 Good afternoon everyone. I appreciate the opportunity to speak with y'all a little bit today and I wanted to really kind of spend some time with you and walk through the history of the student housing projects and the incentives that we've done and kind of segue into our current version of the commercial development incentive program. Kind of give you the history and overview of how we got here and then we'll spend a little bit of time talking about the existing projects that have been incentivized by the city. The ones that are, you know, currently out of the ground or operational and then kind of what is proposed and in the pipeline and once we cover all that, you know, then we can spend a little bit of time and discuss kind of what council thoughts are on, you know, where we are with capacity and maybe we're y'all are interested in making adjustments or taking the program going forward. I think, you know, really what this presentation will kind of address is that the back the history of the student housing incentives and then kind of from a financial perspective. You know how how they benefit the city and then kind of some of the overall capacity that we have through those so I'm all screen share here. Real quick and get this presentation up. Okay, can everybody see that. Okay. So here's the presentation of the analysis will go through the overview first of the previous and current program resolutions so the student housing incentive was initially rolled out in in 2014. Interestingly enough, when we we adopted this. It was not a student housing program, it was probably more originally aligned to what we have now with the commercial development incentive. So it was it was specified for large brick and mortar investment in development. $40 million and up student housing was not initially specified as the purpose and that I think that original resolution probably predates my time as director of the office but you can see some of the requirements that we had their large capital investment high density, you know really encouraging downtown urban development, the $40 million original brick and mortar cost. And then it at some point, I guess, from what I recall is is a lot of the initial interest we had in this program did come from student housing developers. And so, in 2014 dash 045 we amended the original resolution and narrowed that down to apply only to student housing projects. And at that point, both street had been excluded from the original program. The other caveat through that resolution was that we allowed both street to qualify for these incentives as well. That program was open for about two years, I think in early to mid 2015. We did change the program back at one point resolution 2014 dash 049 we re amended it to allow for the inclusion of comparable market rate apartment projects. And at that point we put the sunset provision in there for December 31 of 2015. So the initial program ran for all of about two years in 2018 rain living had had shown up in Columbia and they had expressed interest in in they were aware that we had done this program before for about four other successful developments and so they came in in 2018 and had a project that we're looking at on shop road and wanted to do this project in the city. And I think, you know, through their work through Hainesworth Sinclair Boyd, they approached both city and county council. They managed to generate enough interest in their discussions where we did briefly reopen this program for about four or five months. So that was our final resolution and we allowed rain living to come in. This was our fifth student housing project, and they came in and located at the old warehouse out there on shop road now with their Williams price stadium. Part of the caveat that allowed them to do this was they actually took a reduced tax credit percentage for their project so instead of the blanket 50% that the other projects got. They got 33%. I think they did have some other public benefits with their project that made it attractive they invested in some community community center out in South Columbia at the counts that county council's request. And maybe some other benefits that they provided as well. The resolution was closed shortly thereafter a few months later. And that was the end of the official student housing incentives, as we know it. What we're dealing with now is is we've got the commercial development incentive program which was started in 2019. And you can see the parameters that we've set forth in place for this. The end line with the program criteria that we've had before allows for the 50% tax credit it establishes the taxable investment must see $30 million. It allows for inclusion of affordable workforce outing for consideration as well. All projects are considered on a case by case basis. I think we're what we're dealing with now is is because it's commercial development student housing is not excluded from this student housing is taxed at the 6% assessment rate just as multi family a mixed project would be and so we are continuing to get interest from student housing developers. And as of right now they are allowed to approach city and county council with their project just as anyone else would. And so, Brian can I get you to start right there for a quick thing, if you can go back so I guess one of the things with this particular situation that led me to be. I mean, there were a couple things but that led me to be more favorable on later is the fact that everything that the developer went through as far as going through the, you know, checking all the boxes and then feel like they've invested a certain amount I see that we have eligibility is considered on a case by case basis. I'm just wondering if there is, you know, if there should be some some clear language if we decided to continue this if there should be some clear language that I mean to me as I read that that certainly would tell a developer that this doesn't mean that you're going to get approved but it needs to be clear that any investments any due diligence that is done, certainly is that the developers, you know, on the risk