[music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] >> Ladies and gentlemen, we're waiting for um >> [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] >> So, here you go. Good afternoon. Thank you all for being here. I'm calling my work session to order. First item of business is a share that Mayor Caldwell, Council member Milton, and Council member Harrison are all absent and excused today. Um in today's meeting, we'll have a presentation from the Housing and Community Development Department to discuss a housing bond and also a presentation from our Department of Transportation to talk about a transportation bond. So, first up is Emma Lewis to talk about the housing bond. Thank you. Good afternoon. Emma Lewis Sutton, Housing and Community Development Director for the city. Um I'm here with you all again today to talk about the 2026 proposed um Oh, sorry. Thank you. Is this better? Okay. Um So, here with you again today to talk more about the proposed affordable housing bond. So, we're going to talk a little bit about the of the current housing bond, considerations for the next bond, and then talk some more in-depth about recommendations. As a reminder, this is the third time we've talked about this, but we're going to talk a little bit more in-depth. Um but since you all have seen this, I'm going to go through it pretty quickly, and then I'll just take your questions. Um So, the state of our current housing bond, as a reminder here, uh we had an $80 million bond was passed in 2020 with a 5-year spending through fiscal year 2026. So, that provided $16 million um over the the 5-year period. So, again here, you can see the different buckets that we had, what we call the the bond buckets or the different sort of activities under the $80 million bond, which were 68 million for housing development and preservation, 12 million for homebuyer assistance and preservation. Um And those were really the primary two pieces of that bond. So, in talking about some considerations for the next bond, um we are looking at 4 years of resources versus five. So, it will look a little bit different as far as um how how much the overall bond is, and then again those annual allocations. We really wanted to make sure that unit production was maintained from prior bond. Um so, we looked at the average subsidy for bond-funded projects, and then added around a 5% inflation rate to get to this calculation. Um and then we also wanted to incorporate funding for the unsheltered homelessness response strategy, which is now the the continuum of care strategic plan. And finally, we wanted to recommend a one-time capitalization of at least $20 million to seed a mixed-income development revolving loan fund. So, here are our recommendations for the $101.5 million bond bond over 5 years. So, we would um have investments in again that housing development and preservation. And this category is really that engine that powers the pipeline of affordable homes being developed. Um 10.4 for homebuyer assistance and preservation. And then we have 12 million for homelessness response and 21.5 as a one-time capitalization for the mixed-income development. And we're just going to go into a little bit more depth on each of these. So, here are those annual amounts um that would go in each category, again over that 4-year period versus last time it was a 5-year period. And note here again that that 21.5 is a one-time capitalization for the mixed-income development. But these annual allocations would be around 14.4 for housing development and preservation, um 2.6 for homebuyer assistance preservation, and then $3 million for um annually for homelessness response. So, um this range again is based on the average subsidy. And so, you'll see that, you know, again there's that range of 160 to 510, and that is really dependent upon the cost of land. So, in those higher cost, more urban core areas, you're going to see less units overall. And in the suburban, uh lower cost areas, you're going to see more units. So, that is the range that we came up with from from those estimates. And then for homebuyer assistance and preservation, you're looking at around 40 to 50 units annually. And again, that will keep us in a steady state. Um and then for homelessness response, that 125 could be um that that number is specifically for rent assistance plus case management. Not everyone uh would need rent assistance and case management that is served under the COC strategic plan. So, that number could also be um homelessness diversion. And diversion runs around $2,500 per household. So, you would see um a lot more people served if those funds were used for diversion, homelessness diversion. And then for the mixed-income development model, we estimate around 200 units every 3 to 5 years, and about a third of those would be affordable. So, just going a little more in-depth here, um again, uh this I told you how this range was sort of um developed. And you know, examples from this category include new affordable duplexes, um rehab of city-owned houses, and housing and acquisition of um NOAH properties. [clears throat] So, also important to note that within that uh specific allocation area, we are contemplating a $500,000 allocation for pre-development assistance costs. So, that would really help those sort of um less established nonprofit developers, or could be faith-based entities, um to pay for sort of pre-development, preliminary design, engineering, um consultant fees in order to help get the development off the ground. And we estimate around five to 10 projects to be served with that $500,000. So, 10.4 in homebuyer assistance, um this would include the home owner-occupied rehabilitation in addition to the down payment assistance that that the city currently provides. Um this range, the homeownership assistance range is based on a $60,000 uh down payment assistance per unit uh for homebuyers, and a $50,000 average subsidy for the home repair. So, for homelessness response, this would fund partial opera- opera- I can't you all, I'm having trouble with this word. Uh >> [laughter] >> it would help implement the unsheltered homelessness response strategy, which is now under the continuum of care strategic plan. Um and so, that would be partial implementation of that plan. And it would support decommissioning encampments by connecting people to housing and services. Um it By doing so, it would help alleviate uh the shelter burden by reducing the need for that emergency shelter. And again, we could use these funds for rent assistance, homelessness diversion, case management, and overall to help coordinate a community-wide homelessness response, which is needed in order to uh fully deploy the COC strategic plan. So, here's just a little reminder on um a mixed-income revolving loan fund. We are recommending an investment of bond funds into a revolving loan fund to make possible this mixed-income model for Raleigh. Uh the consultant that we worked with looked at some existing and theoretical city sites, including uh Raleigh Housing Authority's Heritage Park, as well as the city's DMV site. And investments from the revolving loan fund of approximately 10 to 25 million per project would be needed in order to make these mixed-income communities possible. So, but as a reminder too, these funds will be paid back every 3 to 5 years. So, this is a creating perpetual affordability in mixed-income projects. So, in about a third of the overall units are are generally going to fall within that affordable range. So, for this investment, we estimate financing around 200 units, of which 140 would be market rate, and around 60 would be affordable. And just a reminder too that these are class A properties. So, they're really high amenity, uh located in really desirable areas. Um and so, it would be the one-time investment to fund and create it. And then again, the fund would um operate in perpetuity. So, that completes my presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions. Council member Branch. Definitely, thank you for the work and the presentation. I know there's many that have have seen us emails about why can't we go higher, how does, you know, what number and everything. But one question I actually have, can you speak to how the AMI impacts um how the money, you know, goes into a project? Because my understanding is that the AMI changes every year by HUD. And with that number changing and us not knowing what that number may be, you know, that could impact. I may have answered my own question, but I'd rather, you know, hear from you as our director. Yes, that is exactly right, Council member. So, that number does vary, um and it also impacts the overall design of the project. So, I think, you know, we really tried to look at how