Thank you, Mary, are we recording? All right. We'll have to call this meeting to order. Thanks, I'm here. Thank you. Would you please leave the pledge of allegiance? Thanks, I'm sorry. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for the standards of elimination under God and the visible with liberty and justice for our own. Thank you. The first item on the agenda under strategic priorities is fire station construction contract. We have Ms. Madison for presentation. Good evening. I am here to present construction contracts for the Fire Station number 63 Police Substation to be located on Brumbler Road. We are pleased that this project came in within budget. The project has been under in design for approximately the past year since your authorization of design contract in September 2023. Construction documents were completed in the summer and the project was let for bid in August of this year. We received construction bids on September 17th. After the city received six responsive bidders and after checking references for suitability and positive experiences, staff recommends swinter tin construction. Fortunately, this project, as I mentioned, did come in within budget. So between the fiscal year 22 funds, fiscal year 23 funds, fiscal year 24 surplus, and the approved fiscal year 25 budget, there are sufficient funds to cover the construction contract and all of the CEI contracts that go along with it. So I'm definitely here to answer any questions you may have from this point. the construction contract and all of the CEI contracts that go along with it. So I'm definitely here to answer any questions you may have from this point. Thank you, Enigal. I'm glad the response came in between the budget. I have a question. We do have a contingency of 10% which is almost 781K and there's another line item of owners allowance for 200K. No, I did reach out to Kimball. She gave me some background so can you get into the details on that? Sure, an allowance within the bid is something we've used for many of our site development contracts, including Colye Creek Park, Creek Side Park, and this one. It allows for purchase of some of the equipment, some of the things like that within the bid, without having to counter council for the smaller things, the little equipment purchases. So it's within the bid, however if the allowance is not fully expended, it is not paid out to the contractor. So, this is not part of the RFP, right? RFP, so if you look at that way, it was 7.61 to about 200 years from our side for our expenses. Correct. Correct. Because I see that contingency more for the change orders and those things. So this is more for our equipment. Correct. I'm good with that, son. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Erica, and Kimberly for all of the information. One of the questions I have is if the 60% construction document estimate was coming in closer to 10 million, does this encompass all of the cost associated with rebuilding? And that was perhaps just overestimating? Yes. This includes everything that was so fortunately the bids came in actually under our estimates. So that's a blessing there. And so, you know, but this does include everything. The 10 million included all of what have we anticipated for construction engineering inspections. Everything you see here. Oh, OK. So where we got it under 8 million, we did. OK. All right. And same with the style, the style, the design aesthetics will be. It is nothing has changed. OK. And is it that design we saw the minute? Yes. So it's actually the black and white print is on the kind of image. OK, thank you. All right, well. Thank you. I think it's one of the nice things to hear that's coming under budget. One thing which I want to talk about was I was looking at some T-SPLOS projects, which have completed also. Is there any place we are capturing the 10% contingency when it was used? I'm sure we can provide information on a project-specific basis. In general, I believe that the contingency is not encumbered, so it's just authorized. Okay. But it's budgeted, isn't it? It is a right. It's budgeted, so we have the contract amount and then a contingency should anything unforeseen occur. True. So that's what, like today we're going to be talking about the tunnel, which is largely T-Sploss Funds. I was, I should have, that's my question from there but since my colleague asked, I just wanted to, if he could find someplace, every time we talk about T-Sploss projects, if he had, that's the time if he can give us a list of what are the completed projects, what, so when you're doing that, so we get an idea how much is left over. If I could weigh in here, happy to look into use of contingency on T-SWAS projects as the recreation and park director, Eric is probably not the right staff member to work on that project for you. Probably then. I hear you. Make a note, we will work on that. That's probably a finance director and public work director project for us. So I'm happy to look into that further. I want to make sure we have the right people working on that project. Erika is always happy to jump in and respond to counts of response. I'm so sorry because you want to take that one back. Yeah, you've been doing all these constructions. So I just got carried over there. Maybe you can do it and manage this report or something. Sure, that's a great suggestion. Let me get the data first and then figure out how to best share it back with the council. Thank you. Thank you for the. Thank you. Chris. Fully supported. Thank you for bringing this up. Missed it, but I assume we're talking about the fire station. We heard the item. Well done. So much looking forward to this. I think we've wrestled with this fire station for a long time last year, this year, and it's nice to see it coming to a conclusion. So I'm super happy for it. Just a quick question. Are we currently leasing a space for the police department in that area? Are we co-termination on both the leasing of that space with the potential completion of this and actually moving for the police department and all that. I may have to defer to Kimberly on that one. So on that one, your lease actually will come to term before we are completed with the construction for this project. So at an upcoming work session and then council meeting, we will be asking you to extend that lease just so that we can get to move in date. Right. And the completion date is how long you think it'll take about a year to have? We're estimating 18 months from notice to proceed. 18 months, okay. So that's not bad with the lease. Wonderful. Well done. Congratulations. Congratulations. That's great. Thank you, Erica. It's great. Under budget. Do the construction on time. That'd be awesome. Thank you. Thank you. Next item. Thank you, the next item on the agenda is town center pedestrian crossing construction. We have Assistant City Manager Bennett for presentation. To say you're getting the third string is probably an over estimation of my abilities. But since Councilmember Carlton seems to think I've got this, I will proceed. This is the pedestrian tunnel crossing that was discussed at the last work session. We had a construction contract and related contracts come forward. For your consideration during that conversation, you asked public works director Chris Haggard to noodle on how you can improve the aesthetics as you walked into the tunnel and as people drove over Medlock Bridge by maybe extending the stone facing of the wall of the tunnel. He has gone to the engineers working on this project and the contractor and before you tonight is not only the base contract, but also an ad alternative which would replace the section of that guard rail with a structural stone faced wall. So when you walk into the tunnel, you will see stone above, when you drive across medlock, you will see stone much like you do on the sides of medlock road and Bell Road where we've had some of the same applications. So with that, I will endeavor to do my best to answer any questions you may have. I think I'll take a stab at it. So Larry sent an email today that I thought he really had some good points and I don't know the financial implications. I know the aesthetic implications which are that if we were to do some kind of lighted columns on either side of the wall or railing depending on what it is, it probably has ramifications on whether or not we do those markers that we've looked at. And so, I appreciate the suggested idea. The bad thing is that it might kind of scramble kind of the overall plan, but I just wondered what all it did cross my mind when I was putting my little Da Vinci sketch here together, but I guess I didn't know that we solidified a decision on the markers yet. I thought we were still back and forth. And we did. And I think we said that that's where we were headed. Right. And actually pulled the trigger. That's right. That's right. So I don't know if physically this is a geographical place for those markers or not, but I think we can get some place making done with it. They don't have to be so large either, but because of place making at this location cheaper than a wall, that's where I was going with it. I don't want to compete with any other larger projects or markers that we want to establish. But I thought this was a simple way to identify to the public and to where the tunnel is and just the entrance to the south of Quixit. So. So, you suggested this light strike. I suggested a column that because what came back from public works was that the wall was going to create a lot of weight onto the tunnel itself, which would have to be strengthened, and also the cost was over 400,000. So this would be self-standing loan columns would affect the integrity of the tunnel and we can still get some benefits where possibly an incremental cost increase but not 400,000 but could also provide some benefits to it. So I have my thoughts there. Okay. I think if you have a solution is good, but wall would definitely look better, but 400,000 seems to be a big number two work with. So back and check on another alternate, but in stuff railing something like the stone would be good, but in stuff like the weight is a problem probably they can go back and look at some alternate in stuff that heavy stone, something else in place of that. Look more for the look and feel. And this does not have to be tall columns. They can be just a few feet over the guardrail. I mean, and just something to identify as you're driving over a medlock, this is where Creec side starts. That's all Michaels. So it's not like replacing that railing railing is still going to be there? The railing will be there. So this would be behind the railing and it would be just up here into the dirt so it keeps the integrity of the tunnel away and the weight of whatever column it is is self-stand alone basically. And you know, you can build this a couple different ways. You can do port concrete or you can do center blocks with center core port. There's a bunch of ways to do this to keep the price down. I mean, this should not be more than... No, but on the same complex slide, you... Not going to say them, but... If you have the two columns on either side, can they hide the railing with some kind of a... No. Because you don't want the column, if there's an accident, you want the guardrail to protect the column. The guardrail is going to be there, but it's. Yes. It's gone covered up. Yeah, you're not going to cover it up. I mean, it's going to be taller than the guardrail. But, I'll just say that for me, aesthetically, like it would bother me, I think, to have the column in a rail, just all that business. I would want to end line, but I don't know the engineering associated with it. But I think, again, if you're considering that strongly, you have to think about how does that impact if we were to do those more. So we talked about. I like the concept of the wall going in there but the cost seems to be pretty high. There is another alternate for that. I would definitely use stuff called the wall. It would blend into the tunnel and even like a same look from either on the 141 or from the down there going into the tunnel. So I would like that to look, but. Can I just ask Kimberly, we have this on consent at its new business, okay? The business allowing you to make a final choice at the council meeting and you could choose to approve the base contract and look at more alternatives for this at a subsequent meeting. You don't have to make your final choice tonight on either stack stoning the wall or adding columns or has that related to Marker. say, tabledist for a next meeting for Director Haggart to give us more options, would that affect our construction at Creekside or this tunnel? It is always better to approve a construction contract sooner to allow mobilization to move things forward in talking to Chris in advance of the meeting. As long as you make a decision at the following one, October 21st, then you do not negatively impact the schedule. But I also don't want to rush your