and welcome to nursing school explained. Today's topic is heart failure. So let's take a look at the basic physiology first. So I've drawn out a little diagram of the heart and lungs here. So we have the right atrium, right ventricle, left atrium, left ventricle, lungs in blue. Then we have the superior and inferior vena cava bringing the blood back to the heart. We have the pulmonary vasculature going to the lungs and then the aorta leaving the heart. And I'm a big fan of knowing the physiology of how the system is supposed to function. That way, if something goes wrong, you can really refer back to and say, well, I know it's supposed to function this way. Now, if this is going on, what kind of signs and symptoms am I going to see in this patient? So first of all, the normal blood flow through the heart. Remember, the blood comes back into the right atrium from the peripheral vasculature, flows through the right ventricle, goes out to the lungs, returns back in the left atrium, goes to the left ventricle and goes back out into the body. Now, when the heart fails, so the heart is not able to pump efficiently, then we have right or left-sided heart failure. So either one of these two sides can fail. Now, the most common heart failure is left-sided heart failure. And the most common cause for that is hypertension. So basically, when there's an increased blood volume in the patient system, the heart has to pump extra hard to pump all that fluid around. So if the blood pressure is elevated, it takes some extra force off that left ventricle to create the cardiac output. And after a while, that heart muscle will wear out and it'll lead to heart failure. So now if we think about it, if that left ventricle is not working, the blood is going to back up to where it came from, which means the lungs. And so the patient's complaints will be mostly shortness of breath or I also wrote down orthopnea. And orthopnea basically means shortness of breath with activity. They might have some chest pain. They might feel fatigued. They might have some nocturia. They will definitely have some weight gain because they're retaining all that fluid. They might have paroxysmal nocturnal dyspnea, PND. And I wrote in parentheses here pillows. So that means when the patient is sleeping at night, typically we sleep flat, but because there's so much workload now on the heart when the patient is flat, because all the fluids are at the same plane that in order for the patient to get some relief, they need to elevate the head of the bed. And usually they prop themselves with extra pillows, because they can breathe easier when they sleep up when they sleep sitting upright. And the term for that is paroxysmal nocturnal dyspnea. And when the patient tells you I'm using three pillows at night to sleep, that's usually a warning sign that there's something going on with heart failure, when a fluid is backing up into the lungs and the patient might have left side heart failure. And then also pink frothy sputum is another thing that we need to watch out for. And that's more in the later stages. So if there's so much congestion now in the lungs, because the heart is not pumping the fluid through the body efficiently and it backs up into the lungs, it can cause pulmonary edema. And then the lungs get congested. And the way that the body tries to get rid of that extra fluid from the lungs is by sputum production. And there will be a little bit of bleeding in there, which is why that sputum will be pink and frothy. Now for right-sided heart failure is usually most commonly caused by left-sided heart failure. So if there's something going on with this ventricle, the fluid backs up into the lungs, eventually it'll get so bad that the lungs get so congested and then fluid is backing up all the way to the right ventricle. Excuse me, it will have all the signs and symptoms of right-sided heart failure. Now another cause of right-sided heart failure is some pulmonary pathology. So that can be pulmonary hypertension, asbestosis, any of the things that stem directly from the lungs that could cause some lung congestion and then the lungs are not really profusing and that fluid is backing up into the right side of the heart. So symptoms of right-sided heart failure, basically the fluid will back up and it'll get back into the systemic circulation. So symptoms will be peripheral edema, very typical patient while complaining of lower, complaining of lower extremity edema. Asidease, so now if the right side of the heart is not working and the blood is backing up into the peripheral circulation, there could be fluid sitting being pushed out by the principle of basically osmosis and the oncotic pressure so that there's extra fluid collecting in the abdomen and now they'll have asidease. They can also have hepatosplenomegaly because again, if the fluid is being backed up, the organs that sit in that inferior vena cava that come up, the organs are the liver and the spleen. So if the fluid is backing up, it might back it up into the liver and spleen, making that enlarged and hepatosplenomegaly basically just means enlarged liver and spleen and then the patient can also have JVD, jugular venous distention because again, if that right side of the heart is not pumping efficiently, fluid is going to back up and you will see that in their jugular veins. Now risk factors for developing heart failure are pretty self-explanatory if we know what causes them, which is hypertension and this is a chronic condition that will over time just wear out that heart muscle and lead to heart failure. Coronary artery disease, so again if the heart muscle doesn't get profused efficiently, it can lead to heart failure. Myocardial infarction, that's an acute cause of heart failure. If there is a part of the heart muscle that is now has not been profused and it's infarcted, which basically means the cells have died, then of course that heart muscle, that part of that heart muscle will not be able to contract efficiently and therefore it'll lead to heart failure. And then also cardiomyopathy, and there's a variety of different cardiomyopathies which basically means disease of the heart muscle and you can look into those and see what causes those but those are also common causes of heart failure. Now then if we look into diagnostic studies, so what are we going to want to know in a patient with heart failure? So diagnostic studies will definitely be an EKG because we want to see how the heart, the conduction system is working. We want to look at an echocardiogram to get more information about the chamber, the heart chamber sizes, the heart valves, and also the ejection fraction which is basically the percentage and a measure of how well that left ventricle is contracting. Patient might also undergo a stress test where they either run on a treadmill or chemically induced, they have a tachycardia and then they'll see if they produce symptoms. Patient certainly if it's because of coronary artery disease they can have an angiogram which basically means a cardiocatheterization to visualize the inside of the coronary arteries and see what's going on in there. And then for labs, so we're definitely going to want to know a complete metabolic panel including electrolytes, kidneys, liver function, as well as a complete blood count to see the level of their platelets, their hemoglobin hematocrit, and then a BNP. So BNP stands for B type natriuretic peptide and that is a chemical marker that the heart gives off if it's on a constant stretch. It's basically a cry for help and it's telling the body what's going on. I have all this volume that I have to deal with and being stretched to the max help me get rid of some of this fluid and BNP and the RAS have an inverse relationship so if you need to review those please go back to the video about RAS where I go into the details of how these two relate to one another but BNP is a very simple lab test that we can draw and then depending of the elevation of the level in BNP we can determine how bad the heart failure is. Now complications, heart failure can lead to pleural effusion so if that left-sided heart failure gets so bad that all that fluid is backing up into the lungs we have in the spink frothy sputum and the fluid the lungs can handle that fluid it's being pushed out into the pleural space then the fluid will be accumulating around the lining of the lungs definitely causing shortness of breath and the treatment for pleural effusion is a thoracentesis where basically a needle is inserted and that fluid is drained out with all these other treatments that we're going to be talking about here in a moment. Another complication is dysrhythmias because the heart chambers get enlarged because they have to pump around this increased fluid volume and that puts the patient at risk for atrial fibrillation and we know that atrial fibrillation is a risk factor for stroke because the blood kind of gets swooped around in the atria and then the clots can break off causing a stroke or maybe DVT or other clots in the system. It can lead to hepatomegaly and eventually liver failure but like I discussed before the right from the right ventricle it backs up into the systemic circulation and then into the liver and the spleen and this can lead to some liver impairment and elevation in liver enzymes and then it can also lead to renal failure because now that cardiac muscle cannot contract the way that it's supposed to and the kidneys don't get the perfusion that they need which