City Council - Regular Meeting

Okay, we've got everyone back from closed session. We will reconvene in open session. And we are on the item of, on the back side, okay. for the purpose of responding to the request for proposals for the development of former UWSP Wausau campus at 518 South 17th Avenue. South 7th Avenue, thank you. Mr. Feifert.

Thank You mr. Mayor so this is the opportunity for you to respond to the RFP for Wausau campus It's been discussion on this at your cow meeting in July Chief Barnes laid out some of the reasons why to move forward with it had some discussion on this earlier in your budget mod conversation as well, but this formalizes moving forward and submitting that proposal to Marathon County With this proposal, there is no cost. There's no cost to submit it, but it does may allow us to meet that deadline Which is August 24th with that being said I'll answer any questions that you have along with chief cop and chief Barnes.

Thank you Mr. Neal

so the uh response to rfp would basically be a summary of what we've already heard correct i mean i you know the main part of it is is moving the police department as well as a partner organization into the main campus building is there an offer of a purchase price there is an offer of purchase price of one dollar okay

All right. And of course, if they accept our RFP, we're still not obligated to move forward.

Correct. That would, what we've asked for as part of our proposal is a due diligence period. That allows us to do the items that were discussed earlier in the budget modification, which allows us to provide real costs of what it would cost to move the police department to the main campus building. What it would cost to move the fire department to the expanded the police department building. Current police department what we're asking here is to approve Going forward to talk so that we can talk Correct if our proposals chosen by the county would allow us to negotiate What we're asking for is that due diligence period?

Okay, I'd make a motion to go forward motion from Neil second second from Trueblood put pressing talk. If someone's looking to ask a question, I'll, I'll do killing it there.

Randy, could you outline all of the details of the RFP for us so we know what's in there please?

Yeah, so I'll kind of talk about the scope of development that's being proposed as part of this. So for the main campus building, like I mentioned, the Wausau PD headquarters will be moved to that location, as well as another government partnership. There's been good conversations with the Wausau School District about them partnering with us and using some of the space in there as well. In regards to the field house, we'd be looking at either a future public safety support facility. Really, this is part of the due diligence planning. There's been different conversations about potential recreation opportunities as well. During that six month due diligence phase, it would allow us to collect the data, provide numbers back to you to make a decision on what that future use of that field house is, how it can be best utilized, whether that's recreation or to support our public safety facility. Looking at the dormitory buildings, the existing dormitory buildings, we would look at a redevelopment opportunity of that. Likely we're comparing it to what we've done at 405 South 8th Avenue, where that six units gone in very similar dimensions and size of lot. What's there currently so a little smaller scale development? That's what they're that's what it's there right now in terms of the dormitory building But that would be an opportunity to create some housing as well as grow tax revenue for the city looking at Mentioned the existing police department that would be rehabbed and utilized as fire station and We have opportunities with the police storage facility, which is currently out in the business campus. If we were to move forward with what I talked about earlier with the field house, utilizing that for storage, it will give us the opportunity to sell that existing facility, which would generate revenue with the sale alone, and then additional sales tax, or excuse me, property tax in the future as part of that. And then with 815 Floral Avenue, which was considered for the new fire station one location that would provide a redevelopment opportunity in that area, sale of that property and redevelopment of it. We've been looking at more of a commercial future land use for that area, given proximity to Grand Avenue and the downtown, we think something of that size might be a great opportunity for something in the future.

So explain to me why the Floral Avenue property is a part of this RFP.

It's just showing and shows the county that we're interested in creating property tax both city and county benefit from property tax. One of the county's goals that they've been working through is taking existing tax delinquent properties or in their case some of the properties that they had, River Drive as an example, a social services building on Thomas Street, And they're selling those off to the private market to create property tax, which benefits both them as well as us. And that's been something that they've talked about that is a priority of theirs.

And so what you're looking at on the campus is the main building, the field house, and the dormitories, correct? Correct. And that's for a purchase price of $1? Correct.

