City Council - Regular Meeting

um city manager. Then when we look at there are there are other models that exist too. So we have the homeowner managed model. This is something you would see in Arvvada, Fort Collins, PBLO where homeowners are responsible for curb and gutter and sidewalks adjacent to their house. So compliance would be managed through code enforcement. Um you know with with just like we would look for snow removal, trash, things like that. If repairs aren't made in in a timely manner, there is an abatement process. Um just like we do with weeds. And this is often complemented by a homeowner assistance program. So you know, concrete work is expensive. That's kind of why we're having this conversation. Just because they're doing it on a homeowner scale doesn't mean it's less expensive. It's probably more because they're doing it in in smaller quantities. So there these cities um a few of them did have homeowner assistance programs that exist generally funded through the general fund. Then we have kind of the hybrid model. I haven't found any active versions of this. Um this is kind of how the city and county of Denver handled it pre2022. And so in this instance um homeowners take responsibility for their their sidewalks adjacent to their property on their frontage and then the city takes that full responsibility for the curb and gutter. And I think maybe the reason for this is Denver doesn't have as many of the integrated curb gutter sidewalk slabs, whereas that's something we see more um and and it may be something we see more and more of those suburban communities, which is why it's kind of only something that that Denver previously had. And then last but not least, we have this concrete utility model. And so the two examples of that are city of Anglewood just south of Denver and city and county of Denver Post22. And so this is an enterprise fund just like the water, sewer, storm water fund focused on concrete. Um and then the city becomes responsible for curb and gutter, sidewalks, um pedestrian ramps just like we are now. However, there is a non-general fund mechanism to support those infrastructure improvements. And so when we look at pricing, um I

kind of looked at at the city of Anglewood and and um Denver models. And so Anglewood uses a annual fee based on kind of the the per square foot amount. That's kind of one way to go about this. Um so I use I live in Anglewood. I live on a corner a lot. So I put my number up there. It's $105 a year. And the kind of important component of this is it applies to concrete to the back of the right-of-way sidewalk. So as you have your sidewalk panels, your entrance to your house, that's still your responsibility. But the sidewalk adjacent to the roadway along your frontage, that's something that the um enterprise covers. And so on the bottom, you can see concrete situated on private property is not eligible for coverage. Um so that's just trying to have that really clear differentiation between what the enterprise is responsible for and um what a private homeowner would be responsible for. Then we have the kind of the Denver model. Um, and I kind of say it's a it's a hybrid utility because it's it's a little different than um how Anglewood goes about it. Um, so they have a an annual base rate and then they have an impact fee above 230 linear feet. I wasn't able to find anything specifically related to how they came about that 230 linear feet, but I'm guessing they took the average frontage of of a residential property, smaller lots, um, and kind of set that as the baseline. And so, you know, most homes pay that $150 annual fee. And then if you have larger lots, people that own double lots, then they would be responsible for that additional impact. This kind of second bullet point plays into Evans. Um, you know, we have a lot of areas that don't have conf concrete infrastructure, especially on the east side of town. Um, so how de Denver Denver handles that is, um, where sidewalks don't currently exist, property owners pay either the flat fee or flat fee with impact fee based on the length of the public right of way where a future sidewalk would be constructed.

So it's it's kind of a little more work on the analysis GIS side. Uh, but it's treating those those properties as if they have the infrastructure there even if they do not. So here's where we get into some of the numbers and and I I do mention this is a high level approach. Um so I worked with our GIS team to to come out with you know number of individual GIS parcels come up with some of that frontage to um just project some annual revenue that we could potentially see. So with the flat fee approach that assumes just over 7500 individual parcels. Um, you know, we could consider if if some of those larger parcels have a a a impact fee associated with it, either an additional flat fee or, you know, looking at frontage. But really, if we start looking at that $ five dollar a month, $6 a month, $7 a month, $8 a month, you can see, you know, it it generates between $450 and 720,000 in annual revenue that could then be used for concrete rehabilitation, replacement, constructing um concrete infrastructure in places like East Evans that that do not have it. The second approach is more of the frontage approach. So that's um a little more equitable when you look at at the property itself. So, it is fully looking at the frontage of the roadway, the width of the sidewalk, um, which I assume for a kind of a five foot consistency, and you're really basing the amount on just the square footage, the amount of concrete that is present on that property within the rightway. And so, I I kind of put it just a few examples between 15 and 18 cents a square foot. And with this breakdown, it's, you know, between 484,000 and 581,000. And of course, we can, you know, there is wiggle room on both ends of this. It's this is just some numbers um as a consideration and we can do some additional analysis if council desires. And so when we talk about concrete utility benefits, um we talk about how