do we keep a steady state, um which is uh very much sort of a a reasonable uh calculation, and looking at uh 450 units about per year. Um that would create again those gap funds for those 4% low-income housing tax credit projects. Um you know, that is an increase overall from what we are um doing now. So, uh you know, and it is 4 years. So, I think, you know, versus five, that's that's definitely an uh an overall increase in our annual allocation, especially if you put it together with the penny. But I hope I answered your question. I digressed there a little bit. >> No, no, you definitely did. And and my other question really isn't for you, it's for our finance people. But I'm going to hear the second presentation before I ask that one. Okay. Council member Silver. Thank you for the presentation, Emola. Um >> [clears throat] >> you noted that the number of units on an annual basis will depend on the cost of land and location. May be hard to answer, but for the last bond, do you generally know the split between, let's just say, urban more uh let's see. >> [snorts] >> I don't want to say desirable locations, but more expensive locations versus less expensive. Cuz we often hear, you know, you're you're overwhelming certain areas with affordable housing when it should be spread. And I know it's a balancing act. So, can you tell us from the last bond, generally what was a ratio between the more expensive versus less expensive land? That's a good question and it's a little hard to answer. Um, I think that primarily tax credit projects are driven by those lower cost areas um because of the cost of land. So, you know, if I were to sort of guesstimate, I would say there's probably a large number that were in those sort of lower cost areas because that's going what's going to be allowed uh that's what's going to allow those projects to pencil essentially and to be viable. Yeah, I don't know from my colleagues cuz this is the first I'm approaching it, but you want to produce as many affordable housing units as possible, but then the public is saying, "No, we want to be in a downtown location or a midtown location." Which means there are less units. So, it's a value judgment. So, I just don't know what that trend was the last bond. So, as we approach the new one, the question is is location or production? And so, I think that's something we'll all have to decide, but but thank you for uh sharing, you know, that as even though I know it's very difficult to pinpoint. Councilmember Patton. Hi everyone. Um, can you go to the slide with the unit production buckets? I know we talked about this before, but I I'm guess I'm just like looking at it with fresh eyes or you said it slightly differently than I heard it last time. So, the 21 million it for the new revolving loan at approximately 200 is total units and only 60 of them will be designated affordable. So, that's going to be one project roughly. Uh-huh. So, in a mixed income project typically you have a third of the units are affordable and the rest of the units would be market rate. So, for this investment we would achieve the 1/3 of units from this project. However, again because it's a one-time capitalization, you're looking at funds coming back into the fund to provide perpetual affordability in other projects ongoing. Does that answer it? Yeah, I guess so. I mean, I guess I'm just kind of it looking at at the far left for the tax credit projects and seeing that it's a smaller number that's going to produce more affordable units. Um, and I just wonder about the the calculus there, you know, people will will ask us like why not just dump all that money into into the other bucket and get that many more units. Mhm. And so, can you draw that out for me? Yeah, and and it probably would have been helpful to have the we had sort of a comparison map of and we can provide that to you again, but it's a really good sort of side by side to show the advantages and and I don't know disadvantages, but just to show the different aspects of each one. So, for example, for 4% uh low-income housing tax credit gap financing, you're looking at um again 160 to 500 and units going back to Councilmember Silver with that trade-off of of where the land is. Um those are limited affordability, right? So, so a uh developer is signing up for a 30-year period for those to be affordable within certain ranges. So, going up to 80%. Um and whereas with the um mixed income capitalization and again, that's like you're investing perpetual like so you're continually every year, you know, we have a certain number of projects that we provide funding for and and we get this number of units. Whereas with the mixed income development model, we are achieving a mixed income model, which I think has some policy benefits, right? I think we know that providing um housing in those higher opportunity areas for folks is really important and has impact on overall health, uh future earnings, you know, all kinds of things, um well-being of people to to sort of live in those mixed income developments. So, I think there's that policy piece of it. And then also again, you're creating that um forever fund. So, it's it's not year over year 14 million, it's one-time 21.5 million versus year over year we're putting 14 million into those LIHTC properties for that 30-year affordability. We're looking at 21.5 one-time a third of the units are affordable. However, we're seeing money come back in the fund so that we can then recycle it and do projects year over year. Mhm. >> [clears throat] >> Okay. And then just one more one more follow-up on that. So, the you know, prod um you know, an applicant's going to come and say or we're going to pick a project that's a good match and we're going to invest the 21 million um that's going to produce some market rate units. Is the the actual public dollars that they get going to just the affordable units or is it going to is it like flexible like it's going to pay for the pool or pay for the dog park? So, the the market rate units are actually subsidizing the affordable units in those projects. So, so because you are able to get the higher rents for those market rate units, you're actually subsidizing the affordable units. Um, it is public publicly owned, so it's public ownership. Um, and so that's maintained generally by a a public housing authority and and owned by a subsidiary of the public housing authority. Does that answer it? Councilmember Jones. Thank you so much. Um when we have and we just had two cases that gave this money payment in lieu of putting units on the ground both with North Hills and with Peace and West. Would that money go into something like the pot for mixed income development? Where does that money go? Does that live in this account kind of thing or where where um where does that money go? Would you ask that again? Sure. So, you've got the the >> Payment in lieu. Payment in lieu. I said that. Payment in lieu. The payment in lieu that we got from North Hills. >> Oh, I understand. >> That money that that whenever that comes to fruition, you know, if it came tomorrow, let's just pretend it came tomorrow. Would is that separate from what we're talking about here or is that like the the revolving fund would those funds go into there so that it grows that? Like I'm not I'm not sure where how that money works. It is separate right now. Um, I think that, you know, council direction we we would see, you know, what you all wanted to do. I think I don't know of any limitations of why it couldn't go into the fund if that's something that council wanted to do, but right now that is separate. >> Separate. Okay, thank you so much. Any more questions? Thank you so much, Mr. Sutton. Thank you. Uh, do you need do you have what you need? This is the bond. I think this is a cuz you guys got public hearings and all that other stuff in Yeah. Am I right, Mr. Jolly? Yeah, yes. Uh, Mayor Pro Tem Ford, we were just looking for general consent to proceed in this direction. That's all we're we're looking for at this point. So, now we will have the transportation bond presentation. Good afternoon, Council members. Kenneth Ritchie with Transportation here to as a follow-up to a presentation you had during the retreat with some considerations on a 2026 bond referendum for transportation. Uh, before I get started, I think I'd be remiss if I didn't acknowledge the amount of work that's gone into this from multiple departments uh to kind of look at where we've been and position ourselves for this conversation in terms of where some things to be forecasting for 2026 and beyond. So, with our agenda, uh we will we'll discuss some 2026 bond considerations building off of the conversation that was had at the retreat. Uh, also to building on that, we'll be