Okay, thank you mayor for recording Virtual area virtual plot That I'm flirt are we recording yes, sir. All right. I'd like to call this work session meeting of the Jonskrystee Council to order this Tuesday, May 28th 24 at 5 o' 5 o'clock Perfect. Could you please leave the pledge? I believe that's too late. I mean, I just think America, to your public, which is the most important, you guys will liberty and justice. Mayor Schermarks. Thank you. The first item under on-going projects is the budget policy updates, and we have director Campbell for presentation Mr. Mayor members of council This budget policy has been discussed in multiple work sessions Starting in January April and most recently May 6th Consensus was reached on a targeted reserve floor and a ceiling as well as a strategy to build a capital reserve fund. The May 6th World Session, namely focused on the use of property tax military stabilization, and then there was a proposal that was put forth not using the PTM forecast until a certain level of capital reserves was met. It was mentioned, but did not reach full consensus, so that is the remaining item that we're asking for feedback on tonight. The proposal was red line in the attached version of the budget policy on page 5. Section 2G. Several council members asked for time to review this, so we're bringing back again tonight and would like to give further direction so that I can package this a final revision to the policy for your review and adoption of future review. That I can put comments and wish you have a good question. All right, so I think we've got everything buddened up except for the Property Tax Stabilization Fund. Stacey, I know that you send an email sometimes after this whole about 30 minutes ago. But I don't know where we are at this point as a group on that item. But do you want to talk about your email that you send? So yes. And I can read it in case anybody didn't get to get it read, yes. The use of the property tax rate and milligrate stabilization fund should be considered as part of the adoption of the milligrate for the closeout of the current fiscal year rather than during the budget preparation that looks ahead at the future fiscal year projections. The use of the PTRMS funds is only appropriate if an increase to the current fiscal year military is being considered. Not when the military is being held study or rolled back. And thank you Erin for clarifying me. We're getting much better. So I would hope that being supported like I kind of took what Ronnie had suggested and what my ultimate goal is for just to make sure he's used in that way. You're upon? No, the previous console, they had the bucket for a reason to just use it to offset any difference, like increasing the, basically like a military rollback is not really an increase, like it's, it's basically we are stabilizing it at the flat rate. So this bucket, we only get to fund this bucket from the surplus, if we have the surplus, and even if we have a surplus, it's only 10% of it goes into that. Even at that it's up to the council to decide would we put all the surplus. I think last year we put all the surplus towards the capital project. So it's up to the council to decide on how we're going to use the surplus funds to go into the any of those buckets or put a whole thing towards the capital product. So I would say like if that bucket exists, we have to use it for the reason it was set up to set any like a delta in the tax. All right, I think we know where you are, Stacy. Chris. So we have three microphone, three different proposals, correct, to automatically apply it no matter what. Aaron's proposal. Which isn't really identifying the fund specifically. It's more about the reserve policy, but it affects the fund, but it's not. You're usage of the fund. Your proposal doesn't talk about the bucket. It talks about in general rollback. Yes, in the reserve policy, it just has, sorry, to interrupt, but it has the, to just clarify, it has the practical effect of affecting the fund in that we wouldn't access it until such time. So it leaves it open. So honestly, Stacey's policy proposal in mind are actually not incompatible. But we don't have to adopt both or we could adopt one or the other or neither. Could you all just marry those two together and put it to bed? Would you support that? No, but I don't see more votes for that. So. Is that's what I thought we're trying to achieve here. I think we're splitting hairs. I think my goal was that we wouldn't reach a group decision. I've been pretty firm that she just be applied. It is kind of a floating exemption or a floating, similar to a floating homestead exemption every year if we have a surplus. I think our surpluses will. He's pretty much shrinking. Yeah, so I think at this point. I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I politicians, I think it should just automatically be applied. I'm sorry. So at this point, I won't say I'm suffering from attrition on this issue, but I feel like we've beat this to death and if we can just build four people on the policy, it is a policy that we could change it up at some point, but I would like to retain the original spirit of when it was passed and have it applied automatically every year. So I'm not changing. I'm saying from where it was. I support both the language of the state's Red as well as the language that's in our red line. Like I said, I don't think that they're incompatible. They have two separate goals, and they do affect each other, but I would support both. If there's not consensus to support the language that I presented that's in the memo, then, and if there's only support for Stacey's proposal, then I'd go with that, and that's fine. So a couple of things. One, Bob and Larry. If I may weigh in. Oh, that's not not able to hear you. If I may weigh in, can you hear me? Yeah, I know I can tell it's Bob. I just can't hear you. Yeah, okay. Sorry for the poor idea I am in the car. I believe that we don't have to redefine what is PTRMS. We just need to institute this Godrails which define when this fund can be utilized. So therefore I think this goes towards that as we said it should not be somebody's description which said it should not be somebody's discretion, but it should be some kind of automation when this fund be used or not used in certain conditions. That is what we are defining. And I think that's what I read from Stacey's proposal. Thank you. Well, and Bob, to your point about automation, I would support automation, you know, if that's a concern, but I would agree with the way Chris Kaufland is defining it or outlining it. The other thing I wanted to say is just forgive me, I want to make sure because I can't see you so out of sight, out of mind, you're going to have to maybe at times remind me to make sure that you're called upon. But the other thing is because of the late proposal, if we can't find consensus, I just want to set expectations that like we don't necessarily have to hammer this out I just want to set expectations that like we don't necessarily have to hammer this out and spend all of our work session on this. Let's keep to our 30 minutes. So we can get to the other items on the agenda. I think Larry's also on. So, yes. So guys, can you hear me? Well, barely. Just barely. Jason, I don't know if you can do anything to help us. Okay, so I'm going to try to speak up a little bit. So I appreciate you guys. Let me chime in your virtual. So I can hear you at all. Go on through this. Go on through this with Aaron's memos and Stacey's memos. And Chris, your sentiments are identical to mine. We're splitting hairs. I don't think anyone wants to increase the unassigned flood balance and just hold on any to hold it. But I think putting guardrails as Stacey and Herod have tried to do here makes a lot of sense. I think we can find consensus. I think we can move forward with this. they are separate they move to control separately. There is I think the spirit is very similar to what we're trying to do. So I would be in favor of states or errands proposal but I think combining them makes a lot of sense right now. Larry do you have any concerns? I mean the way I read states's proposal is it would basically, we would basically be saying that, you know, we're going to be committing to ourselves to a back to our tax increase. I mean, is that really what you're intending? No, absolutely not. I don't want to increase any taxes. But I guess my point is if we're meeting our objectives at the floor of 25%, we're already committing 5% to the capital budget. If in fact we have stir pluses out there, then I would rather go ahead and potentially put more money towards the capital budgets and then whatever is left over from there, we would go ahead and do a potential rollback. But I don't want to use, I don't want to pull money out of the military stabilization just to do a rollback unless and less we have funded all our needs and that we're moving forward with the stabilization of the capital budget as well as the military we're meeting all the objectives that we're talking about