you you you you you 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. you you 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. you you you you you you you you you you Okay, well, it is 7 p.m. so we are going to go ahead and get started. Welcome everyone. who are first budget work session. Tonight's topic is going to be our CIP. For our new members, the way this usually works is we start with the staff presentation. Then you have the opportunity to ask questions usually throughout or you can wait till the end. And then you also have the opportunity to request any budget, memos, or additional information that you need. And we kind of go as long as it takes to get through the information. So with that, I will turn it over to author. Actually, I don't have anything other than, we're really looking forward to hearing your feedback on the CIP and I think Garth's got a really good presentation tonight to go through. Great, well thank you. Good evening, Mayor Gaskin's members of council. My name's Arthur Wix and with Office Management and Budget and oversee the Capital Improvement Program. Also with me at the table tonight, we've got Emily Baker, WC Manager and Julia Taylor who's also with the Budget Office and a CIP analyst, and of course Morgan route budget director. So for tonight for our agenda, we're going to do some level setting introduction. And then we'll get into the proposed CIP details and how it's performing on our debt management policies and then a few of the key investments and changes we're making. So we'll go over all that tonight. So, purpose of today's meeting, just to our why we're all here. Like the mayor said, to go over the city managers proposed fiscal 2026 through fiscal 2035, 10 year capital improvement program. That's a 10 year funding total of $22.08 billion in a year-one capital budget of $205.9 million. So just as a reminder, when council approves the capital improvement program, they're doing two things. They're one approving a year-one year capital budget, which will actually get appropriated and projects can kind of start being executed and spending. And then you're also approving a one year capital budget, which will actually get appropriated and projects can start being executed and spending. And then you're also approving a nine year plan to follow that year's two through 10 of what is our long term plan for projects and that might have a multi year aspect to them. So then we'll reassess that on a rolling basis and around the time next year, we'll talk about the fiscal 27 through 36 CIP and make changes as needed. We'll talk about the key changes of the CIP and then finally how we're doing, kind of what our financial position is relative to the proposed CIP. Key takeaways from tonight. What I would like you to take away from the presentation. Very similar previous years we are continuing to execute on our approved plan. So projects we've committed to in the past. Letting them march forward. Focused on maintaining our assets investments in state of good repair. City capital assets and continuing our commitment to the schools. Capital plan that we all approved in May. We did have to make some select investments and projects that are either kind of ongoing or kind of critical state of good repair programs that we'll discuss tonight, but we want to emphasize that we funded this through reprioritizing within the existing kind of city capital stat, just the city side. So there's no net new increase in long-term borrowing or debt, which is what we talked about quite a bit at the Council of Retreat, our pressures there. So speaking of the Council of Retreat, just sort of what's been going on in the capital land since we last spoke. At the Council retreat, we, you know, we talked at length about that we have a fairly large capital program and there are pressures both on its impact on the operating budget through cash capital and debt service, but also that we are nearing our sort of debt limit or debt capacity. It's pretty tight to execute the approved CIP. So we talked about that at the retreat, really sensor retreat, just a few things have happened. Of course, we received your budget guidance on November 26, which had instruction specific to the CIP. We received a school board, it's capital funding request on December 19th. On January 28th, I believe council spoke with departmental staff both about the waterfront flood mitigation project in the city hall, market square parking garage, renovation project kind of a kind of guidance briefing on where to go next with those. And then kind of also just in the background, we ink was still drying on the paper when we met at the retreat, but we finalized our bond issuance for calendar year 24 and kind of understand the implications of that now for kind of our long term forecasting of the CIP. Just a quick reminder, I don't want to belabor this, but just what was included in the city council's budget guidance related to the CIP and there are there's the main items there and the check boxes are next to them because our interpretations as we have followed the guidance included for the CIP. All right, so we're going to get into the numbers a bit now. On the right here, just some sort of high-level stats about what you already talked about the year one capital budget in the 10-year total cash capital general fund cash capital that comes from the general fund operating budget totals 30 and a half million general fund supported debt service for city city and school projects is total 105 million. But the two things really well three things emphasize on this slide one this proposed CIP is consistent with our long term borrowing plan that was in the previous crew CIP. There's no net new increase in debt over the over the 10 year planning horizon. So that's worth noting. We continue to have a very strong cash borrowing split in our how we're funding our capital program. So 46% of the CIP will be paid for with cash sources. Kind of rule of thumb and municipal financing is anything above 25% cash is considered extremely healthy. So good, good for us. And then of course, you hear us talk about this pretty much anytime. We talked about something financially, but we continue to have our AAA bond rating for our 30 second consecutive year. Okay, on the use aside, how we plan to spend the two point, invest the $2.08 billion. This is my chart. Do you mind if we just go back just wanted to emphasize there was a question at last night about what would happen if the bond rating were to move downward. And that's, I think our UK calculated, based on different assumptions of fairly conservative assumption, that was probably $30 million plus that would have to, would be added to cover a loss in our triple A. And then the other piece I just emphasized that one of the things that bond rating agencies really appreciated in the times we've been in front of them is the consistency of the council's approach on the fiscal policies. They look at that and if we can explain to them that we've tracked out over not just one or two years or recently we can track it over a long period of time regardless of of any changes that are happening, those were two really important things that Raiden A&C established that and then the final one was the level of cash capital that's placed into our CIP which is really significant. And one thing I should have said last night so I apologize and one of one of the council members pointed this out to me, should the council have additional funding availability in this year's budget due to a decision you might want to make? I didn't identify a bunch of line items because I thought the recommendation would make to you would be to put it to cash capital. So I apologize. I should have said that last night and to make sure that the council heard that I appreciate John you going out to me. So if there is an increase in revenue, I would suggest cash capital. That's particularly important as we look at those periods where you can see we're right up to the edge. I think there are some questions about that last night as well. Thank you, Mr. Manager. Before we go, Council Member, I'll maybe ask a question. Thank you, Madam. Do you mind just for your one, just tell me where the money's coming from, how much are we borrowing, and how much are we paying cash? Because I think this 46, 54 is for all 10 years, not just not for year one alone, right? That's correct. I can pull up the split for fiscal 26. It's not that far off the city. might have pulling that up. So where are that 205 million is coming from? I can tell you just about roughly half of it is from what we call city unrestricted sources. So that is direct general fund cash capital and GO bonds, long-term borrowing. So that makes up roughly half of it. At least a good portion of it. There's a good portion of grants in there too. If Julia doesn't mind pulling up the numbers, there we go. Dedicated revenue sources, 36 million, state and federal grants, 20 million. Yeah, that's kind of the big chunks there, but we can get you a more detailed listing of it. And it's also included in our sources and uses table in the CIP document. Sorry, sorry, did you just say this? Yeah, it's 44% cash source, 56% cash sources, 44% borrowing in fiscal 26. Yeah. Thank you. We have a question from Councilwoman Green. Yeah. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Just for clarification, with only funding year one, tell me how far in advance we go out in the market to borrow, specifically based on, I guess year two wouldn't change that much, but how far in advance will we go out to borrow for year one? And how does that affect the years after? Okay, so actually you're the answer to questions that was how far back do we look? So we borrow on a cash flow basis, which essentially is looking at projects we've already appropriated or would appropriate the proposed and what is your schedule? What have you, have there been any movement on the procurement process? How long would the construction duration be planning? All those are factors that go into it that we actually then map out. What we think is going to get spent in a given period of time that would be kind of covered by that next issue. And so as an example, the issuance we do probably later this year, probably the largest chunk of it is George Mason, which we actually appropriated the construction budget for in fiscal 25. But in talking with the PMs there and kind of knowing where they're at in the procurement process, we've come up with a pretty good estimate of what we think, like actual invoices out the door, checks that the city in schools will have to write to pay for that. So that's sort of how we're designing those issuances. Councilmember Chapman. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Just a quick question. You know, in like Fairfax County or some of the other counties, they do bond referendums and we'll have a school bond. Can you briefly talk about kind of the differences and how we do our bar versus kind of some of the counties? Yep. So because you are the elective body of an independent city, you are not required to do a bond referendum. So what you do in lieu of that is called a bond authorization ordinance. We introduce that at the same time that we do the appropriations ordinance for this. So we'll approve this budget April 30th. We'll come back to you as typically the first legislative meeting of June with the appropriations ordinance where you're actually giving us the budget authority. That same docket, you'll see a docket item that basically empowers staff to go out and get bonds. Basically, it's the quick way of saying that. We will put forward a bond authorization ordinance that matches the capital plan. So if there's a, you know, just using round numbers, if there is a hundred million of project in fiscal 26, it's just to pay for by bonds, that's the ordinance you will see. We will then make decisions through talking with staff and talking with our financial advisor about what's the appropriate amount to borrow. It's typically going to be less than that ordinance. But the whole idea there is to not borrow money before we absolutely need it because that allows us to mitigate debt service payments until the time in which we will actually use the proceeds. Okay. So. the time in which we will actually use the proceeds. Okay, so just sort of overview of where our investments are. This is the $2.08 billion 10 year plan by use or by CIP section, which are kind of portfolios of assets and work. You know, big takeaways here. Just looking at all sources, schools represent about 14% of our investments over the 10 years. And then if you look at that big blue wedge at the bottom, and then there's another one at the top, between transportation and Womada capital contributions, that's $646 million of investments in our local and regional transportation system. That's $646 million, 300 million of it comes from non-city sources, state, regional grants, and VTA 30% funds which are directed and allocated locally. So a good size chunk, nearly half of our transmission investments are being paid for or leveraging non-city sources. Just talk about uses. How do we how do we pay for it? So we present you with a proposed 10-year plan, 10 years of expenditures, projects, and amounts and timing. We