Thank you, Mary-Roo recording. Welcome everybody. Just want to call this meeting the John Strix City Council work session order this April 28th at 501 PM Thank you. Would you. Nothing under strategic priorities. The first item under ongoing projects is the performing arts center, finance and the options and we have City Manager Greer for presentation. Good evening, Mayor and Council. Tonight I'm joined by Assistant City Manager Kay Love who helped me put together the memo and the research with our financial advisor. So I want to start with some very brief remarks just to acknowledge that the Performing Art Center started as a grassroots effort over 10 years ago. And since then, we've had many studies and we've had a lot of community volunteers that have assisted us in formalizing this concept. So at our last work session, we reviewed the anticipated construction cost for a multipurpose performing arts venue and council had some great follow-up questions. The first half of those, we're gonna present tonight and have that information in the memo in front of you. It's an analysis of the cash we have on hand, as well as financing options. I'm happy to go through the details and K and I are both happy to answer your questions, but I know every single member of the spot has had a chance to review the memo in detail based on the questions you've provided, so rather than belabor with introductory remarks, I just close there and say we are looking forward to your feedback. Thank you, Kimberly and thank you, Kay. I'll be doing a lot of work with this and a good job. So thank you very much. Jason, I don't know if you can, I wanted to kind of get things started and kind of keep this discussion center going kind of the big picture if we can. If you were at the state of city, you recognize this map. But as we talk about what we're doing with the potential performing arts center, I think it's important for us to think about what it was that originally was the vision. and it was for there to be a performing arts center in our town center and I think that every campaign, every candidate and so many residents over the years have said you know it's so unfortunate that on a Friday or Saturday night that for eating out for entertainment and so forth you know we're typically typically going outside of John's Creek, not staying in John's Creek. And I don't want to say that we're the worst, but I will say I think we have the opportunity to be the first. I think that when you think about, you know, so the cost estimate for the Performing Arts Center was based on the property across the street. That's not necessarily saying that that's where it's going to be located. But for analysis purposes, that was the starting point. And that's here in this blue rectangle. And so when you look at Medley, the Performing Arts Center and the Boardwalk at Town Center, you really can start to envision how special it has the opportunity to be in John's Creek. I mean, think about it. A date night in John's Creek could be this incredibly special, memorable thing for folks across our community where you can start out maybe enjoying a meal at one of the many great restaurants in Medley. You go to a performance at the performance hall and then you can go and hopefully enjoy later in the evening walking around the boardwalk and seeing how pretty that is. And so I think that that's going to create a really special environment, hopefully some great traditions. And so that is something that I don't know how you put a price tag on it. Obviously we're going to have to focus on the needs of the community and their desires. But I think that we've studied that through the working group, through the legacy task force, and the different studies that they commissioned. And the need is there The need is there for the performers. I think there is a palpable desire on the sense of the community to be an audience of those performances. And so I really appreciated that the council at the last meeting there seemed to be, I don't know if it was unanimous consensus, but near unanimous consensus that we are interested in the possibility of a bond of some kind at some level. And to give our conversation a little bit of a nucleus or a touch point, I would suggest that we think about three different pieces for the Performing Arts Center. A $20 million foundation of our cash, and that's not by any means spending all of our available cash. Then looking at the GMA Brickson Water Program, bring $12 million through that. And then that would leave $28 million to raise through a bond to the public to make up the difference if the project is a $60 million project. And I would be very interested in hearing what other concerns you might have or other projects or priorities you might be thinking about to maybe add to a potential bond if we're going to go to the public that may go outside of just the performing arts center. After all, this is really something that we're looking at doing as not necessarily something for the arts community. It's really something for rounding out our recreational and extracurricular offerings and Richmond offerings and Community improvement so With that I'll get can I ask a question based on your comments now how do we get here? Because the last I remember, as a council decided, I was on the working group and the ask was for the city to acquire a land. And then it was also for the community. What did they call it at the time? And the legacy center task force, the community leadership council, they had a goal to raise 45, 40 to 45 million. So I guess how did we get to the point where the city's gonna be funding all of this? All right. Well, so I mean, obviously you remember, I don't know if it was two or three years ago, I know that you had proposed putting in a million dollars towards seed money for the Legacy Center that we approved. We have been talking in terms of how this is going to be a hybrid in some form or fashion. And kind of like I said at the last meeting, we know that it's not going to be 100% public. But we also obviously know that it's not going to be 100% private. And we could look to the private to lead this effort and to be solely responsible but there's no predictable way to know what that timeline is it's it's not something that we could necessarily bank on predictably and so I think that if the city is able to take the lead, but still look to our friends in the private sector that are still very much interested in raising money, Marilyn Margolis has committed that she personally will be still willing to lead that effort. And I don't want to put words on her mouth or speak out of term, but I know that she has got some very real concrete dollars from donors that are willing to write some significant checks. And so I think that for what I just outlined, I consider that kind of a foundation. And then whatever the Private is able to raise would really be gravy that would lower our cost But I think you know as well as anybody you know we have been looking at what do we do? What do we need to do to be prepared for this moment and that's why we looked at the land, that's why we, you know, did things like earmarking that million dollars for the legacy center. So anyway, I hope that answer your question. A little bit, yes, thank you. Thank you Mayor. Thank you Mayor. Thank you, Kimberly. Thank you, OK. So this information is really helpful. Following in, Matraf, just two weeks is amazing job. So before I get into the question, if you talk about the financial strength of John's Creek, we are strong and healthy on the financial. if you look at the assets or the way we have the financials doing it for many years. So it's very pretty strong position and the best bond rating that we can get. And the resource that we have are much higher than the mandated limits. So overall we are in a good financial position. So whatever the financial options we are talking about for this one, would have no bearing on the rating or the financial strength. So we're just looking at all the options and exploring it. And that the bond request or the financing, it all depends upon the strength we have and we are in a good position. So the other thing most of the some emails are coming through saying that the facilities only going to be used more for the fine arts. That's not true because the consultant we hide and the work that's been done is more focused on broad usage, like various organizations within John's Creek and the dance studios. They all are willing to use the facility too. And right now most of them are going outside of John's Creek and doing their performances. So it's definitely the, there is a need and this will be used not just a few, like a few performances or shows. So there will be a lot more use to this facility. And the second one, the public input. So we would definitely, like everyone on the council agreed in the last work session that we would definitely reach out to the broad group of residents and get the input. So we will still do that before we finalize or move to the final step. So we'll definitely have that involvement from the residents and that. Okay, now, go to the questions. Kimberly, okay, I'm looking at the cash in hand. That if Y2024 surplus, that's not really the financial surplus side that's more of the, can you answer that Kimberly? Sure, to clarify the fiscal year 2024, before we closed that fiscal year, council said they wanted any funds that would be in surplus over expenditures to be directed at the fire station 63 police south substation rebuild. At that time we didn't have the bids in yet and we weren't sure what we were going to get back. The construction market has been a little difficult to predict. So council went ahead and said whatever we end up with put it in that project. Well the final audited number was 2.3 million. You saw that in our last meeting when Ronnie presented the annual Comprehensive Financial Report. That funding is currently sitting in the fire station, but the bids came in good, so we don't actually need it. So I have relabeled it as not fire station 63 because that project is fully funded, but it's fiscal year 24 surplus that's currently sitting in the fire station project until such time Council chooses to reallocate it. You can wait to do that until the end of that construction project, or if you have a project in mind you could go ahead and transfer those funds. So the $2.3 million he's from the fire station It is Circles, you directed at the fire station in case we needed it, but we did not. Okay. So this one doesn't include the current year's Circles, the few million dollars that we might. It does not. So in your March financials that you got on April 15th and are included in our council meeting packet, we are on pace to end the year with Acer Plus. We have kept expenditures below expectations, keeping those in check and revenues have done slightly better than expectation right now. And we are only six months through the year, but that number is looking like it could be as high as $3 million. Again, we're six months into the year, so it's too early to call it, but that has not been included in your cash-on-hand analysis because we're only six months there. But by the time we make it to, at this point, a larger decision you could allocate any surplus from fiscal year 2025 if we are so fortunate to add to this. You're right, exactly. I went back and looked at the graph frame for the last few years of you're right, at least we'll have $3 million, based on the current projections. So we'll have that one too. You could. That we can allocate to any other future. Yes, towards future capital, you could, one of the beauties of having a CIP, a capital improvement plan is many councils in the past have chosen to say if you end with a surplus, are there capital projects, one time capital expenditures that it makes sense to divert surplus to fund? So again, we are just from the city we are saying like here are the buckets and here is how we're going to do to earlier conversation what mayor and said if there's a private funding available, we would definitely offset what we're projecting to allocate towards PSC. PS I'm good with this next step. Thank you. First. So this is just essentially following the process that we set out from the last meeting. And Mayor, your request on next steps were if there were other big ticket items as well. Well today I was just saying that in my mind you know if we are going to possibly go to the public and ask for approval of a bond I think that we ought to at least consider any other priorities or things that you think might be important. I don't know that we've got to add it today, but if something's at the top of your mind. Well, in terms of the part strategy, I do think we have a gap in our community with the indoor recreation center and really capital expenses for Colleague Creek phase two. So how do we get there from a capital perspective? So I do