decision. You could choose to approve the base contract, get them started, and then make your decision at a subsequent meeting on, ooh, we want to change that one guardrail piece. That's not the first thing they built. You got months to go. But it's also not something we'd want to change that one guardrail piece. That's not the first thing they built. You got months to go. But it's also not something we'd want to be like, well, wait, make a decision a year from now. Change order to the contract, which would be a premium to the change order. Depends what option you pick. Like, we have a rough estimate for if you would do the stackstone instead of guardrail. We, depending on what alternative you come up with, that may cost more or less money. I've heard gateway markers, I've heard pillars, I've heard, is there a cheaper alternative to the stack stone and still have a wall? Those are all things that I don't know the cost on without some additional investigation and thought. I don't know that I can have those answers in three weeks though So so can we just stop like your session up through the base contract and just keep this optional open and bring it back Absolutely. Yes, you could act tonight if you're okay with the base Let's get that pedestrian tunnel project going and then we could plan to come back as soon as we have enough information to answer your questions, whether that's the 21st of October or the following meeting. We want to make sure we understand all of your ideas. What are those things you want us to research and come back with rough cost estimates or ideas and then allow you to, as long as it's connected to this project, you could authorize the funding from unprogrammed T-splast $2, so like, I know where the money could come from because it's associated with this T-splast 2 project. Tonight, if we can get all those questions out there, what else you want to look into and get more ideas on. But I can, we already know the max, it's going to be $400,000000 so if we can get other alternatives so I'm okay to approve the base contract and just bring it back. So as long as the contract that knows and it's not going to be like a like a like a animation it's not a change order additional cost so it's like this is coming either as a $400,000 add-on or a $200,000 add-on that we will decide but yeah so the way you have it set up in the authorization at the council meeting as shown in your memo, you could do this as an owner's allowance. So if you set aside, we authorize the base bid plus $400,000. So the contractor knows we're going to do something, but you don't, contractor doesn't get to tap into that amount above the base bed until authorized by staff. Staff could not authorize until you come to consensus. So you could, if that's the consensus of we want to do something more than the base bed, you could authorize both the base bed and the owners allowance capped it 400,000. And then we can clearly communicate that to the contractor all at one time. So I'm good with that. Is there an expedient way to do it? And that's our money. If you don't get to use 400,000, I'm good with that, uproar. Pay speed with the owner, 11,000, 400,000. Up to. Stacy. Thank you, Assistant City Manager Bennett. You probably can't answer my questions. No, and I'm sorry I should have said some of these are according to me now as we're discussing. But the unprogrammed funds, like where is that? Because we program 65 million. Is that the anticipated additional revenue or is that the budgeted inflation? I'm so the unprogrammed is revenue over expectations. You literally budgeted for a category of inflation learning from our first T-SPLOS that at the outset of the five-year implementation and the end at the five-year implementation cost rose. So, Council is very smart about T-SPLOS 2 saying let's have a bucket for things are going to cost more just five years of life. The unprogrammed is any dollar that comes in over expectation. So it is just not assigned to a project yet. That is not necessarily captured in the chart that you are, like the chart we presented that Councilwoman Skinner was looking at before a work session was the one we presented with the annual state of the T-spost update at the end of January this year. And we certainly can update that again, based on we get revenue numbers every single month. They come in from Fulton County who manages the T-Spost revenues. Why, and we have that, I mean, we have that amount. That's, yeah, so yeah, year to date, 40 million, but we have programs 65 million in projects. So my concern is just maybe why we're looking at this one now and skipping over some of the other ones. And so that's my concern is we're not going to have money for the sidewalks on Barnel Road or some of the other projects that are ranked a little higher. That's my concern. But if we do this, I want to make sure that we do it right and that it looks nice. But I don't know that 400,000 will make a difference. But I'm just letting you all know that concerns, looking at this. But if we can, going forward, all get the sheet and it updates, so we know what's in the works. So the one challenge I have is there it is a process to update the cost estimates on every project. We tend to have that each stage. So when we're in the engineering stage, we have a good idea based on what we know from the onset at concept and then at the end of engineering when we have that full design, we have an even better estimate at the end of the right of way phase. We have an even better estimate at the construction phase. So some of the numbers we can update more regularly than others. So yes, we can certainly work to update the understandable snapshot of T-SPOST. I just want to make sure we're not every single number is going to get an update. Well, I want to make sure we're sprinkling the love around too because we've been spending a lot of money up here and it's going to be awesome. But if we could, like, there's no rush on the tunnel versus there is an urgency when we've communicated, we're doing sidewalks and all that. So letting you know my concerns. Thank you. Thank you, Ron. Thank you, Chris. Very, very good. Bob. So the previous question which I had about the 10% contingency. So when we were talking about this, T-SPLOS funds, so that's where my concern was, in the sense, are we spending it there? You have already captured and blocked it for inflation. So that's where, if you do not spend the 10% does it go into this or does it go into unassigned fund? You know, all of the T-SPLOS dollars stay in the T-spost dollars stay in the T-spost fund. So it does not go into unassigned. No, the T-spost unassigned, some kind of... Gotcha. When you authorize the project and its 10% contingency, you essentially put it instead of the main bucket of funds. It goes into that specific project until we're ready to close out the project. When we close out the project at its conclusion, you either allocate the balance to another project, or it goes back into unprogrammed T-splots dollars. An example on that, you reallocated funds from the bridge category to the McGinnis Ferry project, noting that there was a bridge that needed to be replaced within that project and we needed to step up the contribution. But that, those movement between projects is council directed. So staff can't do that on our own. That is exactly what I want. What is the unassigned fund for that? So that's where. So you want to understand what is the number and unprogrammed right now? I want to see the 30,000 foot view of all the projects, which is happening when you're doing this, because I know going forward, when this is the priority, if something would be left behind, I know where it can program it somewhere else. It sounds like that there's a need for a teaspoon. And update. Overall. So end capital improvement projects by the same token, because most of the time we either are talking about this or capital improvement projects You're moving those are the large ticket items So the status of those two are really critical for us Anyway, another thing is Larry would you mind if we just say the it's a street light at either end, conforming with the town center street light designs. So that, because that's the entry point for the town center. Right, so in that sketch that I put, I put a little lollipop on top that represents street light. But however, we would choose the aesthetic, the same architectural treatments that we do, But however we would choose the aesthetic, the same architectural treatments that we do, that we would town center side that we have chosen, we can use in the column, on the column, whatever makes sense, that was, again, my goal with it. Another thing, I also want to quote what she's saying. The stack stone is very pleasing to the eye, but it's an expense which we can use elsewhere. What I'm thinking is, on Bice Road, all the residents there actually objected when we put just this here, the white, round the middle, guardrails, they wanted some rust looking or some similar. Are we going to use that or what is the plan because aesthetics too matter there? Do you pursue it to your adopted guardrail policy? Because you do have an adopted policy in guardrel and it says that Garrel on arterials. So this is a major roadway. Should be standard, which is the silver standard G dot issue. Garrel in residential areas should be painted or coded and then Garrel on collector roadways. So if it's a toss up like Bice Road is a a collector roadway then it needs to come to council for a decision. So the Bicerode Bridge is the one you have decided most recently. I think that was about a year ago now and you said, ooh in that in that case in that instant it makes sense to have not guard rail except where it is absolutely required. Let's do a wall instead. I don't know if you can do that. I don't know if you can do that. I don't know if you can do that. I don't know if you can do that. I don't know if you can do that. I don't know if you can do that. I don't know if you can do that. I don't know if you can do that. I don't know if mortar in between, takes a lot more stone, a lot more expensive. But if you want to reduce the cost but still you stone, you can go ahead and instead of buying the stacked stone, you can buy the flagstones and flip them. So you get more surface area, which still gives a treatment not quite the same look, but you could still have stone facing. That was on the side. I think we need to get you out there chiseling some stuff. I can sense this and Chris we haven't gotten to you yet, but would it be fair that we move forward like with the option that we talked about and then offline and together with Chris Haggard and whoever else on the team maybe we could get a little bit of estimate on what he's talking about so that we can have a way to compare and then we can bring it way to compare. Any other ordinance? And then we can bring it back. And then if y'all want to bait streetlights or flipping the stones or not, you know, you ought to leave it to that out. Go for it. All right. Chris, do you have anything you want to add about it? I don't care about the aesthetics. I just wanted to have utility. I want people to go under it and cross into our town centers. So, it's after it's built, it's my concern. All right. All right. Is that, are we good to move on? Are we good? Yeah, what you need, staff? You guys get to vote in the next. You guys get to vote in the next meeting. It sounds like what the consensus was is that base bid plus up to $400,000, we come back with what that it would be like from a very more expansive view in relation to if we were to do those markers that we talked about. I know that's a separate issue, but you really can't I don't think look at one without the other. You're a business. Right. So I just want to throw out there. It's going to take a little bit of time to handle all those variables and be able to address all of that. So. Do the best you can. That's all we can do. As soon as we're ready and have enough information, we will certainly bring it back expeditiously. All right. Until we get the T-Swust accuracy for other projects in line and how much funding there is for those with that fee. What is the floor? What is the floor? Well, no, not that. I mean the overall tunnel itself, which is now up to 7.6. But that project, anyway, we have to do it. So it's, you don't have to. But I mean, what is it that that's... Tromping? Yeah. For instance, the Barnwell Road Trail is one that doesn't have adequate... So when is the Barnwell Trail? So we're currently in the right-way stage with both the part up to a river mountain roundabout and the part north of Rivermont Roundabout. Nibblig, yes. We're still working on right away negotiation. That's all we are still on track. We remain on track as last discussed with council but the right away negotiation process for a project of that length is just, it takes time with a lot of property owners and well. I think you're right on track with getting an update on the T-splots funding and