makes them not work properly and it can lead to renal failure. Now how do we treat patients with heart failure? So I wrote down here in black the treatment and then in green the pathophysiology so that you can understand why are we doing these things. Ace inhibitors are the number one treatment for heart failure and I wrote in parentheses also angiotensin receptor blockers. Both of those pertain to the RAS system and in heart failure there's decreased cardiac output again because that heart muscle has been stretched for so long that it's not pumping efficiently which leads to renal perfusion which has discussed that which activates the RAS because now the kidney says hello I need more blood volume give me something that I can work with so I can increase my perfusion which then leads to the activation of renin angiotensin 1 and aldosterone and that leads to increased blood pressure and fluid retention so that's the normal mechanism that will happen but in a heart failure patient we do not want to increase the blood pressure and we do not want to increase the increase the fluid retention because of the hardest disease and we already have the problem with that fluid volume excess. So by using an ace inhibitor and blocking the RAS system we're lowering the patient's blood pressure and we're lowering their fluid retention we help them excrete some of that extra fluid and that's why ace inhibitors are such a powerful medication to help in the treatment of patients with heart failure. Now number two beta blockers beta blockers when there is cardio a decreased cardiac output but the pathophysiology is decreased cardiac output because the heart is not working properly it'll lead to catecholamine release so that activates the parasympathetic nervous system the whole system will say hello I'm not getting enough blood flow give me some blood that I can work with every organ will say give me some blood flows that I can do the function that I need to do and the sympathetic nervous system will basically constrict in order to bring up the blood pressure and the blood volume to these organs which will increase the heart rate and the blood pressure but again in a diseased heart when having this heart failure present we do not want to put more workload on the heart by increasing the heart rate and we certainly do not need more volume in the system or increase in blood pressure which is why beta blockers are so efficient in decreasing the heart rate and the blood pressure and therefore they help us treat that heart failure. Now digoxin is a cardiac glycoside and if you watched the other video that I have on preload afterload and contractility it discusses the joxin a little bit more detail but there's that Frank Starling law which basically it means when that heart muscle wears out it it cannot the cardiac fibers cannot contract efficiently to produce that cardiac output and the force of contraction therefore after a while because of this prolonged hypertension the force of contraction goes down. Now the joxin helps the patient but increasing the force of contraction so it's a positive ionotrope that will help the cardiac muscles contract more efficiently and help produce the cardiac output of that weak and hard so every blood or every organ in the cell and the body can get perfused. Diuretics usually in a patient with hypertension will lead to fluid volume excess so when there's a high sodium diet most likely that's the cause high sodium diet sodium water follows sodium which means fluid volume excess which increases the afterload and the afterload is the amount of force that the left ventricle has to overcome to produce a cardiac output to really perfuse all the blood tissues but again when we're already having heart failure we don't want any more fluid we're already having a problem with fluids in the lungs and in the periphery so we need to decrease the fluid volume and diuretics help us to do that so diuretics help us get rid of some of that extra fluid that the patient has on board therefore lowering the blood pressure and lowering the workload on the heart and then there's another treatment called L-BAD left ventricular assist device and that's usually for patients with long-standing heart failure who have maybe do not respond to treatments anymore and it's a device that gets implanted into the patient's chest or abdominal cavity that helps with the contraction it's kind of like a last resort kind of a treatment and a very specialized treatment and then the other one is heart transplant so if that heart muscle is not working at all it's completely given out and the heart transplant would be another option now when it comes to nursing care what is it that we need to do for these patients that we're dealing with with heart pressure heart failure number one control their blood pressure because we know heart failure is caused by hypertension there's the number one cause of left-sided heart failure and eventually if we don't get it under control it will lead to right-sided heart failure so blood pressure control is super important when the patients at the hospital they have all this extra fluid that they are pumping around and we're giving them medications to decrease their fluid or to help them with the cardiac output certainly we're going to have to measure the intake and output and their daily weight to see if they're retaining fluid we have to administer all these medications and know all the nursing care that pertains to those we have to sometimes the patient will go to cardiac rehab specifically if it is after an MI and exercising is very important but certainly a very specialized regimen will be put together for the patients so that they don't overdo it flu and pneumonia vaccination is very important because this is a chronic condition and anything that stresses the patient's system such as fluid pneumonia so an infection can lead to significant complications in these patients and then definitely low sodium diet which kind of goes along with the blood pressure control so along with medication exercise we want to emphasize the proper diet for these patients now part of a nurse's job is always to do patient education to keep them from having complications so here are certain things that we definitely need to include when we educate our patients about how to manage themselves with heart failure so in red I've written down here report weight gain three pounds in two days or three to five pounds in one week because the heart is not pumping efficiently which will lead to all this fluid backing up and certainly it can be measured by the patient's weight so just like we want to monitor the patient's daily weight while they're at the hospital we want to teach them about measuring their weight at home and that should be the same scale about the same time of day with the same amount of clothing so they can keep track of their fluid volume status and then we want to educate them to report any of the signs and symptoms to see if they're getting worse so those include report shortness of breath paroxysmal nocturnal dyspnea that's the one where the patient sits up with extra pillows sleeps with extra pillows elevated increasing peripheral edema and that sometimes just means that their water their rings or their socks are getting a little bit tighter if they're having a cough certainly because the fluid can be backing up into the lungs they can have pink frothy sputum leading to pulmonary edema also if they feel dizzy if they have this episode of syncope so fainting or any kind of nausea with abdominal distention again because that means that the fluid is backing up into the abdominal cavity and the heart is not pumping the fluids efficiently so i hope this video has helped you review this basic concept of i hope this video has helped you review the concept of heart failure and all its facets if you haven't already watched please go back to the videos of cardiac output and the different medications where discussed the nursing care and side effects of certain medications as well as the basic principle of RAS where the relationship between the RAS and the B and P in the control of blood pressure and fluid volume are discussed in more detail thank you for watching nursing school explained i will see you next time