Thank you. Alder Watson.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. I'VE BEEN FAIRLY SILENT THROUGHOUT THE CONVERSATION JUST BECAUSE I DO SERVE ON COUNTY IN THE DISTRICT DATE CAPACITY AND THE CITY, AND SO IT SORT OF SEEMED A LITTLE WEIRD TO NEGOTIATE WITH MYSELF. SO THAT'S WHY I'M STEPPING BACK. BUT I DID WANT TO say that i'm really excited about this proposal i think it's a great way that we can partner with the county and like actually improve that the the services we provide um and i mean it's in the heart of our town i i think it's really great that we would be able to reclaim that as something that's ours so i just wanted to tell you sort of why i'm being silent and it's just because i'm on both sides but um but i i hope i hope you guys support it um and thank you

Thank you. Any other questions? Alder Larson.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I wish I could share that excitement, but I know some of the... I know that... I just... LET ME PUT IT THIS WAY. YEARS AGO, PEOPLE THAT HAVE BEEN ON THE COUNCIL, WHEN I ASKED WHY COULDN'T WE USE THAT DORMITORY BUILDING FOR HOMELESS AND TRANSITION CENTER, I WAS TOLD THAT, I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS BY YOUR DEPARTMENT OR BY THE COUNTY, THAT IT'S NOT WORTH IT. IT WOULD COST MORE MONEY THAN WHAT IT'S WORTH. YOU KNOW, BECAUSE OF THE WAY THE STRUCTURE IS, THE PLUMBING IS, AND STUFF. AND SO, I WAS ALSO TOLD THAT, YOU KNOW, IT COSTS $300,000 A YEAR TO MAINTAIN THAT BUILDING. I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT, I'D BE INTERESTED TO KNOW WHAT how the city's gonna plan on paying for that extra and what's the price differences between the buildings now. And Alder Henneke brought up an interesting point in our last discussion about the city's priorities. You know, it seems as though, and please don't think I'm being sarcastic, but I'm going to give you three examples, but it seems as though whenever the city gets a carrot dangled in front of their nose, they run with it. You know, and I'm going to give you three examples. We spent a million dollars on land along the river where a kayak business used to be because we absolutely needed that land for the Finish Our River Life Trail. That land's since empty today. We spent $900,000 on property where the marathon box was because we really had no plan for that. And guess what? We still have no plan for that. And now we're talking about $800,000 that we council voted on for that floral land that you're never going to get that for that. You probably won't even get half of that because it was worth $350,000 when council voted on that. And so that land still sits there with that. So, you know, I... I WONDER, YOU KNOW, I'M INTERESTED TO SEE HOW THIS PLAN, HOW THIS FEASIBILITY STUDY IS GOING TO TURN OUT BECAUSE I LOOK AT WHY DOES THE CITY WANT A 66-YEAR-OLD BUILDING? WHAT'S THE LIFESPAN? AND THE PRIORITIES, YOU KNOW, GOSH, YOU KNOW, The DPW man you know. When I was on infrastructure and facility, we had that set up. You know that would have cost us $14 million to build that thing. Now it's reported that because nobody is taking any action on it, it's going to cost $32 million. You know and. That's the priority here. That's the priority here. You know, everybody can come with their want, want, want, want, but that's the priority here. And another thing is, it's money. Where are we going to get the money? Thank you.

Thank you. Chair recognizes Alderman Haneke.

I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY ONE THING WITH YOU REALLY QUICK. SO I KNOW THAT THE COUNTY HAD TALKED ABOUT THE POTENTIAL FOR PRIORITIZING SOMEBODY WHO'S WILLING TO JUST TAKE THE WHOLE THING, YOU KNOW, ALL TIED UP. WE AREN'T INTERESTED IN THE THEATER, CORRECT? LIKE THE CENTER FOR CIVIC ENGAGEMENT?

That's correct. The county already in their first round did receive a proposal for the theater and their negotiations on that right now. I have no interest in having a theater and figuring out what to do with it. We feel that the remainder of the campus as well as the parking lot that sits south of the theater can be a shared resource amongst both of our groups for parking for our police department as well as for when they're having events there. So we feel like our partnership with them can be really pivotal in making this work.

And I know the school district had expressed interest in wanting to move away from the deferred updates that they need for Longfellow currently. Do we have the ability within maneuvering in this to strike an agreement with the school district or would it be we purchase it and then we just negotiate directly as the property is ours with the school district?

