Good afternoon, everyone.
I want to give you all a brief update before I head into a meeting with the following alderpersons.
Lee, Nugent, Wagaspak, O'Shea, Bill, Villegas, Riley, Quinn, Lopez, Yancey, and Scott.
Self-identified representatives of the alternative proposal.
with the whole aim of landing a fair budget compromise that ultimately protects Chicagoans from regressive taxes
and, of course, from Trump cuts to critical services.
Last week, I called all 50 older persons in hopes of continuing these critical and time-sensitive discussions,
making myself, my IGA team, policy, budget, and finance teams available last week and throughout the weekend.
Unfortunately, only a handful of alder people made themselves available.
Our immediate concern, of course, is still to pass a balanced budget this year that protects Chicagoans and avoids a government shutdown.
Despite not having their new proposal or ideas, per a statement from proponents of the alternative proposal group,
we see that our steadfast advocacy around the importance of funding for youth employment,
increasing funding for survivors of gender-based violence,
and maintaining CPL's collection fund is now a priority of these alderpersons as well.
Their budget proposal or their ideas allegedly removes the garbage fee.
Hopefully this is a sign that through our advocacy for working people,
these members understand the importance of not passing budgets that disproportionately impact people
already experiencing trump cuts and struggling to make the ends meet.
Our position on our side, we are more than willing to look at any proposal
that includes real projections, projections that we can verify with our own numbers, of course.
We do have some serious fiscal concerns about some of the fine print of their initial ideas.
A budget that relies on overly optimistic revenue projections that failed to materialize will ultimately result in us coming back in the middle of next year to balance our budget to continue the funding of jobs, services, and neighborhood development that Chicagoans have come to rely upon.
We need to ensure that all revenue projections are grounded in hard numbers and, of course, reality.
Additionally, their proposal would sunset the increase in the PPLT after one year, which would blow a massive hole in next year's budget.
Currently, because of the structural work that we have put forward and the work that we have done over the first two years in office,
we are projecting a $477 million gap for next year, which is significantly lower than the budget reality that we came in with.
We have reduced the structural imbalance by more than $680 million year over year.
With their introduced proposal, we would be looking at a budget gap of more than $700 million, and that's a conservative estimate.
We have proposed revenue that is structural so that we can address Chicago's structural deficit with new revenue.
We do look forward to the meeting this afternoon as we work to protect working people and, of course, pass a balanced budget.
With that, I'm available for questions, and so is my team.
Okay.
We're going to do one question to try to get through everybody.
Just pass it along.
Thanks.
All right.
Mayor, it sounds like you're saying that without the corporate head tax,
the proposal on the table from the alders, the opposing alders,
would exacerbate the city's budget deficit in the coming years
and that it is essential that you have revenue that you can count on.
Is that correct?
And it seems like, given that the garbage tax has now been abandoned by the alternative proposal,
So to these alders, the hang-up is the corporate head tax.
Is that your read of where negotiations are?
Well, I think that the hyper-interest...
Of corporations, some, the corporate head tax has always been the issue, right?
So that's not a breaking discovery, but to your frame of your question around ensuring that we have structural revenue sources in place
to strengthen the long-term viability of our economy, absolutely.
And that's just not my projection or analysis that includes the analysis of the Civic Federation.
that understand that, as well as the civic committee of the commercial club,
that in order for us to have a vibrant economy moving forward,
the practices that we have implemented over the first couple of years have already put us on a pathway for long-term sustainability.
And very quickly, the Federal Transit Administration wanted your CTA safety plan today.
Did you submit it?
But I believe that today that's going to happen if it hasn't happened already.
Hi, Mayor.
Hi.
As far as kind of timing for the budget goes, you know, obviously we're approaching the holiday.
Could you give a sense of do you anticipate a vote this week, do you anticipate one next week,
or are you guys going to be working around the holiday?
What is that going to look like?
Well, I'm working, and so is my team, working around the clock essentially.
We were available last week, including the weekend.
Only a couple of Alders who have expressed concerns about my budget took us up on that offer.
In fact, we did have some meetings we thought scheduled, and they were canceled.
Our team is available and will continue to be available, and this is not a new project for us.
We began working on this the moment I came into office.
This year's budget started with conversations and interactions going back 11 months, roundtable discussions, multiple community meetings.