looking at some advanced planning considerations. And this is really some considerations that would position us for investments with future bonds. And we'll get into more detail as we talk through that. So, just a little bit of a recap from uh I know many conversations on this, but the new the steady state that has been referenced uh with regards to the bond programming uh moving forward. So, with this year certainly looking at 203 million dollars of capacity. I know four years has been the term that has been discussed. Uh, what we're looking at with this from a transportation standpoint is really using this to create cadence and to position ourselves to look at projects that we've got that we can deliver full construction on, but then also using parts of these programs to help position ourselves to build on those in the future and being able to create that cadence of funding using this kind of four-year cycle that we've got. Uh, with the 2026 transportation [music] uh portion of the bond conversation, we have targeted 101.5 million dollars. So, about half of that that 203 uh for consideration. So, as we look at at a high level, we really got kind of three buckets that we have we have put together. Uh, our first and the largest would be uh investment with bus rapid transit and then some deferred projects from some of our previous bonds. Uh the next bucket would be adopted plans. I'll go into more detail, but certainly most recently the adoption of the active mobility plan, the downtown mobility study. And we've got an additional plan that'll be coming forward to you soon. And then program areas uh that would encompass like our night neighborhood traffic management program and we'll get into more detail with some subsequent slides. Um, and this just gives some examples. We are actually going to walk through each of these buckets in detail uh just to kind of discuss them and see. So, as we look at uh bus rapid transit and deferred projects, we've got that bucket valued at about 51.5 million dollars. Uh, this is really looking at projects that we have had uh substantial uh maturity on the design. We've been able to move those forward or we've got investments upcoming that we know we're going to be able to expense and get these constructed within that that kind of 4-year window. Um the big one here, Marsh Creek Traywick. This is a 2017 bond project. Um certainly we've got a history on it. We'll walk through that, too. Uh Ebenezer Church Road, uh this actually dates back to the 2011 bond. There's some history there as to why it's still there, and we'll discuss that. And then certainly looking at our bus rapid transit, more specifically our southern corridor that will be coming online first in some general purpose lane investment that we'll need to make there. So, looking at our Marsh Creek Road and Traywick Road project, uh this is looking at enhancements from Capital Boulevard to New Hope Church Road. Uh this is There was a lot of discussion as this project came into um even into starting the project development, a lot of community conversations. And really looking at how do we right-size a project so that we're not adversely overly adversely impacting the community there. There was a lot of focus on the Traywick Road section. Uh heavy residential through that section, a much tighter corridor. And so, we really looked at trying to target it turn lanes to try not to have too much impact, but really looking at how do we make sure that we create safe uh accommodations for all users across this corridor with that connectivity between New Hope and Capital Boulevard. And then certainly as we get to Marsh Creek uh utilizing a lot of the footprint we've got, but really focusing on how do we enhance the multimodal accommodations and make the roadway safer so that we do have that safety for all users. A little bit of a timeline on this. So, this project did uh initially come into conception with the 2017 bond referendum. In 2019, uh the design contract was awarded and work began. Uh in 2022, as we started forecasting challenges with the implementation of the 2017 bond, uh funding for this project was initially deferred. Um and so at that time, the conversation was really how do we make sure that we've got this project positioned for potential investment with with a subsequent bond. And so, currently that project is about 65% design. We're right at the cusp of property acquisition, and that's kind of the timeline that we've got leading up to it. When we look at how it would play into a potential 2026 bond referendum, uh anticipating those dollars being available really in mid-2027 just based off the schedule. Uh final design acquisition would be completed within about a year. That would give us into 2 years of construction. So, that final construction is actually construction completion. So, we'd be looking at construction completion in fall of 2030. The next project is our Ebenezer Church Road project. Uh this is a and I'll get into a little bit more detail. This one has quite the history on it in terms of the evolution of this project. But really looking at an area of connectivity that originally was envisioned from Briar Creek Parkway to Leesville Road, and then evolved into a connection into Umstead State Park. Really providing that connectivity between the multimodal connectivity between those those two heavy residential to commercial. And then certainly as we get into it, understanding the resource that we've got with that connectivity to Umstead. So, the timeline here, uh 2011 was the first bond that included funding for this project. That was originally for the Lumley and Westgate Road portion. So, that would be that connection from Briar Creek to Leesville Road. Uh was part of the Mountains-to-Sea Trail uh effort, which really is what kind of catapulted that forward. Uh 2014 feasibility started. During that time and during conversations with community, the Ebenezer Church Road portion was added to provide that connectivity into Umstead State Park. Uh in 2019, a lot of conversations with external partners began. There was a lot of work. The the runway expansion at RDU was coming into conversation, and knowing that would have an impact on the Lumley section of it. Also, conversations with Martin Marietta as they were doing their quarry expansion, there was a realignment of Westgate Road uh that happened as part of that. And then coordination with NCDOT as certainly both the Lumley portion and the Ebenezer Church portion cross through DOT facilities through the interchange uh with Glenwood, and then certainly through the inter- through an intersection, signalized intersection with Glenwood. In 2020, uh that project was was rescoped. Uh it was rescoped to only be the Ebenezer Church Road portion. As we started to see costs escalating, certainly the priority was trying to keep it within the budget that we had at that time. And there was certainly a lot of interest from the stakeholders on the corridor about getting that connection into Umstead. And so, with council uh support, that project was rescoped. And then in 2022, as some of those funding challenges continued, this was another project that construction was deferred, and that money was reallocated to help address gaps uh in other parts of the program. Uh currently that design two is at 65% and we're right at that pre-acquisition stage uh for that project as well. Uh with this one, uh final design, final acquisition, we could anticipate this to occur uh really within the summer of 2027. Uh there is still funding available within this project to help support some of this. Um and with the scope of this project, we're we're looking looking at about a year, year and a half timeline. So, we would anticipate being able to construct this project and have it complete by the fall of 2028. And then the third portion of the BRT and deferred projects uh bucket is our Wake Bus Rapid Transit Southern Corridor. And this would be going to help uh help supplement funding for the general purpose lanes. Uh as y'all have been educated by our BRT team, as we come over uh South Saunders Street, the corridor will actually break off a little bit to the west, and we will have a parallel route to South Saunders that will carry the BRT. Uh with that, there are general purpose lanes for for our general vehicular traffic plan with that. That money is not federally Those lanes are not federally eligible. So, this would be essentially funding to help facilitate a a a potential obtaining of additional federal funding through other opportunities to help deliver those lanes. Uh and with this corridor, uh what we're looking at final design is a 2023 to 2027 time frame. Uh anticipate with that final design anticipate or federal grant agreement in 2027, uh