are required to also present you how we pay for it. So it's a balanced plan as funding sources identified for all 10 years. So just sort of categorically, Geo-Bonds continue to be our biggest tool in the toolkit for funding these projects. That represents $870 million that will be serviced in the principal interest payments by the general fund and another 255 million and long-term borrowing that we've paid for by the stormwater utility or the sanitary sewer maintenance fee. Again, we mentioned this briefly earlier, but of all of our sources, 46% of them are a cash source. I'm Council Member Allen. So you said there is a good chunk that comes from outside sources for transportation. How about for schools for the capital part of schools? the state give us anything for rebuilding maintenance school buildings? No, not in a material way. In the last 10 years of me doing this, I think the only capital funding we've appropriated for schools was a small private contribution to help with a. Can you rank or something? This was a year ago I'm trying to remember what it was. And there was a small grant to'm trying to remember what it was. And there was a small grant to help with an HVAC project, but we're talking in the hundreds of thousands, not millions. So the schools capital program has been 99 plus percent A4 by general fund, fact cash capital and bonds. We we have in previous years programmed a very small amount of fund balance held by ACPS in excess of their policy to help with the capital stack. That is not included this year, but it's certainly something we'll revisit in next year's CIV. And you don't have to answer this now, because you may not have the answer. But is that alexander specific that the state doesn't give us any money for school buildings or that's across because they keep talking about building and re-willing school and funding schools, but if they're not good, is that just us or is no one gets money for bigger building schools? They just get the money that goes towards the combined funds budget. I don't want to speak out of my doubt on that one. That's why we can't do that. We can't do that. We can't do that. Okay. Councilwoman Green. And then I'm going to come to Vice Mayor Bagel. Just to that. We're going to get my shunned over again. So, yeah. Okay. Councilwoman Green. And then I'm going to come to Vice Mayor Bagley. Just to that point, Councilman Elnerby, there's been a lot of state legislators that have put forth bills for aging infrastructure across the state that really hasn't materialized, but I think they'll keep coming forward each year as we move forward. I'm going to go back to the next slide. I'm going to go back to the next slide. I'm going to go back to the next slide. I'm going to go back to the next slide. I'm going to go back to the next slide. I'm going to go back to the next slide. I'm going to go back to the next slide. I'm going to go back to the next slide. I'm going to go backly. Thank you. I was curious, and this is more of like a budget question to be answered in the process. That transportation figure, I'm assuming that includes things like the NOLO investment and like electric buses, it was like that. Are you all able to deliver like an ROI? You know, like the things that this purchase is essentially the portion, because some of this money I'm sure is like paving roads, you know, and investments like that. But then other of it is, I'd like, if you can sort of to break down some of the capital investments we are getting with that figure, is it buses, is it charging infrastructure, is it street sweepers, you know, that sort of thing just so we can, the number's so big and it covers so many different things that I just appreciate a breakdown of some of the, I specific bigger ticket capital investment items in the transportation space, because that's, yeah, thank you. Yeah, well well we can certainly provide that if you are eager to see that until we can put an answer together in the summary funding section of the capital program there's a breakdown of projects by their funding source so if you were to look at the state and federal grant line or NVTA 70 percent you can see a listing of all of those projects in the amounts which I think could give you some general ideas obviously Beyond you know some description we could compile beyond that but No, yeah, and I appreciate that and if the answer is C page 42 a you know, I mean like I get that it's all admit I haven't had a chance to Digest to the entire binder from last night But I appreciate that y'all broke out the Womata piece because that would have made the number sort of even bigger and I think harder to appreciate. So I do appreciate that this chart did that and I guess that's what and I appreciate that Mayor Gadskin sort of raised this last night as well sort of breaking separating out those sources. Sure. Thank you. Just a question. I know last night you talked a little bit about just the overall market and the things that are going on. Are there any threats we're seeing to the municipal bond market right now that might affect projects in year one? Nothing at this point that we could react to. I mean, of course, we have our financial advisor and bond council. They are keeping us constantly apprised of things. Yeah, what the market's doing and our timing there. But yeah, I think Dr. Edwin. Kendall, I know you're on the line. I think you might want to weigh in on this. Yes, I would love to share that there is a lot of anxiety in the municipal bond industry about a potential threat to tax exempt bonds as a tool for municipal, state and local governments and authorities to use to finance debt. The loss to the federal government from a revenue standpoint is actually considerable. And so a tool in their toolbox to fund things that the feds are trying to pay for is to eliminate that tax exemption to be able to direct those the tax on interest earnings to the their revenue stream from our perspective, if we did not have access to tax exempt bonds as a source of funding, so just rounding some numbers, your CIP is $2 billion and what it ought to say, 60% of it is bond financed. The difference between tax exempt bonds and taxable bonds is roughly 20%. So your CIP that portion would go up 20%, which is not something that we can just add money to. So as in terms of a threat to the municipal bond market, it's the potential loss of tax exempt bond financing as a tool in our toolbox. And Kendall is working hard with her colleagues around the country to really make sure that that's defended. As you can imagine, 20% on top of these big numbers changes everything. Again, it's another risk. But the good news is she's on the board of the general, the government finance officer association, and that's really some of the key players across the country. And I think they're all attuned to this, but you've gotta watch it. It's a big deal. So we're in good hands. I think that's like the seventh award, Kendall, I've heard about for you and your team in the past month. Keep it up. Thank you. Okay. Mayor Gatskins in response to your question last night, this is 2.08 billion all sources, but if we go to the next slide, we're going to kind of slowly slice this open. So city sources total 1.77 billion of how we fund our capital program. And this is our the CIP by section, but only the portions paid for by city sources. So a little bit of mixing pie charts here. So excuse me for that. But so we categorize city sources into two buckets, unrestrict and restricted. So restricted would be sources that come from a dedicated revenue source that may have like legal restrictions on it. So as an example, stormwater utility fee revenue we only use for stormwater infrastructure related investments. Santerity super maintenance fee, things of, things of that nature. That totals $490 million of the over the 10-year plan. The other bucket is unrestricted, and that's basically our most fungible sources in the CIP, so General Fun, Cash Capital, and then Geobahn, serviced by the General Fun. So 1.77 billion billion city sources and then just that unrestricted bucket that I was just talking about is this next slide which totals 1.28 billion. You know one of the takeaways here especially I think there was some curiosity around the school's portion of that unrestricted funding so we talked about it being 14% of the overall funding sources that creeps up to about 23% when we're looking at the unrestricted funding sources, which are really kind of getting to councilman news point, the only kind of places we can go to help fund the school's capital program. Okay, so bear with me on these next few slides. This one, you've seen a couple times now, but when we talk about that 1.28 billion of unrestricted funding sources on the previous slide, those have the greatest ramifications to the general fund operating budget. In some of the decisions, you're gonna be talking through at the next couple of work sessions. So just a reminder, when we say general fund support of the capital program, what we're talking about is direct pay as you go cash capital to invest in the projects, cash capital that comes from the transportation improvement program. And then finally, annual payments were making on principal interest for long-term borrowing to support capital projects. You add all those together, you get the General Fund Support Capital Program for proposed fiscal 26, that total is $133 million, which is 14% of the $900 million General Fund operating budget. Are you wanna talk a little about how we do principal payments? Sure, that's a great point. One of among our many strong financial policies is when we design our issuances, we do what we call level principal over 20 years. So think about your mortgage payment and how it's the same payment every month. There's a sliding of your interest in principle every month. We don't do that if we go out and borrow $100 million. 100 million divided by 20, we're gonna pay that off principle every year. And then the interest to be sliding based off our remaining balance essentially in basic terms is what we're doing that helps us aggressively pay down our debt, make sure we're not holding on to it and either sleep paying interest. We'll talk in a few slides about a debt management policy that the council instituted in fiscal 18 and how we're performing on that to kind of get to that issue to make sure we don't change from how we do principle. Council member Pike. So looking at this slide, you say we're at $132 million. In fiscal 2026, then we have a pretty steep ramp up over the next three years. I imagine that's school projects, that's city hall coming online. And I think folks, you know, the public degree, they look at these slides, you realize that that dotted line is probably the growth that we're going to have for the budget overall revenues. So more of our budget as a percentage is going to be going towards this over the next few years, which is going to crowd out other things that we might handle. It'll people right around 18% in base author of CIP. And we'll get to a few slides from not the drivers of this. Just bear with it. Councilman Mike's done a pretty good job of explaining this, but just just quickly the orange line represents how those debt service and cash capital transfers from the operating budget are going to change over time so that we can execute this proposed CIP. The black dot at line is if you just took what've set aside in the proposed budget, grow it by the rate of revenue growth, where we'd be, and that gap between those two lines are decisions we have to make, either revenue enhancements, reductions as a capital stack, or trade-offs in the operating budget. Yeah, I feel bad. And apologies if this is covered in your drivers, but to what extent or what assumptions about inflation are cooked into this? Yeah, so when we're designing capital project budgets, we're making contingencies on cost based off a number of factors, one of which is contingency for time knowing things will be higher. It varies depending on the area of the CIP, what kind of what inflation factor is used and what we know about that market. But also I would know in addition to time, we also make contingencies for kind of like what we know about the project, right? So there are projects shortly in the middle and end of the CIP where it's concept. It's that we want to build X generally in here, but nothing's been put to a grid. Nothing's been put to graph paper, and that's not how it works. We make contingencies knowing that we haven't gone through any intensity of design. Yes, that's another area we're looking at for, especially our larger capital projects. Yeah. All right. So just that same slide, kind of, the Councilman McPike mentioned the first couple years as a steep curve, that's true. Between fiscal 26 and 29, we're looking at a average annual growth rate about 10. That's largely because we've approved a lot of really great and big things the last couple years and we're paying for it. Couple of pieces of good news here. That kind of year, one through four growth curve, that 10.7%. That's down from what I showed you in the fall. It was around 11.8%. So we're making some gradual progress to smooth this out. And then in the out years, we're at saying 2.3% over fiscal 3035. That's down