think we have to take that into account. I would love to. I would also, that's too close. I would also say that this list is solid. But I do think why I wanted to see the operational makeup, I do not want the city to own that. I want this to be a public private partnership in that it operates like an OC record with those wood with OC part or something like that. Nothing against the, I think the city focus should be public safety, public works, things like that. I do think other considerations to perhaps the CID could be considered. I don't know from a timing perspective, if that would fit into this timeline, but I think the surrounding communities or the surrounding businesses would have a lot to gain from a, you know, ostensibly 800 attendees plus performers, 300 plus nights a year. So there might be a direct investment to tax themselves and vote on that to tax themselves to contribute to the Performing Arts Center. I think we need to your point on a capital campaign, I would get aggressive there. I was always told, once we had a land commitment that we could just start and run with it. So I would have, I'd say let's get on that, because I think the Delta will make it much more palatable from the private side and the public side contributing this together. In terms of public input, I know that you could still hold town halls if we think we could get there. Again, the timing for CID might be difficult. Medley's not necessarily online, so how would you implement that? So Chris, to your point, I was going, exchanging the emails with Kimberly on the tag, tag, selection, district. Sentry is the same thing from a CID perspective. Yeah, pretty much. Like it works the same way. But just, so timing to your point, timing might be a criteria, but like I'll let the staff dig into the details, so she was going to look into that too. But- Fair though, because you said something about the businesses had to vote on it? Yeah, for the CEO. It's not like tied to an November election, it's a separate process completely. I don't mean to tell you- Well, this is- I mean, Again, personal life, I wouldn't have thrown these other option, a lot of these grenades, some stuff that's been going on, but that's from my reading of the agenda item, I think that should be on the table, right? So it would be. So it all depends on the timing of both a tax allocation district and a community improvement district have a number of steps, some legislative, some non-legislative that are required to take place before you can consider using either tool. If from the council's past discussion you want to stick with the timeline that's kind of outlined in your agenda materials, which would be considering a general obligation bond as early as this November in order to keep this project moving. Then neither a CID or a tax allocation district makes sense because you don't have the time. In those cases, one of them actually requires legislative action, not city legislative, but general assembly that has just closed for the year. So I'm happy to go through in detail and then phone a friend because Kay has a lot of experience with both the IDs and tax allocation districts from more experience than I do, which is awesome. So she can actually walk us through the pros and cons, find her points, but given the timeframe, if you want to stick with this timeframe, neither are really an option right now. But we could slow down. So yeah, I am not encumbered by a timeframe. It's, I would think, what is the best way to pay for the city or for the performing arts center and then deliver the correct operational model. I believe quality is more important here than experience from my perspective. If we would want to evaluate those, I was curious again, I apologize that I didn't get this in front of you all earlier, but I'd be curious. I know there was some reactions about lack of public input. potentially I was curious what our control was to put a non-binding referendum question just interest or like how likely you were kind of like, you'll see the partisan on the primaries put in some non-binding questions on their elections. So I know that's something I would have to touch base with Angela on, but curious. So non-binding referenda are, it's a thing. It's allowed in Georgia. I need to review the charter and the statutes. I don't know if you can do a non-binding referendum on a bond issue. There are subject requirements, and I'm not sure a bond is one of those that you can float. Well, good thing is you have an assessment expert on your council, so we could work with the language on how to refer to the question if we could indeed give a non-binding referendum item on the ballot. Who was the assessment? Well, I mean, there are other financing methods other than a bond. If we did a non-binding referendum and saw that there was public support, I don't know if that's the preference really of this body, but I mean, that would be the bond referendum gives us the permission to take on that debt. And so we could use a different method. I don't know if just any of these people are hesitant to not pull the trigger or pursue something that was explicitly said they would pursue if this would be an opportunity to get feedback from the community. There you have it in November. It would, I think that might give you enough time. the time, then you could still proceed with the financing of that available. I guess the biggest gamble would be the construction documents hands down. And so what, again, you could see the results that pursue with the financing available for the construction documents. And then see how expedite the CID, TAD, whatever we think would maximize the capital forward this project through that period and also really kick that capital campaign from the private sector into hyperdrive, go get money from the community And then you'll know exactly what Delta is and then maybe go for a bond in 26. If there is a Delta left, a CID and a aggressive capital campaign in this money on hand in a year and a half, there could be different situations where a bond may not make sense at that point. You could pay for it out of the private public partnership. Again, these are just ideas in my brain. This you could all think this sucks. But if I was King of John's Creek and I committed to a performing arts center, that's probably how I approach it. I still want to see that operation model though because I do not think the city is the best fit to operate it. I do think that's the community who runs it. There was an email I did gather about in that, I mean, a pro-tam, Tunky, referred to, I would want to see maximum utility. I'm not going to pursue this if we're looking at 180 nights. I'd want 340, 350 with the performance, but maybe we do look at multi-utility experience. The veterans have been looking for an event space. Maybe we look at an expo hold that could accommodate that. Those are all things that I do think we need to be on the table to maximize the quality of life enhancement that this is supposed to bring to our residents. Here's a soft spoken. But again, I am not going to say that I don't know why I moved back to the mic. Those are my thoughts. If there's anything on Indoor Rec, I would look at that. I would look at a heavy capital campaign. I'd look at CID, TAD, and wait to see. Again, the biggest gamble would be when you'd want to pursue those construction documents. That's my opinion. Aaron, one second. What is, to do you amplify on the non-binding referendum? Basically, that is a question to the voters that's not binding. Regardless of whether it's almost like a public opinion poll, regardless of what the outcome of it is. It's really to gauge public support for a particular thing. Some cities have done it to take council members terms from four to two. Some of the cities have done term limits. Ask the voters whether they would like to have term limits. I don't know that a bond referendum per se is something you can, there are subject matter requirements. And so I don't know in this instance about the financing, whether we could actually put that through a non-binding referendum. But- So I wasn't necessarily saying would you support a $28 million bond on this? If there's hesitancy, I would say do you support the City of John's Creek pursuing a public arts center in a public private partnership? Yes or no? Well, but I mean we kind of have- A similar equivalent, yeah, to a non-binding referendum in the fact we've all been elected in one campaign. And so like we have that, if we decide not to put the bond before the voters, before this November, we'll just see how the campaigns play out, what the candidates say. And you know, many of us, the majority of us, we're here elected, saying we support this. So I don't think that there is like a strong public opposition to this. Yeah. I, I, I 100% agree with that. There were six individuals that committed on this current cohort to pursuing the purpose. I know you bring that up all the time, but we never talked about the city funding at 100%. That was never a factor in it at all. And so quantify support. We love the arts and support the arts, but nobody ever said of the price tag of $60 million on the taxpayers. I get it. I have to jump in on that one too. Because while we did support it, and I still do support it, I think I made that abundantly clear last work session. But there is a cost and we have to get real with the cost and make sure we understand what that cost is and a business model. So do I support it? Absolutely, no daylight in that, but we have to understand if we can afford it. And that's I think the whole conversation that we're talking about here, because it is something we all want, but can we afford it? And that's why I was explicitly clear when I ran that I would only support giving land until I knew the details. So I would have never ever said I just support something to secure votes to get my button elected seat. So I take umbrage with that. I don't like when we make commitments to the public and then we back off that. So that is a commitment. If you are vague or ambiguous in your collateral, you have to own up to that. And so I'm not trying to cast that we have to pursue this. Remember we did say as a collective that 100 million is too much beyond the size and scope of what. We would ever spend private public partnership. But I do think if you make a commitment, you have to follow through to see the different paths. So that's my personal opinion when I go to the voting booth. The one part I would say where it's not a total question on support of the Performing Arts Center is that there are, I have generally speaking one issue I vote for, or one in a baby on the presidential election, it's war. And so I look at things dichotomously there, but we do have a number of policies and things. So, you know, like, I don't like Chris's stance on that, but I like him good enough on this. So people can't say it's pure like we elected these decisions. Right, it's always a binary choice in the voting booth. But there's multiple policies that people may. So I will give an out to that degree. So again, Chris, let's let some of the other members go. Hey, I can do this. Go on. I know you could. That's why I want to interject. OK, so yeah yeah. So we were talking about whether we can afford this and I had the pleasure being on the prior council where we started the Colleague Creek construction and that was over a $60 million project and I think that council member Skinner at the last meeting talked a lot about the parks and are we providing the funding to the parks and I started thinking what it's not really either or I mean obviously everything competes upon itself but are we not overdue and I think we all actually agree that we're overdue for a discussion about what is our relationship as a city with recreation and so most cities the arts and the cultural arts are part of the recreation offerings it's not like either athletic fields or watercolour classes. It's both. And so I know City of Roswell does it that way. They have a culture and recreation department. Everything is under that same budget allocation. It's not divided into sports versus arts. It's all together because it all represents the quality of life and recreational assets that we as the city provide to our taxpayers. And I was talking to our city manager about this and I said I would like to see because our parks plan from 2015 has broken out all the North Fulton cities comparing the public the parks budgets per capita and she was kind enough to pull the roswell data for me because they are, by far, the biggest spender on parks and recreation in the area. And they spend approximately $248 per resident annually, whereas John's Creek, post-colleague Creek, because the parks plan was before Culli Creek, spends 103. So more than double. And that again includes cultural arts. They have amazing visual arts center. They have very robust athletic