 provided. We're estimating annual CIP of about $93 million annually, and that would be from FY24 through 28. What we've also done is programmed 5% annual revenue increases over the forecast period. Start mortars revenues, that will start in FY27 and we're estimating about $2.5 million. There's no minimum allowance adjustment or revenue associated with that adjustment, and the forecast meets our debt service public requirements targets of $2.2 over the postman's period. Is the debt service coverage of what kind of leeway do we have in that 2% is just ago? So 2% is the target that has been established for the city as it relates to meeting and maintaining your creditworthiness and demonstrating financial aid, some of which will serve your debt. The target is about $1.5 million, but the objective is to demonstrate that as you go forward. So we'll have a little bit of a reason. Yes, but we really try to stick with achieving the target so you can maintain your credit rating and so forth. So giving you a highlight of the initial results, line one highlights the annual revenue increases, line two highlights the debt service coverage, and you see we go from estimated $1.84 or $2.0 by the end of the forecast period, and we have the 93 million annually in CIP. So going into a little more detail as it relates to the financial plan, you can see, not just on here, but also you can see we're generating total revenues of about $184.6 million by the end of 2028. That's based on existing rates. Upon incorporating the rate increases, incorporating the estimates of other revenues, we get to about $215.9 million. We will then be able to service our annual operating expense requirements, which is line 12, along with the debt service requirements, which is the total aggregators highlighted in line 16. As you can see in line 15, you start to add debt service starting in 25, 26, and it goes up gradually as such. We have some funding of CIP projects through cash, and ultimately we produce a positive operating balance, and in aggregate it all allows us to commit our debt service coverage requirement in 9.21. That then becomes the impact of that annual 5% as it relates to meeting your debt service coverage requirements, having a stable annual increase, and being able to support 93 million in CIP projects annually. Robert, we've traditionally, and well not traditionally in the seven years I've been here with, we've tried to do 120 CIP. Is the 93 going to be enough for us to meet our requirements to EPA? I'll address that in the later slide, count on that. Thank you all very much for all that question. Let me just say it on the mic. So the questions I'll bring about the 2.0 debt service coverage is a very good question. This works from 1.84 to 2.0. Looking at this plan, though, I've already spoken with my financial advisor Brent. We've talked through this plan. I didn't have these exact numbers when I talked to him this past weekend. I think I used 1.81 as my starting point. I had to make a few calculations and that was kind of last week. So we're very comfortable in talking to the rating agencies with this plan. The near certainty of the 5% each year, growing that up to the 2.0, and then realistically, even though we're talking 93 million each year, we've had so a year that recently I think I've been much lower than that amount. So we feel pretty comfortable going and talking to the rating agencies. And I'll remind everyone, rating agencies don't drive everything that we do, but they do have an impact on what we pay for that service in the interest. So it is important. It's a very important aspect of the overall plan. So sometimes I feel like we get too much focus on it, but it is still an important part. So going into financial considerations. Financially correct, man. So you're projecting over five years, 51 million dollars in rating by the 50th year, right? That becomes a total. That's five years. So then your additional revenue. I like when the mayor brought up last time, I'd rather use rate and revenue, not revenue and revenue, but it's just easier to compartmentalize it too. So your additional revenue, you're at the main at 17 million dollars a year. Would that be line 10? Yeah, 10. So that's made of what? Okay. So that's made of other services that you may provide expansion fees, cutoff fees, paid fees, certain other revenue components that we don't use a rate revenue. So where would the economic, where's the economic development? So if we do add scout motors and 10 hotels and 400 homes and blah, blah, blah, blah, where would all that be? So currently, scout motors is in that number of other revenue. Correct. Where would just be traditional, organic growth within the city economy? Line one and line two. Line one, line two. So minimal, you're projecting minimal growth. Yes, and it's 1.1%. How did you come up with that number? So what we've done is historically, we've looked at what you've done historically as it relates to adding customers. You also look at your build-up record and relates to even anticipating customers, whether it be commercial, live commercial, industrial, for example, the scout motors. And then you have a ceiling and a floor. And then we look at, you know, economically, what is your planning to be getting as it relates to build-up? And in understanding the combination of those numbers, then we go about establishing a growth rate that we deem to be appropriate with what you've done historically and what we foresee going forward. So theoretically, if you had a 2% growth rate, you would not need as much of a rating increase, or would you? I can't say that would be the case, because a 2% may give you a few more dollars, but it would not prevent the need for a rating increase. Why didn't they say that? I said, okay, let's try. Well, I'll use a different number. So if you had a 6% economic growth, then it is reasonable that that 6% economic growth would offset the 5% rate increase. It's reasonable to say that that's the S, that that's 6% would offset the portions of the rate increase that would be required. So I guess I'm trying to make a point, but Yollard not working with me very well. My point is, I'll make it as clear as possible. My point is, the better your economic growth, that would offset your need for a rating increase, which is why I would like to have the word revenue mean revenue in the word rate mean rate. So all I'm saying is that if we, you know, I mean, no offense everybody, but 1.1 growth over the next five years is not fantastic. Right? Everybody? Well, actually, I don't know that. What is the industry standard? What are cities, what rate are cities growing at? So it depends on where you are. In this part of the country, we're seeing somewhere in the range of 1 to 2%. In other parts, we're seeing 3 to 4%. What are other parts? For example, if you look at somewhere like, let's say we're all in North Carolina, which is one of the fastest growing areas in the country. They got 12.8% overall growth. Right. But we're not using 12.8% to the next day. Right, that's their overall growth. My point is exactly, not a place in South Carolina, you're seeing 1 to 2%. You know, but again, it's about how you find a balance because you don't want to, while you may estimate growth, it's not guaranteed and you don't want to overstate revenues. So you try to find a balance that's appropriate and representative of which is fine, but also not my point. My point isn't about either criticizing or nor supporting your 1.1% growth because that's your number, not mine. And I don't have any data to tell you it should be different, right? So I don't know. All I'm saying is, if that number was higher, more growth would be better than less growth. I'll make that in my state. Yes. More growth is better than less growth. And if you look at other areas in the region, otherwise known as the Southeast, they have higher growth than we do. Are we talking apples and oranges here though, when you're talking about economic growth? Because we're talking water here, water and sewerage. We can't have economic growth in that water. Yeah, but some of that water has already been used. I mean, if they're moving into a building that's been using 100,000 gallons a year, well, it's got to be new economic growth. I'll realize my statement. There's new economic growth, which I mean, I've been finding that economic growth is new, not old. Yeah. And I think the bigger, your point, I think the bigger picture is the economic growth and how it can impact water and water coming onto the system. So I totally understand what you're talking about. And what I would like, assuming and if this gets adopted, what we obviously, what I'd like to see going forward is this way out that way, integrate economic growth, obviously we see how that affects all this. So again, I'm not anti-rate increase, but I think it's the distinction of rate versus revenue should be noted. And the concept that economic growth could most likely offset the need for future rate increases. And I don't know to Mr. Brown's point, if you heard the discussion, probably not, Robert, because we're all just going from meeting to meeting today. But there was a really interesting discussion in the economic and economic and development infrastructure committee about growth. And I think one of the things that you all probably need to clarify from council and maybe Theresa helps you do this. If you approve the 5% over five years, it is in a sense locking us into doing that. However, if these other things are going on through our economic development efforts and some of the things that we're learning and trying to move in a certain regard with, if that produces a certain amount of growth, that's then producing developers to do what they say they would love to do if they see a certain amount of growth. And if it's significant, what future councils have the opportunity to adjust based off if you had enough evidence at that point in future years to project a higher growth rate into the right analysis. That's a very interesting point and a great point. Thank you. It becomes the will and policy of the council that in the future, if you go and you see that there is more growth and you're producing and we're getting more growth, you have more costs, but there is an opportunity to support our health. And even on the other side, if you're not producing enough to meet your requirements under this plan, it then becomes policy misogynized by council on either side, where and how to go and how to adjust so that you're meeting your requirements. So that's very important. That's always the other word. You're going to need Robert every year. Maybe not, but then it becomes your will to do it. We get done with our EPAs, linking just focus on maintenance and stuff. That changes the dynamics as well. To that exact point, the plan is to show you financial model results every year. The request is going to be that levelized 5% revenue adjustment or adjustment, excuse me. We're going to re-evaluate those numbers every year. Our hope is that we'll be able to demonstrate the ability to execute the 93 and make the financial performance which showed for the next year, we could plug in a capital improvement plan of maybe 100 million or 110. Once that gets to the point of maximum need or maximum ability to execute, then we wouldn't be looking at, okay, this is the rate that needs to be adjusted. Or if we've not ever seen unmodeled growth, I'll say this. Engineers are conservative by nature. And once the financial pass results are known, there are even future performance. But in general, when we outperform the financial model, we're a little more aggressive and moderately now, so we'll have to see where that goes. I want to give you an idea of a flavor of what we can do with the 93, 93 million. Councilman DeVall, I'll give you your specific question in a moment about consent to pre-compliance. So we have trimmed our water CIP back from the original 120 request back to about 28 and a half. But you can see what we're still investing in a lot of areas. Repairing, replacing hydrants that are out of service definitely needs to be done. Catching a couple of liters of EMI things out that need to be done that were more problematic, doing some improvements at our water treatment plants. And addressing water quality, it's not quite in the pace that we work before, but still putting a good bit of funding into the water quality improvement area and serving our customers enough where we get a lot of our components. So what, the projects fell off from two weeks ago to today. So we deferred it out. I'll get you a clear detail. Yeah, that's what I'm a little angry about. Rosewood is one is not on this list because it's in procurement right now. Right. It is. Rosewood phase two moved out a year. Phase three moved out. Shandon is still on this list. And that's on our five year projection. So I'll get you the