Start until I Thank you mayor. We're recording all right Welcome everybody. I'd like to call this meeting the John Screek City Council work session order this Monday May 19th at 505 p.m. Thank you at this time remarks. None at the time. Thank you. I'm not aware of anything under strategic priorities, which leads to the first item under ongoing projects. It is a performing arts center staffing and operations. We have Assistant City Manager Greer for presentation. Good evening, Mayor and Council. Picking up our conversation from the last work session, the agenda report in your packet and to review the anticipated revenues and expenditures for staffing and operations for a potential performance center. Each assumption is noted in case you'd like to review it further, but given the executive level decision making lens of the council, I want to keep my remarks at the big picture. The anticipated revenues and expenditures would put John's Creek's performance center in line with the regional and local trend of requiring an annual investment to cover the operational cost. The preliminary pro forma anticipates year one expenditures of roughly 1.64 million and revenues of 1.33 million, which would require some combination of an operating endowment, naming rights, grants or other investment from the city totally approximately 254,000. Rather than debate the individual assumptions, my big ask of council is a policy question. Do you think an annual investment in a performing art center is an appropriate to add to our facility for recreational offerings? In addition to my policy question, I'm interested to hear whatever feedback you'd like to share on the information provided, but your consensus will really guide the next steps. As noted in the agenda report, the one hard deadline we're working with is that if council has an interest in advancing the conversation to potential bond referendum for this year, Fulton County Board of Elections has indicated they need to know the bond question in July for it to appear on a November ballot. So absent further direction, that will be our focus for the June work session, but I am confident you all have thoughts to share. All right. All right, thank you, City Manager Greer. And first off, I just appreciate, I thought it was a strong thorough memo and I appreciate it. Council before we go into anyone's comments including my own, I know that last time maybe we got a little off track with the schedule and I think we went almost maybe a full two hours just on the performance hall. And I don't think everyone got a full fair shake at speaking. Would it be an agreement with you that we self-impose an hour for this topic? I think that maybe that's about what it's already planned for. And maybe we'll try to a better job of we'll each go around say our two or three minute intro whatever you know your pieces and then we can just have a full melee debate whatever you want would that be acceptable to everybody and then we'll hold each other to that all right so at about six o'clock'clock, I'll be like, okay, we got about seven minutes left. So just so that we get to other things as well. So all right, with that, I will, I'll tell you what, let's, Bob, why don't you lead us off. Thank you. I feel at this point, are more or less agreed that there is a bond needed for this. Some of the parameters which are needed for the bond is how much money will be raised by the public versus how much will be raised by the private citizens or private entities. this one I believe since she's just told us about Fulton County saying that they needed this information in a very short period of time, we may not be giving adequate time for the people to raise the money or to get some kind of promise. I believe that at this point, the bond aspect of this whole does not have adequate runway to meet that goal of fundraising. So maybe it may be moving to a slightly further date, but that's how I look at it. I feel we should be setting them up for failure by giving them a very short period of time and say raise this money because whatever they don't raise within that money, that period will go on as public contribution. So that's where I look at it. Thank you. And do you have any thoughts about the questions? Yes, by the way. Same answer. Yes. I did verify these numbers with another city which had similar these things. They were very, very saying this very close to what is reality. And that is something I personally wanted to thank whoever was behind this document. All right, all right, Stacy. Thank you, thank you. Thank you can really very much for this and first I just want to tell the arts community too. I know I'm asking a lot of questions but that's what you elected us to. And it doesn't mean that we don't support the arts. My family are big artists and my daughter just got the award from the National Honor Society for Arts. So it's very important to us. And I'm just doing my duty and obligation to be financially, physically responsible with these questions. So that being said, that's why I have a lot of questions tonight. City manager, the scope of the multipurpose room, what is the function for that? Is it designed for performance or a ballroom? So the goal would be able to function for both of those and other things as well. So with movable seating, movable lighting, track ceiling, and access from multiple parts into the room, it could function for small performances. It could function, so in the 200 to 250 people size audience, as well as banquet style seating, if you wanted to have a seated reception, could hold more people if you wanted a cocktail format reception with the movable wall petitions and lighting on tracks above. You could also use as an art gallery. It could also function as I mentioned receptions, but one of the ways we've seen a multipurpose room used in another performing art center was specifically for like a VIP lounge area because it is accessible into the main performing arts center. So I think those are the five big things that are anticipated for that multipurpose room, but it could also be just a large big room where you set up tables to have community meetings or other less intensive uses, but not fixed, fixed seating. No, the seating that would be imagined for it or currently anticipated in the cost estimate would be movable seating. One of the ad alternates in that breakdown, I shared it with you a few weeks back, would allow for seating that retracts into the wall. But that would be an ad alternate that you could certainly forego if that's not your pleasure. Okay, thank you. I just wanted to make sure it's multi-use. That's a good idea. Now the users that you reached out to, can they afford to rent at the rental rates that were in the proposal that you gave us? So when I reached out to the different user groups, rather than give them, here's what I'm thinking, since that's a draft and a number that we have not, you have not vetted as a council, I asked them, like, what are you used to paying? And what do you think would be appropriate for our space given these very limited parameters? I was pleasantly surprised in the feedback I've gotten so far, but I don't know that I have all the feedback collected. Some of the organizations shared very detailed information on what they're paying now for the facilities they're renting. Some of those cost significantly more than what the base case that I looked at for a revenue assumption, but that was intentionally a low revenue assumption because we had not done a formal rate study yet. So, I'm happy to plot all that out as data points, if you'd like. Yeah, well, I just want to make sure if we're using the assumptions reported in the memos were affordable numbers for every single group that I have heard back from. Come here to what they are currently paying. Okay, great. Thank you. And then what about the days of the week or they all, the 42 groups if they all want Thursday through Saturday? So from the groups I've heard back from, a number of them spoke about how they like to do their performances on Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sundays, but their practice is they would anticipate renting the space and using the facility on the, what they call the off days Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday. So, and can you, is there any way you could get it, talk to Lawrence Phil and Cindy Springs about their usage Monday through Wednesday or have you already, so I've had some conversations with their city managers. I'm happy to Lawrence Phil in C&D Springs about their usage Monday through Wednesday, or have you already? So I've had some conversations with their city managers. I'm happy to reach out to their executive directors or other folks within their performance center. If that's the direction we had that. That's just one point. I would just want to. If I may just add, this was only thing which was in variance with your report, the assumptions of utility of utilization of the facility during the off working days. OK. Happy looking to that further? Some of the feedback I got from the managers after I had shared the report with you on utilization was that I was probably light on my utilization on Friday, Saturday, Sunday, and maybe a little too heavy on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday. So the off days, if I was going to be light on one or the other, I'm light on the higher cost days and heavy on the cheaper rental days. So I think we could definitely write size that with more time and more analysis. But the revenue should net out to the positive if what they shared with me and what you are sharing back is true because if you have more weekend rentals those are more costly. And the weekday rentals are your cheaper rentals. No perfect, thank you. And now what's the date? So Fulton County notice for bond referendum in July for November ballot? Is it, would it be July? I know we have two meetings in July. Fourteenth and twenty-eighth are scheduled meetings. What Fulton County put in writing to the city clerk was July first? Oh, okay. So really? July first. Yeah. Thank you. We got the formal date back after you had already received your memo. Okay, so then I'm sorry. My pinky. So with the park, a colleague park bond, we ended up needing more. It was phased. The boardwalk will be phased. Has this accounted for inflation and the fact that by the time it goes to construction in four years, it may be. I don't know, 5% more. So the cost estimate for this facility was built under the assumption you would make a decision this summer. And then you would proceed with a referendum and then you would begin construction documents. That'll take your most two year. Construction documents will likely take 12. Construction is anticipated to be longer than that. But the as currently cost estimated, yes, it assumes inflation to that point. If you chose to put this on pause for a year, we'd need to add more inflation to it. If you continue to move forward, it builds in an assumption from, if you start going this summer, these should be good costs because they included an inflation for that period. Okay. That makes sense? It does and then what about project overruns? We'll worry about that. So the conceptual budget that we presented two meetings ago included both a project contingency within as well as a contingency outside of the construction cost. So yes, given this order of planning and conceptual where we are now, I believe it is appropriately buffered with contingency. But we need, we need a little more finer details on the plans. Okay, absolutely. Okay, naming rights. What did you base that on? Because I do note that gas South gets $90,000 a year in naming rights. Great. So I did a tour recently of the Edkins arena up in Athens. They had $151 million construction budget for that facility. They have a $6 million naming rights with Edkins Ford. And it is $600,000 a year for 10 years. So my data point, I think I put in the memo, was that example and then if you scale it down to, okay, if this is a $50 million dollar center, so 150 divided by 3 gets me to 50, 6 million divided by 3 gets me to 2, which would break down to $200,000 a year for naming rights based on no further data. I mean, I've done some anecdotal discussions with other places. If that's an avenue we want to go on, go towards, we would want to get more examples and we'd probably want to involve some people with more experience on naming rights efforts. Okay. Yeah, and there's was 90 million. That's what I was looking at guest house. So yeah, maybe but that's why I didn't assume that as a revenue. I listed as a, hey, this might be a revenue, but it is not one of the nine that are assumed in that break even figure. Okay, good. So just more refine it there. Okay. And then the 2019 feasibility study by web, they had an operational cost for 600 to 800 seat theater at 1.95 million a year and pre-opening it for 100,390 for pre-opening and then they updated that for 700 seat theater and it was 2.8 million. So they also made some other assumptions for uses such as a full catering