Yeah, so what we're looking to do, we would purchase the building. It's just difficult with ownership, and we would own it, and then we would lease back to another partner.

Okay, thank you for clarifying that.

Randy, is there anything on the potential opportunities on that dorm building? The dorm building?

Yeah, I mean, to Alder Larson's point, it's a very antiquated old building. It's built very well, and when opportunities to look at renovation came along, everybody that's looked at it said any renovation of that building would be more expensive than what it's worth, so the plan would be to demo that building, and then we would replace it with more modern housing that we feel would be a better fit for the neighborhood, lower density in that area.

Thank you. Right, right. Chair recognizes Alder Killian.

One more question, Randy. Does that Floral Avenue property have to be in this RFP?

It's what we're just saying there's an opportunity as part of this that we can redevelop that Showing that by we're moving a lot of different pieces around the chessboard here And by allowing the police to move to you WSP campus allow the fire department to move to the police department Which negates the need for the city to build on that property which just makes it available free development There's no requirement that we're proposing that we would do it. We're just showing how these different pieces move along and there's benefit to the county in that there would be a property that's currently sitting in city ownership that could be redeveloped by private interests and they would be paying property tax and even potentially sales tax on it for their purposes.

I understand that, but it feels like that that has been quite a contentious property ever since we purchased it, and I would rather see that property addressed individually rather than becoming a part of this RFP. I think our residents should have some ability to say, you know, we paid a huge amount of money for that property, and I guess I'm just uncomfortable having it in the RFP.

If that's the wishes of the council, we can remove any conversation about that. One thing I do want to also mention as part of this, I think Chief Barnes talked about it in your budget modification piece, but because of legislation and closing out of these two-year schools, the county has the ability... For $2 million that can be used as part of the redevelopment of this. A couple of different things we're looking at is first demo of the dorms. We feel like that would be really beneficial use of that money. And secondary is the expansion of that parking lot south of the theater. That would be both beneficial to the theater as well as the city and expanded parking. So just want to mention that. And one thing I wanted to mention from earlier, the 815 Floral Avenue property, We did have an appraisal done at the time we purchased that. Appraisal came back at 870,000. Obviously, it may be difficult to recoup that, but just wanted to make sure that that information was clear.

I recall that you got that appraisal, and I thought the comps that they used sucked.

Thank you. Chair recognizes Alder Trueblood.

Thank you, Chair. So as Alder Neal pointed out in the motion, we're not committing to anything other than the next step. We are not saying this is what we're definitely going to do. We are just making a proposal and saying, should everything pan out, this is our intent. So all we're saying as a council today is, uh... we're not sure if this is a good idea yet but we feel we should meet this deadline so that we can then take the next step so i think we are inflating the importance of this vote at the moment so i would call the question their question has been called without objection and i have to see no one else in the queue

Is there an objection? You're objecting. Okay, thank you.

I'm objecting.

So then I would need a second to call the question from Neil.

I believe our rules are that if there's somebody in the queue, they get to speak.

The rule is without objection, we would call the question. You objected, so we need a second. We need a vote to call the question. And you will then have an opportunity if you are in the queue.

That is correct. I don't believe that's where rule is. Parliamentarian, can you please clarify?

You will still be able to speak after the vote.

I don't believe that I need to call to disagree. Okay.

Stand by. We'll confer with council rules. It's under last page termination of debate. Okay, maybe we got that order incorrect. So without objection, Alder Tierney.

Randy, if you wouldn't mind. Now with this RFP, It's going to see if this is a good thing to do or not. Will it also include, you know, you said the demolition of the dorms is going to be some money. And we know that the county has that money, but are they going to give us that money for these purposes? Having it available and giving it to us are two different things.

Yeah, exactly. I mean, that would be part of the negotiations. They have the money we've requested and said, like, if we were to get the proposal, we would like to see the money used for those two purposes I mentioned. But that would be part of the negotiations after this. Obviously, so... This is, and it's an interesting, it was an interesting endeavor for myself as typically I'm on the receiving end of RFPs, so we're putting it together so we get to dictate things like that. Where we're responding to something and if they choose us, we'll go on a date and see how it goes.