it supports the city council vision for economic development and resiliency. And it's really through improving the quality of life and mobility of the city. Um it also aligns with um some of the the city council approved trail projects. I know we've had a lot of conversations about pedestrian safety and mobility. Um, a concrete utility helps provide a a pathway to keep prioritizing that and ensures that, you know, we will have consistent, reliable, and sustainable funding for this type of work in the future. Um, like I mentioned, it provides that pathway for areas currently lacking concrete infrastructure and it's a funding source for recommendations generated for from the ADA transition plan. um which I do anticipate will involve infrastructure components that that are are pretty significant. Finally, it also adds further flexibility of general fund and 1% street sales tax funds to focus on council's priorities. So, this money would be set aside for concrete utility purposes. Um general fund very competitive, you know, decisions have to be made every year on on what goes on and what stays in the budget. and 1% street sales tax. While we we have and can include, you know, trail elements like we have with 37th, um it lets us stretch our street sales tax um funds a bit further on roadway improvements with our our CIP backlog. Um it's it's significant. Um and we, you know, I think very quickly can have um have an end point for that funding for the next decade plus just with projects that that we know exist out there. And so this frees up some of that money that would go towards just concrete, allows us to focus on roadway improvements. If we were to move forward with something um like this, you know, there are implementation hurdles. It would take some time. There's an enterprise fund origination origination process. So we would have to work with finance and legal to to build an enterprise fund from scratch, just like we did with the

stormwater utility um a few years ago. We would have to go into the Evans Municipal Code and and make some updates. We'd have to form a fund, administer a fund. We'd have to look at billing appeals, who's responsible for um for the fund itself. We would have to look at our billing system and and make some pretty significant modifications. Um so, we'd be adding potentially a new fee. So, there'd be new back-end data that has to feed into the process, especially if we're looking at frontage. Um and I'll cover that on the next bullet point. And then we also have some non-utility billing customers that would receive bills um that we would have to figure out how we go about that process to cover um the concrete utility side of things. And so to make all of this happen, I think we would be looking at um contracted GIS services, especially if we looked at a non-flat fee approach. If we're doing frontage, that involves us looking at every single parcel um doing polygon analysis, doing field verification. We do have some GIS kind of part-time and intern staff that that could potentially supplement or if we decide we want a longer implementation period. Um we could have conversations about doing that completely in-house. We also need to understand the current condition of our sidewalk system. Um this is something I I I don't remember if I mentioned in previous presentation. We did pavement scanning. Um we had planned to do sidewalk scanning aside but decided to kind of break that over two years. Um so tenatively we're planning to do that anyway in 26 but that would provide some really good um information for us to you know have some immediate action in terms of how we move forward with um more thoughtful concrete rehabilitation and replacement. And then on the engineering side having a concrete utility kind of changes how we go about annual programs and and plan for concrete. When you have an enterprise fund um it's you know we we have a rate setting process. We have to build out a more thorough CIP to support that rate setting. I think there's there's benefits to that because you know funding is available for those projects. Uh but there is some additional work on on the engineering

side of things that um we would have to to fit into the existing engineering workload. So in conclusion our concrete infrastructure footprint is growing, the cost of maintaining it is increasing and the availability of funds is decreasing. Um, you know, basically what that signaling is is we are operating in an unsustainable manner. Um, and we're at a a bit of an inflection point where some some decisions have to be made. Um, we also have a massive backlog of deferred maintenance and identified projects. We have the public with um a kind of increased expectation related to higher service le levels um better safety for vehicles and pedestrians and you know we have have regulatory um requirements to to remain ADA compliant or spending money on an ADA plan when we have outcomes from that um it it would be it would be nice to have a funding mechanism to support those recommendations. So, as I mentioned, the concrete utility is a an option for city council to consider that could provide that financial sustainability um and stability to how we go about managing pedestrian ramps, sidewalks, and curb and gutter infrastructure. So, that's the formal presentation. Happy to open it up to questions. Um and if council does want any additional analysis, also happy to go back to the drawing boards on that. So, thank you.