and I know well knows is from the development world. Most developers do understand that but I do think that this developer was pretty much led to believe that you know if I check all the boxes. This will be approved and so I just, I think as a business friendly city we don't want that kind of expectation. So I'm just kind of wondering from your thought process is there a language that could be changed did not give that expectation, or, you know, is it clear it's just, you know, at the risk of the developer to make those assumptions at their own risk. Yes ma'am and you know, based on the way that it's written it's a it's a two page document that we have that kind of provides that upfront criteria and guidelines I mean I think if you all have the interest we could certainly strengthen that language. It's probably closer to the bottom you know so we could we could make sure that it's placed in there more prominently at the end of the day so you know if, if, if student housing in particular you know has has an elevated bar that it needs to get over I mean I think we can be a little more upfront about how we really communicate that to people in that document and in my conversations you know we're still getting calls from student housing developers who are interested and I'm very clear with them. You know that we're a little worried about saturation with these projects right now that student housing in particular is being scrutinized a little bit more because we obviously don't want to build too much of it and then not have the demand for it down the road and that if they are interested in continuing to bring these types of projects forward that they need to really focus on the other public benefits that they're providing so you know are you including affordable or workforce housing are you doing other public improvements including parking. But yeah, if y'all would like for us to start to improve upon that we're we can certainly do that. Ryan I am. I agree with to make a, if we have some verbiage now may want to share that with us before you maybe let us see what what the language really is. Before you take a crack at it. I just don't have a recall on on the language. Okay. I can pull that document up here in a little bit and. Yeah. Okay, or you can share it between now and the time you want to take a stab at it. Can I can I ask a question to Ryan. Ryan you talked about public benefit. Can you back up and, you know, let, I guess, inform us inform the public on the idea of the incentive has to have a layer of public benefit and public infrastructure. But what, what form has that taken in the past, and has it has it grown has it has it grown grown smaller, as these projects have gone on. Public benefit is treated pretty broadly with regards to how we look at it. I mean, I think we've looked at it in the general sense of, you know, we're taking underutilized property, we're placing it into a higher and better use than than where it was and public benefit can be anything from creating tax revenue, creating utility revenue, creating housing where there's a need jobs. So it gets pretty broadly applied. We don't really specify on that. Now when I think of additional public benefit, you know, we expect each one of these projects to generate taxes generate utilities create some jobs and create some housing. I think we also like to look at public benefit, as far as what is above and beyond what's normally expected so are they creating parking that's going to be able to be used by the public are they creating traffic or right away of improvements that will make those things flow easier are they enhancing their property or are they remediating brown fields so you know you've kind of got your standard public benefit that's going to go with any of these just because you're you're transforming that property into a better use. I think you also need to think about that above what is the elevated public benefit so what, what's the icing that they're getting on top of that cake, as well as just you know, we're putting property back on the tax rolls. We don't necessarily specify that as is I mean I think you as you can see there we kind of added in a conclusion for like as an inclusion for you know additional consideration. But if it's if it's something that you know needs to be spelled out and specified more to say that hey we're given more weight if you're bringing more value add, then you know that that's something where we're open to talking with you all about. It's going to be wonderful to research and possibly include you know whether it's it's storm water water infrastructure that goes along with the private development, the environmental cleanup that the developer at the bomber stadium is offering I think is a wonderful. You say icing on the cake I completely agree with you on that spelling that out in whatever form we move forward with with our incentive package, I think would would would be great. I would ask you to maybe come up with some some of those true line items to include in the language. Yeah, and that that may just be as easy as you know we've got a standardized location that they turn in to receive this incentive you know I think we can probably create some additional an additional section in there where the developer really has to specify well. I'm going above and beyond, you know, like you said with the with the capital city stadium by making those downstream improvements and whatnot. Right. Thank you. Okay. So I will move through to the kind of here's the overview of the projects that we've done to date. So these are all five projects that were done up through 2018 as of right now they are all open in some way shape or form. And are operational. Formerly six student housing projects have received the tax credit incentive. Since 2014, fiverr open the sixth one that is not open but has received it is the clay code that project next to Richmond library. And I do kind of want to specify, you know, I don't know if it was in a previous iteration of the life song Lincoln project or not but right now they are categorized as a market rate housing project. They are running by