kitchen and some other. Yeah, no, I believe you're correct they did, but I think this was just a theater model. I think, or did you look at that and maybe could scale it down and give us more realistic figure based off subtracting what we're not going to have in that one? So I think subtracting out what we're not going to have from that validates the numbers I've put in front of you. However happy to meet offline and go through it line by line. Okay, so if I may. So just I'm not debating just trying to clarify. So that web insulting study, they said that for their experience with performance halls all over the I think they were involved with hundreds. They said that rule of thumb is 20% delta between expenses and revenue. So, if you look at our 1.6 expected roughly expenses, it's a little bit more than what she's got, but not totally off base. Okay, thank you. Thank you. So just another data point. So the only thing is I just wanted more refinement and community input. And could you get us a comprehensive presentation in a format that'll be easily understood by the voters so we could take it to a town hall and then Understand all what's entailed in this and including our capital improvement plan in totality for the next five years could we Sure, so if council chooses to move the initiative forward if big F or two speakers and two seven Then one of the next steps if you decide to move forward with a bond referendum would be you'd have the opportunity to do education between when you call for the bond referendum and when a bond referendum is held. Taking the city's experience when we did the initial T-spost and the initial part spawned. We did a road show, not just big community meetings with educational material, but there were a lot of HOA and neighborhood meetings that we went to as well. It was pretty much anybody who wanted us to come speak and share information. We'd take the show to them and explain what the thing was, not advocating, just educating. What is this? What does it mean? So yes, at this point, my focus has been very much so on what does the council need to make a decision? If the council chooses to advance this, then yes, absolutely. The next step would be, okay, we're going to make sure we are clearly communicating what we're doing so that the voters can decide whether or not they think it is appropriate. And that would naturally whatail what is this and how does it work and what does it mean if the council also wants that and who include a broader picture of five-year capital. Sure, we're working on that with the budget preparations. Okay, so that's what I would need before I can say yes to a referendum. It's first have the community input instead of not after we vote to put it on the ballot. Okay, well, that is the timeline preferred by the whole body. We'll absolutely do it that way. But I thank you. I'm done. I'll be there. I'll be there. Yeah, yeah. We'll now. I just got all my questions. Sure. Thank you. Thank you very much, Kimberly and Kay and Chris for putting together the use of this amendment, this document, the Excel sheets and all the agenda items. It took a lot to create this and I respect that. And thank you for that. It's great. It actually does. So I've got a number of questions too, but fundamentally, I wanted to understand, when I looked at the overall financial picture, the very first sheet here, are we approaching this as a council? We approaching this as we, the city, will build the facility, will build the asset, and our operations are just to cover the operation side of things, a break even every year, or are we trying to recoup some of the construction costs of the asset itself? Because the way I looked at this was just let's cover operations. I just wanted clarifications on how you strategize and created this. So the information included in your report focused on operations and staffing of the building because that was to ask of the council. When it comes to you, do you need to also consider a debt service? One of the expenses that I noted as a potential expense but did not include in the analysis was debt service because council hasn't made a decision on the financing of this. We have talked in broad terms, what do we have in terms of cash on hand, what do we have for readily available financing mechanisms, some of that have built in debt service payments. So for example, if you do a general obligation bond issuance, that has its own dedicated military. We've seen that in our parks bond issuance for a colleague creek construction and other things, and the voters pay for both the Face value and the interest that comes along with it and we use that to make the debt service payment every year There are others So a GMA lease purchase program for example that you would then have to cover the debt service payment with Either your maintenance and operations millage so your base 3.6 or or some other revenue source, whether that be an operating endowment or just generating enough revenues from the center itself to cover that. Because council hasn't made a decision on how you're financing this yet, I did not include that answer in the memo because that wasn't the question you asked. So absolutely something we got to settle. And to this point, it is assumed that the information in front of you was just operations and staffing. Gotcha, perfect. So what I did is I went back to the Ellis Green analysis and went ahead and took that bond servicing dollar at 40 million 30 years and dropped it into the Excel sheet. And that number was 2.495, that's servicing that Ellis Green put. So that, so basically there was a net effect of that, if that's the numbers, a net effect of 1.2 million in a negative operation way here. However, if it's a general obligation bond, it by process, like de facto, it is paid for by the voters who voted upon it. That's right. So, like, you can't actually mingle that debt with operations. It's not set up that way. Okay. So, well, let's take that offline here as far as the community. You've got a line down in your debt services, that's... And the debt service line item in there is if the debt we levied doesn't have a built-in payment structure. Okay. So, do you make these purchase? If you were to do the allowable amount of GMA lease purchase that we have left, which is the capacity of 10 to 12 million to enter on how many payments we make between now and when you need it. Right. So yes, that has a cost, but it, But it's something we understand you can't combing all the numbers I there are some numbers that I just I don't want fair enough fair enough But if it is whether it's in the operations bucket if you will or it's in the acquisition bucket debt service You're still having to if it's no G you're still at 2.4 or night five Is that wrong if it's a general obligation bond issuance, it does not comingle in any way with operations. And property owners pay for it, separate. But you still have to cover that debt service somewhere. You have to cover it. It does have to get covered, but your voters would individually be paying for it with their property taxes. Sorry. I like the parts, Paul. I understand that. It will be a line item in your tax bill. But we'd never see the revenue. No, I understood. I understood that we wouldn't see it, but there's still a cost of acquiring and building the facility. The debt services and go away. You're saying that we won't pay for it out of our budget, but the voters are paying for it. right right okay we're to show all of it. Right. Right. Okay. We're on the safe pace. Okay. Sorry. Took me a little longer. No, no, no. It's good. I'm looking at this because it's a work in progress. Yeah. And it's not a matter of how do we kill a project like this. It's a matter of how do we make this thing work? Because like I've said for the last two work sessions, everyone here wants this asset we want this for the city. How do we pay for it? And so asking the second and third and fourth questions, I think is key. So let me just move on here real quick. Stacy asked a question about transparency and just trying to educate the public and I appreciate the answer. As far as whether we educate the public before we vote for referendum or after, the key is that the public is educated on the performance arts center, all the positives go along with it, along with the tax ramifications prior to walk and in the voting booth. That's my key. So that's good. Have we had any conversations because this has been so public now in newspapers and all that? Have we had any conversations with potential P3 type environment, public private partnerships? If we look at the history of the project and this has been an ongoing journey for about 10 years now, yes, we have. Have we had any of those conversations since January? No, no serious or substantive ones. If Council chooses to head down that path, that is certainly something we could explore between now and... You could pick your timeiest to one that is important to explore further. Okay, okay. Just a couple more. So I believe that the naming rights, I think, is actually low. And I looked at that. I was looking at you offer a 10 year on the naming rights. I actually think from a negotiating perspective, I think a five year mix, a lot of sense, only because as we build and we start activating the actual facility, the good will of the facility and all the uplift that we get from it will actually make it more valuable for someone to put their name on it. So I think a five year negotiation with potential first right to refusal makes a lot of sense here. Okay, and just on the revenue side, so back and up a little bit on the staffing, I would prefer as fast as we can start spooling up P3s and move it in that direction, public private partnerships, whether it's a JV with a PFA or if I don't know legally if we can do a joint partnership or with the city if we have to create a separate entity. I think we ought to pursue that unless there's some compelling reason to do nonprofit because maybe the tax or the benefits as far as alone is better that way. I don't know. So a couple of things that would impact that decision first goes back to financing, depending on the financing mechanism you have in mind. There are some restrictions. So the GMA-ally purchase program, we could not operate it as a private venture and choose to tap into that financing mechanism. If you are doing cash at hand, totally does not matter how you run the thing. We own the land, we can do what we will with it. The general obligation bond, there are certain restrictions that come along with that financing structure, but it's mostly in making sure the covenant that you make with the voters. If you say you will build this thing, you actually build the thing and then you continue to advance it or whatever language you put in the bond. Could we look into partnerships? Yes. So side one, it impacts your financing, which way you go. Side two, just to think through. The charge that I'm operating under or my understanding which you can correct is that the primary purpose and focus for a performance center would to be make sure that our community organizations that already exist in Johns Creek that are going outside of the city to perform into practice would have the ability to rent the facility and use it. If you choose to private sector partnership and had too far down that path, there are some really successfully privately run performing arts centers in both the Metro Atlanta area and broader range, but they focus on making money. As they showed, the private, privately held privately run and some of them are private sector partnerships from other examples in the Metro Atlanta area that started that way and chose to insource operations. The back of my mind part that I want to make sure is front of mine for you as well is if your goal is to make sure your community organizations get to use this on prime times and prime seasons, whether it's everybody wants their holiday concerts and performances to be in those areas, then that adds complication. Excuse me, and to you, partnering with a private sector partner, because you then have to introduce blackout dates and scheduling goals, and it makes it less lucrative and less appealing for them to come in. Also then, you're jointly negotiating the rental rates, which you may then price out the community groups that you're trying to attract to the center. I'm not saying we can't explore it. I'm just saying that those are the two factors, how it impacts your financing and how it impacts your intended use of the facility that we'd have to think through and be really clear to any potential partners on the front end. Right. So, and I'm saying- Began, so we can explore all that. Right that, and it's exciting here because options give us more chances to make this successful. So if we're looking at this from a standpoint of a P3, and do we have, because the five years is a critical phase, is this thing going to be a white elephant out there where it's just every year, it's we can't operationally make money and we're having to fund it from our budget