detail list aside by time. If we approved this five year where Ms. Wilson said we're locking in to these misinvestment for five years, what about three years ago when we locked in to $21 million for the three phases of Rosewood? What happened to that money? So we locked in the plan, the funding didn't follow. So we two of the three years of funding did follow. Correct. Two out of three years, we had a 0% rate increase. So we had to collapse. And then phase one would be under construction right now. Calvin had not been waiting for the skip grant. So we're waiting to see that we will award that. But that's the funding we're moving forward. Phase two, we can. How many groundwater projects down the road in year three, four, five, if you're planning a discipline you are there compared to the need now for groundwater projects? We are trying. I have to give you a number of how many. I mean, we've got two phases in Shandon and three phases in Rosewood. The base into the five year point is how quickly we advanced through them. But then we had some other areas on the perimeter of town that we were going to move forward with. And those have fallen off of this year's plan. So we'll have additional investment in forestry, a few of those, but I'll get to the side-by-side comparison. It may help answer any questions. You need to answer all of it. Yes, ma'am. I'd be glad to. So let's talk about. And what's the dollar amount? The difference in the dollar and the law. So for water, our request two weeks ago was $40 million, it's $28.5 right now. Of course, that comes every year. But again, we're hoping to be able to outperform the financial model and stuff like that. Did you say? Yeah, yeah, please do. So just to make one point, coming back to your question, how do you relate to the budget? And how do the projects fall off and what happened three years ago? So as you know, on an annual basis, you do the operating budget, operating and capital budget. And while you may have a CIT that has projects five years out, at that time of the budget, you look at that budget here and then determine based on what project to handle, what should be done, risk of failure, all the stock condition of the asset, et cetera, et cetera, whatever you're replacing, if it needs to be done. At that time, it's approved. And then whatever else isn't approved may get moved forward, et cetera, et cetera. So while you may hear that a project fell off or is moved, it's not that it was funded and isn't funded. But in the budget here, if it then is funded, it then goes and the funding stays in an account and it's eventually taken off the CIT. Robert, it's adjusted by y'all, basically. Yeah, I just. Okay, I just, I know that, I know that. But that, and Robert, I think was touching on a little more about the why or the decision making or judgment calls that have to be made on which project. So I don't want y'all to kind of gloss over that. I think that is very important. They counsel and look at it to hear, you know, are there life safety issues? Are there, like, what, what, what helps you make these decisions as we're making decisions about the big number of the projects that get done? Are they in process? Are they almost done? How do you, how do you determine? Yes, ma'am, argument, typically it's, it's some public health safety regulatory compliance. So number one on our list, water quality, very high on our list, fire protection ability to move the work around our system capacity. We call that very highly listed flow. So, and I think we funded engineering for a lot of these projects that they're designed and they're waiting to go. And we've also seen some cost escalation. And so as our design consultants come back and say that, that project that was originally estimated at $8 million is now $12 million dollars. I think for last year with a zero, I mean, it was a 80 instead of 120. And 40 last year, sir. 40? Yes, sir. We haven't spent 120. That was our whole purpose in our last two weeks. Discussion was is that we keep building everything off, but we can't actually get the work done. So let's, let's plan what we reasonably believe we can get done and let's focus on that. But if we have 120 out there and he's got the engineering done on it, don't you think we will be able to spend 120? We haven't done it yet. We have, we have averaged over the last five years a CIP of 80 million and execution of 80 million. So I can't say we can't do 120 because we haven't had the opportunity to do 120, but we also have not demonstrated to you that we can do 100. Well, the opportunity comes from the council budgeting 120 and you getting the engineering done so that you can be shoveled into the other business. They have an opportunity this time with the 93 and I'm sure that's about to get to that demonstrate, which I'm looking to see that demonstration to. We, it's an ongoing discussion with this team and they're working really hard, but there's some other built-in things this year like the grant funds and some federal, other federal dollars. Clint's going to talk about, so maybe that'll give us a little peek into what they can do without you all pulling the trigger to budget all the way to 120. They're almost going to be a little bit over 120 if you factor in those additional funding sources. And if you plan in a five-year plan and they know that's what the plan is, it also gives them flexibility to get to where you are. And so maybe this year he doesn't get, maybe he gets to 93 and next year he says, you know what? I'm going to get to 120 and the next year drops because he doesn't need to get there because he's still catch up ground. But right now with it, when we go year to year, they can't really plan that. But I also tell you to that point though, Mr. Mayor, I don't understand why you couldn't have, for example, designed all three phases of roads would, right? Why not just do them all at the same time? I know, too bad. Are we finished with the design of phase three? We are. So we're done with the design. You're designed with one, two, and three. Yes, sir. All right. So to Mr. DeVall's point of there's a carryover of $40 million. What does that mean? So there's a $40 million VIP from last year. The projects that y'all have been approving on council agenda, we're working down that 40. So, but if part of that was designed of a waterline improvement at Irmo or North Main Street or something like that, we may not be ready for construction. We may have just funded the design and this year then we've been followed with it. The ability to execute is very important when we understand that. Now the 64.5 that you've got in wastewater is actually that plus $35 million in the Department of Commerce dollars to support scout motors, plus an additional $10 million in the skip rent that we got for lower Can't Bring Creek. So, Clint, I just kind of bottom line it for you. I think what Mr. Brandon is trying to say in a very nice manner. But we spent millions and millions of dollars dealing with Crane Creek, this outside of the city, and he's got a neighborhood that's on his ass for lack of a better term about making sure those three phases get done. And he wants to know why we can't get that done. They can care of the current system before expansion? Yes, sir. All right, well, we'll take that under advisement and revise our CP and get back to you with some Rosewood things too. I appreciate that, sir. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Okay, so again, the opportunity to do more. I want to talk about some of the risks, because you asked about the risk and then I'll put things about that. So what that is going to is, I do need to say that if EPA denies our forced major request, we'll have to put more into wastewater improvements and less in the drinking water improvements, even more of a disparity in the balance there. If the fast regulation for drinking water becomes a reality in the side of your planning period, all bets are off. That could be tremendous. But they should have investment and late adjustments revenue needed to try and bother that and we're doing everything we can to make sure the reason is applied there. Well, we talked about that. I mean, that's a, we have a onset number though. There's a lot. Oh, yes, sir. It's certainly made, right? Yeah. Well, it's between the hundred and eighty-two hundred and capital on it. It's over 20 million additional O&M costs. And that's the real kick or two. That's a lot. It's tremendous. Yes, sir. So I wrote down 200 million. That would be a bigger amount. Yes, sir. That would serve. You know, if inflationary pressures, if we continue to see high-single and double-digit inflation, you know, those are game changers that we have at models. And all those things have implication, the ability to deliver on the obligation to potential oratoriums, extended consent decree time frame. So the less money we spend, the longer we go through this consent decree, the quicker we can spend the dollars, the quicker we can get out of it. But we've got to be able to execute non-extendings and figure out if we're there. And they're reducing the rate of replacing the new infrastructure. It's certainly a risk that we're facing. The opportunities that we really like about this plan is that stability for planning purposes. You can hear me spoke about that. The ability to plan that and the proposed increase of five a year is higher than what we've averaged over the last 15 years and certainly over the last three or so. We believe it would be potentially favorably viewed by the fine-rating agencies. Jeff spoke with Robbitson about that. And we think there's some positive viewing of the ability to willingness to adjust rates annually. It will give us a chance to demonstrate that we can do more than a CIP. Allow the EPA to respond to our four major requests. Because that takes a lot of the pressure off, gives them everything there, and that's a clue. And then that potential for increased CIP for two or three years, based on the current activity of other beyond what's involved in the industry. And we'll let Robert talk about utility bill impacts and next steps. And then we'll answer questions. From the perspective of the utility billing patterns, you know, your typical average usage is gross for those, you know, just on the 6,000, let's say gallons per month. So the line highlighted in blue, you can see the proposed water bill will be about $25.02. The proposed sewer bill will be about $46.17. The total aggregate increase will be about $3.39 per month. When we look at that number, as compared to other, let's say, neighboring or comparative systems, we can see that on the water side, we're just beneath the average. You know, you could say that we're on the lower end. And when you look at the sewer typical bill, you know, you could make the same reference that we're on just below the average, we're on the lower end of what others are currently charging for. I know that G is at $5,984. That's just a math thing. So would that represent a family of four? Would it represent a house of 2,000 square feet? Could we put that in non-usage terms? It represents a family of four. So what we really do to understand what that average is, and you look at your billing information for, let's say, your residential class and based on the residential customers and the usage. Yeah, that's what I'm saying. I get that, but I'm just trying to put it in. So, I mean, it would represent... I think the Richland County demographic is under four. It's around three. Our household would look at it in terms of Richland County, but again, the city may have a little different. So it's really a family of three to four. Yes, sir. The 6,000 figure is almost university. And then, when you look at it, it's everybody uses this problem. Typically, it depends, but it's between four and six, and it just depends on the answer. So next steps. You know, look at all the proving, the recommended adjustments, monitoring the implementation in FY24 under operating and capital program. Specifically as we enjoy the capital projects and then ultimately, you know, monitoring financial performance of the system. We look forward to this meeting. So thank you. Any additional questions? I would say good work. Thank you all for your time. So Mary, how does this stage, back to the end of the adjustment for the Rosewood project, change moving towards that next phase? So the overall 5% over the next five years is that are we safe to move forward with that for an hour, but I think we're going to have to for us to get these projects completed. Now, you know, obviously if we see a big growth increase then that may level out. But, you know, we haven't had an increase in three years. It took a pretty sizable hit, you know, to help people through the pandemic. Our costs to operate aren't going down. We're doing everything to be more efficient. We don't have nearly as many employees as we have