Thank you Mayor reporting. Welcome everybody and I'd like to call this me to order the John Spree State Council, the work session, this April 14th at 501 PM. Thank you. Would you lead the pledge? I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which stands one nation and your God in invisible liberty and justice for all. Mayor Schermarks. None, just I think we're okay on the seats and yeah, we're good. Great, thank you. The first item on the agenda is the performing arts center, cost assessment city manager careers presentation. And Mayor actually, if I was going to ask if we could change the order of the agenda and instead start with the CIP first and the performing arts center, just so for all the benefit of everybody that's here, they can see the big picture for all the competing projects and they see what goes into our thought process. Okay. All right. No, no, come on. Everybody, Marilyn Margolis just got here. Thank you Mr. Mayor. Are we on TV? I forgot about the TV part. All right, so you have a motion, is there a second? I'll second that. Okay, discussion on the motion. No, I just, well, actually yes. I would, I know everybody usually leaves before we get to the rest of the agenda items and I think it would be beneficial for them to hear all of the competing projects that we have. Okay. I would agree with that. I think the decision for the performance arts center is a complex one, it's expensive one. It will be the most expensive project we have ever taken as a city if we go down this road. So it's important to understand the other projects that are out there that we've started and where we stand. So I think it's good for us to go through this. I'll just say that there was actually some thought put into the agenda and the Performing Arts Center right now is at the top of our CIP and I think that it's going to inform what we do with the CIP. And so for that reason, I would be opposed to the motion, but that's just me. Mayor, I'd agree with you for two reasons. One is that depending on how the Performing Arts Center discussion lands, that will impact how the CIP is going to be considered. And then to the extent I understand my colleagues concerns that the public who's here won't stay for this discussion. That's common, but considering that we brought up the issue, hopefully if you all can stay another 20 minutes to hear. The BAC discussion, or not the PAC, the CIP discussion because the CIP is a comprehensive capital improvement plan. And it's the list of capital improvements of which the performing arts centers are we using a lot of acronyms, so I'm just for the benefit of anyone listening. The performing arts center is number one on that list. So if you care about the performing arts center and that's why you're here, you may want to stay for that discussion. And then if I could just add one more clarification, I don't know that the performing arts center will be the most expensive project we've undertaken.ali Creek was well over $65 million to date. So, and $2 million of operating cost every year. So. All right, anybody else? I like the way that staff put together. So we're talking the PIC, then it flows into the CIP. So I would rather leave it the way it is because one is the type of other ones. I would rather have the conversation on the PSC then moving to the CIP. And the reverse can be said, but if everybody else will stay, that would be amazing. All right, Chris, do you want to apply in or? No. All right. You want to vote? And you've used them favor of the motion to move the agenda? It's, we just wanted to make sure that if as many people in the audience and that are online are here listening to the CIP conversation, that's all that really matters. Okay. Does it really, the order doesn't matter, but just we're trying to be respectful of your time. Okay. All right, well then, let's move forward with the PIC discussion. Great. Well, there we go. Yep, we have a tasker. Well then, as you all know, in February, we engaged a multi-disciplinary firm, PBK, to meet the council's charge of determining a construction cost estimate and an annual operating and maintenance cost for a performing arts center. Given their experience building over 100 performing arts centers including the Peace Center and Greenville and Focal Enforcedife County, we were pretty confident they understood the kind of facility we were thinking about building, but just to be sure they started by reviewing our work. So from previously completed studies to the work of the task force and the working group, PBK quickly understood that our goal was to create not just a performing arts center for one user, but multiple types of user group stance, theater, chorus, band, symphony, all those great things. So PBK worked within not only an understanding of our community's needs, but also the parameters and directions given by Council specifically to plan for an 800 seat performance all and consider optional additional space for our classrooms. The Agenda Report includes a facility layout, a conceptual site plan design, as well as visualizations of the facility. All the completed work was combined to form a construction cost estimate for both the base performing art center as well as the optional arts classroom addition. Included in a table on the third page of the memo, the cost are broken down by base construction, design fees and contingency. The performing art center has been or has an anticipated base cost of $50 million, Designed fees of $5 million and a contingency of $5 million. The first floor of art's classroom space has a total cost of $5.3 million and the second floor has an anticipated cost of $5.7 million. The agenda materials also include anticipated operations and maintenance cost of $617,000 a year plus a 15% contingency. Detailed in an attachment of the same name, the operations cost estimate does not include any staff expenses, as Council directed the analysis should be focused on facility operations. At this point, to advance, I need further direction from Council as to next steps. In the memo, I listed four potential next steps. If you're in so inclined, the first option would be to review and further understand the available cash that we have on hand to advance the project. And what are the financing options to understand the balance of funds needed? A second option would be to determine the scope of the project. That is, whether or not to include arts classroom space. A third area in which additional information would be helpful relates to staffing. The council has not determined if this would be outsourced or some kind of public private venture. Either way, the cost to run an operative facility are driven by the staff cost. Finally, outlined in the memo as a fourth option, if Council is not interested in advancing the project further, we would pause the initiative at this point. So it really boils down to whether not you're interested in moving forward or if you'd rather put this on pause. I'm happy to answer questions on any and all of the material presented in the agenda packet. But I'm most interested if there's a next step for this project. And if so, which of those options you'd like to see brought back to a future meeting. So I'll turn it back to the mayor. Okay. Okay. Thank you, Kimberly. I think that the work that's been done by the consultant, by you and the staff has been excellent. I really appreciate it. Let me just say for everyone that's here, I think that tonight is somewhat anti-climatic. You're not going to like hearing that. I say that it is very important and this is what I mean by that. If we had a majority tonight that said that they didn't want to pursue it any longer than I think the city's involvement would probably die. Hopefully we'll have a majority that want to keep going with it. But to me tonight is a fairly simple check-in about if we're going to continue down this road and want to continue to pursue more information that we're going to need to have to make a final decision and also figure out exactly how it would come about. One thing that was floating around that I think was innocent but misinformation on the less was that we were going to be deciding tonight to authorize construction documents. For the same reason, I think that we must move forward and get the finance information, because we don't have it yet. For that same reason, I can't support moving forward construction documents, because we don't have all the information. And so to me, I'm hopeful that this is going to be a fairly simple conversation that just simply says, hey, we don't have all the information we need. This has been a priority of the Council for a long time. I think we've had just about every member speak in favor of it. We've had official votes that have allocated money towards it in the past. But for my part, I'm hopeful that we will definitely ask staff to continue and get back to us as soon as possible with information about the cash on hand and different financing options. Regarding the scope, I very much am hopeful that the art center will be a partner with us in this endeavor. However, I think that that's probably an ongoing conversation that still remains to be hashed out in terms of what that looks like. So I'm going to defer to staff in the meantime on that. And then on the staffing model, I think that that's going to be a conversation that we have to have in hand with the financing in cash on hand conversation. So that's my stance. That's where I am. Lee. Thank you, Kimberly. The report is pretty detailed, The consultant, a pretty good job of giving us into the details of what it really costs. So the cost that is mentioned includes the owner's relevance of $6 million, $5 million for the design, and $5 million contingency. So it's definitely provided the cushion in there too. So I would definitely move to the next step of like the options we have in hand, like what we have internally and what we need to look for the funding sources. So we should definitely move to the next step. So we account this for and there's definitely good to look at it. So on the addition of the art center, it would definitely be a great addition, but I'll leave it up to the staff to have the conversation with them to see their interest in partnering with us and like how the Logistics work in it. So thank you and I'll definitely support to move forward on this And I move forward not construction documents We have next step of like. Okay, well that was one of the choices, I think that's why some people were asking us to move forward with that. Thank you Kimberly, very much. I like the renderings. I just, nothing was unique to John's Creek. I was hoping for something more unique, more focused on the arts. But to me, before we even discussed financing period, we need the business model from our users to know what they're willing to pay to use it, and community input is the most critical and important piece. Cory, can you please put up that pdf for me? So surveys have to be mailed out to every resident, and then also town halls. I think we should have three town halls across the city to gauge support from the residents that are going to be paying for it. And this is one of the items that the residents need to be aware of is our 10 year fiscal forecast. And you'll notice, which I didn't do a good job circling these items, I apologize, the forecasted surplus under fiscal year 26. That's what we're actually going to have a little bit more of because the fire station costs came in much lower than anticipated. So we'll actually have 5.3 to allocate in fiscal year 26. However, as you see going forward in 27, it's only 2.9 and 28.1 and then back down and by fiscal year 2030 we're negative. We won't have anything. So when we're talking about another, bringing on another asset, we have to make sure that we're able to maintain what we already have and that we have so much already on the horizon. And I can't remember how many pending capital projects we have in the works, but it's a lot. So that's one of the things that goes into our decision on how we move forward. And so it's critical that the community, because it's easy to ask somebody if they want something or can justify the need, but it's how is it going to impact their daily life