which would position for advertisement in 2028 with anticipated revenue service and the corridor being complete in 2032. And just a note on that anticipated revenue service, that is continued that is uh contingent on federal project development process completion and the grant execution in 2027. So, that is very much a time constrained. And certainly if that if the agreement pushes out, that likely does push that revenue service out uh as well. So, as we get into our next bucket looking at our adopted plans, uh this is really focused on our our safety and what has been the moniker the big jump that we shared with you during the um the discussions with our active mobility plan. Uh what we're proposing here is $20 million to really help push forward that big jump. Uh additionally, $16 million for safety priority projects, and then $4 million uh that will be needed as we go towards uh our application for additional implementation funding uh through the federal government through the Safe Streets for All program. And I'll get into a little bit more detail there. A big piece of understanding with these adopted plans is that these both the active mobility plan and the comprehensive safety action plan are really supplemental plans to each other. And there are a lot of overlaps between the two plans. So, really this entire bucket will be going to really push forward on a lot of the priority projects we have, not only from a safety standpoint, but active mobility. Because really in a lot of cases, we're hitting both with one project. So, from our active mobility plan, the big jump. Uh so, 5 years looking at 5-plus miles of new sidewalks and 5 50 miles of high comfort bike ways. So, really looking at how we continue to push forward on giving those options, those transportation options for people that's not just a single occupancy vehicle. Uh this is kind of that network map that was shared um that really kind of shows the overall both the sidewalks and the bike ways. I know this is small and probably can be seen easier from PDFs. And then also shared during the adoption is really the the prioritized sidewalk projects and the priority bike way projects that have been identified with with the active mobility plan, and certainly were the basis of of your support that you provided us back in the fall. And then looking at our comprehensive safety action plan, uh and this is a little bit of a teaser because this plan will be in front of you all at your work session next Tuesday for a deep dive. Sean Driscoll, our Vision Zero program manager, will be doing doing a deep dive on the over-18-month effort that we've been working with the community and our consultant to kind of build our comprehensive safety action plan. Getting that plan in front of you, getting that plan adopted then becomes the basis for us to go back and apply for implementation funding with the anticipation that there could be upwards of $20 million that we could potentially compete for uh to help us continue to push forward on our safety initiatives. A lot more detail coming on that next next Tuesday. And then the final bucket uh from a program standpoint uh is really looking at two areas. Uh, neighborhood traffic management, that's our traffic calming program, uh, and then partnerships looking at how we leverage our partnerships with DOT and certainly with potential private development partners to help us push forward on getting infrastructure on the ground as efficiently as we can. Uh, just a little bit of a summary of the tra- neighborhood traffic management. Annually, we have about 15 to 20 projects that we are trying to push forward. Uh, implementation estimates between 1.2 to 5 and 1.5 million. So, over that 4 years, that 6 million would help us continue the the traffic calming program on the same capacity that it is today. And then certainly partnerships looking at opportunities with NCDOT through municipal agreements with a lot of their projects to try and get additional infrastructure on the ground that would be over and above what they may require on their projects. And certainly looking at opportunities that we may have with private partners to get infrastructure on the ground to really take advantage of of the opportunities that they have. So, that's really kind of looking, uh, at what our initial programming is for a considerations for a 2026 bond. Um, I'm happy to stop there and take any questions. Really with the next piece of this conversation, it's talking through the the advanced planning program that I think has been shared as part of the steady state that really is starting to forecast forward to to future investment. So, happy to take any questions. Devon, thank you for the information presentation. Um, for slide 17 and slide six seven 16 and 17, can we get the, uh, I know you'll have it on file that actual streets and everything cuz it's kind of, like you said, it's kind of hard to do it here. Um, and then lastly for the BRT general lanes, basically the 5 million is going to be used to leverage a different federal program to get those lanes. Is that Okay. Is the Wake County Transit Plan putting any money into it? Um, I'm going to phone a friend here and >> [laughter] [snorts] >> I'll let Hat speak to the Wake Transit Plan. >> cuz the general lanes are being added to support the Wake County Transit Plan. Yeah, so the, um, Capital Area Transit Station Transit, uh, the general purpose lanes are not eligible for the federal funding [snorts] under federal transit administration. The Wake Transit Plan is supporting the local match for the entire project. So, Wake Transit Plan is putting in, um, upwards of 150 million into the project as a whole. Uh, we'll continue to monitor, again, what the costs are going to be for the general purpose lanes themselves and the opportunities, whether it's a different federal program or through the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization, another pot of funding that we could try to, um, leverage to make that happen. Okay, thank you. Yeah. Hi. Um, I am struck that the two projects from the previous bonds are at 65% design. Feels like after a decade they would, like my instincts say they should be farther along. Perhaps there's a reason that you could help me understand. So, certainly with with Marsh Creek and Traywick, uh, as that we had gotten to that point right as the construction funding was deferred and not knowing exactly what that timeline was going to be in terms of being able to get that project constructed, getting the project all the way through design, there's risk when it goes and sits for that long. So, being able to stop at that logical point where you've got a pretty mature design but still allows us the opportunity if we need to make tweaks to that project, it's not substantially costly and doesn't necessarily drag the the design process out for another, say, two plus years if if we did that. So, that's really why that one's at the stage it's at. >> Okay. Um, in terms of Ebenezer Church Road, that one's gone through a number of evolutions. Um, and so it's, again, that one knowing how quickly that design can happen in pro- in as compared to like a Marsh Traywick, we didn't want to get that one too far ahead running that risk, too, until we knew when we would potentially have that construction funding to really deliver on it. Got it. Okay. So, you got like you got it to that point and then the funding ran out and you were just kind of like, "Okay, we're going to just going to put this back on the shelf." And that's why it's not more advanced. Correct. >> Okay. And the length of time, like the delivery period for the Traywick project is still 4 years if the bond if the bond passes. Is that the fastest it can be? So, I think part of it's going to be getting the funding that we'll need to be able to go purchase. So, we won't be able to start acquisition at least based off the funding that we have available right now until at the earliest summer of '27. And so, understanding that we're going to need to give ourselves some time to go acquire property, that process can take anywhere from 6 to 18 months depending on the number of properties. That kind of draws that out and then certainly two to two and a half years for construction. Traywick certainly is a very tight corridor and that will be a very delicate construction project through there. Uh, there's also culverts that we're going to have to navigate with that project that likely will will impact how quickly and the timing on getting construction completed. And then just just one more and then I'll I'll pass. Sorry. Um, switching gears, neighborhood traffic management proposing $6 million under this proposal and you said that maintains current capacity. Yes. Is it the traffic