Thank you, Ty. Any questions? Go ahead. U Tai, under the homeowner managed model, um do we have any did you get any statistics on what percentage of the homeowner assistance program was in those cities?

I didn't specifically. I can dive into that. It it tends to um I looked into some past years. So it really comes down to appropriation process. So their city council every year makes a decision how much is going into this assistance program. It does come out of the general fund. So it's it's competitive in some of these communities. Um I looking back it seemed like some years there was there was zero. Some years there was some significant money but very little applicants. So you kind of run that balance of if you don't have applicants how do you market to applicants? If you have a lot of them how do you prioritize and select them? So that it there are some challenges with that administratively we would have to figure out. It seems like a long time ago it really was providing like 50% of the cost to to the homeowner. Apparently, they've changed that over the years, but that would for that kind of model that that seems kind of for that kind of

Yeah, I would I would agree with that. Um, like I said, it's it is expensive. It is challenging to bring in contractors to get quotes. Um, however, you know, those general fund resource constraints exist for assistance programs just like they do maintenance. So, it's all all a balancing act. Thank you. I think if I can venture that I think what you're talking about, Fred, is Gley offers a 50% incentive that they have a CIP program, but if you want your sidewalk replaced sooner, you can pay 50%. And they'll do it that year. um because it's a large cost savings to the city to do that.

I think that's what you might be talking about. Um which I think is a really great idea. Um that way if someone's like, man, I really want my sidewalk replaced, you know, they can get it done sooner, but they're going to have to pay half. Probably right, Kyle, because it's been a long long time since I've heard that when I probably when I was breathing.

Yeah. If anyone else want to speak for me, feel free. Hi. Uh, great presentation. Thank you. Um, so I don't really have questions. I kind of have something I want to throw out to council um while we think about this. So, we've got three models. We've got the model that we have that we're being told really isn't sustainable. We've got the homeowner uh supported model, which means basically we're just going to stop providing that service entirely. Um and then we have this enterprise model. Now I think initially it looks very good the enterprise model but there are some concerns I have about what it's saying to our voters and that is in 1992 the voters of Colorado got together and said if you are going to raise a tax on me you have to go through the ballot box. Okay. And we are not raising a tax, we're raising a fee. But I guess my question is is we could figure out what seven $750,000. We could figure out how much we would have to get from each uh uh tax holder or or taxpayer and go out and go for a tax for that amount of money. But we're not doing that because we're trying to circumvent taper. And that concerns me. It's not illegal. I'm just saying what is it? What is that saying to our voters? And what's the next thing that we're going to say? Ah, we were providing this with your tax dollars, but since we're scared we're not going to get a new tax from you, we're going to figure out a way to say, well, now it's just a fee. And I just I really appreciate you bringing it to us.

I I like thinking outside the box, but there is a certain concern I have that we are really [sighs] circumventing the idea of taper. We're not breaking tab. We could do this if we want to legally, but we are kind of going against what voters for voters chose in 1992 and haven't chose to overturn in 33 years. Um, I yield my time.

Yeah, Ty, great presentation. Really enjoyed it. And, uh, I also agree with Council Member Delaney. Um, I also have a concern, but we have a problem. And the problem is we have an infrastructure that is failing, running quick numbers. I mean, I too have a corner lot. I'm willing to pay $105 a year. Um, that's $8.75 a month. That is the same amount of money I spent for a cup of coffee today. And the average um concrete would last 30 to 50 years. And it's going to cost, if we did the second model, it' cost me $5,250 to have my my full sides, my corner lot to have that concrete replaced. So, I don't like option two of all of a sudden have to come up with 5250. I'd rather just over the span of the time I've owned my home just pay that $105 a year. I'd rather have that go into that direction. But I'm concerned about doing this as a fee. I would much rather go to the voters and ask for attacks, but I have a sneaking suspicion that that would not pass and we would be stuck in a position of our residents saying no taxation but still fix the problem. And so we I would have all the hope in the world that our residents, our constituents would see this as a challenge and see this as a problem and get behind us. And I believe that if all of us got on the street and