then I'm all about rolling the military back but I think we have to meet some of these criteria first. I think that's what State Seed and Aaron were trying to do with the guardrails. Well, no. Like, how is that a back door tax increase, though? I guess I'm not understanding. Well, so I mean, if it's making it harder for us to get to rollback, I mean, anything above the rollback is a tax increase. Well, no, you could still rollback without tapping into this. This doesn't prevent a rollback by any means. This just means use it when you're setting the milledrate. Don't use it to balance the budget. I mean, I will grant you that. But why would we not want to tap into it when that's what it was set up for? I mean, the way I read it, and this is, I'm not trying to sabotage your, your, I do disagree with it in principle, but technically, the way I read it, granted just, just briefly earlier, is it makes it sound like we're basically never going to be able to tap into it. No, it just, so how the intent is to tap into it when needed to prevent us from having to increase the military. That's when you would tap into it. But if you do it to balance the budget, then what else can we do it for? You could do it for anything then. So that's why I was trying to make it very, put the parameters up so that it would be used. It's very silly. We're using it to reconcile the budget, then the budget did just probably not align or where it needs to be probably needs to be trimmed back a little bit because we shouldn't use it to reconcile. And tax money is being used to tax money is being used to fund the stabilization fund that we're rolling back it It's just, it's an illusion. It's the same bucket of money that's just being cycled year after year, and it's like, get lost, your money is paying for next year's rollback. And it's just perpetual and it's not real. And that's what I would rather that we put that money to use to accomplish our goals as a council. And I would disagree just a little bit about the idea of being an illusion because so like right now there's a million dollars sitting there. And so that million dollars is real money that was pulled from the taxpayers. Yes. Yes. Yes. And so we're not doing anything to use it to hopefully help stave off asking more of the tax payers. I mean, that money does sit there. It does sit there and would be used at the time that we would be mulling over a potential tax increase because it would be necessary at that time. But yeah, I think part of the problem is we have a disagreement in terms. We definitely do. I'd like to finish this thought. So anything above the rollback? I think so to do all the approval funds. Is it an increase in revenue generated by the city? Is not an increase in taxes on the individual? I think that that's not. You can't. Through your point, John, my. Say that for the average. How much? I think that it makes it not predictable. I can't hear. I can't hear. I can't hear. I can't hear. I can't hear. I can't hear. I can't hear. I can't hear. I can't hear. I can't loud. I'm sorry, in Dilabak, I kept going. No, no, the property tax middle age rate stabilization. We said the property tax. If you just said the middle age stabilization, probably like what Stacy proposed would make sense. But we said property tax too. So which means like the rollback. It is a property taxing. Like. So, which means like the rollback? It means the probability taxing, like... I mean, I would like to think that at least on terms we could agree that anything that we set in terms of the milledrate above the rollback rate is, in fact, a tax increase. My taxes have gone down or stayed steady over the years. I've told you this. I know. It's average. I know. I know. It's average I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. in my four years on with this body. And I feel this is just a very reasonable way to look at this fund and to the taxpayers' dollars. And I think we have a consensus of four. I think I heard Larry Bob Stacy in myself. I'll say we agree with the language Stacy read out. So it sounds like you're right on the last point. I feel like I've said a lot of pearls of wisdom today. Well, I don't agree. You've got to find the oyster perhaps, but it sounds like there's consensus among the foray ought to merge your version and stasis version into one thing. I don't think they're incompatible, but they actually are two very separate things. And so I think we'll just use for clarity that it implies a layer of Bob object if this is not right. The language is just AC right out. We can just strike mine in the event that I manage to get more support for it in the future. I'll bring it back. So I don't care about that. I think it all makes it falls in line. So how would it operate? What would be the catalysts under the new version of, like, I guess, director Campbell, how would you foresee under Stacey's language? Would it be anything above the previous fiscal years, like if we ever had a military increase at that point, the funds would go where? I know you were directing that to Director Campbell, but if I could just clarify, it states that the Stabilization Fund would be accessed at the time of setting the military in August. So we are ending the fiscal year. We are realizing not only do we not have a surplus, we might actually be in a bad place. We would actually have to raise the military. Because when we pass the military, I know you know this, but for the benefit of everyone watching at home, we are funding the year that we are nine months into at that point, more than that, ten, eleven months into. And so we would realize, oh, we're going to have a gap. We're not going to make it through unless we raise the military. And that would be revenue at which point. Yeah, at which point we would say, okay, we're going to set a military instead of a 3.986. We're going to do a 3.5, whatever, and we'll use that property tax stabilization fund to close that gap. Director Seal, remind me what the rate is today. What is our milled rate? 6.646, I do believe. 6.646. So the way I understand it is that despite whatever happens with assessments and valuations, as long as a council kept that rate steady for the next 10 or 15 years under this policy that money in the stabilization fund would never be tapped into. That's the language that we put on this. So what would the, what would be the, what would that money serve? What would it the, what would it, what would that money serve? Like what would it be doing? It would be there in the event we have to increase the military. We can't foresee the future and I think the whole point, we were always trying to be conservative and we don't want to ever have to increase the military. So- And we're allocating the surplus is every year so we're not replenishing that money. the milledrate. So, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, codifying our intention to have a tax increase always, that I can't support. We can always roll back if we choose to roll back. This will not, if we had a good year at the end of the year in August, and we're like, wow, that fiscal year was great, we can roll back. Yeah, so the reason I wouldn't support it, I would rather us eliminate it and put it to capital projects, because you could utilize it by just throwing a 1,000th increase from the state rate to Potentially tap into it. I was agree with that if we bring it down to zero Bring down to zero and then just get rid of it. Yeah, but to reassign the money to something else other than what it was taken for, I can't support. If you go back to what, like on the word base, like once we hit the floor, we can use it. That was my proposal, which I don't know if that has the support of the body. So that's a different, that's different. That's a different thing. Because like write in the now language what is the delta Ronnie like 2.3 million between the floor and what we have 15.5 so 19.5 is a floor right? So we're looking at in a practicality probably three years before it would even be activated Please up to us the Chris like if you have a, if you want to put all the self-police towards it, that thing that vehicle will catch up in a year or two. So, if I remember correctly, it's something like 2.3 or 2.5 delta between the floor and what we have currently. So this doesn't, yeah, this doesn't take away anyone's rights or powers as council people to make any decisions. It's just trying to more clarify our intent. I very clearly understand where the two of you are. We served on the same body. I should go back and talk to some of the other council members and see what did they think. Because I know I did not think what you all were thinking. Maybe I was in the minority, maybe I was not. But we clearly didn't have an alignment of purpose and clarity when we propose this surplus, not this surplus, this. Well, it was a surplus policy that broke up and put it into the stabilization fund. So all we're doing is saying more clearly what we want that fund to be used for. It's still rollback, you can still roll. So- Or build a budget on a rollback. No need