over there. We're doing the work that goes right here and do. I think for planning and giving us the flexibility so that we can address issues like Rosewood and other stuff in between, this is what we need to do. Thank you so excellent out there. I'm pleased that the mayor pushed this thing forward. It takes away a lot of the political pressure too. And I'm not worried about that now. I think it's a good thing to do. Okay. Thank you. So we'll continue with our discussions on additional items. One is regarding our parking system and specifically the parking fund and throughout the budget process, you know, we bring you all the funds. So we still got to bring the elephant in the room to you next week and general fund. But we will pretty much cover the other funds and enterprise fund by parking. Most of you also are aware of a parking study that we've had underway. We, I staff have seen iterations of it. We pushed the consultant a little bit more and pushed the consultant a little bit more. And so we do have it. I think that it is and deserves a certain level of attention from you that I don't want to just throw at you in the midst of the bigger budget discussion. I mean, we need to get through the budget discussion and spend the right adequate amount of time on that so I can get all of your feedback. So my goal is to get through the budget discussion. The parking fund really is pretty stagnant for the most part. We're going to highlight a few items that are we're already underway and things that I think are good efficiencies. We need to go ahead and do. But there are not things that would be impacted by anything coming out of parking study. And then once we get through budget, we'll bring back the parking study and get that analysis in front of you and feed that. And I appreciate you putting it like that. I think I think it is important that that follows. So with that, we will give you kind of what it is and what it has been and talk about low hanging fruit that we feel like we can go ahead and address or include some facilities related matters as well. And I see a lot of our wonderful parking staff. Thank you, Ms. Wilson. Thank you. We'll be with you on Mayor and City Council. As discussed, we're going to move forward with the continued budget discussions to be able to focus on the parking fund, which is an enterprise fund of the city as well. Our proposed parking fund budget is $10.4 million. We'll continue with the highlights of the parking fund focusing on revenues and transfers in. Revenues are looking pretty good. Jeff said that this is the last time that we can reference. Pre-pandemic. And that's very true. That is the intention of this would be one of the last completely referenced. We didn't even have that level with regard to our revenue. If you may see it, some in the general fund. But parking fund in particular, because parking fund was one of those revenue sources that probably we saw the most impact with regards to the pandemic. So we're glad to see that revenues are looking really so better than pre-pandemic in some ways. So revenues were projecting at $10.2 million, which is $1.1 million or $12 million over the creative budget, but it's in line with actual collections. So all that the 12% sort of give you a thought that that's what we're getting, expecting to improve any collections. That's just our budget. Parking decks and parking lots are some of the biggest increases with $1.3 million. And that is in part due to the new decks being totally reflected in the coming budgets that were added this past fiscal year, several agreed. And of course, special revenues. Columbia is a very happening place. A lot of activities, a lot of things going on. And the trucking system is also benefiting from those special events. On the parking garage, just how many of those spaces are sold outright to somebody? So we have, well, I have a slide that's going to talk to some pieces of that. So I might need to speak to again about be ready to talk about what we have in terms of monthly partners. Good question, sir. I'll be patient. Ms. Wilson has mentioned that she is as a parking study that she is going to present should be headed to the city council for budget discussions. I wanted to give this one out of thought and bring it back to you. So I want the labor on that piece, but we'll go on to the slide where we get to what I have around mentioned. With regards to expenditures, the parking fund budget, parking operations, we would insist of all of the staff, which would be the enforcement staff and the management staff, the special events staff, customer service service. That would be the parking operations budget. It's an increase of 3.4, right, three and a half million. But that service is the next item that is mixed up with the majority of the parking fund budget, that debt service schedule based on existing debt schedules. We would allow the current year debt schedules. Parking facilities, that would be our general services, support services crews, that would maintain our garages and manage those garages. Of course, we have a transfer out that includes an allocation to the general fund. And then we have a small amount for the finance department, which is the payment staff and the board of works has an increased amount as well. With regards to the parking system, the overall parking fund supports 3,400 monthly parkers, 3,600 on-street leaders, 1,400 street passport devices, 10 or 11 bags of income in the divine street and a force for 14 service clients. I think what your question, that Councilman Brand is about though. I guess some of the, if you pick the total spaces in the parking garage, how many of them are sold monthly to a business or how many are available to the public? Who are they sold for? Does that make sense? Okay. But part of it, I think when we get to the rate and study, we will help you see where we are because we have so many different rates and where we're trying to standardize that. And it really will help answer a lot of those questions. I also think that things, Columbia per se, I'm not sure that, I'm not sure that people understand the garage is which one and they should park it in which one of the general. Because it's sold out to everybody and it's hard to get a place in time to have it around. And I have no idea, so I'm not faking in an answer because I don't know what the answer is. So moving on, I will turn over to Ms. Elmatt. I think it's going to turn to the Director, who will talk about someone deciding things that are happening with our parking services. Thank you, Ms. Elmatt. You're welcome. Good afternoon, Mayor, City Council President. It's a privilege this afternoon to update you on a few ongoing focus areas that we have happening in parking services. We're going to kick start with many of you, I'm sure who have parks all over the country are very familiar with the moving device. We do have a mobilization referenced and our friends at the Orton. However, to my understanding, we've not immobilized vehicles since my arrival a few years ago. However, we have partnered with the barnacle. Anyone in the room heard of the barnacle? Yep. Can you- So the name of the restaurant and not the park. I don't think so. What's coming to the barnacle? It's fun, Bob. While frustrating, barnacle offers a way for you to get back on the road faster than a boot. Just scan the QR code on the device on your windshield. Pay the fee to generate a release code. Enter the code in and take the barnacle off your windshield. Once you take it off, you will need to return it to one of barnacle drop boxes. Don't let parking mistakes ruin your day or wallet. Barnacle is modernizing the way we sell front-end challenges without being overly punitive. The barnacle, the future of parking compliance. Why do I see myself looking in the back of my wife's car? If you all could see my face right now after listening to that. I'm just with the barnacle. We've been working with the barnacle. Let's say probably 12 months a year on the rollout. Charleston rolled it out about nine months ago. It had great success. So it does have GPS tracking. So internally. Oh, it's in my wife's car. Right. There's a few great features about the barnacle. First of all, if someone tries to drive off with a gondor windshield, a very loud alarm sound. We will be notified via text that someone is driving with a barnacle with gondor windshield. And it had a GPS tracking device. So we'll always know they are. I was saying that was that was the chief's problem. Your location is one of the drop locations we're finding out to do for us. So we'll have CPB headquarters. We'll have the parking office and we'll have three drop boxes throughout the city. Keep in mind, the barnacle is rolling out on limited blocks, not throughout the city. So we've received significant complaint about backing up traffic along Main Street, Saluda. There's some highly traveled blocks. That's where this is going to roll out. So you won't see it all throughout the city. You won't see it residential neighborhoods. This is to streamline the process by getting the tow trucks off of those highly traveled blocks. And also for the Parker, you can pay your outstanding citations online. You can get a code and you can remove it within moments as you see the video and drop it into one of the receptacles or drop locations. If the device is not returned within 24 hours, there is a whole place on your credit card that you may be subject to if it's not returned. What is the price of that whole seat? $250. That's going to be legal. How does that stick to the windshield? It's highly characterized cups. And I think a few of us saw it demonstrated a few months ago. So you have these cups on the inside. Okay. I can call you up. Yep, just a major suck. Yeah, I can't get it off. And if someone does tamper with the device, again, we get an alarm that it's being tampered with. But I think it also their release fee currently in the city ordinance is $35. Considering if what the fees are for the soldier vehicle is much more simple. It is. And I think the ease of paying citations, putting in your code and taking it off and you can get on about your way. So what's the threshold for that to be assigned to your vehicle? We call that being barred. Barred? That would be three or more citations, older than 30 days over $100. Would like to say that one more time. Three or more citations older than 30 days with a value of more than $100. $80. Do you have a new letter for it? No. Oh, total. Total. Total. I think that's huge. So if you have $140 of outstanding parking citations and you're on one of the designated blocks, you can receive a barnable. If you're not, if you're in your residential neighborhood or elsewhere in the city, you would be potentially towed. And the idea too is to pilot in these highlight traffic areas where the tow truck is blocking, as you said, but if it works well, then we may possibly expand. So the articleization of this is is it a and or one of those three things? You'll put that under the river. Is that all you have to check all three of those boxes? It is one of those three. Three or more boxes? Not all three. Three or more. Older than $30 or $100. Should you take all three? Yes. Okay, you got to check all three. Yes. And then you add $35 on top of that. That's not good. And I'll talk about how we find those cars. We're not at looking for them. So just talk about it. I'll not follow. So enforcement is divided up in zones throughout the city and a monitor is enforcing their particular zone. And then when they come up, they run the tag on the vehicle. Then it will tell Hillberger in their handheld if there's outstanding citations and upon them having all of those boxes checked, they call to base back at the parking office for confirmation that they indeed do have this amount outstanding, this many citations. And again, some of our a regular customer shouldn't think it up close to $1,500, $2,000 and outstanding citations. Any further questions about the barnacle? Don't get the barnacle. That should be the thing. I'll repay your tickets. Don't get the barnacle. That's right. The next innovation that we have coming to parking, we have worked with T2, which is our current enforcement platform that we are issuing site parking citations is we are developing a component, a module within the teaching platform for citation collection services. So we don't have a mechanism currently in parking services to collect other than immobilizing or towing a vehicle. We do send out daily emails and monthly citation statements in partnership with the DMV. But those that are outstanding, we're ready for collection, but we don't have a program in place. So we're really excited about this. Do you use a 7-bit collection program? We do not. Why not? Happy to look at anything. So if you get a parking ticket, what are the current ways to pay it? You can come to the parking