programs. I don't know that John's Creek's path is that, but I think as we are talking about what can we afford, we also need to think that we're competing with these other cities and that we need to be investing in assets and a diverse portfolio of assets that we provide to the residents in our facilities. So Jason, I had sent you a chart if you could please post that real quick. Just because there's a lot of numbers, I won't belabor this point. But I have heard, we've received some emails that heard residents concerned about the fact that we'll have on their taxes. I did want to note that, I mean, I like the mayor's proposal with a $28 million bond, and then trying to find other sources of financing, and not find we know what they are. Cash on hand, private funding, and perhaps a GMA loan to close the gap, depending on the private financing that we're able to get. And I just wanted to note, so we're at a 3.646 milligrate right now, and if we did that 28, the 20-year bond for 28 million, no, actually the math you gave, sorry, K, was a 30 million, a 30 million dollar bond for 20 years. The milligrate increases 0.28. So if you add 3.646 plus 0.28, you get 3.926. Do you have a milledrate total that is actually less than what this body voted on in 2022. I know that doesn't include the parks bond but that's a separate, completely separate number. So we have had a milledrate higher than what the increase in milledrate would be with a $30 million bond almost in the entire history of the city. So I just want to keep it in perspective. It's a big number. I'm not trying to not be sensitive to concerns about the size of that number. And Jason, you can take that down. Thank you for that. I just want to keep in perspective. The city has done really big projects, really great projects that are investments. And we can do this. We can sharpen our pencils and make it happen and we will have the most fricking fantastic town center I think in North Fulton. I really believe that. I think Denton Canton Street is beautiful with the historic nature and charm. I think Denton Alpharetta has done really a really fun place but the way that we're going to have the boardwalk and the beautiful nature and the proximity, We, Medley, will be less than half a mile, whereas Avalon is a lot further from downtown Aferetta. We're going to have the performing arts center here within blocks. It just, I just get envisioned it. I can see it in my mind and I think we shouldn't short ourselves by looking to short term on this. I really think that if you had told the council in 2015, Chris, that you were going to spend $60 million on call I Creek, but they've said. Yeah, and it is the best investment and asset we have currently. So I just really would encourage us all to think long term and think about that we're going to basically an effective milligrate if we kept it steady all these years. But I've been on council at 3.986. We'd already be there. So we're not talking about crazy numbers. If I may, Aaron, I do think that keeping the big picture focus and thinking long term. Like what does John's Creek look like in 20 years with this project versus it wasn't looked like in 20 years without it? I think those are two very different things. What does the town center look like? I will always give Chris Coughlin credit. You made, yeah, it doesn't happen a lot, but you know, I think your first or second campaign was all about how we've, we're sitting on money that is not being put to work to improve quality of life. And it was really that campaign and your election that I think kind of was the beginning of buying park land and really doing some things today. We're kind of taking them for granted, right? Kauai Creek is already starting to feel like old hat, right? Still very special thing, but it's a little bit, you know, now we've had that for three years. But I mean, think about John's Creek without that investment. So I think that's significant. And the one thing we haven't talked about again with the investment. I don't like to talk about this too much because it I think it's a new one's in complex conversation that's not easily distilled but if we build this the economic activity investment that it will bring to our town center which we all agree unanimously I think is really important for our city to have a little bit more variation in commercial and residential tax base. Having this in our town center is going to make it, I just think it's going to make it so much better than it would be without it. Without it, I think we're going to have a really good town center, but I don't think it's anything that you couldn't get enough for at a Roswell. And I think this is what's going to be a game changer. And so the economic activity that this will bring is going to bring additional tax revenue. And you know, so you can't say it's dollar for dollar and like because we get more commercial tax revenue that the residential taxes will go down proportionally, but there is going to be a factor there where we will be less reliant on residential taxes than we are currently. And so that kind of long-term investment and long-term diversity of assets. I mean, because that's really what we are. We're running the city in a way that we're making decisions that the longevity of the value of the homeowners is there, right? Like the safety and the security and the good traffic and the good everything. We're building this place that when someone goes to sell their house, their investment is secure because we've created an attractive community. And so I think it's very short-sighted to think that $60 on a tax bill annually isn't worth that long-term gain in return. So, all right, that's my shield. Thank you. It's complicated. This whole program, as we sit here, we're struggling with it. Meaning, we all, I've said it before, we all want to do this. But how, what's that road map that we can lay out in front of us? That we can all say one plus one equal to, and we can stand behind that. And that is the challenge I think we're struggling with right now because I don't think we have all the information. And I agree with probably 60% of what Council and Coffin said, a public private partnership, the exploration of that, who could possibly come in whether it's a foundation and a government or whether it's Marilyn Mugolas and her group to go out and look at those dollars. We're seeing just one aspect of the equation, and that's what the struggle is here, because I think we all want it. But again, it comes back to how do we pay for it? Because at the end of the day, we got to keep the lights on. We got to make sure that that place is, the asset's not sitting here depreciating because we can't afford it or that we take any potential dollars that's in the budget. That is extra that we've, you know, we've had a capital project that we have came in less and we take those monies and fund it. So while I agree with the $28 million that you want to go off for a bond, the question is what are what's our opportunity cost for that $20 million that we're going to use for this project versus something else that we may have already started? So again, it's a give and take on which direction is priority. From my perspective, I'd rather see some projects finished before we start some other projects, at least 70%, 80% completed, first side of things. Second is the capital side of it, we should immediately start to go out and raise money and find out who these foundations are and what those capital look, what's potentially money's coming in to close that gap. That to me is number one. We have to start doing that because without that number, we don't know operationally what it's going to cost us every single month, every year. We're guessing. And this is, for me, it's too big of a guess to just sit here like this. As far as committed to the project, we are probably exploring this to the eighth grade. just like we've all made commitments to do, because we all want this and we do believe there's a halo effect, there's a multiplier effect, there's some huge uplifts for this if it pays for itself. Because if it's not, then you talked about the revenue side of things. If we're getting the revenue and attack space here, but we're having to fund it because there's a huge gap, then we don't know what that delta could be. And so that's where I am with that. I'm sorry. Go ahead. Well, just, you're looking at me as we're looking at each other. Do you say that? I understand that concern. I think that we've seen over the multiple facilities that have opened in this area over the last five to ten years that when they take off it is like a small business. You are investing in your bleeding money but then once they stabilize they about break even or have small subsidies from their public supporter from the city or county that supports them and I think that you know Sandy Springs has been used as an example City manager, were you able to confirm that number? I know you had a very busy day. I did have a good conversation this afternoon with the city manager. It was a busy day for her. So she wasn't able to pull all the numbers that I wanted to be able to bring back to you. I will have that in May. But she did confirm the last year they did a general fund supplement was fiscal year 22 that they have not had a general fund budgeted supplement for fiscal year 2324 or 25 and are not planning on one for 26. So I think we have heard a lot of information being repeated in our community that look at the industry and they're losing money and they totally were when they first started They no longer are focal is running pretty well Aurora I believe is running pretty well, which was a hundred percent funded by their city of Lawrenceville Which is a very small city city of Lawrenceville can build a performing arts center But I think everyone agrees with you they were losing money for a while and I think they're at a point of break even right now So that's why we would plan that into our financial models We have private fundraising to help for operations. We would, there would have to be some type of runway, losing money, and then at some point there's potentially a break even on the upside. And then the carrying cost, whether we do a bond-reference, referendum, or a general obligation, or a GMA lease, but we can't because of the caps there. I don't think there's enough there at $12 million at the GMA lease and all that. So however financially that makes sense, it all has to break even at some point. And if it doesn't, that's okay too. As long as you walk into this knowing operationally, what it's going to cost us on a yearly basis so we can plan for that. because it becomes a line item in the CIP. Every, I say CIP because it's a fraction to the CIP, but it's the unfunded balances that we would actually take money from. On allocate balance, unless we build an- Yeah, on the operating budget? Correct, unless we go ahead and build in a cruel with that and have to fund it every year because we know we're going to lose until that magic break even point. So I would like the council to move off of the fact that I think we all want this. So let us transition and say, okay, let us go from, we want it and we're enthusiastic about it, to how do we pay for it, not that structurally the financial str of it, but how do we manage that gap? I'm talking about the capital gap or the operations gap? Both. Both. If we're going to fund the capital gap and we're going to fund operations, that's what the financial consultant gave us. He gave us a capital acquisition of the asset and then an operational budget here also. And then he amortized it and there was a debt servicing cost here. And he equated that to a milligrate and I went ahead and I think you all have this. I pushed it back to what it does to our milligrate at 3.646. How much of a milligrate increases that at the different financial levels, 30 millions, 40 million, 60 million. But 30, it's still less than the milledrate we passed two years ago. It could be, but again, it's a hope today, because we don't really know what that is going to come in at. And a second step, I'd like to- What do you mean? What do you mean? What do you mean you don't know what that's going to come in at? WERP, this financial budget that came back from the consultant was $50 million. How do we get to $30 million? Well, I mean, I laid out my proposal and there are a lot of other ways I guess that we could try to skin the cat. But I'm sure. I'm a little, you know, I'm trying to lean into what you're saying about right love it want to do it sure But it's feeling a little three-car Monti keeping up with your position. There's no three-car Monti Okay, because we don't have the information we don't have the business plan. Okay, we don't have the the income staff perform on all right But so we're guessing okay, but so you start out saying that you know, we can't afford to do it. No, I didn't say