Hello. This is a joint work with Helger Lippma, who is currently associated with Thibonetica and Tallinn University. And I'm going to talk mostly about consistent computation. That is, I'm first going to tell you what is the model of consistent computations, and then I'm going to give you two examples of consistent computations, namely consistent oblidist transfer and consistent conditional disclosure secrets. And after that, I will talk about some theoretical results between those security notions. Consistent computations is not as secure as full security in the malicious model, and as usual, the motivation for doing less secure or relaxed security models is following. If you start from a semi-honest model, you get a really decent protocol runs very efficiently. Then you apply certified computation techniques such as a GMV compiler, and you get a protocol, which is secure in a malicious model, but it has high communication complexity and high computational complexity. Now if you use PCP theorem together with sublinear oblivious transfer, then you can reduce the communication complexity, but the resulting protocol has even higher computational complexity. So for many practical protocols, it's infeasible. So the idea is that you should use somewhat intermediate security notions, which provide you better efficiency guarantees. For instance, you can consider input private protocols, where at the end of the protocol, immediately adversaries are guaranteed not to learn anything about the inputs of honest parties. Of course, but it can arbitrarily change the output of honest parties, and if sometimes you can get to know the output of honest parties, then you might afterwards find out something about inputs as well. But what is consistent computation is enhancement of input private protocols, and essentially what we do is that we put in the fraud detection mechanism, which assures that when honest party gets an answer, this is the correct answer. How did we arrive there? To this point, we looked which properties we kind of can achieve easily, and which can be sacrificed. It is relatively easy to achieve input privacy. There are two well-known transformations. The first one is by Aiello, Ischai and Raygold. And it works essentially for all cryptocomputing protocols, which are based on LDAMAL. Okay, this Laurent Lipma's paper extends this for the Yang cryptosystem. Now, if you want to add consistency, mainly we want to add a kind of checking mechanism that honest party detects when its output is tampered. If you put universal check, which kind of warns you if your output might have been potentially tampered, then you get into the standard security model, and this is inefficient. So what we do is that we consider a setting where you get an warning that your answer is not correct, but this might depend on your input. Namely adversary might be able to cause selective protocol faults. But if you accept the answer, this is correct. And finally, what is nice about consistent computations is that you can issue fault complaints to third parties and show that indeed somebody acted maliciously. So how should we formalize it? We do it using this ideal world versus real world paradigm. Okay, and if you consider standard two-party security model, then it follows as usual both parties send our inputs to the trusted third party, who computes the outputs, then sends one to the dominant party, who can then decide whether the protocol is aborted or proceeded, and if it's proceeded, then the other party gets the answer. Now, we add only one small step to this model, which makes the trick. And this is the following, that after inputs have been submitted, a malicious party can send a halting predicate to trusted third party, and if this predicate holds, then trusted third party doesn't send the answers to the honest parties. But it continues as follows, sends back the answer to the malicious party, and okay, this party can still decide whether to abort or proceed. And of course, predicate must be efficiently computable, and there is interesting thing, you can see that the protocol failure is not directly observable by the adversary. Namely, if adversary sits in the ideal world, he sees the same things when the protocol kind of ended with failure for the honest party, and if it didn't. So, the adversary can find out whether failure happened only if in the following post-processing context, the honest party either complains or somehow it turns out that it didn't get the answer. Okay, and as you can see, complaint handling comes for free. Why is that? It's a trivial observation, if a protocol is consistent and correct, then if all parties are semi-honest, then you always get an answer. So now if you sign all the protocol messages, and the honest party gets its replies and computes, and doesn't get an aborting value at the end of the protocol, then it can go to other parties, reveals input, randomness, and all received messages, and then the third party can compute whether honest party indeed followed the protocol. Of course, this is not good because usually you would like to hide the input. So what we do is that essentially if the protocol messages do not leak information about the input, then it's okay. But if they leak, we can encrypt the messages. So if protocol messages are signed and encrypt, then what the honest party can do, it can come up with a zero-knowledge proof, which says that he followed the protocol and obtained the failing output. And this is a valid complaint which says that somebody acted maliciously during the protocol execution. And why is it better if you consider a client-server protocol than client usually does very few computations. And for that client, it might be feasible to construct a zero-knowledge proof that he actually acted correctly and obtained the failing output. Whereas for the server, this might be practically infeasible. So we are not the only one to propose such types of models. There are models for covert adversaries by Auman and Lindel, and there is a K leakage model. And it's important to note that this Auman and Lindel model doesn't guarantee input privacy, namely with non-negligible probability in the ideal world, the adversary might get the inputs of an honest party. Whereas K leakage model gives you up to K bits for the adversary. In our case, the information leakage in the protocol is zero bits, but of course in the post-processing context, the information can leak. Now what about complaint handling? If you look at the ideal implementations of the covered model, then you see that complaint handling there is impossible. It's possible for the K leakage model and it's also impossible for input private models. Okay, and let's see now a practical protocol, which kind of shows you that this notion is reasonable, it's secure enough, and it actually achieves enough efficiency. So when we started to write this article, our motivation was that, okay, there are input private oblivious transfer protocols with optimal communication complexity, namely O log N, where N is the number of database elements. And the question, natural question is, can we extend this result to get kind of security guarantees against malicious servers? And if we can, so how many rounds the protocol, the new protocol would have, and can we achieve optimal communication complexity? And there was this, yet another motivation was that if we could do it in two rounds, then we could kind of get reduced round counting PCP proofs, but we didn't get it in two rounds. But if you are more practically inclined, then the question is, can you build oblivious transfer protocol where you can detect the server chips, but still the protocol doesn't contain zero knowledge proofs. So the construction, as you can see, is surprisingly simple. So let's see what is there. In order to, okay, there is this sender and receiver, sorry, a receiver, a client and server, and the server has a database, and the server will just commit all database elements, send those to the client, and after that you use oblivious transfer to fetch the decommittment range. Okay, and usually you would like to formalize with trusted setup phase where you generate the parameters for the commitment scheme and for the oblivious transfer protocols. Now, as I said, we wanted to have minimal communication, so in order to achieve that, we must use, instead of ordinary commitments, list commitments, which are just as an ordinary commitment, but in the way that the commitment touches this compact value, which is sent to the client, client is small, and it must be possible to decommit individual elements, and the decommittment values must be small, and the commitment must remain biting and hiding, namely, if you reveal one element, then the others must still remain hidden, and what is good is it is straightforward to construct communication-efficient list commitments using double layering. Essentially, you commit all the elements with standard commitment scheme and then hash the values together to get a shorter digest. What is bad news is that we don't achieve the desired optimal communication complexity. Essentially, because we don't know how to construct a list commitment scheme with a communication complexity O log N, there is right now O log N squared, so we are log N factor away from the optimal value. Now I would like to introduce some ideas on how to prove security. If you look at my initial standard, you see, who will commit all the database elements and then compute partial decommittment values. If he asks maliciously what should we do, we must construct a simulator, and the simulator gets a commitment value. The simulator is supposed to give the input to a trusted third party, so what it has to do is it has to take a commitment value and extract what is the database. If he wouldn't care about communication, we could use extractable commitments, and then it would be trivial. The simulator would use the extraction key and then extract all the commitments, but as the commitment is compressing, this is impossible. There are several options how to do it. First one is to do... Let's see the simulator, how it works. We do it straightforward way. We fix a randomness for the malicious server and the honest client, and then use this extraction to extract committed inputs, submit this extra trusted third party and construct halting predicates, and then fake the protocol execution and output whatever server outputs, and that's sufficient. There are two tricky parts, extraction and halting predicates. Halting predicates is actually trivial, because what we have is that we have a code for the malicious server and honest server, and we also have the randomness for the server and honest client. So for