So it's clear that our team certainly has the strong work ethic, and we essentially reflect the work ethic of working people.
That's why this budget is so critical, because it ultimately protects working people in this city.
Hi, Mayor.
Hi.
This is the first time we've seen you since Officer Crystal Rivera's family sued the city,
alleging the city didn't keep her safe from her former partner, Carlos Baker,
and that she was perhaps, you know, that it was a targeted attack as opposed to a tragic accident.
Are you concerned that the city did not do enough to protect Officer Rivera?
Well, look, the protection of residents as well as our officers, that's always my top priority.
and my prayers are still with Officer Rivera's family.
There will be a process that will go through the litigation steps,
and so, of course, I can't speak to any of the specifics or the claims that have been made,
but I can tell you that our top priority is always to protect residents
and, of course, the people who put their lives on the line for the people of this city.
And, again, our prayers are still with Officer Rivera's family.
And I think I have a question for the budget director, if you don't mind.
The alternative budget proposal relies on nearly $50 million from casino games at the airports
and sort of expanded gambling.
Has your administration determined that that revenue cannot be relied on
and is not something that should be included in a budget package?
Sure.
Jill, come on over to the microphone.
Thank you, Jill Jaworski, CFO.
So the revenues that they have proposed are significantly larger than any revenues that our consultant determined would be available if VGTs were approved.
Specifically, it looks like they are assuming that we would be at a place where we would have as many VGTs in use as if they had been open,
as if we had had VGTs authorized for 10 years under our study.
So it was assuming approximately 85% of all locations would have VGTs.
Because it takes a long time to go through the licensing process with the Illinois Gaming Board,
those are not realistic assumptions that we could rely upon.
Video gaming terminals.
Sure.
The estimates that they have provided for video gaming terminal revenue, the tax revenue, they're not realistic.
We would not have enough video gaming terminals available to generate that tax revenue, even if it was approved with this budget this month.
Hey, Mayor.
Hi.
You've said that you would veto a budget that included garbage fees,
and I'm wondering now that the people who are opposing your budget and are trying their own are saying they're going to take out garbage fees.
Knowing what you know about their budget, would you veto it?
if it was passed by the city council?
Well, you know, first of all, it's good that they recognize that my advocacy for working people,
it's really to the advantage of all council members to support a budget that protects working people.
In terms of what our next steps will be, that's why we're still negotiating.
We're not at a point where I can make that assertion.
And what I said, and I still stand by it, is that having a budget that protects working people has always been my top priority.
And that's who I'm fighting for.
I'm not, you know, necessarily trying to defend these big corporations, right?
They already have their defender in chief.
And quite frankly, they're already benefiting from tax cuts that they've received from the Trump administration.
So quite frankly, they don't need any defense.
And we're going to continue to negotiate in good faith.
That's why my team was available all weekend.
I wish they would have taken us up on it, but at least they did do what I did ask,
which was to turn something in so that we can review.
Now we can have some substantive conversations around a pathway moving forward,
but making it very clear that, look, let's not burden working people.
Let's make sure that youth employment is maintained.
Again, there are some concerns about their, what quite frankly I believe are some exaggerated projections.
I don't believe that that's responsible budget management, particularly because we know that our economy can be quite elastic.
And we have to be open and available to trends that we don't have control over, particularly coming from the federal government.
I want to ask a follow-up on that projection issue.
You all have noted that it's illegal for the city to not pass a balanced budget.
How does that determination get made?
Is there some possibility where you all would rule that that's just not a balanced budget?
Yeah, Annette Guzman, budget director. So, as you know, we have to input the budget into a system and do all the calculations.
And per state statute, we have to pass a balanced budget.
As I have noted to both the chairman of the budget committee as well as the finance chair, you know,
it's important to call upon me to reflect whether or not the projections that have been provided are, in fact,
accurate and based on best practice methodologies. And from what we can tell, because we've run
the numbers just based on the ordinance language that they've provided, and it does not reflect
a balanced budget currently. And we also didn't get any of their backup to understand
what assumptions that they're making within their revenue assumptions. One thing that we did know,
based on their original, original letter to us is just a flat-out statement that they think that
we've underestimated based on the monthly revenue reports that we put out every month.
And for those who just read monthly revenue reports, without understanding the methodology
behind it, could overly include one-time revenues in their assumptions that we obviously control for.