the the unit, as opposed to the bed count. And so they've made that change and that's really kind of how we delineate, you know, what's, you know, a multifamily housing project versus what we classify as a student housing project, you know, are you leasing by the unit versus are you leasing by the bed. Is that the is that the only box that they checked for us to distinguish between student housing and market rate. I mean, they're essentially we put it on the developer to tell us that they're not student housing. And that I mean that's, that's just kind of how it's, it's been classified up until now. And I don't know that we've ever gotten to the discussion I'm not really sure you know how else you would go about kind of bisecting that and segmenting, you know, segmenting it from a technical standpoint. Right, right. Gotcha. Councilman Brandon, this is messy. I do want to add that some of these projects have the zoning of private dormitory, meaning there's four bedrooms, and others do not and from a zoning standpoint that's one of the distinguishing factors as well. And is that a special do they go through the special exception process to get those. I believe so but I'll confirm that I know that they have to meet criteria that there's certain projects that can't even apply because they may be close proximity to residential areas. But let me find out while y'all are talking if that's a special exception or not. See I'm on the line. I'm great Chris. All right, go ahead. It depends on their location and the density as to whether it's a special exception. Some are some are not. When's the last one we did for for that exception. The edge on assembly. I'm sorry. So, we pulled the, the taxable investment numbers from Richland County for the past year. These, these five projects as right now represent $182 million in taxable assessed investment. That numbers probably a little bit low rain living had to delay their 2020 open date due to COVID. The assessed value that I pulled for them was about four to four and a half million dollars. I think they are they are technically slated now to have their official open in fall of 2021. And so my expectation would be that that number does increase. By the end of the year we may see over $200 million by the end of 2021. After the, the, the tax credit is applied the projects generate 2.7 million in property tax revenue, and the city received 17% of those revenues so about $470,000 coming to the city this past year. Those five total projects generated 32,000 in business license fees. And the average annual water sewer revenue for the projects is about $570,000. That's a gross number of just what what we receive as far as water sewer and storm water fees. And Ryan, essentially the county gets the same 17% for that 470 number. Generally, yes, their their millage may be higher so right closer to kind of 20% but roughly. Okay, and school school districts to take take the rest correct. Yes, sir. Well, and, you know, the special special millages that are applied as well right correct yeah. Okay. Here's just some, some general information gives you kind of an overview of the five projects as is, and where they're located. Most of those downtown VISTA area, extending from station at five points out towards rain living at the stadium. And probably want to want to slide y'all be more interested in so here's really where what your capacity looks like across these five projects number of units is just north of 1000 units. And that's 3228 beds worth of capacity. Rain's got a lazy river Sam we ought to go check it out. Yeah. This, I like this charting you've done on these number of units. Tell me about the units again that would with the quad setups count as a unit. A quad would come as a single unit and four separate single. Okay, okay. We're not counting heads at all just the structure in the beds would be the most accurate as would be closest to hands. You know, it's, it's been a while since we've looked at some of the, the occupancy rates for these from what I recall, over a year ago before COVID kicked in I mean, the occupancy for for most all of these projects was in the high 90 range so I think you could pretty relatively safely assume that if, if you know there's 3000 plus beds worth of capacity that's about how many students are in there. Rain rain may be a little off from that number just because like I said they've, they were kind of challenged in their opening time. But I think the rest of them would be pretty accurate measures. And then here's just an overview of where those taxable value numbers that I mentioned earlier. So you can see the the taxable value listed on the richland county assessor site from each project you can see the amount of tax credit that was applied to all of those. The, the overall property taxes after the tax credit is applied and then the, the individual revenue tax revenue that each applied to the city. And then we've also got the fees and utilities for those. So we've broken out kind of the the overall license fees and provided kind of an average annual fee that you know that these tend to generate there they're typically on the $6,000 to $7,000 range. You can see the utility numbers that were provided and kind of an annual breakout you know of what they generate one on one utilities. I will say utilities. That's just water and sewer water sewer and stormwater is included in that. And the one that I will point out is green crossing. Going back to check and verify this because green crossing is located in three different buildings we we pulled the number for that I feel like this utility numbers probably actually a little bit low, because they have about the same unit and bed count as some of the other projects. So, I would think that their utility numbers and their average annual utilities are higher than this I'm working with the customer care department to go back and verify and make sure that we captured all of their information there. And then like I said, you know rain is rain is low obviously because of the partial year. I must have an older version of the slide deck. So here's the the the housing details