 So that the chair is chairing the meeting for now until the chair arrives. Prior to the roll call, I'd like to introduce our new board member. I'd like to introduce Carmen Gonzalez as the newest member of the PFA. On October 3rd, 2023, the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors referred three applicants from their recruitment efforts to the city council for consideration to the joint city council representative for the public financing authority. On November 14th, the city council has selected Carmen Gonzalez to fill the final joint seat on the PFA. Welcome, Carmen. Thank you. Thank you from all of us for your service. Madam clerk, please call the roll. Okay. Board member classes. Board member Gonzalez. Here. Board member Judy. Here. Board member Rabbit. Here. Board member Rogers. Here. Vice chair Petro. Here. Chair Fleming. I'll let the record reflect that all board members are present with the exception of board member Corsi and chair Fleming. Our next item is approval of the minutes of October 19th, 2023. Are there any revisions to those minutes? And if not, is there a motion to adopt it? To adopt. Second. Any discussion? Call the roll please. Board member Gonzalez. Yes. Board member Judy. Yes. Board member Rabbit. Aye. Board member Rogers. Aye. Vice chair Petro. Aye. I jumped over public comments on this. Has anyone joined us electronically? No, just as a reminder, we're no longer taking public comment on Zoom, just in person public. That's right, great. Thank you very much. There is no consent items. And the next item is 4.1, which is a report item. Policy discussion key elements of downtown infrastructure. And that is your item to start, I believe, Gabe. Thank you, vice chair. Bear with me for a moment here while we're at our point. All right, thank you everyone for joining us here today. The main agenda topic for today's meeting is associated with the formation of the IFP. That's the Infrastructure Financing Plan. In last meeting, we set a lot of the foundational elements. Staff was given direction to begin the preparation of the IFP, and that process has started. So our goal today would be to talk about some of the core elements that are associated with an IFP. Most of this is governed at the state level, so we'll touch briefly on some of these that you'll see. We've also actually attached our timeline to the agenda. So you can see from that timeline, we're a bit ahead of schedule. Much of the discussion about potentially giving a staff instruction was going to commence through these months, so we're a bit ahead of that. Our target date for delivery of the draft IFP is January. There are certain constraints regarding noticing that we have to do to move forward with that. So we're still moving forward with that game plan. So the PFA will have the opportunity to review that draft document, the formal draft document in January. So at this point, we're really wanting to continue a general policy discussion. And as I mentioned in the last meeting, please feel free as we go through these items if you have any questions or you want to pause to discuss this vice chair. Please feel free to stop the presentation. We would like to have it be more of an open conversation as those comments come up because we're still receiving that feedback. But specifically, other than the IFP and the components of the IFP, I'll talk briefly about the revenue projections and Alan off all in Archie financial officer. We'll assist with that. We'll also talk more about the project list. We've gotten some good feedback from the last meeting. We're starting to put those projects in categories. And as we start deciding on those categories, we can start working through specific project types, understanding how detailed we want to get with those project types, because part of the IFP does involve putting a timeline and a dollar amount to those projects, which I'll talk about in more detail. So as I mentioned, the IFP is really governed by California state code. It's section 53398.63. And these are really the components that make it up. Any IFP has these items. I won't go into detail of all this is more or less for reference for future discussion. But as you review the document, some of these areas are unique to Santa Rosa. Some of these areas are just fairly straightforward. The findings are always unique because you're answering the questions. But when you get into some of the technical details, especially on the finance side, obviously there's some uniqueness to that. So the first component is there is always a boundary map. That's a map of the district. It includes a legal boundary of that district. And as we discussed before, there is a project list. And the state code section doesn't get into too much detail. It basically says you really identify whether it's public or private, understanding how those improvements are to be financed. And then typically there is a timing element to that and then obviously a cost that goes along with that. So essentially you see a project list. And as I mentioned before, how detailed those project get is something that we'll discuss as part of this process. There is also a finding of community-wide significance. So essentially when we look at these projects, we're saying that the project itself does provide a benefit outside of the district. A prime example is if you're widening sidewalks or you're doing beautification elements downtown, that provides a benefit to anybody coming out of the area and they can experience that benefit by coming to downtown Santa Rosa. There's also an element where if housing units are removed or destroyed as part of this, they must be replaced. We're not envisioning that as part of this process. So that likely would not apply in