any possible client input, we can compute whether the protocol in the real world would end it with abortion or not, and we just pack it into the predicate and send it to trusted third party. It's efficiently computable halting predicate. So this is trivial. Non-trivial thing is the extraction. Again, since we have fixed randomness, naive way would try all possible queries, and for a single query it works. The slowdown is ON in the simulation, but it's tolerable, but if you make K queries in a row adaptively, then the slowdown becomes exponential. Now what is also known, it's a very obscure result by me and Dr. Buldas, is that every commitment is actually, binding commitment is extractable, provided that the adversary doesn't have auxiliary input. So if we could consider setting where the adversary doesn't have auxiliary input, we can use white box extraction. However, if you want to use the protocol, then you usually use in a context where you have preprocessing and prosperous testing, and you would like to have sequential composability, and for those settings, auxiliary inputs are kind of unavoidable, so this doesn't work. And what we are left with is that we use the old hammer and use zero knowledge proof of knowledge where the server just proves that he knows what he committed. And of course, then we can extract what he committed and then proceed with simulation. And depending what kind of zero knowledge proof we use, we get slowdown either one over epsilon or exponential in the number of rounds in the zero knowledge proof. Now what about the client? For the client this is kind of simple, except only one fact, that we have to submit something to the client commitment before we actually know how to open it, to which values to open. And therefore what we have to use is just equivocable commitments. And okay, this is the proof scheme, but what is important is what we do is that we use at the bottom layer equivocable commitments and then use any compressing commitment and then we get equivocable commitment and that is all we need for this construction. The second thing I want to kind of discuss is this conditional disclosure of secrets because it's a very nice protocol and it's usually used to convert input private semi-honest protocols to input private protocols and how does it work, is that you have a secret, server has a secret and he wants to release it but only if the client's input satisfies some public predicate, mainly that the inputs are in valid range. And then you have several protocols that where inputs are just encrypted, send it to the server and then send server just sends reply. Now how could we make this kind of consistent? The idea is the same. We let server just commit the secret and then use this ordinary CDS protocol to fetch the decommitment key. And again, if you don't manage to fetch the decommitment key, valid decommitment key the receiver just holds. And since we have only one commitment we can use here theoretically extractable and equivocable commitments or use serial knowledge proof of knowledge that the server knows what he committed. So to just summarize what I did was that the most important thing of this talk is actually the model of consistent computation. It took us like one year to get it down in correct way and I think we believe that this is the right way how to model a setting where you want correctness guarantees and input privacy but you cannot afford serial knowledge proofs. It's very close to this K-leakage model but it's a bit different. And of course we have those constructions for the oblidist transfer and CDS which seem rather straightforward but what is not so straightforward is the security proof and the necessary formalism namely formalism of list commitments and how you define that list commitment is equivocable, extractable and so on. The big question which we didn't solve in this article is that whether two round consistent protocols for two parties exist and if they don't exist if they do exist it would be very interesting for instance for oblidist transfer because then it could make the PCP proof shorter. Another thing which is in the article is that notice the construction was rather trivial that we committed the inputs and then used oblidist transfer or CDS to get the decommittment keys and actually what can be proven is that consistent computations and commitments are closely related namely if you give me a protocol for consistent computations I can construct a specific commitment from it. So commitment must be inside of those how they are actually related this kind of open question and we didn't give you a generic construction for consistent computation for instance for two party case but this construction is actually in the article by Mohassol and Franklin where they talk about K-Leakish model they have a protocol where you run two circles in parallel at the end of that you do some verification check and this actually could be a consistent protocol however nobody has ever analyzed and formally proved that this is a consistent protocol and the one thing which is kind of also interesting is that the model right now allowed any kind of alting predicate but you can specify a very specific alting predicate for instance like linear predicate or somehow equations or something and you could try to kind of limit it Okay and as I see I'm out of time so I'm happy to finish right now Let's take a speaker Do we have questions? Okay, I have a question So about the setup assumptions that you use Is the previous construction in the common reference string model or standard model I saw those Okay, those parameters You can explain It's a proof theoretical trick Essentially you can always get rid of this trusted setup by replacing with a standard multi-party protocol and for most commitment schemes setup is trivial for the oblivious transfer protocol usually you have to generate a valid public key such that you know the corresponding secret so you can get rid of all that but it's keep to proof simple and straight forward Yeah, the point is that if you run a protocol to simulate it then there is a communication complexity that comes from that protocol also, right? Of course, yeah, but Are there questions? Okay, we can thank again friends


You can see I've now got four individual branches that I can mess around with, which is lovely. That's what I wanted so we can close the UV editor for now and what we're going to want to do next is Reshape these so that it look a little bit more branchy So let's have a look at how we can do that in the perspective view with this one for instance So let's put it into Vertex mode and we just want to reshape this a little bit So I'm going to start with getting the vertices on the sides I'm going to move those down Whoa, not like that crazy That's going to give it that kind of That look that we were talking about earlier So that's pretty nice already. I'm happy with that and then what we're going to do is I'm still in vertex mode I'm going to get these ones at the end and we're going to move those down and probably move it back in a little bit as well Like that just so kind of getting a rotation Sort of vibe to it. I'll bring that one down You bring that one down a little bit more and bring it in this way and that will allow me to just bring that one down So it creates a bit of a a drooping effect I'll do the same with this one So let's get it into vertex mode Okay, let's just select the vertices around the side Let's Get it nice and droopy Let's get these so move that down In a little bit In like that and then these three on the end. Yeah, move that down In and maybe this one move down a little bit as well. So it's nice and droopy. Oh, yeah That's beautiful and branchy. Okay. We'll do this one. So into vertex mode Let's get all the first that we want. So I want those three and I want those three. Let's pull that down Lovely I Missed one. It's annoying. Oh, did I know what that so pull those down? Yep That's nice enough and Then we're going to set about shaping this Same way that we've done with the other ones. So let's move that down and Back a bit and we'll get these on the end and move that down Back in and then this one here Let's get a nice and droopy Object mode. Oh, I can't hit object mode. There we go. So that's that branch and then the final one Get it into Vertex mode Get all those first that we want to Move down Yep. Yep. Yep. I'm liking that What I might do on this one is scale that in a little bit as well just to make that a bit more Drastic just give me a little bit more variation in the tree Okay, let's select all these Move that down Let's all these move that down. It's like the one on the end moving down Okay So you can see I've now got my four branches right at this stage Just to make it a little bit easier for me to work with I'm just going to line these up. So I want one there Maybe do this by size as well. So we'll rotate this one around and then we'll have this one over here Finally this one here champion, okay, so Here are our four handsome looking branches right What we're going to do next is Set these up so they work two-sided The issue that you can have with branches is that you can import them into a game engine and you can tell the game engine That they're two-sided. So usually Polygons are one-sided and that means that they will render from one side and the other side they'll be see-through And you can tell something like Unreal Engine that they're two-sided and it will render the other side and it'll