from 2.9%. So we are smoothing the curve. It's just an iterative process. We're trying to make cautious, deliberate decisions to get there. So we're not all the way there, but we're making progress. Councilman O'Nealby. We're looking for them wrong. And if we keep paying off more that line keeps getting flat, right? Yeah. Yeah. So in the fiscal 26 budget alone, just just general fund service debts have put aside other funds like Storms Anterary, 66 million of that 135 million that we've been talking about is just principal repayment. So us paying down debt. So the manager mentioned about how we schedule design principle to do aggressive aggressive. We are, it's gotten to the point we are taking on a lot of project. We're also, you know, kind of we're water going into the boat, bucketting it out at the same time at a pretty significant amount of how much principle we're paying them. And to go from the 11.8 to the 10.7, that was mostly through kind of the repositioning process you talked about. Yeah, it's a little bit of it's a little bit of our repositioning. It's a reflection of the strong amount of cash capital we continue to put in the CIP. It's also a reflection of us every year. We update this cash flow is about where projects are and sometimes that pushes things out or spreads things out you know that's part of it and also kind of even within that it's just you know kendals on here too our kind of strategy every year when we go into you know borrowing and how the best structure to to meet our needs and follow our policies. The curve that we're really trying to get to over a longer period of time is a very steady approach. So. Each year we're we have a pretty solid level of what we're investing. And each year we're drawing that down. So the old school game of Tetris we're're adding, we're subtracting these types of situations really put us in a very difficult market position. So when you think of this over a decade or two, you really want the curve to be very level. And if there's a bump up and down, it should be pretty minimal. Frankly, the early years of, you know, in 2025 and earlier, trying to catch up on a few things with some opportunity because of the low interest rates and some of the dollars that were available. Those are good investments, but it did cause us to spike up a little bit. And as you can see in the later part of the 10 year plan, we're really are trying to level that down and try to get the CIP at the level, close to the level at which we're growing. I mean, that's typically a good way to do that. And what that would mean for the council is, you then have more flexibility in how you fund operating. Right now they work together. So heavily that you really have some limits because of the big component. All right, so we're going to dwell on this chart a little bit more. This is sort of a, we'll call this kind of a zoom in of the previous slide. So still kind of that same orange line that just think of it as growth over what we have in the proposed CIP. So proposed CIP, you know, that $132 million dollar number, how it'll grow over that over time. So next year alone, it's 11.6 million of choice. We have to figure out above the proposed levels. So I, this is just an intro because I think, I believe of us, Councilman Chapman asked for this at the retreat is okay, show me this curve and how it's growing and what's causing that. And that's what this is trying to get to. So this is the growth over 26, and these overlays are kind of getting to that. So in the early term, it's things that were either including in the proposed 26 budget for the last couple of years. So City Hall, George Mason, landmark fire station, Old Townpool, Waterfront, our Womada Capital Subsea, are large drivers of debt and the increase in this cost curve. Kind of in that middle box, it's still Kora Kelly, fire station 205, which is right down the block here. And Womada Capital Subsea, that continues to be a big part of our borrowing plan every year. To the tune, just in that middle block, fiscal 29 to 31, that's $56 million. Just for our portion of the Oumata Capital subsidy. And then in the out years, we are getting more focused on maintenance and state of good repair and less kind of large one-time projects. So really the driver in the out years are just sort of that ongoing maintenance of all these assets. We've just spent a lot of money building. But I wouldn't be remiss if I didn't take the time to say, this school 26 is a baseline. It's that sort of bottom of this chart below that. Because all the investments we've made over the last decade, really big, great investments we should celebrate but we we pay these things off over 20 years, so we are still paying for them. And that's that is a non-exhaustive list, and these are only projects that are serviced by the general fund doesn't include storm or sanitary, which council and vaguely made that point at the retreat in the fall. But these are all things we're still paying for and we'll be for some time. Councillor Rajaman. Thank you Madam Mayor. One of the cool, I think my colleague to my right, raised the issue maybe a year or two ago about something that we hope the General Assembly maybe takes up is the ability for localities to able to have a kind of a more localized tax for funding, like local sales tax for schools or school construction. I can't remember the details of that. If we were able to have that have that power or that ability, do we have any idea how that might change what this looks like, especially as it relates to school construction, since we do have a couple of school capacity projects on that. So the last few sessions there has been some iteration of that under consideration. I think Morgan probably has the number off the top of his head, hopefully. The one of the questions about how it would affect this is, is it only kind of forward looking in the sense that, like, can it only pay for stuff you haven't already done, or can it also be retroactive? If it's retroactive, and there's a lot of opportunity there to help it serve as some of the significant amount of debt service we have. I mean, it's close to $15 million now just for school projects. It's 47, I think, and some change. So that that's, you know, that could be a significant freeing up of sources or, you know, opportunities to do other things. We're going to do you have that number handy? The proposal is a 1% 1% on the sales tax, and that's roughly $40 million, which are debt service on schools in the FY26 budgets about $48 million. So they guess the point of arts question about whether we could apply it to funding this already in the budget, or if it's only new, if it's for new projects, we still have the debt capacity issues so we couldn't necessarily use, we couldn't use $40 million to finance additional projects because we're still at the cap, so it'd have to be cash. Thank you. Thanks, Mayor Bagley. While we're sort of on the school's topic, I was wondering if the manager and others can address. So you presented last night and this obviously doesn't include the drum. J H, which was in the ACPS, but see I beat it. They sent over and I guess what I was hoping to have tonight was just a little bit of a deeper discussion on that topic because what I am curious about is there is a middle school capacity challenge, which is being discussed in the community. The school board has obviously laid down to sort of their, you know, marker about it. And I'm curious, you know, either Arthur or the manager can sort of address where, you know, Marker about it. And I'm curious, you know, either Arthur or the manager can sort of address where, you know, as if things were to shift and where in this, if not in the currently envisioned next 10 years, you know, where in future years we might have our opportunities to address an additional, you know, capacity project and how the they counsel as we evaluate the school's request and the recommended budget from the manager, how do we think about the middle school capacity challenge and the school board's proposal to address it? Additional question comes from Mary Gray. Yeah, so to that point, I was waiting for this to come up. So thank you for broaching the topic. You know, I'm of the opinion that unless we make every single elementary school K through eight, we're not going to build out the capacity that we need, unless we build or reconstituted existing schools into middle schools. And ultimately, and this is my opinion, I'm not, you know, on the school board or whatever, I think we're gonna need four middle schools overall. So I guess piggybacking on to council member Bagley's question, you know, if we need to do two new full constructions versus redoing two schools. So I'm not a question that you have to answer now, but I guess as we're moving forward as we're thinking about this, what that kind of looks like because what they're saying is, I'm gonna look at just something, an updo, I think it's what eight or 900 students is ideal for a male school. Yeah, and if we have the projections in the outlook, we're getting closer and closer to 4,000 middle school students in like 2035 or something, I'm making that number up, don't quote me on that one. Right, but ultimately it's still gonna be, it's still gonna be up, right? So what I'm putting out as a theoretical is, if we have 4,000 overall middle school students, then ideally we have four middle schools at a thousand each, which is still over what the ideal number is, but at least it's within a possible amount. So that's why I'm saying, as you're thinking about council member Maglies, question if you can also take into consideration. If we either build two new middle schools or if we repurpose two existing schools, you know, how some of those numbers look and where they fit in. Those are all really good questions. First of all, the reason that you don't see the Jefferson Houston here is really two main reasons. At least that I want to share. One is perhaps the need for additional conversations across the board, the council and with the community to try to ascertain what's the most value added proposition long term to solve this not just in a single year but over a long period of time. And then the second piece of that is the redistricting which I think plays into how school construction, school facilities play out into my knowledge that's still working. working. The issue of related to capacity in order to achieve that, really, your middle to back end of the CIP will have to be modified dramatically. That is something that we have done some of these things, probably not at level that would require, but it also means looking at really maybe repurposing some of the existing facilities to monetize some of that to help offset costs, things like that. So you can either race funding, you can move one project off of the CIP and onto others at the level that necessary, where you can find sort of a middle ground where you're balancing out growth and perhaps monetary value and you're finding ways where maybe there are shared resource opportunities where let's say the city has a need for a reccent which we do in the west end and we have a need for a middle school and perhaps we have a need for some other community facility. Do we have land land that we might be able to utilize for that purpose and how do we plan for that so that we're not building three projects, we're building one project and that may save us a few dollars here and there. Then over time we do that enough, enough times we'll start to smooth that curve back out again. But it's really one of those three and it's probably a balance of the three. It's a tough problem because the number is, the expense is very high. And really the reason it's other than what I just said, it's also a need to try to get through this next year and then see where things are both financially but also the uncertainty at the federal level. No, I think that illustrate and I appreciate my colleagues for raising the question because I think sometimes the conversation becomes so simplified it's like well you guys say you don't have any money so we can't think about these other options. Yourality is like it's a choice as we make that either free up or don't free up the money or allow us to be able to shift and move in order to do particular project and I think that's the that's the from FY on, that is the planning exercise that has to happen in our two bodies. Is it on this? Because I know he has a question on this as well. Okay. So I might add about kind of the timing, the manager's right, that it's the backend and it's the backend with reprioritizations. I would note that guidance provided to school staff included language around this about that if you are considering another major asset renovation or an ad. It talked about the timing of when you could start designing it with construction outside the 10 year planning window. So that was part of our guidance was to explain, like we understand that there are additional needs. Please understand that based off the current financial picture, this is when we think you could start the kind of planning and design process with construction falling, you know, probably in 36, 37 timeframe. So that was something that was a discussion we had in the fall as well around timing. It would be helpful