this particular case. Number five, excuse me, are the goals that district proposes to achieve with each project financed. Much of that will come out of the project description. So if we start talking about ADA improvements for sidewalk, the goal is obviously to improve ADA compliance on the sidewalk. So some of that will be self-explanatory as we move forward. The larger item is really the financing section. And I won't touch on all of these. There's a few core components to this that we'll obviously discuss. And some of this we've discussed in the past. So the first item has to do with the tax increment. So how much revenue is proposed to be committed by the city and the county? So that's our tax percentage. There's also a projection of the amount of tax revenue expected to be received. Mr. Alton will be diving into that in the next slide. So we'll go into that in a little more detail. There's a limit on the total amount of taxes that must be allocated to the district. So it's essentially a cap. And there's either a date in which the district will cease to exist or if the district has divided into, excuse me, I have, I have to fix this PowerPoint, I apologize. So the district will cease to exist or if the district is divided in project areas, a date in which in the infrastructure financing plan will cease to be in effect. So it's essentially a termination date. Those are really sort of the main components that we'll see in the document. We can talk and see these other items in more detail, but like I said, a lot of this is moved forward as more or less referenced. So you understand as you go through this document what you're really looking at, the parts and pieces. So with that, it leads us into a discussion about the funding sources. And at this point, I'll hand the presentation over to Alan and he will talk through this slide. We'll quickly, Chair Fleming will be here in about five minutes. So what I have here on this slide is just basically an overview of the funding sources that would come into the district or would be eligible to, which is your property tax and it would be the increment property tax and vehicle license fees that follow along with that. So I give you kind of a, there's just the basic rule of thumb for the property tax coming in. It's capped 1% of the assessed value that's there. And the city receives about 12% of that 1% in the county, approximately 20% of that. So if you look at it in terms of a, kind of what does that mean for every, say $1 million of increment, it's about $1,200 coming to the city. So about $2,000 coming to the county. And then that would of course be split by whatever agreement that we have in place that would go in and fund the district. So what would be diverted from either the county or the city general fund to go into the district? So that's where I have. I haven't yet worked out the numbers of exactly how much of the the revenue that would come in over a 45 year period, it's dependent on the projects and how all that valuation goes in. So some of those are gonna come out in the IFP. But for right now, this gives you kind of the foundational perspective of how the split or the funding mechanism for that district. Did you want to address the vehicle license fees? Yeah, I mean, I use an assumption on there. This is something that is, that actually the consultants working on the plan, that's an assumption that they're looking at, which is about 56 cents per thousand dollars. So you're looking at that same million dollars that would come in. That would be about $560 on the city side. And I'm not sure what that would be on the county side, but probably about the same amount. So that's what you're looking at. So it's a small addition that just follows the property tax in. Through the vice chair. Absolutely. So this year analysis here, 1200 for every million dollar on the tip is that assuming under percent of the cities and the counties tax increment would be dedicated to this? Or are you looking at it? So what I'm saying is that's how much the increment would actually, that million dollars evaluation, that additional million dollars. What that does is that generates an amount that's, what would that be? That would be $3,200. Right. And then of the $3,200, the city has $1,200 of it. The county has 2,000. And then so if you, let's say, the city diverted 50% into the district, that's how it would work. Right. So you're just doing a proportion and yeah. It's just to provide that level of perspective. Right. And different EFIVs that have been established throughout the state have different percentages that they're using. And so, I mean, of the growth and the tax increment. So it's just, that's part of the discussion is to figure out what is that percentage, right? That the Boulder City and the county will agree to. Yeah. Are there any additional questions on the slide before we move to the next? I have another one on the former. Sorry, I've got a lot of questions. Just the limits on value is that, I understand it's a statutory requirement. Could you speak to the cap and how it relates to bonding and what the relationship is there? I mean, the limit on value, the total limit on what can amount of taxes that can be allocated to the district? Chris. So I can speak to that briefly. Scott Wider and Deputy Director of Finance here at the city. So what will cap the ultimately the amount of debt that the district will be able to form is really the revenue. So when we go through and we work with our bonding consultants they'll come up with a contribution ratio between the revenue coming in and the total thing. Now, of course, you're right in saying that whatever the cap of it would certainly affect that. I'll be frank, I highly doubt that that cap level is