Yeah, and these are just a few things. For me, I know what this vote is about, but these are some deal breakers for me, so that's why I'm asking now. You had mentioned the parking lot where we would share that with the theater, but that would also require an expansion, if I'm understanding this correctly. Would that expansion be with or without a fence?

I can't comment on the fence. Simply what I had put in the proposal was that we would request some of that grant funds to be used for part of the expansion, because it's beneficial to both groups that are taking over that space.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, the question has been called, and there was the final opportunity to speak, and I see no one else in the queue, so... No further objections. We did have a second. OK. So if you'll withdraw your objection, we won't have to vote. OK. Anything else from the chief?

I just want to reiterate that the difficult conversation I expect we're going to have, should you approve this, comes in about five to six months when decisions actually have to be made that tie the city to this. This is, as I've explained to my staff who are like, hey, are we moving to, they ask me, are we moving to the UW? I say, well, there's number one, don't hold your breath because you're going to turn purple and pass out. And two, there are a ton of roadblocks and things we need to know. So far, we have made it past every one of those roadblocks, but there's still quite a few in front of us. So we're not pitching to our staff that this is a done deal because I think there's a lot of questions and information. And your difficult decision, should you approve this right now, comes at a later time. Thank you.

You may vote. Motion passes six to one with one abstention.

Okay, any hanging chants? Mr. Treblit.

Mr. Mayor, I apologize. On item six, I misunderstood the vote we were taking, so I would ask for reconsideration. I thought we were voting on the proposal, not on the suspending of the rules.

Okay, so item 10, suspension of the rules. 12A, referral of resolution. You're asking for reconsideration. Yes. So then I would entertain a motion to suspend the rules. Mr. Neal, second by Watson.

You may vote.

Yes, we're voting to... I have a question.

Mr. Larson, point of... Are we voting to suspend the rules again? You're voting to suspend the rules.

And to be clear, Alder Trueblood was on the prevailing side of that vote, so he requested that be reconsidered. Motion passes six to two.

So the last item then will be 26-0811. Point of order. State your point of order, please.

When we suspend the rule, doesn't it have to be by a two-thirds vote?

It is, and it was six to two is two-thirds.

Yeah, and that's two-thirds of members present as opposed to the budget. That was two-thirds of members elect, which is the full council. Okay, gotcha. Thank you. So it just needs the six to pass.

Okay, so that's file number 260811. It's a resolution from the Common Council approving the alternate bid from PGA, Inc. for the 2026 Riverfront parking lot project, lot E, including construction of up to 153 parking stalls. And we have Mr. Linden here to present that. And I would entertain a motion.

No, not tonight, I guess.

Let's get a motion first. Motion from Neal, second from Larson.

Mr. Lineman. Yeah, so I think as some of you know, there was a developer's agreement done by Athletic Park. We had to provide so many parking spaces, right, over time. And by May, I think, of 2027, we had to have an additional 150 parking spaces. NEW PARKING SPACES. AND SO, WE STARTED THIS PROCESS EARLY THIS YEAR, PUTTING TOGETHER A PARKING LOT, DIFFERENT SCENARIOS, AND STORM WATER AND EVERYTHING THAT GOES ALONG WITH IT. SO, We looked at the property behind the Wasatch Chemical that's being used for parking right now. We established the 150 stalls. It actually came up to 153, best use kind of layout and everything of that property. Met the developer's agreement, and that is meeting the developer's agreement at this point on what was requested of us. As we got ready to bid, there was an opinion that said that because we built these other two lots, I think last year, that the requirement was only for, I believe, 118. One of them was a player's lot and the other one was a... Handicap spots. Yeah, handicap spots. And so we were getting ready to bid that project. The opinion came from the attorney's office. So we were trying to figure out how to kind of fit this in. So we did an ad alternate based on that. So we took off those spaces. We built a lot that would have, I believe, 120 or so. And that was the base bid. But we used the original lot. That was the easiest way for us to get this out to bid and meet our deadlines. And so that's what's before you today. Hopefully that made some sense. We're also losing lots, I think, at the end of next year in the infused. And so this would help cover some of those spaces as well. Mr. Neal.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So Mr. McDonald is knowledgeable of this and approves of this?

I haven't spoke with Mark at all on this.

It meets our obligation, though.