every year. If in fact a P3 comes in and potentially the rates are lower on the front end, but they're able to activate it and be able to really manage it better than we do because we don't manage performing our centers. And then it's almost stair step at like tax incentives. We're basically there's a runway for them to come get under feet, make activated create demand for the space beyond what we can identify today. And then at the back end of the relationship, maybe it's five years on the JV, then come back and make up some of those revenues or the growth profit on some of that. So I think it's a wonderful thing to explore. I would, let's do that as fast as we can on the exploration of this. That's all I have right now. I, you know, I like where this is going. I think we do have the educational piece. And what scares me is just the construction documents. Because there's so many questions that we still have to vet out, that commit to the construction documents at 5 million, prior to knowing a lot of these answers, that's the part that scares me on this, on where we are right now. Okay, and I just clarify, from what I understand construction documents would not be pursued until after a referendum would be passed, right? Like we wouldn't jump in 5 million. It would be our choice, but I think we were all in consensus that we would not think to do that until clarity from perhaps. Yeah. Okay. Just getting cleared. Okay. Thank you. Good. Okay. All good and reasonable questions. So I wanted to take just a slightly different approach. I appreciate the memo and I, don't know, I guess I had questions or I could second guess something. But like I said earlier, you look at the web consulting. It sounds like the work probably that you put out was in line with their basic assumptions on an operational basis. And so based on our last meeting, this operational model was our last big rock informationally about this puzzle, if you will, of the question of a performing arts center. I did want to address just some things that had been going around on social media or maybe it's next door or emails that were getting. You know, I always welcome any kind of analysis or even criticism, especially if it's criticism made, let me know how I can do my job better. But some of the things that have been going around have bordered, I think, sometimes sounding almost as if the city's finances are in disarray or that they are not strong. And I just wanted to give a little clarity to this, especially in comparison now versus back in 2016 when this city undertook and proposed the idea of a Park spot Our financial position today is as strong if not stronger Today than it was back then our net position increased from 228 million to 450 million or 97% during that time. The city's assets have increased from 308 million to 520 million or 68% during that time. And probably more importantly, our liabilities decrease from 80 million to 69 million or 13% decrease. So there is opportunity, there is ability for us to continue to find new and better ways of serving our residents. And I think during this process we have, I'd like to think that there's agreement that there's a need. We have I think come to consensus agreement that there is, there are a lot of benefits and they're not just about the arts. They are economic development in nature. They are placemaking, branding, increasing the value of, a resident here in John's Creek. Not to mention the fact that it strengthens our already very strong position with our schools. I think that the impact on our youth is something that we've always had front in the center in John's Creek. Now, the other thing that I thought it would be worth noting, some of the information that's floated around has talked about our reserves. I know that in the last memo there was a listing of about $19 million of various places that the city could pull funds from. I've called that the proverbial change that you might find in the suffocations, of course we're talking millions of dollars. But that money was not necessarily part of our reserves. I just want to make it clear that we have well beyond what the legal requirement is by the state of Georgia for our reserves. We are expected to have two months of operational expenses. We actually carry three months, which is around 15 million. Unlike a lot of municipalities, we carry a cash flow stabilization fund also about 15 million. That is nowhere even being considered, that would never be something that we would be touching as a part of this. And then, I'm probably guilty, I forever and ever, I sometimes refer to our unallocated reserves as a rainy day fund. But let's be clear maybe on what that rainy day fund really means. In the example for back at the last meeting, that rainy day fund was not money that we need to fix a hole in the roof. It is money that we typically have gone to if we wanted to, in the homeowner example, maybe go on a nicer vacation. So it's not, it was not raining day fun for keeping the lights on. That is a rainy day fun to do those things that might be extra to improve quality of life. That we do typically on a yearly basis to try to further improve the city. So anyway, these are just some things that I thought would be important to point out. I'll just go once that further and just say also that it is a misnomer that the Performing Art Center would it would take money from existing projects. The projects that we currently have under construction, they have been allocated their monies, they have the full ability to move forward, the park back here behind City Hall, that's already funded, obviously the fire station that's been funded, and if there's a road project or a sidewalk, it's definitely not coming at the expense of that because we've fund that out of teasploss dollars. So just want to just kind of keep things in perspective that let's not run down the city's financials in the process. Even if you're opposed, I understand, but let's just keep it factual. Sorry, I wanted to add the infrastructure maintenance grills. Okay. We've saved money towards you. We're going to say the same thing. Well, I was going to say God bless the grules and on the cash flow stabilization. That is, we're in a different predicament than almost any other public jurisdiction in the United States of America in that we don't have to float a tax anticipation note. So we don't have to go out and borrow to pay for that. And we can also invest that through our investment policy. So by being good stewards of that financially, we actually make a little bit on the interest and don't spend extra interest. So that is, I'd say, top, I mean, we're in the 99th percentile in terms of government. So I'll just say my metaphor of this rainy day fund even once that further, not only is the rainy day fund not to plug a leak in the roof, but we actually have a cruel for infrastructure maintenance that would be responsible to pay for that roof replacement when it was time. So, maybe I'm I may unbelieve in it. My understanding of any day fund is, in case we get hit by another catastrophic event, that is the time when you dip into that. Like when previous mayor of COVID hit, when our finances were pretty effective. So, my understanding of any day fund is, any day any time initiates states it rainy day fund it's for an emergency unforeseen event. That is typically not how we have used that term we have the three-month operational reserve. When I say rainy day fund again literally it's that excess money that we have the ability to put towards something that is extra. But let's try to let everyone get their minimum first initial response. Thank you, Kimberly, the staff. The report is pretty detailed and it gets into a lot of line items that definitely helps us analyze it. And again, the operations is more into three or four years down the road. So we could come back and talk about it again at that point, but right now at least we get an idea of where we are heading. So, few points I wanted to bring up, like Mayor mentioned, our net position is $450 million. That is, we doubled in the last 10 years. So, for the CDF or size, and maintaining the lowest, lowest relays rate, it's a great achievement. The current elected officials and the prior officials should be proud of this one and the city staff and more importantly the residents. We thought their support wouldn't be here. So investing in the capital projects is a great financial strength for the city. So we should be looking at it in that direction. The second point is we've been getting a lot of emails saying that the PSC is being done at the cost of essential services and the maintenance projects again We did clarify but every one of those maintenance projects and the essential services has their own bucket So we are not tapping into any of those buckets. This is a different one and capital projects and if you have any other capital projects, more valuable than PSC, that any of us think of beneficial for the city and the residents, definitely we can bring it forward and debate on that. But at this point, I don't see any other projects, project on the capital improvement side. So the big capital project is the PSC. So it's definitely an important one. And it would be a great addition to the town center area, which is going to, like the memo mentioned, it's not just the one area or the community that it's focusing on, it's multi-use. And to the broader community, so if you look at it, like it's the way it's designed, it has multi-use. So definitely the rental rates that staff proposed is on the lower side, but again, it's good to go on the conservative approach and then be surprised down the road. So another important point is like right now like PSC should definitely be public private partnership. I agree on that. But instead of waiting on that private commitment, the way we are structuring is let's go and get the bond referendum referendum approved. It doesn't mean that we can have to tap into the funds. So based on the private commitment, we can draw from the approved amount. It doesn't mean just because we get an up amount approved by the bond referendum, it doesn't mean that we are drawing the whole amount. No way it means that at least we have an approval. It's more like a, I would say maybe line of great. So we can adjust the amount based on the private contribution. So rather than just delaying it more and waiting for the private commitment, let's proceed with the next steps and get it approved. And we can backtrack if there's more private commitment from the community and the businesses. So at this point, I'm good with this one and again. Just wanted to clarify to some of the residents like who are saying that PSC's coming at a cost of the other maintenance projects, which is not true. Thank you. All right, well, it's not any surprise that I'm very supportive of this project, and I believe that we've been provided sufficient information to know that this project is financially feasible both for a construction investment and for operations into the long term. And I, to your question of the policy matter, I'm supportive of presenting this on a bond referendum in November. I think that delay will just cause more cost and confusion. And I believe that we should be on concurrent paths with the bond referendum proceeding in November and hopefully being approved by the voters. But meanwhile, to Delieb's point and to something that Chris said at the last meeting about a tax allocation district and then to Larry's point about the P3, that all of those things can be entered by the private fundraising. That all of these things should be working in tandem, but that we will know that we have, that we're on the right path and we have the support of the voters and that the city will be capable of making this investment if it's necessary, if there's not enough financing from the other sources. Private fundraising, maybe a P3, maybe a tax allocation district. And so that's my position. I think it's time to have the residents of the city weigh in on their position on this. And to Stacey's point, I do think that there needs to be a lot of education, but I wouldn't wait to schedule the bond referendum. To do the education first and then schedule the bond referendum, we've learned from experience that voters and residents are not as tuned into items until they're right in front of them. I can't tell you how many emails I've received when someone calls me and says, hey, why are there cones in front of my neighborhood? It's like, well, because we've had town halls and we have to decounsel meetings and I'm really sorry you didn't hear about it earlier, but when something is immediate, that is when people pay attention. And so if it's on a bond referendum, it's the great right time for them to be paying attention, right time to be educating so that they can weigh in with their support or their opposition. I wanted to ask though about the full and county July 1st deadline. I'm not trying to push it out. I think that in my position, like we're ready to pull this trigger, but there is a full