By Thane Grauel
WESTPORT — The Representative Town Meeting early Wednesday approved $630,000 in federal funding for a redesign involving the Jesup Green and Imperial Avenue parking lots, despite what many members said was overwhelming public opposition.
The action came after much handwringing from members who discussed input from constituents who didn’t want to see a large chunk of the upland portion of Jesup Green paved over, and several decades-old trees felled, to replace parking lost in the redesign of Parker Harding Plaza.
The meeting lasted over six hours. An oft-heard line was members wanted to see Jesup Green “taken off the table.”
They asked for assurances from First Selectwoman Jennifer Tooker.
Tooker said plenty, but none of it sounded like a commitment to leave Jesup intact.
But somehow, a thrown chew toy of vague assurances was enough to free a sizable portion of the RTM — so loathe to go against the flow — to vote yes on appropriating $630,000 in American Rescue Plan Act funds for the design project.
In the many hours of public input — only four people spoke in favor, each of them holding an official title, whether they spoke in that capacity or not (Downtown Plan Implementation Committee Chairman Randy Herbertson, Westport Downtown Association President Maxx Crowley, Parks and Recreation Commission Chairman David Floyd and Planning and Zoning Commission member John Bolton).
Sixteen members of the public spoke against the appropriation, a 4-1 ratio.
Neil Cohn, vice chair of the Planning and Zoning Commission, said he was speaking as a resident and fan of the town.
“I voted against these plans because they are flawed,” he said.
“We’re going to take what I consider the heart of the town, Jesup Green in front of the library, it’s beautiful, it’s the hill that my kids roll down, it’s not the ‘sloped area,’ I do software — it’s not a bug, it’s a feature. It’s something that we want. It’s where our majestic trees are. The gateway to what we all see.”
Bolton said the funding is needed to get the design going.
“Otherwise, we’re not going to know what we’re looking at,” he said. “It’s like playing darts at a pub blindfolded.”
When RTM members spoke, there were several golden oldy talking points, including: We need to move forward now. Don’t make this political. Stop the delay. It’s not the last bite at the apple …
Member Jimmy Izzo, District 3, brought props. He pulled some aluminum cans out of a bag and kicked one down the proverbial road.
That might not have been the only choreographed moment of the long evening. Member Seth Braunstein, District 6, lobbed some softballs at Public Works Director Peter Ratkiewich. It was like listening to a 1940s radio commercial dialogue.
And reminiscent of RTM Moderator Jeff Wieser’s questioning of Ratkiewich at the RTM’s second field trip to Jesup Green, when Wieser asked about the possibility of looking at a parking deck — so long a taboo subject in town — and got answers many wanted to hear, such as, yeah, we can take a look at that with the money we’ve asked for.
That was the first many had heard of the town actually considering the parking deck alternative, and there was no mention of it in previously approved ARPA agenda items.
That parking deck figured into early Wednesday’s vote, with an amended agenda item floated by member Kristen M. Purcell, District 1, apparently after caucusing with Brandi Briggs, District 7, and Town Attorney Ira Bloom, before he left the meeting.
Purcell’s amendment appeared to offer no protection to Jesup, the primary focus of public input at the meeting and before.
“The town green is something the people who live here love and feel very emotional about, and don’t want to trade for a different, newer green space that doesn’t mean the same thing,” said Danielle Teplica.
Ray Broady, a construction professional who moved to town five years ago, couldn’t see the logic.
“The deck at Baldwin will cost no green space,” he said. “Zero. Don’t need to do anything with Jesup Green. That’s almost a historic jewel here in town and to destroy it for 47 parking places doesn’t work. The parking deck will have a hundred parking spaces.”
“This is just so sloppy and unprofessional,” said member Clarence Hayes, District 4. “We haven’t identified the objective, we haven’t identified the criteria, we’re here piddling over wording we’re not clear on and the numbers are pulled out somebody’s rear.”
Matthew Mandell, District 1, appeared to no longer support the plan as it is.
“I think the idea of using Jesup Green as the place to place the parking, because P&Z asked for the parking to be there, is a mistake,” he said. “And what do we do with mistakes? We correct them, we fix them.”
“On Thursday will be a DPIC meeting. I will go to it … I think it’s clear as a bell that Jesup Green is off the table. There is no political will to have it move forward.”
There also was mention of the appropriateness of using ARPA funding for such planning projects, and hints that complaints might be made to the federal government.
A lawsuit challenging the Planning and Zoning Commission’s controversial April 8 approval of the first selectwoman’s 8-24 request, filed Monday in Superior Court, also was mentioned.