that. I just say we can't afford to do it. I said we have to figure out how we're going to pay for it. Not that we can't. We can afford this. Okay, I thought I heard. So we can't afford this. Like that's the thing is that I I understand needing to be very cautious. This is a very big decision. I struggle though because it feels, it feels, and it's just emotional. That it's like, we are a really strong body. We have a diverse set of opinions, and we are problem solvers, and I've seen us. All seven of us work together to solve problems. And so I'm like, this is just a problem we need to solve. Like, let's solve the problem. I was really optimistic when I read this memo because there is a very feasible path that will not make the millisrate go up. Yes, a bond, there would be a bond piece of it as your spreadsheet said. But that the general milledrate that we pass each year will not change. And we could finance it without changing the milledrate. And then the operations piece we haven't, we don't know how the financing will work with that yet, but that's going to be the May 9th. May 19th? The discussion is going to be the operations piece. You're saying we're not going to raise the military because we have the $5 million for construction projects. Is that where you're going with that? We have $19 million cash on hand. That doesn't even include, we have three months of operating expenses we have as a rainy day fund. That doesn't even touch that because legally, constitutionally, we could drop the three to two. Why I thought, in the 19 million dollars that City Manager proposed, she was taken from three to two already. It's in there. It's not. No, it's not. Okay. In additional five million dollars, it is not in the chart because I did not recommend that you use that just option. We could do it, but you do recommend it. I could make a choice to do that. And that's another $5 million. And that's why I said, again, one time. So, we were to use $20 million cash on hand, even at that number, which I think is fantastic. It still is not emptying out all of our other, yeah. The cash flow stabilization rate, the three months resolution. The grade A funds must be fine. No, you're not going to have a deadline. No, you're not going to have a deadline. Plus the three months resolution. All improvements or announcements. Plus on top of that, none of this money is going to be spent for two years if we're moving really fast. It's time we get the construction documents and everything else. So we're talking about is this a path forward that we think is feasible? Yes. So what is the, I guess my question is because we don't have that capital side of things, right? The operational side. We don't know what the community donations could look like. We don't have that. So what is the rush to get it on the upon rough random? we miss November, here it just, I think it rolls over to May next year. That's what I think that's it. You have certain times you're allowed to do general obligation referendums. The next one is November. So. First, when's November? The one after that would be May of 26. 26. And then November of 26 again would also be an option. So if we miss November, it may give us enough time to further explore this and look at the P3, we can look at the foundations, we can engage the community in understanding what this all means to them financially. We can do the shirats, we can do these things and in the meantime we're being as transparent as possible. That's what I disagree with. Okay. Before the last meeting, I know that there were conversations happening trying to recruit people against the entire effort. I appreciate coming in and saying we love it. But last election, it was quote, specifically I support the legacy center project and a focus effort must be directed to support this project. Yes. Now the theme to the campaign sounds like we should explore. And it's been explore at every juncture we've come to this. It has been explored, think about, investigate, and I want to do all those things. I want to make sure that we have all those answers. But I think that it is unfair to come in today and try to come up with every reason to either slow it down or to come up with reasons not. Can we show that? There's so much in that. Well, there's so much in that that I disagree with because because you support something. Okay. It is, it is your responsibility in all of ours. Like I said last work session. It is our responsibility to dive in these numbers 100% and look at them forward, backward, and upside down. Anything less than we are not doing the citizens work, period. And so the fact that you want to go political and you want to throw, hold on. I'm not. I've got the floor. I've got the floor. You want to go ahead and start talking about commitments that we made in a campaign, okay? And the reason why I'm engaged the way I am, because I want this project, but I don't want it when it's going to burden the citizens enormously, and I want to be transparent to them. If they're all in and we go ahead and we understand these numbers and we all agree with the numbers, whatever that gap looks like, okay? There shouldn't be any question, we should have a unanimous vote here. But any less than that work that we're not doing to work for the citizens. I agree about the work. And I agree about finding these answers, but I mean, we're literally talking about three weeks or two or three weeks from now having the answers on the operational side. We already know the broad parameters of some of the operational systems. We're not going to know that. How are we going to know? Have we had conversations with foundations that are ready to talk to us in our ready to make a contingent commitment financially. So you're only from moving forward with guarantees on the private side before we can do anything on the public side. I think you were also in that same camp that there had to be enough private equity funding before the city would weigh into this. I think you are on the same page as I am right now. I haven't changed. I am looking for those dollars. I want engaged the community so that we can go out and find these donors, whether it's foundations, individuals. That's where I am. And I'm not saying there's a magic number. I don't have the magic number. But until we go through that exercise. Start coming up with the magic number. Until we go through that exercise, coming up with the magic number, until we go through that exercise, we're operating with half the information. And that, it's hard to move forward. I'll be honest, it's hard for me to move forward with hoping that we will gather this money and that the gap is going to be small. Youing for it up front is one thing, operationally for 30 years is another. And that's, we're in violent agreement a lot of ways, but how we walk down this road, this path, we differ. Well, look, I mean, I thought that you and I were on the same page a long time ago, that we know that this is probably never going to break even. If it does break even one day, to me, I consider that to be complete gravy. Beautiful thing. But we have talked about how this is not unlike any of our other parts. How is it that a kid playing a violin into performance hall is so, so different from a kid with a ball on a field at one of our parts? These are things that add to our quality of life. We don't quibble over the return on investment. We don't quibble over the need on those. I mean, I think that we have done everything that we can to try and identify where are the needs and what can we do to satisfy those needs as best we can. And Colleague Park costs $2 million a year to operate that we pay for. And I, you know, like, haven't heard anyone say that that's not justifiable or a valid use. But you could go there for free. I don't have to buy a ticket to attend. It's agnostic to age, race, demographic. Everyone uses it for free. You're not buying a ticket. It's not specific to one group of people. And by the way, if I recall multiple conversations about striping football, we need a data driven before... It's not specific to one group of people. And by the way, if I recall multiple conversations about striping football, we needed data driven before we can move forward with striping a single field in Johns Creek. Okay, and we went around that conversation many times. And now, when we're about to purchase, about purchase, when we're talking about a project that is so large, we're not, we're willing to forget the data and move forward. Councillor Neill, D. Biosci with all due respect, that's what I said when I can't wait to see the operational model in some sense. And I would say from a performing arts center and the couple of studies that I evaluated, I did see an operational risk for the city. This is why I asked the city manager to look in conjunction with integrating the art center, which will, from my perspective, if done correctly, the right operational model, I think that will offset some of that. 100% agree and And look at the multi-utility aspect of it. So I don't think making assumptions that it's going to operate at a loss every single year is the right perspective until they come back with the modeling. We're just assuming and speculating, not even for no reason. So I think that was the proper route to go to go that multi-utility. But I would be curious in the operation model, are we doing it with art center in place? Good news that is still work in progress as the mayor mentioned. The target is to bring that information back to your main 19th work session. I do not have all that completed yet, but yes, was working through both scenarios because that was the direction you gave at the prior meeting of having two scenarios. One with, one without. Correct. So that Council can then have more information that you obviously need before making a big decision. Tonight was not intended to be a big decision night. It was just a, hey, I have part of the puzzle. Let me turn in that homework. So we can move on. Larry and I tend to make the small big. So, I appreciate the passion. So just keep adding what I need to add. And that's the beautiful part about this council. And I said it earlier in private. Regardless of how we feel, this is honest and good conversation because the right decision will distill out of this. We garless of where it lands. It is, it is a good, it's a good healthy conversation to make sure that we check all the boxes. And all I'm looking for is just accurate information. That's all, I mean, that's what we get pushback from me is when I feel like that there's a- I agree with you. And Councilman Cofflin, I agree with you. The art center, I think what add, economies of scale and more revenue and like I mentioned last work session, it will add even more of an uplift to the actual performance hall because there could be theater classes and different things. So, I think I've said my piece. And I don't want to talk over you, but are you going to please go ahead? Please, please go ahead. I have a lot of questions and how I was looking at it was there can't be an ask this meeting because we just don't have all the information. That is correct. It's too premature. to premature. Yes, and so I feel like we're putting the cart before the horse by even discussing any of this today. But that being said, can you make the business model, well, a couple things, in attaining the business model, have you asked the groups, or are you going to ask them what they're willing to pay to use the facility? That's the first question. Yes, I've started that process with a couple of core potential user groups and yes have asked the question of the city in all the council conversations has talked about having a lot of usage but not usage for free and and in awareness for what rental rates are around the region, so looking at what competition would be, asking them which of these facilities do you use now, and what rental rate would you anticipate paying, like where is your price point, so that we can understand that as we set those numbers in the future? Yes, it is a difficult question to ask, but I know it's important. And I was trying to be respectful, the mayor and their stay out of their argument, but that's critical because if I'm remembering correctly, Wayne's vision was always for the nonprofits to use it for free. Well, that was Wayne's vision. And so, but the city couldn't possibly do that. Now, Sandy Springs, from what I've heard, charges about 15,000 a show. Well, they also get, in fiscal year 25, they got two million from their hotel motel tax. We don't get that. And they have 62 employees, 27 full time, and 36 part time. So, we couldn't possibly allow, or we to see what it would cost for the nonprofits to use it for free. We got to figure out what they're willing to pay. And that's the first step in ordering. Based on the past council direction, I had not anticipated that we would allow use the facility for free, but