really going to impact how much debt we have out there. Okay. We also have our finance consultants on Bob Gamble and also Chris Lynch. If there's anything they want to say, I don't think it's promoted. Yeah, promoted. I have nothing to add, Sam. Is Bob on? Because I think Bob had some comments on this part too. Hi, this is Bob Gamble. I think at this point, there isn't enough information to really fully, you know, fill out the picture here because we'll need to see what the IFP projects in terms of tax generation over time and also, you know, the impact of the fiscal impact study will matter to this decision as well. So I think when that information is more clear then it makes sense to begin to figure out what those, you know, how those limits affect the district. And this is Mani Zirani. We will be in the IFP estimating when those potential bond sales would take place. So we typically look at it in conjunction with the amount of time that the EIFD will be in existence. So we will be providing that as part of the IFP analysis. Okay, any additional questions about that? I have one question. Is, do we know, can the PFA be provided the total current fiscal year, or prior fiscal year assessment so that we know what the base numbers are prior to increment? I'm sorry, Hugh, I wasn't sure that I understood the question but currently we had done a preliminary analysis based on 2021 numbers and now with the new levy for the 20, or excuse me, 22 year with the new levy, we will update the numbers to reflect 2023 valuations. So basically what you want is in the district you want to see what the tax valuation is for or what the assessed valuation is in the district as defined as it is right now pre-formation. It's extremely helpful as you have pointed out what the maximum amount of dollars per thousand dollars have increased at assessment, where those dollars go. So we know that that's the most it can be and then it's a matter of discussion. And then there's a vehicle license fees which I'm sure will be nailed down more precisely. But then of course there's a normal Prop 13 increase as well which delivers significant numbers. So I'm sure that what the consultants will do is they'll take that base, they'll apply the Prop 13 analysis and to the extent they have accurate information on the probabilities of new construction during at least the early years of the IFD, it'll be possible to get to what the actual revenue flows per annum into the IFD could be in maximum or less than maximum. And until that's known, of course you can't absolutely nail down what projects you're gonna select because you don't know how much money you have. But once you know that, we're at the next stage of really staffing the consultants are at the next stage of highly precise calculations, pretty precise calculations that then become part of our discussion. But you got to start with that phase number. Okay, any additional questions? I will move to the next section of the presentation which talks a little bit about projects. We received very good feedback in the last meeting about general categories that we can focus on. And really when we look at projects we first look at the delivery method of those projects and we talked about it in the previous meeting. There are certain projects that are 100% initiated by the city generally through capital projects that can happen through this program. And there's also those where it's more of a project that is either done fully or partially by private development and then there's a reimbursement component to that. When we look at the categories, we heard a lot about LynchPin, what's the spark? How do we increase taxes? How do we bring people downtown? So we try to focus that conversation into some more defined categories. And really how I have them listed here is pedestrian access improvements, excuse me. So that includes ADA compliance but it also includes general circulation. How do we move people around the area? We also have increasing or reprogramming shared streetscape space. Generally what that is is you look at the existing streetscape and how do you reprogram it? Parklets are a prime example of that. It could be bulb outs for outdoor seating. It could look at reprogramming the street to allow more activity which has a tendency to bring people in and reactivate the space. We also have beautification and wayfinding that generally includes street trees, signage and lighting. It's a little more broad than that. There's others that can fit in that category but that's just a few specific project types that we would include in there. Alleyways and pocket park improvements. Those we have Jeju Way, we have Comstock Mall, we have certain areas downtown that actually if we reprogram them, how would that actually activate the space and draw people in? And that's a general category but it would likely focus on projects in those two specific areas. And then the big project that really often dominates the conversation about downtown is the connectivity between railroad square and downtown. That obviously has some challenges associated with that but we wanted to look at options to potentially program projects around that. So really the feedback we're looking for today is are those project categories good? Did we miss something? Do we need to modify those? Are we going down the right road? Because as we move forward in this process, as I mentioned, we'll start programming those with more specifics. There is a balance on how specific and how general it is and we'll find that balance. We just wanna make sure we're not missing something in this list. No, no, no, no. Great. Does anybody have any thoughts or questions on that? Just to overarching, which actually echoes discussions that were held