So, what that brought the administration to is an alternate. How can we build and and a long-term solution for our needs at a lower cost, which is the what you see before you on the table. So, the only reason I say this is one to catch everybody up, but the two, the idea is to keep moving forward. So, in my mind, the discussion is are we okay with the solution, putting it to the voters, because we know there's a heavy split here, and this is what we feel is best, and we'll let the voters decide, or do we think that we should pull it back and reconsider for a year, because really, we're not going to come up with another solution at the table.

Um when I looked at the municipalities for Zimmerman, Otsego, Livonia, the support was less than 50% by far, actually. Um so, in my area that I represent, the fiscal burden with it, with the tax implication, is too much, I think, for the people. It's not that they don't want it, and I do think that you know, if we redistrict and Zimmerman becomes overcrowded in time, you know, that's not ideal, either. But, it's what they can do now. And I I wish that we could pull back and maybe reconsider in a year and see what we exactly need, because in uh Princeton, I had it written down, but it was like Okay, Princeton voters rejected. We've already seen this happen.

but we also hear from the families that are experiencing the overcrowding who see that um there are risks to that as well and redistricting is probably not something that is even even a five-year solution. It's probably more a two three-year solution and we'd see schools more than just the just just the Rider schools feeling the pain pain of that. ... I don't think waiting is going to provide us different or better solutions um and it's certainly not going to save us dollars. It's certainly not going to we're not going to find that hundred million dollars in the next year.

The difference is this is a local project. We see brick and mortar going up. We see actually things happening. And so when we're taxed here, on this level, we actually see buildings, we see students being served. It's uh it's totally different. And we If we look at our schools right now, I mean, we're Our schools are very nice, very well equipped. ... The other thing I'm concerned about is if the longer we wait, if we look at inflation on buildings running at 5%. I mean, we could be looking at another 10 million 15 million next year. So, the costs are continually going up.

But the reality is is they're not coming down. They may stabilize, but they're not coming down. We look at this bond referendum and if we cut this down to just the two schools at 295 million, it saves about $4 a month on a $400,000 house. We can't go back in and do the other projects for $4 a month. The reason is bonds are sold over 30 years, the interest rate, the way we can put projects together. So, it will never be cheaper than right now to do it.

Um I just wanted to say that I I know there's people in the community that have full not support the referendum, no matter what you say. And then also, um I believe that it's just it'd be important to give the community the voice and the choice to once it is on the ballot to choose and decide what our future year will look like. ... I'll just end by saying, I mean, I'm not against I know we need a high school for our Seagull. You know, I thought to myself, could we wait for the K through 8 or just so people can kind of catch up with the inflation and all the different taxes and groceries and child care costs and and then we did that survey to see, you know, what the community thought and they they do want the school. They don't want to pay for it. ... but I will represent um my constituents in the northern half and they don't want this for right now. So, I am going to vote no tonight for that.