the assessment roles that we had in the prior year.

If they weren't on there um then they would create a case log, right?

And they'd start investigating and finding out uh you know who owns the car, where they resided, uh what kind of properties they own and in various different you know states because they use third party uh tools like Lexus Nexus.

Times they could go in if it was an out of state plate, like in the state of New York, they could you know determine you know uh who was the owner of this registered vehicle in New York State, and where they resided there, where their voting record was, where the post office was, you know, moving their mail from effective from this date to another location on this date.

So they had all this this data, and uh um at some point in time they would then compile a big list of those individuals that look and deem that they may be subject to taxation in our jurisdiction.

So we would send out a or they would mail out rather in our letter head an initial uh letter saying that their vehicle uh may be subject to tax in Stanford, and uh um if this is not the case, please contact us if you know this number at MTS, um, where they would subsequently provide you know documentation to support their claim and it'd be dropped.

However, if there was no response, or if they didn't provide the necessary documentation within the 60 days, automatically, uh tax bills would get generated by default.

So uh the bills could go back up to three assessment years, right?

So, in some cases, could be one year, could be two years, it could be three.

Um at that point, when they get the bill, they could do one or two things.

They could open the bill and they could pay it, right?

They go online, they could pay the tax bill from the city of Stanford, or uh they could approach and call MTS and say, look, why am I getting this bill?

If they're not happy with that result, or their inquiry with MTS, we're gonna get the call.

And more often than not, we do.

So uh ultimately it's it's up with the assessor's office as to whether or not it remains on the tax roll.

And so uh we would go through and open on each individual call and investigative report and contact the vendor who would provide us with the documentation to support why they're on the list to begin with, right?

So it would have the number of sightings, the dates, it would have any kind of correspondence that happened between the potential taxpayer and MTS by phone or or mail, and um anyway, we would get that, and then we go back and forth with the taxpayer.

Uh in some cases, yes, we could make an adjustment.

Uh in other cases, we couldn't.

And if we couldn't, then we'd say, well, there's the only recourse you could do is go to the Board of Assessment Appeals, right?

Which is the next resource if you're aggrieved by the action of the assessor.

So um, and of course, as you know, you could you could appeal uh in twice a year.

Uh that the main one for motor vehicles is in September.

That's because uh initially um taxes were for motor vehicles are generated in Connecticut through the DMV and their billed in July.

They don't get notices about their assessment until a tax bill comes.

So for the most part, uh those people, you know, go to the September hearing, but these can happen with MTS throughout the year.

So you might get a bill in October.

Well, you're not gonna have them wait until September of the next year.

So you tell them that they can go to the next one, which is gonna be in let's say February or March when they file for the real estate.

They can hear that session at that point of time, but um, so let's see.

Um just trying to look at my notes here.

Uh within the bill, um, MTS gets like $50 fee for each car that's that's found, right?

So if it goes back three years, it's not $50 each year, it's only for one of those, but it's a processing V, and they get the total fee dollar amount.

Uh whatever taxes uh or interest is applied, uh and paid, is then split 5050 with the city and MTS.

Okay, that was by the contract.

Um now we've had probably 17,800 cases since we had originally gone to contract in 2019, and uh, yeah, there have been um it's a major workload, I would say, within the department.

You've got um we did some research and found that on average you're talking about 1300 work hours are attributed to uh manning the calls and the investigations and follow-up with the taxpayers.

This is not even including management between myself and uh my deputy Steve, who's on call, or the mayor's office or board of reps that get pulled into it, but um that 1300 work hours results to about a third of uh two individuals in the department that man most of this calls throughout the year.

Um in any event, I there was one call that we actually got today, um, it was actually by email, but it was uh to give you an example, it was a uh out of state plate, okay, uh that was added back in February of this year in 2026.

It was for uh Alexis, it was a newer car, it was 2023 car, and um that was valued at about 50,600 and assessed value.

So you apply the mill rate to that to get the taxes.

Now the total tax amount due uh that this individual received was for three thousand four hundred and seventy-eight dollars and seventy cents for the Lexus.

Now, of course, this is a total tax for two years.

You're talking both for the 23 and 24 grand list, right?