went and really educated our constituents, we could make this pass. And I would prefer that method. But this is definitely something that we need to do. If we to choose not to go to do a tax, I would be 100% behind the annual fee and only the annual the flat fee of like the 105 a year. The first example, um that's only uh $52.50 a year for a standard lot. $4.38 a month. Um, but yeah, that's a challenging situation for us to come up with, but I'm wholeheartedly this is a a massive challenge that we have to overcome because our our we can't afford to do this independently. We our budget just can't handle this at all. And I yield my time. comments that were mentioned. Thank you. Um I think the difficulty when it comes to this like every we we have a need and again it's a well-intentioned situation but again when it comes to concrete curbon gutter you know there's areas that are traveled um by various vehicles where the homeowners don't have a say who travels it or what type of vehicle travels it. So then if you have big rigs, which we allow anywhere in our city, we don't have an ordinance stating, hey, you can't go in residential areas, but if we have big rigs just going over curbs all the time, and it's not fair to that homeowner to be to have to, you know, fork out money to repair something they have no say about because the city decided not to

put an ordinance on who travels their roads or or goes over because they're a big huge weighing vehicle that is wide. and needs to go over a curve that's in on their property. And so things like that that I find I have an issue with. I I think before any of this gets implemented, we need to really look at our city and see how it runs holistically and then figure out what that looks like for our residents because just bringing it up to our residents right now, it's not going to be a good thing at all. I'll tell you right now because again, we need to look at ourselves first with anything that we do and our if we're going to tell our community, hey, you need to pay this fee for something, let's make make sure that we we're looking at ourselves as well and seeing what are we doing to ensure that their property is taken care of as well. Um, and if we're not doing that and we're expecting them to pay something because again their area is well traveled. I mean, as you can see when we were doing all the streets, I mean, there was huge utility trucks, big rigs. I mean, constantly traveling throughout our city and residential areas where there are kids and I see them going over curves and and sidewalks sometimes because they shouldn't be there first and foremost, but but they travel them. And so again, let's look at our code, ensure that we are um that safety is a concern, that big rigs or big vehicles are not traveling through subdivisions, that we're ensuring the safety of kids, safety of families of our community, and ensure that we are also um being good stewards of people's properties as well. Um, I do agree that there is a need. Um, I do like the fact that we're being creative about it, but I do agree that something like this, um, should go to

the voters, um, and see what they feel or if, um, for the fee component, I would say doing town halls, polls, just to get a feel for what the community thinks about this. Um truly I want them involved and so but I appreciate the presentation and I appreciate this coming forward.

Um cool. Yeah. Specifically to uh council member Delaney's point. Uh well first of all I should ask the question what what do the road ahead dollars cover? Do they not include replacement of concrete? They they can be used for that.

Okay. Um because yeah, I mean essentially we could have done the road ahead the same way and just said, you know, we don't want to increase taxes. We're just going to create a fee to pay for our streets. Um I'm very much the council member who's very pro bike and pedestrian infrastructure. Um, so I I view sidewalks 100% as a a transportation network, not um not as that homeowners uh specific benefit. Um, and so I would I would be very opposed to like a a frontage uh based approach where my neighbors on the corner paid double for um for the sidewalks that I probably use twice as much as they do. Um, you know, it just doesn't really make that much sense. Um, I also wanted to ask did did you say that this would um apply to trails as to like development of trails or just repair of concrete?

I think that's open to the conversation or the direction of council. Um, generally, you know, that is something we currently handle out of our parks and wreck budget. So, if we have a bad slab, you know, parks and wreck will will bring someone out and then use those dollars. So, it is general fund dollars. does compete directly with other general fund priorities. Um it it could be a part of the conversation if if you know council believes this is part of a trail network, a pedestrian network um and wants it included. If not, I understand that as well. This um all of this analysis is just based on um parcel data. So it doesn't really look at the trail specifically.

Okay. Yeah. Yeah. So we're primarily talking about sidewalks. the majority of this is sidewalks and and curb ramps. Um, so with that, I mean, I I definitely believe it still needs to stay city managed. Like I said, to me, the sidewalks, trails are all public infrastructure. Um, I think the city needs to have control over that. if we go to a homeowner managed um system, not only like council member Crabtree said because someone would be surprised with a multiple thousand dollar bill to replace infrastructure adjacent to their property. Um but also that to me for code enforcement is an absolutely impossible nightmare of a task. um [clears throat] trying to determine instead of the city engineer determining this sidewalk, you know, is uh damaged or, you know, if it has settled or something to have code enforcement in any way involved in making those determinations and uh bringing that to the public and trying to force that sort of um very very bad will with the public. I believe um with that same notion I think a hybrid model would be very confusing and difficult. Um so yeah I mean I I understand how we're coming to the possibility of a utility model um because the general fund it really I think comes up either it's going to be a utility model or um go for a middle levy increase specifically citing that. But we we did see that's probably not a favorable um route to go. I think that's the majority of my questions. Yeah. And I did just want to mention I think I think that is what the Gley thing was the 50% is to like expedite that process and I would like to see that. I think that's a great um way, you know, if someone owns a business and wants to redo their sidewalk um get it done sooner and

have that But that's all I have for now. Thanks.