for what is currently proposed the edge project which will be beside Richland County Library and then lots on Lincoln. Yeah, this is definitely I grabbed. I grabbed the older version proposed student housing capacity. The number of units number of beds I think loss on Lincoln I've got 278 is their unit count and I want to say they're the number of beds that they have is around 630. I believe it's pretty pretty consistent with where the edges as well. And then just kind of did just some general math to try to to figure out you know roughly what these generate now and what the expectation would be for taxable investment. You know should both of these move forward and be approved. You know, right now, the edge between the eight properties that they have, we get about 5000 and annual revenue to the city from taxes alone. So for an $80 million investment, you know and we discount that down to 80% to get a more accurate assessment of what you know the assessed taxable value will be so for an $80 million investment we, we take that down to about 64 million. So taxes would be a little over million dollars and you know we would expect to see kind of in the range of 170 180 tax revenue to the city. That does not necessarily include local option sales tax so that that number may drop a little bit from there as well. But it's, it's a good starting point you know as far as a taxable assessment on what we would think. That could be said for law someone Lincoln. $72 million project discounted down by 80% is 57,600. We would be looking in the range of around 160,000 in tax revenue to the city. And that's kind of what we've got there. You know, as far as the, just the overall financial impact of the student housing projects so I feel like Councils probably a little more interested, you know in discussing you know where where the capacity is, you know, given what we've approved so far, what's in the pipeline and then future demand and I think you know to answer for something like that you'd really be kind of doing more of a deep dive into you know your your overall housing market, you know the amount of multifamily and single family residential rentals that you have student housing projects, you know to include what the university has available, and that is just probably more in depth and technical than you know we can get to from the economic development side but I'm glad to answer any of the other questions you know around, you know the incentives or financials of these. So Ryan, couple, couple thoughts that I had and Chairman Davis and and Councilman, you know, I never doubted the fact that this, this deal needed to be done in order to incentivize and create a value on properties that were our tax sector just did not, did not support and I think it's done its job I guess that's where I am is like how much further did we go, or have we prime the pump enough that projects, if there is still a need, can projects still happen without that I mean I think that it sounds like Ryan, and this is of course the student housing you know when we sunset the one that was just for student housing and did this one. I think the intent was using the model for student housing to incentivize other projects commercial development projects so based on what you're getting I know you said you're still getting a lot of calls from student housing. But is it us that we're not putting it out there to other commercial developers that this tool is available. Is it that this tool is that attractive to other commercial developers, or are you getting commercial developers calling about this, but they're just not coming through the pipeline yet because to me it just seems like it does seem although it, we expanded it seems like it's being more so used by student housing developers and my concern is that saturation and whether or not there's going to be a bubble that ultimately burst and then where we have all these units that are not being occupied and what happens there and so that's kind of my thought I don't doubt that it's been a good project I think certainly we can see from the taxes that we are getting that it's helpful and beneficial to the city but at what point. You know do we pivot from having this be the product that continues to come through and get more commercial development that we know we need. Yeah, and I mean I guess that's a bit of a, you know, that the analysis for that's probably more technical than I can answer to and it's a bit of, you know, a subjective question as far as you know how much is enough how much is too much and when do we cross that threshold. I mean, you know that that's why I've been, I've tried to be pretty clear, you know, as they continue to approach it that. You know the the interest to continue to do more student housing is diminished, I think we obviously want to continue to do more multifamily projects. And that we would we would like to see those but I'm not at a point to where I can tell somebody, you know, no, we're we're not going to do that and it's still allowed, or that if you're going to do this we have you know these x additional amount of criteria that you need to achieve for your project at serious consideration and that's kind of where I would I would look to y'all for, you know, some guidance of how you want to shape that going forward. I mean, if the interest is not to do student housing anymore, you know, it's honestly easier for us if we, you know, if we increase the thresholds for it or just say that we're not currently doing it anymore because then we can, we just continue conversations other than going down the path with these individual developers. You know, we don't need to spend any more time working on something that, you know, at the end of the day counselor the public is not going to have an interest in continuing and doing so. I don't know I don't, I don't really have a clear answer for you for how much is enough. But, you know, we're we're we're good with whatever the decision is if we want, you know, to elevate the criteria for these so I think at some point though we probably end up with more discussions with with property owners and I