and county of Elections. The board itself need a vote on this. Okay. So good question. And I asked the clerk to check back on that as well. And what they were comfortable putting in an email was we need the answer July 1st. There may be like thinking through the logistics of it. Like they're I asked Allison to write back. Hey, but our meeting is July 14. Is there any any wiggle room there? And they did they did not answer anything back in writing. So well, you got to read between the lines there. I'll just say I mean, I'm interjecting myself, but you know, I don't want a short circuit of the process, but I don't want a long-gate process. No, I agree. I feel terrible. Because I want to make sure that the staff has plenty of time to create that educational component. And then there's plenty of time or maximum time to get that to the public. That's a really good point, and that would be on us. But I was just thinking that June 17th, I think, is the public service commission election, and that may go to a runoff, and then on top of that qualifying for us is August. So they're not preparing ballots. I guess that's my point. They're not preparing ballots that soon. The proofs for ballots are much later in the process. Hence why they... I am relaying what was put in writing as legally that's official, but I am tempering that with my knowledge of O, when does the ballot proof normally hit the desk? And as you said, qualifying for our municipal posts is at the end of August. So that also impacts what goes on the ballots because it would be in the same November timeframe. Yeah, but I think that Mayor has a great point because we are really gonna ask you to do a whole entire show and travel around all corners of the city, which I know is going to be a big ask and you need time to prepare that. That's your jazz hands. Yeah. Lots of PowerPoints, lots of pre-signs. Great design, strong educational foundation, but it would take effort, so yes, that's the point. I mean, I, for, I get for myself, I'm comfortable if you were to bring this to the June 9th meeting, I would be ready to proceed. And I think you might have a second question. You had a policy question and then you had it. I'm comfortable if you were to bring this to the June 9th meeting, I would be ready to proceed. And I think you might have a second question. You had a policy question and then you hadn't? Yeah, so policy question was do you think it's appropriate for us to be making this kind of investment? And then secondly, it was the I'm trying to figure out what to bring back to that June 9th work session. So I think you've answered both. All right, I can take that as an answer. Thank you. I don't think I'd directly answer both. I think you know, I think this being kind of the last big rock of information that we were supposed to unpack. I think now that we've been able to do that, I think the logical next step is the next meeting. Yes, it would be time to look at a referendum. Chris, really great before I pass along to you. So I had the opportunity to go to the North Fullton Future Summit on Thursday that was hosted by the Greater North Fullton Chamber of Commerce and it was held in City Springs and Mayor Rusty Paul had the opportunity during his panel to talk about how transformative it was. I think that was his word transformative. It was for his city and that he couldn't imagine what the future of Sandy Springs would look like. Had they not built and invested in that facility. And it was a lovely event, but really it was inspiring. It was very motivating because they had all of the mayors from North Fulton up there. And those, that group of leaders is ready to go. They have big dreams for their cities and they're working on them. And I felt inspired as well because we have Medley in the boardwalk and hopefully the performing arts center. But also felt that we are actually behind still and we have work to do to catch up and to provide the best city that our residents deserve. Can it guy add on to your one thing that was really interesting they had the guy from Seer and he's I think involved with city of Roswell and so they were talking a lot about the soccer initiative and they were talking about the hockey initiative for for Alpharetta, but he was talking about the braves in the battery. And he said that I think it was 11 million people visited last year of the battery, but only three million of those were there for baseball. And I was like, that's pretty, pretty interesting back to late, but anyway. Does that complete your comments, Mr. Paul. And so where were the two questions? Question one of based on all my analysis this is going to require an annual investment or a great naming rights contract or an operating endowment. Are you comfortable with the city making an annual investment? Is that like a policy, it's okay? Or, like, pick your own poison here. And then secondly, like, hey, what do you need for June 9th? Because I'm trying to march through with everything you ask for and bring it back to you for analysis and consideration. So, or two, this was the last piece, the operations and staffing model modeling. Obviously, there's a whole host of assumptions that will make prognostication difficult down, especially years 5 to 10. But on the first point, I disagree with that assessment. I think going the nonprofit model, doing a CID to cover those operational expenses. And the reason I believe that will be successful, you pull in as Council Member Aramelli, so eloquently calls them footfalls, close to the medley, close to this area. I do think there will be investment from the commercial to help a swage some of the capital impact from us by investing in that operationally. We also go to the nonprofit route. I like your leaner, operate staffing model, but I would also say that's got that 55% city benefit load if we're operating from a nonprofit perspective. We're going to look at the private sector 20 to 30% range. So I think we could truncate that operation number down a bit and then really tackle either CID, I don't know the nuanced differences between them, but essentially allowing the commercial, the neighboring commercial endeavors to help pay for this operationally because they are going to read the for profit benefits that we're not necessarily budging here. And that's why I would not go with the private model. The, from what I understand, this is operationally defined to enhance the quality of life for our residents. And so doing that, we would not necessarily let it be 100% private run where making money is the aspect. I mean, there's, it's almost a gratuity in my mind, like what better contract would it be to be a private sector that someone else put in $60 million of capital expenses and you just get to make money on it. So in fact, I've always looked at the Woodruff Art Center as the go-to model. If I was looking at it, it's funny that I believe in the workbook, which I love whoever made the VBA, it just God bless you if it's spoke to me. But the Woodruff Arts Center was... talking about an Excel spreadsheet. That's his love language. That's his love language. Thank you. But I do believe the Woodruff Arts Agency, that was the perfect example, because I would say based on how they operate, they are lean, but they've covered their expenses six out of the past eight years. from what I was observing that they've done very well, not having that 20% delta. So develop a model like that, pass the CID, maybe the city could get recuse some of those capital expenses and leverage it for programming or reduce rates for children's activities, I don't know, but I do think going that route, and I agree though we would need to have the nonprofit fundraising. I'd like us to see what we're working with in Dalmaton, and that would really help the voters decide on that referendum. If there was CID, T, past at that moment, has no there's support from different. Okay, can I jump in for a quick question? Last time we talked about a CID, I think, Philip, you may have brought it up. So how long does it take to set up a CID? Is it a is it a charter change or do we just have to do a resolution to go ahead and engage a CID? There's a lot more and some pretty intense steps since it sounds like that's of interest to several members. I can make sure we include that and share some information back out with Council between now and the June 9th work session. There are, depending on we've thrown out a couple here, CIDs, TADs, and other financing mechanisms, each one has a very distinct process, some require legislation through the general assembly, not ones you can do on your own, we've just missed that session, so that would have to necessitate delaying the initiative. So how about all work to make sure we get that information back to you? And it's certainly an important part of the decision and decisions that would need to be made over the course of this. But... Would we engage that if there's a yes on the referendum in November? We have a year or so to go through this process before it's operational is that right? Yeah, so you'd have significantly longer than that. More than that. Okay, you got construction documents. We have 12 months of construction documents. Construction. Uh-huh. So three or four years? There is significant time, but not to get too far into the weeds and jump down too far, but like a tax allocation district, you typically set before you've developed out all the things. So there's a larger increment to capture, but rather than try to pontificate on them off the cuff. Let me just make sure I get you guys some better information so you can make informed choices and ask more informed questions. You have that same base understanding. So absolutely, more to come. Yes, should this proceed to June 9th, which it sounds like there is consensus to proceed for more discussion with several things asked by different parties, then if you say yes to proceed towards referendum, if the voters then say yes at referendum, you'd still have 12 months of construction documents and 18 to 24 months of construction in which you could do a number of things. Just finer point on that document if you could, whether it's a CID or DDA or a PFA. If you can, you know, basically provide the definitions of those and how it would relate to the OG if we decide to do an OG on this. We're the limitations are from a strategy side with monies. And then just one last statement. I thank you, staff, for my goal was to have it heavy from a utilitarian perspective, like 350 days. and I do like how you broke out leveraging the multi-purpose room. But as we go, it looks like this might head to referendum. I don't know if I would just say it's purely performing arts, because I do see that multi-purpose room. Maybe there's rotary events. We need space for veterans. I wouldn't say it's purely performing arts that This could have utility Across many facets of quality of life. So not just performing arts, but for Communing gathering. I started calling it cultural slash performing art center But even that doesn't totally capture it in the Roswell culture art center. The Roswell culture art center started as a civic space It was not meant to be for performing arts and then they retrofitted it. So because a city does need community space, we have such a lack of indoor space that embarrasses me sometimes. When people ask if they have a place to rent the city and I'm like, no, we don't. So just a separate comment on this. Also, when we look at the revenue side of this, when we're looking at the utility, the usage rate, if you will, and that's been, you know, that drives the profitability, depending upon price per the rentals. I want to have NASC some people that are experts in all this area. And there could be a way that we can sort of double stack where dependent upon, like, a morning use that's not very intensive. And then an evening event that's more intensive. Again, utilization is much as possible, obviously. Absolutely. So one of the things that I like about even the conceptual level of design for this facility would be the acoustical joints between the spaces. So you would not be precluded from having things happen at the same time. And because I was trying to be really conservative on the revenue side, I assumed only one booking per day. But I know you're all familiar with city springs and other regional facilities that literally do multiple bookings per day, limit bookings to four hours so that they can stack sometimes up to three in a day if they have an 8 a.m. a noon and a four p.m. bookings so that they are really especially in those peak demand times. But again, that is something we would refine further. Should we head down this path? But that would be informed. It's like this give and take on the rate versus the how many people and what organizations can afford to and want to utilize it. So we've a lot of study may have to just add a little more cost to the infrastructure, meaning the so we can engage that multiple time today faster. So you don't have people bringing in speakers, if you will. Or are equipment the setups