and their taxes? So what needs to be stated is that this is all but not factoring in any of the operating that a performing art center would require much less the construction that will still have to make adjustments along the way. And then additionally in case you don't have time to stay for the next part, you know our parks are going to be requesting in the next five years 62 million in updates and enhancements. And granted, we don't have to approve all those, but we spent half a million dollars to do in plant updates. So we told the community we were going to be doing those things after we had their feedback. So I just want us all to be realistic. We're not talking about one project that's going to need funding. If we go down this road, it's multiple projects. They're going to need multiple sources of funding. And even if we allocated all the fund balances from 2026 to 2032, that would only equal 20 million. So we couldn't even accomplish finishing all of the parks request, much less a preferring art standard. So I love the idea, I just want us to be able to make sure that the community is aware of the financial situation and the cost associated. So I'm just insistent on the town halls. Thank you. I will just say that this was almost just a placeholder that we were given as an example of what the 10-year financial forecast would be presented to us as in terms of its layout. But I mean, these are not solid. These assumed things have not been decided yet. I mean, that is the 10 year fiscal forecast. Not. No, it's not based on anything that's been approved. Well, we don't think there's any proof that it's decided. That's not an advance. But no, I mean, that is what the forecast is surplus is supposed to be that we are able to allocate in 2026. That was the same. There was no assumption made in the projections that were not fine. This is a concern. Yes. This is a concern. Yes. The budget that we haven't even, we don't have. I mean, anyway. But this is what you're going to help base that off of because it's factoring in the request. We haven't even, we don't have, I mean, anyone. This is what you're going to help base that off of because it's factoring and the request and things we have approved. This is conservative. I will give you that because it doesn't have, you know, the benefits of medley factored in, but other than that, this is a good forecast that we all looked at and discussed at the retreat. It is very realistic. But the capital program contributions didn't, y'all pass a policy like, was it 5% revenue has to be expended on capital projects, so that's not necessarily as you've waited here. But that's what you're able to allocate towards it is the forecast and surplus. So they just didn't put plug that in there because that's our discretion. We could put it in a proules or put it into a capital program. But that's the money that you're working with. But there were a lot of assumptions that the growth and other factors were not really. I am looking at this very conservatively, I will admit that. But even if this is off by several million dollars at the end of the day, the total is only 20 million. So even if it's off by 20 million, we're talking about 40 million and we have 62 in parts that are not funded as of now. So let me try to clarify or simplify. Bottom line, are you four or against us directing staff to come back to us at a future meeting with finance? Not financing, I think staff should come back to us with the business model and with dates for town halls and how we're going to send out the surveys. Well, from standpoint of the financial model, I would think that the financial model and financial financing options sort of go hand in hand because if we do have a financial or business case, so we're looking at the revenue side because we pretty much understand the expense side as best we can today. We push revenue against it, what we think is out there, then we could figure out how we fill the gaps, or how we initiate the project through a bond referendum or something like that. But I think we need to see both sides of the balance sheet or the income statement there. The only thing that's a little... I don't know. I'm a little bit at a loss just because, I think everyone in this room campaigned that they wanted to pursue the Performing Arts Center, probably except Chris Kaufflin, because he- I have an out. You don't want to put an out today. We did, we're absolutely right. We are not really safe. We're not safe. I don't know how many public statements I've got, but ever since I've been mayor, I've been strongly backing it. I guess I thought, my understanding was that we were waiting on the card cost information to come back. We wanted to see that as a check-in and then we were going to be ready to ask for the financial side. Getting to cost to come back, that's one element in the equation, right? And you know, the cost doesn't really matter if there's a way for us to pay for it, where we're not subsidizing every year. We understand what that subsidizing component looks like. So this can be a $300 million project. But if we get a lot of revenue coming in and we can put our hands on it, it's real, then decision is different than if there's a huge gap there. So I think as we go forward, and I'm sorry to get ahead a little bit, I'm looking at this as surveys, I'm looking at this as engaged, engaged the public to come out and give us their opinion on this project itself. But also let's go ahead and use some of the foundational work we've already done with trying to raise money and trying to raise partners. Start leveraging that because we're about as close as we've ever been to doing this project within the city of Johns Creek. We are all for this project. We just need to understand the financial numbers and what it's going to take if there is a gap, what that gap looks like every single year for us. But now, Kimmer for this last year or the year before, when we took up the tourism product development dollars, you said that we needed to know the scope, scale, and size. Before we'd be able to do anything further. And now we've got that. And now the hands getting kicked. Actually, let me correct you. I was against spending tours and product dollars on a consultant. I was against that initially because we had no physical, geographical land where this would live. And so I said, okay, there was a case to say, okay, let's give the public and the community some reassurances that we are committed to move forward. So by having the construction, the consultant creates some of this work that we have today. That should reinforce the fact that everyone in council is pretty much in line with trying to get this, to make this a reality. But back then a year ago, I was, because we didn't have land. And today we haven't allocated land, but we've done some purchases. So every indication, every time this topic comes up, we have been in favor of this and moving it forward. But I don't want to slowly accumulate expenses and slowly walk into this project. And do we get to a point where we've spent X amount of dollars in, hey, let's just go forward. I want to have a conscious moment in time where we say these are projections hard numbers. We know what the public looks like as far as how many days of usages they're willing to put forward on the revenue side and some partners, some real partners out there that we actually engage now that we're this far along the project. Well, so obviously there were studies done. Yes. And I actually asked the same manager about this past week, just if they had refreshed or dusted off that information and can you just repeat, I think that's a valuable and important piece of conversation. Just a document. No, well, maybe I don't know what it is you've got, but about the usage. That's the last market study. This is the last market study. So the market study that we did last year has not been refreshed wholesale. We have begun the process. I have begun the process of starting to reach out to some of the user groups to understand. Now that we know more about what a facility would look like, would you have interest in using it? However, I didn't want to get too ahead of that cart in that council ask for a very specific thing, come back with operating costs for the building as well as a construction estimate. If the council is so inclined, I've obviously heard council member D.B.A.C. and councilman Skinner interest there, but that is something we could take on as the next step to understand. I don't know if that's the exact answer I gave you. Just to close that loop. This document here, okay, may not be refreshed, but this is the latest I have at least. Without the, without the middle schools, if you will, use of the space, we have 65 days of usage of this facility. So we need to be, we need to understand that. Now this may change. This may be 100. This may be 70, 80. We don't know until the refresh comes out. But this is 65 days of usage of this facility. Wasn't that based though on a facility that was valued at more than $100 million and that the use to rent the facility was going to be significantly higher. Am I mistaken in that? Both of your points are correct and I thought as a council body we had also discussed that the outreach conducted in the market study update could have been fuller and that all groups that we knew existed. What comes to mind is there were a couple council members that mentioned many different dance academies and different music academies in the city that different council members have put me in touch with since that were not contacted or reached out to participate and understand their potential usage. So that it's an area where we could certainly flesh out further if of interest to council as a next step. I got the impression you were back in the napkin was that if anything the demand was higher than most is more. Yes. And I think to the council's credit that I think we're all in agreement that rather than the usage of the facility being so high that it decreases how often it gets used, I think that we've had discussion and we've been in consensus that we'd rather see the thing heavily utilized by our high schools, by the different parts of our community. 100% let's let it wear out rather than rust out. But 100%, I'd like 365 days of usage to this. The facility is an asset, it's a big uplift to the City of Johns Creek. It literally as we all talked about will put us on the map. But we as council we are obligated to make sure that we look at this from a fiduciary perspective and financially make sure that we are really diving into the numbers because we all want this but we can't let our enthusiasm you know overshadow what the numbers look like because going into this five years ten years down the road we want to make sure that if there is a gap and if in the budget process we have to allocate X amount every year because of this that we go into the eyes open and we and we do it the right way we don't just back into it slowly. And that's where Stacey has mentioned Councilman Skinner had said the revenue side, the income statement is best we can gather that at the same time while we're looking at the financial options Whether it's an obligation bond what does that look like for us? What does what does? You know, I'm not in favor of the PFA. I just put that on tape right now I don't I don't want to go down that road but you know Referendum were with the voters vote on the bond because a bond is tax increase. So how do we just have to know and go into this with open eyes? Because everyone around this table wants to do this. Well, which is why I wanted to look at them in totality and we ask every retreat, like, what are these things going to cost? This is the first time we've had a realistic number attached to this. And so, Larry, I think that we are actually maybe in violent agreement as they say, because I think we both realize that this is at the end of the day, it's a business proposition. This is a large building project. That being said, you brought up the possibility of a bond. And I think that we know two things about how this thing gets paid for. We're not going to pay all cash. We're probably not going to do all financing either. Assuming that there is a component