prior, which is to the extent we can overlap even the projects themselves so that you can integrate beautification and wayfinding along with the improvements or anything relating to transportation, that would be helpful. I think that is sort of a guiding force if we can combine, that's ideal. Yes, and we absolutely can and that is an excellent point. One of the pieces that was also mentioned when we get into some of these improvements, especially on the pedestrian access side, it seemed to be that the PFA was not interested in going towards a project. It would be a private development mitigation, something that they would normally do as part of the development. When we look at a reimbursement program, when we look at a project that is meeting their mitigation measures, how do we tag on to that with having them do more and having this program assist? A few different benefits to that. Obviously, it's occurring with the private development dollars and it's gaining those efficiencies, but it's also developing in the natural course of development, where it isn't necessarily private development moving forward and the city coming in with the project five years later. And the private development projects that we're seeing are bringing people in. So how do we create that livable space downtown? How do we bring it in? How do we bring individuals in? So absolutely these can be sandwiched over each other. It may be one project touches on multiple. It may be that a capital project grabs components of this and it may very well be that a private development project grabs components of this. I go back to the chair. I go back to our discussions on the red, right? Talking about how to actually spur building, and in units and whatnot. And so, and I know that we talked about the not mitigating. I'm not sure. And I think I said at the beginning of this time frame, I think it you might have to mitigate because we've seen that on the red that some projects that said idle just can't get started because there's that delta between what they need. And I don't know from my standpoint, does it matter where those two, three million are going? The important thing is to actually get the, get the building up and going and committed to construction. When you say mitigating, do you mean like project readiness? No, I've heard I heard Gabe and I'm assuming that's like, you know, city imposed mitigations or conditions on development. Gotcha. One of them was, you know, you had in order to build a building on them, you might have been yours. Was there one with utility poles in the alleyway needed to be moved? Well, that was a huge ticket item for that particular development was going to make or break whether or not you could start it. And again, I, you know, I just know that through the economic cycles, those things could have a big, you know, big impact on whether or not you're getting it built. Yeah, I just said, I'm not opposed to mitigations. What I want to see is things that, you know, if we approach it from a public health perspective. So what sorts of things are we going to do that's going to have the biggest impact for the most people? And if it's, you know, helping one developer across the finish line that's going to bring in, you know, tons and tons of units and be a luncheon type of thing, then sure that's the right thing to do. But I'd like to see if we're going to do mitigations that they hopefully benefit more than one party or more than one individual investor or group of investors on one site and provide sort of an enhanced level playing field for as many folks to get in on their investments and creating the downtown that we want to see if we do go the route of mitigations. Any thoughts? If I may. So one approach to the issue of mitigation and development subsidies is broadly enough that they assist with infrastructure that can impede a project. We know, for example, that PG&E infrastructure is inadequate for the downtown core. And I believe the cost of upgrading that is generally unknown. So to have some play in the joints in the EIFD that would allow area wide infrastructure, assistance in that area is one example of what would both deal with the mitigation and deal with the broader benefit. And absolutely. So with that infrastructure component, if we want to reduce it down and I believe the mitigation measures we talked about are the ones somewhat of what Supervisor Rabbit mentioned are the very direct code driven units wide in your sidewalk or replace your sidewalk as part of this development. I think when we get into more of the regional mitigations that can also be a big code driven such as underground utilities where actually that action does benefit multiple parcels in that area. That really helps us develop really the parameters around how we would define projects in that. PG&E is a challenge to a lot of the downtown developments so we can look at that aspect. So we'll add that category of private development mitigations. We'll just put more parameters around that. So there's a clear expectation about what that looks like if that is the PFA's recommendation. We're then happy to add that. Thanks. I would phrase it as development mitigation. Just one, I think it'll be easier to explain to the public than if you just put the parameters around private into it gives us some additional options at the city for some of that work. Some of our city-owned sites. I have one other question and in terms of ADA if there's streetscape work that is done then of course it has to be ADA compliant. But if there's existing infrastructure not otherwise touched by the EAFD it requires ADA improvements. It can be argued that that raises a supplanting issue in terms of what the city should be investing versus what the EAFD