to beat the horse anymore. I think everyone's laid out their positions pretty clearly and So, no need to beat the horse anymore. I think everyone's laid out their positions pretty clearly and I think you're right there for that support. The language that Miss Skinner has put forward. And so, Ronnie, does that give you enough direction that you can package that up for, I guess, a council meeting. Yes, I can take the consideration. Verbiage, I inserted into the budget policy, do a red line version and bring it forward for review and adoption. One question, Ronnie. Earlier you had a war beje in a prior meeting, like a two consecutive quarters of recession, it could use it. So I know if it's up to your to you if you want to use that. Right, like Mario said, we can never use it. Like even in case of- We don't know that because we don't know what the future holds. It may very well be that we come in under budget this year and have to tap in to it in order to balance the budget of the year. We don't know. Either way, yes. Any other comments? All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Was that new business or consent? I would definitely think new business. I'm just guessing. That's what just wanted to make sure. I know it this. business. I'm just guessing. That's what I just wanted to make sure. Thank you. I'm doing this. Yeah. All right. I think next item. Thank you. The next item is emergency medical services, the AMR contract. We have chief coons for presentation this evening. You're great. We're going great on time. Beautiful. Good evening, Mr. Mayor and City Council. Thanks for having me here this evening. I want to give you a quick rundown what we have so far. I hope you had an opportunity to read the memo about this particular topic. After several years of meetings, leadership changes, a pandemic, and having negotiations, I am proud to announce we are around in the corner on an emergency medical services service level agreement for ambulance transport. As we discussed briefly back in March, EMS is a complex system which requires collaboration to be successful. complex system which requires collaboration to be successful. The five North Fulton cities and fire departments and AMR, which is American Medical Response, our current ambulance company, have closely studied our current service level delivery model with the intent of providing top shelf service in the future. To maintain this high level of service that our citizens deserve and demand, there's a need for the cities to subsidize the ambulance provider financially. Government subsidizing a private ambulance service to ensure response time parameters are achieved, appropriate standards of care are followed, and the number of ambulances in service at any moment in time is not a novel approach. As mentioned in the memo, you each have. There are several examples of other municipalities or counties outlined that already subsidized ambulance transport service. Additionally, if the ambulance provider fails to comply with the agreed upon performance standards, there is an avenue to pursue liquidated damages. So what does the city get for the subsidy? We get paramedic staffing requirements or we get to set the paramedic staffing requirements for the ambulances. 12 minute response times on significant through critical emergency medical calls. We also get the opportunity to outline and agree upon pre-identified exceptions to response times. There will be a third party QAQC process put in place, which would be in rock and some software, first watch software. There will be a dynamic priority post in plan put in place. And then currently the drafted agreement is in final review with the legal teams at each of our North Fulton cities and with AMR. The intent is to have the final contract for the city council to review in early June for consideration in the, or at the June 17, 2024 meeting. There are any questions? I am glad to answer them. Thank you, Mr. Kemberley, for making this happen. Having the SLA with 12 minutes and 20 minutes, it's like at least we can hold them accountable for actions. And also the capping of a yearly increase to 3%. Again, the way it looks like you thought through and covered every angle and every aspect of it. So great job. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, do you guys nice to see you? I think you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. You can nice to see you. I think you can really do. I do have some questions. So we're mandated by the state to have who they say we have. Correct. But now those people need subsidized by us. Correct. Okay. And we didn't pay anything, but now we're... That's right. It just, yeah. And the far past we did pay a subsidy was worth another ambulance service that this ambulance company acquired. At that time, they were unable to meet the previous ambulance service, were unable to meet those requirements. So the subsidy was then removed. Because we weren't getting what we paid for. And unfortunately at the time those that negotiated that had no liquidated damages as part of the contract so there was no way to remedy that or to, I guess, hold them accountable for what they should be doing. Are we prevented from bringing it in, House, or I know it would be more expensive, but just so I know we're prevented based on the law. That's right. Correct. Are there only certain providers in the state and? There are. And then, for instance, this company, particularly in particular, you know, they serve several areas within the state, but they're also a national company. And then there's others similarly situated. No, we don't get a choice. They have a choice. We don't get that choice. And what essentially what this is is, is for, you know, the state has very minimalized standards. And we want better standards. So in order to do that, we'll have two subsidized the service. Okay, and then you mentioned there were two different types of ambulances, like one for minor, one for I guess more serious. Do you have ambulance? Same ambulance, but different levels of service. Right, this is the only. Two separate actual vehicles, but it's the same company. So you've got advanced life support ambulance So you've got advanced life support ambulance. You've got basic life support ambulance. Do you ever? We want advanced life support ambulance with a paramedic, but there are instances where it's staffing or whatever we may have a basic life support, but less than 10% of the time. Do you ever find that if a call comes in and they think it's a minor emergency, the minor goes out, the minor ambulance, but then it's a major emergency and then do you have to wait on the major or do you make, go ahead and change the plan? No, no, because we've got paramedics in our fire department that are fantastic and we're well equipped. And if we have to, if we get in a pinch, that's an exaggeration. If we need to, our paramedic endure that person's equipment gets onto that basic life support ambulance, which now becomes advanced life support ambulance, and then we will go along with them. As they are paramedic, if you will, for that. And that's an extreme rare instance of that occurring. It just doesn't happen often. Okay. Well, I thank you, answered. Thank you very much. Thank you. So well done. Especially, I'd love that you all fought on behalf of John Scree with the split waiting to have it on a use case perspective with the service call waiting rather than population. I know John's Creek, Ross, what would probably be paying extra, I believe. I just have questions about the, so the agreement. So hypothetically, if Mountain Park pulls out year two in the four successive one year terms, would we have to read and negotiate the like, or is this agreement exclusive for John's career? So once upon a time Mountain Park did have a seat at the table, now Ross will be a contract, covers their public safety for them, so they represent mountain parks. Okay. They're on their behalf. Well, bad hypothetical, didn't they? Okay. Sorry. So, if the laws well pulls out, would we have to renegotiate this? We will. Okay, I'm sure. All right. Yes, ma'am. So, like, would it make sense to sign a longer agreement or we don't believe it, like all parties are happy with the terms? I think we are pleased with the terms and I think that that gives all parties involved the ability to make adjustments if need be. I don't want to be tied into something if they're not meeting their end of the obligation. But I can't, three percent copies there so that's a good thing to put in there. How clear Raj will pull out that? By law we had to have? They can say they no longer wouldn't participate in the response time by down if you will, or the standard of care that we've agreed upon. And you know, several for the minimum, I suppose. This is all hypothetical obviously. Yes. You know, so I imagine they could, but I don't see that happening. So very likely. No, sir. No. Away. Then, would the liquidated damages the 5K to 30K per month penalty is that laddered based on response time like 85%. That's right. Yes. I think that, so