faster, we can flip the facilities around. So maybe a higher cost to get it going, but we'll get it back. Can I ask another question? If needed, what is it required to change our reserve requirement? Our cash flow stabilization from three months to two months. I mean our emergency. Our emergency emergency. So you have, presently, have that as set as part of your budget policy is where you dictate that so that you can change by action of the body to nothing legislative. Nothing legislative that is a policy you hold yourself to. I will throw out there from a, if you intend to ever consider doing a general obligation bond for this, making a policy change to your reserve requirement is not looked upon positively by any raters. We will have to get re-rated for a bond issuance because it's been more than five years since we went to market. So if you wanted to do a one-time dip into your reserves, that would be very different than a policy change saying you're going from three to two months. So I would very strongly recommend if you're going to dip into it once, declare why, explain how this project is amazing, and then commit to rebuilding back to the three months as it post-to-changing from three months to two months. Well, I'm just wondering because it is true that we are putting off other projects for this. That is a fact. One of them are the restrooms out here. I mean, $41 million for this park and we don't have restrooms. We don't have parking near the tunnel. Tennis and pickleball lighting was supposed to be done in fiscal year 2024, and that every year just keeps getting pushed. Across field turf replacements, there are projects. Autry mill parking and grading has been pushed again to 27 and 28. So there are things that are suffering as a result or that this is trumping. So I want to make sure that that's clear, because that is a fact. I would agree with that also, just from a standpoint, we are pushing off in a CIP or moving off, we're dipping into those reserves one time for this project, I think, to get the 19 million, which all that is fine. I mean, it's for making conscious decisions, and that's what we have to get to where, you know, there's an opportunity cost to do this. And that's potentially some other projects or finishing some, not finishing, but other projects. And it's a conscious decision we're making as a body. So let me just say that, you know, I know that just kind of to give something for us to throw against the wall, against the wall. I talked about using the 20 million cash and, you know, alone from the Brickham Water Program. just kind of to give something for us to throw against the wall. I talked about using the 20 million cash and, you know, alone from the brick and mortar program and then a, I think, a $28 million bond offering. You know, that may not be the right formula. You know, it may be that, you know, not trying to take as much money that we've got currently and put more on the bond just to give us the flexibility just to make sure that there's plenty of wiggle room. And I wouldn't say, um, stacy that necessarily that the bathrooms are coming at the expense because we haven't even considered if one is coming at the expense of the other. That was the point of the CIP. I remember I remember. Right, but I think that there's a case to be made that that might be one that maybe is an exception that maybe we should go ahead and look at. But I mean, obviously anytime you do, I think about when Kristina and I got married in a bar of house, we kind of had to husband or resources to make that one big jump. And sure, there were maybe a new car or something that got delayed, but that was strategically the best thing that we ever did. So of course, there are some things that may be put off. This is our job is to set priorities and determine what our values are. So, I don't think there's anything unusual about that. Can I ask one question, please? And we are bumping up against ourselves. I keep my remarks briefed out. Everybody will be doing two minutes first. That's why I just was. Bob, just never getting enough time, Arya. Thank you. I just want to check. What is this hard, hard, hard break at July 1st? What do we have to do by then? So, Fulton County has indicated they need to know if we have a bond referendum and what the question is. Is it true, false? No, it's a long statement. Typically starts out as something like, shall the city be authorized to issue general obligation bonds in the amount of X for the following project? Let me tell you exactly what I'm looking for. Is it just true false? Yes, we are going through this bond or do we have to give the language, what all is included, everything? What will go on the ballot? They have said we need to provide the language for the question. Is the answer they've provided in writing? But I am tempering that with a hold on. We don't even have the elected officials qualified yet. I know I won't be proofing a ballot in July. However, so I'm giving you both the, what they have told me as well as the... So my point is point is by July 1st we should be having the language ready. Would be the intent hence the importance of the June discussion. Yes. So in that just one point here. So you had brought up a point as far as the 20 million that may be only 15 million. We may not want to use all those extra pieces and move them over. Slightly right. So we don't have yet. 27 and 28 money. Exactly. So the bond itself, is this going to be a single use bond, meaning just for PAC, or do we as a body need to consider the PAC and potentially a park spawned? And what will that do? What will that second park spawn be to finish that project? Is it is a carrying cost too much for that or is it going to get too complicated? I don't know. I don't remember when the price of land is in some of those areas on the southern part of the city. But I mean, Newtown Park is busing at the seams and we've already talked about how You sports is underserved and you know For the park spot. I think the additional Recreational Land and or facilities is something that we should consider Well,, I was referring to potentially finishing calling. That's where I was going with the park spot. I love up here, this part of the city. So you could have made the Geobon double barrel, right? Like you couldn't say performing arts center and park center. Good question. So you can list multiple uses in one question or you can have separate questions. So when we did the initial park spawn, it was not actually just for Collie Creek. That was one of like 15 things we listed on there. We said we are going to do a number of projects, including we listed out some of the new parks we are going to build out like Collie Creek, like Morton Road Park, like State Bridge Pocket Park. Now those smaller parks were much smaller in what they turned into, but we also said we're going to make existing two art. Improvements to existing parks, Newtown, Chakraag, OC, and so some of those projects were like the multi-use field, the multi-use rectangular field that we did the initial turfing at. We also did that at Chakraag Park through that initial park spine. Colleagues gets all the love because it was the biggest investment out of the 40 million, but we actually made improvements in every park we own. So that can be one combo question, pass or fail, or it can be what we saw the the city of Roswell do where they had multiple questions They had a parking deck question and they had something with public Safety if they like sorry non-expert on another city But you can do them as multiple questions so voters get to up or down on or you can combine So and in those two questions right there if if it's one or two, if it is one, is there any issue going back to the PFA, the CID, going back to those entities that would help structure the financing side of it? Because now you got an asset of facility then you got land basically. Generally, is it fair to say that it's not saying that you must issue the bonds, it's same you have the permission to. Yeah, Interest and City Manager love to meetings ago that you can write the bond to be up to a certain amount. So we could say up to 40 million for cultural arts performing arts center, park facilities, recreational, et cetera. And then in the end, if we do have substantial private fundraising, a PFA, or P3, or a CID, or a TAD, then we could... Okay, okay. So then we wouldn't necessarily need to issue out the entire bond, because what the referendum does is gives us the authority to take on that debt. It all boils down to exactly how you state the question. Because if you state, shall the city issue x dollars of bonds? Well, then the voters are giving you permission to issue x dollars of bonds. If you say, shall the city issue up to x dollars in bonds, then you typically structure it as like installments of you'd issue, hey, the first X dollars and then if you find you need the second X dollars, then you would issue another trough but not to exceed whatever cap the voters gave you. They're giving you permission to draw up to a point if you word it that way. So we would we would likely go with the lot not shall we issue $5 worth of bonds we would go shall we issue up to $5 worth of bonds and then it's what are you committing to accomplish with that money that matters just as much. So am I committing to accomplish a performance center or am I committing to accomplish a former art center and other things, or are they two separate questions? All things that sounds like we need to circle back at the June 9th work session. I appreciate it, Deliebs, compared to a line of credit. I know it's much more complicated than that, but I think that that is something that we all can relate to, is that we're not committing necessarily to a $40 million debt, but we, if we need it because the other assets don't turn up, that that would be an option. All right, but we, if we need it because the other assets don't turn up, that would be an option. All right, guys, so we are a few minutes past our hour. So will the body, we do have other things that we've been putting off, so it's whatever. The will of the body is, are we good, or do you have something that has to be. But, did you get the well I'm so you want to yeah I understand the direction of the body but I hope if you feel like you have more to share you all reach out individually offline after the meeting and good news case gonna help with a lot of the financial side she's's very good at this stuff. All right, are we good? Are we good? I know that everyone's not satisfied with that, but all right, I think we can move on to the next item. Thank you. Next item is a tree ordinance amendment options and we have community development director's song for presentation. Thank you for allowing me to present the tree ordinance amendment proposal. The last time we met was on March 10, 2025. Council reviewed the initial option presented by staff specifically at that time it was related to pine trees, but after the discussion it was determined, the more comprehensive review was required of all specimen trees in the recompense requirement. A comment theme from the discussion was to limit the burden of tree removal process to homeowners of develop single family residence with lots. And based on the research and feedback received, staff proposed several options with the intent of limiting the undue regulatory burden on residents. And again, this is for removal of trees undeveloped single-family residents, shallot, and not for commercial or industrial zone property. And if you look at your memo, staff did provide several options for your consideration, and we did provide some examples as well. And we'd love to hear the opinion of council. Thank you. Thank you, Ben. I appreciate the memo well done. And I'll just say for myself that I'm in favor of only requiring a permit for free removal in protected areas and no recompense. And I realize that that's a departure from what we've done the past, but I also believe that the ordinance was probably intended to be more geared towards development and new construction and not so much existing residential homeowners. So that's my spot. All right, Delie, we'll go in this regular order now. Okay. Thank you, Ben. Okay, so I'm looking at option A, number three, not only require permit for the three remorolling the protected area and B, number one, but recommend number two. This is not mandatory, but make a recommendation of like planting, see number two within 25 feet, not within the protected area. Treating all constraints. And, the classification number three exempt. Delie, forgive me, but is the answer to your C not in conflict with what I believe you said for a, only a part permit for treaty removal in protected areas? Yeah, can I get a point of information from director Saun? So how I take it to I-2 was A-3 and I was thinking that would make B-C and V-Moot. Yes, that's true. Yes. Back to you then sir. No, but that's what I said number B is number one, but we could. Recommend number two. I guess. If you want to stick to A3, or are you going with