Um, I had a lot of the questions that council member Farah asked, uh, from the 1% sales tax. I I had heard you mention that because that was one of my questions was, uh, can it not come out of any of the road funds? Um, and if so, you know, I understand that that would still be a significant chunk, but are we allowed to even within those road funds say that for example, 500,000 a year is for the concrete, are we allowed to do that with those road funds? Okay. And um my worry too besides um what was mentioned by the previous council members is if we do even go for a flat fee, where are we going to bill that to the residents, is it going to pop up on a water bill? And then people are going great, another fee I have to pay along with this, for example, $150 water bill, you know. Um my worry is if we keep adding on more and more fees again, you know, the affordability goes out the window sometimes for some people and I just want us to be cognizant of that and keep that in the forefront of our minds. Um with any approach like let's say we do the flat fee approach. Um how would that work with businesses and say for example apartment complexes? How would Would we bill, for example, the water billing if it's per apartment, would we throw that flat fee onto each apartment for the sidewalks or would that just be for homeowners?

I think that's would be council direction. Um, generally how we would would do it is we'd tack it on to the existing utility bill. We have that as our our backbone of our utility billing system. Um, I think that would probably be if if you have an individual meter, that's how we'd go about it. If we had shared meters that we'd probably need some some nuance there because, you know, the goal is equity with this. You want people to pay their fair share. Um, we may have to be creative in some cases, especially for infrastructure that's a bit more grandfathered in. Uh, but that could be a a follow-up to this conversation.

Well, just something to think about. um a third of my property is of my older property is not individually metered. So, you know, of course that's um 144 apartments. So, at least we'll say 200 even though I know it's a ton more than that people that if they're not individually build on that, we would have to think about how that would come to them. Um and then My other thing was I did I've been watching the news. I saw news stories last year about the concrete sidewalks in Denver. And correct me if I'm wrong, but some people were saying we don't have the money for this or however to fix it. And Denver was just going ahead and replacing those pieces of sidewalk. So if we did a different approach where we do make people have to pay a certain amount up front, um if it got bad enough, we would probably to at least eat the cost in the beginning and try to get the reimbursement on the back. I did see those news stories. I'm sure you guys did too. But I just wanted to throw that out there. So, thank you. And I'm sorry,

Ty. Is the hybrid model kind of going going past say because of more uh communities being built with the integrated uh curbon gutter and sidewalk?

That's what I would guess. Um I know Denver is is mostly separate curb gutter sidewalk and and I'm guessing that's why that was made more urban environment. Um it's a we're a little different. We do have a ton of that integrated. So I I would guess so, but I don't have u proof. Thank you. And going back on um Council Member Crabtree's concerns, I am constantly getting uh complaints from people that live on the east side of 85 because they have to pay storm water fees and we haven't got any storm water drainage over there on a lot of the dirt streets and and it's hard to try to convince them. Well, we're trying to build up funds so we can do something to correct that. But it's, you know, when they're sitting out there and they've got a puddle of water halfway across the road, uh, it's very hard to convince them.