Hi, Mayor.
Hi.
I just came from a press conference with members of the alcohol industry, the hospitality industry, and they're concerned about this alternative budget proposal, including changes to the retail sales tax for takeaway alcohol consumption.
They're calling that regressive, saying it would hurt small businesses and consumers.
Where do you fall on that?
And especially because you proposed a budget without a grocery tax, do you think this is in a similar vein regressive?
Well, you know, look, we've already put forth a proposed budget that challenges these corporations, the largest ones, to put more skin in the game.
In fact, some of the feedback that we received was that our community safety surcharge,
which is an important investment that corporations want us to make,
that we did not situate our calculation around the technical definition of a small business.
So we have even expressed and shown a willingness to shift the threshold
for businesses that would be brought into this revenue stream.
You know, as far as, you know, the liquor...
Lobby, I do understand their concern, you know, just, you know, put it point blank.
As far as the intentions around it, you know, you would, you know, have to get that understanding from those who are proposing it, you know.
But we do certainly understand, you know, their concern.
My question is also about the liquor tax.
And in your initial response to the initial alternative budget proposal,
you all wrote that there were legal concerns around the liquor tax because it would tax off-premise consumption specifically.
Do you still have those concerns, and is that enough of a concern where you wouldn't sign a budget that has this liquor tax increase?
Do you want to speak to that?
Mary, either one of you.
Mary, which is the Lord of Court Counsel.
So I haven't seen the presentation associated with the parameters of the liquor tax,
and I would need to assess it to the extent that it falls outside of the law.
Obviously, it's going to be prohibited.
Does anyone want to elaborate on those concerns that you all wrote about in your initial response to the liquor tax increase?
So, again, we are reacting to things, you know, as soon as it comes in,
And obviously, it takes time to review legal precedent, also case law, to understand how it could be applied to the city of Chicago should we impose an additional tax.
There's this case law out there that in the past has reflected that there's no credible distinction between off-prem and on-prem retail sales to reflect having a differentiating tax.
But, again, we're still working through that analysis.
We're looking at other municipalities and how they are taxing within the state of Illinois,
how they're taxing liquor to see if the proposal as put forth would be sound legally.
Mayor, okay, just double-check it out who's next.
There is a new Washington Post editorial.
I'm sorry, my voice is gone.
The headline is, Chicago has lost its mind, and this is a quote.
By making it more expensive to do business or hire workers in the city,
these measures threaten Chicago's future economic growth.
Can you respond?
I'm happy to.
Their assertion is just way off base.
In fact, we just saw the Civic Federation also substantiate what I've been saying all along,
that there is no empirical evidence that somehow the revenue that we would generate
from less than 1% of the largest corporations lead to causing harm within our job growth.
In fact, interesting enough, it was also the Civic Federation last year
that encouraged us not to pay the full amount in our pensions,
and they also stated that the community safety surcharge that I'm proposing in my budget
that that is an option for Chicago.
So the very entity, the Civic Federation, of which many people know,
are sort of the guiding hand around the proposals that are coming from these other alders,
one, agree that the assertion that is coming from this particular media outlet is wrong,
and two, that same federation encouraged us to use it as an option.
What we have seen is vibrancy within our economy, right?
We had the busiest summer in the history of the city of Chicago.
Six cranes are already up, 18 confirmed.
Our airports set and broke records.
As we continue to build the safest, most affordable big city in America,
it's imperative that we create structural changes to our budget that allow for long-term solvency.
I've already given you the projections and the outcomes for next year,
And that's a relatively modest expectation that by just imposing a budget that is 60 percent structurally sound, it's actually more than that.
If you look at how TIF dollars over time provide sustainable economic growth,
that we will have a budget gap that we would fill that is under $500 million, roughly $477 million.
If we were to accept their proposal in its formation today, it would put us on a path that is not only not sustainable, but it places, again, the heavy burden on working people, and that's what we're trying to do.
Look, the bottom line is this.
We have placed too much of a burden on working people in this city.
I mean, we have the interests of corporations and the ultra-rich that are demanding that working people make brick without straw.
It's a futile exercise that continues to place undual responsibility on everyday people.
And so, respectfully to this publication, their information is wrong,
but it wouldn't be the first time that a publication got something that I've done wrong.
Is that every – oh, hey.
Hi, how are you?