timeframes and milestones and hurdles for each of the project because what I think what Bob and Stacey are saying does make a lot of sense because QuickSide has been a priority but we also need to understand what it does to the other projects and the funding if we take away. So having the update I think is timely. It's good. Okay, all right. All right, thank you. All right, next item. Thank you, the next item is the Employee Health Benefits Cost Sharing Ratio. We have Director Aubrey for presentation. Hi, good evening, everyone. I'm back. So based on our conversation from the September 9th work session, there were several council members who asked for this to come up as a discussion item. So we put together several charts. You'll see two charts of the two plans that we offer to our employees with three comparison cities with an average line. And you can also see where we discuss, of course, the appreciation that we have for counsel and your investment towards wellness so that our employees can choose to invest in themselves and reduce their overall health care cost if they choose to take that option. So we are going to be finalizing our health and wellness options towards open enrollment and we're excited to be doing so. And with all of that, I'm not going to read the memo to you. So I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have. But we have this data for you now. So I just want to say that I think that it's important for the council to look at it from a 30,000 foot view. And for me, the main decision point is, do we wanna go the same percentage, dial it back, and the city provide less, or the city provide more? I believe your recommendations that we provide kind of the same existing percentage. And then I lean into that and trust you and the staff and management to figure out how to divvy up the bucket of funds so that it provides the best coverage but also the right incentives, right? Because that's also part of this, for everyone's benefit. And so that's where I am. So, hey. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Liz. These graphs and these things, it's really well put together. So, thank you. Yeah, I agree with the mayor. Like, we would go with your session of keeping it same. But again, with the health incentives, like, you are pretty much going to You are incentivizing the employees and their premium is going to be comparatively maybe it will go down less than that what they're paying so depending on The definitely motivates the employees so Consul putting that big amount towards the health initiatives is a great step so I appreciate that in. And thank you. We're going to miss you so much. Thank you for all you've done for us and if I may take you to lunch I would love to show you some appreciation. One of the questions I had is I noticed in that. What is this for you? No, it would be my tree, I'm never on that. The health care plan for the employee and family, it kind of dips down more than the other cities do. To 89, it's more of a stir stuff, I guess. And I don't see that happening with the other plan or with the other cities. And I think there's what about 73 employees on that plan. So I don't know what it would do if you bump that up to 90 to be similar with the employee plus child and the employee plus spouse. Even if it meant maybe taking the single employee down a little bit to 93, just to make a better align, not have such a drop off, I guess. I would ask it. That's not too moving, ask. Do you want me to take that or do you want me to take that? I would say typically how plan, cost, or take in, and you will see some of this in the chart, but typically what you would see is that there's going to be more coverage for the employee because you want to give that incentive to the one employee, right? And purposely put them in this order because in my experience over time in handling benefits, this would be the order of the highest percentage and I know that we don't necessarily have that alignment at this point. But this would be the percentage that you would probably pay from the highest to the lowest over time. Are you trying to say that you would provide your highest support or subsidy to the individual employee plan, whereas because you're really trying to encourage, especially for those dual income households where they are both potentially insured rather than putting the family insurance on us, because to the other employer. So you don't even have to talk, sir. You've got it. Yes, that's exactly what you're having this conversation with you a few months ago. Yes. So that is generally where you want to incentivize is you really want to take care of that employee and make sure that their coverage is a little bit higher and then you would go down right and typically where you will find the expenditures are not going to be in children but they're going to be in spouses, right? And so not so much the plus children and the family, but again, that spouse coverage. So I understand your point though of what you're saying in the chart of that doesn't match up with the other cities and how they're handling it. But I think what we have done in the past and how this has been taken care of is we have gone multiple years without making adjustments, right? And so these might have gotten more and more out of whack over time. That's an official term, just so you're aware of whack. But they have kind of disproportionately not matched because of what we have done and that's why we're trying to make those incentives up. So I think that there is an opportunity and where we find that that opportunity may come in play is again in those other health and wellness incentives. So I don't know if you want to add something. But again, to that note. The same thing, like more employees like the incentives are coming from the employees also. So if you look at it, employees just one person. When you go into the family and those, so you get more incentives and their premium comment. Okay, well, if they, I don't think they apply to the kids though. The incentives. So they say that we do not have or currently have any proposals that would apply it would just be for The dependence to your point. Yeah for this vows is that that would go directly Okay, so this is the same as what it's been though I'm sorry, but I'm sorry this coverage the share amount is the same is what it was last year or so this is The model that we talked about that is one percentage. This is the 2024 percentages that I think are on here because we're comparing what they have. So we don't, this is not the 2025 numbers because we needed to have this discussion first. If that makes sense because we're comparing what they had for 2024 and we don't have their 2025 data to tell you where all the other plans have gone yet. You had seen some numbers previously where it was a 1% adjustment in a previous memo that was for Johns Creek only that we had talked about but we kind of went backwards to show you this data that this is just our 2024 data and in comparison to the other plants. Okay, so then will there be a significant, if everything stays the same for 25, is there a significant increase then? Yeah, there is because our health insurance rates went up for 25, but thankfully Council lead in and budgeted funds towards the wellness and preventative care and our new provider or signite. You approve that contract tonight. Also put forward $50,000 towards wellness and preventative care. So the goal is to as Liz described have a wellness and preventative care. So the goal is to as Liz described have a wellness and preventative care incentives that help offset the rise in premiums for our employees. So does that make sense? Yes. So these are the same splits. It's just going up. It's going up three. Three. One of them. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Well, I feel sorry that you won't be seeing the benefits of what you put in place next year. I think I'd like to hold the line where you suggested. And also I think next year we'll have a lot more data which coming up through this wellness program to tweak a little more savings. I hope, but anyway, you'll be looking from far. And probably you'll be comparing John's trick with, where were you, where were you going to? Okay, thank you. Thank you. All right, no questions. I do, as part of the Wellness Initiative, would it help drive, are they looking at how to drive more involvement with the HDHP plan? Because I believe that's best for John's Creek, but also the individuals within the HDHP long term. But is that a goal of the Wellness Initiative? Or is it just to focus on wellness? So it has been in the past. And I will tell you, as the plans have gotten closer and closer in pricing, that there was one point where there were a lot more people that were, it wasn't so much, there was a lot more people, let me say, in the POS plan than there were the high deductible plan. And now it's about even as we've been able to educate more. So with that split being a lot easier, I think people trust the plan. There was a lot of lack of trust and understanding, you know, maybe the first year is a little bit worse, but you know, you get on to that. So understanding those additional savings with that, HSA plan and all those other things, continues to be part of it, is our education goes on, but there's still, you know, a lot of hesitancy with that, but we are getting better and better every year with making sure that people understand that. Awesome. And is there a way we could potentially evaluate enrollment in HDHP long term with the HSA seed money match like if we provided, I would say, higher matching offerings with that health tilt enrollment. I think that it could. My recommendation if we were going to do that, that we would probably tear it for, because right now it's flat for anyone. But yes, I think that would definitely do that because it would help break that deductible cost. And that's where I think that becomes scarier, for sure. Thank you, Melissa. Absolutely. I got a quick question. When you did the wellness initiative, what programs specifically did you introduce? So this, in 2024, we have had just the preventative care incentives. For next year, we haven't finalized all the programs because we wanted to see what our budget looks like and not knowing where this conversation again. First we were waiting on the signal decision and then this conversation kind of came up. So we're waiting on that, but we plan to finalize those this week. But we are looking at quite a few items such as dependent care, some health coaching options, we're looking at a lot of different things. Screenings. Yes, yes. Biometric screenings is part of that program with the health coaching. So a lot of things in the works that would go along with those, we just need to make sure that we know what our money is and how we can utilize it in the best way and then offer those to our employees. Here. I am fine with your staff recommendation. I know you'll come back to us next year with any course corrections of necessary. Thanks you. You will be missed. Thank you very much for everything you've done. And yeah, I'm sure wherever you're going, they're going to be super happy that you'll be on board. So thank you very much for everything. I am pretty happy with where this is landing. I know when I asked this question before how we come up with the split, you came back with this memo and it's pretty detailed. Just a simple question because when we were talking about changing the providers to signal and the reduction from what we originally had planned, is there a back end algorithm or formula that we're using to come up with the actual split? Or is it based on our budget that we actually have and sort of a swag based on when we actually get the premiums for the city? Or is it like next year we talked about that if rates go up, what does that look like? How does that plug into this algorithm or if it's a swag, it's a swag, it's best, you know, just trying to understand that back end of it. Okay, so this one is very much based on our history of the city and that we know that most of our employees love their health plan. And as long as we don't mess with the components in the plan and what is covered by the plan, which we chose not to do this year. People like to keep their plan and their plan selection. So our modeling and our anticipation of what the rates will do is very much based on what are people enrolled in now, who has dependents versus does not have dependents or spouses on the plan. And then the percentage increase that's estimated comes from our actuary. So we're working with our broker to look at based on our claims ratio and our history. What do we think is going to happen to the plan at large and then we extrapolate that based on our actual enrollment counts. So there's a lot of math behind it. But it's math based on best available information and and then over time, the hope in the studies we have seen is that with the shift to preventative care and encouraging more wellness, that's where we can see the positive benefits in those health rates staying. As close to market split, basically. And how much can we absorb, absorb based on our budgets and stuff like that? So that's great. I'm good. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Well, I think you got unanimity and I think on not just the health care plan, but also that you'll be missed. So we appreciate your service to John Scree. Thank you very much. I appreciate it all my time and thank you everyone for your support. Thank you. Next item. Thank you. The next item is the expenditure policy continued discussion. We have Director Campbell for presentation. Good evening, Mr. Mayor and Council. So the expenditure policy was last discussed with you at the September 9th work session. There you requested additional information falling into three categories. Data on the reimbursements paid for fiscal year 22, 23, and 24, which are included in your report. You also asked about the reimbursement policy if it followed best practices. So under section two, we define for you what best practices are. And then highlight that our policy complies with most of those giving you an opportunity to make suggested revisions there if you choose to do so. And then the last was you asked for comparative expenditure policies. So we did provide as an attachment to this report expenditure policies from Alfa Reda, the city of Duluth, Calhoun, as well as Norcross. And at this time we're requesting additional feedback from council. Otherwise we will consider this expenditure policy have been reviewed and market accordingly. Thank you, Director. I'll just say for my part that I think that we should look at amending the policy in such a way that it removes those things that don't provide a real tangible direct benefit to the overall city. And if there's no other real opportunity for those benefits to be had in other ways. I know that everyone has done a conscientious effort to be good about how they have requested in kind of reimbursements. So I don't think we need to be overly litigious about the past, but more just think about what would be most appropriate for the future. So. All right. Thank you, Ronnie. But again, expenditure policy, we all, reimburseable expenses most of the time with the travel and meals like we know and we are professionals so we do act accordingly so I'm not going to go back into the details on that but some of these like educational material and professional memberships does it really add value to what we are doing? Once we have those partnerships established with those individual organizations, I know staff is working on those. Once we have those things like I don't think these would really we need a technically. So. We need a technically. So- No, I'm talking about qualified experts. It's only about the elected officials. Qualified experts see like elected officials. I'm talking more about us. So I think in the whole of the expenditure policy, that's the only place that we were discussing. Everything else is falling in place with the other cities. And we can leave everything else like that. But just, again, it's, it's pretty broad. So when you come back and say what we can do with that. Anything else? No. Stacey. Thank you, Director Campbell. I'm fine with the policy as written. It was very in line with the other cities. I do like your suggestion. We need to better define some of these expenses, so it's easy for the average person to tell what things were spent on. And can we also add a section about P-Card distribution? I noticed one of the, I think it's mentioned in the Alpharetta policy. So either, you know, all elected officials get them or no elected officials get them. And, you know, with a clear distinction, not just used, but issued a P-card. And then, like, if we can all agree, is it city manager, assistant city manager, clerk, assistant clerk? Leave it at that. I don't think anybody else needs a P-card, my opinion. So if you can add a section on that, that would be great than better transparency into the expenses expenses because there are some things I have no idea. And I know and I appreciate you'll get me the list and I didn't need it today. But I think from looking at the information that you said, it's obvious that it needs some things need to be more clear. Thank you. I think, Ronnie, I would continue holding that policy as is. The one aspect which was very clear to me was, I wish the expenses were better categorized. What was it for? Who was involved in it? Who approved it, those are the kind of things which actually come, we do all this because we want to audit or when it goes to audit, there is no second question. So if you just submit a receipt just like in any IRS they will, they can object unless it's a very small amount. So I would suggest in the interest of just transparency, the reason for the expense should be included either in the receipt or somewhere. So that makes it easier for all of us instead of just guessing or coming to our own conclusions. And I think you follow the same position for employees also, isn't it? It is a similar process for employees as well, as far as the approval on the workflow. And all that, yeah. Do they also have to say, how do they justify that it's a city-related order? It is incidentally. It's usually itemized on the receipt with the purpose of the meeting. That's fine. That's exactly what we're trying to do. Thanks. Thank you. Chris. I mean, after reviewing it, and I apologize for being ignorant on it. But I mean, I do think we need to put better controls in place if it's an approval over. I don't know, $500 or something on an annual expense that has to get approved by somebody before it's an expenditure. Because there were some things that I know I'm on the more nothing but office supplies, but there are some expenditures here that I really take umbridge with as they relate to professional development fees, things that benefit the individual, not necessarily the governance of the city. And that was more trusting that we would be judicious on that. So do we put better controls in place? But I don't think we should have to. I think someone getting in this position should use those extremely conservatively and as a last resort. So, I mean, I would not want to put those on there because that's an undue burden, but if we can't control the proper route, then I do advocate for that. And I don't believe we have over three years. If anyone disagrees, and that's fine, you all can make those expenditures, but now that... When it serves your own interests, it should not be expended. Absolutely not. And there's some. I thought it was going to be lunches and tiki-tak, everyone's done pretty well there, but some of the things that serves your career growth, your things should not be expended. I do take issues with that. It's not a ton, so that is a silver lining, but there are some issues there and so do controls need to be put in place or is this a Let's Not expend taxpayer funds to benefit ourselves Is this conversation enough? I hope so but I don't know past behavior has a tendency to predict future behavior Sounds like I'd be in the minority there, but I'd put some type of approval process, $500, more than a $500 annual expense has to go through some type of approval process. I don't think it should be us doing the proving, but in justification for those expenditures. Again, stuff at this level we shouldn't have to do, but the data unfortunately tells me otherwise. So that's what I would advocate. And I'd advocate that maybe we consider the use case and the return on investment for everyone going to the GMA. Maybe we pick two, you can rotate. I'll always decline, but I need to see notes. I can't just hear networking's a good ROI. We know the people in the surrounding communities where it makes sense to have those relationships. I need to paint bold sessions, attended what are policies that we can better here. So it was disappointing. I do think there should be controls if we can control ourselves. I would frame it a little bit more positively than Chris just did, but I think that we just need better definitions of what are the types of expenses that we want to see approved. I thought the level of detail in the policies you sent us were very good. And I think we could lean on those to find best practices. I do tend to lean more towards Chris where we just be very restrictive and allowing expenses at all. However, one thing I did like was Alfaaretta sets a budget for the Council of X amount. And this is how much they get to spend for various professional membership trainings, et cetera, meals and anything else. And then it's on a pro-rata basis divided by seven or six, I guess I have seven. So I thought, okay, that's a good way to, you know, first off define the reimbursement, reimbursement expenses more clearly, and then second have a cap. And that way we can all make decisions about how we want to spend our portion of the budget rather than being an unlimited amount. So those are my thoughts on it. I know it's not too detailed, but I would like that to go that direction. Yeah, where? I would like that to go that direction. I think the expenditure policy is pretty good as it's written. There are a couple things I do agree with the Alfredo policy. I love the fact that we set X amount of dollars into budget. We divide it by seven and we use it how we feel can better help the community and all those things. I agree with that 100%. I did have a question on the Director Campbell. I did a question about the sort of the peak card, the procurement card. With that card itself, does it add additional controls over just using personal credit cards and expense in those? Because we know exactly where it's coming from, you're seeing reports. Is it a level of control by having P cards issued or is it just the opposite? So one of the benefits of a P card being put in place at a city is that there are certain purchases that can be allowed and permissible with that P card versus if you were to use your own personal credit card, it's that your total discretion. So we take that and within that existing authorized purchases, there's an authorized limit, there's all of the other restrictions and there are the mechanism that you can put in place. There are also all of the other reviews, levels of review as well, and levels of approval that are in place with all of our other expenditures as they go through a process. It really just becomes an additional inform of payment at that time. Right. And so that may potentially put some guardrails on what Chris was just talking about. Or if we're all issued a P card, then any expenses that we receive or we want to incur, there's controls, it's better tracked. It provides the guardrails that potentially Chris, you may be referring to. That's one change that potentially I would like to see. And also- Well, imagine if there are a few decides whether anybody gets issued a P card if the policy doesn't really reference that. So the P card program is basically a request that is made to the finance director and in consultation with the city manager. It's approved and then we issue in a card. So that's what I know about the process. Okay, is that correct? So we use them with our departments to have smoother purchasing. And as running just went over, there's some additional tracking there. From a historical standpoint, only the, to my knowledge, only the mayor has ever had a P-card issued on this sitting council and in prior councils, the prior mayor chose to make expenditures by P-card as a better tracking means instead of doing reimbursements. I don't believe Mayor Bradbury has activated the P-card that was issued to him. Okay, not. So there, we have continued a historical precedent, but that is obviously something that could be changed by the council if it's the will of the body. Right now to date, P cards are more a staff tool that are used for, but from the police department in the recent winter storm event, if it had gotten worse and we needed to buy food, having a P card is a great way to be able to do that on a staff side. I don't have as much guidance or wisdom to give you on the elected official side. I've seen it go horribly wrong in other cities with- I'll just say- I can speak to staff side. I'll just say that I never wanted that because I feel like that if it was in my wallet that if it wasn't my wallet there was no way that I could make a mistake with it. And so chose to, I think very thoughtfully have Pam who is the manager of the office of the mayor for her to have it because she is more likely to have expenses related to like when we do Martin Luther King unity breakfast the state of the city You know and we were in preparation for this discussion we were looking at some historical data The state of the city used to cost 10 to 15 thousand dollars. We've cut it down to $5,000 or less. The MLK breakfast, I think, we did it very frugally. We're looking at ways to make it even more cost efficient, but hopefully get the same meaning out