be identical To the side that is rendered But the problem is the normal so the direction of the faces are facing affects us how light reacts with them and if You make them two-sided the normals are still facing the original direction so they don't lie properly So the best way to remedy that And we'll just try and do this with them all at once is we're going to duplicate them like that and Then let's just get in nice and close on one of them. We're going to move it down ever so slightly So let's do zero point zero five Minus zero point zero five sorry and that will just move these copies down now you can see This is the the shading problem my shown them as two-sided, but it's given as a shading problem There's no color on this side and we like them to be seen from both below and above so in order to get that we're going to go to mesh display and we're going to click on reverse And that reverses the normal direction so now We've got branches that can be seen by from both directions because We've got two copies of them now that does Double the amount of faces that we've used for these branches, but if you want them to look any good You've not really got a choice on that one So that needed to happen right there are Our branches what we're going to do next is combine each of them. So we're going to do mesh combine and we'll do Center pivot just to make it easier in a minute mesh combine Modify center pivot Mesh combine Modify center pivot and mesh combine and modify center pivot Okay, so They're all ready to go But what we need is a way to attach them to the trunk of the tree Now we could just do it with like attaching here, but that it just won't look right So we're going to create a little bit of a shape that will connect this to the tree to be a bit more branch and then we're going to Move on to the trunk So we're just going to do this for one of the branches and then we'll move on to making the trunk and doing some texturing And then we'll do some duplicating around to save some work and it will all be good Okay, so What we need to do is Create a cylinder. So let's have a new cylinder And we need to do some work on this cylinder because we don't want to be throwing this many faces away That's far too many we want this to be a really really simple shape Because again, we're going to be duplicating this around the tree And we don't want to throw any faces away unnecessarily because it's really wasteful So subdivision axis we're going to change that straight away. That's going to become three and That will look Very triangular But we're going to use a shading trick so that when this is much smaller in the tree will Will assume that it's cylindrical Which is good, right let's also Rotate this around so we're going to move it just for now 90 degrees We'll elongate it a little bit And that's a good start right. Let's just call this one branch No, we can't call this one branch. Can we because they're already called branch What should we call this one? It kind of is a branch, but we need it. We'll call it stump Stumps a good name right I want to get stump lined up. So let's plop him over here Yep, and then in the side view. It's just press 4 so I can see what I'm doing. No 6 sorry in the side view we want to just make sure that that is in The right sort of place and facing importantly the right kind of angle. There we go Right, so now it should just be a case getting this shaped and to the right size so We're going to get these on Vertex mode I'm a terrible aim with this today. Vertex. Okay, let's get those three verts there And we're going to bring them together to form a bit of a point And then we're going to move these so that they are Kind of nicely attaching to this branch and we're going to try I think a match the thickness mostly Now let's go a bit smaller actually and we'll just overlap Okay, and then these vertices over here. I'm just going to move over to the side of it so that it's in a straight line Didn't get them all What am I doing? Okay, and move those over a little bit like that. Let's scale them in and that He's not enough about that Just make that a bit shorter. Okay, I think that'll do So that's going to be our branch We're not throwing many faces away on that that looks okay And what we're just going to do about this hard edge because it's very hard is we're going to click on mesh display and we're going to do soften edge and Should now look a lot softer. It still does look a Little bit sharp, but believe me. You won't see that when When we put it in the tree because there'll be a lot going up Right, so that's the branch made the stump stumpy branch what we need to do now is make the trunk of the tree and Then it's all about texturing the tree and the stump and Assembling it all together. So we're getting there the the finishing line is in sight Which is good because it's like quite a past 10 at night usually in bed by now. What am I doing?


e for the FY23 budget process. So Andrew and Martha have prepared some data for you to consider as you think about goals you wanna set for us as we build a recommended FY23 budget for you. So skipping from FY21 to 23. So just as Jesse sort of table set, just have some sort of general questions and sort of opening comments around sort of what the tax rate history are provided some of that sort of background data, the budget history, grand list values. As you know, we went through the reappraisal. We have a grand list value that is significantly greater than it was last year when we went through this. So just sort of a reminder on some of those, I think kind of key numbers or statistics I outlined them in the memo. If we factor in a average 1.1% annual grand list growth which projected over 10 years, it's been our average growth number. It's estimated one cent on the tax rate would raise a little over $400,000. If we talk about this in terms of tax increases from one year to the next, our current tax rate is 0.4350 with a 1% rate increase that increases it to 0.439, which would raise approximately $176,000. And that's based on the increased grand list value or projected grand list value.  So to get to $400,000, that's about a 2.3% tax rate increase per cent. I sort of have again in the memo, sort of just a general idea, 3% will raise approximate a little about 5.5, 100,000, 5%, almost 900,000. Also have just sort for your general, this is I think in the budget book for FY22, what your property tax dollars are currently going to support, about 2.3 million for fire and ambulance, 3.4 police, 2 million for highway, HR administration, 3.4, just some general numbers. You can look at those if you wanna understand what your tax bill is going to, those proportions will tell you how much of your tax bill is going to police, how much is going to highway. Just to talk a little bit about those fixed liabilities in these projections, we used a, if we maintained our current employees. As you know, we are at the end of our collective bargaining agreements in FY23. We're just starting the process of negotiating those that will commence relatively soon. In the past, we've tied the cost of living increase with CPIU Northeast region for the August to August dates. If we look at those numbers right now, it's really high, as high as it's been since I've been here. It was 4.4%, which is significant. We've also negotiated in our contracts in the past a bracket approach to COLA so that it shall not exceed a 3% increase, shall not go below a 1% increase. And of course, step is typically 1.5% from one step to the next. And police is our only contract that's a little bit outside of that, which is a 2% increase in step. Calculating those numbers out, along with sort of very rough first comments on sort of our group health increase, sort of our other contractual benefits dental. Vision, workers comp, insurance, what that increase in premium will be, as well as property and liability insurance, sort of forecasting 10% increases there. We pull all that together, group health being the greatest as well. Sorry, salaries being the greatest impact as well as group health. We're looking at 1.1 million increase in fixed liability. Of course, it's important to offset that with sort of projected local option tax or grand list growth, talked about 1.1%, which is again, is just a flat average local option tax. Also is, of course, we had a very different year last year, but that also seems to average around 2%. So those offsets are about 277,000. So just to sort of get to the summary, the nitty gritty here, if talk about that fixed assets with the offsets in order to maintain sort of the current levels of service without anything additional added, only in order to meet those liabilities, the tax rate would need to increase 5% to 0.4568, which is a little over 2 cents on the tax rate. Since we are in a contract year, Martha ran the numbers on if the COLA was sort of within that bracketed approach and only increased 3% that would reduce our total costs by 146,000, which brings the total down to about a 4.25% increase, which is a little under 2 cents on the tax rate. So those are just sort of an initial rough projections just to sort of where we stand and what we're looking at for next year, just to sort of help frame your own thought process as we go into the budget season. Okay. Compared to last year, that's quite a jump. We had 0.98%, we were under 1% last year. Right. So if I could just stop it, I think the key questions we're looking for you to provide guidance on, no votes or anything like