C3, is there in conflict? Wait, I don't. C2, I'm going with C2. Right, but not requiring a permit for trees and protected, except in protected areas, then you're asking for a permit because of this 25 feet thing. Well, you're also asking for a permit in protected areas. So the trees in protected areas would at least have some minimum permitting, right? Isn't that what he would be choosing? Yeah, in protected areas, you're going to permits, but are those permitting guidelines set by the state or federal government, or is it by the city? And I think that's the only way to get the permit. And I think that's the only way to get the permit. And I think that's the only way to get the permit. And I think that's permits but are those permitting guidelines set by the state or federal government or is it by the city. Like a city. So that's what I'm saying is that delete can say a three but if you're in a protected area of BCD et cetera. Oh. That's the permit that applies in a protected area. So that's the count of the G.J. law school, that's very interesting. There's different stipulations though in protected protected areas do we have this? Well that's what I'm saying. If we're the jurisdiction that controls that and it's not controlled by MIRP or something else, then we yes, then delete pass every move. It's a city that is saying what we want for that. So back to you. I pretty much picked on that one school. I didn't think that we had discretion in the protected areas. I didn't either. We do have some discretion because there are going to be different situations that come up, right? And so, and the protected areas are not equal in every which way. Some are developed, some are not. You have homes that are closer, you have properties that are within the protected zones. So there is various differences. However, real quick, the way we sort of, I think what Councilman call for mention is sort of A3, as you're saying, you only require a permit. Again, there needs to be clarification. So if you're saying there's only a permit that's required for protected areas, then technically C2 would not apply, right? Because it's sort of going back to what the mayor mentioned. Right, but I think what Aaron is trying to say is that if you are in a protected area, that you may still be able to remove it if you are, if that tree is within 25 feet of your house. If that's what the leap is saying. That's what it is. Which is not the case. Right now, could we make it that way? Yes, if that's the will of the body, sure. And let me ask a follow-up. So, would you be willing, because really the only thing that the 25 feet is going to save you from is like a big crate myrtle or dogwood tree, would you be willing to change that to a house, a tree that could hit the house? Mayor, one clarification. Like I said, the protected zone sort of again could have different impacts. What I mean by that is, if it's a zoning buffer, that's something that we can't or staff cannot administratively sort of vary from if it's a zoning condition, right? So stream buffers, yes,oning buffers are a little bit different. So again, it gets a little bit more complicated. That's why we presented the options, the way it's been presented, to separate those specific areas out on its own merit. So, World, just need when you present us the drop-for-regulation of very clear definition of protected area. And protected, well, do have a definition under tree ordinance, but I apologize that I was not included in the memo. Well, because I understand your position about zoning conditions, but like for instance, there was a resident that lives really far away from the shadow of Hitchie River, but was in a protected area because she has a stream in her backyard. I referred her to talk to you. So with that protected area? Would there be discretion? Because she was concerned that tree would hit her house. Yes. I'm not trying to speak that specific, but is it a good question? No, this is a good question because there are technicalities, right? Yeah. So yes, as long as it's outside of that protected area, the river quarter in this particular example, their buffer of 150 feet. Yeah, but she was in the stream buffers so, qualified as a protect area. So I don't know if a protected area definition will need to be refined, but anyway. Well, I'll lead up to Ben to draw that one. So do you want to find where you are? Yes, sorry. A2, B2. C, what the mayor said, because I think it's how it's a lot specific. So if a house could treat a hit a house, it doesn't necessarily matter how far away it is. And D2 as well as D1, both. I'm a three. I think that's in the best interest of the residents staff, everyone in terms of time and cost. B1, I was, since I thought A3 made the remainder's new, I did not look at C with detail. I do support D1 and D2. So I guess C3. And this is for established residential lots, correct? So like, okay. Yes sir, it's not a new residential development. It's an existing residential them. For any kind of land disturbance permit. Correct. Yeah. All right. Yes. As it stands, I'm looking at this is we already have a few of these which takes care of trees which are threatening the house. If we have dead or deceased, automatically we get, we apply to you and we get a permit. Or you approve it, right away. If there is an accompanying Arbor's report justifying that fact then yes. Okay, that is irrespective of the specimen tree or the reproductive. Just for a specimen tree. having specified that, I am looking for what A2, we do require permit for removal of specimen trees and by that the same token D2 which means we will increase the DBH from 24 to 32 to define the specimen tree or C C2. No, D1, sorry, D1. Okay, so your H2 and D1. D2, D1, B2, we will have 4-inch caliper hardwood healthy specimen tree, whichever is plant one if it is removed removed, B2 and C2. And in C2, I think what my colleagues said, you know, if the tree is likely to hit the house, that is threatening the house. I would like to amend this 25 feet seems to be a kind of arbitrary I would definitely, if the three poses a threat to the house, it definitely should be within the purview of the resident to remove it without permit. The husband, Erin Milley, didn't you talk to Director Song about adding language if it was dangerous and wouldn't that solve it? I do agree. See, I did add this class called Dangerous. When I spoke to him, he said they don't have an aberrished on staff to really assert what the resident thinks is dangerous and what is the city thinks is dangerous. Therefore, that definition becomes extremely subjective. The reason why I pulled out of that. And I spoke to a resident in the last week or two about this topic and I think that is kind of like the cracks of the policy making is as a landowner and homeowner, do you have the power or right to make that decision or is the city have compelling interest to require you to get a permit and then find you if you break that. that so it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's of it's a safe tree, but it's near your house and it makes you nervous. City, idea when we legislate it has to be clear and easily and implementable by the citizen. So the more we make it start adding conditions and having our risk, coming reports and other, I do agree it's some place that we have to do it. But if we could do without excessive burden on the resident, that is the intent when he brought this whole thing to us. We'll just say to your point, Bob, that we're talking about, with the forming art center, the idea of a potential referendum, and that could add depending on your home value anywhere from $60 to $120, maybe a year. You have to get an arborist to come out. You're talking $100,000. And the time, and they still have to get the tree taken down. And I know that everyone loves trees, and I love trees. I don't think that there's a rash of people that really want to take down a lot of trees. I know that there may be the exception to that. But for the most part, I think that everyone realizes they increase value of your property. People enjoy the shade, the beauty, the environmental part. And so it's a very expensive endeavor to take down a tree. And just wish that, you know, I wish that we would think about those people that, you know, they're making a big decision and a big outlay of money for them. And we're just making it worse if we're putting on top. Okay, we have to have an arborist to cut down a tree on your property. Today also when we were in the same type club, country club, we saw the best part of our city is we are living up to that moniker tree city. You look anywhere 360 degrees from the golf course today was noticing a complete green cover which means the citizens have bought into this idea that we are a tree loving city. So therefore I don't believe people are arbitrarily going to take down trees especially at such a huge expense. It doesn't come cheap. Even an arborist doesn't come to a house unless he's promised the deal to cut the tree. So which makes it very difficult for the citizen to just keep on waiting for these folks or find the fog Arborist who can just give a report So so considering all that is her name 82d1 b2 c2 C2? C2? C2? D1? D2? Okay. Alright. Someone? Oh, whoa, whoa. A2, D1, B2, C2. A2, B2, C2, D1, B2. Okay. All right. Someone more careful. Then may have fully wrote that down. I think that today has been a taxing day for you. Oh, my gosh. Everyday taxing when you're meeting us. And I know that there's probably already consensus to move forward. forward but would it be feasible if anyone else agreed that we could handle this when we do the comp plan update that way at the same time that you're having community meetings you could get their feedback on what they would like to see? Can we add that as a recommendation next time we visit the C&C? Is it a comprehensive plan? Well, that's what I'm wondering, director, song, like, would that make sense? Because I feel like a decision this big needs, again, community input. At the end of the day, I mean, oh, sorry. Well, I would, so you want to ask if people wanted to regulate themselves? No, I want to ask, not regulate themselves, but what would be a comfortable restrictions? Because I think the trees impact our quality of life and our property values, but yet at the same time, I mean, you're right. I don't want to get a permit to have to take down a pie. But I'm also somebody that wouldn't take down trees unless they were dead or diseased. So I wanted the community to weigh in more. I mean, we saw how many came out granted that was a huge historic tree, but we saw everybody come out for that when we were discussing something involving that. I mean, this is an item that's been brought up to council and it's up to the body to decide how you wanna proceed. In general, just to answer your question related to the comprehensive plan, more or less it has to do with land use and it could be a subcomponent of that when it comes to the comprehensive plan. It could be a question that could be discussed as part of the overall general understanding and future development of the city. But it doesn't necessarily work as a primary aspect of discussion for a comprehensive planning effort. This will have to go for a public hearing? Yes, when we do, we'll update the ordinance. It'll come before council at a public hearing. Okay, well, okay, so that being said, I don't, I'm for A, number two, for recompense. I, you know, I think it should be reasonable. And I don't know that any of those are reasonable. If you take one tree, plant a tree, but I can we be more flexible to where we're not set on the size? I mean, just something above the seedling. Because I don't know what the cost is to plant one four inchinch caliber hardwood. It's probably $1,000. Well, yeah. OK. So that's not reasonable to me. Just something that'll grow and be there. Sure. Another option could be two inches much more planful and easier to identify. Could we specify? I mean, four inches. You're talking about Baltimore, Burlath, requires a machine. Could we say 15 gallon or? Yes, it could be a gallon size as well. Seven gallon? Sure. That's something just extremely reasonable. Maybe less than. the car's machine, could we say 15 gallon or yes, it could be a gallon size as well. Seven gallon, sure, that's, that's something just extremely reasonable. Maybe less than $100. Yeah, that's what I'm talking about. And we'll go through this sort of tally up what the response is and then we can determine if that's the case because right now we have three for no recompense required at this time. And I don't want it to be punitive. I want it to be more helping nature in that quality of life in the future. Okay. And then, limit tree removal constraints. I can't answer that one. I can't answer that one. But I can't answer the number one for de-increased size, the threshold. Number one. Yes. Okay. All right. Laird's all up to you, I think. You think? So when this came When this came up to the body here, I think you brought it up. I, my, because of the land properties that I work with, I always reen on the property owners, the homeowners, that they know best how to handle their yards than I think we do. So I, I think that if, and I always talked about an exclusion zone, so if it's to the house, let them let the homeowner decide what he needs to do within that exclusion zone. And so I am as far as where I sit with this is I am number one, three. If there's a protected area, if it's A3, yes, A3, if it's a protected area that we've identified through zoning, then they can't take it out without a permit. I mean, B, number one, unless we move to the 15 gallon, I think that's a good compromise, actually. The four inches are too expensive, too hard to handle. So 15 gallon or number one, B1. Also C number one. So C number one and D, both number one and number two, because I think as trees get older, larger, I think we need to reclassify and pine trees. Most people want to take them down anyways. So that's where I'm at it. OK, and let's see. So we've got consensus for A3 on B1. We've got this little wrinkle where it's kind of a gray area right now. We've got support for reccompensations. I think we'll maybe make a little bit of a gigant about that because of the 15 gallons. 