of bonding, there will be a referendum and that will be the ultimate survey. And you know, even when that's the route that we choose to go to put that in front of the public, I think the town hall certainly may make sense as a part of that or I don't know what the staff. We have to kind of be very careful about how we interact, but the staff would be responsible to put out factual information, which would be very great. But I don't know how we are even able to have a serious town hall conversation until we've gotten some very practical finance and cash numbers. Violent agreement with that. I completely understand we need to know the numbers. And so, 100% agree with that. So I think my perspective marries you together. So with that, I support actually looking at number three, determining the operations and staffing model, how the private public partnership is really supposed to form. And then concurrently, or maybe with a small delay on getting that started, then proceeding to number one. I don't think, say, see, did one good thing here on this when you said we got a pay for what we have already, one of my pride and joy at John's Creek is the establishment of cruel funds, where we are tending to 10, 20, 30 year life cycles and looking for the future where people don't have to raise taxes to do that. So what we have currently from an asset perspective, we are a crewing force, so we're paying for so anything beyond that will be net new, where we can invest in capital projects. However, I don't think we're going to be able to get there with what you have today. I think it will be a Geobond that you'll have to consider for performing arts. And then even looking at the CIP, finishing out Collie Creek. So in lieu of surveys and town halls, we would obviously have a town hall or two if we had something on the referendum. But I think that's what we should proceed because there were promises made by this council to do the due diligence of what it looks to get a PAC. So I would determine how are we going to operate in staff? I would strongly prefer it be the private public partnership with the private sector looking to operate in staff. Is this something that could be done in done in tandem concurrently? Yeah, I said a couple of week delay just so the model could have some numbers around it, but yeah, you can do it concurrently. If you can. Go, I'm sorry. And so we would also know what we have financing available. So what we could look at to understand what number you would have to put out there for a geo bond. Just one thing to note, the accruals is not factored into that 62 million corpses requesting for enhancements. No, so we would have to do accruals. Well, earlier you said we have to pay for what we have. We are paying for what we have and that's Well, I'm talking about some things like improve the drainage, Audrey Mill Park, that kind of stuff. Those are all capital projects that we have to decide on. We will prioritize those. Those are not a dollar committed from my perspective. So that's a prioritization that this Council will have to take up. But I would pursue number three and then Do you have an opinion about the art center that you want to share? Was that you had an opinion about the art center? Do you want to share? That was another question The actual art center Being part of oh no, you don't want me. Oh the art center being part of the PAC. No, we don't want you. Oh, the art center being part of the PIC. No, we don't want you to make it. Yeah, if it's anything on arts, you're asked the wrong guy. But I mean, if we can make that, there will be volumes of efficiency. If we can pursue the art center, I've always been impressed the art center operationally. It might be good to have that as an anchor and have them with more room, in my opinion. And then some of the uses per day will come substantially down. But that's only if it works. But I think you get the volume and scale of efficiencies that will only benefit all the groups. Yeah, okay, another minute. Sorry. Well, I mean, it's no surprise that I very much support number one for the staff to come back with financing options and then also looking at the operations as part of that as I know that while the construction cost is a large number and a scary number in some respects, the annual obligation is something that also is in front of Council's mind. I would note though the staffing model said nine full time staff and at least two of the local facilities that we visited, actually three if we include the one in Cobb County, they had less than three staff members per facility. So the nine numbers seem really, really high and I guess that is something that you'll look at when you bring that to us. They usually have a high volunteer base. Well, I would imagine we would with this as well. Usually a high volunteer base. Well, no, so like I may be misremembering, but my recollection is when we toured focal, which is owned by the Forsyth County Schools, there was the executive director, she had administrative assistant, and that was it. The facility and genitorial staff was provided by the school system. And as part of the facilities team. So that's only two people and when we toured cultural arts center in Roswell, it was also only two employees that I recall. And last, I think, only had one, just one person that ran the whole facility. So, I, again, think that nine, and when we're worrying about that number, so I didn't reply to your email, Council member of D.B. Oscebo, I appreciate you running those numbers up, but I just don't find them very realistic in that not your math is not realistic, but the assumption of nine employees, I didn't find. But- I took that directly from the agenda items. No, absolutely, that's why I'm questioning that. So I'm putting that out there for any, any other people who are seeing those numbers and thinking, wow, that's a lot more than we were thinking we were in for. Could be. Anything else? I think you need to continue the conversations with the Art Center, please? As they would be a fantastic partner to have at the facility. Anything else? I think that's something to cover everything. Just wrap up my piece. Sure. So I 100% agree that we should work with the Art Center. We get the economy to scale. It's a physical building. There's resources, whether it's air conditioning or walls, but there's the uplift of the art center how it could push additional usage to the actual theater side of things, you know, place being developed. There's a whole lot of things that we don't know that the art center could possibly uplift for us. So if we're gonna do this, absolutely, let's get them involved. I think they would bring incredible value to the project. What Councilwoman Elwood was talking about, I created a, this is simple, it's a simple Excel spreadsheet here. And basically just looked at our cost based on the agenda items that we had, what the initial cost was. Some life, things that expire in life like 15 years or 30 years for the roof. And just tried to, I'm trying to get what a cost per day is for this facility. Break it down to that level. Now, this is, there's a lot of things I did not include in here, like if we do float a bond, what the interest rate is, what the service debt, the servicing debt would cost us, would be an additional cost. I didn't put into financial ratios, internal rate returns, IRRs, and a whole bunch of other financial ratios I didn't put in here. This is back in the napkins, kind of stuff, but it's somewhat eye-opening that we all have to be aware of that the cost, if we take the construction cost, plus the operation of cost, nine people. Could be a little less. And then we look at the life cycle items that expire PCs, expire of five, six years. And it ends up being about $4.9 million a year cost. That's full, that's over 30 years. So 30 years, that means if every day for 30 years, and it's been rented, it's about $13,000 a day rental. But obviously if we say that's unrealistic at 100% rental, we say there's a 40% utilization, that means only 146 days out of the year it's being used, which means 12 days a month. And 12 days a month would add up to about $34,000 per day. It would cost us just to take those numbers and cover our cost. Now, we're not saying that that's what everyone has to pay. What we're saying is that's the number we have to pay as a city. If there's a gap there, that gap is where we all say, okay, it's time to go ahead and we're willing to contribute X-Mount per year to cover those gaps. But it's things like this that these numbers, the numbers are real. It's just, I was very conservative in the way I established this. So we just have to look at those numbers as I said before. My, my, my ask to answer all this question here is let's move forward on the finance side. Let's figure out how to pay for this thing. Second thing is let's go ahead and I think we should go ahead with, with surveys. We should engage the public and push them to a landing page so we can get opinions. I don't want just the election to be the only time that the public is out there and saying yes or no, I'm interested. I want feedback. I want you, I want to know what's good or bad about the idea. In a survey, whether we engage money to put information on the Bolton board, whether we have websites at our festival events, there's a table, we constantly pull the public so that November we get a true yes or no and more importantly we get feedback from everybody, what they like, what they don't like. You know, that's critical's where I am with it. And I, in the CIP, which is later on, I allocated some money for the survey and stuff like that. So I told you this before the meeting. Yeah. I don't know that I can stand behind the assumptions that are made. I think that they are in some ways, they're more. But anyway, I appreciate your comments. I should look. Council Member, I will thank you. Thank you. On this point though, anecdotally, I'm sure there's numbers behind the back of this up again when we toured focal. Because first off, they were very busy. Their calendar remained very full. The demand was high as it was for cultural arts center in Roswell. And so the assumption is about the number of days I think is low. I understand using the 65 number from the early report, but that was based on a very high rental expense. So I think if it was more accessible to the public, it would have a lot more use. But anyway, that being said, we were told by focal that their revenues pay for all their operations except their staffing. So yeah, so I mean, I would love for us to have a similar model and then hopefully not have nine staff unless of course that's deemed necessary and Financially feasible yet nine people, but you know that they they only had to pay for their staffing because all of the other operations Everything else was covered through the revenue from the so that's you know I guess what I'm trying to say is there are successful examples that serve communities all over that we can use as Examples as we make these decisions. And we should. And it's the public-private partnership that will get us there for the operations cost. And that's why I wanted to look at the operations model and work with the groups to see who will bear those costs, what type of revenue we think we could get there. And there's to follow up at that point, Kimberly and I briefly had a conversation of potentially someone that may be interested in doing a PPP. We haven't, I haven't pursued that yet, but that's probably next couple of weeks. That will help with that gap. So, D all the above. Let's public private partnership and refining this year. It's back in the napkin, but the numbers are real. But the back of napkin. That's part of going into this with eyes open and so that we understand what we're doing for the citizens and the city. and just full disclosure sir. My issue of the spreadsheet was not as much about the personnel but I think that's something but I think the multipliers that were used in some of the life cycle costs but we can go into that all the time. Those are from the agenda. Life cycle those are from the operation where I the personnel though at nine people at 125k fully burdened fully burdened we can again Right, those are rounding