Now, again, it was sent out in February of 26, but it's for those previous years that they were billed, and um the interest because they didn't pay it initially, and we just received the inquiry, so there was interest and collection fees and MTS processing fee that equated to 1,167.89 cents on top of that.

Uh, not on top of that, but that's within that 3400.

The original tax was 2300, and you had another 50 percent that were in interest in fees.

So um anyway, I would say that um last year we had they were looking at originally um out of state plates, they were looking at unregistered motor vehicles, uh, they were looking at vehicles within the state that were here.

Um, and as of last year, the administration decided to uh kind of wheel back from looking at with the in-state motor vehicles because you have a and there you had a lot of infighting between other um other municipalities and what I foresaw was and then what I had seen is a lot of infighting where the taxpayer ends up um getting hit with two tax bills from two towns um one of the towns even if the assessor had made an adjustment eliminating the tax the tax collector would not give them a refund so uh when January of 26 came around the uh contract had expired and so we are currently no longer in contract with MTS but we have recently billed I guess around that time another subsequent billing that was due to a year's work that they had investigated additional vehicles to be added on so those have been added and we are processing and collecting uh those bills as they come so that's the basic history of it if you have any questions about it I'm here to answer.

Thank you Greg uh since the program has uh since the contract MTS is pretty up front its course at this point we were in for six years um what's your how much did the city net uh of net of uh contractual obligations to MTS how much did we collect in taxes net of those over the course of the program?

Well when we started in uh six years ago they also you know when they did their investigation they would go back one two or three years beyond that right uh so and and again it's it's difficult to like do apples and oranges between grand list years and collection years because the collector their reports go by what they collect each month on a given year and that could be for multitude of years at that time right but the total amount I would say that the city received is about three point four million over all those assessment years.

And of the vehicles that were brought onto the tax rolls that are continuing to pay as they remain on the tax rolls um is there a general idea you have a general idea how much we are uh taking in every year from those cars we have uh that remain on the rolls as a result of the program well I you know we it's not something we can track or we have tracked like um if somebody was added on you know in 2016 are they still paying that bill this year if that's what you're asking I don't I don't track that um again I got a hundred thousand cars I get an ad value each year and they're pretty transient so I but I don't have that number and I don't I'm not sure if we could determine what that is but um you know we we have seen for like out of state plates where yeah they've uh they send us declarations uh and they come back and file declarations go it's it's handled with a little bit differently for out of state plates versus Connecticut plates right so they get instead of being on the motor vehicle tax roll they're put on the personal property tax roll for on what they consider is unregistered or non-registered motor vehicles but they're non-registered with the state of Connecticut.

So those vehicles are added on personal property uh it's a smaller number, really, because we were the the whole you know purpose of the the the project was to target the out of state plates, which was yeah which is a pretty small number, uh comparatively speaking.

Um and uh you know, but as far as tracking, you know, the ones that have moved in, that's that's hard.

But we have we have seen in cases and we could try to look into seeing uh, you know, those that have been added originally with their name and personal property, and see if we had can we could link a name for a subsequent tax year on the motor vehicle list because then they complied with the state law and registered in the their car within state of Connecticut.

Um that that's something we could look into.

But I don't have any firm numbers, okay.

Thanks, Greg.

Uh Coacher Zachary, you have the floor.

Great.

Uh yes, thank you.

Uh Greg, uh, thank you for your time.

I want to make sure I've got this right.

This program's been running for seven years now.

Is that about right?

Eight years?

Yeah.

And you said you were getting about three, three and a half million dollars in total over that entire time.

Right.

Inning of 2019, correct?

Yeah, but that also included going back to up to the 2016 grand list.

Okay.

So almost.

Yeah, so 2016 grand list up to the 2025, which was just billed out.

Okay, so it's 10 years.

It's like 350,000 a year on average, if I have it right.

Yeah.

Okay.

Fair enough.

All right.

I just wanted to make sure I had the numbers right.

Um, right.

Are there any plans to replace MTS with anything else, or are we just dropping the program?

Um, well, we we haven't gone to RFP.

Um, there's been some question as to whether there's other um, you know, other options available.