if you you could just recirculate that guidance to all of us. So we have those years as to when the voter was present. And I know Council Member Al Nuby has a question on this topic. Actually, it's a comment that maybe a whole long time. I was hoping we don't start this, but we start, we went down this road. So I have a little bit to well so. Yes, but so to council to councilman a gears point what one one thing that we when we were school board members we were told during our budget work sessions is the student enrollment projections are pretty solid within the first five years. And then the farther out you go, the less accurate they get. So with that said, our projections currently say that middle school capacity will keep going up and it's going to peak in the next about two to three years. Then it's going to start going back down to eventually 10 years from now. It's going to be lower than the enrollment that we have today. Again, the caveat is 10 years from now, sometimes the projections are not as accurate, but these are the projections that we have now. For example, 10 years ago or five years ago, if we look at the projections that we had, we were projecting that middle school capacity will be about two to 300 students more than what we have today. So I think all that to say several things. One, I think the need for middle school capacity will all agree on. The question is what is the most optimal solution that we can get the best use for our dollars, because as we can see what the CIP looks like. However, because of these projections that we have today, there is an opportunity for us. We still have time to plan. We can put them in the out years, 12, 13, 14, come up with a solid plan and hopefully there's money there and we can communicate with our counterparts, let them know what's breathing room do we have in these years, what our capacity is in these years and come up with a really solid solution and obviously we'll have to work together and we have to tell them like what are the options and what are the trade outs are and what what opportunities exist in terms of land use in the city. But then who knows maybe opportunities show up and we can accelerate these projects and bring them forward to year 8 9 or 10. But I think that's where we need to start working on this. In the intern we need a solution because today middle school capacity is George Washington's that over 130 enrollment capacity and happens about 113 and optimal use according to ACPS is between 90 and 110 but also the K8 study said the optimal use is even less than that. It's about like 85 or 90 percent. So again, that is all to we need capacity today, and we may need capacity about 10 to 10 years from now. So we need to find an interactive solution, and then we need to start talking about the solution that it's going to cost. And actually hundreds of millions of dollars. So that's my piece. We're going to go back to my bag later, but one second. Mr. Rantiger, was you were talking about kind of the different opportunities we might have and how we think about this. I know in your presentation, I don't think we spent a lot of time on it yesterday, but you talked about the real estate study. Can you just talk a little bit more about maybe how a tool like that could be designed to help us think about, you know, where you could do three projects at once or where this might tie in with some of our land land-use schools. Now that's great. So what I was really referring to is let's take two major pieces. So land assets. So you have the city has land assets. A lot of those are small remnants, you know, right away things like that. But there are some land assets that came and run to land asset school land areas, Hammond, the southern portion of Hammond, for instance. And then there's a second piece of the land which is reserved opportunities. There's one in Potomac yard, for instance, and these are all part of what the council was able to secure during the development processes. So that's the land assets. And some of them are sort of targeted for certain types of things. And then you have facilities. So in a good example of the facilities, we have a 10 story building off of King Street Street and it's the, I caught the old health department building. That's a 10 story building at the City Ones. It's not in great shape, but it has potential, right? Maybe that represents an opportunity where we're talking about a renovation. We're not buying land. We're not doing that. So, the, this asset study would look at the land assets, probably major land assets, major facility assets, and try to help us understand the art of the possibility. You know, are, are we, what are the types of, like for that building? Does that lend itself to certain types of uses? or we better off, we need to have to gut it to start over. Or is the land asset in a certain area more valuable for because of the market? So it really is a true real estate analysis that it then provides you as a council with a menu of options as you look at what I think you might be headed towards, which is this larger thought process around all of the needs that you have. School needs, community facility needs across the city in a long term way and really do a planning effort that really looks at all that together in conjunction with the real state analysis. And then the third piece is your financial ability to do those things. So, in my respect, I'm suggesting that you probably would be looking at to reset some of the CIP in sort of the last five years going forward, which would really give you the blueprint that hopefully it can show and solve all the types of things that are happening. Right now one of the challenges is there are pieces here and there and they're they're financially focused and in many respects it's such a big issue. I think you need to look at the broader spectrum and that's what that real estate analysis would would help us do. It'd be one piece of a really good piece of a good set of information. Thank you. No, it sounds like a huge opportunity. And even if there's a way that when we are tailoring that to say we know some of the things we want in the back end, how can we get some recommendations for all this might come together? I have a couple people in the queue. So it's Vice-Marian Bagley, Council Member Chapman, else moving green. Well, I was going to take it's funny because your question set up, I think what the comment I kind of wanted to make, which is about like the economic summit and economic opportunity. Like part of what is constraining the, this is the inputs, I mean, is revenue. And right now our revenue estimates are based on a city that is grounded in real estate. We're going going to have this summit on the 8th. And, you know, but I encourage the community who is listening to this sort of debate and prioritization and what can we do and what do we need? That another thing that can affect this is revenue, you know, an increasing revenue and increasing revenue in ways that doesn't increase services. I mean, all development has sort of been net positive, but there's even other types of development that can be even more net positive on our bottom line. And so just to, you know, I thought this felt like a good plug for the other side of this, which is we've been talking, you know, emphasizing the needs. But this is why, you know, when we, when opportunities come up or when, you know, opportunities are proposed from this real estate plan, this is what it connects back to, you know, what, when you say the art of the possible, well, you know, what becomes possible with a hundred million more dollars in revenue. I don't, I'm sad on the question. I just, for me, that's what I keep trying to connect back to is there's the need and then there's the revenue. Yeah, I just emphasize that that's well said that that was really effective. In terms of looking at that, you know, as you think about quality commercial growth, things that drive dollars spent without service delivery. So that's experiential. That's tourism and activity related. That's some sports components that perhaps drive people here over our longer periods of time and stay here over a periods of days and drive up our sales tax, drive up some of our other revenue sources. And you put all that together with perhaps some longer term quality, sustainable revenue producing uses that you're right, that's, that is incredibly is incredibly valuable and that makes it much easier for us to fund all of the things that I think the community wants to do. So thanks for saying that. Thank you, Madam Mayor. A couple of things that I just wanted to put a point on is, as we look at doing an asset study and what that encompasses, if we haven't already compelled AACPS to be a part of that with kind of assets they have, I think that we need to kind of pull them into that to make sure land the thing and things that they own are part of that. I mean, we can make that differentiation when necessary you know taking a full look at everything in the city not just city owned but HPS as well I think would be key. And if I recall we've done a similar study I think we were just trying to let's say get rid of but sell property at that time maybe back in 12 or 13 like early when I was on council Yes, yeah, we did a study like that and so that led to us, you know Selling the old health department building in North old town and things like that And so I think there's a value definitely in study like that. And so I think that would be definitely useful, I think for the schools, I want to make sure we understand we don't need to do the planning for the schools. The schools need to be the planning. I think we need to hone in on the resources that they're going to have available and win. And that can kind of create the environment that they can plan in. And frankly, when necessary, as I think we're doing with this budget, if things are not properly planned and and whatnot, we can kind of make that statement about whether or not we're going to fund something. And I appreciate kind of where the manager started off with this budget and kind of making that statement. And then last but not least too, I think what Vice Mayor Bagley was talking about, I think one of the ideas that came a number of years, I think maybe from BFAC was kind of the idea of revenue master planning. And I don't know if that has a place and kind of as we look forward, you know, how do we kind of start to plan out how we're going to get this revenue. And what that could look like and what the options could be. And that might be able to have us not really paint the picture for the public, frankly, and what revenues could be. Obviously, there's some challenges with that or danger in that, but I'm not saying danger, but maybe possibly scaring people, but I think for what we're trying to go if we're going to be dramatically changing the next five years, the next five years and more of the CIP that might be something that we use as a way to kind of message that as well. Thank you. And I appreciate the discussion. As we talk about real estate analysis, real estate planning, real estate studies, I just, I- Thank you, and I appreciate the discussion. As we talk about real estate analysis, real estate planning, real estate studies, I think it's a great time to revisit, because we hear it often, or at least I hear it often, as we talk about the need for schools, over capacity of schools. And I would just like to, I think it's a great time to put out there again why we did not plan for a school at Lamart Mall or why a school was taken away from that 52 acres of land when the hospital deal came through. I don't have that background before my time but I think I can get that. Thank you. Council Member Chapman. From whatever call, I think the goal for council at that time was frankly maximizing the revenue on a piece of land that had not met its potential in revenue and quite some time. I think we were looking at what you could do with, as the manager put, you know, Lamar Mall was a place for experiential revenue. I mean, people would go to the mall and not just to shop, but to be at a mall. Chick-fil-A, being one of the biggest operators in a failing mall, people still went there, spent a lot of, spent a good amount of money, but it wasn't a ton of tax revenue. But being in the mall, taking your kids to the mall was the thing. I think as re iterations or iterations of landmark came back, I think the goal for council was to take advantage of the marketplace and see what we could do to drive that revenue. As things changed in the commercial market, I think you saw the changes in what the percentage of types of real estate would be or types of development would be on that space. I think we started off with mostly commercial and it got twisted down to where it became mostly residential just shortly because of the market. And I do believe that a school was taken off of the table there because the amount of space that would be needed for a school kind of outsized what we thought we could really get in revenue and to be fair, there wasn't really any conversation of co-location of that school and so we would have had a one use, a single use of space, a pretty large space within this that wasn't gonna be providing revenue that we would have needed