management program currently a bond funded program? Yes. So, the most of the funding that the traffic management program has been using was programmed out of that 2017 bond. >> Okay. Uh, over the course of the last, I think, five or six years is where you've really seen the number of projects pick up. Um, and to that 15 to 20 projects, that really is the capacity of the resources that we have today uh, within that program. Okay. And in that capacity limitation, is it, um, it's like financial capacity only or human capacity? Like if the pot were larger, could you do more projects? I think generally, yes. We'd have to do an assessment, but I think if there were additional resources potentially, uh, yes. Um, but to comes with that, too, is going to be the financial constraint. Certainly, the money we've got is going to be the money that we can deliver on. Trying to frame the question properly. Uh, with this bond with steady state, there is no anticipated tax increase if the voters pass it. Uh, but I think all of us are still talking about, you know, some of the issues about older projects that are now moving forward. There were two here, one you mentioned 2017 and another one 2011. And so, I have a two-part question. One, as this goes out once we decide what the transportation bond's going to be and I believe we all we all support a transportation bond. Uh, I am still hearing a lot about Six Forks. Uh, I do know that there's a design that will be ready in the fall that will be somewhat modified. So, uh, how do we communicate those that are listening some of those, Six Forks being one of them, some of the older projects that got bond funding that are either stuck in neutral, don't have enough funding cuz we're now seeing two. Uh, and can you just kind of give us an update on what to expect for Six Forks? It will not make this bond. We're now looking at 2030, which means the public with all the development may not see any improvement until the mid-2030s. So, certainly we've had a lot of conversations on Six Forks over the last few months. Uh, so, one, I know one thing that came up during transportation transit was, "Okay, what about the potential of a multi-use path along the corridor?" We've run some estimates. We're we're estimating somewhere in the $40 million range just to do a multi-use path down one side of of Six Forks Road from Millbrook down to and into the the North Hills area. The challenge we've got with Six Forks is is really the real estate component of the of that conversation and being able to get a multi-use path is going to require us to go acquire property. And so, it it's balancing that. Uh, certainly if there was if there was will from the council, I think, obviously, yes, pushing it'd be pushing it out to potentially 2030, we could start diving into a little bit more of that as we prepare for for it start working on the design if that was the will of the community and the council for us in preparation for 2030. But I think anything that we look at, based off our assessment, anything we look at along that Six Forks corridor and in the Midtown area is going to be a substantial investment. And my other question is just to prepare us for the public because I don't know how many 2011, 2017 projects are still on hold and just want to be able to communicate, uh, cuz I know parks does it in terms of, you know, here are the bonds, here are the status, that that would be very helpful. Uh, I just know in my district one that people are very very vocal as is Six Forks, but I'm sure my colleagues have others in their districts. So, I'm grateful for Ebenezer Church and Marsh and Traywick that those are moving forward. Uh, but I think it'd be helpful just to know some of the others so we can communicate it's important to pass these transportation bonds even though there may not be one in your district. We're committed [snorts] we're committed to providing that same transparency moving forward as we have as the the precedent has been set with the with the parks bond. And certainly with some of those previous projects we can provide that as a follow-up, just information on those. Councilman Patton. Yeah, there's more of a response that might be might be helpful. One thing we talked about in transportation and transit is that you know, there's a it's a funnel on Six Forks Road and at the bottom of it is 440. And this the the project the Six Forks Road project would have opened the top of the funnel but not done anything to the bottom of the funnel. So, even if it had proceeded, it might not have really produced a a measurable uh level of comfort for residents, but that the the multimodal bridge project is really what's going to provide like an alternate it's going to pull the local traffic apart from the um you know, commuter traffic. And so, that's really that project is likely to deliver a little more comfort. And so, maybe the question turning to you, question is can you speak to timeline of the multimodal bridge, when's design, when do we go for the federal grants, what's our local match looking like? All asterisks, but So, the current state on that as you will recall with the consideration of the Six Forks project when that one was canceled essentially you you directed $3.5 million to that to to move forward with design. And that was paired with another 500,000 that we had programmed in a previous year's CIP. So, we are actively working on that design and really trying to move that to that kind of through that conceptual design phase so we can get essentially an an educated estimate on what it may cost to deliver that project. And then certainly I think as we start to identify what that what that looks like coming back for conversations with with the council on, okay, what is what is the funding look like here? It probably would be a pretty substantial impact on an annual CIP from a match standpoint, but it is it is the target I think certainly could be that if there's a will to continue forward with that project once we understand what the estimates are to try and position it for a 2030 bond referendum based up with the funding that we already have already been um allocated from the council. I can't be Go go ahead. No, I I'm go ahead. Okay. Um On that note, to do it would be help like I'm trying to come to words about a timeline. If the will you be ready for a local match in 2028? Possibly. Okay. I think Assuming we don't hit any major roadblocks as we we work through the design, uh it's it's possible. Certainly our goal is to try and move that design forward as quickly as possible um because we know that as we look to potential federal grant pursuits, there's no given there. And so, we really want to make sure that we give ourselves some some leeway there. So, certainly we're trying to move that design forward as quickly as possible. I'm just thinking about like if we go for the federal grant and we get that in 2028, but then we have to sit on our hands for 2 years until 2030 to run a new bond. But you know, I'm just wondering if there's some strategy to running a bond in 28 so so that there could be inclusion of the multimodal bridge match in like a 28 bond. But so So, like if we were if we didn't Let's maybe switching back to the council. What we've been offered here is that out of the 200 and 200-ish million dollars, it's like a 50/50 split between transportation and housing. And we're using up all the available capacity now. And so, we don't have anything newly available until 2030. If we didn't use it all up, then we could run something again in 28. Like if we left some available. Can I So, if I go back to some previous staff presentations, I think what we're here today is we have bonds before us that do not raise taxes. And um I think at some point we will have to do some bonds that will require a property tax increase. And that will probably involve more um projects throughout the city as well as, you know, giving us a number. And again, I was going to wait until the end, but if you come down, can you speak to um the bonds that were presented to us cuz I think it was go every 4 years with this these bonds that don't raise taxes property taxes. >> [snorts] >> But in between, there could be another almost every four every six, whatever the cadence is of a bond that does raise taxes. And let me know if my recollection is incorrect. Allison Bradshaw, finance. Um yes, I think everything that you just summarized is correct. So, at the retreat, we talked about having $203 million available for this fall. And of course, we've been talking housing and transportation. Um you know, you have the option every 2 years really to put a bond on. You will also recall the 203 covers those both are voted geo debt, which we typically do housing, parks, and transportation, but