factors into scheme of things. Okay. All right. Thank you. This is one project which is way, way over to you. We've been kicking it down the road for quite some time. And this body, every time we go for a retreat, we've in all earnest, we discuss how to finance it, how to make it happen. That count, I'm very pleased with all my colleagues. Two things I've always been consistent on was arts, definet city, and an age. Like you can never talk of renussons without mentioning all those Italian masters. Similarly, one other thing which I feel very strongly about it is, like in this particular case, just taking the numbers which we have projected, $60 million, $33,000 voters are households that roughly around 2,000 dollars per household. Well before we burdened some household with this kind of number, I think we need to have some kind of input from them, notwithstanding it, even this is not so critical for me. What is critical for me is, you know, when we had this colleague Creek Bond referendum, it was massive mandate, it got 64% of John's Creek approved of it. When somebody approves with that kind of mandate, irrespective who's on the council, that project will continue to march forward relentlessly. That is the reason why I feel when people are advocating for public input, get any kind of mandate, nobody on this council will have the way with all to change it, delay it. That's the reason why I'm so keen, any large project, if the entire population of John's Peak is behind it, the council is automatic to do it the best possible way. And coming to the document, if Kimberley's city manager's staff has put this, I do not have any reason to start doubting or rather I wouldn't like to go down the path of doubting every document they put out. This is the best guest to meet. I think there's nothing else for us to go by in absence of this. So the reason why my colleague put this up is probably to just give us a picture what exactly are we are playing with, what numbers are we actually dealing with, what is the, what is possible with what resources we have. So that is where I stand and I really wish this project gets massive mandate from Johnson, John's Creek folks. And that's where I'm thinking. And to your point, I do believe before we ask the public to wane, they also need to have the same facts which we will have before we make the decision to pull the trigger. Going forward, I would definitely like to have how we're going to pay for this and what the revenue model for this. And I would, I think what the effort you made Larry, my friend, I think that is something which makes it so much more easier for us, for anybody sitting here to say yes, is it possible not possible? It makes the decision making process so much more easier. And at the end of it, we'll all be, whoever is sitting here, I'm telling you, we will be very happy we can all go home if we are able to achieve that. Thank you. Fine speech. So are you good with staff? Moving forward, moving forward, skipping financial information? Absolutely. One of the statement I made, it is, whatever information we have, the public at large also should have, less than or where our decision is coming from. That is more critically. Oh, absolutely, it's very important. All right, well, it sounds like we have broad consensus for moving forward to ascertain the financial piece of the puzzle. Any opinion about the art center? I think art center probably will be the most valuable addition to this project, primarily because they probably will be the maximum utilizing body. Symphonies, orchestras, all those will be more or less restricted to the weekends. But these are the folks who will be doing it in the evenings and weekdays. So I believe definitely they're a very valuable contributing partner. All right, well, so it sounds like you've got your marching orders and I didn't apply in about the staffing model, but in the difference to the other council members, I think that probably makes sense to make that part of the financial analysis. And. But- How quickly are we gonna be able to have the town halls? Obviously after the information's gathered, but what kind of time frame are you thinking? Has there been a consensus to have town halls? Yeah, yeah. Let's take a step back. We never had a colleague create referendum. We had an opportunity, we bought the land. We bought this building. Twenty dollars. Twenty plus. We bought this building. No survey, no referendum. I will stand by buying this building, it saves us $10 million over the next 50 years. But there are tough decisions we're going to have to make that we can't just take survey results. This is what John's Creek wants, they want strong public safety, smart rate of development, and traffic relief. Everything else is secondary based on the survey results we did. We will have to make some tough decisions. You're not going to get an 80-20. You're going to 65-35. But what happens if it's split? Survey. I was a little confused during the discussion. So assuming that part of this one's up getting finances through a bond for arguments, say, there will be a referendum, which will be as scientific as it can be because it's actually people voting. I was a little confused about the survey thing. It sounded like we were taking polls and we were tracking public opinion over time. That didn't quite. Sure, sure. So, you know, a survey is only as good as the amount of people that participate in survey. That's a, some type of quality sampling. So, you need about 600 quality randomly sampled to get the margin error. That's fine, whatever that number is. But my point is it's not only about the survey, okay? It's about we proactively get out and educate the citizens as far as where we're trying to go with this, because here's November. And whether we educate them here, we start talking about the performing arts, we engage everyone and say, hey, you're gonna have to make a vote. The more we do that, the more people will potentially come out and vote in itself. I mean, in John's Creek, traditionally, we've had a total of only 15,000 people come out and vote. And so, I'm sorry, one more. I just want more. It's everyone in this room and potentially a lot of other people that are listening today are vested in the Performance Arts Center. I want to reach some of the people that are not. And only because, not because I know I've said it, I'm for it at the right price, the right situation. But I wanna reach the people that may not even know where city hall is, may not be keeping tabs of us because they're traveling internationally. I wanna reach the people that don't have a voice or don't know people on this council. And understand, cause they're just as important as a people in this room and the people that are listening tonight and that's where I am. So to LA, these concerns, if and when the council said, hey, we're interested, we'd like to move forward and depending on how you skin the cat financially, there is going to be this public input process. And if you go back to the conference of Laney's plan, I used to joke the staff that I think they were out there like literally beating the bushes, asking for people to come out to take surveys and give feedback and whatnot. And they had I think 10 different town halls. They did it by each character area. You could do go online, we encourage people to send us emails, but there was definitely information that was just, it was flat, it wasn't four against, it just laid out the facts, and that would be a similar. Before we get to that point, have town halls to gauge whether the community would even utilize a performing art center. There are going going to be the ones paying for it, because you've only heard from the arts community. How do you come to this when you were the biggest proponent of this for years? I've always stood behind getting feedback from the community, always. And so I totally, just like we did with the Parks Update Plan and everything else we've done, you always have to know where the community is, they're going to be the ones paying for it. So we've heard from the arts community. We know they're excited about it, but my neighbors have no idea. Average park citizen has no idea. And so we need to engage them before this gives out for a bond. And I want them to see the totality of all the so we can better prioritize if this does go out for a bond that will be a tax increase and then we need to fund parks plan that we told people we were going to be doing and that would so that was my push to look at everything in totality. I mean it is true I mean when we talk about enhancements you know we are going to have to make some choices. Absolutely. You're going to have to decide for me and I'll'll, you know, for the CIP, I don't have a lot to add because until the PAC, until that door is closed, I'm all about the PAC at the top for a year after year after year for as long as it takes to potentially pay for this. So I mean, every dollar does compete and we will have to make judgments. You know is this still our top priority, right? But you know I can't help but think about and maybe I'm being a little snobbish but you know you drive down the road and you see somebody they don't have the best car but they've got really fantastic wheels, right? So they didn't put the money into the car but they got the doodads, right? Well really I'd rather the main thing to the main thing I think the performing art center is that game changer the change in the quality of life It synergizes with the town center. We've been talking about it. We've campaigned on it We've advocated for it and if we can figure out how to skin that cat. I'm hopeful that But the input I think everyone's for input at the right everyone's for input. At the right time, we received a lot of emails asking for input. One particular resident said that we should send out a letter to all John's Creek taxpayers saying how this would affect their taxes. We don't know that today. As we sit here, we have no clue. It depends on how we're financing it, how much private money we can raise and raise and private partnerships, whether we do a bond, what the intershades are going to be. We literally have no clue. And so, I mean, we have good ideas based on other examples and research we've done over the years that we've worked on this project, but to give the residents the level of information that some of us are advocating for is just not, we're not there yet. Well, and it's like I said in the State of the City last year, I'm very much for the Performing Arts Center, but I can't justify, I will not vote to raise the milledrate property tax as a result of this. So, I mean, but again, we're getting kind of... I think we're getting ahead of the decision. Excuse me, let's get to the next step to let the staff to the research and come back and then it's like, we are moving way too far. Let's go to the next step. Let's... Sure, and I agree with that. And just to respond what you said, I think we're all in the same page. We're... Because when we talk about a zoning case, something large, whether it's a town center plan, we had sharets, we had people come in, we educated people about it. I think the board, we educate about this, the more the public will be on board with it. Instead of being negative thinking that it's a way to kill the project, I think people will love this idea. I think they'll see photos, they'll see how it can activate the city, but it means to the city. And as we educate, I think more people will understand. And by, and in that data in itself will drive the financial side of it, because parallel we're we're talking to the financial advisors we're talking about how to pay for it and it all it's all going to just still probably at the same time and as we go between now and November I think we can make adjustments as we go and and because I don't think we can clearly put the full path today as we sit here but I think don't think anyone thinks we can. I mean, we're relying on the staff to come back to us. So basically, I agree with Aaron's perspective that we need information to share. That's tangible that really can inform people. I don't disagree with the town halls at all. It's just pretty mature. That's what we get. The premature in this meeting to