to put in revenue for and couldn't kind of co-locate other items. I think Rex and I had been talked about but was kind of taken off the table early as well and so that kind of mess with that. But I think what we then crafted of having fire service within that neighborhood and then on top of that housing seemed like a better idea at that time. I'm going to go to Councilman Oghire and Deputy City Manager Emily Baker. I guess I wasn't here either, but I guess something as I'm reflecting on the conversation. There's two things that are coming to mind for me that maybe we'll be explored in the memo. One is that we're probably looking at a CIP then that also had a lot of projects that were school projects and school related that you're having to balance where does the money come from to pay for those. And if there's an opportunity to maximize revenue to be able to get a long list of products, I think that's probably one. I think the second thing I've been reflecting on is what Councilman Gehry said earlier that. There's probably one. I think the second thing I've been reflecting on is what Councilman Gehrie said earlier that there's probably no magic bullet, silver bullet, or one solution to this, and that even when we get to where we need or make increases in school capacity, we still need additional capacity. And so had we even gotten a school there, we'd probably be having this conversation in a different way around the school, a school still. So I imagine, you know, that it was probably a balance of all these pieces here around repurposing, raising funding, having the revenue, having the right project, and trying to make the best calculation to generate enough to do all the needs in the city. But I think a memo that shows what projects would have been on the books at that time and how that was decided would be helpful. I'm going to go to Councilman Aguirre. Two quick comments. First one back on landmark. A high school in a middle school where basically completely out the table from the beginning just because of the amount of space that was needed. There was small discussion, but I think Councilman Chapman covered pretty much the reason behind a lot of it. Second comment, rolling a little bit of a hand grenade out there. We're talking about medical capacity, but we also stop to talk about high school capacity too, and the potential of another building there. So I don't even want to think about what that does to any of this, even in like 20 year, 30 year, 40 years, LA, but it's still something that we're going to have to take into consideration at some point. Even the night, the art of the possible. It's going to make it possible. I know Emily was trying to get in real quick. Yeah. My Mara, I just wanted to there is a site in the West End that has been designated for school site. I think that was part of the conversation with landmarks that there already was a site in that vicinity. But we will provide all that information. We will refresh the information that's been shared with Council in the past to get you that. Thank you. Councilman Chapman. Yeah, and just to add a last piece to the landmark discussion. I think one of the the Core things that council and probably staff is thinking about as we did landmark, you know, this was a a challenging Piece of property because it did have a kind of very sticky history and I think we wanted to Make sure that we could actually land the plane on this one. And I think we have, we're seeing the developments start to come in and whatnot, but it's taken a lot of work. And that hasn't always been kind of the city's issue. I think it's the ownership of the space in the land. And so I think that complicated matters dramatically in terms of what we could do there, put there, and what we think would work financially there as well. And so I think you add that into the mix as well. And this probably why schools conversation was taken off pretty quickly. I'm going to bring us back to art because I know he had several more slides. Thank you. All right, so we're going to move. We've talked a number of times and the managers certainly spoke to it last night about the city long having self adopted debt management policies and make sure we're presently doing our capital planning and using long term debt. So just to really quick how to proposed CIP performs on this, really our primary measure here is outstanding debt as a percentage of fair market real property value. Basically, the idea there is to compare the forecasted outstanding debt for the city relative to the value base of which we would raise revenue off to pay to service this debt. So the plan proposed CIP continues to comply with this ratio, kind of to Councilman McFix question last night. Fiscal 29 to 31 is where we're really still the tightest there. We're within two tenths of a percentage point of our limit. So we're, you know, monitoring it. We're working through that to propose CIP, the continuing with those approved funding levels, which is kind of in our guiding principle here. We're still good, but it's something we'll have to monitor. But looking at this in a different way, you you solve this chart at the retreat is just sort of the remaining debt capacity, right? So that black dot it line there is just taking 2.5% of our forecasted total real property tax base at any given time. So that total number times 2.5% is the our total debt we are allowed to have within our policy. The blue area is kind of forecast outstanding debt at any given time to execute the OCIP and that sort of red hashed area in between is the remaining capacity. So, you know, normally there's a slight change in numbers from what you saw in the fall. I think the tightest it got was in fiscal 29 and it was around 80 million, that's 105. But I think I said, lastly, it's exactly, it's tight there. We're still within, we're very, very close to our limit from a percentage perspective, which is, I think that's more important than just what the number is. It changed slightly because of our work and cash flowing and managing our assets and making sure we're not borrowing before we need to, but not what I would consider a material way to change our investment strategy. Yes, Councilman May Pyke. Yeah, a way to look at this is that you're saying we're two tenths of a percentage from that two and a half percent. Yeah. We're over 90 percent to our credit limit. Yeah, that we are self-imposed credit limit there. We're over 90% of the way there. These are projections based on growth of real estate values. If something happens in the next year, that we're to cause our rate of growth to shrink. In those early years, that will have compounding effects on the valuation throughout the 10-year cycle. So, you know, that 90% can quickly become 95, 96% if those first couple of years of property value growth don't hit what we're expecting. Right. Sorry, good. That's something, Jack. Thank you, and I appreciate you bringing that up because my question then is, you know, one of the things that the manager mentioned at the outset is kind of this idea if there was additional revenue or a council, wanted to have additional revenue kind of throwing that in the cash capital, kind of helps to draw that down and and stave off what could be coming. And so, you know, there's a thought about that given what we're seeing or what not, where how valuable that could be. And just the thought. Thank you. Okay. Our next, that management policy, that service has a percentage of general government expenditures. Again, this is just sort of a measure of how affordable it is to service debt relative to our operating budget and we are complying with that ratio. And then our final ratio and this sort of relates back to something that Manjure brought up earlier about how we schedule or design our principal payments, but we added a ratio a number of years ago, getting to how quickly we pay down our outstanding debt. So we set that as a floor of saying, just take a snapshot of our outstanding debt today. Our goal is 10 years from this date. We have paid down at least half of what is outstanding at the moment. We target having 65% paid off or currently performing at 68.9%. That's good. Okay, so we've talked about kind of the high level numbers and how we're kind of performing from a financial management perspective. We did mention at the top that we, while we strove to keep kind of executing the same level of funding, we did have a number of investments that we felt compelled to recommend in the proposed CIP. These are listed in one large table here. The first four items we're gonna talk about in detail, departmental staff will come up and talk you through the project and kind of why there is a change in the investment. But beyond those four that we'll talk about really thematically, the rest of this list is largely, largely state of good repair driven. It's our fire, our fire heavy vehicles now for our address fleet and our dash bus fleet replacement. Some funding was needed there to address the significant increase in the purchase price of vehicles and also the really significant increase in lead times in vehicle delivery. So that's why those are on there. The next sort of grouping are largely CFMP capital facility maintenance program driven some needs, the emergent needs there. And then sort of at the bottom there, you know, there are two planning studies we included one to address the recreation needs in the West and and Alex West. And then I believe the manager mentioned the Cameron Rodd's site moving up a study there that to align that with our lease schedule with Nova Parks. But again important to reiterate, we've identified about 96.4 million in investments to make. This was all sort of paid for through reprioritization of projects, reallocations of projects, you know, some ideaing of some one time funding sources that could help us out in a pinch. So we did this without any net increase in our long term borrowing, which is really what we just spent the last hour talking about really. We talked about it in different ways, but it's about what is our debt structure for the next couple years. So again, kind of what was guiding us and that was no increase in our use of long-term borrowing or cash capital relative to the Proof CIP, not impacting the school capital funding levels that we had committed to in the previous Proof CIP, of CIP, really focusing state of good repair over service expansion when we had to make decisions on where to reprioritize funding. And then finally, I would say a large part of the, you know, reallocations we made from projects were focused on areas where the amount of funding in a project, either prior balances that have been on-spent or funding that was planned to be appropriated to it in the next few years, was higher than what we are currently able to execute, sort of aligning that, which has been a theme the last couple years of our CIP is making sure the funding we're appropriating matches what we're ready to do. So in total, we actually identified slightly more than we added. We identified 98.1 million in kind of sources to reprioritize to fund these ads. So again, the takeaway here is, yes, there's a large number on that last page of things we are adding or accelerating the capital program, but we have identified ways to pay for it. And active projects that were impacted by this, it's detailed on each of those project pages. What the change was, what the impact of it is, that information is clearly laid out in the CIP document. And just on that point for these last two items, I'm assuming I haven't made it all the way through my budget book. Those are laid out in there as well, and what reductions of a expansion and ongoing programs people have. Yeah, so for that last full of reduction of service expansions, not only is it listed in the projects where it's relevant, if you were to go in the CIP overview, there's actually a detailed what those projects are. About halfway through the CIP overview, I can get you the page number. What those projects are and what the impact is and what the project, what remaining funding will do in those projects. So that's a small pool that we're talking like five projects that just for reference of all the recommended edits we made to make this work. There were 125 places we went. I mean, it was, we looked under every couch cushion to figure this out. So of that 125, five of them are in that service expansion bucket that you're asking about. The large majority of them are in that $49.7 million bucket, which are kind of those ongoing funding streams in the capital plan. And are we ready for this? Is this the appropriate time to do this? What happens if, you know, we realign that number? That's what we did and that's what we worked through with departments and with the manager's office. Certainly, probably an opportunity to thank all the departments for their their grace and patience with us as we figured this out. But I think we've come up with a funding plan that we're we're happy with. Can you say the section again that that summary is in? It's page 2.10 and the CIP overview. Thank you. Yep. Okay, unless there's any other questions on this part, we're actually going to turn this over to departments now to go through a few projects and then I'll rejoin you at the end. Good evening, Mayor. Vice Mayor, members of Council. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the waterfront flood mitigation project. As you know, we presented on January 28th and gave an extensive presentation. I won't cover all the details of the project. I'm primarily coming to this evening to share what the request for an additional $40 million would cover and the rationale behind that. We are asking for additional $40 million. Art can cover a little bit more the breakdown of new and prior year funds if that's desirable. But this is funding that's really involved related to state of good repair, which is a theme for the evening, I believe. Much of the infrastructure along our shoreline is in an aging or failed or failing state. I'll talk more to the details of some of that specifically along different segments of the waterfront. But also in alignment with the goals of the waterfront small area plan and the plan that was adopted in 2014 to drive the vision for the waterfront, we're analyzing that only condition, but the ultimate goals of the project. And so this new request, if you look at the slide, there's two primary segments that are the core of our project areas around Point Mumbly and Waterfront Park. We have been advancing technically preferred concepts from the beginning of the planning phase till now that were knowingly above and beyond. Current levels of funding should additional funding be made available to the project. We've pursued both federal, state, and other grant opportunities. Some have been successful, but we have always been challenging ourselves and the team to advance those technically preferred concepts in case those opportunities were to arise. And so new bulkhead, and the technically preferred concept, as what is shown here, which would include the bulk majority of the segment from Duke Street up to Old Dominion Boe Club, covering that gravel parking lot, just adjacent to Old Dominion Boe Club there, across through Prince Street and North through with the waterfront park, all-Ked,ey. At that point it would transition back to a hybrid or naturalized shorelines. There would still be some shoreline improvements and we'd still meet our flood mitigation goals but this current concept and this funding request does not include replacement of the bulkhead north of that area. I can talk more about the details of what's proposed, but otherwise we're still achieving the goals of the elevation six flood mitigation elevation. We can consider future proofing with the design team to make sure that if we want to increase elevation in the future and down the road, we may have that opportunity, but that baseline performance elevation is still consistent in this approach. Go to the next slide. There's been several assessments done along our shoreline over the years. The most recent was conducted in 2023. One of the baseline assumptions of our cost-based or budget-based optional alternative was retaining multiple segments of our existing shoreline. One of the most significant ones was in Waterfront Park. There's a concrete bulkhead there with a concrete promenade. Our plans for that cost-based approach were to increase the land side elevation while leaving that low-lying bulkhead in place. But more recent assessments in the condition ratings that you see here show that that segment in particular has declined rapidly and With the investment that we're making in park area park infrastructure and Palm station along with other amenity improvements It was really important for the level of us but we're making to make sure that that is well protected and stable for many years to come in In addition, with sea level rise anticipated to increase the river elevation by about two feet by 2050, and the additional impact that could have on infrastructure, we want to not only achieve that six foot elevation of protection for our core area and for our community, but also make sure that we're looking at the long-term forest ability and longevity of our infrastructure. That state of repair basically indicates that many, many conditions, condition ratings have declined. As I mentioned, the most critical segment there at Waterfront Park, but the overarching condition ranges from poor to critical from much of this area. That is true for some other segments outside of this area. And as some of you may know, we've been telling the community that the over arching waterfront plan of the first phase that's been discussed for the core area prior cost estimates gave ranges from $250 million to $350 million for that overall project, inclusive of the Marina and the Northern segment of the bulkhead up by the Northern peers there, Jason Thompson-Dalley and Founders Park. And so I wanna make sure it's clear that we are still doing our best to target investments and understand the constraints and limitations of our overall CIP and really being strategic about the investment that needs to be made because of the level of investment we're making on the design, the regulatory process, the construction phase mobilization and the presence that we need to have to be able to construct many of these improvements in our right of way whether that's the upsizing of our civil infrastructure pipes in our streets as well as the pump station and the park improvements we're going going to be impacting this area. And therefore, because we're going to impact and need to restore it, it makes sense to move forward with investment now. And so we're at a unique opportunity that we're just getting ready to advance, our design development process through the DSUP, and moving forward with technical engineering in a more detailed manner. And so it's a really wonderful opportunity to capitalize on the additional funding to invest in this area. So I'll pause there and see if there's any questions that we can take an answer. Let's get one. You only have 14, right? Yeah, that's up. You only have 14 questions, right? That's not what I said, that's 14. Well, you gave me two. You gave me two long. I think, no, I'm glad these are in here. And I appreciate the conversation. I'm going to ask this question. I know we did the full night on it, but I think if people are now paying attention in the budget context, I do want to ask one question on this topic for the benefit of people who might be tuning in now separately, which is, can you just describe the relationship and the necessity for both this bulkhead work and the pump house? Like if we're repairing the bulkhead, the bulkheads with this additional funding, why is a pump house project also moving forward or how these two things interact? And you don't have to give the 30 slide version the answer, but just to the, you know, as somebody, yeah, no, I mean, I mean, that respectfully, you know, but the one slide version of the answer just for people who can hear it in the budget context. Sure. I appreciate the question very much. And I'll do my best to be brief and you can ask me to elaborate if needed. The long-term plan for the waterfront plan has included a bulkhead increased height elevation since day one to create a grand promenade all on the waterfront, but also to replace aging infrastructure. So not only is the shoreline aging and at the end of its useful life, so is much of the civil infrastructure. So whether we were to dramatically improve the level of service in this area or not, it's time to make investments and repairing and replacing the infrastructure. Because that's the case and because we wanna achieve that bulk of elevation and increase there, we'll basically be creating a bathtub behind it, where stormwater or flood water from the Potomac River would collect and gather as a bathtub that would need to be drained. So that necessitates the pump station as well to address that stormwater infrastructure and pumping as well as any riverine flooding so we could recover quickly after a flood. Thank you. A pump house alone wouldn't prevent the kind of flooding, you know, that we face and a bulkhead alone won't address the kind of flooding that we currently face and that might even get worse from a lingering perspective without the pump house. Is that a fair layman's statement? Thank you. Councilman Chapman. question, particularly on point, Lomley, after we finished this project, does this potentially open up kind of opportunities for revenue if we were to look at a peer or anything kind of coming off that section as it relates to boats coming in or I wouldn't say Marina, but some opportunities there is that, you know, sure by shoring up this part of the waterfront, are there potential opportunities to, I wouldn't say, clawback revenue, but open up some revenue opportunities using the water? That's a good question. We did look several years ago. You may remember we did sort of a Marina study as part of a follow up from the waterfront plan to look at that area and if there are ways to monetize that. I'll have to dust that off, but I believe we found that, I mean, it's pretty shallow there. And the location of the pier headline, which is the jurisdictional boundary, raise some concerns. And I don't think we found that it would be, that it would cover the cost, to even the operational cost, aside from the capital cost, but let us take another look at that. I mean, I know we have looked at that in the past. And we're always open. We're always looking to activate this area. So there may be some other opportunities to do something that's less formal than a marina. But... that we're always looking to activate this area. So there may be some other opportunities to do something that's less formal than a marina, but that is something that we will continue to look at. Okay, well thank you for a great presentation. We really appreciate the content. You need to update your pictures. My office isn't on here. Sorry, too soon. I only think a joke like once every few months. What? You're a good guy. Look at the center, Brown. I'll be back when I go. I got the green blood there. Yes, your office is out of service. In fact, it took so much. It took the entire building down in one fell swoop. So obviously we were down city hall was out of service. This is ongoing. We're talking with our division chief of facilities. I'm sorry, Deputy Director of facilities just of the day. We've tracked the major service outages. Over the last seven, ten years. And it this sort of we sort of got one, two, threes, and it's exponentially increasing. Our service life is well, well beyond. And in fact, you see in this slide, we started out planning almost 15 years ago, knowing that the infrastructure was aged. It was significant. And sort of we've taken money to sort of buy time and buy time a little chunks and pieces, which has really brought us to today. We're really at the end of life. And I think some of the key components, obviously between the garage and city hall itself, it's significant. And I think you'll see in the next slide, sort of a couple of the key drivers, sort of where we started of much of it centered around city hall, and knowing the conditions there, but also when we looked at the garage itself, the extent, and the extent of the repairs, when you couple that with the accessibility universal design challenges and the amount of intrusion we have to do and repair. A lot of discussion started revolve around, okay, we need to fundamentally pose the question to you of replacing the entire asset. That way everyone can have a similar experience by doing so. We also open opportunity to do geothermal underneath. The garage that opens up some opportunities when we have that exchange. And really what is the long-term value driven approach to how we have these discussions? So there's sort of the four key drivers of the budget request, the predominant one is really the garage and market square. That is the biggest change tool our evaluation of where we are from an engineering perspective, universal design perspective, and the opportunities that then affords us to take a look at. And so you'll see the numbers there, the market square replacements, roughly the $12 plus million range in terms of adding to the budget to do that, buying, we talked to the engineering team and if you just repair and do some investments you might buy 20 years but you can still have a lot of similar things or do you reinvest and you buy that 50 or 60 year lifespan and not have to redo the market and I'd encourage my future predecessor to not have to go through this because it is an intensive community in an area of interest of course and then you know know, what did we get the market and some of the upgrades around the market, accessibility in the presence and the amenities that the community enjoys all throughout the year. And then the fourth item's, you know, looking at, as I mentioned, the geothermal, sort of long-term payback as an opportunity when you don't have to deal with volatile fuel prices obviously the carbon Components to it, but there's certain advantages when we have sort of an open Floor plate to deal with what the garage and to take a look at this opportunities And then of course we've touched base and explored with the community sort of the the new fifth floor Opportunity where we already have a fifth floor as we move elevators. How do we capture some of that roof experience for a new community