of it. And so I know that personally, I've tried to be very, run a pretty lean measure as well. But I do think that there are things that are unique to the mayor's office and the charter makes it clear that that is the case. So I think that it would be a mistake to try to make that not the case. But you seem very focused on that. Can I just finish real quick what I would say in the other authority. I, you know, I can go with a P card across the board or without. I'm okay either way. I was trying to provide Chris some guard rails to find that happy medium. But if, if it's something that the council does not want P-cards, I'm okay with that, too, because I would never use it anyways. Yes. I think the mayor is the face of the city. Whatever his expenses are, I'm fine with it. Absolutely fine with it. I have no qualms about it. Same way, when we did the budget last time, we approved educational expenses in probably every department. We never questioned it. For some reason, we are beating up on ourselves, nitpicking on item which is probably under 20,000, where we are talking seventy nine million dollars. I can't understand why we can't focus on the right things. There are a lot more issues we can talk about instead of nitpicking on this small stuff. This is almost like... Bab, I think we're trying to avoid nitpicking see my point what I'm saying is I said if you have an official expense put it down there. But let's not beat up on Nisha that saying hey this is just about this is not this. I think a fairly mature enough and if we are advocating so enthusiastically for every department head to see that this staff is very well educated, how will we say, I mean we don't think twice, I've even approved so many budgets for the economic development director. We can, by the same token, we can say, hey, I don't think he needs to go this place. What are the things that you have not been allowed to do that you think would be a benefit? No, no, no. I point is I find it very very How do I say it leaves a very bad taste in the mouth when we have to Keep beating each other like this for small amounts Pathetic amounts when we are passing huge department budgets and we are encouraging them And I don't know what what is the point and you already spent about 20 minutes on this when we are passing huge department budgets, and we are encouraging them. And I don't know what is the point in, you already spent about 20 minutes on this. When there is, we wanted one more session on the budget, we didn't get it. But we rather spend time like this on these kind of, I would say, really frivolous trivial subjects. I would rather have some substantial discussions because the city has got so many other issues than just think about $30,000, $40,000, which is between seven people. Well, that's the exact rationale I gave before the split, before POS and HDHP, but we had Director Aubrey give that and you all said we should get in the weeds. So let me know. I was ignorant about this until it was brought to my attention and then after it being brought to my attention, I do think there are some immoral, immoral expenses. I don't think where these individuals develop themselves full time in their career and public administration, we are finite, we are temporary. We have four years, eight years, potentially less. We are maxed out there. I do not want to pay for your development to get that role put on the resume in person. That is a principle viewpoint. Did it? That is my principle viewpoint is I don't care about the police department having their P card, but I just meant if we can just have clarity on who has one for the count spending for council. I know you do, I know Ronda, I know Ed did, nobody gave. If you could state that like Al Fareda says, or even you can make him official statement. We don't have one. Several members of staff have p-cards. I have people in every single department with one. There's a lot of internal controls monitoring staff, but I want to keep this conversation on the council side. And that was all I was wondering about the policy. The council does not have one. That's true. And I'm saying they can be added to the policy. No, no decals issued. So I like, to officials. I just, I like to just try to say that let's keep everything sane. Let's forget the peak cards. Let's just, you know, I think we're just, I think in spirit, Bob, what you're saying, I think we're, we all know what we want to do and what we should do. And like I said last time, we're, we try to do the right thing all the time. Sometimes we may make mistakes. But at the end, I think we all try to do the best for the city. So I suggest we keep the policy the same and let's just table this and let's just move on. So I don't think that we went through all this discussion to leave it the same. I think as Chris Kauf on this point out, there are some expenses that are questionable. I don't know that we need to go and litigate that, but moving forward, I know that I agree that the quote unquote professional memberships, the Kimmer with the term, do we call it continuing education. I'm not aware really of what besides the annual GMA conference or some of the GMA conferences that are out there, what information it is that we're not able to get either through staff or online. I mean, there are a multitude of things that we have available to us to get information and they don't cost hundreds of dollars. Now, there are things that, you know, sometimes there is a class that's going to be held in early October that's going to be about changes to the property tax law. And I can't remember if that had a fee associated with it. Okay, it was free. I just couldn't go because of the schedule. But so I mean, there are opportunities to enrich our knowledge and education information, ad nauseam. And the ability to go to any of our different civic groups, I think, is available to us somewhat ad nauseam. I know that whether mayor or when I was on council it seemed like the invitations were always there. So anyway, I personally am for your suggestion that those two categories be knocked off. I know where Chris stands, Aaron I was a little unclear. I got the spirit of where you were like specificity. Yeah, I'm fine with the leave suggestion. I'm open to cobbling a compromise. You know, since we have a little division on this, I think we just need stronger definitions for those categories or to remove the categories that are causing the the disagreement and then but if we are going to keep them I just think that we could perhaps have a cap of some kind. I can add to your point if we have these agreements with the organizations like the Chamber of Commerce or like cities staff is working on multiple. Once we have that we already have access to them. We can go to all of those. Right. So it goes to us then. If the way we're building consensus is that there's a consensus around your proposal I'm fine with that. I'm just saying I was open to these forms. Or how we can do what Chris said yesterday. Put a cap. So would they still need more ways and would there be a would there be a good compromise in spirit but also in function where we got rid of the professional memberships because I'm not sure that that is a good case is there. But on continuing education, again, I know that there are sometimes things that might cost a $50 fee for a seminar that I think I'd really like to go to that. Or maybe it's a subscription. I know that the Wall Street Journal, it bugs me that I don't have a pay subscription, the Wall Street Journal, and the paywall bugs me. Maybe there should be continuing education, but a cap for that specific thing, but not in the thousands of dollars, but in like a few hundred dollars and you can spend that towards whatever endeavor that fits that bill that you might think is appropriate. What's the key to this to how to find divided by seven people? Keep it simple. We've been spending about 5,000, I don't have the time to come in front of you guys. Sorry, it's been a day. 5,000 divided by seven is 700? And it was a per year, was it per year? What do you have for the offer out of one? But I still think that the items need better defined. Yes. What constitutes a meal that's a business meal, what constitutes a professional membership that is being held in your official capacity as opposed to Chris has pointed out your personal or political capacity? And so I still even like so to get myself a little more comfortable with it because I actually am a little closer to Chris putting clear definitions and then putting a cap so that everyone can determine how they want to access those resources. Does the IRS do define that for us? So some of the business expenses are clearly defined by the IRS. So I would think that if we stay with those guidelines, I think it will be a little different for government. I feel yeah, for government and politics a little different for government. I feel, yeah, for government and politics, the little. I mean, well, anyway, I would be open to something for there being a pot for each council member in terms of continuing education, but probably not as rich as $700. That sounds like it. Yeah, and then we still get to the meals and what constitutes a business meal. And I just ask that because we all go to coffee all the time with people on most of us I think, because we're picking up our own tab. We're not getting wind and dined. But in the event we were to have one, it's not defined what that is. And so we've all done a good job policing ourselves, so to speak, and that we're not running up tabs with meals everywhere, but we could under the current policy. And I think that's a problem. And I'll just say for my own examples, I point out with the Wall Street Journal, so like I'm not a big, you know, high finance guy, but it seemed like the articles I often want to read are related to somehow the city. So that's how I, in my mind, would justify why there would be a benefit to me and my capacity as mayor, but And with I don't know if that suggestion Provides a little bit of consensus for Yeah, what are you saying? Are you you want to apply? Oh, I was gonna give the like I? I think we've got a couple of ideas emerging, but it strikes me as if this might, we may land this plane best if we bring it back to you at the next work session of here were the items as we heard them. Let's get some yes or no on each item so that one item might be, hey, here's what you budgeted for education and training total for fiscal year 25. Here's what it looks like if you want to divide by seven and then you can raise your hands if you wanna do that or not, kind of things, as well as here is a potential change to the policy. Let's raise our hands, yes or no, that's something you want to see and then we bring it back so you can adopt it. Is that? Do you want that or we just say, what we already, what you suggested. Have a cap if it's 5,000 divided by seven and go with it. Why do we get back? Because we still haven't defined, the policy is not very well written. It is very vague and we actually have done a pretty good job of not running a month with that policy because we could have. And so we still haven't defined terms. And so I'm glad that the seven of us haven't been spending $700 a month on business meals, but we all could have. We could have spent $7,000 a month, a year on business meals, the way it is currently written. I still feel it's worth the work to define it so that we just have clear policies in place. I mean, you always want a good policy to prevent anything going wrong. So I'm seeing for a solid for, for probably no professional memberships, but I'm hearing a wider majority for something for continuing education. I don't know what dollar amount. I'm not at $700, but something like that. It's up to y'all if you want to try to land it, but it sounds like between air and what the same manager is saying that it probably makes sense for it to come back to us. Course Harris for E. Unpub-Admin, government policy, publisher-parish, Google Scholar, you can get the research out there. So I would put a cappet, continuing education of $250 annually. So that's a sheep. I would feel like I would be like this out of getting a candy store because I could get the Wall Street Journal. I'd be pretty excited about that. So I appreciate where you're going with this, but that pretty much kills GMA. That's the fundamental decision we're making here. It would, that was one of the things that the clerk brought up in our staff side of this conversation of, it may be beneficial if this comes back to you with examples of past professional education alongside your budget, and then the like, here are the questions to make sure that the decision you make is informed with data, recognizing we have divergent opinions, but no one seems to be moving on their opinions here. But I also thought that GMA, at least the annual conference, was held separately partly because it's itemizing the budget. It is, but if you are capping your education and training, whether you conclude that in the cap