office at 820 Washington. You can visit the Park and Street Amant Center. For most individuals, pay on line through the T2 platform. That's the most pilot you want. You can mail them to check, right? So what will happen with the citation collection services module is it's automated on the T2 platform. So we as a city will give you 60 days to pay a citation and on the 61st day, it automatically will roll into collection services. And then T2 will handle collections. Why do you wait for 60 days? Give an individual annual time for paying this. It used to be a lot shorter, didn't it? Well, I'm going to tell you, I'm slightly going to tell you. You don't receive any waiting time, and I have all the 30 days waiting time. So the first wait fee occurs at 30 days. Well, you have a wait fee of 30 days. But we don't send a notice till the 60th day. Is that correct? Yeah, well, you'll get a notice, a mailed statement at 30 days through the DMV when we work with files and license plates. But if you receive an $8 citation 30 days later, it'll be con $18. The next 30 day, it doubles. So it would point to $36. Do you know what the T2 charges you for collection? Yes, sir. Would you divulge that? He's trying to sell for the municipal association. I just want you to know that he's got an alternative motive here. It would be a full collection. If on that 61st day, you have unpaid and you are pursued by the citation collection services, it's $15 per citation. So you have $15 per citation? No, no, per citation. Per citation. So it would be a lot better than you said I did. All the parking services is compliance. That's our objective. That folks are utilizing the parking system asset forth and compliance is what we're striving for. So I think some of these innovative tools coming to parking services, I think will enable that partnership. Compliance is what the objective truly is. How long has the parking ticket been eight bucks? Very long time, sir. Long time, long time. And you're my tenure? What's the question? What was the question? How long has it been eight dollars parking tickets? Seeing my understanding. Oh, no, I remember sevens. I remember seven dollars. That's like 30 years. That's a long time to keep something the same. I mean, I'll, you know, a lot of this, a lot of this. Yeah, I remember that. So the only thing that I would be increased about eight is 10 years ago. That's from seven dollars. That's how I remember that. Eight dollars. Yeah, I remember seven dollars has probably been there for 20 years prior to that. I remember the seven dollar ticket. Also, I also feel like I remember that the seven dollar ticket, you had like five days paid. You didn't have six days paid, five days. And by the time I got home and figured out how to pull it out of my center council and mail a check, I mean, again, 10 years ago, I was more likely to mail a check the other week today. But anyway, I just remember that the fee went up quickly. It's feel good. The hell would you like, hey, that's kind of great. So that, again, you receive the eight dollar citation and we still do have a seven dollar, by the way, in addition to the eight dollar. So you receive the eight dollar citation in 30 days, it will receive a $10 late fee. I'll give you 30, I mean, with 30 days, but I mean, I'm just, my memory tells me back in the day, it went up faster than the 30 days, but maybe I'll just remember it. See, my understanding would really change. I don't know. I'm just saying, I just remember by the time you had the chance to pay it, you're already on the verge of not being able to pay it. I think it's still like that. If you choose to appeal your citation, that needs to be done within seven days. We have modified that within the last five years. So that at one point was 30 days. And it's now seven business days, if you choose to appeal a citation. So yeah, I don't guess much people are doing that, but I guess in my mind, this has been seven to eight dollars for 30 years. That's probably nothing else is seven to eight dollars after 30 years. If you're trying to, in my opinion, first of all, I'm pro-free parking. So, but if I wasn't pro-free parking and I wanted pro-compliance, I would charge $20 for the ticket and maybe be less punitive on 30 days. You're not talking about even parking where I don't want to have seven bucks for eight bucks. I'm going to park wherever I want to in the city of Columbia for eight bucks, I promise you. If I'm going to get a meeting and there's a space over the border or I got a three-hour meeting and I can only put $2.00 or $2.00, no change in there, I'm doing it because you're not going to change my behavior with eight bucks. You might with 20 bucks. They wouldn't change your behavior. Oh, no. Trust me, 20 bucks still goes a long way. I live with five women, so I don't have to start. Anyway, I'm just saying, I think we should, again, I'm pro-free parking, but if we end up staying paid parking, I think you can think about the behavior of modification, and I'm not a psychologist, but I do know that the more you charge somebody to not do something wrong, the better chance you have of not doing it. I mean, that's the conversation from the study. All right, so those dynamic discussions of dynamic pricing models and perspectives on that is what we're looking for with that parking study discussion. So more at lunch, more in the high areas, lower in the less areas, with the balance. So you look across every city is doing that very well. You're trying to keep things located as if business is strong. We have, unfortunately, we got cameras. We got cameras. I mean, I'm with them. I mean, I hear you. Well, do you know what's charged them in the Granger Challenge? What do you think? It's in the way, but I don't want to do it. So you go to Charleston. It's a lot more. You go to Charleston parking garage. That's why I was alluding to the whole thing about it. Because you can't park on the street. I don't know if there is a real parking or saying a lot like that anymore. Greenville is expensive because I spent some money. And I remember thinking, is that what you're telling me? Something like that. And several tickets because I stayed there longer. But I mean, I might have paid $45 for one meeting. And you're talking about my major. That's it. I was coming back. The next guiding component we have coming to Columbia is again, with T2, a different module. We're happy to have online. But it's the appeal process. So currently, if you want to appeal a citation, you email services and we work the email box daily. Whether you're requesting monthly parking, you're appealing a citation. It's a very active email box. This will allow the appeal process to be automated. So currently, when you log on to the T2 portal, it will give you the instructions of how to pay your citation. But soon, it will give you an option to pay or appeal. And those appeals will be within seven days. And if you try to appeal a citation from last October, you will receive a message back that your citation is not subject for appeal. How do you automate an appeals process? Is it an automatic note? The emails will still be. The appeals will still be reviewed. But with the automated process, you as a partner will be able to see your photos. So the photos we take along with citations, let's say if you're outside the white lines when you're appealing a citation, claiming you weren't in the white lines. And then our photo evidence indicates something different. You'll be able to see those. It also puts a placehold on a potential vehicle being towed that if you're appealing it, so it doesn't get crossed. If somebody is out towing your vehicle, you've appealed earlier that day. So it actually places a hold on it that it's much more innovative. USC allows payment and appealing citations online. It's a great technology. I'm excited to finally have you. So a few of the things, exciting coming to parking services. Where is the great harvest of scrap metal going to happen? What scrap metal? That's in all the natures. It's going to be the same thing on our clients. So we were teed up to talk about Luke. Yes, all these things. But I did want, because I think that has some implications about the bigger discussion there. We were holding that back to incorporate during the parking study discussions. We will have that anticipated and budgeting process tomorrow. I mean, if you want to touch on a little bit, I don't want to confuse these other discussions about dynamic pricing and any changes that might have come. Each one would have. Well, I would suggest we do that, because I've got some debate I want to have with her. Well, that's not debate today. He's trying to fund this retirement. He's over there. I can hear it. I can see it now. How are you involved in parking services? The older generation needs to appeal on a way of parking. This is the cheapest way to park. And you put enough to see two people on 5-4 and can't understand how to work it now. No, with a single unit, it's the easiest way to do it. And it takes your money to let you know that you're a meter's about it. You can't figure out how to make it work. You can't pick it. Same thing. The same old thing. It's very easy to get a picture playing. And you do that. Who knows? I'm trying to play. I'm trying to play. I'm looking for that film. They can take it. Even if I'm, I mean. You still need to paint something. Just take a picture of it. Yeah. You'll have all your phones for the rest of your life. Thank you. You remember when you said you secure enough where I am. And it's no bonus. Hey, this is a sweet day. And it's landline. Yeah. Yeah. You just want to have this. You can't do that. Don't point it. Don't point it. Right. We will take what we want. And we're going to approach that. It's a bunch of dots. One of the things that I've become in court as well, continued assessment of our facilities. But that's underway. There's just some things we really already know, though, that are capital needs that need to, we need to get started on. We've identified some funding to do that right now. So, still. Sure. So you can see in the first column for the fiscal year 23-24, various projects happening at different locations. And these are existing issues that we are aware of. The 1.9 that you see at the bottom of the column, that is funded. So, again, we're working in partnership with Kim Lincoln and reassessing our facilities. The last full assessment was in 2013, rather than updating the various documents. We're going back since it's been 10 years to get a good reference point, starting point to create a five-year projected plan. So, the next four columns that you see, moving forward with what is projected, those numbers are based on the 2013 data. But, however, also, the funding would move to you. We acquired and we're increased. As far as the immediate, I'm sorry, so we call that out, as far as the fund for one to propose, or we do it with the 1.9. So, we've been switching, but the current re-proposed, capital permit programming for the parking fund includes some specific programs with Wilson's mentioning too, Arsenal Hill, Lady Street Roads, Street Paner in Washington, and let's go to those for some... I thought long-term, Arsenal Hill was something that we were looking to get rid of. That may be the case, but I imagine that this work is things that they've done, even if it were to. Thank you. We just got a lot of money budget, and people would say, that's why I'm asking. You have that list, so you've got it for capital improvement program needs. Do you have the same list for revenue generation for the parking lot? That would be part of the study that we'll come back to. We're just using that 10-million number at the front. All right, thank you. Have y'all had any other more specific questions about the facilities of cells? The upgrades of the charging stations on the Sydney all of those will be paid to charge. Are we charging then? No. Many people are fighting ever, and people part there and they'll leave, and somebody else can't get charged. But to that, that's not in the budget for $23.24. What's that? Additional electric charging stations. Electric charging stations will be part of the capital improvement program. I see it's $24.25 on this one. So on the additional wide vibe, facility-wide EV charging stations, see that list, it's $24.25. So that's something. People are fighting to use them, but we don't have any. We don't have enough either today. Okay, that's what I was wondering. So why aren't we putting some in? It's not scheduled, but it's covered. Yeah, all right. It's really a balance with basic needs of things we have to do versus things we have to do. And this is where we landed. As we get the assessment back, this could... Well, we're also going after all that federal money that's available. Right. We're looking for the opportunities. We do have two new respects have charging stations that