So, you know, we're we're you know, kind of looking into that that determination is that there is a viable, you know, option other than MTS.

So great.

Thank you very much.

And I you okay, thank you, coacher.

Uh representative Stone.

Go ahead.

Thank you.

Can you hear me okay?

Yes, sir.

Um, so you said at this point, the decision to kind of move away from it, you said was driven by the wanting to not have a focus on cars being taxed from two different municipalities, but why would we have stepped away from the out of state ones?

I mean, I know that you know, just by going around here, I still see and see on fix it a lot of times people posting about a lot of cars that are here long term from Florida, from New York, from Texas, from Vaughn, Vermont, uh, many different states that are out of state.

Um, or maybe many different cars with out of state plates.

Uh, I know that Danbury just recently started doing a similar program with capital tax recovery, and uh according to uh published information, they saw profit of 368,000 over the last 12 months, which was after the fees, they actually collected 613,000 in revenue, and then it went down to 368.

So I'm trying to understand why we walked away from that.

Uh we just let the uh the whole thing expire because we believe that the the end result was that they're supposed to be um was an educational program, and uh we do have cases where they either have decided to keep their car registered in New York for whatever tax reasons that they have for because they have a business or whatever, right?

That resides in New York, and yet they may live here, but they will pay by just filling out the personal property declaration, and they're still driving around in Stanford with New York Blake.

And then you have the other ones that just transfer it over, but um, you know, my issue, uh, personally is with um how invasive this can be um to someone's personal life, because you're not only just going on to Facebook and you're checking their LinkedIn account, you're going to, you know, the judicial court site to see when they got divorced.

So the spouse moved into Stanford and he's living with the girlfriend, and you're really, you know, I don't know.

Um the role of the assessors to value and maintain a grand list, and to police power can sometimes be overstepped, and I think you need to really tender that responsibly, in my opinion.

Was there ever any split in terms of reporting of trying to understand how much revenue Stanford received from out of state plates versus how many were from other municipalities within Connecticut because it still seems to me like people are consciously evading taxes?

It was a consistent, potentially consistent or not consistent, meaningful revenue stream, and I could understand the reticence to um not, for instance, tax people whose car was originally registered in Westport or Clinton or somewhere like that, but people who are registered in New York or Vermont or Jersey for years on end parking in Stanford.

Um I guess don't understand that.

So I'm I'm curious to see if there was ever a breakdown at least of how much we were getting for the out of state ones.

Um, yeah, I would say I would say that the out of state is um probably around, you know, I 30% of the total number, maybe 38% of the total number of uh uh investigations that were performed, okay.

So 38%, and then how much revenue did we get from 2019 through 2025?

That I don't know specifically um what was collected on personal property.

I don't know, Steve, if you could chime in on that.

But as far as I know, I think we're just we we just have the total amount that's collected each month.

So I even if you assume like oh, go ahead, Steve.

I'm sorry.

Sorry about that.

So I I actually collected the revenue data from the collector and from MTS, and they don't track it by personal property or uh in state.

But I can tell you that when we uh asked change the assessor criteria to not look at um the in-state motor vehicles, uh, which was in 2024, the total number in this uh total value and assessment dropped from about 50 million in 2023 to 11 million.

So that delta can give you an idea of what makeup was just the in-state value.

Okay, so then you could make the argument that 20 to 40 percent, depending on which number you're talking about, of the revenue was coming from out of state.

So if that's the case, then looking at a city like Danbury that just uh reported getting 368,000 in pure profit off 613,000 in reporting, even splitting the difference and say taking 20 to 25 percent as being out of state, that's still a meaningful revenue number of over 100,000 dollars, and you are stopping people from doing the wrong thing of living here but registering their cars out of state.

So I guess I I'm I'm curious as to why we wouldn't to build on what um Chairman Zachary said before, consider putting out an RFP with someone like Capital Tax Recovery is the company the Dammer is using or some other player in the space even if the scope is just limited to out of state plates.

Well that's something the administration can certainly look into you know so if they want to you know uh go ahead and and we can go to RFP we can go to RFB and it will be the mayor's decision as to whether or not they want to continue with another venue another person.

Whether it's CTR or whoever um yeah.

