I noticed that we budgeted debt service principal and interest, but we haven't paid anything. So, that just kind of caught me because I'm trying to figure out where we're landing here, because that makes me a little nervous because are we making our bond payments?

We definitely made the most recent bond payment, so there should be-- There's an issue there, whether that's not being-- Whatever's coming up there is incorrect.

But on the cybersecurity front, nary a day goes by when you don't hear what's going on in the marketplace with cybersecurity, whether it be a big company or a small company. It's unprecedented times for guys like us.

Is there anything else that we need to be doing or implementing to help safeguard ourselves, or are we using best practices right now? Well- Again, I'm just trying to think from a budgeting standpoint.

But the building definitely needs it. I think one of the things that we're probably going to do with this committee is actually do a tour of the building. I will tell you from firsthand experience, when I met with the chief just a couple of weeks ago in his office, the ground has settled within his office to such a degree that you can literally see daylight under the wall going out to the vestibule because the entire building is beginning to settle, at least on the police side.

So if we were to proceed forward on this and we were having budget discussions next year for 2028, we would have to increase our levy 4.2% to cover the bond proceeds on it.

That's a ton of money. I'm in support of it. I have one question on the, just maybe the language on here. Slip over 65 plus on a fixed income. How would you define on a fixed income? Yeah, no, I would say that it needs to just be 65 and over, period. Right. Remove the whole fixed income piece. Yeah.

I don't. And Chad- I see no reason for it for the small amount of money that we've got to go through all this. And I voiced my opinion last time that- Yeah ... I just think a small amount of money, and it's unnecessary because of the amount of money that they will get out of it when they have a $150,000 budget to arbitrarily just up it $100.

The city can certainly take the position that it's not a responsibility, and that we don't have any liability for this. The city also has the flexibility to resolve the claim against the city by making a payment to the property value, the rebounder. Both are within the city's realm of possibility.

But I guess from a liability standpoint, my concern is, are we setting some sort of precedent by agreeing to do this? Or are we in a position where next year somebody sets something out close to the curb, it gets taken, the city's on the hook for it.

Well, if it comes down on the garage this winter with a lot of snow, we might be on the hook for more. Yeah, I think that's the biggest concern.

So you could put together a bid established by what the budget is, go out and collect bids for tree removals in the city, and it's an on-call service bid, and I believe that you're going to pay by tree caliber. And that you have different categories, and contractors bid against them.