that tonight, but just guidance as we develop this budget do you have priority areas for us to consider funding? If we do need to make reductions, are there areas you would like to see reductions? And what is your council, what's your tax rate goal? You would like to see us develop a bring in a tax rate that's two additional cents that's less than two additional cents, those kinds of things. Just your comment, Megan, about tax rate history for me, this is all new to me for South Burlington. I do all of this data for Winieski, but I didn't know it for South Burlington. I think one of the things we're seeing is both the fact of the economy in a 4.4% COLAF that was at 1.5% or 2%, that's a far different story, which is where we've been for the last five years. Additionally, if you look at the first box on Andrew and Martha's memo about the municipal tax rate history, if you look from FY16 to FY20, there were about five years in there where you were averaging 4% increase, 3.5%, 4% increase every year, and then the last two years, that's been to 2% increase and then below 1%. So we're coming out of two years of really minimal growth following pretty high growth. So just by way of context. So is that a typo? It should be minus 1.51%. No, the tax rate went down after the reappraisal. Oh, 21%? But if you look at the footnote, if we use the previous grand list, it would have been a 0.98% or 1%. Yeah, that's what it was approved as. So that's why there's sort of that budget number as well. Did we, I don't recall us putting forward budgets that were 6.59% or 6.75% or? I don't recall any numbers that were done 4%. They just don't dive with my memory at all. I remember the 3.75 and the 327 and the 212, but the sixes and the fours, I don't recall those at all. So this is based on the actual approved tax rate. And so that might be some of the reason why there's a little bit of a difference, which, so after, you know, it's just sort of a projected number prior to voter approval when the budget's brought forward. So this is what the tax rate ended up being once all the other calculations were made. So that might be for part, explain part of that. Yeah. So what Andrew is saying is, when you approve a budget to send to the community, you're approving that based on assumptions of what the grand list is gonna come in. So we're building a budget, assuming the grand list is gonna go up 1%. If the grand list doesn't go up 1%, if it only goes up half a percent, but you've already, the voters have already approved the amount to be raised, then the tax rate is actually higher than what you thought it might be when you approve the budget.  Again, that's with a number of assumptions, but correct. Yep, a little over 5% increase in the tax rate. Okay. Well, now you wanna hear our priorities. Is that right? Well, I think we should talk about what we think is a desired tax rate, tax rate increase for next year, what our range would be. We've always talked about, we're really comfortable between, in the three range. I've never been, I don't think I've ever voted on a five. I think there was one, there was like four, but there was a reason behind it. Yeah, because the year before it was really low. Two years before, I mean, but caught up with this. Right. I just, I'm real sensitive to the fact that, the burden shifted from commercial to residential because of the reappraisal. And then you have a lot of homes that were, that the appraisals went up because they're really old. So you have a lot of tax bills, I think that were higher than have been in the past. So then if you put a 5% on top of that, it's an extra poke in the arm. So I just wanna be sensitive to that fact that right after reappraisal, we're not Burlington, right? Where it's gonna be even worse for a number of reasons, right? But we did have in some increases, so. Well, so if they're projecting a 5% increase for status quo and you're saying, I'm only comfortable with three to four. The status quo is always negotiable. I mean, the status quo includes a lot of things in it. And some of those things don't have to be there and then you can get down to the 3%. I mean, that's one path you can take. I mean, I'm not saying that that's where we're gonna end up, but. I don't know, some of those status quo, like striping, I have to just say that the striping has been. That the what? The pluriball, the striping, the road striping. It's just, we're in September and some of our roads still aren't striped. It's, it's, there are some things that I just feel that and I don't know why if it's budgetary or, you know, because there was the furlough and COVID and all these things that caught up to us. But I think that we have to be careful to make sure that some of the basics are met, like road striping, I think that. No, we have some roads that are in dire needs. Yeah. The person street is a mess. Yeah. Right? And I don't know what that priority list is for paving for next year. I mean, hasn't been determined yet, right? But there probably is a list. There's a wish list of it, right? Now I said I wouldn't talk on the last item. I can talk on this one. You certainly may. So I agree, Tim. I much more comfortable by giving them guidance to increase taxes by more than 3%. And I'd even go back to our earlier discussion and question the fund balance and maybe taking that 325,000 over the minimum and using, I know Tom has done those types of things before in order to give us, because the taxpayers I think will support about a 3% increase. And that would be the target. I as one counselor would impress upon management to try to get to, including messing around, not messing around with, but thinking of that fund balance. Okay. I'd like to look at that in sustainability. I mean, if we get to serve ourselves from that savings account, but next year that we deprive of the future council of that opportunity. So what portion of that? I'm still staying in bulk of it. We'll go to the fund balance.  Sorry. Yeah. Right, but what, you know, I wouldn't say it's all or, you know, I think we have to think about long-term. Well, yeah, I do find 5% a little bit steep myself. I agree. And don't forget there's a proposal for four pennies on top of this too. Right. But it is a proposal. Right. This doesn't include penny for paths. Right. So, I mean, whatever the final. Well, the penny for paths is already in the tax rate, isn't it? Or in the budget. So, is it included in this percentage? The penny for paths. Tax bill, but I don't know if it's part of it. It's part of the tax. The penny for paths is included in the budget. 5%. Is it? Okay. So, we got a couple of people saying 3%. Well, we can't include penny for paths in that 3%. I mean, penny for paths was on top of keeping our business services running. Right. Matt, what's your sense? Well, yes. Well, sometimes it's not. 3%, so is that, all right. Which could be difficult because we are seeing, this is gonna be a very inflationary year. And we have not started to see the increase in energy that we're going to see. Right. Europe is suffering incredibly right now under huge natural gas price increases. And even in this country, natural gas wholesale prices are double what they were a year ago. And that's because of the pandemic and the crash in energy prices, right?  And they're very slow to turn them back on and we're shipping like 10% of all of our natural gas liquefied to Asia right now. Or to Europe. So the problem is that we can produce a whole lot of natural gas but we're shipping a lot of it elsewhere. We're not producing as much as we were. And that's gonna drive the price up.  Maybe not so much here because a lot of it comes from hydro but in other areas where these a lot of natural gas fired turbines, they're gonna see huge. And the wind's not blowing in the North Sea if you didn't know right now, right? So England and France and Germany are suffering from a lack of wind power out of the North Sea because there hasn't been any wind. So they're forced to convert over to more natural gas and coal where they have all these coal plants sitting there idle, they gotta fire them up. In England, there are no coal plants in France. These forces will affect world energy prices. So what I'm getting to is that, you're gonna have energy increases, healthcare increases, right? All these are inflationary plus all the supply chain problems and all the parts you wanna buy are gonna cost more over the next two years, two to three years. I mean, you can't ship a container from Asia to the US without it costing five times what it did two years ago. So. I tend to agree that this pandemic precisely because we have not been able to get control of it. We have a population that has not, I would say risen to stepped up to make sure that everybody could regain control of our economic future. And we are very much finding ourselves like we did after the flu of 1918. That is the reality. We can't hold our own population necessarily responsible for it. I think Vermont has been very responsible. But as you said, we're part of a global community, right? And specifically a national community. And I do hear from people that they do want city services, however. So it's a, yep. So yeah, it's a lot to balance, Tom. Was part of your interest in this discussion, Jesse, beyond just the 3% percentages, but on the larger things, I saw Chief Francis was here. And I just know multiple times over the past few years that second ambulance has come up. And is that some part of this discussion here? And are we