should be. So maybe if that can be clarified that would be helpful. Absolutely. Yeah, I'm just piggybacking on that. I mean, we've talked previously about a criteria being to sort of gap funding or looking at where there weren't other funds sources available that you want to supplant. On ADA, I mean you've got CDBG you've got a number of funding sources that help support ADA. So just thinking about that trying to bring that back in as well not supplanting and thinking about gas funding. So if we look at that category where we have ADA is often it can be a wide variety but often it's viewed as we're placing an existing sidewalk for compliance. But what's the PFA's thought on pedestrian gap closures? So that's a situation where the sidewalk simply does not exist where we're trying to improve circulation in the area. That has an ADA component to it but it's not that example of replacing pet ramps at the intersection with the city generally accepts responsibility for. Is there a desire to see that added to the list? Yeah, I'd like to see that one. But my only question would be would that come across to the county as any sort of support? I'm not sure. Not sure. I'm not familiar with the areas where sidewalks aren't existing. Okay. So it would be helpful if it would be helpful excuse me as we move forward when we get more of a description to this we can also provide a specific example of what that project would look like with visuals similar to where the undergrounding is because most of the underground utilities have been lower downtown but it does exist in areas. So we can talk about areas where we have sidewalk gap closures. So there's a better understanding visually of what that challenge would be and what that project would look like. Those areas are not so much in the center of the downtown corporate in the outlying areas within the district I believe. That is correct. Yeah. Concludes the policy discussion that we had this afternoon. I'm happy to step back and address any other questions that came up as part of this process or if there's anything we didn't touch upon here that's associated with the IFT have questions about that more than happy to answer them at this point. I have another one. Sir, just can the city establish a base year prior to the county's taking a formal action to the joint or do both jurisdictions have to establish and agree to the base year assessed value simultaneously? I mean, how does that work? Chris Lynch, can you? Hi, this is Chris Lynch from Johnson Hall. The base year is statutory. It's assessed value in the area of the district last equalized prior to adoption of the resolution forming the IFT. So you can adjust how much you allocate but the base year is a matter of statute. So to use an example, if you were to establish the IFT in April of 2024, then the last equalized role would have been the 23-24 role if you would adopt it in November then it would be the 24-25 role. Did you have more questions also about like because I think Chris and this mentioned it and I think in the last time mentioned sort of like the variability of percentage obligation. I don't know if that's a question that you have but I sensing it might be. Yeah. So looking at case studies of different EFIDs across the state, there's different percentages sometimes for city and county, right? And we had talked a little bit last time about that but I just wonder if there's any, has there been any further staff analysis or discussion along those lines that we should think about or? I can say no, there has not been additional staff analysis but I think the thing that is interesting that seemed to peak your interest last time is that it might change throughout the life of the plan. So Chris, can you talk a little bit about that to sort of guide us through to eventually get to a place where we understand what goes in IP versus what eventually might change and how that might change? Sure, well it does say that obviously each entity that's contributing can have a different percentage. Each doesn't have to do 100. They don't have to be the same vis-a-vis each other. It does allow the amount that's allocated to change over time but we have to recognize that if you wanna issue bonds, then it's important to have a fixed amount that can be relied upon. So there's variability in how it can be allocated but you have to take that into account that proposed financing plan when evaluating that. Do I have anything else on this item? Okay, have we heard public comment on it? We have not. All right, need to sort of take that. There's no hands raised in person. We're not doing this in public comments. Great, fantastic. With that, we'll move on to item five. Comments on non-agenda matters. No hands raised. All right then. Item number six, discussion of next meeting agenda. So with the next meeting agenda, what's there's a few different options we can go with here. So as I mentioned before, our timeline has us presenting the draft IFP in January. Obviously that will give the PFA more to really focus on on the technical details, understanding the way out of the document. Staff behind the scenes will need time to finalize that. We do have a working draft, the city and the county will have to work together behind the scenes to come up with recommendations and move those recommendations forward. December may be a good month to make that happen and it's then would cause us to jump right back into a draft IFP in January. So that proposal would potentially have us canceling the meeting in December. I know it falls around when many people may not be available due to the potential holidays or the holidays that you recognize, I should say. So that's one option. The other option is we can continue some of these conversations