be scheduling town halls. To that. No, I just want to realistic timeframe on when we could expect summer fall. It all is contingent on when the information has been back to us. And that was the contingent on like, are we doing a bond or not doing a bond? So we're doing a bond, I think that the problem is again, again, it comes back to the convocation of let's let the staff come back and see, okay, here is here are the options based on that we can decide on the next step. So right now, like, we're going way too far on, like, that is just an input. It's not a decision factor. It's just an input. The number of ways, how we can finance it. Yeah. But the bond to like, do we really need a bond or not? Like, we don't even know that yet. Well, I think that for now, we've got at least enough of a decision to give staff direction. And do you have any questions before we close out the topic? Just one. I really appreciate the great discussion and that there's good consensus on what information you need for this to move forward. One clarification would be there are parts of that that can be done more quickly than others. There are, but are you seeking to receive this back as we have it ready or do you want all of these pieces to come back together? So like my quick example would be given the progress we were making with PBK, our consultant that put together a lot of information that I presented tonight, we went ahead and put the financial advisor who helped us through our prior bond issuance and helps us through major financial decisions on notice of like, hey, we're exploring this with council. If it goes well, I think I'm going to need more information in your assistance. There are other parts you've asked for, so like thinking through the business model in the case and the users, and that will take much longer. So I would say for myself, I would like to get it as soon as you have it so we can start thinking about it and you know, we can be digesting it and anticipation of these other pieces. And it may be that's when we have those initial conversations that we say, oh, and by the way, we need this or. That's really helpful. I think it is. I know where you all are. For me, it sounds like, I feel that every time any information comes we change course and come to our consensus again and keep going it till we come upon some kind of solution which is workable and acceptable to all of us. But if we wait for the last minute, there are too many moving parts. that it's It's been discussed many times, if there were to be a bond, what is the deadline for notice of that to the public? So bond referendums can only go on specific elections. The next couple that are eligible for bond referendum for us, the very next one would be this November, using the last bound referendum we did, the call decision has to be made in the summertime. It's either June or July. That's something I'll confirm, schedule-wise, with our financial advisor. I believe I can have that for you for your next meeting on the 28th. But as I said, I'll work on all of the pieces. I really appreciate the consensus of what you need in order to make a good decision. Obviously, you need more about financial information. You need me to have some conversations with potential partners out there as well as understand the staffing and what would operations look like. And then that would inform how you want to share and have this conversation with the community at large. So I appreciate the solid feedback and guidance. And thank you for of that. All right, thank you. All right, are we going to move on? All right, next item. Thank you. The CIP and your view and prior workization projects. We have assistance in city manager love for presentation. They were wearing a master's golf gun.'m sorry, I don't get it. Yeah, very happy. We'll try to connect to you. Let's see what we get. So, good evening. In your packet, you had some information that was updated from the retreat. As you know, we talked about the CIP at the retreat. As opposed to the retreat, staff has come back and updated the numbers, and I don't know that technology is. Come on. That's fine. Updated the numbers. So you have, I'm sorry about this. I think my screen's frozen. It's okay. We'll see. We've got all kinds of, we've got firewalls, we've got all kinds of things that probably aren't going to be. Yes, I'm going to say that. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Allison's going to take care of it. It wants me to submit a help as request. Just not good. Oh, it might work now. Okay, here we are. Sorry. Anyway, so in your packet, this exhibit A to the memo basically shows all of the projects that wound up actually being your priorities when we move some around and some numbers around. So all of these projects that are listed here were indicated by you at the retreat by at least one person as interest or priority. And so one of the goals for this afternoon is to get some consensus around where the priorities might land. There are three different categories, if you will. We've got the parks projects, then we have projects citywide, other non-teasplast, and then we have the teasplast. The teasplast we're not asking you for a prioritization tonight because as you know, those come to you in the whole program and as those projects are moving forward in the regular process. So these are what we're calling unfunded projects and would be funded through the general fund. Or another main should you decide to do that, such as a performing arts center, should bond be issued, some debt issued, then obviously that wouldn't be a general fund money. The request for FY 2026 are a little over $10 million. You can see the projects listed there. And I don't know if you want to go over each one, but in parks there's 2.95 million and then the other is 7.1 million. I think it has to be questioned. Yes, sir. So can you speak to this, I don't know if you can see it, but where the projects are in green? Yes. I think that's city blind stuff. So all of these are, so if we looked at on the separate sheets, all the green ones, they are actually, I would have shaded these green on this summary. These are all the green ones. So what I'm okay, all right now, all right, never mind. Okay, I saw P.A.C. Arts with nothing, but now I see the other one about it, so sorry. No problem. So I know, yeah, this is a little different format. We're just trying to make it concise. So if you're looking at what is being requested for FY 2026 and that's what's in front of you, there were a couple of projects. If you look at the far right column that staff has not requested funding in FY 2026, but they were indicated as an interest by Council. And so on the bigger spreadsheet, you'll see those are programmed for 27 or 28. If any of these, obviously the Council consensus can move these projects forward, move them in a different year, however the body sees fit. I'm happy to answer any questions about specific projects. In your packet, there are descriptions for each one of these. These have item numbers. That does not indicate a priority. It's just their number, just straight down, starting with parks, going all the way down through all the projects. Well, first off, I have to brag on you for being a catalyst to get us a 10-year financial forecast. So it's very appreciated and very important. And the other thing is, I kind of already said what I had to say about this is that for me, I want to stay focused on the Performing Arts Center. And until we've got that issue adjudicated, I'm not going to get distracted with other things. So that's where I am. Thank you, Kay. I think these are the ones that we talked in the retreat, right, like we all, okay. So pretty much we all agreed on these projects. So I'm good with that. So some of these strong water projects that we are talking about, it doesn't really include the grants that we usually apply. So if you get those things like pretty much those will be covered through the grants, not from the general fund. Correct. This doesn't anticipate any of that, so anything that we were able to get through grants or other sources Would not need the general fund funding or not the same amount that would pretty much free up those funds to Move it to the other one. So I'm good with the list. Thank you Okay, thank you so much. So a couple things this year You're estimating us to have the 5.32 to be able to program towards these, correct? Correct. Okay. And- You're estimated. Yes ma'am. And then, could you be since the 10-year financial forecast, I realize you got the 3.6 million for capital over the last five years. However, we were dipping into property tax stabilization fund and other funds. Those years, and we won't be going forward since there's nothing in there. Can we balance that with the 2.9 or use the conservative projections that are on the 10 year forecast? I mean, it would only, it's less than a million dollar difference, but it would be more conservative. We could take a more conservative approach, I think, as council prioritizes. So this is the list, but it's not prioritized. So for staff, if you put these in a prioritization order, then what we would do is we would add those up and whatever funding we have, we would fund to the point where there's not any funding left. And then those would be left out unless you chose to reprioritize. So we could have a best case scenario, the almost $6 million, then we could have what these are my terms. The worst case scenario, meaning we would only have the 2.9 or something like that. So we can slice and then dice it any way you'd like to. I think the most important thing is two things. One, are these still priorities? And if they are, then in what order? So for example, the mayor has said PAC, that's the number one for him, and his list, the others would basically fall order. So for example the mayor has said PAC, that's the number one for him and his list the others would basically fall off. So if we can find out where consensus is, then that's how staff would approach it. Okay, and that's how I did it and I'm ready to go through those. But now just bear in mind this does not cover the enhancements. That's correct. So they're going to also be competing for that 5.2 million. So as part of the budget process, that departments have already turned in, they have turned in enhancements, which will be personnel requests or any additional, like a new vehicle or something associated, for example, a police officer. So that is not baked in to this at this point. Okay, so we, okay, and most likely that would be under five. We would have under five million after we factor those in two program. Okay, so then I did it based on needs versus wants, especially because how many capital projects, how much have we already allocated towards capital projects? They're in the works. For Fund 301, which is a capital projects fund, we have about 40.6 million budgeted. That's over time, that's over multiple years because these are multi-year projects. But that's what's, that's the budget right now in the capital projects fund. Okay, thank you. So yes, so first thing to me, restrooms in a park are a basic necessity. I had no idea there were no restrooms other than on the back of City Hall for the boardwalk or Creekside Park, previously Creekside Park. So, and in our parks update plan on page 45, the biggest amenity meeting was restrooms. So I think if we could move that million dollars from 27 and make sure when the park opens that it has restrooms that would be my first choice and that's a million dollars. And then the second I thought we were, we had to do the comp plan update and that's $400,000 so that's my second. And then my third would be the storm water capital projects to help alleviate some of the burden on the homeowners, the 500,000. And then the storm water grant program, 500,000. And then ten percent pickleball court lighting, that was already pushed off, that was supposed to be done this year year so that's 300,000. I don't want to continue pushing that off. And then the last would be the lacrosse field returve for 800,000. And those total, you know, 3.5 million and that would hopefully allow the enhancements for a personnel and police to free up some of the remaining. Steve, the one that