I'm wonderful. Thank you.
We are 15, 16 days away from the deadline for the budget.
Today, 30 alternates didn't show up to the council meeting.
So at this point, do you see that there is a possibility of a shutdown?
I'm working every single day, so is my team, to avoid a government shutdown.
Now, I've said this before.
I do believe, and first of all, I don't believe any city council members want a shutdown.
I've said that repeatedly.
But I do know that there are some outside of city council that would love to have destruction and chaos, right?
Because the interests of the ultra-wealthy, it thrives under that type of political condition.
We're seeing that at the federal level, where the Trump administration is invoking and provoking chaos so that he can continue to provide tax breaks and benefit to the ultra-rich.
So that's why we made ourselves available, not just last week, but all weekend.
They didn't take us up on it, but there are a number of alders who will finally come to the table this afternoon, and I'm going to continue to negotiate in good faith.
And a shutdown doesn't benefit the people of Chicago.
It only benefits the hand or a couple of hands that, quite frankly, Justice Brandeis warned us against, the first Jew to serve on the Supreme Court.
You can have a democracy or you can have wealth in the hands of the concentrated few, but you cannot have both.
And there are those who know that they benefit if our democracy begins to unravel and they're using the same playbook that President Trump is using.
We're going to stand firm in our values.
Of course, we've always said that we're willing to negotiate details surrounding our values,
but in no way, shape, or form will we stand in a position where we allow for the government to be shut down.
Hi, Mayor. Good afternoon.
Hey, good afternoon, Chris.
You have talked with us a number of times about how when you talk to the business community,
their number one focus is safety downtown, that they aren't blinking at this head tax.
I'm wondering if you have any examples of CEOs or CFOs who are in support,
people who would be in the category that we're now talking about, the headcount number.
Any examples of CEOs or CFOs who say, I'm on board?
Well, I don't have any examples of CEOs who are not on board.
Can you give us an example of one that is?
Well, I mean, I guess we could draw the conclusion that all of them are,
because none of them have said that they are opposed to it.
Have you heard a CEO come to you and say that we do not support,
name one CEO that has said out loud that they don't support investing in community safety?
Well, an executive of McDonald's put an op-ed in the street.
He's not a CEO.
Okay, but that's an example of the corporate community pushing back.
I'm just asking you, as the mayor, can you give us an example of one that is?
What I can tell you is this, that the people of Chicago, because listen, I'm not going to respond to one CEO.
74, 75 percent, as high as 80 percent of Chicagoans support challenging these big corporations to pay their fair share in taxes.
Who should I respond to?
80% of the people of Chicago are one individual that has not come forward yet.
I'm going to respond to the people of Chicago because that's who I'm fighting for.
I'm fighting for working people.
Listen, the Civic Federation put it on the list last year as an option.
We're talking about .008%.
It's probably less than that.
We're talking about less than 1% of corporations that essentially would have to put forth lunch money
to keep people safe.
And to make sure that we're protecting working people.
Why are we constantly asking everyday Chicagoans to bear a burden that they don't have to?
It would be different if that was our only option.
We literally have an option that the Civic Federation put forth as an option last year.
And now you're asking me to respond to one corporate leader?
I'm going to respond to the people who have stake in the city of Chicago.
That's black, brown, white, Asian, working people across this city that want us to pass a budget that protects all of Chicago.
And that's what my budget proposal does.
Can I ask Ms. Guzman one question?
I'm trying to understand how this will play itself out.
If Team A says the math doesn't add up by Team B and Team B is saying the same about Team A,
it's going to be your job, is that right, to put it into the system, the computer system,
to sort of suss out whether it qualifies as a balanced budget?
Is that – can you just –
Before she responds to that, let me just make this clear.
If you're referring to me as the A-team, that would be the accurate letter.
So the A-team and the B-team, they don't disagree on the A-team's numbers.
I just want to make that point very clear.
There's not a disagreement on our projections from them.
So the B-team knows that the A-team's numbers are right.
The B-team issue is, do we balance the budget with less than 1% of corporations who make billions of dollars,
or do we balance the budget off of working people?
All right, so now you can explain the technical side of it.
Sure, thank you.
A-team.
You love it when a plan comes together.
Thank you for the question.
So absolutely, we have to put the numbers in the system to make sure that they balance out.