is there any type of who determines the service call time mechanism? Like, is it AMR's data that represents that? There will be a third party involved, actually almost two third parties. We'll have Imrock involved as well as a software that we will all have access to which is Not the normal case, but we will now so in theory I could log in at any moment and see what their Their performance is so there's no need for a grievance or a redressal type. I think it'll be fairly cut and dry Okay, awesome. Well, well done. This looks great And the terms look favorable for residents of John's Creek. So well done. Thank you. Thank you both very much for, I know this was very comprehensive and thorough review and it was a lengthy document. I did have one small point. I brought up to interim city manager career and kind of to Chris's point is I was very happy to see the liquidated damages language in there. We had a little bit of redress if necessary. Hopefully we will never need it. I didn't see a very strong dispute resolution mechanism for it. Do you also need to manlet or do they have to respond? I'm not asking for an answer to this, but that was one thing you can talk to Ms. Grouff line about that, because that would be my one recommendation about in the event it was necessary, you know, two months in a row. They've, you know, how do you go about collecting that liquidated images? So that's all, but hopefully it's never necessary, hopefully that, yeah. Yeah. All right, thank you all. I really appreciate your time. Yeah, thank you. And I just want to reiterate, thank you, Chief Coons. I know that you've been working on this for a very long time. I know that you've provided a lot of leadership with the other municipalities, the other fire chiefs. Manager Greer, I appreciate, I know that you've provided leadership and advocacy for talent, with the same manager group. So thank you both of you. Very much. I can do it. Oh, and Larry and Bob, sorry. Yes. No problem, no problem. Cheap Coons, a really quick question here. On the ladder system here, the buy down to $12,000, sorry, the 12 minutes that we're buying down. That's an SLA that we're committing to the population. Are the tiers broken out, 1, 2, 3, or ABC, and is this the highest or best service level out there? Could there be an exposure, a liability exposure? If in fact, we didn't buy down the best liability or buy down rate possible. I'm certainly no attorney. I can't believe they bill, but I would say no. But I'll tell you the way we do business here in Johns Creek and other places to a mixed end is again, we offer advanced life support on the fire truck that gets there before the ambulance. So those advanced treatments, that paramedic, those treatments run to way while the ambulance is still on the way. So I'm proud to report as you guys have heard that our average response time for our fire departments right around six minutes and getting better every day, I might add. But so we're going to put a paramedic on the scene of that call within six minutes ish most all of the time. So as far as the ambulance, we've got a little time for them to get there. So I felt very strongly as do some of my friends that the 12-minute response time is reasonable for the ambulance. For the ambulance, we'll be there earlier so no one can come to us and say, well, I didn't receive treatment or transportation back to hospital within seven minutes or something like that. There's no exposure out there is what we're saying. Is that fair? I mean, how do we come up with, well, I guess, a question? I also got fair. I think it's hard to get somebody to hospital unless you're at their house within seven minutes. If that's what you're asking, if you're there when the call comes in. I don't know Larry. I feel like I'm talking to a higher power. And Larry, if you're in, that's like going to really mess with my worldview. But I think it should be noted that we are attempting to go above and beyond what the state mandates. So we're already trying to go for that brass ring of better and better care. Yes, and we do that on the fire department already and with our ambulance service. So every fire truck is not advanced life support on this plan, but they are here. Yeah, so yeah, it's a big big deal. It's huge. It's a big deal for our residents. We've got to recognize that as part of the system as a whole. Bob, so basic, what I'm hearing is'm hearing is that the standard level of service that's out there within the northern communities is going to be 12 minutes for transportation or for the AMR to be outside for transport, which in essence, we're establishing the best practices out there within our territory geographically. So, which closes the door and the potential liability saying, why did you give me better service? You know, I'm that whole thing. So, I understand that. I guess the final question, that 3% from an escalation perspective, are we going to potentially build a cruel for that every year? And because I think that will probably see that in a budget in a month or so. So I'll weigh in on that one. In your fiscal year 25 budget, when it makes it to council, you'll see that this expenditure is anticipated as part of the budget. We're showing it as an operational expense. But it is one that we will need to consider each year, and we will need to budget for each year. But we know what that number is ahead of time, because the contract has a formula that caps out the percentage increase is Councilman Coffle and Councilman Tunky mentioned in the remarks. It's fantastic. Great job both you guys. I negotiated in this contract. It is complex and thank you very much. Good job. Bob? Chief Coons and Assistant City Manager Ms. Greer. Both congratulations for looking at hammering out this deal. It was long time in coming. Chief Coons, I got to one question because most of my councilman already asked, why did we go for a yearly renewal of contract after the first contract expires in one year? What I was thinking was, is there any rational to that or to have a 40-a contract or five-year contract, then renewable every one year? So I'll chime in on that one. There's a clause within state law that says each contract must have a fiscal non-appropriation clause. So at the end of any fiscal year, the city could get out of the contract at any time, matching the needs of our partners in the other cities. We thought that it was best for all parties involved to have an annual contract that renews. The intent is to have an automatic renewal, so although it is a one year contract with four automatic renewals, rather than a five year contract, it's set up the same way. And the chief calls there was one sentence in the memo which you sent. I couldn't understand it. That was which you said it is your intent to not only be at the scene to provide the immediate necessary aid, but also take them to the hospital and see them they get the care. And then they're discharged. Is that all part of our responsibility? So I think the question is as far as if a basic life support aim was arrives on scene and then we supplement them with our paramedic. Is that the question, Mr. Ermerley? I think he's second very literally. There was that it is our intent to see that not only the the MGCFD or ambulance which comes there ensure that the care is immediate care is given also transport them to the hospital and also ensure they get proper care as well as see that they get their home and safe. So I was wondering why was that automatic? Yeah, so with the MROC, which will be another conversation down the road with MROC, there will be... we hope to have somewhat of a system in place to track patients and determine what the outcome was with that patient. There's really no system for that now. This is future. So quite honestly, many times after a patient leaves our care and has passed to the ambulance and transported on, many times we don't know what the outcome is as far as how long they were in the hospital. If they got well and discharged from the hospital or otherwise. So we hope to, as a system, all encompassing, try to get that type of system as a place as well. Now it would be an in-rock function. All right. Well, I think that's been a great update and fantastic. Oh. But, Council, I think we're, are you good? All right, thank you. Glad you could make it. Next item. Thank you. The next item is a council initiative. This is a potential agenda process adjustment. This is council member Erimellis. Item. Put them on the spot. Time is everything. Sorry. One of the things which we pride ourselves, this particular council is the number of things we get done and we do have good things to show for the city, which means the council is doing a good job. I think now that the council has reduced the number of meetings to three gap, a gap increased to three weeks between two meetings, it's good that the staff has more time to prepare. I was thinking if we get two more additional days to do our own due diligence so that when time comes we are able to reach out, we do better prep ourselves. We also have this ability to