You may have spoken to the same person today. Um, my kind of guidance in that conversation is, you know, yes, East Deon is at, you know, the bottom of the the the hill a bit. However, everything we do upstream does impact the storm water that ends up down there. Um, I have had multiple complaints about, you know, wanting sidewalk infrastructure on the east side. We've talked about pedestrian ramp improvements. Um, with our current general fund situation, it is it is incredibly challenging to prioritize this type of infrastructure on the east side. But that's that's a conversation we would need to have if we move forward with something like this with engineering to say, here's how we're going to build a CIP. here's how we're going to, you know, what percentage of this money do we want to use on lots that are currently kind of unimproved in in this infrastructure. Um, but really what it comes down to is it's it's expensive and um, currently we would struggle to to really build out the east side. You know, we could talk about doing curb and gutter to do sidewalk on top. It's it's pricey. Well, you got people that want sidewalks, mostly newer residents, I guess is the way to put it, and carbon gutter. And you got some of the old ones. Well, there's no place to park. I don't want curbon gutter. You know, there's no place to park in front of my house unless I, you know, on the dirt right there. And if you put curb and gutter and sidewalk in here, I can't I got no place to park my car. And it's it's a challenge. But I, you know, my personal opinion is they they could use the curbon gutter if if we could put in the storm sewer system, you need something to channel the water into the gutter to get it out of there. But uh I, you know, to try to put uh in an older section of town sidewalk everywhere, I think it's it's it's a

real super challenge to try to try to balance between the people that want it and the people that don't. Thank you. Yeah, I just wanted to say that I think as far as I think the emphasis really should be on um maintenance of existing infrastructure as far as what we're doing. Um because I really haven't heard any interest from the east side of having um you know that neighborhood was developed or I don't know if it was necessarily designed but it it hasn't had sidewalks ever um in a lot of those areas and I I don't know that I think a lot of people might actually like it that way. Um one thing I really think of is like Alice Drive in Greley. I don't know if anyone's familiar with that, but it's like a single lane um road that does a loop and it's a beautiful neighborhood and it is just oneway traffic, single lane. There's no parking, there's no sidewalks, and it's a it's an amazing neighborhood. And I'm sure that, you know, just to use that as like a comparison, I I'm sure that neighborhood would like to stay that way. I don't think that they would say, "Hey, widen this road, add sidewalks." That really takes away from the nature of the neighborhood. So, um, as far as like the east side argument, I I really don't know of any, um, strong desire from any of my constituents to be adding sidewalks or anything in that area. At the same time, I think they'd be very upset to have a new fee to pay for concrete maintenance of, you know, a utility, which they're not likely benefiting from all that often. Um, and then just really my last comment, the more I do think about that as a resident, the road ahead tax, I did think of that as like paying for and maintaining the maintenance of of transportation. Um, so when we do a street, that to me would include street lights, sidewalks, curb, gutter, all that. Um, to separate that out

does does not feel like it really meets the original intent of that that tax initiative. That's all I have to do. Well, I yield my time because you just said exactly what I was about to say. [clears throat] [laughter]

Yes, I was. But I also wanted to say I at this moment prefer to have um it to be city managed just um at this moment. I think it's something that I wouldn't mind coming back to, but currently I feel again, you know, people that I've talked to on in Ward One, they want infrastructure. You know, I have people that I' I've gone to their homes and I know people that live there and um they have small homes with big huge lots um and some of them have moved out because they're like, "Well, we want a home." So they move out and then others come in and the same um concern exists with the new people that move in. They like the fact that they have um more space. Um and some have also thought and considered about ADUs and they stated it's extremely expensive but they do have the space for it. Um they've mentioned they want roads but right now their biggest concern is roads. They would like to have nice roads in the east side. Granted, secondary would be sidewalks because I mean they don't even have roads like that are, you know, functioning or some places are dirt roads and stuff like that. And so, um, again, just kind of going back to what I had mentioned, it's really truly looking at everything. And granted, um, yeah, it would be a maintenance thing. Um and we did pass the 1% again maintaining infrastructure and as um prom uh plea mentioned if we can have some kind of if we set aside an amount of money per year to ensure that we can take care of those things just to start but also even consider like getting into there's a it's the beginning of the year you know and there I've noticed there's a lot of grants happening there's a lot of hey let's talk let's go over Zoom. I'm going to hop on a bunch of them this year to see what we can do for the city because there is some monies out there and I

would love to see us really seeing hey, how can we get like an urban revitalization like or kind of like a underserved area where we can um get money for revitalization because there is funding right now that is starting to pop up. I yield my time. Okay. Any other questions, concerns, things anybody wants to discuss? Okay. Do you Sorry, Ty was asking question. All right. Do you need any further direction from us?

No, ma'am. No further direction is needed. Appreciate the input. I appreciate the direction. Uh and we will u so our next our next work session will be uh February 3rd when we will be discussing uh east side storm sewer. So it uh it'll get even more interesting for that discussion. So appreciate the discussion and staff has no further no further concerns. Thank