I mean, I feel like the 150 absolutely do. The 153, yeah, meets our obligations. I believe Mark was under the understanding as well. that, you know, the 153 stalls. So, yeah. Randy, you want to add to that?

Yeah. Just to do Alder Neal's point, the 153 stalls would exceed what our requirements are in meeting the agreement, and that's our objective as part of this.

So I think the gist of your question is we won't be building any more lots for any time soon. ALDER KILLIAN.

JUST TO CLARIFY, SO OUR OBLIGATION WAS 150 AND WE'RE GIVING THEM 153 AND THAT'S ALL THIS IS ABOUT. IS THAT CORRECT?

NO, I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE BUILT IT, IT WAS 153 AND I THINK YOU'LL HAVE TO SPEAK TO WHAT YOUR OPINION IS. I THINK YOUR OPINION WAS IS THAT REALLY WE WERE ONLY OBLIGATED TO 123 OR 118? I CAN'T REMEMBER.

YEAH, 118 BECAUSE THERE WERE THREE LOTS THAT WERE TEMPORARY PARKING AREAS THAT COULD BE INCLUDED AS PART OF THE PERMANENT PARKING AREAS. SO I WAS ASKED FOR A LEGAL OPINION FROM RANDY AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE CITY HAD MET ITS OBLIGATIONS, ITS LEGAL OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH That plan to put a minimum of 118 spots in that parking lot E, I think it's referenced in that diagram. I think Mark McDonald wanted more and apparently was of the opinion that we needed to put 153 spaces in parking lot E for him. which I felt was an expansion of the scope provided and approved by the council. So they put together the base bid and an alternate bid. It went to Board of Public Works and the Board of Public Works awarded it to PGA and approved the base bid and then left to council the recommendation to approve the alternate bid.

So how much will this cost us over and above what we agreed to in the first place?

We had a budget of $650,000 for the project. Bids came in low. I think they were $500,000 for the base bid and an additional $54,000 for 57. Thank you. For the additional up to the 153 spaces.

Mr. Wyskowski.

Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah. I don't think that's working because I pushed mine too far.

No, it should be working. Alder Larson.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I am going to fully support this because I believe that Athletic Park is part of the city of Wausau's tourism, and tourism is important to this city, and so I'm going to support this. Thank you. Thank you.

Chair recognizes Alder Hengeke. So I just wanted to confirm.

So we, in an area where we've traditionally just had way, way less parking than we need, we now have the ability to get 33 more spots for $57,500 more, still about $100,000 under what we budgeted originally.

That's correct, yes.

Yeah, no-brainer. Thank you.

Alder Neal. Okay, maybe I got you first. Alder Killian, you're done.

Alder Trueblood. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I also would support the 153 because as Alder Neal is constantly reminding us, these are city lots and they're real close to the riverfront. So that's the end of the riverfront we want to develop. So as we develop that, we're going to eventually need additional parking anyway. So I see no need to reduce parking spaces when that's really what we're developing towards is needing these larger lots. So I would support keeping. So is this proposal to go to the smaller lot size? No. Okay. Just for clarification. Alder Wyskowski.

I'm going to support this because it makes sense, but I do have some questions about, you know, this is riverfront property, which is kind of prime real estate, and it's also in my district, so I'm keen to see that river area developed well in the future. But putting that to the side, what are the plans for this parking lot through the winter and the non-sports season? Because that's about eight months of the year.

Yeah, I think right now it would... WE WEREN'T PLANNING ON PLOWING IT IN THE WINTER UNLESS THERE SHOWS TO BE A DEMAND, AND THEN WE WOULD PUT IT ON THE ROAD.

IT'S NOT SO MUCH THE PLOWING OF THE PARKING LOT, IT'S MORE IS IT JUST GOING TO BE AN EMPTY PARKING LOT FOR MOST OF THE YEAR SITTING THERE?

I DON'T THINK MOST OF THE YEAR BECAUSE IT IS JUST GENERAL CITY PARKING, RIGHT? AND IT IS NEAR THE RIVERFRONT. And I think as, you know, people are using the riverfront and stuff, it's another place for them to park. We have seen, because behind Wasatch Chemical there, the old Wasatch Chemical, right, people do park in that dirt lot. I mean, not only just for games, but in general, to get down to the trails and get down to the river. So, and I... I FEEL LIKE IF WE HAD DESIGNATED PARKING THERE AND ESTABLISHED PARKING THERE, THAT MIGHT JUST BE MORE, YOU KNOW, THROUGHOUT THE YEAR.