amenity? And so those are some of the drivers, but the really, as you see in this pie chart, the biggest growth in the project says really around the garage and markets where it's all that is the biggest change before you counsel and have it address any questions. you see sort of a little cut through image on the right side of each one of those images. To categorize, we kicked off our series for engagement series around the budget discussions. Just I guess last week, and we continue to have feedback open that's posted online. We have engagement series that'll last through the end of March. For people to look at that presentation, provide us sort of what are the values and priorities around these decisions? Councilman Chabby. So I'll start out with a couple of questions. So when we're talking about the garage, are we thinking at this point and maybe it's too early that this is an expansion by a certain number of spaces? Are we gonna be losing spaces? I think one of the things I look at is as we replace it, we still have the need for employees to be able to park at City Hall. And so, does this open up an opportunity to help with that issue or does it potentially hurt it? Madam Mayor at the answer of the councilman and then we are looking at efficiencies when we deal with if we go deeper it would be additional expense you know she and the ensuring around the existing buildings there's some challenges with going deeper but there are some column efficiencies and parking efficiencies that we're looking at. It's very early when the concept phase. But we are looking at, you know, what are the width and depth of the base? Can we lower clearances? Can we do other things? When we look at elevations to gain more parking spaces, right now without going deeper, wouldn't be a lot, but there's ways we can gain some efficiency, and we're going to be exploring all those. Okay. I'm Councilwoman Green. Just rather quickly, the exploration does include direct access from the garage to the building. Correct. Madam Mayor and Councilor, I'd say we're exploring some of those options. We still have a challenge to make sure the budget as proposed tonight, there's still cost drivers that we've got to help mitigate manage and so while we're exploring this concept, there's maybe things that don't ultimately make the final cut based on cost and cost drivers and we're dealing with historic footers with this building and so we're very cautious when we start to do in an underpinning and undercutting there. So it's something we're exploring but we're it's very early still. We're just trying to be mindful of projecting out to midpoint a construction escalation cost on the rest of this to make sure this stays on and budget. Councillor Enjabme. I guess so with that in mind, talk to me about the gain of geothermal. You know, what the savings are, I understand, kind of, it now takes us out of a volatile market. But if we know that there's going to be cost drivers here, we're working with a historic structure. Obviously, when you dig an old town, you never know what you'll find. That type of thing, why add in this additional piece to the puzzle? Let me also for the geothermal components, one of the positives is this is a disturb site from an architectural standpoint. Some resources are probably pretty fairly limited. When you do geothermal drilling, it's fairly, when we take up the slab, we would have to take up the basement of the garage and the full demo would be accessible to us. Drilling several hundred feet down, we'll do some test portings and other things. But based on a property next door, we did geothermal just next to Carlisle. Okay, they did drilling as well, had fairly decent experience. And so when we look at comparative geology, that helps us to get an idea. It's not always precise, but we feel comfortable with where we're at right now. Okay. Councilor Nuby. Thank you for the presentation. I think along the same lines, but about the garage self, the value that is added, I think it would be helpful to look at or to show us when it showed the community. How much we're saving because you said one, we're getting about 30 additional years. So either way, if we don't do this today, we'll have to do it in 20 years from now. How much would that cost us with the dollars of today at that time, right? Because that's an additional cost. How much maintenance is gonna go into that garage for the next 20 years if we don't do it today? That's a cost, right? All these things I think will be helpful for us to see because that would show how are we really adding value here? Because these are the kind of things, and this goes to every project. I think the slide art showed earlier, like the projects we're doing are adding to our general fund, but they're also saving us money that we're not looking at and don't show up on these charts. So I think framing also the conversations in that way and sometimes if we can quantify these numbers, would be very helpful. Absolutely. And I don't want to still your thunder. I don't know if these surveys are already out, but I know one of the things in the next iteration of the survey is it does kind of comparisons. So like if we pay for this now, this is what it would cost and how many years we get. If we do a full repair, this is what it costs is how many years and so I think it'll be a good opportunity for the public to do side by side comparisons. I don't know when is that expected to go out? So, so mayor, we do have some of the information based on the series four launch that's available and some of the early feedback right now, it's fairly early, so we expect additional engagement to people to take a look at the presentation and sort of give the feedback in terms of prioritizing sort of the value of propositions across the different elements. And so we can, we also follow up with sort of the net present value of making a choice today versus also deferred maintenance in terms of rough projections. We can certainly do that, but there is certainly direct value and not having to go through this again in 20 years. I can test personally and first, yeah. I mean, I do think something that has been really helpful that I hope the public takes away from this presentation is first and foremost a lot of the reason why we're doing this project. It's not cosmetic It's not about having a pretty building much of it as structural and the garage and market square the key key drivers I think the other piece is you know, I've heard some people say well Couldn't you take money away from city hall and move that to the other project? I think what's also interesting and what art has laid out is we are taking money from our city projects to be able to still do this within the existing sort of plan CIP that we had to make this happen without producing net new increases that still allow for a pretty building but one that is safe and structurally sufficient. So, the question comes from an interview. I'm sorry, just to put a fine point on this. Like, when we had to shut down City Hall for a whole day and the disruption that caused, we may not be able to quantify that in terms of money, but these kind of things that, you know, and the hour, the gyms, gyms, gyms, Jim's parking up here. Yeah, Jim, having to say, all I said to you guys was, he was at 2 a.m. Like, these are the things that we can't quantify with the things that... You know, and the hour the gyms gyms, gyms, gyms, gyms, gyms, gyms, gyms, Burkin up here. Yeah, gym having to say all the Sunday hours of the e-mail is at 2 a.m. like these are the things that we can't quantify with the things that are that's why we're doing these projects. I'm Mr. Manager. You look like you had a number ready to go. He's got the receipt. It was thousands and thousands of dollars when we cannot open. Don't wanna give you the exact number but you're in six figures when we can't open. And that's for a single day. Great job, Edgar, Alex. Thank you for the time, Madam Mayor. And Jim knows I lose sleep on how, if I can even make it to when we project a moving out of this facility. And then the chunks of concrete falling out of the garage. Our team goes and checks periodically. And we do checks about what the garage is doing and checks within the building. And so that's when I'm losing sleep over until I can get everyone out of this facility. So I appreciate your time. Thank you. Thank you for all the work that has gone into us. All right, next up, you all park. Thank you, Jack Broindom, the interim director for the Department of Recreation Parks and Cultural Activities. we have two projects that we want to highlight tonight. One is Johnny Bob Park which is a heavily used park on our West end. It's part of our neighborhood park system which was we went through a planning process approximately 10 years ago and we're doing a reaffirmation process right now to ensure that those priorities are still what the community wants. So to give a perspective for those of you who may not be as familiar, this park is located basically at the intersection of Jordan and Duke Street. So it's a very highly concentrated area. It's sort of isolated even though it's in a heavily dense area that it's very, it's not accessible from a lot of places. It's bordered on two sides by residential neighborhoods, commercial on one side, and then a major thoroughfare running through the city. So part of the process that we have here is to basically improve safety of the site. There's a majority of the sight lines on the site now. A lot of the younger activity centers are in the deepest portions of the park. So this would be moving those centers forward, improving parking, and access and accessibility throughout the park. So we're still working on sort of what these final amenities should be. This is a representative example. We have two concepts now where you see both active and passive areas within the park. We also are going to be looking for additional funding. This would not be enable us to build out the park in its entirety, the current funding, but that we will be seeking, assuming that there's land and water conservation fund available with the current administration is something that we do feel that we have a, we're a good candidate for, and that could bring additional funding, which could deliver a higher level of amenity improvements through the initial stage. We will design it in its entirety and then we will make improvements considering the budget that we have. Councilman Aguirre. So I did want to talk about this one because and Dr. Crabron you brought up some good things that You know bordered on two sides of my residential and one side by business. I would disagree slightly in its usage because a lot of people have said, besides the basketball court, the basketball court definitely gets used, but I think it's very underutilized in the other sections and to the point that you brought up because of the sight lines. I was able to attend a couple of the in person meetings around this and had several children basically tell me they don't feel safe. So go back there. I've definitely had spoken with the business owners who also there are unwanted activities that are happening there and also with the neighbors bordering it on the south who are concerned with the same thing where because of the sightlines because it's all the way in the back there are certain activities that are happening that we don't want happening. So I would actually like to see a budget memo and I'm kind of working towards this because I not only want to fund this, but I also want to see the possibilities of creating a small enclosed space. And what I'm going with this is, you know, Actrile, Alexandria, I've always forget the name of the study they did, but about programming and where the empty spaces are in the West and being one. And given the location of this, given that it's located off of the 30, the dash route, and the need for teen spaces, I'm not saying a whole Rec Center build out, but if there's a possibility for a small kind of teen center because you know it doesn't take a lot. One or two rooms, some bathrooms, put a couple Xboxes in there, whatever, a space where they can feel safe to go hang out. And that is accessible via you know our free dashboard system. So I basically like to see a bunch of members see how much additional money that will cost to create a small space like that. Because I do feel that this is an underutilized piece of land that we really need to activate and by activating it will be multiple benefits as well. And I do appreciate you and your staff going through this process and going through the two designs. And it was interesting because the conversation we were having was, if there's some type of hybrid between these two concepts. Yeah, I think it would be really, really cool to see that. I guess maybe you could also be added in that memo. But I am curious kind of the phasing of what improvements we might be able to do in. I know some other pieces that came up in a lot of the community feedback are around like lighting. And I know there are lights there, but kind of understanding if we're at a point where we have to phase in the things that we're doing, what are the elements that most meet with the community has asked for, but also could help support some of the safety