that it would likely be a adhered structure. what the Council's adopted for other recreational facilities has been the lowest rate is residents and the nonprofit space in Johns Creek, non-profit space in Johns Creek and private sector users, regardless of location. So my anticipation had been a tiered rate structure. If you think I'm heading the wrong direction, now is when it. Well, so I haven't even thought about that. So I couldn't answer your question. Now, I just wanted to let my other colleagues know this is what goes into the fact we're wanting the more information before we say whether we're for a bond or not, which is why I didn't say last meeting. So, and we can't really compare us to Sandy Springs because it's just, it's totally different. Will next meeting, can you also, those illustrations that came up with that were very beautiful? Can you make sure those are public? So that you can see how it's impacted at a different bond levels. And for both the maintenance and operations and for the construction costs. And then, I'm sorry, I wanna make sure sure I understand that one. Maintenance and operations and how it will affect, yes, are operating budget each year. I guess that's like such a fluid number. I'm not trying to argue that I just want to make sure I understand. Because there is a bond, there's a static military that attaches to it. Or a yearly operational cost. So depending on how many staff we're going to have to run it. Yeah. Yeah. I can't remember who it was that said that, you know, nine seemed extreme, but more than one seemed necessary and seemed like there was some congealing of minds. Who knows? I don't need to depend. It depends on what the purpose of the building is because I know folk how was an example, but they just answer the phone and book it. There's no, it's not like Sandy Springs to where they're at all right. So that's why that has so many. Yeah. So it's just hard to compare. So what else to get that's critical in moving forward. Yeah. The assumptions on the operational. I would rather wait for another. Yeah. That was wild. I wouldn't even take that in, like, I'm just throwing that out. So, like, that was obscene to me. No, it is. But the last part is when everybody's talking about a council raised money or leadership. Didn't they do that? And like, who do you foresee doing that? Yes, Maryland's going to do it. It was tried before. I know there were deaths and they kind of halted. Are you asking, is the city going to engage or is that private event? Yeah, so I mean, are you envisioning the city, try to raise money fund raise for this or? I don't think the city is a fundraising arm per se. I mean because I know they had already tried it before with this leadership council. Well, I wouldn't say that's accurate. And I don't want to yeah sound dismissive of their efforts. Well, I know there's a lot of time and effort was put into it. And literally they got brochures printed for the capital raising group and then to your particular series of unfortunate incidents. But you know, Marilyn Margolis and some of folks in this room are people that I take them at their award when they tell me that they're going to be all in to work on this effort. And I think that us getting serious about potentially a path forward, the fact that there is a potential location for the physical facility is a major thing that they said that they really felt like they needed to get people off the sidelines. as a suggestion, as we're looking at the budget going into the budget season, if we were to allocate X amount of dollars in which we can set up a fund raising committee within the city itself, if that makes sense, I don't know legally if we can do that. If I can step in and then maybe Angela will take over it, the city as a body, you as councilmembers, cannot raise money. As a government, there a lot of regulations that just say no. Good news though, you can set up a nonprofit, you can hire a fundraising company, your role as a body would get to establish the target. Or you can partner with an existing nonprofit or one that is created for that purpose outside of the city, but again your role is the target. You as a sitting member, me as a city manager, I cannot ask anyone for money. No, correct. I just wanted to know what they envisioned as how it would be differently than it was in 22 when it was attempted. So that's the only thing I was questioning. Okay, so I guess at the end of the day, I don't have any other opinion. I just had questions. Before you start, can I just, Larry, you had said earlier that, you know, I've shifted on this and I did probably about three or four years. I don't know, maybe sometime during the working group, that it became clear that if we were going to get this going and it was going to become a reality, while I was still able to walk into the building one day rather than, all right, I think, too old. That the city was probably going to have to take a lead because ultimately, if the city was going to be in for any money, we were probably going to be the ultimate backstop for the project regardless. And so I kind of realization that the city had a leading role to play. And I think from there when I realized that this is an asset, this is a community enhancement and an amenity that a community of our Cal community of our Calber, I think, should be able to have, not unlike Collie Creek or Newtown Park. It really was a paradigm shift. I think that you touched on something that is a personal pain point for me. I have been struggling and the City of Manjur can attest because I think about once a week or at least once a month for the last two years, I'm like, have you thought of an isolated piece of the performance hall that could be stand alone and independent that could be fundraised for separately and privately that would not impede the overall construction project. And the sad thing is, unless you've been holding out, I've never been able to come up with anything. However, I think that there is really something to be said for assuming what I've heard from Maryland that there are going to be significant contributions. And not unlike, and I don't know enough about friends of libraries, but you look at endowments. And so if there was a large enough contribution base, you know, the interest could be a, I don't know if it would be complete, but I think it could be a significant part of the operational funding. And so, you know, that gave me some solace that, you know, that seems like a good way to do this, because I think there are a lot of performance halls around the country where they have a model similar to that. But we've got to figure out how do we do it? We have to do to be able to move this project forward, but without it being hobbled forever by the uncertainty of the private. And I appreciate that. Thank you for sharing that because it gives me, it closes the loop based on what I've heard you say before and where you are today. So I appreciate that, thank you. So because there what Councilwoman Elwood had said, it's a business. So there is a loss at the front end. We, I think we all sort of can get our heads around that. And there is some runway to a break even point. And based on some of the working groups that occurred in the past, and what was coming back that says, like, operationally, it needs be funded. It needs to be fed or the seeds have to be put in so that eventually it grows. All that I think is reasonable and we can understand that. But how big of that, how much how many dollars per year are we looking at? and there has to a leap of faith there has to be Leadership in this to go forward, right? And so I know there's some people in the audience It's it's had said to us be the leader have make a leap of faith and I think we're all in that mode But we just need to try with the more information we have, the more time we spend with this on the capital side. The less we could mitigate the risk, we could identify that gap better and better, and if we identify it, then we can plan for it for 26, 27 and 28. We can, it's just, I think it's the right route that we take to understand what that gap looks like. And without having this capital conversations with the endowments and things, however that's going to fall out or distill out. We must do this. We must go down this road and explore these, all these possibilities. And if the bond referendum is that cliff that's making us do things fast push off for a couple months and I hate to do that because I think we're in a really good place to move forward but if we have to do it to get all the data then let's do it and make the right place. Yes, I'm sorry. To constrmember D, let's assume, like, right now we know the delta is 28 million. Well, no. Well, let's write no base on the memo. Like, let's go with the problem. So, I mean, we only not be in favor of using all of this cash on hand. So that's why we're not making that decision today. Right? This will come back to us once we know. So I'm trying to throw something out so that we can kind of start debating something. So right now, okay. Yeah, yeah. So. That's the invention of these cutting. Yeah, nothing on the cap. Yeah, not good. And that all. Gosh, I'm so happy. Talking about like we are losing out on the opportunity cost. Are we competing with any other big capital projects right now? Well, sure. Because we've- How do you freaks have done? The maker space we're making a decision. Are we competing with any other big capital projects right now? Well, sure. Because we've- Holly Freaks have done- The maker space we're making a decision this evening on it. And that's only phase one. We, you know, there's projects, Collie Creek, there are projects out there that we haven't completed. And it's, I mean- Larry, no, my daughter, when I was driving her, when she was in preschool, Well she loved to play the scheme with your favorite color. And I say blue and then she, what's your other favorite color? I say, well, Grace, you can only have one favorite color. So for me, it's blue. I don't have three favorite colors. So my point is, we're not talking about a problem now. Now we're talking about values. Sure. Now we're talking about, are we putting something at a priority that we said we were going to put as a priority? Because I never said that I'm going to make phase two of Colleague Creek a priority. And I never said that I've got to do all these other things before I'm going to make the performing arts center a priority. I said the performing arts center is my number one priority and to me we get the big thing done and then these other things we add when and if we can and so that's not working the problem that's nothing more than just straight out. Do you support this? Do you want to do it? I'm not asking, I mean that, because what you're saying is, we're going to spend the money on some things regardless. I don't know. I was going to complete the question again. So based on the memo, let's go with the number $28 million. If you proceed on the bond referendum and can we run the private funding parallel? And if you say, I would put a bond referendum for $28 million and if there is a ex dollars comes from the private money, does it mean like we have to go for the $28 million, or we can just raise whatever, just draw $20 million? Okay, has more experience in this one, so I'm gonna let her answer. I have only done bond issuances of the exact amount both here and in my privacy. So typically would be a do not exceed a not to exceed amount, so there would be a maximum amount and then a maximum interest that the city would pay on those bond issues. And depending on how I got broken up, it could be multiple series. So the wording of the resolution and the call for the election would address that. So what it means is like getting up for $28 million doesn't mean we have to rate $28 million. Correct. If you only need 20, you can just take 20 and just. But the voters are voting on a not-to exceed. Okay. So they would be voting based on, you could, based on that vote authorization, if it's affirmative, then you could borrow up to $28 million. It doesn't mean you have to, but the voters are voting based upon that. So we can run both the parts parallel, then private fundraising and that. Right. Well, that's what I want to understand, Larry's timeline. I guess it's not that I'm in a hurry per se, but it's that I have been on Council long enough now that I see how much Times spent deliberating costs the city money and that doesn't mean rush into decisions But Collie Creek and we ended up scrambling to find 10 million extra dollars because From the time of 2015 when the bond was thought about to the time we were breaking ground in what 20 22 2021 2021, 2021, 2021, the price is almost doubled and more than doubled. And we were at last minute scrambling and like trying to find the, we took the money actually out of the boardwalk, the Creek side project, we took $5 