And ultimately, during the year, I'm the one responsible for the performance of those revenues.
I have to report on them every single month.
I have reports that are due to city council.
So ultimately, at the end of the day, it's really important that we coalesce around an agreed-upon number
because the responsibility falls on the executive if the numbers turn out not to be correct.
That's why we put forth our revenue numbers, our forecasts.
We provide our methodologies, our assumptions, so that everyone can see why we came to the revenue
and, frankly, expenditure projections that we did.
We have not seen the same from this group.
We have no idea what they're basing their numbers on.
They have not shown us any data.
They have not provided any indication as to why they think their numbers are higher.
You know, we spend all year doing this.
And so at the end of the day, as I said before, both the chairman, I've suggested to the chairman
and both the chairman of the budget committee and the chairman of the finance committee
to turn to me and provide that during a hearing, whether or not the numbers actually tie out.
Hey, Mayor Johnson.
Hi, good afternoon.
A question not on the budget.
You mentioned Justice Brandeis a second ago, and I wanted to follow up on,
I know you issued a statement following the events in Australia.
I wonder if you could speak at all to any increase in security around synagogues and temples
and whether you've spoken with Alderwoman Silverstein.
So, you know, our, of course, prayer will continue to be with not just this latest group of people who have been harmed by gun violence, but families across the country and the world who continue to fall victim to gun violence.
And, you know, as far as our safety plan, I spoke with the superintendent this morning.
So we are, you know, aware of the heightened state of affairs in our world.
And, you know, we always remain vigilant to ensure that we're protecting people.
And, no, I have not spoken with Alderman Silverstein.
I did leave her a message, however.
She has not called me back yet.
Hi, Mayor.
Hi.
Point of clarification.
you're throwing out some numbers that are
different than what we've been hearing before
so is the revenue projections
is the budget deficit not 1.2 billion
but it's 700 million down so it's only
400 million this is for next year
that's for next year
the question is
these authors say that their
numbers are balanced although
they don't have your system so they can't run through
when you go into this meeting this afternoon
what is going to be your posture
because we saw them back off
on some of their demands to come in line with where you were,
do you have some wiggle room that you could go in to them and say,
okay, let's try to get this done so that we don't go past Christmas without a budget?
Always wiggle room.
I've said that from the very beginning.
If you look at how we have made adjustments around the community safety surcharge,
I think we've moved this number three or four, maybe five times.
So there's always wiggle room.
And, again, we're glad that they're coming to the conclusion that we already came to,
That the garbage fee, I don't believe that's the right path forward, not in this budget.
And making sure that we're protecting youth employment.
These are things that are important to the people of the city.
And, of course, I'm always going to remain open-minded when it comes to how we negotiate the details around our values.
I guess I wanted to put a clarification.
I know you've had conversations with alters over the time period.
But this, if I'm not mistaken, is the first time that you're personally going to meet with this group of alternative budget alters to personally discuss.
As a group.
Yes, as a group.
As a group.
We've had multiple conversations with many of them.
But this is the first time where you're going to sit down face-to-face as they have requested you to do.
Well, as I've requested them to do.
Let's just get a clarification here.
I said, give me something that I can work with.
You were here.
And I said, give me some alternatives that I can consider to bring to the table.
We said that to them two months ago.
So now they've done that now. Yes, they have. And so, listen, that's a good thing. But, you know, look, we still have work to do, you know, and this is I don't want to get into a back and forth about who said what first.
I'm simply saying is that this process did not begin when I introduced my budget two months ago.
This process began at the beginning of this year. We've had countless conversations throughout the year around how we build the safest, most affordable big city in America and how we protect all of Chicago.
I asked them to do an assignment of which they made that attempt, and I appreciate that.
And I asked them to come to the table with something that we can actually wrestle around or debate with, and they've done that.
So that's a good sign for the people of the city.
Hi, Mayor.
I've been trying to craft a five-part question to get answered from each of you this whole time, and I have not done so.
If you permit me, can I maybe just break it into two separate questions so it's less confusing for everybody?
And, two, what the budget director was talking about and what you've discussed, it's – I know that things might change by the time they vote, but as proposed, you guys say their budget is not in balance or their revenue projections are not in balance.
Well, they're admitting that, right?
You saw the proposal.
It doesn't get to the amount that we need to get to.
So everybody's in agreement there that they come up short.