Alright thank you for the information and I yield thank you Representative Stone are there any other questions on this item.

Representative Adams go right ahead sir.

Yeah um question uh did I mishear this um Greg and you were saying um so cars are put on the tax roll if you contact somebody and they don't respond to whether uh the cars registered here or not yeah and once they don't respond they um they go to the assessment or to the on the tax roll they go on the tax roll after 60 days that's right so not not if they're guilt or not so you put them on there so they guilty as charge and then they got to prove the innocent yeah that's how it's done otherwise they would never get on the tax roll people would just throw away the the the letter not respond and you wouldn't have one dollar collected right but yeah that's kind of kind of tricky okay all right and now tell me this is by see the Stanford being so close to New York and so many people um coming every day in and out of the states and work day shift night shift how you determine what out of state is just living here or live with the live in New York but stay with a friend.

Yeah it's a case by case and go back home in the weekend how would you determine that right I mean but that's determined by a case by case basis because not necessarily we can know that information you know uh that comes after the fact also they talked with the MTS and after they called us you know um and then reached out to us and said okay yeah I do security over at the train station and I work nights right so my cars my cars parked alongside you know this street and it was read there and you know but now I gotta get information about their employment I mean you know um that's that's what the jobs come to but uh yeah so that's also so once you accuse them of being guilty of whatever you told them with the taxes then you go through a whole job list with the what's the reason they're doing in Stanford so it become a whole investigation well I I would I would stay away from the the the term guilty I mean it's just that where they're liable okay so based on the evidence that was compiled by the vendor of MTS it it appears that their vehicle was here enough under such a statute to be added to our tax role if they object to it they have an op they have a date frame to object to it if they don't it's gonna get added on now that information inside the notice that you send them yes yeah okay yes and the applicable law that's in involved okay okay uh that's fair enough.

No, because I see a total communication, BLT all downtown um uh six o'clock in the morning, this New York Pennsylvania, Jersey, getting off to exit and going to work and then getting back on at five o'clock and same thing you see in the afternoon.

That's why we're trying to figure out how you determine uh what's who's here is not.

So you tell them that your car's been spotted here.

Basically, we need to know why you call it being parkier, and prove to us that you should not be registered here, then they gotta go through the whole thing telling you when I work here, right?

Of course, park here because I work here and I go home on the weekend.

Right.

So we in many cases we we adjust or cancel um you know bills after they were been added on.

You know, but again, it's it's uh a lot of time and effort in reviewing those cases and and uh you know going through the weeds of it.

Okay, then now suppose it go further than that and the and the tax assessor goes back three years and uh accumulate debt money, now you find out the claim is wrong.

Do they take that three year back or do you get penalized for not answering the question a certain time?

I don't follow because if they if they get audited added, right?

I mean, right.

If the sessor added, yeah.

The person is ignored the bill, I shouldn't be at it because I know I still live with my parents, and they go back three years not to get hit with this big bill, so now you got the attention.

So now that they proved that you're wrong, do you go back and erase the whole three years or there's a I can go back and our tax collector will go back three years, but other municipalities sometimes, even if their assessor goes back, their collector won't refund them subsequent years.

Oh, even though it's a mistake, the collector won't refund them, even though it's a total wrong.

I I've I've I'm I've seen other municipalities that don't don't do that.

Um that's not um what Stanford does, you know.

It's uh if they pay the tax and they shouldn't have paid the tax to get refunded and they comply for a refund and get all their money back.

But we always tell them if they're disputing it, pay it up front, because if you don't, you're gonna get hit with one and a half percent interest for three years.

That could be up to three years, and if you know you you don't get it reduced or you don't get eliminated through the Board of Assessment Appeals, or whatever the case may be, you know, you're gonna lose on that that interest.

So okay, okay.

Uh I'm not guilty, but I gotta pay it up front.

Um, just in case they don't agree with me being not innocent, and uh the interest one and a half per month, I may still have to pay on this.

So okay.

All right.

My my uh my understanding is I think we need to clarify some of this at some point.

Um to I don't know, maybe that's good item for review.

All right, thank you.

Thank you for the clarity.

All right.

Thank you, Representative Adams.

Representative Le Pine, please.