million out of there to fund Cully Creek. So as I think about this, I mean, I know that we don't have all the information today about the finer details, but we see a very clear path forward where we could use the cash on hand if this is the priority, we could take out a GMA loan and we would have the bond, but none of these dollars are going to be spent for years. So it takes 12 to 18 months for construction documents. So like my thinking is, if we were to put this for a bond referendum at, say, dollars or not to exceed 30 million dollars in November knowing that there is a path forward and we could afford it and you agreed that we could afford it if it was a priority. And then not to exceed and then we were to put out for construction documents based on the way that bond goes. In January we're still looking at June of 2027 before we would have construction documents completed to be able to talk about doing an RFP to break ground. See, so like that's why, now that we have to make a decision tonight by any means, but the fact that we don't have to take out the bond as a council just because the voters vote. because it's very serious if the voters agree to support a bond referendum. But what the bond referendum does, correct me if I'm wrong here, but the bond referendum does is it gives the council the power to take on that debt. And so if circumstances change or the private fundraising doesn't arrive or there's other factors as a recession or there's something and we can no longer complete the project. We have that power in our hands. But to Deliebs Point, if we were theoretically to take out a $30 million bond, if the voters agreed to that, we don't have to take out the bond right away. And we still have the $19 million cash on hand, and if private fundraising is able to raise a significant amount of money, then maybe we don't need the GMA loan at all. So I mean, I just, like I see so many paths to yes and I just, I just, well, last thing I'm saying, I'm sorry. So like I would like to understand your timeline, especially if we put a pause, then we're looking at a different referendum and then the construction documents and then, et cetera, et cetera. And then also, I just don't want to complete the operations and the capital expenses into next conversation. I understand we don't know that yet, and so obviously no one wants to agree to a bond where we don't know what the operations are but the point is can you see a path to yes based on just the capital discussion that we're having today based on capital numbers that I think are pretty solid numbers. Wait can I jump in because I didn't get to finish? I'm sorry And then Bob, I need you to go. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no,. And then Bob had to go. No, no, no, no, no, no. It was okay. So from my perspective, I just want, because I don't want to see Mike, I am trying to kill this by any means. But from my perspective, the ask was for the city to acquire land. Find land, we will go out and raise money to build this thing. So we found the lay, we told them we were finding the land. And so they were supposed to be out. Then the next thing, out raising money, then the next thing that happened was we used CVB money to go towards construction documents, didn't actually use it, but that's what we charged staff with doing. Then we decided, well, first we need to know how big it is and how much it's going to cost. So we hired a consultant to do that. And throughout the process, some of us, and I don't remember who I know I for sure was, was always saying, I want the consultant to talk to members of the greater community. See what they will use, how much they'll pay and take it, fails, that never happened. So throughout this whole process, and then next we're here talking about how to fund it. So it's not that we're trying to kill it, it's just any more information. And that's one of the critical components is community input. So, to Erin's point, I get it because the arts community and council, especially you, because you've been here longer than me, have been talking about this for almost a decade. But we have never talked about it with the greater community, that average resident, outside of the arts community. So that's a huge concern and gives us, makes it seem like we're stalling, but we really just need more information. And let's, just one point, Aaron's question here. So yes, I think we can't afford it. But understand that can't afford it is, and I'm extrapolating here, is potentially with a milligrate increase. Because based on the data that K gave us here at the $30 million project cost, that's the construction cost plus the debt servicing. It's an estimated, with me here, .28. For a 20, 28 mills increase, unless we do something of what we do. And that's what I said. So with the current milled rate of.646, if you add the point 28, that's 3.926, that is less than the military that we all voted on in 2022, if 3.986. If we had done a hold the study military, because when I was first came on council, it was 3.986, and there was that for many years. If we had just kept the military study, I don't know that I haven't done the math as he would be able to afford this project in some larger number. I'm sure we would be able to afford this project in some larger number, I'm sure we would, but what I'm saying is we are not increasing the military to a number that is unrealistic to anyone in this room, because we just had that two years ago, we all voted for it not you, not you. But we all voted for it 3.986, not you. You wouldn't tell you would have been born if it had been held. Study. Oh, thanks for doing that math in your head. But let me say this. So this way, we're just talking about unrealistic numbers. six and illiterate. You wouldn't be born if it had been held. Study. Oh, thanks for doing that, Matthew. But let me say this. So this way, we're just talking about unrealistic numbers. You actually highlight why I feel very, my conscience is very good in the idea of going to the public about this. As in my mind, John Screek has as a council in a city, we have been as municipal governments, especially compared to our 14 other, the 14 cities in Fulton County, we are the lowest milledrate in Fulton County. And I think that we have shown a desire to keep our employee footprint as low as possible, to keep our overall budget as low as possible. And I think that there's value in the fact that we have always had very serious discussions about the rollback rate and not always just saying, yeah, we're going to raise taxes. And to Larry's point, this is a very healthy discussion. I mean, I hate to say it. Some people may hate when we're talking about how do we rub the two pennies together. How do we find the pennies in the suffocation? I like that discussion. I like seeing the tension of what is truly our priority. I mean we are elected to make choices. We are elected to make hard choices and to do what I mean hopefully it's in line with what we talked about but ultimately to we are the embodiment of the hopes and desires of the community to make decisions on their behalf. And so I feel very good about the idea that public, look, we have tried to always be frugal, but here is something that we see as a very legitimate need if you agree, raise us upon yourself, and even then, you're going to find that you are at a tax burden that's less than many of our neighbors. Because there wouldn't be a military increase outside, the general military outside of the bond amount, which is obviously a military, but it's a separate line item while you're taxable. And I think that there's also a big difference between this as a special that would be point to a potentially the last 20 years versus when we just go with the flow on the military, that is a tax increase that becomes the new foundation and lasts forever. But we did so, but we didn't factor in the operations and maintenance in that 10 year financial, correct, because we don't know it, because we don't know the staffs. Correct? Okay. So the military will be going up twice with the bond and then yearly. Not necessarily, like that's as much as I really want to give you an answer. I need the time between now and the next work session to be able to compile that, getting this amount of homework. What we do now already left. If that was a good guest met by 2033 will be negative, is for his capital projects. Will be in the negative $733. Not necessarily. Dollars. So that's assuming a number of things like zero capital, contributions, zero fund raising, zero endowment, but even without this, if this doesn't even come to fruition. I can tell you that that rough draft is not probably reflect the budget I see referring to the council. Well, that was not the final one. I was working on refining the assumptions and those things. So those. Yeah, that was worst case. Yeah, I already said last time. I get it. Yeah, super conservative. So I care much more about what additional pieces of data or things do you need to make sure that we have on the list or are working to provide? You're right. This is a really big decision and I want to make sure you have the information you need. So. So can you turn your mic? You modernly raise the performance art center in Evans. That was one of the major data points, yes. Right. So we do have some reference point. Yes. It's not that it's just a... It was not a shot in the dark. Yes. It was an actual... So we do respect it. Yes. So when... Yeah. Where the mayor asked Larry, how do you think about that? This is the data which you give us, we do respect it. So when... Yeah. ...with the Mayoras, Larry, what... How do you think about that? It is the data which will give us... We depend on it. We don't question it. There is a rough... There is a certain level of modeling which goes behind it. Sorry, I didn't mean to cut you off. Please go ahead. Yeah, I'm a good kid. Prognostication is never a perfect science. I'm a big believer in intervals. Bands, I do have just Council Member Ermerly just one more thought if I can get it in. My chance to. Bob's time has already expired. Yes, quick question on Geobond. There's varying levels of specificity that like the parts bond was not necessarily dedicated to Colleague Creek, right? Like you can say it up to for the- So it depends on the question you posed before the voters. When it came to our 2016 Parks Bond, we specifically listed the development of Colleague Creek Park as well as improvements to existing parks. So we were intentionally specific as to where would we spend the money not specifically on what are the projects that we will do at those parks. So that's something that's got to be considered as the level specificity of what? We are definitely not there yet. Oh no, no, I'm just so Chris, were you? Were you? Right, I just, no, no, I understand because of the, the referendum, if it does go out there, if it does go out there, is it, we're looking at a single use bond, not a dual use, right? Meaning portion of it is cally, as an example, portion of it is the pack. It could be. It could be, but I know, but that's not on the table today. Is that- Well, there's nothing necessarily on the table today. Okay. Press the vote on, but I threw out 28 million as of what I see as a kind of potential possibility. And then the question would be if while we're going to the public, are other things that you might want to You know add to it. I don't know. I didn't want to presuppose but I get the impression that he's got something on his mind that he wants to get off his chest Someday you were so patient. I know he keeps skipping and talking okay done Okay, I'll start with the operations cost. Yeah, I Think first I've ever said the context. I believe this council is extremely deliberative. Most of the time, the wisdom is distilled through all this debate. And it's my opinion that we are in consensus almost about 85 to 90% of the time so if we ever Disagree it is just to air our viewpoints But having said that I would really next time please do not bring what we do in the campaign When we are going to the campaign the waters will ask us we don't have to be reminded of that because I know I have promised every single time any water I asked it's always a PPP and at that point neither did I have the details nor the people who are questioning me have the details but in principle we were always so please do not bring this up again because it's very embarrassing and we have got some very good record to show without that, without mentioning that. So let's talk about the operations gap. Sandy Springs is one of the whipping boys of our, the right next to 285, the right next to I-400, the right next to one of the most affluent districts in the entire Georgia. Their sponsorship level was 50,000 and that too they got after six years. I don't know how we are going to say that it doesn't matter what the operations costs are going to be. We do have to have some level of grip on it. It may not be exact science, but we can't just brush it under the carpet and say we will not consider it or it doesn't matter. Then coming to this, I like what the numbers John suggested. 