15 gallons. Sure. We've just something smaller, reasonable than a four. That's what I said in the beginning to say it, but sometimes trees are offered only one of the nicest. I know way too much about this. Can I ask, a one situation would recompense be required, though? So someone has gone and done the work, and because I, my understanding is that most of the time the way this comes up is not people ask for permits, is that they got caught after they cut trees down in the neighbors, ratter them out. And so in that situation, that's when we're applying the recompense. No? Tell me. There are situations that apply in those the one that you described. Typically the way it works is if it's a healthy specimen that someone is looking to remove. Okay. That's when recompense applies. So we will allow that we will grant them a permit to do that but they will need to plant recompense. Correct but if it's dead disease or hazardous then we don't. Then you don't require recompense. But to her point are we talking about this recompense only for those trees that fall into the zone requiring a permit. Correct. If that's the there's a contest, because that's a so-so protected area. Yes. Oh, okay. Is it possible that when, is it possible kind of like with the arts 1% for arts or something where, when people reach out for permits or when things happen even though they're not in the zone that we encourage them to plan a tree and it can be seven gallon on sale of pikes. But that we encourage them to plan a tree. Yeah, what I've seen in all honesty, a lot of the examples that we've seen across the board is people do care about trees to think about their property. So regardless of us making a recommendation or not, they most likely do move forward with replanting. They just, we don't necessarily specify as to what they need to replant because they already have an idea in mind. Because like to everyone's point, they are looking out for the best interest of their property. All right. So in that case, we have consensus for shifting some votes around me? I'll compromise 15 gallon, 715 gallon for recompense. But that's for the ones that fall inside the permitting sphere. With the stipulations of the, so I think we've gone so far down the decision tree, this will affect one homeowner in the year 2042. Like, I'm not saying that it's not a worthy discussion to get, but we are in beyond edge case. So it's also a big one. Be one. Okay. Does any of this jeopardize our treat city status? Completely different criteria. That's in my knowledge now. Good. All right, Kimberly, I know that you probably did a much better job taking notes than I did, but I hear a three and that we will have recompense by it for 15 gallon. And- So that's B2? But that's only within the ones that require permit. Yeah. So after that, once Bob sort of doing his rap version of the A2, D1, B2, I've got a little lost. D1 and 2. Great news. D1-B2, I don't know. Great news. Ben and I kept taking the whole way down. So to recap those last two, it sounded like Ben, you want to take over? No, no, no. For item C, tree limit, limit tree removal constraints, we're taking item 2 modifying it slightly, not just any tree within 25 feet of the primary residential dwelling. But now any tree that could hit a primary dwelling and not within a protected area can be removed regardless of size. And then finally for D, modify specimen tree classification, the majority was in favor of number one, increase all hardwood and softwood specimen trees thresholds from 24 inch to 32 inch. But we also did get consensus on D2. Yes, that's right right at the last minute. We got four votes there. If we was the distinct, there's no permanent required for specimen. That is correct. Yes, that's right right at the last minute we got four votes there That is correct One clarification for B2 just to make sure cuz I heard a bunch of numbers, but are we talking about one 15 gallon? I think everyone is on one for one. One for one. Take it out of tree. If it meets these other requirements, one 15 gallon tree. If you want to go larger, all at it. But the minimum requirement will be 50. It's going to do three, you know, five three gallons. The important things I think we have consensus. So now Ben can take this, turn it into amendment language. And you'll have to come back to you. This will likely come back in July so that we can perfect this language. All right. Moving along. Thank you for keeping track of those different items. All right. Next item. Thank you. Next we have House Bill 92. Certification of the Property Tax Rate. We have Finance Director Campbell. Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Members of the Council. This item is pretty much summarized for you in the updates section of your memo, where it talks about subsequent to the conclusion of the 2025 legislation session. Revised guidance was provided from the tax commissioner's office that the estimated rollback rate needed to be approved by resolution of the governing body based on assigning of House Bill 92. And as the memo stated, you guys last discussed this in your work session when there was the discussion about whether or not to opt in or opt out with the new floating home state tax exemption. And council took no action which gave citizens the benefit to receive the more beneficial floating home state exemption to them. At that time, the guidance was that the estimated rollback which which was related to this, was then to be provided by March 1st to Fulton County, which we did in advance of that date. But now, subsequent to that date, they have come back and said that the previous information that was provided to them now needs to be certified by this council. So that is the action before you tonight. Would that be happy to answer any questions? All right, so I need to summon all of my diplomatic and tactfulness and just say that I'm going to acquiesce to this wonderful piece of legislation and just go with whatever is simplest to just get it off our plate. Thank you, Ronnie. Like we already approved it, so you're just a formalty, so. Correct. I have a question. Thank you. I'm good with that. I'm speechless. We're all out. Thank you. Can I ask a question? This is just a process. We don't have to, like, is there anything we should be asking you? No, this is a process. They didn't like my signature, so now they're saying they want the signature of the government. Okay. Thank you, Director Gamble. It's a home run over here. That would encourage us as council members to maybe talk to our state elected officials about this may be in a bit more sense. But it works. You'll see that item before you tonight is part of the council meeting. We need to go down to that. All right. Next item. Thank you. Next item is under Council initiatives. We have the Cemetery Text Amendment. I believe that is your item. So basically this is very narrowly tailored to allow for some parcels to, if they meet the requirements to have a little bit of flexibility in case they wanted to have anyone as part of their congregation buried on site. And I think it's fairly self-explanatory. And I don't think I'm going to go into it. I've talked to most of you individually. Let me just ask in the interest of time, is anyone opposed to moving this forward? You mean anything you tried to wanted to do? Was there should be a visual barrier, either natural or manmade? So there's, so that it doesn't, it's not visible from the street? So not visible from the street and some landscaping around it with that. Yes, some kind of visual barrier. Okay. That's all I've had with the other. All right. Just a question here also just a definition of small. But what are we looking at there? So that was. It's been so. So in the text before you it was four burial plots as a maximum. the definition of small in this case and 1000 square feet. Yes. Sorry. Before. So in the text before you it was four burial plots as a maximum would be the definition of small in this case and 1000 square feet. Yes. 1000 square feet or four. So. Yep. Thank you. I tend to be small. Yep. Okay. All right. Is everyone else okay? May that we move this forward and we can get amendment for your concern,. Okay. All right. All right. Greg, we'll move on to the next item. Thank you. Next item is bicycle friendly community designation. We have councilmember D. D. O. S. E. Yes. Thank you very much. I just wanted to bring this to everyone's attention real quick here. I know that I've spoken to see manager Kimberly Greer and Olivia about this about four months ago. So we simultaneously started working on this together because we were going to try to see if the council agrees to try to move us to a bike-friendly city. A lot of the cities around us have designations like this. And because of the amount of dollars put into pathways and trails and make the city more mobile, friendly, and more inclusive, if you will, this is just a natural progression of what we've already started. and once the application is submitted to this organization, they go in and it's an extensive application process to look at not only demographics, where bus stops, where are different assets within the city, and from that they give us a score and how we invest in pathways and sidewalks, they'll give us another score. So it's somewhat of an elaborate process. It's a, it's nationwide, if you will. And the cost of this varies depending upon where we start in our full commitment. My recommendation, let's start low. So the numbers are very, very, very low as far as getting into it. And as we, as it develops, as the tunnel develops, the boardwalk develops and we start moving from just non-pidestrian type transportation to bicycles and things like that, making more friendly, I think we can potentially escalate into a silver and gold levels. So, I was a little unclear a couple of times I talked about investment and I was clear if they were talking about we would pay for our certification. There is a level of payment that we have to, it's a membership, so we have to join. The membership, the amount is probably very low. They don't publish that amount on their site. In fact, I was on the phone with them today trying to get that number. But I would suspect it's probably a couple thousand dollars to join and then our investment is within our self, our infrastructure. That's what they're looking at. So I think that's someone unusual for some of our other certifications. So is it, do we know that? That's what you're looking at. So I think that's someone unusual for some of our other certifications. So is it, do we need necessarily to go with this organization or are there other organizations that provide similar certification? This is the most widely national organization out there. I don't, if there's another organization that we want to pursue and Olivia may have more insight into that, we can go down that road and explore which one's better for our city and what we've already done. The key is to get the certification and let people know that if they travel here under bicycles, meaning that if they're coming from Celia, it's Florida, they're moving in the area, they're cyclists, enthusiasts that they actually have. It's an asset to John's Creek to say, hey, I want to move to John's Creek because it's bike friendly, and that's what they do as far as them personally. They want to ride their bikes in a city that's friendly. That. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. they want to ride their bikes in a city that's friendly. Yep. All right, other questions? No, again, thank you Larry for bringing us up the city manager. So I think the city is already exploring this option, right? Like how far are we on the timeline and the progress wise? Sure, great question. So the application is due on June 25th. We are well on our way to completing the initial application, which involves documenting all of our existing policies, plans and investments that we have already constructed in the community. our intent in our application was not to promise anything more than what we are already doing today to get a baseline of this is what we've adopted in terms of our policies and how we choose to add infrastructure. All things council has previously voted on and then just documentation of where do bike lanes and shared areas exist within our city and should, okay, it's mostly just a staff time labor intensive process of gathering all those parts and pieces from the multiple years that we've been making great investments in our community. The second phase, so we'll turn in the application for the end of June, would be that they will provide a community survey link with instructions on how they would like that link to be shared. I haven't gotten all the way through that part. Good news, Olivia is working on it. And then the third phase is come December. They would provide us feedback on whether or not they think we meet any level of certification based on what we've completed. It's a yellow already working on a path with the same organization. We are, so this is something we brought up at the retreat as a means to further enhance our transfer. It's a yellow already working on a path with the same organization. We are. So this is something we brought up at the retreat as a means to further enhance our transportation and connectivity to have recognition of the great work that the council's already done. Yeah, we, I think you and I spoke about this months ago and you had asked me to hold off. I did. Until late April because it was busy. So it's ironic I put this in. I think on Tuesday and then on Friday in your memo, you had said that Olivia was starting to work on it. So we're on the same page, just trying to move this forward. Thank you. Error, press. Bring it to us on June 9th if you need specifics. Yet so far I do not believe I require any formal council action to submit the application if that changes we will absolutely know and have something on your June 9th council. I think Councilman DiBiosi for bringing it to you and this fits with our multi-modal policy I would imagine and help promote that and then secondly our health wellness and innovation yeah I think it think it's perfect. So thank you for hurrying along and getting it in there. Sit. All right. Okay. Nothing. Chris. You're good. You're good. OK. I just want to thank you. This is a great time we needed initiated. I think our city we all have added a number of bike lanes. Right. I think it's a great time to get out and do this tree friendly city. Thank you very much. And I think 2000 bucks, is it? Well, we don't know the exact figure. They've been very cloak and dagger with that quite honestly. But I guess it's almost it only get it for it It should be transparent on their website as cities become friendly But I'm waiting for a call from Washington We'll see Thank you. Thank you. Thank you everyone. That's this is a check in. That's all. All right. Next item. Thank you. Next item is park programming resident fees for city staff. This is Mayor Bradbury's item. Yeah. Basically just trying to make it a little bit more even handed. Maybe send a signal to our staff that we welcome them as part of the John's Creek community where they can participate and their family can participate in our various activities and recreation programs as if they were a resident John's Creek and not charge them on an outside the city premium. Thank you, this is definitely a good one to provide that support and to the employees. So I support this. I totally support it. Do you really need to bring it back to council if you have consensus of the body or just a can in Carbazolution? You would should you choose to move this forward need to amend both your non-resident fee policy as well as your recreation and parks fee schedule. So Typically things that change related to recreation and parks policies we bring to our pack first and then we bring it to council for consideration. So we have a couple steps along the process. Here, when I first wrote this and I talked to Kimberly, I was like, hey, so can we just, can I just make this kind of a straightforward thing? And she's like, oh, this has got multi. Sorry, got a Okay, got to have our bureaucracy, you know, or- But for good reason, in that you don't want staff to apparently change your fees or any of those things. So it's important to have those check-ins and we're thankful to have our pack who's previewed this item, but we'll want to bring it back to them so they can say that's great idea. Okay. Mr. Collins. I support it. All right, Bob. I supported too. I just have a quick question. Sometimes because our facilities are so good, a lot of people from other cities would like to use it and pay lesser rents. So they try to kind of get past it by having one guy sign up and then leave. While we can't stop that, I wouldn't like our staff to do that. Great. We can't do it, but you want the staff to do it. No, no. What I'm saying is, I don't want the staff to do it. I think you heard it probably heard it wrong. What I'm saying is outside folks who want to use John Street facilities seek somebody who lives in John's Creek so that they get a reduced rate. And then they probably leave, that is an abuse of privilege of living in the city. I'm saying if we are going to extend the same facility to the staff, the staff, I hope do not abuse that facility and somebody should be able to discourage that. We do work to correct that problem both from outside parties that run our facilities as well as residents that attempt to run our facilities or participate in our programs. We will hold our staff to the same standard. We are, I mean, we, the city staff is policing it. City staff shouldn't be abusing it. That's what. All right. No questions. Thank you very much. I fully support it. So I supported, especially tonight, because of the brevity of this agenda item, as opposed to all the stuff we've just read with PAC. Thank you, 100% support. So brief as the secret. All right, all right. So you've got to pack it up from stuff and I'll come back later. And last but not least. Thank you. Next item is the volunteer led special event policy. And this item is council member Skinner and DBOC's. And we can be brief, right? So we can all get a bathroom break before next meeting. That's up to you. All right, so long story short, I didn't know because there is a, this is all new this year or not this year, but since with the new council, and I knew we had the volunteering code of conduct, I assumed we had a policy so that everybody knew the expectations of the volunteers, what everybody's roles were, and who was responsible for what and who at the end of the day made the decisions. And I think they should be uniform across the board whether it's Diwali or Lunar New Year or Juneteenth and that way, you know, there's no, I think no. So thank you, thank you, subject activity. Thank you for the word. Or bias at all. Our appearance of bias, because I don't think there is, but any appearance. So that's all this is asking is to ask staff to create a policy for our volunteer led special events where the volunteers have more control than, well, I don't know who has more control, honestly, but the volunteers play a bigger part with staff than they would in any of our other special events. That's really asking. Yeah, and I would echo that because what we have in place today is a code of conduct. So how a volunteer would interact with the public during an event, how they greet them, potentially dress, all those things. to scenes leading up to the event, what is the policies and procedures that a volunteer can or cannot do and how do they interface with staff on a consistent basis regardless of event. If we decide as a council to go ahead and next year and get involved with some of the FIFA events that are here. We may have more events, more volunteer events. I think it's a good time to put something in place because sometimes there's a decision has to be made. And if there's a volunteer committee, who makes that ultimate decision? Is it the committee that's driving it or is it someone on staff? So that's ultimately where we want to go with that. So the ACE committee, they took up this very issue back in November. And have you reviewed what they came up with? I have not. I didn't know they came up with something. Well, I mean, we don't have Erica here. And Kimberly, are you familiar with it? I mean, I compare friends with the best of my ability. Well, I truly don't want to do that. Where are we conversing? My memory is that they basically said that the volunteer committees would be recommending bodies with the staff having the ultimate authority. But the way it seemed like it's working is that they make recommendations, then it comes back to the committees just kind of for a confirmation like like, hey, are you good with this? But is that formalized? Is it formalized? Yeah, well, I mean, whatever the Council will. I think it has to be packed. Yeah, it's a great idea. I mean, that's what we're really proposing. Okay. Could you perhaps send that to all of us in the event that it requires, excuse me, I mean, requires further discussion. This can be brought back again to the next work session, but at least we all will have read that. I think there is anything in writing. I mean, I didn't read. Materials that went to ACE as part of the agenda packet. Oh, I thought they've read it on maybe the minutes from that document. We're reading and then maybe Councilman Skinner United might be able to sit down or the three of us could sit down and determine what needs to best come back to the council body as a whole for maybe a specific ask for what should be adopted or reviewed. So great suggestion. Happy to. There's a foundation to move forward. It could be, so if we were to move forward tonight, that would be my starting point. So it sounds like a great thing to distribute to the body to hold. Just didn't want to overstep as a council initiative. Does that leave us in a, okay, consensus place to move forward from here? One, just a question to Stacy and Lai. I know that it's a good policy to have it, but. I don't know that they have meeting minutes. I'm not sure. And then the lack of a policy makes me think that there's one needed before there's a problem. Okay. So it's being proactive. And I think that's the only way to get the right to be corrected. I don't know how it works. I don't think they're recorded. I don't know that they have meeting minutes. I'm not sure. makes me think that there's one needed before there's a problem. Okay, so it's just being proactive and... Yeah, and the ACE meetings are reported. ACE, yes. Not like the Steering Committee, yes. Right, right. It's more proactive. One thing to this. I think this policy is very badly required because absence of standards causes, you know, confusion. Last year the Scouts lost out because we thought they were not being safe in the parking area of one festival. If you were to told them what is expected of them, what is the standard, how to keep it safe,ibly they would have been still be doing this for us. But that's where I felt this. This was very really needed for such events. So that we don't lose volunteers like this. Now we don't see scouts at any of our events. So I think this policy will ensure that we don't lose good committed volunteers because they don't have complete direction. How do proceed with this? All right, it's past 7 o'clock. I am just somewhat amazed that we got through it all and hopefully we're all going to get to take a bath and break too before the other meeting starts. Good to adjourn. A quick point of clarification. Is it the repaving contract? Wasn't the reserve meeting seem contract taken off of the non-deficient? Yes. And sorry to put that on. Sorry, no, I totally forgot. So I asked for that to come off. And basically, I think that we don't quite have it right. Yet, there are some of these that are being asked to be paid that I would really like Freyalla maybe take a look at. I don't want to be paid and just be paid. Is that time sensitive? Can we bring it back to the next session? I don't have a chance for that. That's a great question. I will check on that. If it's not,. We'll bring you to the next work session if it is. It'll be on both the work session and the council meeting. Okay. And can I say, yeah, and can I say that for street escaping, I want to pull that off consent for next time. And I don't need to discuss it, but for next time, I don't want to consent. Thank you. Yes, and Director, our Assistant City Manager, Chris Haggard, I know that there's a grading system for the paving, so I don't know if that's what we're following and that's how. This is being driven. That is definitely what we're following. I'm happy to talk about it further. All right. All right. See you on the flip side. You think we could reasonably get started at 715 on the dot? Yes. I think it's 10 minutes. I'll be really in separate separate.