guess a population just closest to to an area that's being considered for student housing as usual, you know, we've got to the project now that's it's not student housing but but you're looking at a project that's really sort of benefiting the public good with the, you know, the sum of the cutbacks. They, they mentioned that they're willing to do and amenities, parking relationship with the neighborhood, the adjoining neighborhoods, benefits there also going into improving the terrain system. That's that that is attractive whether that whether that's that would be surely private for profit and or just pure student housing. And, you know, those are the caveats we tend to look for, but that's clearly a benefit for that for that particular location. Yeah. Mr. Davis. Yeah, I need to share screen. Yes, I want to I guess follow up with Councilman divine's comment. You know, I feel like these developers identify Columbia as a strong market for student housing because of the high rent rates that can be had. So I think that's why you see developers circling Columbia and come in here and in comparing the growing student population, not just at USC but Alan Benedict Columbia College, the wonderful higher ed areas colleges that we have here. So I think if you blend that with with this incentive. I think that's why developers call Ryan a lot about the specific approach. What concerns me and why I'm thankful that we sent this to subcommittee is is the unintended consequences that we're seeing happen from this, especially in District 3 and Sam I'm sure you're going to start seeing it if you haven't already. You know, in your district is these rent rates are so high that now there's a tier system for student housing, you know, yeah. Yes, I think some of them Ryan. Okay, y'all can comment. I think some of them go for $1,100 $1,000 bet. And so you're seeing landlords at every level. Hold back and bump up their rent rates. A wonderful example is Rosewood, Rosewood neighborhood is is is a kind of a developer hotspot right now for student housing specific single family duplex new construction. So those rent rates are high. And as a result. Unfortunately, we're seeing, you know, the workforce that we need that we need to target is getting outpriced. So where are they going I don't know where they're going. Casey Columbia northeast. Fortunately, they're they're they're leaving the city center. So that's been my biggest concern with this this I guess incentive package. You know, moving forward. Do I think that we should incentivize market rate housing. I believe there is a need for that but I also believe that there's a need to layer in a percentage of workforce specific units in these market rate developments now I can't. You know, we can market raise market rate in Columbia students are going to live in apartments here in Columbia. They're approached by developers that define it whether it is truly market rate or student housing is as Ryan pointed to earlier written by the bed. Check the box we know you're you're written to students. If 80% 90% of your residents have a student housing. So I guess the conversation is isn't about the latest projects that are that are going to get the incentive package is moving forward. Chairman Davis how can we, how can we morph this incentive to have a percentage that is workforce friendly. You know when I say workforce. I think the average income, Ryan correct me if I'm wrong to me if I'm wrong something average median income for a household is $45 to $50,000 and the two nine to one area from your affordable housing committee. You know that if we can do a percentage of 80% of that income or 120 over and above, dedicated to these market rate apartments but then I think that'd be a wonderful blend to go ahead and give that that incentive. So I think for these for these high rent developments to come in and and really maximize the property taxes that were, I guess, giving them future revenues that were weren't were not getting. It's troubling to me and it's and again it's the unattended consequences that we're seeing in Rosewood, Wales Garden, Melrose Heights, MLK, Waverly, and it's slowly, it's slowly have an effect throughout our city on rent rates and not just the city but but the county. That was my, that was my conversation with Council and Chairman I'm glad that you sent it to this subcommittee, so that we could discuss it further and figure out how to how to bundle this up in a different form to to not be so student housing specific but promote market rate as a workforce approach, you know affordable housing the low income tax credit folks. I think that's a whole different development process because a lot of them use nonprofits which they're already off the tax rolls. So this would be a specific market rates. Workforce housing initiative that I would like to, to move forward with the subcommittee. I wanted to add real quick, just because I don't know that I mentioned that when Councilwoman divine asked earlier, I think the reason that maybe we see, you know, an outsized interest in some of these projects as a as Councilman Councilman Brennan said, you know, we are seen as a very strong student market given we have, you know, 55,000 college students that come through here each year. You know, but part of my understanding is is that these these student housing projects get favorable financing as well because they are able to, you know, we spy the bed. And, you know, so probably from a financial and investment, you know, standpoint, the banks the investors that are putting money into the. I think they get treated a little more favorably and so are the people that back them are a little more open to investing and so you probably do see, you know, an outsized interest to doing student housing projects versus conventional multifamily rentals, at least that's, you know, kind of what what I've heard. Well, again, and that kind of layers to what Chairman Davis is seeing is out out of out of state investment now the state property management, you know, look at where that's kind of gotten us into some of our communities. So, yeah, ditto to both of your