gonna hear from our department leads? And they're- Oh, yeah. Yeah, all of our department heads will be presenting their, or the leadership teams propose budget to you absolutely. This is really meant to, you set the schedule, you have this initial conversation, and then we go and do months worth of work. So it's really to give us that kind of high level, where are you at? Where are you at balancing other things? If there are things that you really want us to think about, this will also come up through the policy and priorities conversation. We can also have some of these conversations there. Where are the areas you want us to focus? Maintaining funding, adding additional funding. It's not your one and only chance at this. It's just to help provide us some guidance as we go and set some expectations with the team about, you know, we're not gonna have 10 new staff people this year. We're going to do things within budget. How does what we bring you through the general fund budget line up to $5 million of ARPA funding? Where can we offset some projects to continue the core government services for the community, but also continue the high level goals of the council and the community? So high level guidance is what I'm looking for. Hovering around three very useful guidance. Thank you for that. If there are other kind of- That's the penny for PAS. I mean, to include the penny for PAS in that 3%, I find to be a little challenging because we agreed to have that be in addition to, right? And for us to take that away from basic city services, I find that to be a little bit troubling. So this is helpful. I don't mean after such a great night of other interesting conversations, I don't mean to end on such a downer. It's just looking for guidance. Well, Tim forgot for us. You can thank me. There'll be downer over there. Yeah. But it would be nice to have a measure periodically about the effect of inflation on your current budget items that you planned for last year. Do you're finding they cost 8% more or five, or whatever it is. But I do know in terms of a priority, and I know you'll be working on this, but I think there are departments where we don't have enough staff to really do what the expectations are. And that's always hard to add staff because it's costly, but it's another piece of what the public is looking for. So somehow, I think that needs to be included or pursed out in the future, like how do we get from here to there? You know, I mean, I know you can't add like quarter people, but I think that's important and... Yeah, we have to know. I also think we have been extremely careful, I guess would be the right word, with our paving. And that's a huge complaint, but that's an expensive thing. To fund, but it's also kind of one of those issues that the public talks about. And their expectation is that's a pretty basic city service. So those are unfortunately how we can add to the budget. But I do think it needs to be in the conversation. And if we can't, then we need to lay that out for the public. It says, okay, you wanted X. The only way we can do that is to add Y, and that means a tax increase. So help us balance this. Tell us what it is you really, really want, and then don't complain with the decision. Ha, ha, ha. But anyway, but those are two areas that I think have been issues for the city, always. Useful, thank you. Thank you. That's enough, okay. All right, great. Well, thank you. So item 18, those are reports from counselors on committee assignments. Attention, busing. Did you have a? The GMT meets tomorrow. I'm very optimistic on our progress with our labor relations. Okay. Well, I'll give a brief airport commission meeting. So you all know that we have a interim that will continue going into the future. The mayor was at the meeting. He was not. Like a commission meeting? Yes, our commission meeting. He recognized that there really was need for some changes. He offered support to the staff at the airport. Was this after the six hour meeting at the city council at the time? Yes, this was after the termination. The 11 to one vote. Yeah, yeah. And he also said I'm not going to a big national search right now. I'm pretty comfortable with Nick Longo. So we're gonna keep going along that path, although they need to hire someone else because Nick was director of operations and he can't do both. I have a fair amount of confidence in Nick as well. So I think that's probably good. We had a really fascinating presentation on the USDA wildlife biologist and technician, which is a jointly funded project with the guard. And after the miracle on the Hudson, with that crash, the FAA along with the USDA said all these airports are gonna have full-time biologists who deal with mostly birds, but not only birds, those are the big problems for planes. And it was just fascinating to hear what they do and how they take them to other places and do brush cutting so there aren't places where the birds can like to be near the runways and so forth. So that was kind of interesting. I did mention to Maro that I thought that we needed some, either the commission needed to have a real peace in helping evaluate future directors or something needed to give. And that I thought that the staff apparently didn't feel like there was a system where they could share with anyone. I mean, no one ever came up to me as a commission member and said, you know, this is a problem, pretty much. I mean, you had an interlude and I knew about that. But, you know, so they need that. And he acknowledged that and he felt that they'll try to work on that. I mean, this is a little wishy-washy frankly. Yes, I mean, he really didn't have a good answer because it was clear that even his own counsel said, there's a lot going on with the directors. And Maro's answer was, well, Burlington has a design where all the directors really have a lot of autonomy. So there isn't that kind of oversight that I presume you have with your directors.  Which is, I think as he's learned that that might be a problem. We need to do some other things. They still have a lot of American Rescue Plan Act money. Oh, and then the really good news. So that's good for their solvency. The whole noise issue. Two of the stations will be ready to provide access to the public real-time access mid-October. And, Your website? Yeah, yeah. And you literally will be able to determine the time of the noise and exactly what planes are flying. So you can link them. The bad news is that data will not be added to noise exposure maps. That's another process. But this will certainly allow the public to check. What was that noise? Who was flying? And then you can, and the airport will know that. So, you know, that's a positive development. And it soon will be kind of an incredible amount of information because it's military and commercial jets. It's all of them. Oh, yeah. The military is going to give the information about when they're flying. Well, they have these monitors and you don't turn them off when the military. So the noise is, oh, that was the military plane. They don't tell us ahead of time. Well, no, I'm saying you can ascertain that if you hear it and you go on the site and see this spike. But is there another set of data underneath that says, you know, Flight 437 United Airlines? Yes. And then is it going to be a nothing there for an F-35 flight? Well, that I don't know because they're trying it out. You'll have to, you'll have to. They all have tail numbers. Queue in, but apparently you will. Okay, they don't tell you when they're going to fly, but somehow you know when they do. Well, yeah, no kidding. So it was a good meeting and we'll move ahead. So that's my report. There's no other committee? No, none down there. So is there any other business? None. Rosanne wanted to talk about the trees in front of her house. Were we going to talk about that now? Oh, that's right.  Is that what she's asking for? Yeah. She wants to treat it with pesticide. One to three trees, one to three trees. One on her property and two with neighbors. I feel like she should go through DPW on this. She really talked to Justin. Well, yeah, okay. Yes, Jessie. I feel like if this is something you are interested in us exploring, we should bring you a recommendation from both Public Works and Legal. I think if we're gonna do this, there should also be some kind of, she assumes liability if they. Of course. If they, if something were to happen. Well, there could be several choices we have. One is that we take no action, right? And second is that we delay cutting of those trees but don't allow her to treat them. Or we allow her to treat them and we don't cut them. You know what I'm saying is. Right, several. So the easiest thing we can do is just delay the cutting period, right? And then say, but please don't treat them because there are trees right now. I mean, their city trees are owned by the city, so. But Justin can have a recommendation on that. Right, right. I agree with Tim. Okay. Amenable. Is everyone amenable to that? Yeah. Okay. Well, I read it. Stop cutting all the ash trees, please. Okay, is there any other business? No, all right. Motion to adjourn. No, no, we have to wait till 10.05 because. Oh, I'm sorry. Have a long. Hi. Hi. I was wondering who will be doing the next counselor corner. Oh. October. Tim Barrett is October. And then followed by, is it Megan? I didn't know I'm doing December. I'm November, yep. So Megan is November and I'm December. Okay, thank you. You're welcome. Okay, motion to adjourn.