that really also needs to cover our limited obligation bonds, which council member you may have been referring to, which is really the city infrastructure that goes on as well. So, I do think as we've previously shared, there will be some tough uh decisions in front of council relative to our capacity and the timing, uh but the feedback from from council was to sort of size this every 4 years. So, hopefully that addressed your question. And hopefully that kind of helps you kind of leads to I think the biggest goal and what I'm getting from your comments is how do we get the money to complete the projects that we say we the community says they would like to see, which includes this multimodal bridge. Um also includes some projects I know in my district that um residents have been asking for as far as sidewalk and road widening improvements um that are not cheap. Um the fact that just to put asphalt down to go how far how on Six Forks Road for that $40 million, what's the distance? That's roughly a mile. So, $40 million for 1 mile of just for pedestrian bikes, that's that's a very difficult conversation. Yeah, that wasn't my suggestion. >> I know that one wasn't, but I'm just putting that in the whole totality of all of our projects that we're thinking about. I agree, I like the multimodal project cuz I think it'll take pressures off of Six Forks Road. Um the question is how can we get there and still be mindful of our taxes? And these bonds don't raise taxes. We could we as a council, we could sit here and decide, hey, we want to do these projects, we want to do them sooner. Staff will give us a number and say this is what it will cost and this is the tax increase. But that's something that we will have to give staff a direction for. And maybe for Allison. I don't I don't know that the I don't know that our direction was well, every 4 years we'll run a bond with no tax increase and in the middle years we'll run one with tax increase. I don't that's not my memory of the conversation. Um but Allison if I mean the the $203 million of debt capacity, if we if we say only ran 150 50 million of bond this time, that other 50 million could be used for the LOB projects or could be would still be available in 28 with we could run another bond with no tax increase with it in that size. Is that right? Yeah, so I mean in in broad brush terms, um sort of the the 203 is available today. If the decision is to not go to 203, that capacity remains. And then you can look for either a bond in 28 or to fill the rest with those limited obligation type uh city investments um that are out there as well. We know we just got the fire master plan, etc. So, I think to answer your question, yes, the capacity sort of gets held off to the side for lack of a better term. And is there a moment when we'll know more about the like those LOB projects like the fire stations like if it was the desire to to catch all of the things that need debt in the 203 like I don't think I know how big that bucket is. Sure. So, Ryan Bergman, city manager's office. So, when we started the steady state transition, we knew that it was going to be done over a number of years. We certainly weren't going to be able to do it in one bond cycle. So, we were fortunate that with the property tax and sales tax that we have now, we are able to have $203 million in capacity at a time when we're not looking to do a parks bond. So, really what we set up is 203 million to look at housing and transportation, which when you go to the voters in November, you can say if you say yes, there will not be a tax increase. And then in 2030, you would also have 203 million barring any changes in revenue and things like that that occur for you to make decisions then, but each year you do have options. So, if you get to 2028 and you decide that you want to do a parks bond or you want to do an additional transportation bond, you would have flexibility to do that. It's not as simple as just saying raise taxes and do this. The 203 million in 2030 might become 80 million if you did it a little bit earlier in 2028. It essentially is a a different model that that you would need to run, but I do want to make sure that we don't gloss over the advanced planning part of this in that those are decisions you don't need to make today or in this bond cycle. With advanced planning, you do have the flexibility beyond this budget to move a project like the bridge or something else that you really want to get ready and see naturally if it becomes something that you might be ready for in 2028 or if it's something that would need additional time to 2030. If that kind of makes sense. As far as fire, we know with a fire master plan that we're going to have to get into a cadence of significant additional stations that were certainly not resourced for now. So, we were able to put a couple into advanced planning this past year that the top priorities in the fire master plan. And when we get real estate accomplished and we get those designed, then those would come forward for funding from council. Any more questions? Another part of the presentation. Yes. So, Ryan kind of didn't have to lead up for me, but the other part is as Ryan referenced advanced planning and looking at how we start to position ourselves with some incremental investment to start to identify what those costs may be for for some strategic investments that position us for subsequent bonds as we think about those into the future. As you may recall from the February 3rd, there was a an allocation and appropriation within the mid-year memo that essentially identified 18 million for from capital reserves for this advanced planning and really looking at how we position ourselves for those future for future investments. So, these were shared at the retreat and certainly we can talk through them in a little bit more detail, but four potential advanced planning candidates that we are looking at here. One would be associated with the big jump mobility and safety. This would allow us this actually would allow us to not only start positioning projects in the immediate term to help support the 2026 bond, but certainly would help us continue to move that movement forward for for future implementation funding that would be necessary to deliver on the big jump and really that entire plan, both those plans. The Capital Boulevard Corridor Study Preliminary Design. This is one we've got a strategic opportunity with potential bridge replacements to try and look forward to the fruition of a 2012 corridor study for Capital Boulevard and this is really in that area of Atlantic Avenue. Southern Gateway implementation. There's a lot of activity that's going on between City Gateway that's kind of in that northeast quadrant that intersection, activities at Heritage Park that really are giving us the opportunity to kind of look at that whole intersection. How do we try and make that those movements and that design more urban as we really look at really the density from downtown is starting to move a little bit further to the south. And then some some potential advanced acquisitions along a future extension of Tryon Road where we're starting to see some some heavier development certainly within our neighbors in Garner that have really kind of brought that to the top. So, with the 2.5 million dollars for the big jump, really this is the aggregation of the downtown mobility study, active mobility plan and our safe streets for all which will again you'll hear more details about next week, but really looking at that investment to allow us to really start moving on moving those designs forward to positioning those so that we can really maximize as much construction as we can to get on the ground as quickly as possible. With our Capital Boulevard Corridor Transformation, this is really kind of the the fruits of the vision that came from that 2012 corridor study which really looks at a consolidation of Capital Boulevard both northbound and southbound on what is today the southbound alignment. And then what that allows to is it allows the existing northbound alignment to become part of our local street network. More importantly to to that, it really opens up the space between what would be Capital Boulevard and a local street extension to re-reasset that into its natural form. And really in in kind of concert with a lot of the sponge cities principles, really allowing us to set a natural place to try and help mitigate some of the storm water concerns that we're [clears throat] seeing. It also provides opportunities in partnership with parks to create some activated space in this area as we look for this area to continue to grow in the decades to come. The third would be Southern Gateway implementation as I highlighted as you