Thank you.

Greg, thank you for walking us through that.

I just want to make sure I I uh understand that with the non-renewal.

So the you said that to there was an there's an administrative burden or was an administrative burden in the program that was equivalent to did I hear right a third of the time of two FTEs.

Correct.

I mean like two-thirds of the time of one FTE if you put it in, or you you know, and and certainly as we've heard the revenue more than justify the time of even if you had one person fully dedicated to it.

So is it am I hearing that the biggest motivation for non-renewal or non-extension, not exercising the extension options on on the last contract, is is the concern or the objective over privacy issues?

There's a multitude of reasons.

Um I don't want to get into you know specifics with the vendor on a public meeting, but you know, I think there is reasons where uh it warranted to um let it expire.

I mean, uh that's where you why contracts are not for you know 20 years.

I mean, they were only for like three years with two one year renewals or something like that, right?

Um, because you can have the option to either um, you know, go to a different venue or say that's there's no further need of it but um we have seen a considerable drop um as a result uh and in you know subsequent year in 2024 um as a result of dropping the uh uh the in-state and just uh focusing on the uh the out of state plates but uh again that those are just collections we so we we still have to go double filter to figure out that number uh for that corresponding year but um yeah I mean there's other reasons I think for one uh then as we said the number of man hours that's involved and I would say a 50% split isn't really equitable I would think between the city and MTS based on the number of man hours that that we involved in other municipalities have been found to do it at a lesser rate.

Go ahead Steve sound like you're about to uh can I do a point of order quickly one of order representative Goldberg uh I wonder if to have a more fulsome conversation given that there's confidential information we should move into executive session uh Greg do you feel that the information regarding the vendor is something that we would like to discuss in confidence.

If you so choose to yeah I if I'm going to be asked certain questions I'm not going to answer you know on a public session so you could do that.

Representative Goldberg are you moving that we go into executive session or yes sir I move that we move to executive session to discuss the the issues with the vendor.

Okay do I have a second on the motion second we have a second okay all those in favor going to executive session to discuss the MTS vendor please say aye.

Aye any opposed any abstentions okay we'll go into executive session Barbara can you please set up the breakout rooms and send all members uh we're inviting all members of the board of representatives present uh committee and ex officio uh plus uh Stephen Parenti and Greg Stackball okay I will uh this function is very new to webinars versus actual zoom meetings so let's hope that the technology functions as we're going to set it up thank you it's asking for a room code that doesn't exist just so you know, so I'm going to quickly google to see what we can do to get the room to open.

I found what the code is supposed to be, but it's not letting me enter it.

Let me check one more.

Thank you.

Okay.

Well, I tried copying the room code from a different Zoom and it put in a funky code that did not work, and it will not let me type in the space to type in the room code.

The room code is supposed to be the webinar ID.

I changed myself to host from co-host.

You want to try changing it?

Um and see if it'll let you put it in, because it keeps saying room not detected.

Okay.

You'd have to make Democratic Caucus room a co-host for me to try, please.

Okay.

I have made you a co-host.

Okay.

It's not like this.

Okay.

Technology is restricting us from doing this this evening.

Um what I'm gonna suggest uh is that we consider um recommitting this item.

And uh getting the technology squared away so that when we recommit, uh when we revisit this item, perhaps next month or the month after, we can go into executive session then.

So we have a motion to go into executive session.

So I can say that we will not go into executive session.

And as we never went into executive session, no votes were taken.

Representative Delacruz.

Uh thank you, Chair.

I'd like to make a motion to recommit the item to steering.

Okay, here we have a second.

Second.

Second.

Any discussion on the motion to recommit?

By voice go to all those in favor, please say aye.

Uh aye.

Aye.

Okay.

Okay.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

Okay.

Uh item three is recommitted.

Uh Greg, Steve, I will uh circle back with you uh on uh when we're gonna reschedule this.

Um and I thank you for your work coming into this evening.

Okay.

Uh that concludes our agenda for this evening.

Thank you very much for attending and participating.

And uh we are adjourned at 7:51.

Thank you, everybody.

Thank you.

Good night, everybody.

Thank you.

Good night, everyone.

All right, good night all.