we, the restrooms we talked in the retreat, it felt like the reason we put it in the 20-27-28 maybe can only be corrected. Based on the construction and the completion of that. I don't think so. That's why I'm in person. Yeah, I don't think so. I heard the prior council didn't want restrooms or cut them out. So even this one we talked about in the retreat saying that what is the right timing of getting the. But it's the part is going to open and summer 26. I mean, there's no bathrooms except on the back of City Hall. So that's that's why I'm intent on having bathrooms. So well, but I mean, just for the record, because I mean, I think we're all excited about the town center and the boardwalk. I mean, obviously we would bring in additional restrooms in the short term for special events. So anyway. But I'm just talking about the mom taking her kids to the park. Especially if you park on the other side of the tunnel, you're going to want to go to the bathroom before you. Make your entrance into the park. Okay. Are you, does that finish here? Yes. Where the words are present? I have no changes. But I do think until we see how this first iteration of the stormwater grant plays out. Again, I was warned to the idea and then kind of backed away near the end without the making sure there's ROI. I want to see if it has a high utility, high efficacy. So, just my thoughts. And if we would remove that, I would push up the, the finishing out the fiber as much as possible. For that? For bathrooms? Well, when they're stuck in traffic, they have to go to the bathroom in the car. Otherwise, if we could get them home safely to a toilet. So yes, over bathrooms that has always rated the top three highest. It's not in the place. So that's what I would advocate for. Is that concludes your comments? Yeah, I mean, we just agreed on these. Yeah. I'm in a similar position to the mayor until we know how we are funding the performing arts center and what kind of capital improvement funding we have available once I have been resolved. I'm not really. I mean, I think that the prioritization is fine, however, the Performing Arts Center needs to be figured out first. I do have a quick question though. I couldn't remember. A 23 and 24 for Colleague Creek. Is that assuming that the sewer line has already been run? Or does that cost include running the sewer line? Because that was like a really big expense that we were. 23 is for running the sewer line. 24 is an adventure play area on the northern half of the park. So there are separate improvements, same park. But that will have, should we do those, the sewer line will have been run for future improvements. Should you move forward with project 23, that would the bulk of that project, as you'll see in the description, is the lift station and the sewer line extension to that building. Okay, thank you for clarifying. Can I interrupt the one? I did have a question on the lacrosse field when we agreed to those, those were 10 to 12 year life cycles. So that would put us at eight or nine years, right? Are we at its death? Like it's only going to make it nine years, or is there any way to squeeze that one more year from? So between that one and the other returbing, so the answer is because of use, we only made it basically nine years. Okay, that was. That's a good problem to have. It is and based on, we do think that number, that's a very conservative number, we're hopeful should this move forward and at whatever time procurement happens, that the actual cost will be less than that, and then we could use it for other returthing. Okay, that's one more question. So for those that are prioritizing the PAC, which I totally understand, over the rest, that would eat up the bulk of the money, aren't we required to do the comprehensive plan update? And if so, how would we fund that? We are, if we can't treat, we talked about how they were going to come back to us with alternatives for the consultant? Because a lot has not changed. Okay, well that was in here as a green, so I'm assuming that's a realistic figure. And I guess what I'm wondering is, how long can that be pushed off then? We can't push it, I mean we're required by 10 1031-2028 date for the comp plan. So there's no wiggle room in that deadline. To the mayor's point, staff was directed to look at how we might scale down for lack of a better way of saying it. One of the majority cost factors for this one is this is a 10 year update and not a five year update and so the amount of Community involvement and engagement that has to happen with this And to your point even though a lot might not have changed we still have to touch that point But there may be a way for us to do it in a more refined or efficient manner So that is I would say a high-end number if we can reduce the scope Okay, when will y'all be prepared to give us a number of what we would have to spend to check the box legally? We should be able to do that without going out with the RFP exactly with that reduced scope. We should be able to get a good idea by the time we're in the middle of the budget process before these decisions are made. So we'll just move that up on the priority list and make sure that we have that information. Okay. As we can contact consultants and find out what how much wiggle room we actually have with that. We know we have to have the public engagement, but just not sure what the options may be. I'm not trying to short circuit engagement but it's like I can only think of really two big parcels that we have still green and I don't know how much more is being talked about changing but anyway. Yeah and that's the only thing on this list that's required of us? Everything else is nice to have, correct? No. Correct. OK, the question. I'm under the impression that we agreed on these things. You're just running it by us. Because as we get the funds available, we have to prioritize them for her. Because there's no way we're going to have $10 million. No, it's not. But right now, we only have maybe the surplus from the fire station and maybe at the end of the year we might get some sort of play. So I'm under the impression that based on the funds as we get the funds available then we come back and prioritize I'm not aware that we are to prioritize now too. Well, that was that was the ask I believe Yeah, we were asking if there was particularly related to are these still priority projects and it sounds like so far we haven't gotten all the way around the table yet, but that that is the case. And then within that are there ones that you want to say yes, definitely here's our top however many. You are doing it somewhat blindly in that you don't know the exact amount of money. So you're just giving us a general guidance. Obviously you'll be making those decisions in the budget. Process, so it is a two-part conversation for us to make sure we're understanding what your priorities are. So that during the budget process, you have enough detailed information to be able to make those decisions. So basically I'm looking at like a three buckets here. One is like the, from the fire station. One is the end of the year surplus. And the next one is going to be 2026 budget. So based on those things, we'll come back and move the projects in the priority. If the performing arts center is this viable thing that we may potentially be backing in some form or fashion with cash, seems like until that's your position, seems like everything else is kind of moot until that gets decided one way or the other. It's I'm wondering this exercise while it's valid, the timing seems a little off because of of the pack, if that's so critical and important, what's left over if there is any left over. And to that point also is, do you have an idea of what staff came back with regarding the police vehicles, and some of those extra costs? Do you have an idea? 720 ish thousand for four officers and four vehicles is what got submitted in their budget. And I know that only because that's one of the departments I support. I don't know that for all the departments. But we do know in their strategic plan there is additional ask for officers. I know there's been some discussion at the retreat that we had about that and what the right number of officers is related to vacancy rates and that kind of thing and I know that that discussion will ensue during the budget but this does not contemplate that. I think to your point about it being out of maybe out of step or out of time is certainly well taken. I think the other thing that it helps us do is if PAC is the priority and we're talking about $5 million and just as an example we were going to fund that with cash. Then the other projects aren't viable for funding from general fund. But it helps us know from a work plan standpoint because we're looking at this as it relates to master plans or other documents so it helps staff know where we are in the work plan and then what we might need to do related to managing maintenance on things like a turf filter, all the other things. So it helps inform us even if you're not prioritizing. But just to say yes, these things are still on our radar. They're still of the same importance, no matter if we get to them now or we're going to get to them a little later. Okay, and so as we approach the budget season, is there a, because this has to be revisited based on what we get back from the financial consultant with PAC and all those things. So while these are placeholders today, as really I think we're going with this, do you have an idea when this is going to come back to us? Because first we have to make a decision on are we moving forward with pack and what it looks like that decision? Because if the answer, the answer is no to pack, then this becomes where the money is going or vice versa. So do you know when this can come back to us, but keep in mind that if we do have the fund through a bond, and you talked about June, this has got to come back to us in late May, or June, maybe it's same night? We're not making these decisions to August or September. Sure, sure, no. I mean, without knowing the details, there's going to be this magic window where we're going to get information about the financials regarding to the PAC, but long before we actually are passing the budget, right? So the discussion about how a PAC might get funded, that should be a dueticated well in advance, I would think, and we would have decided, are we doing a bond or whatever, and I think that's going to inform what we have to do regarding a CIP later in the summer. Okay, so if I'm pretty much agreement with a couple modifications to what we decided at the retreat, which is a lot of this. If these are placeholders today, are we stopping issuing a contract? Are we stopping work because of potential moving forward pack? No. No? Yes, sir. I, comp plan certainly has got to be discussed because that's a different animal. But these others that are, you know, in addition to something development of Calle Creek, returfing a field. No, we're just looking at timing. Okay. But we're not stopping something that's in progress on all these issues. We're not issuing new initiatives based on until we correct. Correct. Okay. So let me just let I'll give you my priorities here. Do you want? I'm sorry. Chris? I don't know. I thought you were together. Yeah, I thought I was finished. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, I thought I was finished. Okay, thank you. Okay. Okay, on the capital improvements. So I was good with the first tier, if you will. I just pulled out the destination playground. That 300,000. I pulled that out. I really didn't understand that when I 100% and I wanted to, I think I do think the bathrooms are important. So I added a million dollars to that piece of it. I just think that it's critical to have bathrooms in a park that we spent, you know, 40 million dollars on to have a place for people to go. There's, the bathroom here fair. I mean that would've been it's very small. There's only a few places And then on a on a citywide stuff I do believe the comprehensive plan and the transportation Plan also update that and storm water grant program since we're just initiating that that, It has to be some legs to that program. So I'm at 4.8, 4,850,000, that's where I am. And the remaining I'm hoping there's like 400,000 to cover some of the police vehicles. And I'd like to make adjustments there if we need some dollars to do some of that education on the pack. So I'll pull some of that stuff off. If we have to engage third parties in that. All right. Sorry, I realize you are exciting with, I mean, you had the same view point. August or September is I think we're actually making these decisions so happen our our friend Larry was speaking so long I forgot about The way I look at it is this is kind of a For you to get direction for 2026 budget That That's why I'm approaching this at. For me, the overriding concerns are safety, hygiene and efficiency and which means planning. I think if you're going to open this showpiece behind us, which is going to be a very glamorous addition to our city. If you don't have bathrooms, I think it will be quite paradoxical. I definitely would like to move it from 2027 to 2026. It should be simultaneously going on. And as I said, the lighting for tennis and pickle ball courts, I don't want people to lose their eyes for a want of lighting. And then, as my friend Chris also said, the fiber connectivity, I think that's critical. I hate to approach four way intersections when the red lights are flashing. That means if this 500,000 is going towards making it more resilient network, I'd rather spend money on that. And then all the other things are for planning, colleague, creek, master plan update. Yes. Again, none of us here, our first half an hour was spent on because we've been flying blind. We didn't know what are the costs were. So I would like to have these master plans updated so that as and when we have the money, when we have the time, when we have the resource, we should be able to act on that, the Colleague Creek master plan update. Destination playground, that was one of your, and I think that's where I thought you'll, there's not much written on it, but if you could think of destination playground for rest of folks who are sitting here as sports which can be used by all generations. I was thinking of disc golf when we mentioned it last time, consider that. Then comprehensive plan update, yes, transportation master plan update, these are all planning tools. So that when we go forward, we are ready already with the resources and all that. And storm water grant, this is what people came to us with a fair amount of grievance. So I believe that that should be addressed. That gets it down to 3.6 million for me. And I would like to put what are the rest of money, educating the citizens of Johnskiq about PIC, at least some part of it, so that when they are making, when they are making essentially pulling the trigger on this, it will be a very thought out decision. Thank you. Okay. All right. Just a question on the restrooms. We have facilities here. Yeah. I'll only need the ones in the back seat. But there is a huge line when we have them. When you have these all these events here. Yeah. The huge line here is mom's a children and all that. So mix it very. But you're talking about the facility. We're talking about the facility. We're talking about the back side, the back corner, back left corner. Back left corner? Yeah, boardwalk. Okay. Where you referred to the new facilities that we're proposing or the existing bathrooms. Well, they're existing, just no one's seen them because they're just. They're existing, yes, yes. They're existing, but they're small. There's only like three, there's a men's and women's and just a couple places Other ponds gonna be right right right? Pretty good also for But not plenty of restrooms. It's a time the same amount are y'all going to collate this into a new Document. Yes, sir. Okay. All right. Are we okay then to move on? Yes, sir. Okay, great. Thank you. I'll just say on 5c because of the new information that we got, let's maybe keep that relatively short because I think based on the previous conversation, I don't know that there's anyone. There's still one. Thank you, Mayor. This item is also on the council meeting, if you'd like to discuss later. The rest of the agenda is also very exciting. Okay. All right, go ahead. Okay, thank you. Just real quickly, we have been talking about for a couple weeks now, adding an additional voting location at this time. Full and county has designated OC library as the sole advanced voting location within the city limits of Johns Creek. They have given us the option to add Sprule, and I might add that the city of Roswell added the East Roswell library at their meeting since our last time that we spoke. Full and that county has just asked that we make this decision by Friday, April 18th. Okay, is there anybody that is really dying to add another one considering that what Roswell did? All right, can we just miss this item? It's on the council meeting agenda, but we'll just discuss it briefly tonight. I just need a formal decision in this evening. Okay, great. Okay. Thank you. The next item is the Makerspace Design Build Contract Award. We've Director Haggard for presentation. Any mayor council? We're very brief description. Thought we had... Any Mayor Councilor, we're a very brief description, thought we'd have no time. But I'm here tonight to recommend a war of a design build contract with MAPP map in the amount of $1.9 million. The construction will allow the building to be used by the public, level the pit, and will include bathrooms. The next steps for the contractor include preparation of plans that meet these requirements, and then staff meeting with them to work through those costs. With that, I'm happy to answer questions. Go for it, Mayor. I appreciate y'all inflexible in getting it recalibrated. I don't have anything else. Thank you, Chris. So I remember like back when we talked about it, like the air conditioning in the the restaurants and the office spaces were on the base so would you be? able to check with the contractor to see that is that part of the base one Yeah, so Our first step will be to meet with the contractor work through some plans and see what their intent is Right now they've told us they can't get air conditioning at $1.9 million, but my plan would be like, hey, what would it take to add restrooms, whether it's to the bathrooms, whether it's to the whole facility, and then be able to come back and talk to you and say, this is what that additional cost may be. I can go from there. But maybe it's already part of that one, too. And it may be, we're going to have to. So it is until we go back and approve it, they're not going to, because it's already part of that one too. So it may be, where do you set them? So it is until we go back and approve it, they're not going to, because it's a design bill, so they have to design. Okay. Correct. So we'll have another opportunity to buy at the app if we need to? Yeah, so once they get through some of their initial design and we have started having really good conversations with them We'll be able to we may or may not have to come back if they've included it, like you said, but from what the proposal said, air conditioning was not included. Now, when we meet with them, we'll find out what they're planning to do. And then if it's not included, yes, or maybe another bite at the apple, then I can come talk to you about it. Okay, so until we proceed to the next step, you're not going to know the... That's correct. But I'm under the impression that he is, but if it's not, then it'll at least come back with that. Thank you, Chris. Thank you, Chris. So are you going to be asking us to approve the bid, the contract next meeting? Correct. Okay, and as it currently stands, it does not include air conditioning. Correct. Okay. And then also which you know how I feel about that I'm not going to read I'm not going to harp on that I just I don't understand how we would approve anything and inside in Georgia in a building without air conditioning so I will not be approving this bid but the other other question is, when it says a priority three, place required restrooms in the location specified by the provided plans, are the restrooms going to be inside? Yes. Okay, so then is that even relevant? So what the intent of that was is we were telling the contractor, hey, we have this set of plans we did. If you could put the bathrooms in the place that they are on this set of plans, that'd be great. Because we kind of, we liked where they were. But that may not be the most cost effective location. And from a design bill concept. So they basically told us, no, if you want all these other priorities, and that your third priority, we may end up moving the bathroom to the front somewhere more economical for them to build. Okay. And so that's the way that design build the process is going to work. Okay. Well, the last concern I have is priority three, the last bullet review, previous construction documents to ensure that the project does not preclude phase two of the project. The design should maintain the ability to construct a second floor with access without requiring the demolition of current construction elements. So if they're not willing to guarantee that, we're just either kicking the can, we're going to have to re-value engineer. Or modify what our phase two looks like. Yeah, okay. Yeah, for that reason. To your point, it's pretty much everything is going to be like, once they start the design, because this is, our approach is completely different on this project. So once they start designing, then they'll come back and say, okay, some of it is already part of it, or if not, they'll come back with their line their line items and say, okay, here is like an install us to add on to that one. So that's... Well, since we're not even talking about face to you and I just wanted to make sure that we don't waste more money than we anticipated saving because we've got to go back and redo things when we move forward with face to. So I don't think that's a good idea. Could we approve the design bill concept? No, I didn't. But anyway, okay, thank you. Chris, I'm good with proceeding. I'm also good with proceeding. So you're going to present us with an adult, turn it for air conditioning when you have that information. That's correct. So then we have the opportunity to add that. All right, thank you. If it's not incorrect. Yes, thank you. So obviously I have a lot of concerns. It feels like we've gone around a block with this whole process here. I think the design bid build is a lot easier and a little bit more. We know what we're going to get when we put the RFP out there. I think this project seems to be going in a wrong direction in my opinion. I mean, air conditioning is a must for me. Be electrical like I talked about, and I think you and I just talked about it, that we have to prepare the electrical so it's three-phase, and I think you've confirmed that three-phase, they will provide electrical for the existing price tag at 1.9 million. And when I did this, when I walked out there, the concern is that phase two, that the construction that they're doing, they're putting the I-beams separate from the walls so that, and actually we're not going backwards, we're not throwing good money against bad and retracting on phase two. And you're going to make sure of that, is that it? So no, I'm sorry, what was this about the I-beams? So when Eric and I were at the building, they were not going to, for the mezzanine and all that side of things for Phase II, they were not going to tie into the existing IPI being vertical structure. They were going to have Ibeam set into concrete separately if I'm correct on that. I don't know the answer to that. That's the previous set of plans. That's not part of this. So that's so the previous set of plans are not moving forward. No, this will be a new design that this contractor brings us. And we haven't seen the design at this point. That's correct. So by going, if we just, if we give you approval tonight, could we, can we retract at the next meeting when you, when we finally know unveiling what the design looks like? Yes, but I'd have to look at the contract and see what all the terms are. I think you need to get, you need to share more with us about it. I mean, I get what you're saying about, oh, the