But it's okay.
We can still work through that.
That's not – that doesn't stop us from negotiating.
But, yes, their budget has missed the mark in terms of its revenue projections.
Now I'm just finishing my first question.
So what I'm getting at is if essentially they don't heed some of your warnings about their projections
and they move forward and they pass something,
is that something that you would veto if you don't believe that the budget is bouncing?
I know that you're describing like entering into the system,
But, you know, at a certain point, they're all projections, right?
Would you allow that to go into the year and look to see if and wait until June to see how it's going, if you make cuts?
Or would you veto a budget that you did not believe was balanced?
Well, let me just first of all say that, you know, Chairwoman Dow, and I give her a great deal of regard in this moment.
She has spoken very explicitly that she trusts our budget director, as so do I.
And we have done well over these last couple of years to the extent in which we can see a brighter future ahead
as we continue to make structural changes to a budget that, quite frankly, had been just beaten up over years of negligence.
And I'll give our budget director an opportunity just to expound more,
but I just want to make this very clear that there are a number of alders who recognize the gravity in this moment,
and they're not necessarily assigning themselves to a position so stubbornly that they can't recognize when things don't add up,
as our scientific methods as well as our mathematical equations
ultimately protect the working people of this city.
There are a number of alders who do respect the work that our budget director
and, quite frankly, our entire administration has done.
Annette?
Thank you.
I'm going to respond in a manner that I'm sure that the way that you presented the question
isn't as flippant as I think you mean.
when it comes to they're all projections.
That's not how we do this work.
They're not just projections.
Our projections are based on best practice methodologies.
They're based on understanding where we think the economy is going to go.
That's why we produce three different forecasts for our revenues and our expenditures
so that we can be best informed.
Because at the end of the day, like if we don't get these numbers correct, there are severe consequences.
There are contracts that we enter into.
There are payroll that we enter into.
There is pension obligations that we have obligations to pay when we are required to pay.
Those letters don't stop coming to us, right?
There are a host of significant implications if we just flippantly come up with numbers.
We can't do that.
And the state constitution requires us to actually pass a balanced budget.
And I think everyone looks to our leaders to do that in a manner that is serious, in a manner that is backed by data, in a manner that's backed by best practice financial forecasting.
I, to this day, have not received anything.
from this group that backs up why they believe their forecasts are accurate,
nor have I received anything from this group which backs up why they think ours are under-forecasted.
I take this job very seriously because at the end of the day,
the buck stops with me and the buck stops with the mayor if our forecasts are wrong
because at the end of the day, that's people's jobs, that's their livelihoods,
that's contractors who depend upon the city to pay them when they provide services,
that's grants for community organizations that rely on the city of Chicago
to be able to pay their grants in order to pay their employees and provide services into the
community. So I do not believe that we can be flippant about projections. We have to base them
in fact, and we have to base them in best practice methodologies. And I didn't mean to mean you're
flippant. I just meant that if the city council goes ahead with them despite your warnings.
My other question, since we have the corporation council here, I think that your office has been
looking into this can you give us a better picture of however we get there if there is not a budget
what happens on january 1st are city workers told not to show up or they told to show up and and
you're going to work without pay for a while just a better sense of like logistically what happens
without a budget mary richard corporation council december 30th is the date by close of business on
the december 30th we have to have a balanced budget in the absence of the balanced budget
We have to then give notice to every collective bargaining agreement holder, which is 40-plus, that we don't have a balanced budget.
Come January 1st, in the absence of a balanced budget, we cannot remunerate.
We can't pay people.
We can't meet our contractual obligations if they're open bonding obligations, our property tax levy, which is tied to a balanced budget.
All of that and more descends.
We provide water to a host of suburbs.
There have to be people in place to provide that work.
If there's no money to pay, then those individuals are not in place.
So we then move into a category called essential worker designation.
And even in the instance of an essential worker, you still have to pay them.
and those individuals will be working without pay
until such time that we have a balanced budget.
So imagine any of you who would be asked to come to work every day
who are responsible for potable water in the city,
who are responsible for collecting garbage or snow removal
and you weren't being paid.
police officers and their safety firemen on buildings we have to find our way on this issue
this is a obligation that has to be met otherwise it comes to me and a judge and no one should want
that thank you all right we do appreciate you all's time today thank you very much