points and then to me because also there's definitely a need to continue this conversation and and you're right. Areas or their success progress and growth depends on who's coming in in some form or fashion, but the affordable housing. Research that's going on now really kind of draws that circle that you're talking about. Median income and all that it depends on on on how you. It depends on the project it depends on who you're really targeting, and it has to be I think a well rounded city is a city that has has room and space and amenities for everybody. You don't necessarily want to identify people by where they live. Just because you live in an area like me doesn't mean you you fit this traditional profile. That's just where you choose to live. But wherever you choose to live. I think the better we are is when people can afford to live where they want to live. Yeah, yeah, quality development. It's all relative. So our discussion I think continues from this point on and we need to. I think Brian, Ryan did a good job in in actually, you know, painting that picture of property taxes versus revenue in general coming to the city. And he's not getting as much as people think we're getting off the certain developments. You know, but I mean it all, it all helps. But but I think we do need to continue to talk about how we're going to maintain that relationship with developers that want to come, but at the same time. Are we really getting all of the products that we that we need as a city, given our, our goals for growth and development, and the quality of life that that we've sort of, we've committed to in the future. Now that's a little philosophical but the bottom line is still how do we, how do we keep the development coming but and we don't run anybody away for the wrong reason. You know, we don't want that kind of reputation but at the same time we've got to take under consideration impact. And, you know, impact happens, no matter where you put a development is just a question of what the size of that impact and who's in who's out. But I think it's good that people are looking to come to Columbia Ford for investments. We just don't want that the investments to. I think everybody needs to benefit from investment and not be perceived as only targeting certain certain income levels. I'm just wondering so mean what are next steps I mean do we want to give Ryan some direction on some amendments we've want to see the Council or what would be next steps. Yeah, yeah, I don't I don't know if we're ready to go back to council but but I think one of the outcomes here is are we comfortable with with where we want to. We're not eliminating student housing in terms of the incentives that's number one, but I'm here and Brian that there's a there's room for both but it's a question of where do we do we want to overload one versus the other, or have give the appearance of overload. I mean, your options are kind of, you know, you got three options you can continue on as is. But you know if the interest was there I don't know that we would be having this conversation right now in outright continue and disallow student housing. It's a bit extreme, you know, but it definitely reduces the interest that's coming in from the outside. It sounds like you all would prefer kind of a middle ground approach which is you know we're, we're open to continuing to consider these but we want to maybe, you know, elevate, you know that value add that these particular type of projects are going to bring so if somebody is going to come in and they're going to rent by the bed, and they are going to, you know, market, you know, straight to students and have people signing, then we would like for them you know to meet additional public benefit criteria and I guess the next step would be, you know, for us to continue that conversation and say well what what are those additional criteria that we're going to we're going to place on that. You know, and I don't know that that's an easy question to answer just right off the top, you know, different projects, you know, may locate into different parts of town and one may bring more parking, you know, one may do, you know, Brownfield or the downstream improvements. I'm not sure that that's something we're, we're equipped to necessarily answer today but it sounds like that's where the conversation needs to head next. And so I guess if we want to reconvene and talk about this more we can start to put together just some some ideas and concepts of different criteria that we could bring all for consideration and let y'all kind of mull on those for a while and see what what resonates with y'all. Thank you and brother. I don't have a problem with that, you know, we, yeah, we, I think we're just right now sort of posture to say, we don't have anything take that to council yet by way of recommendation. Right. Talking, and let's continue to look at. Let's pinpoint those those real issues, the fundamental issues right now that we're, you know, given the conversations, styling versus the other model, and then also I think impact is still lurking in the shadows. It's not bad, but there is impact and we just want me to understand it, but it's still for staff discussions when we start to talk about growth and future development. We just like, I mean, I think I like what Ryan says maybe he could propose some stuff I think clearly. There needs to be some amendments, raising the bar the public ad. And, you know, and if there are student housing because, you know, the one thing is, and then the one thing that this developer kept talking about is, it wasn't student housing, although it may, you know, end up maybe in some of the students living there, it did not, it didn't get the student housing that Kristen talked about so, you know, that even if you don't go through the public of the student housing. Essentially, it can be a student housing development if you check other boxes so I think that we need to make sure we have whatever criteria in place that if it is going to be a multifamily or not. It's not a multifamily unit, but it's going to be more attractive student housing that we go