have the capability of charging for power, but we're not doing that yet there. For pay, do you need? Yeah. But Kelvin and Stacey's here. They were canned up with L on the facilities and the issues that they're currently. I mean, when we're looking at the request for next year, it's all the cosmetic stuff that we've been talking about. Upgrades, the painting, the cleaning. I can't believe it. It doesn't matter. It's not all cosmetic. Some of it is structural work that needs to be done. The one point that you see would be immediate urgent needs. And then we want to get... We wanted to move that forward and that really can be handled out of current fund balance. Does that include any cosmetic stuff? Not the one point. Not here. That would be the operating side of the shop. These are capital free. Well, we were talking about skinning and I think there was an elevator need somewhere. Maybe you want to come up. There's some projects that are underway too. You're already working on that part of it. We're replacing it. That's what you're talking about. I'm going to go back to the beginning. Maybe we'll try it. Maybe we'll try it. I'm going to go back to the beginning. We've been there. They said our line was in the back row for a reason. We're working on the theme now. We're replacing the elevator. Two elevators at a late in-game. Placing the one at something. We're doing painting at Taylor. We're painting at Lady 2. All the cosmetic stuff. We're already working on it. It's just a big thing. But Taylor, we are not moving forward. Because I'm getting a request for that elevator to be presented. As of today, the inspector called me today. And as of today, we've got an incident. So we're working forward to getting it prepared. So whichever way y'all decide to go. Can we look at trying to add that if we can? And it's getting used more and more by all the folks down here this weekend. During the weekends as well. What's the request outside of what you're already trying to do? Just sort of place? So the 1.9 was an accommodation? That's a particular question. I want to talk about that though. That is not active right now. We've not been active for 10 plus years. There's platforms that elevate or plant into an office site. And each level has platforms that are not manned. And that was the 2.9. So it was deliberately taken out of service. We've been asked to inspect it to see if it can go back. There's some safety components that have to be accounted for. If we do that with not having space that would be an attractive nuisance at the landing platforms on this level. So the cost to do that if we went in that expression you all will know that once you do that. We're going to have to open up that space and wall off that and that and just open it. So it's open, but it's become not only for the monthly renters but for the folks that are visiting us. It's because it's in the center. It's our garage there. Yes, and that's the industry location across from all streets. We'll have to replace it to see where that will come to fix. So we're in the process of that. Okay. But that's not included in this. Okay, we'll take a look. Take a look when it comes. That'd be great. Okay. Any other questions with kind of our low hanging fruit and the budget for parking? Thanks. Thank you. And the bar. The bar. There's consensus on those are things we want to kind of move forward. We put it out in the atmosphere now so it's not that long. And moving on to an additional item that we proposed and we're bringing back the final recommendations on our proposed ordinance changes that include special event fees, parts of recreation fees, police department, public authorities. We referenced all of these previously to you all and just want to actually bring you what those schedules would look like. So, yeah, thank you. And just in addition, as we talked with you all before, there are certain events and activities that are free to fire on our current page. Those services are paid for by the requesting issue or residential or individuals. But the other services that the city provides for a lot of people, it's hard to have college. This is hard work. It's also at some of that cost, the cost of those costs. So just as a little bit of a reminder, a lot of what we're talking about is based on things that were driven by requests as we come into the police department. Primarily with a grade permit request or special event, I will now proceed again with special duty. Sometimes it may also come as other specific requests too, whereas just the public work department, which you'll see that's where a lot of those events are generated. The event types would be block parties, sentence concerts, college university events, festivals, lots of walks and runs, different neighborhood meetings, some non-profit events, protests, even though those are not things that we'd actually be charged for, but these are obviously a variety of different things that you'd utilize as city services. In terms of the city department, in terms of the city services provided, we provided a variety of different services. Some of these events were held weekly, some were held monthly, annual events, and then some of these are, of course, as needed, birthday parties, graduation parties, and things like that, or even neighborhood block parties. A lot of times, again, it would be more aside of providing a variety of different departments. Some of the services that are provided, that some things that are, of course, we do charge for and some things that are not charged, grimoire part facilities, those are found, police services, a parade permit, which we'll get to that piece as well, and the fire prevention department, Marshall. Some of the examples of services that are provided that there are not college recovery would be delivery and pick-up of barricades whenever we had street closures, solid waste, roll cart delivery, and picking up and tipping of those containers, traffic control management, whether it's utilizing traffic, the electricity available. Do we charge for the trash? Don't. Some of these events are done like this? No. You say could. We didn't say, right, you say could. Well, the answer to his question would be yes, could. That's not even, do we? No. We don't now. We don't now. But we propose that we should. Yes. And in the barricades, I think we discussed, and we were talking about the other week, about the dollars and where those could help in a permanent situation where we are down here, but these others and then an option I think you discussed was somebody came to public works and picked it up like they're having a neighborhood block party or whatever. They picked them up and we would charge them anything for it. They picked them up and brought them back. Some of those details would be worked out, of course, in the ordinance as it's proposed. And it's been some of the events we've seen in other places that I didn't pick up, of course. Individuals aren't picking up roll carts and delivering the roll carts and dumping the roll carts. I can see dropping them off and picking them up for free, but at their full, there's a charge for it because we're having to run out because I mean, that case, I'm just going to have an event and just ask how come deliver. And I'll just, you're actually at your house. You're going to get a $5 permit at your house. So what we had laid out before you are suggests a recommendation from proposed fees for items that we know, services we are providing. Of course, many of these are as needed. Not every event requires every service and not every service is staying level. It depends on the event and the activity that's going on. And the current rate for off duty police and fire, Marshall specifically, it's currently a $35 rate. We see, we gave an example from other cities at $45 that we've seen as high as $55 and $60 an hour for some of the officers off duty to pay directly to the off individuals. That won't change. That's not as big of a difference here. But we talk about police with this part and in general, because it is relative to these events. And it's often the event that is being requested here that spurs the results in other departments and providing these other services. So the proposed rate that the police department is recommending is $45 with an additional fee of $5 for administrative and permit use that will help offset some other associated costs that the city does incur. So $250 for us to deliver per barricade. Okay. So with barricades, we've seen a variety is I mean $10, we'll burn that gas. Right. Most barricades, I've been seeing an event that there's an intersection being closed off in one of the four to eight barricades per intersection. Of course, multiple intersections are usually required. So $250 is what was suggested for per barricade. We have seen some places that charge a flat fee with all this and whether it's five barricades or 50 barricades. And as you mentioned, the borrowers, there are certain places where the borrowers may not require that. If you send a truck out to a neighborhood, let's just say it's across town and they drop off two barricades for one event, that's five bucks. Staff cost, insurance, everything to go there that doesn't make sense to me. And if we're going to pose a fee, let's at least cover the cost of doing it. Well, it's $250 per barricade. And if you go to a neighborhood and they cut off one street, that's two barricades. That's five bucks. That's for an intersection. It's outside the intersection. We got two streets. I think what I would do if I were y'all though is I would come up with, and first of all, I like this a lot in general. I think if anything, I would have done the same thing. You're probably low, which is fine. I think the permit needs to be at least $100. That way people, it makes sense, the table for what we're trying to accomplish here. But I would come up with like a base package and a premium package, kind of like if you were doing, like if you were at caterer, you know, in other words, say, so the permit's $100, then you have a base package for that we think would be worked for these types of events. And we have a premium package and then after that everything's all a cart. So if you want an additional police officer, or, you know, so the base package, I'm making this all up, so you can go home in any state. So your base package has two police officers, 10 barricades, and, you know, one quarter jar. Okay. And then your premium package has adds this, this, and this. And then anything you want on top of that, these are your line item prices. That way it might help people kind of transition into how to do this without, without being a burden to the city, but also not short changing themselves too. So we've seen, of course, looking throughout the state and outside of the state, there is all kinds of different ways that this is done in different communities, but small and large. Of course, city is in the biggest way. I will say, I don't think we should ever say we're charging $2.50 for something. Okay. It's just make it free or make it a real number, but $2.50. Yeah, you realize the cost when you start thinking about over 300 events annually. But that kind of goes back to what I was saying, Tina. So if you had, you know, in other words, the base package is 16 barricades. And it's going to cost you 15 bucks. I only need 10. You get 16. I only need eight. You get 16. It's 50 bucks. If you only want eight, it's 50 bucks. It is what it is. So that covers the whole concept. You got two people in a truck, plus gas and everything else. Well, listen, our friendly public works director, but with these numbers, I questioned that too, that he was pretty adamant that he felt like $2.50 was the number, but yeah, Robert, these are Robert's numbers. I don't call them Robert's numbers. It's a disaster. It still lives in 1967. So we got to save the money. I don't think the concept was dope. Well, part of it was the concept of that. They should have made it. Five, six, or a hundred. Yeah, I'll let you do it, too. That's it. How about a base fee? What's I'm saying? It'll be a better dollar. And then I'll look card. So you pay a minimum for it. I'll amend my statement to agree with Howard. So I would say, I'd have to write this down. All right, so base fee, and then like a package one and then package two, or you got a base package, and then you got a bronze package, a silver package, and a gold package if you want to. But make it where people... We want this to be easy. The problem with free is free begets more free. So if someone says, you can have four police officers for free, or you can have one police officer for free, guess what I'm going to choose? I'll think more. Okay, so because it's free. So again, I would agree that there's a minimum. Just to verify, there is no free police officer. No, it is if you're not paying for them, but yeah. We pay for it. Police officers