20th now we know at least the maximum we have to come up with this or at least if you come up with 30 plus million dollars, we are there. Where what I'm struggling with is I attended the meeting in 2022 when late Bowman was him I will be on board with this. Sober a lot of us since that day I was also told my colleague mentioned that you put a piece of dirt there that will give us a place to hang our hat on. We did that., from the council side, all of us were in consensus. We didn't have this kind of debate that time. Why? Because all of us were signed on to that fact that if there is a piece of land, people can go out and raise money. We did that and we didn't have this kind of difference or this kind of argument, level of argument. Now when it comes to us $33 million, $32 million is a fairly huge amount. I would definitely want a public's input in this. And I'm not for non-binding referendum. I would like the people to be, have their eyes open when they sign this IOU. So what I'm trying to suggest is when we tell them on the bond, I'd like to work if you can give us some kind of language because it has to be as specific as possible. When I'm buying something, I do the research, if it's a car or anything, I need to know what mileage was. I do that. And based on that, I go tell my family, hey, we buying this without telling that I can't just go tell my family, hey, we buying a car. So when we are asking for opinion from the public, there at least has to be some level of specificity in it. What is going to be the total cost? What is the ongoing effort from the city side? Somewhere, if you don't say that, I think we are just keeping the people, so citizens in the dark. And I don't think it's a fear thing. The reason why I feel so strongly about a dimension last time also. If the citizens say, even 51% of them say yes, we want it. I think this debate is moot. We would just be fine out how to get it done. So therefore, let their mandate be like concrete. There's nothing ambiguous about it. This will go a long way in establishing great credibility for our council. And I think at the, at the, there's a strong betroth of this flowing between all of us. But for some reason, I think you're not able to put a finger on that and say, this is exactly what I want. I want some level of specificity and it's not just, if I ask my neighbor, there's a child there. He's always asking me for money for pizza. I can never tell him if I go and I, if I go and ask him do you want pizza, he'll always say yes. For the point is that's not how we behave, get the correct response from very educated citizenry who will be on this, fully sold on this. And at that point, whether it is 0.2 or 0.3, 1, the citizens have accepted this. And at that point, whether it's point to where to point three, one, the citizens have accepted this. It doesn't become, it just becomes moot at that point. So my point, I just aired my view saying that we do need a good robust referendum. Hopefully, and I to sweep in the part, I would have definitely appreciated if there was already a PPP effort where fundraising was already on. It's three years since we acquired this about almost six, a few months ago. I wish there was some effort going on in that direction, which will make it so much more easier for us to bat on this. And I believe that as much as data is not extremely precise, what the data they provide so far is fairly accurate because I checked the events after I had read your report. I called those guys and asked them. They were very close. So this is where I stand. Okay. What is, I mean, we give you an earful, all good things for relating one. Right. So is our next step to have you come back at the May 19th meeting with these details about operational models? Yes, operations and staffing, options and analysis requested by by council at the last meeting. You said bring the homework as I got it completed. So this was the first installment. There's another piece. I particularly appreciate the clarity and additional questions councilman Skinner brought. So I think I've got a good handle on what it is you need as well as if you think of other things. Please email calls to our office. We let you go on this. Can you lay out just a very rough highlight timeline if we were to look to a referendum for November? Sure. So that's actually on page three of the memo. So if you're aiming for a November referendum, then you would spend the May 19th meeting reviewing operations and staffing discussions. June is when the deadline to call for a referendum. You presently have a meeting scheduled, I believe it's June 9th. So you need to make that decision then or have a special called meeting before the deadline. I need to work with the clerk's office on when that is. That would put the ball in motion for a November 2025 referendum. Those are your biggest rocks. You can certainly add meetings or discussion points as you see appropriate. And so before we leave, so I heard basically that this operational question is significant. And is there another big item that you're saying is a gap in the knowledge? For me, it's town halls and that's why I was a little panicked because May 19th only gives us two weeks before we have to vote on it. That's not feasible. all of a June. No, if we go, if she comes back May 19th with the business model, which is our next meeting, June 9th is two weeks later. And that's the only meeting. So we could, we couldn't do that. Well, unless we were to have another meeting in June. Yeah, if the deadlines later, Yeah, I mean, I know the deadline is not June 9th. I did not ask the clerk that question in the head of the meeting. I doubt she has those deadlines with her, but certainly can find that out and forward it back to the council. So when you reference the operational side of things, are you referring to going out to the community and trying to get an idea of what kind of fun raising they have done or can do or because that's going to be a big component right? I mean, you're going to have to decide however you decide, but for me, I'm not looking to have that be the horse. I think the city is going to have to say, look, this is where we're going, this is what we're doing. Hopefully everybody will row in that direction. I know I've been talking to the CB board members about, hey look, we're going to need maybe tourism product development dollars to move towards this effort. I mean, this is a big thing. This is a game changer thing, right? This is a moonshot. And so it's something that, you know, we're gonna have to at some point, Fisher-Cut Bay. And do we have someone today that were besides what Marilyn is doing inside? But I'm not looking for names. I'm just, are we engaging with someone about this that besides Marilyn's efforts that we're talking to about a P3 or any relationship like that? Donations on a larger scale? I'll admit, say, major that to me this has been, I think, and you were kind of talking about the fact that we're not really in the fundraising business. And so again, I don't know how, it's almost like I'm being asked to answer a negative. Like, I can lay out a model for there's cash on hand, there's a loan that we could go to directly as a council dependent on the outcome of a referendum. And then the remainder is the bond referendum. But I think that if this becomes, we're not going to move forward until we've got 100% certainty or clarity as to what the private donations are going to be. I mean, I think that this will have been effectively killed. And I understand where you're going with that. So I think what we need to do individually is just reach out to the community and have just some conversations. I think that's right what I need and that's what I'll do. Just to understand what the temperature is there, what they're thinking, just potentially get your child. Yeah yeah, have your own town hall as much as you want. So anybody else? No, I mean, I just think it's critical to understand. I know you said you didn't care or I'm paraphrasing about the operations, but it's on average from the working group, each municipality that we looked at, I mean, put one to two million. And so that's why I don't want us to bank on the fact that our non-profits can afford something that would sustain or at that give a $1.2 million. And so I'm sorry, just to clarify annually? Yes, yes. Wasn't it, isn't Roswell about $400,000 for their cultural arts center? I don't know Roswell, so I know Lawrence Hills was 750,000. to this you said to this point, like my, I think I've been saying this from almost day one, like the capital piece we can say is going to be a definitive number, right? But then the operations we can say, well, there are all these different factors. And if all goes well, then maybe it breaks even or we run it $200,000 deficit or $500,000 gap. And that gave me concern. And that's why when you look at some of the information that's already come to us in terms of what is it cost for the air conditioning and the lights, and then you look at, say, three staff people, I'm like, okay, let's just say for practical, rough back in the napkin napkin it's a million dollars now that's without any kind of revenue but I think that that may be simplistically a worst-case scenario right but again I don't want to prejudge that until we get the information on May 19th but I mean I don't think we're talking about $5 million. I think we know that it's more in the ballpark of $750,000 to $1.5 million. I don't know. But that is an aid. I don't know which is going to be. The structure, because are we going to be the ones that charge the ticket sales and then we get the revenue or are we going to have a third party that does that and then they're going to take a percentage. I don't know what that is. But there shouldn't be a way that the operations cost us more than what it costs to have a minimum level of staff and- This depends on what level of service we offer though. So I don't know that that can be- That can be a secondary model in the sense that a private company may be managing it. If we had the Performing Art Center today, the way I understand the budget, I think I've got a pretty good handle on it, we could buy off those operational expenses today. But again, I think that that's worst case scenario, and I think that's hypothetical. It's probably never useful. But so anyway, I think that May 19th is going to be- Yes. To your point, the consultant already said 600,000, right? That's about 50,000 a month. Just like, without the staff, so let this- But I don't know how they got to that number. Okay, we're going too far, so we'll let the staff come back on May 19th. A quick question. Who, which, what is the entity which is actually doing the community part of it? What is the name of that? I mean, who's representing it? Future, bill, ground break, breaking ground, can't I? No, no, no, no, what I'm saying is from the community side, which organization is spearheading this? Efforts to raise the funds and all that. Where's the line is? Is there any body? So that, which community organizations are spearheading fundraising has not been part of my work to this point? I can work to learn more between now and May 19th, but I'm not prepared to answer that question tonight. I understand none of which. And I can tell you that my understanding is that they got together and moved there. I think some of these folks that we've gotten the room, but they formed a new 501C3, I think they would be able to accept donations. But I probably, we need to get you more information. Yeah, I knew Ben Bonmond was there, he was a point person for everything. So that was easy. Right, after him. Right, and she's an officer in the nonprofit. Anyway, we can get that information. And just to let you know, I think Marilyn is going to be with us tonight. She had an emergency that had to be addressed. She wasn't going to be able to come. Be with us. Missing one question. Missed me. You know, Woodruff's art center, folks, came to the rotary and told us it's a year-long effort to raise funds to operate that. Could you please call them? So you'll get a better answer because they're all local folks. All right. I know that we went along, but very important. Big, rock and good discussion. The other two items, although they're important, I don't think it's into the world if we don't get them landed today. But we got a little bit of time. Thank you. The next item is- I'm sorry. We have a question. Yeah, sorry. Who's the question? Well, do we want to just skip to the executive session and punt them until next meeting? For 15 minutes. Yeah, all right, that's fine. Thank you. Thank you. Add the stormwater. I've read to the tonight's business. Well, the stormwater's supposed