concerns and other challenges that are happening there. I know some other ones have come up or even like the type of fencing we have around and the entry points in. I would just wanna see if there's a way to like front loads some of those pieces and maybe some of the other pieces got pushed to the end. So it can be in the same demo, but I'm sure. Yeah, those are good points. And that's one of the things we've been balancing is some of the preparatory work to do other things cost a lot of money. If you start changing the site, moving the parking lot, bringing utilities in, those are things, and some of the other projects you've heard here tonight, you don't see those as major improvements what they have to happen before everything else does. We are gonna be balancing that as well. Councilman Chapman. Yeah, I appreciate your comments there, because I'm gonna dive right into something you just said that both, she would change to this park, probably pretty dramatically, but I think the conversation around sightlines and access into the park has been a consistent conversation from the community, from different city agencies for a while, but looking at, again, I'm not a park planner, but looking at an opportunity to maybe use the parking to really enter end to the site, kind of frankly splitting up the site so that if somebody wants to come in, so for instance, you have APD, I know they've had some issues of being able to see the site. But if, and again, this is probably against a major park principles here, but of in the center of the site to use the parking to enter the site and be able to use that as a way to get further into the site and have a better sight line. You know, I know that would probably add to the cost, but it would definitely deal with a major consideration that has been relayed to the city over and over again about kind of being able to see into the park and have access into the park. That might be something that could be considered or I wasn't able to attend the meetings to kind of voice that, but that's something that could be thought about. I just don't know what that would do to schedule costs and all that and if that was ever considered. Well, actually, it's quite funny you should say should say that yes we actually had unsolicited design for one of the members of the community like actually showed that possibly put in the parking right in the middle. Yeah. So it's not reflected in this concept, these concepts but it is something that we can continue to study. When you start moving the parking around whether it's the center or more to the east. You know the cost changes are somewhat negligible. But there is some elevation change you know as you know today where the current parking lot is is pretty low and that's why even from that parking area you can't see into the park on the way that is configured today. Um remind me is this this one is in year one or Okay. So I think something else that might be helpful with the memo is I think what we heard earlier that things are a year one or the ones were pretty sure. And I know there's been a lot of staff time and work that has gone into this. I think if there are changes that would be changing the design significantly that that also changes where this falls. And so I think we should understand like the implications and the time that has gone into and the implications, whatever the memo is to map that out because we wouldn't want to move forward this and then have a new structure. It's been a change. The new funding is in fiscal 27. Yeah. Okay, so got a little bit going. Good. Other question by Sarah Bagley. I just, I want to indicate sort of my support for a lot of what's been expressed about creating a activated space and maybe having an indoor structure of some, I mean, I appreciate the cost, but I'm thinking of some of the work I do in my day job and how little you actually need sometimes to run a small program. I mean, it's like I'm almost picturing like an arm, a shabarn house, you know, but four walls and heat or four walls and air conditioning and I'm not trying to be clear, but I just think, you know, to councilman, a curious point, some of the other feedback is, when the weather isn't good for it or when they're, you know, when people don't want to feel exposed like having someplace inside. But the point I wanted to, so I wanted to agree with that sentiment, but then I just want us all to be conscious of on the operating side, making sure we are prepared to actually activate the space. So what we don't want is to create a building that then becomes subject to the same kind of activities that we're trying to eliminate otherwise. So just, but just to be conscious of like, what would it take to activate the space on a parks and rec staffing side or on a partner agency side? Be mindful, for all of us, and as we're budgeting it, being aware that there's an operational impact as well. In the second project is one of our aquatic facilities, which I also wanted to mention. I know there's been a lot of interest with the expansion of sort of the water parks in the city. One of the things we will be doing, we're going to be studying the West end, the West end parks to see where there might be opportunities to add an additional water park, you know, or water features similar to a splash pad that we heard. The newest one that will be going under construction very soon, active construction is there at Colisanto. So that has been a recurring theme through some of our planning processes in our parks. But with regard to this pool, so the old town pool is wonderful, it is our oldest pool in the system. Through the research that we've done, the last major renovation of this park was in the 1960s. So it's been a while for this pool. It creates a lot of maintenance issues to keep it going every year. So it's at its useful end. It's actually likely beyond that, but we're pretty confident we can keep it open for another two years or two seasons as we do the construction. So what this funding would do would provide us the opportunity to replace sort of what we consider our base concept, which would be to replace the existing pools that are there, the two bodies of water, basically in the same configuration of size today in a much improved bathhouse. We are concluding our needs assessment that is currently underway. We should have our results back or at least closing the data portion within about the next week to 10 days and that will help provide us with a better opportunity as to what's sort of the aquatic needs for the city are and that may adjust our design. So we have built in some planning for that. If there's a shift, say from its current configuration, which is primarily a competitive pool. And if we see that there is a more desire or need for a more family oriented pool, which could incorporate potentially splash features is zero entry, So we're going to be incorporating that through the spring. But this would deliver a modern pool with better amenities, much more accessible, more environmentally friendly than it is currently today. All right, thank you. Thank you. Okay. Okay. You got two more slides with Moonwell. We'll we'll we'll land this plane right right around nine. So just a reminder that proposed. CIP also includes funding to address some of school's capital needs. We've, as we mentioned previously, the manager provided a letter to the superintendent with guidance on both operating and capital support that would be likely feasible. And then that was reaffirmed by city councils part of your budget guidance resolution adopted in November. So within that guidance, it a 10-year funding target of 289.2 million largely aligned with the funding levels approved in the previous CIP. The school board funding request for fiscal 26 or 35 total 346 million, roughly 57 million over the target we had provided. In the city of Manders proposed budget, that proposed CIP aligns with the guidance that we provided and was reaffirmed by Council. So 289.2 million, that's roughly 84% of the funding requests from the school board. Year one of the funding requests in the proposed CIP are it matches 100% of what the school board is asked for just just strive twenty twenty one million dollars. So that is what is included in the proposed CIP for schools. Right. And then on the next slide here just kind of wanted to bring us all back together in summary. Just we, you know, we are can, despite all of the the pressures and stuff that we've talked about over the last two hours, you know, we are pursuing a fairly robust and ambitious capital program. We are involved in a lot of things and making a lot of really great investments in this community. It's still very focused on maintaining kind of our core assets for city and schools and executing projects that we had committed to over the last couple of capital programs that have been approved by council. All that said, all the high level of investment we're making is paired with very strong financial management policies followed by city staff and through the management policies adopted by city council. So we're making sure we're meeting our capital needs as best as we can while being very good fiscal stewards of the city. And then finally, there are long term challenges about the forability and sustainability of the CIP that we've spoken about tonight. But I think the CIP continues to write size and get us a bit closer to where we need to be. So that work is happening here. And there's more to be done, but we're getting there. With that, just a reminder that 2-down 17 to go. So this is your calendar. You'll see this every time. Maybe it was something struck out as we go along here, but just so that's in the resources. And with that, presentation's done and questions and comments. Yes, Councilor and Chairman. Thank you, Madam Mayor. One of the things that I remember, I don't think it was operational. I do think it was CIP from last go around was probably a discussion around a particular fiscal cliff for transportation projects. And I'm not seeing that in any of what we've discussed here, kind of what's the status of that? I don't wanna speak out of depth of that. I mean, Adriel was was or is here could possibly speak to it. You know, the proposed CIP, especially when it comes to like, Womata, it's modeling what we're understanding from their capital. You know, they do a multi year capital program. So it's aligned with that. But please, please step in here for me. Good evening, Council Mayor. Thank you for the opportunity. So I think it has to do around the one-modified date. We got some new guidance recently on the formulas. But in terms of any cleavage, I think right now, we're facing as the grants. So we're just making sure that we continue to apply to those grants. And I think that's how we're gonna continue to move forward. Okay. I just want to make sure anything on that kind of was bubble enough, because I know there was a point that we talked about whether it was Mata also kind of with Dash and whether that was growing as well and how we're figuring out how we're going to fund that into the near future. There is planned a pretty significant meeting at the end of this week to really look at the two year Lamata plan and that may inform us a little bit on what's happening. Councilman Aguirre. And also to that both the DMV Moose Group and the SJ-28 group, SJ-28 specifically for the state of Virginia are both looking at, you know, how do we get better funding or at least dedicated funding that, you know, how do we get better funding, or at least dedicated funding that, you know, we can count on every year and that helps, ultimately, you know, at least from the locality's perspective, help ease the burden and spread it across. So that's in the city managers part of that group as well. So we'll see how it goes. I had one quick one for the projects that are removed on 2.10, 2.10. There's a full sheet in the binder explaining what they are. I was trying to find the one for the data quality and intelligence platform and the Recreation Center Market response and confindness. That's a great question. So they are not in there because those projects are, both of those are outright eliminated from the capital plan. So they're no longer, they would be projects with zero dollars associated with them. If I wanted to get, do I need a full budget memo if I wanted to get a sense of like what do they projects? No, they would have been the previous. I don't have my binder. That's fine. I'm so sorry. How? How? budget memo if I wanted to get a sense of like what their projects are. No, they would have been the previous. I don't have my binder. That's fine. I'm so sorry. How about how about we every cycle? How about we go ahead and all of the projects are eliminated. We'll pull last year's and we'll put it in a package. Yes. Send it to the council. Thank you. That would be great. And anyone else who's eager to put their PDFs together, you can send them to me when you're ready. Yeah. So I think that's everything. So next time we'll see you, we will be, well, if anyone wants to go to the manager's other presentation, you're welcome to do that. And then we will be at ACPS next time, and that will be operating in capital. Okay. All right. Thank you everyone for being here tonight. I appreciate it.