reach out to other cities, take for instance if there's elections stuff going on. We can reach out, we can't be sure that they are free given our time crunch to do. So this gives us a little more leeway. Similarly, if you have to reach out to DOT, get some information from some other agency, we have a little more bandwidth. That was the intent of saying that let's prepone that day we get from Wednesday to Monday. I checked with Ron Bennett also that he said this city will try to accommodate whatever you guys think. That was the last from Dear folks. If you have any questions I'll answer them otherwise. I was joking at dinner that this is our eighth or my eighth time on the agenda process, which is fun. What I've learned in the past is that there's definitely preferences on council and word diverse and when we want the content, how it's delivered, all sorts of things. The only holdup that we've had in the past was the struggle for staff and coordinating the work and having the most up-to-date content for the agenda on the meeting. So long story short, is there staff buy-in on the different process? See the reason why when I made the suggestion was, if you were to continue with two weeks, they would have followed a schedule. Now they have a little more time to do their things. So we are kind of, when they get seven days, we're just getting two days out of it. That's the only intent. Let me ask a more direct way. What is the management's thought on what this item is about? So it's definitely a balance. It is very important on the staff level to make sure that we're giving council adequate time to prepare for the meetings. But it's also, I think one of the points that Councilman Erymeli brought up making sure that we are transparent about what those deadlines and those processes are, because it is a significant amount of work to gather all of the information and make sure that it's put out in a way, like the clerk's office has quite a process to navigate our software. So are we open to adjusting the process? Absolutely, but need to understand that there is clear consensus for making an adjustment. It is, there's a little bit of a work that goes on, okay, not a look. There is a significant amount of work that goes on behind the scenes. I think it would be given the process we have in place. We have really strong staff buy-in and consensus for, hey, every, all your materials are due on Friday. We hold counsel at same deadline when you have a council initiative. If it doesn't make the deadline, we push staff items to the following meeting. We push counsel initiatives to the following meeting. If we're looking to modify the process to go instead of pushing it out end of the day Wednesday to pushing it out end of the day Tuesday, that is something that internally, else and I have talked, that I- One day morning, the reason being, being at this point you have schedules. When you had two weeks scheduled, you folks were ready to meet that. Now you get seven more extra days to do that. So we're not, I don't think and actually as a matter of fact our meetings of council meetings have produced in time size two, so which means we are getting more things done because council is more prepared. So I think it's a happy medium in the sense of asking us to give four days before or three days before, you get bulk of that one week which we gained and two days for us. Councillor Member, I'm only... I would just disagree with. When I agree, we need a little bit more time. I would disagree with it being Monday morning because what that means is staff works on it all weekend. And I think it's very important for us to maintain and work life balance for our staff. So I would push... I would encourage staff to see if we could do it on Tuesday. It gets just on Tuesday. Maybe by late morning, early afternoon, maybe not five o'clock a little earlier in the day, I don't know if that's possible, but that would be my recommendation to modify your suggestion. I just think Monday is hard. We can't wait. Can we think of at least Monday evening so that we have one night extra? They will not be working night. Nothing is as long as it's not adding on to the staff's time, like additional time and effort. So what I'm trying to say is in when they had two weeks, they didn't manage to push all the agenda go through. Now because it was, it was not sustainable. I can, I can remember too many times it seemed like we were trying to hit up the bullet. Can I make a... Sure. Rather than trying to go what she's saying or what you're saying, is it possible that we give direction to the staff for them to come back to us with their proposal? See, unless we suggest what is good for us to, see last year in a very good spirit, we all agreed, hey, let's move from two weeks to three weeks primarily because that we tend to tackle lot more subjects instead of you know biting small chunks. So the point is if you are going to do more, we also need more prep time. So that's the idea. So I can fully live with it if we say Monday evening or whatever time and let's see this they can achieve that. But again if we are getting two days we should even think about the resistance like we're giving them on Friday. That's exactly where I was going to stay on having a fight. Instead of like Friday we should give them on Thursday. So that would, so again, I don't know if it's to mayor's point. Let's see if what stuff comes back. But if we are asking for time for ourselves, we should look at from the residence point of view and say, OK, because they're getting on Friday. If they have to come back and attend a meeting on Monday, that's, but here is what. you know, all are said and done. We've got a good concern. The residence input is mostly reading and appraising. For us, it involves fair amount of research in many topics. So while I understand that residents could use a little extra time, we can, but we definitely need more takes extra time. No, it's where I'm going. I'm fine with the existing time, because I'm able to adjust it and work on it. But if everyone else is on on board, I'm fine with it. But right now I'm fine with the current schedule, but if it helps everyone else, like I'm good with it, but we should give an extra day. If we are looking for ourselves, the reason is not just preparation. If the resident wants to come to the meeting, on Monday meeting, if they get to know on Friday, it's hard for them to go back and talk to the resident. Or if they want to do some research, maybe they want to call us or staff. Again, it's the same thing that we are looking at like, okay, we need to call the other city. So residents have to do the same research. So I'm just a thought like. So, so let's just go around the room. Where are you? Where do you come down to this? Currently, I can. I'm fine with the way it is. But if it's convenient for all the first of the council members, I'm willing to work with it, but I need to hear from the staff, without disrupting their adding additional time and efforts. All right, I'll see you from the station. Yeah, so for me, I feel like I'm emailing you guys all weekend and then you're rushed to answer my questions on Monday, so it makes it super chaotic. So I, but I also share Aryans concerned about I don't want you guys working all weekend. So maybe, I don't know, you don't want to hear this mayor coming up with alternatives, but Monday at five to me seems. Monday at five is. It just bump everything up two days and then give it to the public by Wednesday or Thursday because yes, I have been hearing from them as well that they're not getting it in time because nobody wants, especially a holiday weekend, nobody's gonna take time to look at it. And we wanna keep them informed and everything. So yeah, Monday by five I think is extremely reasonable. That's, what I would ask. We're under place. Chris. I'm indifferent if it makes life better for the public and council and staff. Can accommodate it and it it cause any issues? I'm at a state of life where I read agendas on week and evenings, because there's not much to go out at this point. So whatever works, if it's better for the public and council. Are you have a hard date or do you ask for staff to come back? I would look for staff's preference on that, on their recommendation, and make sure it aligns with what your expectations are. So. questions are. So here. I would like to hear staff say what they believe is possible. Thank you. I'd like to hear from the staff to hear what they believe might be possible. I remember when we brought this up a long time ago, one of the issues was just trying to keep things current because having to put things out for bid, the contracts get stale if they set out too long. So I know you guys have a lot of things to balance. If we could have it, I don't agree with Monday morning, but a little bit earlier would be great. If you can find a way to balance the things. With Monday 5 a.m. okay with you? It's up to staff whether they think that, because I'm not okay with it becoming a moving target where people are working on weekends to accomplish for