get paid. They get paid. I know, my point was free because people apply for the $5 permit. So anyway, I guess we can just kind of think about that way. I think that would actually help a lot. Go ahead. The police department admin fee at $5 per hour. Why wouldn't that be easier to say? $22, $25. That's, I mean, that should be more because that's the person that's pulling together all these premium gold, silver, and academic. I think it should just be built into the price, and it's just... It would be built into the price. Of course, it's just being able to be transparent in terms of where the cost does go. Although that $5 would come to the city, whereas the other goes directly to the police officer. But how are you going to do that if it's one price? Because when I write a check to the officer who worked, it would have to be the right two checks. So we wanted to get these fees down, and we're taking in the fee that was just good. And then the goal is to ultimately have a third party solution to help administer these things. But they're just going to go buy whatever fees we tell them. And then some of those administrative costs. Should we consider that fee to that third party with the percentage and that's reflected in the insurance? Okay, that wasn't a question. They, yes, even with the $5, they take $3 for an officer. So Ms. Wilson, do we have to put a degree on this and get something in place to have these new reflected fees by June, by the by the time? Next week. That was why we were bringing them forward. But I think we've got to kind of feel and play a group of what y'all are saying. Because we absolutely support doing this. We are also sensitive to educating the public about it. And I mean, if you all are supportive. You can go ahead and put that into action. You don't need a vote from us, or is it you need a through city council vote, or is it a management? Well, it'll be part of the budget when we act from us. So long as you all are giving us the feedback and when you see it brings back one last time with the notice and all that. But in parallel, there's an ordinance that we have to advertise for this specifically. You all have to approve it and deal with it. Okay. Just remember, a lot of these major bigger events are applying for hospitality tax, a couple of these costs. Right. But then there's the taxes or the community groups too. So that, you know, but if y'all are good, we're good. And we're going to support it. But once we do it, you know, there's, leave any judgment calls to me about it as the event come up. And sometimes the cards, right. But this is the point that's kind of being made. We put things in place and there's compliance. This is what will be in place. So for anybody who would apply to, this is what will be in place. And I just want everybody to feel good about that. Right. All right. 100% agree. Yes. 100% Nope. We're going to email them. I will forward that email directly to you. No problem. And the other thing that we didn't go down the path, I know major drafts and I've talked about a little bit about road closures. I mean, there's some things that aren't in here that we didn't even, you know, broach. Yeah, we could. And eventually maybe we will. There's a lot of that. I sign them every day. So closing roads for Johnny's birthday party in the neighborhood or a crane that's been at the end of Main Street for weeks and weeks. Those are all the run the gamut of road closures that we are not charging for. But other jurisdictions do. So that's another something to think about. Well, that's a road point. Every, I mean, obviously in my business, we close a lot of roads with upsides. And I've never heard of anybody not charging this. Right. So that was another item that they go on the list. They don't charge. Did you all come up with a schedule? Or not yet? Yeah, I mean, that was saying like it's Main Street. We're not charging it for that Main Street closure. We charge it for Main Street closure. Well, it's up to them. So we are charging. We did not. We did not charge. No, sir. There was, well, there was something that was attached to that and contingent upon work being done. But no, no, there was no charge to close it. Well, so I would support that we relook at that as well. Well, we may not build that in. So the road closure fees really cover some of the costs that we're talking about that are lighted to all the cars type things and deliveries and hurricanes. I mean, like I said, it's a typical municipality. We had to close a road for a day that probably charges us to now stop. Or create minutes often. Yeah. We have to have a crane then it starts going up fast. Yeah, include it with. Mm-hmm. It's an expensive birthday party. And we'll crane you for this part. Yeah. Okay. So thank you for that. That was great feedback. And then just to compare this with regards to permit being great permits, this is often just graphically demonstrating sort of where the city, I'm about to say, has been in place long time. Our $5 rate, of course, is proposed for 30 of them. That's just a amount of $100. A lot of these places that you've had this have additional fees that are based on some of what you've discussed in terms of variations and other charges that are occurred. But for the most part, the permit fees is processing application. In some cases, it can be processing application alone. So we have a service that we're talking about charged for it. I would recommend that in my mind, it should be at least $100. Even at $5, the cost of processing it is probably 50 bucks to process a $5 permit. And so the cost for $30 is still 50 bucks. So you're still losing money. So. I think it's probably more than $5 cost to process it. That folks say it. So in my opinion, it should be somewhat higher. And with respect to parades, these are typically larger events that are organized with. A walk and a run would require a parade permit. So it's not just a typical parade of like a marching band like that. A walk and a march. A run would be a parade permit. Well, closing down a block in five points is a parade permit. The parade permit is the city's current mechanism for requesting street closure like that. For an event like. Well, the right people have money from the registration. You want to walk people. That's true. We pay $35 to run. We all hear about it. Well, we do the right since we pay $35 to run. Okay. Next, we will move on to another item that would require a list change from city council. I'm trying to ask a way to collapse all of these discussions for separation or noticing of the changes with the same time when you notice the budget on experience. It's a part of our creation is also proposed. If you buy this product, it's cute and careful. There are these repeat ordinances. Have a copy of the ordinance for the right. So you can see there's a variety of parts of our reaction. We should start this ordinance. In this case, say to ask for some news of a reservation for the picnic shelter. I don't know why they're going to parks. Probably because of the high demand of those three parts for the picnic shelter. So if your reservation being there. And then also to request for updating staff support. This is staff that provides services when a park facility is reserved, reserve a park facility or park ground of course. And I apologize. I probably shouldn't have expressed this. There are the Outland GM in person, a building in Brown's name, and the NEO is a better women's career. So that's the specific staff that provides those services. And of course those are staff that are associated and the staff would be charged based on their service fee. Only three of the rates are recommended for change. The others are still the current rate. It's just no change in the trade. We want you to see a comparative way to what those funds are. And the reservation fee for Irwood and page on the picnic shelters was $30. Pretty cheap. I would suggest changing that for a month. $1 increase to a $5 increase to like $35. Well, why just move it over one month? I agree with Howard. That's twice today. I would consider a fee waiver if it's requested by a neighborhood association. For example, Hollywood Rose Hill, Hollywood Park. They have two or three events a year where the whole neighborhood comes out to enjoy the park and fellowship. I would like to see that those fees go away for specific neighborhood association requested events, which is something to consider. That doesn't have to happen immediately because we can go ahead and approve the fees but have that, I guess, the box of weight. And that might be at the staff level. Do you want to report to Hollywood Rose Hill? Right. Yeah. Well, some of my neighborhoods, they don't even have due needs or fees. They don't have a bank account. Right. So they don't have the fees. But it's reasonable. And their volunteers take their time. Because, I mean, once again, it's different, your neighborhood association get together versus little Johnny's birthday. Right. Exactly. That's true. I don't disagree. Johnny can go. So Halloween in Elwood would kind of apply to that, too. Yeah, because they don't worry. I don't think they'll raise money. Yeah, I think. Hello. Mary Madeleine, I know you're on there. Hello, Councilman. How are you all? I sort of agree with Mr. Brennan and Mr. Brown. I think that there ought to be, particularly in ML King, there are several events that take place there. And of course, I would certainly hope that we would waive us particularly. Is it in particular to those events that are taking place? Because there are several events that take place there. So I'm in agreement that those fees ought to be considered and particularly wavered if necessary. For the association? Yes, ma'am. For the association. Yeah, I think they can actually, as part of the, they can actually submit something saying these are the events we're going to have this year. Now, other events, of course, other than the HOMO, other than the association events, there are several events that they sponsor on an annual basis. And it would certainly be good if we could. Thank you. So I'm clear. So the anything a neighborhood would be doing would be any of these even on an all-of-part basis, everything would be waived for the neighborhood doing it. It's the neighborhood. It's the neighborhood. It's the neighborhood. I would say that we refer into the part fee. Right? They need 10 people resources. That's different. But if they did show up at the park by themselves and bring in some card table and some reference, we just let them use the part for free. But if they need support, then that, I think that would be different. So we can have the park fee. Like a Halloween in Elmwood where our officers come and we do the barricade and that's the whole thing. What are we saying? We're waiving. Well, considering that I don't, I don't, I mean, I bring something back. So I think you'd have to really look at it. But all I was specifically referring to was use of the park for free. So using a park, big parks. It's an association application. The part fee is waived at the park. Maybe it's just the part fee. So like, it's just the picnic shelter that we mentioned at Page Island to the Irwood. Those have the reservation fee. All the other parts are first on the service. Okay. This is just those two parts in particular, the parts reparations for people because of the high demand. I don't know about that. And where are you? Okay, nice. So any basics in Elmwood? In regards to people with unoriginal or just specifically any ordinance, but don't require their first on person. And I misunderstood. You're only referring to the park facility itself. And that is the only two they're proposing. But it does make the question of what I was saying earlier about, you know, this would apply across the board to members doing an event. So if that is a concern you have about that, I think it was just an issue. Can you send it to the young committee or something? That's just a call. What's the concern? I'm sorry, I have to step out and take that call. So the concern was if, you know, at the neighborhood association wants to have an event at the park waiving the part fee. But now it's been made clear that the part fee isn't a universal forever's part. We're going to view the class too. And that's what the grounds, the facilities themselves do have rights. And that's an uproach, right? It's made clear again, I'm the chair of directors. It was recolored. In general, the rate of this the event proposed fee schedule would still apply, is what you all are saying. It's just an option for neighborhood associations to have parking status for their neighborhood use or for their parks use. I think it's even at a staff level or the admin committee formed something to bring the council through. Because we don't want to. Right. And I do think that that maybe with maybe not with some of the proposed fees, but with the parade mix, I do think that our neighborhood associations should see some type of difference. There's some kind of benefit, because they they're working and volunteering their time throughout the year. And that's probably the thing that I hear the most. Well, okay, we still have to pay and we don't have a budget. So I don't have a specific recommendation. Whatever, maybe what you all hear. So are you trying to say that you want to be perpendicular? Yes. Yeah, we want the neighborhoods to feel different. Yeah. Just be pro-neighborly. You need to be the boxing champ. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I doubt. Pro-neighborly. Pro-neighborly. Okay, I will tell you, I take some exception and maybe that's what you're saying. Maybe it's just the causes. I think we would. We always try to anyway. I don't want to be, you know, like winners and losers. But I do think even with some of our neighborhoods, there are some labor intent events that may come to mind. And I can't say I wouldn't support a blanket. We're not going to pay for our officers just to get the neighborhood different. Pro-neighborly. Yeah, I agree with that. I just want to be clear on that part. But I think we can certainly make judgment calls about what I think I'm hearing. And you said limited to maybe, you know, if it's under the size and less than 10. Yeah. Yeah. Something of that nature. They're not charging. Because if they're charging, but they're making money, then they paying. But most of them. Okay. Oh, well. Thank you. You're welcome. Because I mean, if you disguise it as we're holding the neighborhood concert, but we're charging everybody five bucks to come, that's different than we're holding the neighborhood picnic. And where do you pay? It's about some contributions. So if you pay a group to come from the past, Allison, I think you got a hundred to pay. That's the truth for a lot of the events. I think that we're just speaking to personally, I certainly understand the pieces, the events that have happened. You know, as a city services, a lot of them have to be out charging as a part of their benefit. So we'll take a look at. Okay. So moving on, the next item is with the police chief Hope Brooks and his last update to you mentioned a variety of different things affecting police services, one of which was fossil oil fees. And so working with legal this property is working on a religion to our existing police by a fossil oil fees. And so the ordinance is in draft. The proposed changes would affect the fees along some other administrative and other purposes. Chief will speak to it. But otherwise, the fees are so here currently, oh, I'm sorry. I neglected a lot of parts of creation. I don't have a slide for those of you who were here. There is also proposed changes to summer canteens. Those would go into the proposal for summer canteens. I neglected good about my own but I think you're back with materials. It would be everything is now public hearing. But the rates are going to change the season for next year. We don't have a question. I mean, I have this like tension, but I don't have summer camp. No, summer camp is not in here. It's in the room. It's in the room. No, no, it was a tax. There was a tax to be agenda. It didn't need to be bagged. It was a tax. But that was something different. I was not all that mad. As far as I'm concerned, it was going to go into the room. I don't know if that would happen. Here, we'll go up to those. So they're proposed. My understanding of the rates have been again in place for a very long time with regards to our summer camp day feedings. The recommendation currently in City of Columbia would be due for a summer camp is $55. And the proposed is $85 for you. And after school, currently it's $30 and it returns to $40. Again, these would go into effect next year, next season. But obviously we're not now, so that they're going to discuss the part of them. You're talking about 24, 25. Yeah. Well, they'd be in the fiscal year 23, 24, because they would start. They will go up, really, in fact, but it would go into effect to a certain point. I do. Well, the summer of the after school started in January, it's January, 24. I did have a question about what our numbers are looking like for the summer camps. And then is this an opportunity to, I know that we were, at some point we were having difficulty in getting the people to work with summer camps, but we still have that difficulty. Okay. And so is this an opportunity just to give them a dollar or two or... Excellent question to answer that. You know, we'd be fully staffed regarding summer camps and plus the dissipation rate in masks. We have to be very careful before we get away to this. So we're doing very well. I think the part of the challenge has been in the past recovery from COVID. Even if they now are in a place where we go back to a long period of time. Okay. And so we're really good at the process. So no need to change things. Yeah, okay. That's a long question if we needed consent of us. Yeah, we're not quite the request list of young people to work for parts of recreation. Yeah, that's probably because of that. Back to police false alarm fees. So the current fee is based on no fee for the first and second occurrence that are 25 and fourth is 100. Proposed would be a still new change to no fees for the first and second occurrence. But 34th, fourth and fifth time would be $50, $6,000, $7,000, $10,000, $10,000, $500. The good part is also provided information about the number of costs we're servicing in, like also long specifically right around $4,500 just for this past year. And of course they account for about $3,000 for the total cost. And also averaging about $1,000 over $12,000 costs also low cost per day. So the cost of service, well $165,000, is that 9-1-1? Yes, sir. But when you false alarms, the $4,500, $4,500 false alarms, how does that compare with the total number of automated alarms rather than 9-1-1? You're using 3% of the $165,000, which means... No, well, that's your... I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. So he's trying to draw the line between what's 9-1-1 and what... I think all of it's automated. It all goes through... How many good alarms do you get? Most of them are false alarms. The majority of our alarms are false. They're bad alarms. Yeah, so it's not 3%. Of false alarms, it's probably 95% of automated alarms. So how many alarm calls, and how many of your alarm calls are false? Yeah, well, what that number is reflecting is what is defined as false alarms, is the $4,500, and of those false alarms, if you do the math of our annual calls for service, that represents 3%. But it's almost 95% of the total number of electronic alarms coming in. So the only 55 is all your calls, all your 9-1-1, not just alarm calls. 9-1-1 out, and just do the ones that are automated. How many alarm calls do you get? And in others, how many alarm calls are false? How many CPI calls do you get? But those go through 9-1-1. Right. They do? Yeah. There you go. Yeah. They do. We were doing that. Now, they get it directly to the... That is false advertising, like the Marksville family. That's what my people say, except for plenty of extra CPIs. That's insane. One is one, or something. They get it. They have to go through 9-1-1. Direct line. Direct line. How are you? You're not so good. You're not so good. Do that have to go through 9-1-1. Just hit the phone somewhere. Like that. I don't think it's 3%. You leave him? No. Okay. See, Peter. So now I didn't have a client. That's me. So if you have a doll in the home that sets off the glass break... Or just emotions, that's it. Right. And you're in the yard, so you don't hear it. When the officers come, there's no problem. That sounds very specific. Right. Well, that's why I'm asking. It's on your learning. That's your first and second. And I guess that's the... Right. That's the thing. She's talking about the lady across the street from home. That would be a false alarm. Yes, ma'am. So with most alarm companies, I'm not the alarm company expert, but the first, just like you have an emergency contact, you have their preferred business, unless it's a panic alarm, is they're going to contact that key holder to say, hey, we just got an alarm. Did you all do it? Did your dog do it or whatever? And then you would give them the code and they would say, okay, at least would they ever be caught. These are... This represents a police or a dog. So they all go through 911. Most require at least two officers to respond. A lot of them are hold up alarms. A lot of them are daily occurrences. Again, the purpose of this is not to be punitive. It's to change the behavior. So that's my... To me, it's graduated. It's consistent with our previous ordinance, but it became pretty severe. If we got 10 or more, I was thinking about where it would get your attention, but it needs to be corrected. I mean, we've got officers running emergency in an emergency response mode to a lot of these alarms. And it's putting the officer into public in danger when that occurs. But it's a drain on services. It's taking a couple of quarters out of service. And a lot of times we're waiting for a key holder to clear a building or a quick, clear house or... So it's... Again, it's about changing the behavior. And again, the ordinance... It wasn't that we necessarily had a bad ordinance. We just didn't... This puts a little more teeth in that, but this makes it work in conjunction with the software that we're proposing. We go to that automates it. Currently, the ordinance requires us to write a police report, manually review those police reports, and then bill or notify the resident of the business that their alarm was a false, and we had to respond. This is all automated through our panic system. Do you know the mix between false alarms between business and residential? I do, and I don't have that with me. But it's more residential, obviously. We do define that in our system. And is there any kind of national data from maybe the software provider you're going to work with that'll show what the decrease from that 12.3 would be once... 18 months into it? We're looking at less than six, cut in half? There is, and I apologize. I don't have that off the top of my head. They absolutely have. That was part of our hard discussion, and I often refer to some... But even if you cut them in half from 12 to 6, what's that take about an hour, 45 minutes, for a doctor to respond to one, maybe? So, I mean, you can put the manpower... Yeah, you can quantify it. Yeah. Well, and I'll add, we've had some discussions about looking at using alternative sources to go to places that are... Yeah, we're talking about that. Yeah, right. That's a loss, but we're not taking this one off as soon as time up an hour at this time. I would suggest collapsing one or those, taking the $50 out and going 100, 250, and 500, starting at, say, four. 100 at four? Yeah. So, yeah. So either way, first, second, third, three strikes and you're out, and then you start getting $100 up to eight. That works. And then... Three strikes. Eight and nine will be $250 and 10 and up to $500. How much money have we collected in that current? We start on... Make it worth a lot. $50 is long enough to change the... You think we should wait until the third occurrence, though, before we start? What's the current... Be found, man. Start at... Start on the third. On the third. On the third, yeah. Yeah, I'll get that one. Yeah, I'll get that one. On the third. Three, three, seven is my number. Three, three, seven is my number. Part of that automated notification of the first two occurrences would be... They would receive notice of a false alarm and explain what's ahead if they don't correct that. Right. And the first order would just be a friendly reminder second order would be maybe a more strongly worded reminder and then third one would be the first outch. And so my question is, how do we enforce it? If they don't, they just don't pay. It's... It becomes a warning. Defined in the ordinance to civil... In terms of civil... To be like any... A debt. To become a debt. Or it would be a non-response. You can put one of those part of the services on the field or something like that. Automatically. So if we put it through the ordinance next week, when can you be up and running with the new system? The new software or whatever? That would probably not be the question. Well, I mean, the goal is to be... I give it maybe 60 days, but I don't see why we should be... Yeah, there should be no end of the vast. 60 days from tomorrow. From the data, the ordinance of approval, yes ma'am. Yeah, we can meet that time later. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you, ma'am. Our final item is bringing back a proposed pay plan for the fire. Based off our discussions with Richland County and the staff discussions were in mind, but the discussion is on a fairly high level at Richland County. They are going to participate. They do want to fund the pay plan as proposed. They're a portion of it. They have the ability to pay for it outside of any type of village adjustment. I know we talked about that if they did that, then that would, of course, probably would have allowed us to also pay for it, but that isn't their approach. If they're able to do it without that, that's great. I think they are progressively looking at some other things as well, as far as their county-wide plans for their employees and a step program is our understanding outside of fire. At this point, in order for us to eventually the pay plan that we wanted to preview all the secondary solutions that we could get into last time, I mean, you probably didn't read the lines that this would have been the next option, and so that it's really just a simple slide to show you how we would fund the pay plan. My understanding is that this plan only does the suppression services and not the administrative or other people that work for the fire department? Sorry, it would be all of it. It would be a possible work. Everyone's, well, what is your question? Sworn? Well, I want to make sure that the people that work for the fire department that aren't in suppression, like the people that go out and do the hydrant management, the administrative staff, and everybody else gets some sort of a boost in pay, too. And my understanding is that this is only for the people that ride the trucks, the suppression service. It's for more than who rides the trucks, but they would be the sworn staff. Everybody fits into that classification chart that the chief provided. Everybody, that would fit in here. Everybody who works for the fire department will be on that chart somewhere? No, but it's a very small amount of administrative, but there are some of those. That's your question. Then we need, you know, that wouldn't be. Can we look to see how many that is and if we can give them a comparable boost? So the boost that this is going into a different discussion that I was hoping to bring you on next Tuesday regarding citywide and the staff and not just fire, but I mean, there's police, non-sorm staff. There's all types of staff across the city who haven't seen an adjustment. So we were able to see the citywide proposal would capture, I think, the individuals you're talking about. I'd like to make sure that since we're doing fire, I'd like to make sure all of the city staff get properly compensated, but I'm particularly concerned about fire. If we left out administrative people when we did police last year, then we need to take care of that, too. Well, we need to take care of a lot of people, and that's the scenario across the city that were not sworn public safety. It wouldn't be a special case because the people that aren't sworn are working in a contract with our contract with the county, which they pay half of. So their work is also benefiting the delivery of services to the county. Hey, there's a big cover by Richmond County. They're not. I mean, I just don't see what the jobs are. The county wouldn't be paying for work right now. The administrative staff. So do they make sure that they take in salary? The higher commands are all sworn? The administrative staff is split, but there's not the right, the proposed fake land design for great non-s sworn staff. And do we have any idea of what that number is of unsworn staff in fire? Absolutely. Does that be captured in the city-wide? That's the way I would propose to handle it. But if you all are suggesting that fire personnel be handled, sworn, and sworn through this paper land, then we would just have to run the numbers to add those individuals into it. I agree with Councilman Brennan. The fire non-suppression fire should be treated differently than the non-s sworn police, because the non-suppression fire can be paid for half by the county, or should be. I think what we have done in the past is, I have to all guess, when we do city-wide positions. So the city is paying for 100% of the non-suppression. We only pay our part. That's what? We only pay our part. And the county pays part. But I see theoretically, you're saying because it is a contract that we ought to build for a percentage of any cost associated from a personnel standpoint, whether they're sworn or non-s sworn. Suppression or non-suppression, because the sworn are police officers. And we ought to pay 100% of their administrative support, because the county doesn't pay any of that. Like an engine maintenance act or something. They might not be sworn, but they're keeping the trucks on the road, which should be. But they are difficult to deal with. They don't know what that is. There are 454 employees in the fire department. If you look at the budget, it includes like 400 and something. I mean, it pretty much covers everybody, because that includes the linemen, the skies, the fire marshals, just that. I didn't ask the chief, well, chiefs out of town, but I didn't ask the assistant chiefs to be here today, because I wasn't anticipating. We were, there were any other questions about who, how, or who it covered. I thought it was more about the funding piece. But non-s sworn staff, there's a small number of non-s sworn staff in the fire department that administrative staff is solicited to sit in terms of their cost. But they didn't get the pay rate. They're not in this one, as Ms. Wilson mentioned. They would be in the city-wise. But they're not, you're not giving them, they're not, they're not at the same level from disparity. You can't universally do that. That was, I think, Ms. Wilson's point is, is that you're going after the folks that were disparity. The other portion is going to be taken care of when you do the other administrative, because we've got to address the other administrative across the city. Well, they're all at a different level. We're not, we're not just universally raising everybody at this level. Right. You're going by what the study shows, and it varies depending to get people into the market rate, if I said that. You did, ma'am. You did. It was based off, you know, off of the fire department. All the house folks that made sure that everybody's getting some types. Sure. And we are on the same page about that. And I think the county ought to pay for the fire department. They do. They do. For the positions that justifiably they ought to be paying for. Contribute to the service delivery. Yes. So Columbia Richland Fire Department and Richland, I think they're willing to step up. Okay. Yeah. So to that point though, I think, you know, the county is demonstrating they want to participate, and we can definitely take a second look at, you know, which positions. I think we've looked at that pretty closely and the positions are tailored to address the service delivery that is given and when they ought to be participating in a cost share for the other positions throughout the city that have not realized any types of cola and or merit. My goal is to bring that to you on next week so we can see kind of what we've done over the last several years. You know, I think we are no different. And it's clearly showing me that with some of the anecdotal information we're getting from our colleagues and other in our closest jurisdictions about progressive measures they're going to be taking through their budget when it comes to workforce and salaries and colas and merits Richland County. I mean, I don't know. I never know for sure what anybody's doing till they do it, but that's what we're hearing. They're looking at debt programs, some pretty happy adjustments less than to count as well. Not sure about a step program, but we've heard up to 10% adjustments. So to be competitive to be progressive for me is not just about the salary increases, though. I've heard you all talk about evaluations and what a robust merit system ought to look like. I also want to clarify, we have always had an evaluation system. People are always evaluated whether or not in particular since the pandemic that system of evaluation needs to be reset. I absolutely think it should. I get ought to incorporate some pretty novel things to encourage some of our employees in the field who are doing really well and maybe some that aren't doing as well to do better, but to give them opportunities that to give us what they're seeing and talk about efficiencies and talk about things that may be redundant to them and maybe get some boxes checked for points. But an evaluation system that they can feel and see and understand. So we've been working on some meeting with Denise and Pam and I met with some experts in the field, people we want to bring into the fold, perhaps, to create training opportunities, personal professional development, a different system. I love to look at incentivizing that type of culture where people are interested in what they're doing and making the city better. And that be part of a merit-based evaluation system that everyone understands. I think the mayor's been talking about that. All of you have on some level and it's just time to do that. But when we do that, obviously paying people for performing well is kind of the name of the game of what we're seeing around us and to be in line and progressive with our nearest jurisdictions probably going to be a very real discussion we have to have. That was how I was hoping to accommodate these other very well-deserving employees. That's what they look forward to that discussion next week. Okay. All right. Sounds good. All right. With the fire pay plan, we do need a reoccurring funding source that would accommodate the 1.4 as we've calculated it. And the hybrid fee is the proposal for a 10% adjustment. I'd still like to ask some of the entities to contribute. I think we need to formalize a letter to the university to the state. And the other folks have been from the fire service that don't contribute. I think it's a fair ask. And I think we ought to generate that out this week. I agree with you, Mr. Mayor. I would make that request a pre-standing request not connected with this particular thing that for here on out we need not further funding. We need a way for them to compensate us for the protection we give them both on fire and bleach. Well, most of the state and the university have we supplement some of that, but fire, we do 100%. And with the campus continuing to grow, and if you look at it, we never collected fees. And since I've been here, it's doubled. So I think it's fair. I think all universities and colleges that we service should put something in proportionately. I think we need to ask the state says they don't do it, but I think we should ask. I think it's absolutely fair for those folks to contribute. They don't pay the same amount of water fees or anything. So asking for a contribution towards that, because what we're looking at is 25, 25, 26. We had previous councils have discussed the dormitory bid fee of $100 a year. Not very bad. And I think that might be a legitimate way for us to get as faithless as you. Well, the university's not just bids anymore. The restaurants and labs and research and retail. And so, you know, we start looking at all of that combined. I think it's worth us asking. I think the letter opens the door to have that conversation. What do you suggest they come from? You or me to the agency head, one of the college presidents. So we jointly send it to the president and CEO of the above. Chairman of the board, too. That's come up before. But we didn't get very far. It came up. Jeff, I mean, we don't have a medical school. We don't have units tomorrow. There are 19 employees in the fire service that are not a part of that. You're 400 or something. There's actually a difference. I think that are the administrative. I'm looking at the night. And I know they appreciate that in all seriousness. How did you get that number? You guys, somebody picked you or something. Bam, she went out and came back in. Went in on her little sticky note. Well, that is it for today, I believe. It is. Probably should have done a closing slide in the sense of those items that we would look forward with would be hearing notice would be required to be prepared and sent to publication next Thursday in preparation for June 6, I would hear if that's the day that you go with all of these with other changes in connection with the budget. And first reading, of course, the budget is. First, the primary one, but these others would be additional. So we're saying that the first in the first first meeting. That's your regular schedule. Let's say get it ready. And short of hearing that from these letters and appeals. In general terms, it's the funding source that y'all are comfortable. There's something that this stuff we're looking for them. It's really the 24 25. We need to play. It's all the time. Thank you, Miss. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Good.