I think we would certainly see some value from having someone at 7.9% for meetings and things moving over it.

Obviously, uh, we do have capabilities kind of with the technology of uh being able to be remote much on the half of um that's something that would be press kind of just out of curiosity how many um quite the use of response.

RFP for services were the same for ever since every few years we get an engagement.

Uh but our government policy like this one, I think, allows us to none that are okay.

Just because um Michelle point I suspect it's a fairly small rule, but um see so we can work next month.

You said something about not seeing the amount of budget for the first year.

So this would cover everything.

That's a little bit of prediction with the end this year, should we need it based on kind of timing of each response that we get back on the third?

Just clarifying calendar year versus fiscal year calendar year instead of the year for you.

So when we say fiscal year 25 and calendar year 25 different those, so okay, all right.

So just to be clear, uh the movie uh waiver competitive.

So we're reviewing it as as the finance slash governance committee.

Are we expected to um to vote on it to recommend it to the board or what's the I don't think that there's I'm looking at our future?

Yeah, is it council for uh procedural uh uh opinions otherwise, but uh I'm not sure that there's necessarily anything that requires committee in order for it to be voted on in the board meeting.

I think the role of uh how we're kind of leveraging committee meetings is to just talk through some of the other policy things.

Um it probably kind of hurt to get a thumbs up now, but uh I think the more critical thing probably is the board resolution.

So however it makes no sense other than some of this.

We see that just what I heard there.

Okay, all right.

So just for the purposes of reporting out to the board, um we all you know, any one monitor extra any significant concern counselor only talked about potential conflicts, and we need to make sure we run that through any other concerns about support.

Yeah, in this case we've already heard this piece of choice.

So that's an important point.

Uh again, no, and I was assuming okay, all right.

So I think we're we're comfortable advancing uh the waiver two board uh let's move on to our budget.

Um so the second item here is just uh amendment of the fiscal year 25 operating budget adjusting the total dollar amounts for uh directors, officers insurance and liability insurance.

Um so the uh estimate map that we had had there was about a uh 175 dollar difference.

So we we've uh took those charges if you look uh on the last page of your packet um the items in the red kind of show what the changes are, but we basically just uh subtracted the difference for the board that had been previously budgeted and uh licenses and fees.

Well licensing user we think for uh for our uh this whole what's the name of the quick books, thank you, quick books and stuff like that.

So I suspected that might be a little bit of an over budget.

I was uh approximating based on what sector was paying for simple stuff.

I didn't realize we have to have our significance.

Other questions or concerns yeah, okay, good.

All right, uh so that was technically under the ummittee the this joint meeting, so let's talk about governance community.

All right, so uh just wanted to kind of talk through uh how we've been working to roll out the log town program about three weeks in now.

Um perception of the program has been really positive so far.

We've got a lot of uh engagement out at neighborhood meetings, haven't had well over a hundred uh phone calls with emails that have been sent into the office that are calling about it.

Um have had great response at uh neighborhood meeting turnout.

We had some kind of open house last night, and again, it's all screening would be on your thing to pill.

We've got a few uh kind of pop-up office hours type things where people could just kind of drop by and people out of their applications.

Um we have received a total of four applications at this point, uh, which include about 16, oh 18 properties total, um, which is really exciting um from a budget standpoint in terms of where their painted scopes are, that does put us about halfway through our um uh mouth that is currently budgeted.

So I think we'll continue to keep an eye on that based on applications received.

Um, I think uh certainly from a participation standpoint, obviously part of the reason that we're doing the block down program is to kind of check our map and advance a rollout of some of the larger programs.

And so I think we would want to uh minimally ensure that we can accommodate uh budget-wise everything that we received through the end of this calendar year.

Right.

Um, so we'll amend those as needed, but um they even split over the generals or uh so right now the applications that have come in, they have all been for TIP Hill, but we're aware of several teams, large teams that are putting in salt screen.

So uh I expect that we will continue to be getting those in uh the coming days.

So how do we handle um the vision of resources between the emergency?

There is nothing in terms of our current budgeting that requires us to do anything one way or the other.

Um so I think that that's the kind of thing we would continue to monitor.

I do expect is based on kind of communications that we've had with different teams so that they're gonna end up relatively close, but we can uh kind of adjust things.

They have to assume about the committees that our goal would be to make sure the resources are fairly equitably distributed pending domains.

I think that C C B had recommended specific dollar amounts per neighbor, but so we've got to make sure we're at least somewhat in line with their recommendations.

I think their recommendations were more about budgeting standpoint.

What do you expect if it's going to cost based on capacity to pay?

Uh so I do uh and I think some of that kind of comes down to uh cost and share.

So I think we'll get into that a little bit more with some of the larger programs.

Obviously, this is across the board a 50 cost share.

Uh, I think that there's certainly much room for discussion around uh some kind of graduated uh or tiered cost share based on homeowner income, perhaps that you can put in this place where if you're a certain income, it's 50% match.

If you're at a lower income, you get a slightly higher match.

Uh so we can kind of continue to work through that, but I think that was where their baselines were coming in.