us. Because I have to just disagree when you hit the seven days. It's not really seven days. It's why work days. So it's not really seven days. Additional time when we moved from two weeks to three weeks. We didn't change the agenda process when we added an extra week to work on the things that come out of meetings. We did not advance any of the agenda deadlines or give ourselves more time in the process. Your agenda process has remained consistent since this body took off. Tell me this, you're using the extra five days for preparation? No sir, to work on the follow-up items that come out of the meetings. Here from Larry. I think we all pretty much want to make sure this doesn't create an undue burden on staff. Yes, but having it earlier would make a whole lot more sense from our side as well. want to make sure this doesn't create an undue burden on staff. Yes. But having it earlier would make a whole lot more sense from our side as well as giving it to the public earlier. Delim, you took the word right up my mouth. I think it just makes sense that we be more transparent and give people time to plan so they can attend our Monday meetings. And if staff can accommodate Monday evening, wonderful worst case Tuesday morning, but I think if we have more time, we can do a better job of doing a research. Okay, I'm gonna be that to the Monday or Tuesday. So at a minimum, I think we've got a majority to ask for staff to come back and that will give everyone another bite at the apples. Does that give you enough to go on? Well, can I bring something else that while we're on this topic, is there any way we can discuss moving the meetings up a little bit, starting perhaps at like 4.30? Since we're typically this meeting may be an exception, but a little pressed for time with some of the issues. And I talked to Kimberly about it and she recommended I bring it up when we discuss this. We're every three weeks now we're climbing things in. Not getting to everything, which then will present a challenge to staff as well. I know that there have been times that we haven't been able to come to consensus, but typically we get everything. But again, it's... I think the last few weeks we've been a little rushed or less few meetings. Sometimes that's some extraneous conversation that may occur, but anyway. Maybe just 30 minutes to give us more discussion. I'm fine with that. Anyway. Maybe just 30 minutes to give us more discussion. I'm fine. You want to put it in initiative or you want to have a discussion? No, I just am proposing since it falls in line with this that we start work session at 4.30. Again, if you look at today, like we are way ahead of schedule. So some like that's what I was looking at. Like only one time we had to skip one item. So I don't know if we've been really pastful. No, I'm fine. If you have to start at 4.30, I am fine with the schedule, but is it really needed? Is what the question is? Well, I guess from what I was my side, I'm sorry if I jumped at someone. No, go ahead, Larry. I know it too. In the work session, we typically go around the room and give our penny to the subject. It's wonderful the way we're working through the work session here. But some of the subjects just need more time to discuss among ourselves back and forth because of different viewpoints. And there's been quite a few times that we're being, you know, we got to hurry up because we get to the next item. And if there's a way to even have it float, if we've got a busy agenda, maybe when the agenda comes out, we say, hey, can we go ahead and start half hour early? And if it's light agenda, we start at the normal time. Can't do that. It's just, it's gotta be published, right? We publish. For open meeting. I know. I know, I know. I just feel like as a body, we never get a real chance to really explore the topic in detail. And I think as the meetings are once every three weeks now, there's just more into the meetings and it seems like there's more that's being thrown out consent agendas and things like that. So. All right. Thank you. Larry. Thank you. Express your opinion. Yeah, I think I don't mind for the. I don't mind for. Just like I said, like if there's a need. Yeah, I think I don't mind for the big I don't mind for Just like I said like if there's a need Assuming that the three all were anyway I prefer we So I got a day job and on meeting days. It's only half hour I get with the kids at that hour. So I'd prefer if we're going to adjust it for more time. I would still keep the five o'clock, but revise the start time of the city council meeting to 730 if you all wanted to pursue that. But in the past we've rolled over items the City Council meeting for work discussion that does have staff implications because if someone was intending to discuss at a work session it obviously adds into their evening. But I know this is an obstative for we're comparing it with then but if I can go normative and compare it to past councils. Please, please. I think we're- Please go normative. Yeah, if we look at a reference point, we're making good time having discussion. And Council Member D. Biasi, the consent, we decide what goes to the consent agenda, generally speaking. But if there's something we want to pull off and discuss further, I just want us to be prepared to have those discussions because like the Millage Rate Stabilization Fund, not that I haven't had anything to opine on with new ideas, but we've been mulling that around. So that's really on us to get our thoughts and perspectives into that first meeting and be prepared to discuss it and finalize it then. So I am game to whatever you all want, but I would prefer not to go earlier than five. That would be a hard line with me. I've made some concessions on dates and things like that, but that would not be a complex. So Stacy, would it be okay if we just do the way the way you're doing in the sense, you know, we just roll up 15 minutes into a council meeting or something like that? It doesn't. That has to be advertised too. No, no, no. What I meant is, like, typically if you go beyond our 7 o'clock hardstop, we start the meeting at 7, 10 or 7, 15. Is that permitted or is that something we are violating something or? We notice some meetings at 7 o'clock. I understand. So it's, this means we're running light. Yeah. This means we're starting light. So should it be okay? Well that would be fine. I just don't want to limit our discussion in the last couple meetings. That's a very valid point that goes with the spirit of what I'm suggesting. Here. I don't support starting earlier than five now, but I think it is something to maybe be aware of over the next few meetings, and particularly when we, when do we schedule our next year's meeting in like August, September? It's usually when it comes up on the agenda. By then, let's like notice how we did through budget cycle and is this a recurring problem or how we kind of figured out an equilibrium. Maybe we just had a couple heavy meetings, maybe not. But at this point, I'm not ready to move to five if I'm kind of like five o'clock, but again, I don't want there to be a sense that we're not able to give everything a thorough vetting. As long as we're not repeating ourselves and we're not asking questions that really don't make a lot sense of people read the materials, then I'm open to doing something different. But I think we should all demand from ourselves that we be more prepared, better with our questions, really making our points, and us not circling the drain. Because I don't want to just be here unnecessarily debating beyond what is constructive. The right move you're seeing, like, keep it at five, but if needed, start 7.30 for the next years. If I may be so bold, maybe this is something we could monitor and kind of track the times on because if we're adjusting the agenda process to give you materials earlier, you'll have additional time to prepare and maybe some of your questions of each other, not group meetings outside of here, but individual questions you might want to ask a colleague or ask a staff member may make for more productive work session discussions. So, I've totally followed your point not trying to stifle discussion, but it may be that the agenda process modification gets to that same need, and it's certainly something we can peg that we will revisit when we set the agenda the cycle, or if you guys find two months from now, it's still not working. We adjusted early, If that's okay. To that point, and I'm not criticizing this because I know that I'm often my thinking sometimes it's not crystallized until kind of more of that cram crunch time before a meeting. But for the last two or three meetings, I think you were kind of looting this. We had some light breaking proposals, like two or three different meetings, and that's kind of been a curve ball that we were all like, what do we do with this? And we've gone past our time. So, you know, they're rooms for improvement, and we may have to, you know, if we can't settle everything decently, you know, then let's certainly adjust it. But anyway, all