I JUST THINK IT'S QUITE A BIG LOT. IT WOULD BE. IF THERE'S ANY ADDITIONAL USAGE THAT WE COULD GET OUT OF IT THAT'S JUST NOT PARKING, Creative thinking, I'm suggesting that we have some creative thinking because the sports season is short and 153 spots is a lot of parking. So I don't know if we can use it for other public works storage or snow piles or whatever throughout the other parts of the year. But also something that some of my residents talk about all the time is could we please get like garbage cans and pick up around that parking lot then too?

That's a good point. Yeah. Yeah.

I just have concerns about 153 cars potentially being in one space coming out of a ballpark and there's garbage all the time on people's front yards in that area and they are angry. Okay. Thanks.

And there will be lighting. Um, that that's part of this project as well. I think one of the things you talked about use of that property right on the riverfront, I think we have a pretty long ways to go with the old was a chemical property before that area is ready for redevelopment. and that building can come down. So I think this would be a good use in the interim.

And actually, this is a good... Sorry, I said I was done. I'm not. Chief Barnes, I just think another thing would be, as I read in here, it says we're going to remediate the painted curbs that are illegally painted, which... I'm not sure what that's really about exactly, but okay. Another question that comes up a lot with this area is the parking not being enforced by the police, particularly during games where people are parked too close to the curb or across driveways or ET CETERA, ET CETERA, ET CETERA. NOW, PUTTING IN A PARKING LOT SURELY IS GOING TO HELP WITH SOME OF THAT, BUT I THINK WE NEED TO LOOK AT HOW WE POLICE THAT AREA DURING BALL GAMES, BECAUSE I DO GET COMPLAINTS FROM PEOPLE ABOUT THIS ALL THE TIME. SO, AND ESPECIALLY AS WE SWITCH OVER, IF WE DO GET THIS PARKING LOT PUT IN, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A CHANGE OVER PERIOD THEN WHERE IT'S LIKE, OKAY, PEOPLE MOVE THERE, DON'T PARK ON THE STREET, IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND. RIGHT. How we manage that is a comms thing again.

Well, there will be signage that directs people to Athletic Park parking. And I think once it's paved, people will feel much more comfortable parking there than on the street.

OR ACROSS DRIVEWAYS OR IN FRONT OF FIRE HYDRANTS OR UP TO THE CORNER WHERE THEY'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE.

DIRECTOR POWLEY, OUR PARKS DIRECTOR, IS NOT HERE TONIGHT, BUT SHE DID EXPRESS INTEREST IN THIS FOR ATHLETIC PARK IN GENERAL, BECAUSE WE OWN THE PARK. IT'S NOT JUST THE WOOD CHECKS. SO IT'S AN AMENITY SHE SUPPORTS AS WELL. LET'S SEE. OH, ALDER TERNEY, CHAIR RECOGNIZES.

THANK YOU. Director Lindman, you just said something that piqued my interest here a little bit as far as lighting. Now you're saying that we're coming in $100,000, $150,000 under budget. How much is lighting going to cost?

About $30,000. About $30,000, okay.

Yep. I know this is going to be very unpopular what I'm about to say, but I will not be supporting anything above the $120,000 for that extra $57,500 because I see it as a want and not a critical need. And we consistently talk about providing and paying for what is a critical need. So, like I said, I know it's unpopular, but that's my thought. Thank you.

Thank you. SEEING NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. OH. OH, THEY'RE KILLING IT. NO? OKAY.

YOU MAY VOTE. MOTION PASSES 6-2.

right we're getting there i don't have any announcement did anyone have any hanging chats comments or suggestions from the public going once gone entertain a motion to adjourn wiskowski tyranny all in favor hi meeting is adjourned Wow. Interesting meeting tonight. Wow.

Do you want to turn off? Do you want to turn off? And then, Mayor, before you leave, I need him to sign those.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yes. I'm at a conference right now. Green Day.