I've watched this uh presentation come through in many different places that I represent. So, it's interesting seeing it here. TAB's only place that's televised in this way. Uh I think this is deserving of conversation and and I really want to talk about just the impacts and how this applies to our our policy. But most importantly, I just like I said before, I want to make this clear that these really do have real impacts on people living in these areas.

Also, from a capital programming perspective, Henipin County has a 5-year CIP that um does not currently include Park in Portland. But in our conversations with Henipin County, we're very comfortable with what they've said with the work plan, with the idea that Park and Portland is next up, that these are the projects in Q to move into their 5-year CIP. So, from a capital programming perspective, the city of Minneapolis is supportive and understanding of where Park in Portland lie for a future project.

Also if we if the city of Minneapolis came through to do intersection improvements at these locations now um we not only would we have to pay back some of that money but also the work would just be torn up. Henipin County is talking about future street reconstruction which involves regrading the subsurface and maybe you know whatever we built on those dark blue dots would have to be completely torn out in order to match the grades of the new street that's about to be built. And so it's just financially inefficient um unsupportable. Um, it's really kind of wasteful to build something with concrete elements that are incredibly expensive, time consuming, take a lot of coordination to build only to have them torn up in a few years after that. Um, I'd say that that is the bigger priority, not just our payback responsibilities, but just from an efficiency standpoint and being a good steward of taxpayer dollars.

I I support I'm supportive of option I could be persuaded to go with option one quite honestly, but I'm supportive of option two. And it sounds like that's where there's been consensus on FNP and ATAC and um and and we've also heard that the city is is accepting of that option as well. It feels to me like that's reasonable because we're not adding elements, right? We're not we're not allowing them to use federal money to add elements that weren't in the original. The bike lane had nothing to do with the original grant that was made in 2022.