or you don't, is the decision this body hasn't rested with, but it's one that I'd rather have on paper in front of you so you could think about it going into it. Well then I think that that's where we have to get this policy spelled out. Well, and I would say that there's differences between what is sort of a group thing and what are individual pursuits. I think of GMA much like their tree, you know, that it is a little bit more of a group thing. But if we have that clarity for you in a, here's a work session memo with 10 questions. And you can come in with your thoughts on each question. And then we can use that to land this plane. I agree, but I also agree with Council Member Ermerley on, well, maybe not on the importance of it, but on the time how much time we spend. So I wouldn't want you all to spend a lot of high priority time. So if you could tag it to something on that's regularly scheduled to it, like in a budget amendment or something where we don't have to take Director Campbell's extra time to focus on this. That's all I'm saying. And just to be clear, what we're speaking of here is the council elected, our elected expenses, because the expense policy is not defined for just us. It's for the staff also. There is one specific section to see that only applies to qualified expenditures for elected officials. Yes. And I'm under the impression this discussion is focused on that one. That's one area. Okay. Yep. And that no one's well. Because I did have an issue that with vehicles and vehicle reimbursement in miles, so if this is not appropriate to talk about that then I won't. But you're welcome bringing it back as another issue. Okay, okay. And it's real simple. I talked about last time it's basically if an employee or staff member is receiving a monthly car allowance, there should be a threshold in miles before they get actual miles on top of the monthly expenses that they're receiving for the car. Is it not already, you have to go 50 miles out? Right now it's 50 miles. 50 miles, right. But after the 51 first mile, you are 50 to 100, you could submit 67 cents per mile on top of receiving your monthly car allowance. So I don't think that's fair. I think it's double dip in, if you will. I would, from a proposal perspective, let's say it's a $500 a month allocation per the card that's received. Can I ask you a favor? Yes, sir. So that we can get to our other two scheduled items. Can you bring that up? Let's have a separate item. Yep. All right. Have we got this at least for now to the point where we can move on? Is everyone good to move on? All right. Next item. Thank you, Mayor. The next item is your 20 25 calendar, which you have in front of you. I just want to point out a couple of things. We are seeing this a little bit earlier in the year. Normally, you're waiting on Fulton County Schools to adopt their 25 school year calendar, but they have already done that. That's why you're seeing it in September. The one before you, the really colorful one, is just a draft. After you adopt your calendar, all the other boards and committees will adopt around your schedule. And finally, just as a starting place, I've drafted it based on your current schedule of 2024, which was every three weeks on Mondays. So, with that, I'll answer any questions. It took me a while to figure out these were dates with this document. But- Further ahead than me, so. The- Yeah, it was. I started to do a quick alignment and I think we can wh- Whiz through this if you'll allow me. All right. So January, February, memo, Skinner, Bradbury, additional staff, completely aligned. March is where we hit our first hiccup. memo and Council Member Skinner on the 17th, Mayer and additional staff on the 10th and 24th. Can I give a little bit of that? So I think at one point maybe we had talked about how if we go to the every three weeks that we would look for opportunities to add one more meeting per quarter. And so there's one added for spring, summer, and fall. And I will say this that for the June 30th, that is like two days after GMA. And so it seems like that might make sense to not have that particular meeting. But that was just my thought. And then I try to add another meeting for the budget season. Okay. So, but anyway, well I'm comfortable with the 10th and 24th. Well then, Delhi passed about the 31st. If it's changing this way, then if you're having two meetings, like, if it was only one, I would have changed it. But right now they're coming back and adding two. So it's going to be a week-to-week meeting. That's not going to work. So I'm fine with 10 and 24. All right. We got Mark. We are good on April. Full Inter-Rater Agreement. Yes. A lawful Inter-Rater Agreement. May, we only have one meeting. Right now we get to June though. This is where it gets a little iffy. We have memo and council member Skinner on the ninth and 30th mayor and additional staff, only the ninth. How do we want to merge these? Well, so I hate to talk about July next, but my concern was running too close into the fourth of July, and I know staff, additional staff was recommending July 7th to me that is too close to the fourth. So let's see, June, what did I do? I think I was just trying to keep them spaced out and around GMA. If you guys only want to have the nine, that's not a problem for me. You're okay. I'm 30. So we're June. June 9th it is. So that means July, it's looking like the 14th and 28th is the winter based on. So June, it's going to be 9th and 30th. Just 9th. Just 9th. We don't need a 30th. So does it make sense that July be on the 7th rather than on the 14th so that it narrows the gap between June 9th and the next July meeting? I mean, it's still a month. But after the 4th? Do you want to meet it? I don't know. It's so hard on the fourth. I was going to ask you guys. Yes, you guys. We're jumping right into the dates here. But is anyone interested in trying to move this to a Tuesday? No, absolutely. It is a joke. All right. No, no, no. Tuesday was keep doing back and forth. Tuesday is wonderful because it gives, you know, you freeze up your weekend, give staffs additional time on Monday, and it just, it seemed like it was a lot simpler on a Tuesday than a Monday. So we have, I don't know that it's technically or practically feasible because the court. And we were having issues before, but I have to admit I'm kind of tired of the changes too, but I know. I know, but- No, I know. But rather than debating this, I mean we're going to have to just do a real quick round robin. Just like to get opinion from our city attorney about court. And if we were to move on Tuesday was court really challenged by us having our council meeting in Tuesday. I think as long as we let the court know what the schedule is, we can adjust the calendar accordingly to try and work around the schedule. We've got a lot more flexibility in the way we're running the court now. So I think we could work around that. The one thing I will add from last year when we did this on Tuesdays, we did have a number of court sessions, Angela is right, I'm sure we can make adjustments, but that ran straight into court. So we had trouble getting the AV transition done. So although we have some flexibility in the scheduling and the case loads, from our year of experience doing it, it was challenging and there were many occasions that we ran straight into. We still had people with the judges and solicitors. It's in case. It's given them three months notice. They can adjust the schedule so that it's not on a Tuesday. All right. Moving court off of Tuesdays is different than adjusting the case load and the schedule. Can we just say that there's even any appetite for this? Why don't we just go finish this? Well, two-well, the dates can be shipped one day. So is there anybody that's interested in moving to Tuesdays? No, I prefer Mondays because... Four. We got four. I love Tuesdays. There's so much easier. Excuse me. This is... I'm sorry. Hey, here. Excuse me. This is- This is wrong. I understand because if you are not able to attend on a Monday, I would definitely compromise on that. I expressed when I had conflicts this year, and no one made one date adjustment. So I will say this. I was open to it. This mix and match in. Some of us actually set up our six to 12 months in advance. We are on Monday. I don't think I can justify a convenience for the seven of us and making a whole bunch of inconveniences for other people. I enjoy Tuesdays more. But we have committed to this process of Mondays every three weeks. And if we make the switch, we're going to have to, the court issues, I'll have to go back and review every single date because I took it on the draft of Mondays. So I don't think we can keep going back. Let's the first one the old preferred Monday that we've done and move on because I hate the size of it. I mean, yeah, Tuesday's great. I'm sorry. All right. Well, for Tuesday's your concerns are that are you ready? Well, then we need to bring this back next time. You know, ask Allison if she could look at the Tuesdays. Because I do find Tuesdays more convenient. I prefer them for the flow, but if it's going to be harder on staff and on the court and on every, you know, I want to make a deliberate decision and not just that, oh yeah, I like Tuesdays better. I definitely like Tuesdays better. But you're concerned, you actually like Tuesdays better, but you know that there's logistical concerns. Logistical. And like, how many planned around Mondays? That's what I was trying to say. I'm sorry. Well, you've been doing this for, you know, six years or something. Yeah, and Monday for Monday and Sunday. All right. Tuesdays through Fridays are open. And then now we have to go figure out which boards are meeting on Tuesdays instead of Mondays because we have the expectations. Alison, will you give us your thoughts, please? I have personally found Mondays to be easier for us. I just kind of, Council days for staff are just, I feel like we're on call for you, which is what our job is, but it kind of feels like we have a home Monday and then we're Tuesday and selfishly, like I usually have a lot of meetings on Wednesday, so at least I have Tuesday at home. But I am obviously here to work around your schedule. So we all have to work together as a team. We don't really work on the weekend. Because last time you said you had an issue, I don't think that's, if someone, particularly remember, is so very much in Canoe, that was my thing when I said, okay, we'll shift Monday. Because I didn't want one person to just miss out or be in Canoe, but if we are going to make a work wonderful, if it's not such a big burden on staff and the courts Tuesday works better for me. Pressure colleagues are giving you some Deference. Well, I mean, yeah, we were almost through July all we were about to We would just give it every month. One day. On December was already aligned. Oh, I gotta get runs the rest from doing it. No, you can't go the restroom. No, no, no, you literally can't go because he is there literally saying that if it's more than you can tolerate, they'll defer to you. We love you. Come on. All right. What I would say is we're almost there. Why don't we just finish this out if we're talking about spending our wheels? But if Tuesdays really make the most from what I understand, if you would like to poll staff, that's what I would do before. I will tell you the poll of staff I've taken it. I've lived it on Mondays. I've lived it on Tuesdays. The strong staff preference is to keep it on Mondays. I realize we only we don't get a vote. Yeah, we live to serve with Allison's not wrong. With enough advanced notice, we will do anything you need. However, if you're asking for a staff preference, it's Mondays. And job satisfaction is something outside of your closet. I hate to put everybody on the spot, but may I ask, is it okay that I ask all the staff in the back? You guys are okay with you? Can you do to say? Which one? Preferences. But I need to start with that again. All right, wrong. Guys, wait a second. I mean, I don't think it's fit. Yeah, guys, I don't think it's fit. I don't think it's fit. Yeah, guys, I don't think it's fit. I don't think so. And we've heard from Allison in the City of Manager who represents all the staff. But look, I mean, it sounds like your issue is more changes. And there is a majority that's saying Tuesday, I personally miss traditionalist. I love Monday because it was always Monday. Me too. But if it's- No, these days. It's like it is, but it is. Like, I was, you know, you guys can tell. I'm getting updates about the situation with Caroline, and I'm wearing doing a lot of things right now. So, I had the question who prefers Tuesdays. I prefer Tuesdays. I have not thought about the implications of the schedule and the staff, and I really just need a minute to think about that before, like, for my personal schedule, yes, however, I don't know that that's the best call. So I just need a minute to think about that. If I can ask you to bring this back, if I can add other