can see with the kind of teal color there. Substantial development activity that's occurring really on the north side of the western Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard uh corridor and what this would allow us to do is continue to continue that design forward as we part as we are working in concert with these two developments to make sure that we've got a design that's going to work and really does help to to build on the vision that was for for the southern corridor. And really as we know trying to it will I think it will help with a lot of some of the congestion that we've seen in the area because you will start to see some more natural points of of start and platooning that will help I think actually will benefit the flow of traffic as we think to downtown and really hopefully slow it down as we are coming into this area. And then the final one is our Tryon Road extension and advanced acquisition and I will focus on kind of the three parcels that are highlighted there in yellow. Those are in Raleigh's jurisdiction. These have come to really these have come to light in coordination with Garner. They've got a tremendous amount of development that's happening in this area right now. One property that is kind of just to the I'll call it southeast of the yellow properties and then larger properties that are beside that. Habitat for Humanity is building roughly a thousand rooftops right [snorts] there in that area in Garner. Garner's got development that is happening right there just to the southwest of Creech Road and certainly we see this corridor continuing that trend with what we're seeing in Garner and likely with the growth that we're seeing in Raleigh coming. And so really trying to make sure that we've got ourselves cuz with those three parcels in particular putting a street on them essentially is the is the property with very limited if any remnant property that could be developable. So, we understand that as we look at these property is never cheaper than it is now and the longer that we continue with some of these things. So, it's really looking at a strategic strategic acquisition to really protect ourselves as we look to the future. But with these with these four advanced planning candidates depending on feedback today, we could bring we would bring those back at a future regular meeting for for support on leveraging some of that advanced planning funding to help move some of those efforts forward. And as we referenced would really try and position a lot of those efforts similarly to what we what we're doing with the Midtown Bridge for consideration of those larger investments as we get into subsequent bond bond conversations. Council member Stover. Thank you so much. Always enjoy planning and advanced planning is even more advanced and better. I said this before, but very intrigued by all the proposals. uh The Capital Boulevard, just want to make sure there is close coordination as we're looking to the 2050 comprehensive plan about the land use transportation land use go together and I focus a lot on the sponge park, very important on the alignment of Capital Boulevard. Very pleased that 2012 Capital Boulevard study is still being looked at, but just want to make sure that I fully understand the land use implications because it's unlocking a lot of potential and just want to understand that as well. I know it's your transportation not planning, but certainly want to make sure don't know the conversations you're having with planning, but to me I think it's very critical that we tie those two together, both the open space, the land use, but also the transportation improvements. Planning is very much at the table as we're having these conversations. Understanding what that potential becomes as as we look to see this forward. Council member Branch. Thank you. Um First of all, thank you for the work. I do agree that Creech Road connection is probably needed sooner than later. So, I'm glad we're seeing the planning for it. Which leads me to my next question which will probably come back to Allison as far as financing. So, we can we plan it. We we go out and we do everything and I went back and pulled the retreat presentation of the 203 kind of spaced out every four years. My question is are we I many questions but I'm going to start with this one first. Are we limited how much how much are we limiting the number of projects we can do by splitting the 203 between housing and transportation? And that may be a Evan question. So Council member Branch, I think we might ask you to clarify that a little. >> So so right now the 203 203 million is the number that we've been provided that we can do that does not raise taxes. So we're splitting that almost roughly in half 101 to 101 between housing and transportation. We have more than a hundred and million dollars worth of needs in both categories. So if we're going every four years and we're doing the 203, my question is will we need to do something in between these four years or do we have the capacity to do something because we have more projects than we have resources. >> Yeah. So and I probably will defer again to our our CFO to to weigh in. I think kind of going back to to what Miss Bratcher shared earlier what what we've modeled now essentially contemplates 203 million every four years without a tax increase. We can take that on without asking the voters for additional revenue to support that. So if we were to contemplate um interim between those four years interim bonds over and above the 203, that certainly would change that picture and I think it also impact what the steady state number would ultimately be. That 203 would be something different. I can't say exactly what it would be but it'd be something different every four years if you were to do a bond for example in 2026 or 2032 or in those off years and between years. So and as far as impact on projects um certainly there are a lot of needs and obviously you know any amount of additional revenue to support those needs will advance those projects that we've laid out but may not necessarily have the resources today to help. I don't know that I can put a specific sort of number if there was a specific category of projects that you were thinking about how much you know how many more resources would we need to do X Y or Z. We we could certainly provide that for you if you wanted you know if the council was interested in seeing what some potential new configuration of the allocation of that 203 what what it would yield where we would from a staff perspective propose changes to be made. We we can certainly do that if that's the will of the majority but I hope that It it Joe can answer that. >> You're getting there kind of helps and and I guess this is the question that will be helpful. 203 every four years that's what was in the presentation. Right. Um If we were to do something in between so within that next year that we were supposed to do 203, that availability number would be lower. Is that would that be a true assessment? >> Essentially yes. I mean that's one way to think about it. Also at the retreat we did talk about what a property tax increase would look like and how much capacity that would add. So a half a penny would add around 48 million dollars to that number. A penny would add 93 million and we also sized a penny and a half which would be about 136 million. So you can definitely see I think to Mr. Raleigh's point the financial capacity right increases pretty greatly with simply more revenue right dedicated to this um you know these projects. I certainly can't speak to the capacity of staff right to be able to to do all that. I think that's something we would weigh as well. Okay. But you know all this is just purely you know general timing right and so to the point earlier this is what we'd modeled. We can go back and you know run other models certainly if you'd like us to show what you know every two years would look like. It it would change the number cuz essentially you're bringing on you know that debt sooner and so in theory you're reducing that capacity. Okay. You're right. I didn't know if Ryan was going to say something. Um so just going to add uh I was able to work pretty closely with housing and transportation on this project. So let me speak a little bit about both. On the housing side we were able to discuss a number when we talked about what is half of our capacity look like to them and maybe the easiest way to describe it is comparing the bond funds we have annually now to what we would have under this is a 58% increase in the bond funds. So so it is a pretty big deal when you look at it from annual resources on the And then on the transportation side sure long term it's probably a little lighter than what the 