to be 45 minutes, that's fine. I am confident the staff presentation can be between five and seven minutes. The 45 was intended to allow you to ask lots of questions if you so chose, but I have not received any from the council on that topic, so the presentation may be very brief. I have often been based on how I read it, too, and I don't want to waste staff's time, so I think we could take it on right now. Yeah, no, let's, let's buy it off the thing. Okay, stormwater implementation update. We've Roman for presentation. Mr. Carrey. Roman, we give you an hour and 45 minutes of warmup time. Not saying it is too fast So I'll get started Good evening mayor and council my name is Roman Kerry and I am the interim Strommore Utility Manager for the city I was hired July of 2021 at the inception of this program with Cory Rayburn and since then I've helped Cory to develop and implement this program I'm a higher July of 2021 at the inception of this program with Cory Rayburn. And since then I've helped Cory to develop and implement this program. I am a engineer from the University of Georgia, and I have six years of experience in storm water management. I'm pleased to be here with you guys today to talk about the stormwater utility annual update. So, this will get started. In the operation section, I will cover our progress in addressing storm water assets requiring maintenance within the city. Maintaining storm water assets is the primary focus of the storm water utility program. From there, I'll move to the stream restoration project and the boardwalk project, two capital improvement projects that storm water has overseen, and then I will touch upon the grant program. To the right, you can find a map of all the stormwater assets maintained by the city. A citywide inspection was conducted to evaluate all stormwater infrastructure. Each asset was scored based on condition and siltation levels. Since the program began in 2021, we have maintained 70% of all assets with the condition score of three or higher on a five point scale, and maintained 56% of all assets with the siltation score of three or higher on a ten point scale. While this represents a significant progress, stormwater infrastructure naturally degrades over time and each year, more assets reach the threshold requiring maintenance. One such maintenance activity is stormwater asset cleaning. So as you can see on the left we have a pipe full of stone, silt, things of that nature and on the right we have the same pipe that we've cleaned out. One of the primary purposes of cleaning these assets is to mitigate flooding. The other purpose is anything you bring out of the pipe doesn't go downstream to someone's backyard and continues to increase erosion downstream. So we do pipe cleanings or any kind of cleaning on head walls, catch basins, just different stormwater structures within the city. This slide shows an example of a pipelining performed within the city. So on the left, you could see a pipe that requires some maintenance. There is a little bit of peeling, some disjoint mint, and on the right is the same pipe that we have lined. Pipelining is a much cheaper, faster solution to maintaining a pipe system. And when you line a pipe, you don't have to dig up driveways, tear up land. It's a non-invasive way of lining these systems. So when you line these pipes it adds about 50 years to the pipe system. Finally the third type of maintenance that we generally do is a cut and replace maintenance. So this is when lining is not feasible. We perform this kind of repair. So in this particular example, erosion and a corroded corrugated metal pipe caused a failure that you see on the left. Sorry, on the left right here. And so the solution is we put in a junction box at point of failure and extended the pipe system and installed a new headwall. From there we added rip rope to the end of the headwall to mitigate any further erosion. So when you do a fix like this, when the neat things is it stops the erosion right there at the source. And so it doesn't continue to erode downstream. So one thing I should have mentioned at the last slide is while repairs and maintenance is the major bulk of what we do, those kind of repairs make it so that we don't have to larger fixes or capital improvement projects along the way. One such capital improvement project that we had to do this year is the town stream center restoration and trail project. This project stabilizes a severely eroded stream channel using bioengineering techniques to achieve natural solutions. So as you can see on the left, there's an eroded channel and a sidewalk that is almost falling into the channel. And on the right, this is the exact same channel using our bioengineering tactics. So you can see a little bit of rip wrap, there's some bowler toe. It may be hard to see in this image, but there are some live sticks plugged in throughout. And all of this is holding the stream together. On the left, you can see what it looked like in construction versus on the right. So on the right, kind of towards the bottom, there are some choreimating as well as additional storm water plants, or sorry, wetland plants plugged in throughout which these plants are made. They're chosen for the durability and wet conditions, and they're hardy root systems, so they hold the bank together. How long will that last? Very long time. It's hard for me to give you. But these also have something called soilos in there so that is the terrorist area that you're seeing. So all of these things go together to create the solution for the stream restoration. Next so on the right you can see the stream restoration which we just spoke about and downstream we get to the boardwalk at town center. So the design and permitting were completed in early 2024 and construction began in August of 2024. This public amenity also integrates several stormwater best management practices within it. So it's kind of hard to see in this image since it is under construction, but we will have the Tural shelves, we will have sediment storage and bioswale. So around the edge of this left-hand picture, there will be wetland plants planted all along the side, and one of the benefits of that is they tend to filter out pollutants as they come into the system. On the right, we have a portion of the boardwalk formed that will connect the upper pond to the lower pond and get to the constructed wetlands. Additional features include underground attention systems to offset runoff from impervious surfaces, regenerative storm water structures, and the constructed wetlands, providing over 3 million gallons of additional storage for the town center area. Construction has been underway for over six months and remains on track for completion next summer. Lastly, sorry. The maintenance on the underground storage systems, what does that look like? Is it a high maintenance item? We have to dredge the sediment out of it or is... It depends on the system. So a lot of these systems have, let's say, a manhole cover, and you pop them open and generally when you inspect them carefully, that is where everything would flow to. So you're talking about silt and any kind of debris. It's usually at that one manhole cover. So generally a back truck would come in and suck the debris from that cover. It tends to not be a very difficult maintenance if done properly and inspected over time. Great, thank you. Of course. And I'm going to send a bit of vegetation of that life that they've done the predict, what are the pipes in that these line pipes? How long do they last? When you line a pipe, it adds about 50 years or so to the pipe system. So it's almost like putting in a brand new pipe. For instance, a corrugated metal pipe, their lifespan tends to be about 35 years. So if you add 50 years, it's a brand new pipe essentially. So you call it a piece of it? Yeah, so aligning, there are two ways we do linings within the city. We do a CIPP, which is a cured in place pipe lining. That's essentially a canvas impregnated with epoxy or type of glue and they pull it through the pipe system and it hardens. That's one way. The second way is a spin casting. So we take that. Okay. Sorry. So, the other one is the concrete, the concrete at one construction and the pipe. How long does that last? The concrete. You have this head wall to head wall then. Okay, well, first few slides. It's on the face of where it is. Yes. This artifact, how does it last? So how long will the concrete head wall ask us that? That's the question. Like this one. You'll be just having a agenda. Oh, sorry. I think I, okay. So that repair, I mean, if installed properly, that should, it's hard to give you an actual number. But they're designed to last the life hood of this system. And so, as you can see in this 50 years, if you can see on the left this head wall, it's still intact. The only reason there was an issue is because the pipe system itself fell from here. If it did not fall, it would still be going. And part of that was the erosion as well as the corrosion of these corrugated metal pipes that have this lifespan. So generally it lasts as long as the pipe lasts. Yeah, because I just read that thing. You have $569 million worth of work to be done. Yes, that is the cost to cut and replace every single of one of the structures within that three or higher condition and sotation score. I'll catch you if we do that. Okay. And I think we were at, I'm sorry. The Stoamwater Utility Grant Program. So it was recommended in the 2023 Stoamwater Master Plan and by the Stoamwater Task Force. Its goal is to assist residents in addressing in addressing challenging stormwater issues. Per council direction, the program will focus on both preventative and reactive solutions. Cap Awards at $30,000 per homeowner while focusing on corridors with multiple homeowners. The initial budget will be $422,000. The resident application portal is set to launch late May and will remain open for six weeks. We anticipate the first project will begin construction in late summer. So I appreciate your time. I'm open to any additional questions you may have. Are we going to lose you to narrating audiobooks or anything? If they'll take me, but I'm here for all of you guys. Starting to think that that's a requirement for being in the stormwater program, you've got to have a great voice. Cory had a great voice. Guys, it's five till seven. Just a quick question. So I see the grant program kind of as a pilot, ultimately does it have efficacy of hitting our storm water results? And it looks like you all are killing it on some of the metrics, a year ahead of schedule, hitting overwhelming majority of those high, highly rated ones that need. But as time goes on, the ones that were at the two will rise. So it's always going to be an effort to address, but could I ask, well, I don't know if we look at the program after one year, but like evaluate, would that funding rather than continuing the grant program, would it make sense to increase it instead of 3.8 mil to 4.2 with the grant money to have higher efficacy for storm water as a whole? So I just ask again, look at that a year down the road, but ultimately the goal is, for my opinion, to have a well operating system. And I thought it was you guys didn't have enough, you would have to hire more staff in order to take on more. So you do 400 and then 200 or however, because we're looking at funding the grant program in purpose. to an employee or an agency or yeah. Oh, look at it. It's time to continue building. 56% in four years is, that's a great work. Which is answering her own questions. I do have one question when Chris gets his satisfy. I say I miss Lenny Soprowski when we have kick ass engineer from University of Georgia. They've done a Georgia Tech. So I know that everyone's got a lot of questions about this. Very important topic, but we're not going to settle anything tonight. Very much appreciate you being able to give us your presentation, which was excellent. But is it, I don't think so. Mine's real quick. The city of Alfred and city of Milton have stormwater utilities to your knowledge, because I noticed they weren't included in the comparison. So in the comparison, to my knowledge, I'm not sure. Okay. So to speak, I don't know if I can find that. I know that Alfreda does not. Alfreda just doesn't have a separate utility. It's just through taxes. Okay, okay, thank you. I've got one simple question here. So when, when do we? Guys, but I mean, we're gonna, we'll get this back up in the next meeting. We don't actually have an action ask with this one. We can absolutely bring up the topic again at your next meeting. Yeah, I mean, there's really nothing that is critical with tonight. Just a sec. Pause the subject of meeting on someone on time. Can we take think? You want to say something? Hit it with a adjourn. Yeah. Thank you. It is. Guys, are we OK to adjourn? Yeah, all right. See all at 75 over there.