So the clay court season well underway and the ATP finally getting a big trophy to play for on the clay courts in Europe Monte Carlo Masters the only tournament actually on this week I made some big changes to the men's ranking no changes to the women's because they actually didn't play only Billy Jean King Cup And of course that's not worth any points. Let's go have a look at who won the Monte Carlo Masters this year So only the one tournament this week and it was the Monte Carlo Masters and rubblev finally winning his first Masters 1000 title beating Holger Runa in a three set of five seven six two seven five to lift the biggest trophy of his career and Really put himself in the group of Masters one thousand champions and maybe potentially Slam champions people are gonna take him a lot more serious now actually came back from four one down in that final set So great for rubblev getting the biggest trophy of his career Let's start off with the players that outside the top ten have done well this week and gone up in the rankings Starting with LeHecke he's gone up six spots the number 36 in the world That's a career high for him after having another solid week this week making the third round of Monte Carlo Jerry he's also gone up the rankings seven spots into number 51 in the world after another solid week on the clay and Strouf he's gone up 36 spots to number 64 in the world after making the quarter finals of Monte Carlo So the players they're having a good week on the clay getting a boost in the ranks Players that have gone down on the rankings this week real to meet you off He's got down six spots number 31 in the world After failing to defend the semi-final points he made at Monte Carlo last year David Owens Fakina also dropping down 14 spots number 38 in the world after losing in the first round losing all the points from last Year's finals appearance in Monte Carlo Diego Schwartzman. He's gone down 11 spots number 48 in the world Also losing points from Monte Carlo last year So a couple of guys there losing really early in Monte Carlo not even getting a chance to defend any of their points Okay, let's start with the WTA rankings now and there is no change with the ladies playing the Billie Jean King Cup Which is worth no points. So going into Stuttgart this week This is what the rankings look like Shriantek stays at number one with Sabalenka going in two Pagula at three Jabir at four Garcia at number five Coco goff is six we're back in her at seven Kazakina at eight Zachary at nine and Kovitava rounds out the top ten for this week And the only player that is not playing in Stuttgart this week from the top ten is Pagula So nine of those players will be competing next week Expect some changes also Shriantek and Sabalenka are the defending finalists from Stuttgart So potentially there could be some movement at the top in terms of ranking points next week The race the finals also no movement this week after the players basically had a week off with the Billie Jean King Cup happening Sabalenka still at number one with Rabakina at number two, Pagula at three which Shriantek at four Benchanted at five, Kovitava at six, Kovitava at number seven Goff at number eight, Azarenka at nine and Lynette rounds out the top ten for this week But like I said, with Stuttgart next week worth a lot of points on the WTA We could see some real movement in the race of the finals as well jumping over to the ATP rankings now And of course with Monte Carlo ending there are a few changes to the rankings Djokovic though stays at number one despite not playing great in Monte Carlo with Elkira staying at number two But Stefano Siddi pass he's dropped down two spots after losing in the quarter finals of Monte Carlo Losing a lot of points after winning the title last year allowing Rude and Mephadev to go up to number three and four spots So Stef really struggling the last couple of months to get points and keep his ranking in that top three Rubelev after winning his first Master 1000 doesn't actually move up the rankings Just adds a lot of points to his ranking closing the gap between him and Siddi pass at number six We've got a change in the bottom with Felix Ojalia seem going down two spots after missing Monte Carlo Allowing Holger Runa to go up two spots making the final Monte Carlo getting to a career high number seven in the world And Yannick Sinner is in the middle there at number eight So Runa at seven Sinner and eight Felix at nine and Taylor Fritz He rounds out the top ten for this week also making the semi-finals Monte Carlo But doesn't change in the rankings going over to the race of the finals now and we've got some serious movements here Daniel Mephadev he stays at number one with Novak Djokovic number two Yannick Sinner He goes up to number three with Carlos Elkira's down to number four after Elkira's didn't play Monte Carlo and Sinner made it to the semi-finals and another change into the middle as well with Rubelev going up seven spots To number five in the race of the finals after winning Monte Carlo pushing Siddi pass down to number six Fritz down number seven Hashinov goes up one spot in that mix as well to number eight pushing Paul down to number nine Nori goes down two spots number ten and Tiafo drops out of the top ten completely after missing this week in Monte Carlo So it just shows when there's a big tournament on worth a lot of points and you don't play You're a chance of dropping down the rankings if the guys around you do well So a big change in the rankings there especially with Rubelev getting that win So you have it they are the rankings after Monte Carlo and like I said, we don't have the WTA this week So no changes there, but Stuttgart is huge and of course Madrid and Rome both for the ATP in the WTA Massive coming up in the next couple weeks. Let me know down in the comments below What's been the biggest surprise for you this week? Is it the fact that Rubelev finally won a big trophy? Remember there were some big names playing in Monte Carlo as well It wasn't like we didn't have everyone playing, you know, we did have Djokovic there We had Sinti pass the two-time champion Medvedev was there, Zverev was there, Runa of course, Sinner as well And at the end it was Rubelev who was the one who held the trophy I don't think it was expected so great to see that and he's got a massive boost in the ranks there Especially the race to the final. He's been an ATB finalist the last few years But let me know down in the comments below What are you most excited to see maybe in the next couple weeks and what's been the biggest surprise for you this week?