if you still have questions. We just wanna get you to the point where you actually have some substantial information that you're reviewing and we can start getting into the details associated with that. And as I mentioned, we probably do need some of the time behind the scenes to do all that preparation and make sure we can come to an agreement with our county counterparts and come forward with a document that we can recommend as a starting point for the PFA to start digesting and reviewing as part of that process. So we'll throw that out there as two options. Curious to hear what the board thinks. If there's a desire to meet in December, it can be more of a discussion about the projects. We can expand that a bit, but I just wanna be sensitive to everyone's time and the fact that we do have hours behind the scenes that need to go into the final product. Thank you. Does anybody have strong feelings about those suggestions? If we get numbers, base assessment, prop 13 increase and some speculative assessment of what kind of additional increment can be produced through new development, then we're in a position really to know what the potential revenue stream can be. And the sooner we get that, even if we can't, those dollars are gonna have to be known by staff, staff to staff conversations, PFA conversations. If it were possible to have those available in December, it doesn't mean we make any decisions about them, but then we could ask questions about them which would facilitate the January action meeting. That's just my thought of the cuff. And I also believe that the DAO could provide some guesstimates of the entitled projects of what those increments could be. Right now there is about 150 million of reassessment value under construction in the downtown core, roughly. And then there's another bunch of entitlement projects that probably would add another 250 million. But those are speculative. One doesn't know that they'll happen. But those numbers can be taken into account and as long as we all know what's speculative, then we can make adjustments accordingly as can staff. So I think there is some value in perhaps a December meeting. So I've got a thought, because I'm reading between the lines that you guys need a little bit of time to do your stuff and then come back and you need a minute and your acre for the data. So a couple of thoughts. One is to send a memo out. I don't know if you can do this through our attorneys or something or make it public even as you get the data so that the board could take a look at it. The other option or we could do both frankly would be to have a meeting, a special meeting the first Thursday in January to just hear the numbers and then give your expert an action item or we can just meet in January. I can also get some clarification because there is a code requirement that the draft IFP has to go out 40 days in advance of the first public meeting at which the IFP will be addressed, which will have to be in December if you're planning on having a meeting in January. So you will have advanced look at some of those things coincidentally, though we wouldn't be able to discuss and Chris please correct me if I'm wrong, you can't discuss the IFP until it's, you're in that first public meeting. The elements of it might be able to be discussed or reviewed but you'll have that document 40 days in advance. As you're going through the public, the first public hearing or the first public meeting you then have a series of public hearings and there is work that can be done between those prior to the adoption of the recommendation of formation. So to clarify in our January meeting would mean then that we had had the data for 40 days. That's correct. So we're getting it relatively soon. Right, right. And so discussion points can happen there. I think if I may, some of the work that has to be done among staff would be the discussion with the county which is going through the city manager's office on percentages and things like that. So that is the work I believe that Gabe is talking about and making sure that we have adequate time to do some of those pieces. Yes, and Chris Lynch can you clarify do we have to post the draft IFP or simply notice 40 days in advance that we will be having a discussion on a draft IFP? Yeah, you have to provide notice and I think you have to upload it to the PFA's website as part of the notice. I think it's worth this group discussing about whether you're going to put the time in at the city county level to come to a general sense of what makes sense for the two of them and have a draft IFP presented that is eventually presented at that initial meeting that reflects what the city and the county could live with to start the statutory process or if you're going to present something at that first meeting, not really knowing whether the city and county is supported and might have to repeat that step a few times. So my general sense is it makes sense for the city and the county to come to have a good understanding of what they think the deal ought to be that the staff prepares a draft IFP that reflects that and that's what ends up in front of the PFA at that initial meeting where it's just being presented and there's questions and comments that can be asked. There is an intermediate step. Raisa, correct me if I'm wrong. Has this body yet directed preparation of the IFP? Yes, that happened at the last meeting and we had that resolution adopted. That's right. So I would think that if you're trying to come up with the most efficient process that provides the best public experience, I would think that when you eventually present that IFP to the, at that first initial meeting, it's going to reflect what city and county have really thought through