right, where does that leave us? All right. And what? All right. So can we go to the next item? Thank you mayor. The next item on the agenda is potential code amendment to allow bicycles on sidewalks. This is Councilmember Coughlin's item. Yes, Council. So this is in support of the our pursuits for multimodal, int interest city, transportation. And so just a little background, we allow bicycles and pedestrian access on how sidewalks to be 18 years of age and younger. I'm proposing that we let staff. So this is not, hey, a work session, the ordinance will be drafted to the City Council meeting. This is a permission to allow public works to vet this little further and determine allowing us to remove that age restriction to allow persons of any age to ride bicycles on the sidewalk. Obviously, it's going to mirror elements of the trail access where those on bicycles will have to yield to pedestrians. It does not have access for motorized so moped scooters, things of that nature would not have access to this is deemed bicycles only, but with your will, your permission, I'd love for staff to come back with an ordinance to allow us to discuss and potentially pass this change. It also would require legal because subsection C references trails and I don't know in terms of code if it'd be better to modify section D or combine it with subsection C. So with that, any questions? And there are bulleted points on rationale? Well, I'll just say that I think it would just be cleaner. I mean, I don't think we want to be in the business of carting someone riding a bike down the sidewalk. I mean, if anything, you would think an older person would be even more responsible using the bike on the sidewalk,. I don't see any problem with the person. Thank you, Chris. I definitely support that. Only question was like I was talking to Kimberley. Is there a way we could have a speed limit on the bikes like every 20 miles or 25 or some kind of a not like enforceable one, but at least some guidelines of OK, it's used both by the better strength and like even the bikes are there. So can really like and you and me we talked about it. So can you? Happy to explore and look into it. The challenges I brought up when we spoke earlier were if we're going to put it in the ordinance, we need to think through enforcement and signage. So it may be something that we can reach consensus on, not put in the ordinance as you can only go this set mile per hour because we would have to sign that and allow our police officers to enforce it, but maybe we could do an education campaign of how to ride safely on sidewalks and trails now that we allow users of all ages to do that. So we can, I think we may be able to get to the same place without having it as part of the code because if we put it in the code, it needs to be something that we could enforce and that we could. Again, it's initial work for the office. So I agree with you. So happy to work with the team to understand what other cities do. How do they handle this and how might we be able to handle it? If we don't necessarily want to put it in the code, what are our alternatives to get to that same result? Yeah. But great points. And maybe utilize our partnership with our schools. Right, we expect to be heavy users. Thank you. Stacy. Thank you. Originally, my only concern was the electric bikes, which could be referring to, which leads to referring to, but I don't know that it's a big enough deal to even explore at this time. Thank you very much. I will say this. I don't know that I agree with the idea of there being like a speed limit or a gun or a bike. But I think that we should as part of this make something very clear that if you are found to be your responsible in the use of your bike and causing an accident, it shouldn't be any different than if you're on a regular roadway and you cause us on accident. All right. The vehicles are vehicles under Georgia law, right? I'm looking at all the attorney. I think that that's why like most you have to actually adopt an ordinance saying that bikes can be written on sidewalks because they're considered a vehicle in their state wide or illegal to drive in a regulation. Exactly. Unless the city chooses to adopt an ordinance allowing a bike on a sidewalk. So I've got, sorry, I jumped in line. Go ahead. Bob. Yeah, my only thing is, if it's just a suggested speed, it's not enforceable. Firstly, thank you, Chris. As an average cyclist, I really welcome this. I always thought we should link Beachree with through John's Creek to Big Creek High Trail. And the thing which bothered me most with this ordinance earlier on was that high schoolers growing up high straighters bike to my school. That was not there. 18 years and older only could use the trails. Now this remains, removes it and I think it makes it a lot more sense. Now these guys might be writing because I see a lot of high schoolers with their headphones crossing the 141. Hopefully when they're on the cycles they don't do that. And this I think it's natural they won't do that because it's very tough to ride with headphones on. But I think it's a great effort to make this city bike friendly. And one thing which I wanted to suggest was Saturday morning if you see you got about this dozen people cycling in pairs? Do you expect them also to use this? All right. So, I mean, this is, it's hard for us to get data beyond empirical, like when Councilmember D. Biasi and I talked about bike lanes. But I see the predominant use case is someone like me, or like usually families that are riding with their children. It does not make sense for the parent or guardian to be displaced having to ride on the road while the children are on the sidewalk safely if something doesn't have a bike lane. So, I also think the predominant use case is those examples where we are modified from a trail and then we go down to a sidewalk size so it makes sense that the user continue on the offset from the road or whether it be trail or sidewalk. So the reason why I'm asking is? Old Alabama is one connected from Roswell to the John's Creek. So initially I was thinking about you know if it's Abbot's bridge or someplace you don't have much traffic there then you don't they will be largely self-regulated that only parents residents will be riding it but on a city street like 141, 120, so there you find all these organized bikers also riding it. So that's where my question is, can we, how do we say tell these guys to keep off? Can we suggest this is, these are not for dedicated bikers? Because every time you and me are writing, we always write in pairs. And I thought y'all had said that the dedicated bikers don't want to be on the side of the race. I thought you said that the dedicated, the real professional bikers, they want to be on the street. No, in absence of bike lanes, they may like to use this. So my point is, we are thinking of a contingency where they all get to that. So how do we avoid that? Can we think of somewhere we can say like you have these main root arteries versus feeder routes where I don't know what we call these gangs of 18 people who are riding in bikes. Less day also. So I can jump. Yeah, go ahead, Larry. I can jump in for a moment. I'm sorry, Bob. There's a slight delay here. So last week, I attended a seminar in Roswell about biking and bike-friendly communities. It was a two-day seminar extremely informative. And well, Chris, what we talked about, you're absolutely correct. The dedicated bikers do want to ride on the street. And because of the speed and it's more comfortable, the whole dynamics is the e-bikes, the e-bike electric bikes. They're categorized, one, two, three, if you will, and based on the speed and the distance and the travel, and they're exponentially increasing in sales. And the reason for this is because having an e-bike allows a lot more of the inclusion people that are handicapped and now actually have more access and more independence than was previously in the past by being confined to as far as I can pedal and some people may not be able to pedal. So the e-bike is exploding out here so the speeds are going to increase on the trails and paths. So we as a council need to understand that the dynamics are changing. But there are organizations out there that can help us get educated and become like friendly as a city, just like we're green friendly. And these organizations have tremendous resources. They're funded by the state of Georgia also. And they're willing to help us become a bike-friendly community. It workshops, all kinds of things. So while I think, I think this is a great step in the right directions, I think we're going to, we should go further with this, because it's coming our direction to one way or another. Roswell is becoming bike friendly. They're at Bronze statue, Beechery Corp. Brookhaven. A lot of the cities around us are moving this direction also. All right, so to get some resolution on this topic, can we just go around the horn quickly and say, do you approve or do you approve with retooling or other? I approve, as is. I approve. Just like Kimberley