through the same analysis that we may go through if we it was outright student housing development. So I would love to see just some things based on what we've given some suggestions that Ryan may can bring forward to the committee for us to consider and then, you know, then we can also then add once we see from him. We may want to look at but I think it, I think it needs to be amended. I think that it's done its job. You know, is it at the point where it's ready to go away completely no, but I also don't want a situation where people think that, you know, all I have to do to meet these criteria is I want to be approved because I think case by case basis is exactly what we're doing but that's not probably the perception that developers have and I want to make it clear that just because you can check the boxes doesn't mean it's going to be approved for for this if you don't do other things to make sure it's a smart development for that area. I'm not precise with the, with our definition of both. Right, and I would, I would agree with both of you, but I would like to see immediately we trend away from even the words student housing and go gear up more towards a market rate with a quality of life expectation for for any housing initiative incentive that we put together, make it known. Pretty much now moving forward now that you know the latest incentive and will be granted is, you know, we don't want to see rent by the bed. And, you know, whatever helps y'all can bring forward to let us know Ryan of what what are some of those telltale signs of a student housing developer. You know, we have expectations for the quality of life for for our residential offerings. You know, we don't want to out price in rents that all the wonderful talent that comes up through our education system we want to keep them here. And right now, they ain't staying here. So this is a this is a very important aspect to keeping the talent and growing our little economy here. I mean, going back to the original incentive, you know, I think really part of the genesis of that was was that we had student housing interest but where we saw it concentrating was outside of the city limits so it was further out it was out near the it was across, you know, in KC a lot of developments on there. And, you know, that that may have been of the original light switch for flipping it and making it student housing we wanted to pull those projects closer to the urban core and there's benefit from that you know having the students, you know closer to university, having the students on the road. I mean, you know anything that can take another car out of traffic in front of me in the morning. I'm glad we willing to sit behind less vehicles. And some of these have been close enough to the university where they do make it very walkable for the students as well. And I think that even Matt kennel kind of shared with me earlier. You know, he hears it from both sides as well but students have been a financial benefit to Main Street and some of the businesses down there too so there are some pros to this but definitely understand what everyone is saying you know we need we just need to make sure that it doesn't overwhelm the balance with the neighborhoods and the residents and we need to strike a good balance with the policy going forward. Absolutely. So, Brian, I guess you and your core workers after maybe you want to sit and play play one play with the definition of where we want to go. I'm not hearing that that we need to do away entirely with student housing brand or label, but that we're looking for some sort of a balance, especially for city core. We want people to come back to, you know, to maintain the core, but but not. I guess not overdo the brand. And, but there's a, there's a point. I believe it if you go back to the to our meeting last week. We talked about to make it was on her report for the affordable housing task force. We're looking at the am I, we want to make sure that as we even do these kinds of development to the people that that that they have a need for affordable housing as we understand it as we know it and as we'd like to see it that there's there's some incentives, you know, for development in that area as well. Follow me. Yeah, right. So, it's not necessarily separate from what we're doing but at the same time that that's part of that impact that I'm looking at. We want to make sure that we do maintain a good mix of residential living in the city. Yeah, we would add to me. Um, yes. And I can I guess I would just other thing. Ryan just said, I'm not, I'm not opposed to housing for students at the end I know students have a huge benefit on, you know, we actually, I don't think I'm not sure if I shared it with you guys but we just got named the top in the top 25 cities for Generation Z. So, you know, clearly we want to have, you know, grow that that talent here. So this is not about students per se this is to me it's about the saturation of the market and whether or not there's going to be some burst of this bubble at some point and, you know, and then we have units that are not kept up so that that's my thing so I wanted to make that clear. Okay. Okay, so next step. Ryan you're going to go back and play with that. Not definition but criteria. Yes, sir. And we'll go back well we'll look at the, you know, some of the criteria we can set up and look at some recommendations for value heads that we can bring whether it's, you know, geography, public parking, the image of affordable workforce housing and we'll just try to bring bring y'all some ideas and concepts that y'all can look at and make some decisions on. And the check boxes for clarity. Yes, sir. Anything else will and to me. Chairman Davis you run a good meeting. I appreciate, appreciate your vice time. Yeah, right. Okay. Staff. I think. So good here. I think Ryan's got his marching orders. All right. So, I'm going to go back to the interim then let's just. I'm trying to time sort of communicate on this leading up to the next meeting. Yes, sir. Thanks for pulling that together. Everybody good. Okay, and team. We're good. Thanks team. Thank you.