So, while this proposal includes reductions, it also includes important investments and funding shifts that put us on more solid footing for the future uh for mission critical work that has either been carrying significant budget deficits or relying on one-time funding that is expiring.

I I yes, Council Member Johnson, I I would say that um our our decisions are rooted in data, but also have to look at the impacts across the entire city. Um, I don't think there's any single one answer in terms of of a variable that determines how we get to these points, but we look at the usage. We look at the participation data. We also look at the quality of facility, the staffing models, um, the neighborhood and ward impacts, the closest hub site, um, vicinity to be able to walk from one rec center to another.

I just think that, you know, we're looking at saving some of these save like a few hundred,000 or even less. And I think that the value that they provide to our residents is just much greater than that.

removing this asset actually means that we have no public city facility that is indoors or providing indoor asset anywhere south of lower Afton. And I just want to say how short-sighted that is and incredibly inequitable. I do not see a racial equity lens in that decision whatsoever.

I really appreciate you bringing forth this uh graphic. I'm not sure where else in the city this would ever happen. And I think that that's where a lot of folks have a lot of concerns because this shouldn't be acceptable in any community.

I saw um Sprockets and Right Track being moved into the general fund and I just want to name what an incredible win that is for us to not rely on one-time dollars for an investment in a program that we've been deeply committed to for several years.

This budget does not do that. It cuts frontline services. Um it cuts again on the east side more deeply than anywhere else. Um and and also our our seniors um who are are a population that we should be thinking about.