and evaluated. Okay. I mean, to my mind, taking the time to get that right for us seems reasonable. I appreciate it. I'd like to get it done quicker. We'd all like to get it done quickly. Is everybody else okay with that? Okay. Yeah, I was just going to add and looking at Crystal when I talk about this, but for me, from the county's perspective, I'd like to have an analysis of the revenues and expenditures within the district today as they exist and take into account whether that's per capita cost of services and then take that into account of the growth and CPI over time. So I know what our obligation is within that boundary that's going to change and what is available. Okay. I'm sorry to labor this, but county to city discussion, I'm sure that all makes sense. I get that, but surely you have to have the data to have that conversation. Cause unless you know what the revenue stream is, how do you know what you're sharing or what objectives are going to be guided by? So the city, we have that data. Some of the work has been done and I think that's the conversation that has to happen at from county administrator to city manager's office to be able to get to a place as Chris mentioned where there is mutual agreement on what those percentages might be, but that is the discussion amongst staff at that staff level. So the practical result of that being resolved at the staff level is that when it is presented to the PFA, PFA may be choosing projects, but it's not going to be influencing the share. We're going to have no comment on the sharing percentages. Well, Chris, maybe I could comment on that. So the PFA's job as I read the law is to implement the IFP. I don't know that it's a policy maker. I believe it's implementing the IFP. The IFP is going to reflect what the city is willing to commit at tax increment for and what the county is willing to commit tax increment for. So I would think that when it comes to the PFA as part of that first meeting, the city and the county would have identified the projects they're willing to spend money on and the amount of increment that they're willing to allocate to it to make those projects happen. If I understood with that. Yeah, we know that we don't determine what the share is. That's for the city and county to decide. I totally understand that. The only question I'm raising is, is that discussion ever going to happen here? Or, and if it isn't, that's fine. Where is that discussion? Simply a staff to staff discussion and how does, and then ultimately the BOS and city council undoubtedly involved in that determination in some fashion, I guess. Is that the way it's going to happen? Yeah, the statutory process is that the 40 day notice the race I mentioned is mailed out and it refers to the PFA's website that has the draft infrastructure plan uploaded to it. So the, and at that first meeting that follows 40 days later, there's a presentation of the IFP to the PFA where they can ask questions and other members of the public can as well. No late, no earlier than 30 days later than you have the first of the first public hearing at which comments can be received, but no change is made. And you can have a second public hearing where changes can be made. And between the second and third public hearing the city and county have to approve the IFP, at which point after that, there's a third public hearing at which after that public hearing has happened if there's no protest, then the IFP is adopted and the EIFD is established. So my only point is I think the way the statute really probably assumed it would work is that the parties committing an increment would have decided what's going to be financed, how much money they're committing. It's presented to the PFA and there's probably not a lot of change that happens along the way unless the public or the PFA or the city and county along the way kind of come up with additional issues they hadn't thought about. But the other piece of that is that is the PFA who issues the bond, right? I mean, obviously you have to work with city and county on these things but it's based on that. And that's where you start having conversations annually on work plan and revenue assumptions and things like that. But this first part of it is the obligation of the dressing room. I understand the process. So I'm just asking the question, are we ever gonna talk about the sharing within this body before that determination is made? That's all I'm asking really. And if that decision is made not to then it's just presented to us that that's what it is then we will deal with that of course. So just a question. I think to that point then the question is, is this something that each body, the board and the city council are gonna bring up amongst ourselves? Or is this something that you're proposing to have the city administrators and the city and county administrators work out and present to each body? The way I see it, ultimately the policy making bodies are the decision making bodies. And so we will do the staff work we will come to our respective policy making bodies with recommendations, but ultimately it is the city councils at the city council discretion, the board of supervisor discretion, what the actual commitment is. So on the city side, do we have a sense of when we will be discussing that? Well, as Gabe mentioned, we've gotta have those internal conversations with the county knowing that we've got two city council meetings left in December, if we don't make it on the 12th and we're talking about January. All right then. We'll move on to public comment on this item. Saying none, we'll move on to item seven, which is adjournment. I hope you all have a good holiday if you observe these holidays. Thank you. See you everybody later. Thanks.