2030 bond should probably look like when we get to that point. Um but the starting point when you get there will be 203. It won't be zero which is the advantage of the steady state so you can build off of that. Um but trying to go significantly bigger now could be problematic when you consider that everything we're trying to do is set up this pipeline with advanced planning for the big name projects and outside of some of the programs if you added another hundred million dollars now for some of the projects, there's a good chance that they're going to spend a couple of years being designed and planned anyway and then get into the next stage land acquisition. So that's why we were we were comfortable with the recommendation at the level that it is. So I'm I'm good with where we are and where we're going. Like I recommend we move forward. My reasoning for asking the questions is kind of set the ground for the future. Yeah. And and where we're going and what's actually available and cuz the decisions we make today impact those future decisions as far as bond capacity. So that's my reasoning for asking the questions to try to level set and know what's there and and the fact that there may be a point in four years where we do two say 203 is the baseline but then we do add another half penny or another penny on top of that depending on the number of projects. And the reason why I'm bringing this up too cuz I know the last transportation bond is like between the five districts every district had like three major projects. So you know you're just looking at that number and then you're looking at this and we're talking about three projects. So that was my reasoning. Thank you. Yeah. Um sorry to really beat a dead horse but um take me through it once more. So This is the these are all the GEO projects. But the the LAB projects they're all in advanced planning now. So so someone's doing drawing up drawings for the new fire stations and we're paying some some amount of money to get those drawings so that we'll have a precise a more precise estimate of how much like the new fire stations will cost when they're ready. But then once we've got those we have to fund them through the LAB debt. And that has to fit in the 203. Or we're going to have to do a general tax increase through the budget process to afford them. Yes. So the the 203 was sized to say what is the capacity that we have and that number is currently the 203. And and actually I don't know if I could go back to the very first slide of Kenneth's but um that number represents both our voted as well as our limited obligation. So to answer your question we need to fit all of that in 203 without a tax increase and that becomes the challenge before council and staff quite frankly about how that gets managed. The idea is as Ryan just spoke to on that advanced planning you know that is there to say when we're ready to go to the next phase, you know we have tighter estimates right? We have those drawings. We essentially know what we're getting into which then helps us be able to communicate better to the public as well as council, you know we truly now believe this is the cost to now go implement these said things. Okay. So just I guess to say again to the council like what we're saying is there's if we use up all this debt on these two topics when it comes time to support some of those other things that's going to be a general tax increase so we just need to be doing that affirmatively. Um so And just to maybe add one thing this was also on the slides at the retreat. I did just want to say both city hall kind of heavy equipment shop fire station 1315 and police evidence building are already included so they're outside of the 203. So at least just want to sort of say that out loud. Those were previously approved and and funded projects. So they're already in the model, already taken care of outside of the 203. But, future projects would not be included. So, if you have station 23 or, you know, a different station that you already mentioned, that is not already included. So, we would Right. >> That would need to fit in the 203 without a property tax increase, yes. Got it. Okay, thank you. Um So, when we talk about the fire master plan, it's important to note that there's capital costs and there's also significant personnel costs, just like the staffing study with police and ECC and some of the other departments. So, next week the county tax assessor is going to come in and not tell you guys great news, which we we of course hinted at the retreat. So, I don't want to create the impression that we're not going to have needs in the budget. There are certainly going to be needs and we'll have to make decisions on things like the fire master plan and the staffing study. Any more questions? >> [clears throat] >> Just No, I no questions, just just comments. I would say, you know, I think there's I'm a little bit challenged to sort of give a check mark at this moment for this size and this split. I think one, we're we're under a lot of pressure from our taxpayers that they're they're facing affordability issues at every turn, knowing that we're going to have these other um debt needs that are they're not accounted for here. So, we're affirmatively saying we we're just knowing that we'd have to do a tax increase for those. And on the flip on the flip side of the same coin, you know, we have a lot of residents asking us for a transformational housing bond. Uh and knowing that this is is falling short of their request. So, I like at least for myself, need a I wouldn't necessarily feel great about giving a check mark at this moment and would prefer to like ruminate a little more, ask more questions privately and see back another day. So, you said we're getting another presentation next week, right? Right. Yeah, at your council meeting on March 17th, Marcus Kinrade, who is the tax administrator for Wake County, will be coming to talk about really the current state of property taxes, which as Ryan said is is not the position that we expected ourselves to be in. You might remember at the retreat, we talked a lot about the low and moderate income applications that were coming in. We've talked about brownfields, we talked about appeals still at the property tax commission. All of that is painting a very different picture for I'll just say our FY27 base that we're starting with for property tax. So, he's going to come He did a very similar presentation to the county commissioners and we felt it important for for y'all to hear directly from him some of the pressures out there on our property tax, which again, largest revenue source in the general fund. So, Mr. Rowley, it sounds like we don't necessarily have consensus to move forward today and it would maybe beneficial for us to hear that presentation before we're in a position to give you or staff some guidance and then that would give you an opportunity to get your other additional questions answered. So, I don't think we can take any action today, but maybe after the next meeting and we get that presentation, we may be in a better position to move forward. And and that is fair. That's exactly what we were looking for is kind of a consensus around the bond package that we've proposed, the size, both the size and the components of it. Uh and so, if there is not consensus, we will absolutely welcome additional questions recognizing that we we do still have some runway to be able to potentially make changes. I know that we are approaching the time in April where we would need to finalize a plan around what, if the council wishes to proceed with the bond issue, what the components of it will be and the size. So uh please, certainly if there are questions, whether they're shared now or immediately following the meeting, we would welcome those to get some specific insight into what questions you feel like you need to have answers to before feeling comfortable, you know, giving your full blessing to the staff proposal or something different. So, we just ask that those questions come in in a timely fashion so that we can put that together. Um for me, and I'll only speak for me, is it possible to schedule a meeting to where just I can ask those in from what came up today, I think I'm a little bit more confused than I was when I walked in. Um so, if I can do that instead of you waiting me for an email from me, if we can just schedule a meeting, that way I can say all the things and you don't have to wait. Make sure that you get your answers on the a timely fashion. Sure. >> [snorts] >> Anything else from anyone else? Okay. All right. Well, this is concludes our work session and we will reconvene tonight for public comment at 7:00 p.m. This meeting is adjourned. Thank you. >> [music] [music] [music]