said, probably we should just on the social media somewhere, just bring out where it is that. Okay. Okay, Bob. I approve. Probably later on you can come up with an improved language. I have a lot of concerns. I absolutely appreciate the spirit of it, 100% support the spirit of it. I am just very concerned about the safety because we're dealing with people who are maybe not. I definitely do not, sorry, I'm jumping all over. I do not want to dedicate your cyclists on trails period. I don't want that. If we have bike lanes and also because those are people who are trained, and Larry, please, you know, object if I'm missing the boat here, but if we have bike lanes and these are people who are trained to ride in streets, I think the speeds and everything, it's just not safe when you have pedestrians, especially children on sidewalks. That being said, I absolutely support parents or maybe just the hobby cyclists that wants to go to get their milk, you know, and they don't have a professional bike or anything and they just want to be out and get some exercise on the trails. I just I don't I don't want police with a radar gun out there, but we need to think through the guardrails. I would like staff to spend some time with it to see if they have any suggestions of what to add. I mean, I'm fine with Chris's language, but I don't feel like it's comprehensive for the unforeseen circumstances if there were to be greater usage. Chris, am I correct? Your ask is not for us to pass any certain thing, but simply to pun it to the hands of the staff to come back to us with a proposal. That's what I thought it was, but then you said, do you want to approve as is or do you want to approve with whatever? Okay. I agree with this the spirit 100% of what Chris is presenting. I think that it's fantastic to get people outside. I think it's a silly thing in Georgia law that they don't allow bikes on sidewalks as a matter of course. But maybe that's just because it does within a Pandora's box. You have to think through this. Chris one thing which how to separate dedicated bikers from this casual bikers is to say no parallel driving. I mean see no parallel driving on this sidewalks. That's something which you can include always. Otherwise, there's no other way to say that. If I could err into your point real quick here, the green way, they do have speed limits of 15 miles an hour. They do have that. But I think as we go forward, someone that is peddling fast, let's say he's pushing it on the sidewalks or trails, he will naturally slow down because when you're close to bushes and trees there's all kinds of things that you're dealing with, everything from dogs, cats, squirrels, things that can come out and you naturally slow down. So I don't even think we need to police it. I think it will be self-policing. And because you're riding in a narrow area, the use of on a greenway people are yelling on your left to walkers on your left. So you pass on the left. There's a standard of communication. That's pretty much adopted out there. So I think we'll naturally be OK. All right. So it sounds like we've got consensus for the item to move forward to go to staff. You'll come back and anyone like Bob, Larry, anybody can go to staff with your more detailed thoughts. Yeah. And just a reminder, y'all, that we do allow this on trails currently. This is to the thinner sidewalk. So that was just clarification that this is essentially in practice to a degree now. It makes you feel even better. I mean, he was doing go-carts in downtown Tokyo. So, all right. Okay, next item. Thank you, Mayor. The next item is Creekside Park, renaming. I believe this is next item. Thank you, Mayor. The next item is Creekside Park, renaming. I believe this is your item. I'll keep it short and hopefully sweet that forever since Creekside Park and Colleague Creek Park have become a thing. I've had to kind of check myself to make sure that I'm saying the right double C words and just make sure that I'm using the right names. I think that Crixide Park is probably fine, but I'd be curious to see if maybe there might be a process that might engage the community in some way or the council and see if there's something that might be more special or unique or exciting that might give us a little bit more of a purely John's Creek identity that you know might have a little bit more possess. And so I'm not looking to come up with a name, simply kind of like what we just talked about with Chris's proposal. I'm just wanting to see would y'all direct staff to maybe come back to us with what is a potential process that they might recommend for us to do a second look at that name. Especially before the summer, we start looking at construction documents. Because I think they like to get a name and stick with a name once they start that. Okay, I'm good with that. Oh, and I'm good with that as well, especially involving the community. But I'm just curious, like, who ever named it Creexide? And when, because it was linear at first, right? And then, I mean.? And then I think the way Wall Street came about, right? There was a wall, there was a street, they called it Wall Street. There's a creek. It's a creek. But I do think the sooner they're there. And God, it's not called linear park anymore. Correct. Sooner the better, clearly because we don't want to fuse. We went further. All right, Bob. I concur. All right. Fantastic. Chris. I concur as well. All right. Eric. I think the name's fine. I think the name's fine, but I'd not have an objection if someone could come up with something more creative. All right. I think there's consensus to oh, and I'm sorry, Larry. I'm good with it. It sounds good. Why not? All right. Very good. All right. And obviously we got to keep that on so much short leash, but I think you're more aware of that than I am. So, all right. Very good. We do have a need for a brief executive session. Hey, Mayor, I move that we adjourn to executive session to discuss land legal and or personnel matter. Second. Does anybody have any discussion? Does anyone have any discussion? We are adjourned together. Good. Can you move on these three? Somebody give me this. I don't know if you can move on. So Larry, I'm going to leave this up. You can just mute your mic and mute your screen if you want. And I think they're going to call you for executive session. And then we'll just pick right back up at 7 o'clock for the council meeting. They're going to call you from the room, I believe. Yes. All right, thanks. They're going to call you from the room, I believe. Yes. All right, thanks. I'm just calling you. Oh, I was wondering how I'm inside of an area in the middle of the site. How would the name be sent out? Oh, you're really good. You don't need to do screen. I'm going to make something you've counted out. You've got to work in senior office. I'm going to cut hard to get what you're going I'm going to have a little bit of a spin. I'm going to have a little bit of a spin. I'm going to have a little bit of a spin. I'm going to have a little bit of a spin. I'm going to have a little bit of a spin. I'm going to have a little bit of a spin. I'm going to have a little bit of a spin. I'm going to have a in. I think that's it. I think that's it. I think I'm in that already at my home. That is good. Because I'll roll out about it seven. I know. How does that, it's not my skin for it. It's like it happens when you're just giving it that all the day. And that's it. Well, today's home is never be able to roll you in and out. Anyway. We've already had a I'm it. Do it. Oh, and then it has to go so bad. I'll get into it. Oh, come on, but these are all I had to end up. See, you do it at home, and not all of that. And you know, it doesn't have to happen. One John's pretty good. Yeah. Thank you. I just know it was coming here, but open your face, so now I'm going to put it in. Oh, you know how they held you up that side? That's like, it's warm. Oh, yes, I go. Yes, yes, she was in my dress. Yes, the lady didn't want that. Oh, she's so nice. Oh, my good. I'll put some of those. Yeah, I'll put some of those. Oh, it's not the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to make a first up. Oh, man. I'm going to put it on the table. I'm going to put it on the table. I'm going to put it on the table. I'm going to put it on the table. I'm going to put it on the table. I'm going to put it on the table. I'm going to put it on the table. I'm going to put it on the table. I'm going to put it on the table. I'm going to put it on the table. I'm going to put it on Yeah. I'm going to go to the next slide. All right. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the Thank you mayor. Thank you mayor. We just got down with the executive session. I like to make a motion. I move to adjourn from executive session. Second. All right. Thank you. Thank you for the second. Any discussion? Well, no. Nope. Seeing none, all those in favor of adjourning out of executive session? We handled one legal. You should be personally, I think. Legal? Yeah. Personnel, if you want to count that way. Thank you.