design or whatever, but let's remember what we talked about before was simplifying this. We were going to make it one large uniform floor, right? Correct. We're asking that it be up to code for what are the HVAC requirements were? Basically just get a clean safe usable right usable, raffer occupancy. Right. But we also knowing that there is a second phase, at least initially there was a second phase, and I think there still will be that whatever design, we, what, regardless of how we design bathrooms and the interior structure, that the foundational, whether it's eye beams or however we set it up, that we're not having to retract and go backwards to build phase two. We ought to be able to tie onto phase two, otherwise we're throwing money away. And if I can't get assurances how, where this happens, I'm not going to vote for this project. because there's too many unknowns here and on the contractor risk, his only job is to maximize profit and I'm going to give you what I think you want but at my price. So we're at the mercy of what they want to give us based on 1.9 million. But the staff is going to be looking at it to see if it's done to the. But if we can't, if we say go forward today, I want to get just assurances, if we say go forward today and then we meet with the contractor and we say we need air conditioning, we validate the electrical and that phase two is an add-on, if we can't get that in phase one, then And we don't even know what the design looks like today I want to be able to pull back from the contract if we don't like it. And so my understanding is after so they're going to meet and the contractor will determine what it is that they're going to include and we will be told that before we're asked to make a vote. Is that not correct? So you have to vote on a contract for us to get that started. We will come back to you with what additional costs are needed to get everything you just described, because it will be additional costs because they can't do it in the 1.9 million. That's the way the bill was prepared. Basically what would happen was fair? So you're talking about the kind of beam support to put a mezzanine up above those existing rooms. That's right. But I mean, I think, I mean, it kind of goes back to the PAC in a way, right? Like, can we afford to have the Cadillac of everything all the time? I don't know that we can. And I don't think that you're talking about the Cadillac, but when it came back that it was potentially $9 million project, I was like this is fallen in a direction that's way beyond what I ever would have been comfortable supporting. And we set a budget of $2 million and then it came back to RFP, the bids at 2.8 or 2.9. And to Mayor Perotinkins credit, I think that he looked at, okay, how could this be simplified and made more economical, but it still accomplished the same goals. I don't think we are. I think we've created the last. What is the goal exactly of the phase two? Well, that I don't know, but I did have a piece of. Why is it so important? I mean, if you don't know what it is. Well, I wanted to know what percentage of the building will be complete under this contract. Because a lot of it, I thought was going to be left unfinished for Phase 2. Is that correct? So Phase 2 was mostly building out classrooms in the second level. That was the majority of what phase two was. This is not even phase one, right? This is the buildings open for public use and safe and legal. What phase one was was bathrooms in a certain location, classrooms done a certain way. There were a couple of elements we decided to fill the pit in because that was actually a better cost. So this is like phase 0.5. I guess I would call it. And so it's not saying you couldn't add onto it and do a phase two. It's just, I don't know what that looks like because this is a different version of the first construction. I mean, so to put in the kind of beams he's talking about, is that like an earth shattering thing? I don't know that we need beams in this construction, in this point, because we're not doing the same construction as we were before. I mean, it's easy just to provision for the phase two. So again, it's one of the line items in the priority three. So when he's designing it, I mean, phase two can't be articulated. I'm not sure why I'm going to be spending extra money in the present for a would be second phase that we don't even know what the real value or usage would be. We're only at half a phase now. So in order to get us to even phase one, that may be coming higher than the 2.8. It sounds like we don't know what we're even buying at this point. So, and my concern is that if we get to that point where we actually know what we're buying from the contractor because we don't know what it looks like. If we don't like it, can we unwind this and without penalty? That's where I'm going with it. Because if the answer is yes we can, then okay, let's go forward and see it. And let's get those numbers. But if we can't unwind it from a legal perspective, I'm all out. I don't want, I don't want you part of it. This half a phase, as you have pointed, maybe point seven. I don't. But this would be sufficient to allow our robotics teams to get in there and start their practices or competitions. It will be safe for the public use. And if there are about us, is the public use, yes? All right, just to tag in for a minute. One of the things that our Recreation and Parks Plan says is something we need and don't have is indoor space that can be used for recreation. Although this has been a very meandering journey, having a large indoor space with high ceilings, with bathrooms that allow us to open it for rental or use would have benefits to your recreation and park system. So although it does not match at all, the original configuration, the important thing is it would be a safe indoor space that has facilities that our community could use. Whether that's for robotics, practice, play, competition, or indoor table tennis or indoor volleyball or indoor insert the thing that you need a safe space inside that has lights and bathrooms that you can use. So I guess my pause point is that no, we don't, this is a different method than we typically use. We don't typically use a design build, but this gives us the flexibility of our number one thing that we tasked the contractor with in our bid proposal, is we need a big indoor recreation space that's safe for the public to use and has those basic amenities. What will that cost? So. Man, thank you. May I ask, see attorney Angela, as far as have you seen this contract and can we back out of it without penalty if we don't like what we see cost wise as we go forward? I have not looked at the contract. It's unlikely that you're going to be able to get out without penalty because once you're in the contract, I mean you've already expended some funds. I don't know what your definition of penalty is. Is there an additional cost? Probably not. But I'm not sure what exactly, when you say no penalty, I'm not necessarily right. We spent money on consulting fees. We've got that. That's some cost. But is there, can we, is there liability for non-performance on our side? If we go forward and sign this contract and we don't like it, what the design looks like going as Mr. Haggard goes forward. Can we pull back without any performance issue at performance clause? I would know without looking at the contract, every design bill contract is different. I've looked at several of them for other municipalities, but I've not seen this one. We have a termination for convenience clause paragraph 12.4 on page 6. So we can terminate that will it seems like and there's no further liability to the contractor for such termination, along with we have 30 day written notice. All right, very good. Bob, you have an opine and then can I just ask a question on 5E, the L-MIG is important that we get to that tonight. Proof? That we can roll to the next meeting. No problem. I believe we need a decision in May. So that we can make an application, we have to apply to get the money. So as long as we take it up on the 28th. All right. I mean, we are going to have consensus a little bit, but go ahead. Chris, thank you. This is your second iteration doing going out of this. And it may be frustrating, but thank you for this. And all the questions which we are raising here are genuine questions. We don't want to step into something where we can't get back. And thanks for everyone for confirming that we don't have a penalty. So essentially, we are putting our kids or whoever is using there, as well as our restrient, restrient ourselves to kids. We shouldn't be treating those kids to such kind of inhuman conditions, even though if it's not up to code or something. Last time when we discussed this, the temperature outside was 26. And I don't think I would like any kid to be in that place at that temperature. I don't know how safe it is. I think it is plainly out of the ballpark. So that's where. Okay, so my god, imagine the human air and nobody will go there. But let's, I mean, you mean it's a little, it is pretty new. I mean, just because there is ventilation. Okay, I'm sorry. I don't think I'm there. But let me finish, please. So my point is, if you're going to treat our children, we need to treat our children better. Definitely, we need air conditioning. And if you are able to pull back, and I'm also being in the IT sector for a long time, I hate this cope creep. And once we are already there with them, there's no telling how much the deal the final price will be. Once you're committed to them, it is up to them to say, okay, we're going to put this and I don't know, I would also like to ask you, has the HVAC electrical supply been part of the discussion? So discussion with the contractor? Yeah. haven't met with them and had that conversation at this point. So that's another loose end. So my point, what I'm trying to say is we are seeing these loose ends coming up like this. I hope you have a great discussion with them and I hate to pull it back once more because not because of anything you'll have to do with again. All right, so I think that Delieb had asked just that there'd be some kind of a check in data point about the air conditioning. I count four of us that were saying to proceed. I think you were saying proceed unless you had what Aaron said, so I don't know what that means, but either way I think we've got at least four. I think I'm out only because I respect Aaron's opinion, but we're reading contracts on the fly here. I'd rather just have our state treaty Angela give us a real opinion on this. Not that. Okay. Sure. Okay. All right. But do you have what you need from us right now? Yes. Okay. All right. We got a good barnwall project to talk about. We'll still get to the Elmigraide. Yeah, I think. Okay. Sorry, Mr. Anderson. The next item is the Supplemental Local Maintenance and Improvement Grant, Elmig. Yes, with the Governor's recent addition to the budget, the Georgia DOT has increased the grant amount for the years. Similar to last year, we're going to have $971,825 in additional L-MIG funds available to us. We've offered three potential transportation projects that these funds could be added to. From the Barnwall Trail, a medallop bridge trail, and the Nesbett Ferry at Colonyabout. I'm happy to talk about any of those projects in great detail or answer questions. We're recommending the Barnwell Road traffic and I support staff recommendation. That's a good project. I support it. Me too. Any objections? Great. Just real quick here. Does the city of Rusel involved in any of this Not the barn will trail. That's that's not a Roswell. Okay. That's the other side. Yeah Okay, or yeah, they'll hook down at Holcomb Bridge. They are right but not this project. Okay. I'm good. Thank you Are we are we good? So with consensus on that one? Yeah, it is literally just a application. It doesn't need to go back for a vote unless you really want to formally vote. I mean, let's cut the red tape and move forward. Thank you. If that's okay with everybody else, it sounds good. All right. All right. So we've got no other items before us. We've got a few minutes and see all at seven on the other side. All right, really good deal.