issues to be considered. To Chris Point, we already have to June four in favor of Tuesday. Listen, listen, listen. There's a reason why U.S. elections are held. All elections are held on Tuesday for the convenience of everybody, including the citizens. It's because people used to have to go by horse to get to the polling location. There's actually like a historical reason for Tuesdays. At this point in time, I have to state it with Mondays. And when I said that I support Tuesdays, it's from my personal benefit. And I just needed to make sure that that's actually the best thing. So. I prefer Tuesdays as well. It would like the reverse. But I think we do what's best on staff. We are here by night time a limited amount. So let's accommodate that and make staff enjoy their job. Kidwing Chris, the other June. We got to hit four months. If we're going to keep going. So what we have, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, but so we have four for Monday, is that what I'm hearing and three for Tuesday, is that where we are? Yeah. You have one for staff preference. You. And well, I agree with that. All right, okay, let's move on to the calendar. All right, so we were. Edgleyon. Jim July. I don't think we were. Ed Goliath. Jim. July. I don't think we just remember the July. Between 14th and 28th and the 7th and 21st. 7th is right after the long weekend, so. They got a month. What Mayor said was 9th to 7th is almost a month. But see, Major, if y'all know this ahead of time, can't y'all plan accordingly? We can certainly plan accordingly. We could always do a special call meeting if there was a- Absolutely, you can do a special call meeting. I raised it as a- if you have something other than the budget you're working on, a construction contract, a big project, we will just need to plan accordingly with any bids we get in at that time of year. Concertainly. All right. I hear Councilwoman Skinner's point, July 4th is going to be a long weekend for a lot of people. Probably the 7th doesn't make a lot of sense. So, just wanted to. So, we are going with July 14th and the 28th. And that accommodates the extra meeting with the budget that you all wanted. Guess what, complete agreement with August, check that off, 11th and 25th. All right, now we got another problem month. We have September, we have memo 15th. Councilmember Skinner, 8th and 22nd. Bradbury, 15th and 29th in additional staff, 8th and 22nd. I'm comfortable with 8th and 22nd or 15th and 29th. I think, when would, well, so for me, it was just in case we need that September 8th to approve the budget. Do you know that foreign advance when you're going to want us to approve the budget? I mean, I think it's good for us to have as our goal to approve the first meeting in case we're for bit all hell breaks loose. We would then have the next meeting as a fallback. September 15th then? But I'm not, you know, I'm putting this out to facilitate the group. I don't care. Then I think 18th and 22nd is better. What are the stuff folks? Thank you. Amen. Just another person. Amen. I'm going to be the second. All right. 820. Second. All right. It works. All right, and then October 13th to the mayor, that's Fulton County fall break, I would vote against that one. Okay. But it looks like we're making progress on the 6th and 27th. 27th or 6th and 20th. Or 20th and so the city management has got somehow a conference that is going to leave us with no city management. I don't think that's a productive use of everyone's time for them not to be. 7th is my one conflict for the year of October. I would love to be able to still take the entire city manager's office team to the ICMA conference. It's our one conference for the year. All right, then let's do. Do I hit six in 20th, right? I'm right. October? Yep. All right. We were so close with November, but we had 17, 17, 17, and then we have November 3rd and 17. You can certainly just do the 17. We'll plan around it. We'll know in 17. You can certainly just do the 17. We'll plan around it. We'll know in advance. Qualms with cut in three and just have in November 17th. Is it hard having just those last three months, just one meeting a month? Because I think let's add. We just have to do a lot of planning in advance. Well, let's add it. I was only matching the memo except for two changes. So I'm fine with the third. I'm sure you're in with one meeting. We got two, yeah. The eighth. The eighth that we got in December? Well, let's move on. I remember historically, I think since the dawn of time, we've only done one meeting, given holiday schedules. Yeah, it's just, it's just, it's not working. It's my birthday. I'd like to. What? 3 and 3. Give it. One cake. Okay. No, no, no. Okay. So November 3rd and 17th. Yes. December 8th. Fully aligned. Yeah. No more schedule. No, nobody. You have to go into the restroom. Hold on, guys. Let me go. Let me ask you. What do you guys think about starting work session at 4.30? Because we have less days, we have more time to discuss the topics. What do you guys think? I know, but it's like six or seven hours of additional meetings for our... But we're always cutting stuff short. I mean, it feels like we're always rushed with the conversation. So would it half hour earlier? Does that... I think we can all work on that. Sure. Yeah. Work on it. Piffy. That's a very team building mode right now. You can tell. It's getting common, oiling, actually. All right. All right. I think we can all work on that. Sure. Yeah. Work on it. Piffy. That's a very team building mode right now. You can tell. It's getting common, knowing actually. All right. Show of hands, people that are wanting to go to 430. 430 to 7. 437. And if we get done early, we get done earlier. We can have executive session in between but How we not see how it goes after we add in the That is a change that we can always make Hey guys, I just want to be with you guys Well, then it's not dinner is hard to be going on a late lunch. Yeah We can move the data to source and we can print four to five. Well, then it's not dinner. It's hard to be going on a late lunch. Yeah. Okay. All right. But so, Allison, you've got what you need in terms of a proposed calendar? Five o'clock. Five o'clock Mondays with the changes we just made. That's all right. It's okay. It's good. We just compared our notes on what date. We're going to weigh. Okay. All right. All right. We got one more item and we got 20 minutes. The next item is a sustainability goal. I think this is Councilmember Conflicts. Maybe Councilmember Junkie. You want it or do you want me? Good for you. I do have one. So this one's more just FYI to see if you have any questions? Yeah, really questions or concerns that we pursue this particular grant programming. If you see in the right up at the memo, it allows you to acquire approximately $136,000. To be honest, I don't even know if we'll hit the deadline. This really doesn't need a council action, but in doing our due diligence, we want to be transparent on the pursuit of it and encourage staff to get it. So essentially, really we would have to agree on one goal that we would pursue these funds for. And that's providing, personally I'd like to make a solar vehicle charging station that can provide energy for staff vehicles in the future, but the goal would be in 26 years having a charger at each one of our facilities. Major ones. Major ones. Major ones, yeah. So putting that out there, if you do not want it, then you can vote against when we encumber. When it comes further? Yeah. Because it will be over the $100,000 threshold. No, basically, it's more of a reimbursement type of expense. So it's equipment-rebuilt watcher. What we're looking at is the EV charging options at the major city. So do we have to install here? City owned parks, city hall. Meaning so we have to spend money here to get on 30%. No, not we. We will get the vendors to install it. And it's watcher. So we get it reimbursed like up to 136,000 dollars To this question, is there any out of pocket expense? Except for her tablebook. Like the staff time and Do we know the total cost to do this? From the better? How they export in their coming in for the. Well, we don't know. We have a report. Yes. So it does function on a reimbursement basis. So we will have to submit for all of our expenses. We provide estimates up front. But we will have to spend the funds initially and then we get reimbursed. And you have to follow certain some two CFRs they were talking of? Correct. So because the funding comes from the federal government, we are bound by some of the federal regulations in relation to purchasing and how we go about acquiring the equipment. But all of the GDOT projects that staff completes, we have to follow those same regulations. So staff is very well versed and not terribly concerned about those federal regulations. Olivia, so are we assured reimbursement? Yes. Can we spend the funds or are we going on a hope that we will? So what the deadline that's mentioned in Councilman Coffin and Councilman Tumquiz Memo, that is the application for reimbursement. So we staff, we would not move forward with trying to spend any funds until our application is approved, which is the guaranteed reimbursement. Do we know what the total cost for not only install but operational side of things? Not at this time. The timing of putting this application together with the deadline, we haven't gotten the hard cost estimates. It is our intention to just upon your consensus to start looking at what that might look like and getting some of those rough estimates. Of course, given the threshold, we would not move forward with spending those dollars until we actually got your approval. So it sounds like there's an interim step before we're actually pulling the trigger. Correct. Yes, exactly. There's a check in with counsel. Yes. So for that reason, I'm all... It's more than a hundred thousand dollars, I'm sure. So you feel come back to us for the approval. Well, just our last agenda item, we were very concerned about staff. And so there's no doubt in my mind that you can get this done. But I don't want you to have to do it at this late in the game and put everything else aside that you're working on because you work at them. Amazing pace. I know you could do it. And so I had talked to Delieb about this earlier and just of ours, but not to pin you down and have you have to complete this one next. What, two weeks or three weeks? The next several weeks, because the deadline is October 31st. What was the first? So I make no guarantees that I will be able to get everything in line in time for that deadline. I commit to giving it my very best effort. Is the juice worth the squeeze though? I mean, yes, that's a lot of money, but it's for you to be, is that better? I thought John was speaking that went in a while. I'm sorry, I'm not thinking I got it, I'm gone. I don't know. Is that bad? Look, I think. No, it's a joke. No, I actually have not. Is that true? Oh my gosh. Is the auto-aid justified? Let's put it, let's define it even further, tighter. Is this when the crowd you out from being able to do something else that you can't get done? Care putt, you're putting it right here. I know you're so, you're going to say no. Let me reframe the question just a little bit. So typically, we pursue grants that align with things that the council already wanted to do. So you have said a long term goal in your parks plan, your transportation plan, a couple other plan documents. One day we want to chat with you River Greenway. Love this idea. Phase one is an engineering work with National Park Service. We know that to construct that thing we've got to line up more grant dollars, but we can't line up the grant dollars so we get the engineering done. But we didn't feel bad about chasing grants and putting the time into that effort because Council had already said this is a priority. Coming to you with this project, the way I'd ask you to think about is it worth Olivia's time, which is valuable and I really appreciate the understanding there. But a long term, do you think it is appropriate to have elective vehicle charging stations at our major facilities? If yes, chase the grant money. If not sure, or no, then this isn't the right thing to pursue. So like, the bigger question for me is not, is it a good use of Olivia's time? Is this something you think is appropriate for the city to drive? So let me just... Can I just ask you a question since... Sure, sure, sure. You are the automotive guy. How long do you expect this electric vehicles to be? So I was involved with electric charging stations back in 2004, when they were trying to figure out the standardization for the actual plug for the cars, and the Nissan Leaf was the test project. So in all these years, the adoption rate for electric cars has climbed and now has declining significantly. A lot of the manufacturers are not have pulled back production of electric cars. First of all, second of all, electric cars, hybrids are wonderful, but fully electric cars is just