So, last time we had some options. This time we kind of paired it down a little bit looking at option one, demolish the building, expand parking, two, lease the building to a business. Um, we could keep parking located in the back for city hall and build a new parking lot in front, keep the building and revisit next year or monitor the school site and partner with future developers on that site.

I think in any case, shape or form, you'd start at about, you know, I'd say easily it'd be more like 52 to 54,000 in net income. And what that would be is it'd be an easy building to have if you leased it, a triple net lease where you bring in a tenant, they have it, they pay all the bills.

I I have no interest in trying to go 20 years out to have a net cash flow of 29,000 when there's still there's always going to be other other variables that we can't control for during the next two decades. I don't see a substantial value gain there.

I look at and say, do we really want to be in the real estate business for 5,000 bucks a year of income? I mean, if we if we think the space could be used for office or someone could lease it, we should sell it.

Currently city does not have a formal process for evaluating residents requests on existing roadways... To address this, staff is proposing development of a formal administrative review process.

I like the idea of if there is a concern um and that concern could be addressed by current code. I I think it's very reasonable. Um, I just want to have some sort of fail safe for maybe other residents around that area if for some reason they have the differing opinion.

I personally would need it to be it's a public safety reason why this change needs to occur. Yeah, that's the only because otherwise it's a public street.

We have a total of 156 projects totaling just over $137 million. This again, it's a 10-year CIP. So, that's over 10 years.

I feel like what we're doing here is we're saying, 'Hey, these are all the projects and then let's raise a levy based off of that.' I'd like to take a step back... I think we need to bring it down. And so, my feedback would be this needs to come lower.

I would love that in an ideal world um the struggle and part of the um reason that we really are trying to look at this strategically is that capital expenditures typically are not in a smooth uh you know incline across time.

I will say that the years past the city limiting two to 3% has put us in an unfortunate uh financial situation and behind the eightball.

My goal is to get a debt free by 2050 if not sooner because I know that 20 30 40 years from now this city is going to have a huge huge amount of infrastructure work that needs to be done.

I came up with a really really really rough number of $480,000 average for the next 10 years that is only on the local street improvements does not include any of our transportation projects.

So if we if we add in the 480 we need to up it to 10% and we're not achieving that solveny for another two years. Correct. Okay. Okay.

The problem I have with it is the storm water utility payers are different than the taxpayers and we want to try and treat these two everybody pays something for MS4 though right everybody pays for there are very very few people that pay that don't pay taxes that pay storm water.

I'm not saying it's difficult. I'm saying it's more time consuming and if we and we need the revenues to support it and so if you guys are okay with increasing the fund the the storm water rate by 10% per year for the next 10 years and we can we can make it work on our end and I can I can adjust our practices and try and find efficiencies wherever I can. I'm not saying it's not doable. I'm just saying I'm I prefer efficient and path of least resistance where I can.