a leapfrog technology to hydrogen. Hydrogen vehicles, hydrogen motors are actually been produced by a lot of the major car manufacturers and it is the holy grail of what's coming out. Once the hydrogen comes out, then they'll modify the fuels, which will be a bio fuel that will be coming out. For us to take $136,000 and commit to electrifying every single city building in 25 years from now, I can't even begin to put my head around that because 25 years ago, electric cars were just a thought and a proof of concept maybe. So 25 years from now electric is not going to be where the technology is. We'll be behind the curve in a big way. So that's not to get it there by 2050 likely it would be a year or two. I understand that. That's just being... Can I ask a... I'm not sure if I'm in a mission. Maybe ignorant question, because I am pretty ignorant. When it comes up, electric vehicles. So if there is a electric pump charging station, is it something that you pull up and you interact with it like you do at a gas station and it charges you or like charge point or Tesla you go So we wouldn't be providing free electricity. It could be for staff vehicles that It depends on the vendor that you go with and the shared revenue that the vendor provides. We have to physically, they got to tie into our physical electric system. But the challenges, the grid communicating with the electric charge point is a challenge. And what relationship, because we're not going to maintain that, so the vendor's going to maintain that. So the relationship, the contract we have with charge point or someone else, and the revenue share on when you buy electricity, what that looks like, there could be a cost to us going forward and to maintain that charge station here locally. That's a contract that has to be explored. Pinson, do we own the equipment or lease? Yes, it has to be explored, is what I'm saying. And it is electric vehicle charging the only way to interact with these funds or opportunities for advance in the city. There are other options to, I'll leave you a go ahead. Two pathways. So there's actually quite a long list of allowable activities that we can request funds for. In staff reviewing that whole list and given the propensity of the council thus far, the electric vehicles seemed like the most attainable and logical choice. There are, it's a very long extensive list so if you want to walk through that offline, I'm happy to. But that was the one that we selected or that in discussion with Councilman Coffin and Councilman Tukki. That was one that we thought would be a good next step. There are options related to solar. There are options related to energy efficiency building retrofits, electrification. There's a lot that we could go after, but again, to reiterate what, you know, manager Greer said earlier, the council has not opined on a lot of those policy issues or stances to this point. If we went for in doing something like a solar array that would be something that these funds would pay for but then would actually decrease our electric cost. It has the potential to do that yes in the long term. It should be more interesting something like that. But it's a long, long shoot. I don't want to be a jerk. Yeah, I think my personal opinion is that if you are not locked into these EV chargers, if there's another option like putting solar panels on the top or something, because at this point solar panels are on 17% efficiency. Yeah. The Boston guys have gone up, Harvard guys are MIT guys have gone up to about 32 percent, which is getting closer to the internal combustion engine almost. No, but again if you pick the option of clean energy, everything falls into that. So what I'm trying to say is we don't want to have redundant stuff flying there. Like it's like buying typewriter's. If what he's saying is 25 years from now we don't have any more EV charging stuff. We'll just have all these skeletons lying here. Solar panels probably we could retrofit it. I can't know if we discussed those. I'm sorry to interrupt you Bob, but will you please opine on that when we discuss solar panels and whether they're short. So a couple things. The ask of you, the ask before you is that I need verbal consensus around a clean energy goal on which I will base our application and the requests for the funds. So if you do want to lean towards solar, then you will need to have consensus around a goal related to emission reductions or decreased energy use that will make sense for when I ask for these funds for solar, that it will have a measurable benefit towards achieving that specific clean energy goal. I feel this is too much to digest tonight. Based on the meant, which was very good, but for me, it's just too simple. I think for me, what he brought up was a very good thing. Solar will never be out of fashion or exhausted. Evie, definitely, I also read that Toyota's already got a hydrogen vehicle, which means things will follow that path. So if we can do that, we definitely like the grant, but if you can do it along solar panels. I'll just say that I think early on when we started this sustainability conversation that there was I think consensus on council that we would really strive towards those projects that would be not only green and environmentally positive but that they would make financial sense and help the city financially it would be more sustainable. Solar sounds like it fits into that more so than the electric charger. It sounds like the electric charger were adding to our burden. It's getting better. Be cell or electric chargers, but either way, it would reduce operational costs likely. Go with the energy retrofit. I don't care. When we discussed it though, I didn't believe it was going to lower the cost anytime soon. I thought it was going to cost more. Correct. So, several months ago, I had done some initial exploration on both EV chargers and solar, given the interest system of our council members. I have only gotten one proposal from the company at that time, but given our current energy rates and the fact that we would only likely be looking at City Hall as a facility, we don't have the economy of scale that larger counties have, which is where you see a lot of the energy savings. So the proposal that I got at that time didn't show savings. It showed us at about parity in a 20, 25 year time frame. And that would be the leasing of the equipment. So we wouldn't pay those upfront infrastructure costs. But over time, it didn't look like it was going to save us a large amount of money, and given that that has been an expressed interest of the council. But was that not when we were going out of pocket for the equipment? Correct. So if we're getting this capital investment from the federal government, does it not then become economically positive for us? It should. So it could. It very well could. I just haven't done that research. So I would like. My personal vote is that I would at least like to see what she comes back with. You may not have the time. Yeah, so no. No, just at least it. No, it's just it's a big. Yeah, and I missed a little bit a little bit of the conversation, but really landing. I thought she was partly the one that was driving the conversation, and then it's she we get. Yeah, I'm very supportive of pursuing this grant opportunity if I prefer the EV chargers, but if there's not consensus for that and we're going to look at solar or something else, I'm totally supportive. I mean, right now we're seeing a situation in Western North Carolina where no one has power for like a hundred thousand people plus and it is a complete and total disaster. The more sustainability and compliance we can have on solar and other energy sources the better. Even if it doesn't make money for us or have a return on investment for 25 years. Yet another consideration. The town center, the Mark Toro guys is actually talking to Tesla folks. There's no Tesla or electric EV charges there. And personally, I'd rather have these EV charges in one of these dying malls, so hopefully they will be revived or run some traffic there. There's only about a 15 percent. There's a higher propensity to charge at the house. That's where most of the stuff is charged. Because the distances of the EVs have gotten further away, people have gotten more comfortable to take a road trip and charge at a distance. But they said it's like a 15% utilization for charging at the workplace. That's what it typically is right now, 15%. Okay, so we got a couple of minutes. So let's just go around Robin. Do you want to give staff direction to pursue this further for a check-in at a future meeting? Because I'd know like if you authorize Olivia, I think she's going to have to proceed and win. She has to proceed to do it. She has to submit the application. So, for options for check-in, our October 21st. This is due October 31st. So I just... There is a very narrow window here. The mayor's question is valid. I just want you to know that... It's a big amount of just queued up, Chris. It's like this. Can you apply? And then we can use it for one of these? So the application information is very specific. That's the thick rule. Yes, it is. It's not, they don't just cut us to check and we get to the floor. If you did explore the solar option with this money, would it cost us more to install the solar panels than the grant money would cover? And if so, do we? So, I don't know, for certain, the proposal that I was mentioning earlier is a plan where you don't have to front the upfront infrastructure costs. It's like a PPA purchase, power department purchase agreement. Correct. So, but having a lump sum of funds that would help fund the initial infrastructure installation that may decrease our energy cost over time. So let me go and explore and see what I can pull together. My first thought, if I could, so just so the $136,000 to install solar, first question is where? Logically, let's maybe the roof. So if we do the roof, then there's all kind of costs for mounting the roofs itself. There is, on solar, the efficiency that Bob was saying is true. The groundbreaking technology in solar was the inverters. They had these a whole bunch of inverters that were able to stack them almost like servers. And that was what really propelled the industry. But the solar field that we will need to make it justifiable, I do think that there is consensus not to move forward if we are going out of pocket beyond the grant. We're not going out of pocket. But we don't know that based on what we're talking about. Well, trust me, that would not be the goal. It was to provide some energy sources for local fleet electric vehicles that was essentially free in operation was how we envisioned it. To get us paid free, so get us loose and to give you something and for us to have resolution with it being 7 o'clock is there a way that we can give authority for you to move forward if you can report back to us maybe in the next week or whatever time frame is doable that kind of what is our cost of ownership of doing this. Because if we're going out of pocket then I'm not interested. If it helps us I'm interested. But, Olivia, like if you combine the PPA and the grant, I don't think you'll be able to spend anything from the pocket, but we don't know until we talk to the contractor. But, okay, but I also have to decide what your impulse, how many kilowatts do you want? All right, but we're getting varying into the weeds and we either have to punt or table or move forward. So can we just go around, you're obviously a yes. I'm a yes with my stipulations. You're a no. What's your stipulation? My stipulation is if she through her research after we leave here today can show that yes, our cost of ownership is within the grant and is actually going to be either neutral or positive financially, then I'm good. If it's going to be either neutral or positive financially than I'm good. If it's going to be us going out of pocket, then I don't think it makes sense. For me, true, but my point is I'm not interested in the EV charges because I have read enough, I don't think they'll be there for next 15 years because then we'll have all these stuff, we have stuck with all this stuff. I'd rather have something upstairs. But then that's what she can show in her analysis. So Bob, where are you? I don't mind. 136 and low. If it is solar, I'm not interested in that. Okay. In the research. You have where I am. Aaron Yee. I support this grant program. And I love the idea, Solor. I just, we've got to define how much kilowatts we want. We have to define how much kilowatts we're trying to produce, because that'll tell you how large of a solar field will tell you how much cost. That he's up to the contractor. Like, he's going to come back and look at the usage and then he'll determine, so I don't want to do any project that's going to be beyond with the grant. That's it. Okay. So, okay, so we start with the cap on it. Then I'm good. Let's explore. If it doesn't put such a burden on you. All right. Are we good to adjourn and we think seven?