A motion by Jennifer Johnson, District 9, to delay the discussion — which she said had becoming increasingly confused by the late hour — until the June meeting, was voted down.
Purcell’s amended motion passed 25-10, with Melissa Levy, District 3; Noah Hammond, District 4; Clarence Hayes, District 4; Peter Gold, District 5; Seth Braunstein, District 6; David Rosenwaks, District 6; Rachel Cohn, District 8; Jennifer Johnson, District 9; Sal Liccione, District 9, and Kristen Schneeman, District 9, voting against.
Thane Grauel grew up in Westport and has been a journalist in Fairfield County and beyond for 36 years. Reach him at editor@westportjournal.com. Learn more about us here.
This is such irresponsible journalism. Listen to the debate. The RTM expressed great concern about touching Jesup Green. The RTM got a commitment from the Administration to look at the feasibility of parking structures in three locations. The RTM was told that it would be a year before any plans were solidified to begin construction. The RTM was told that the design will be coordinated with the current review of options for the Public Safety facilities – which could involve the relocation of the Police Department. And yet the media actually compares the four hour debate to a 1940s radio commercial? So much was accomplished and yet readers will not know it from this report. And the report did not mention who brought the lawsuit against the Town. I suspect it will be a commenter. Sent to WJ at 7:38 am Wednesday.
Mr. Wieser, I’d be glad to go through this with you line by line, but let’s start with ‘RTM bucks public opinion.’ If you’re going to tell me that’s wrong, give me a second, I’m going to have to lay down on ground …
Mr. Grauel, Yes, I welcome that. When are you available? I will lay on the ground with you and discuss.
This is a perfect example of “dog logic.” When you are talking to your dog, as the old Far Side cartoon went, all it hears is “blah blah blah blah ROVER! blah blah blah blah.”
Similarly, when RTM rubber stamps Administration requests but accompany that with hand-wringing for show, all the Administration hears is “blah blah blah blah YES! (aka HERE’S YOUR MONEY!) blah blah blah blah.” Has ever been thus.
Whether on Long Lots or Downtown Parking or anything else, this unwillingness of the RTM to recognize the desires of the residents and simply defer everything to the Administration of a First Selectwoman who shows little competence for anything but photo ops is absolutely disgraceful.
RTM could make a clear statements on matters, but Jeffrey (deferring to the lawyers that the Administration pays) won’t even observe the clear instructions in the Town Charter on the petitioning process. He talks about proper process and then simply ignores the Town Charter.
Somebody is suing Town? It’s about time. I sure hope they make the failure to follow the Town Charter an aspect of that suit, because the implications impact every issue in our municipal life when scores of citizens can properly petition a matter to RTM and a Moderator thinks he can say, “no, I don’t want to.”
I have been reading the news in Westport for 50 years, I trust Thane to accurately portray the spirit of the vibe. Hes an old school Westporter and a great reporter and editor. His dad was the projectionist at the movie theater next to Jesup Green.
I hope this amendment saves Jesup Green Now!!
This was spot on !
He could not have titled or written it better.
Thank you THANE.
Another disgraceful show put on by the rtm
Outrageous ! And that you have the balls to defend it is just shocking.
Last night speaks for itself !
Your desperation to get this through come hell or high water is the real joke here. The real disservice to the residents who showed up in spite of your hidden attempts to stop them.
You have no business being the rtm moderator.
The carry on during this and many other issues has been so utterly corrupt
You appear especially obsessed with who it was brought the law suit ?
Why is that ?
Why do you care ?
Because you sure seem to !
Mind your own business !!!!
Do your job you were elected to do !
Which you clearly struggle along with your deputy Moderator to do !
Just do your job !
Oh spare us all the absolute lies !
This was perfect journalism ! Describing a clown show !
You got a big fat zero in any assurance of no jesup green and you know it !
You also held an illegal vote !
You did not vote on the resolution !
You don’t get to tinker with resolutions. You are all unqualified to do so.
The rtm had one job ! Vote on the resolution.
You could not manage that.
Looking forward to the vote on the resolution 😉
An absolutely disgraceful 11th hour ploy, perfectly choreographed by coy friends of by the FSW (Purcell, Banks), and a conveniently timed departure of the town attorney from the meeting (along with most everyone else who left the meeting thinking the plan would be voted down).
You got us, girls, but no one is laughing.
The action does not comport with the CLEAR MANDATE FROM THE ELECTORATE,. Further, it is not consistent with the Board of Finance resolution, or the Planning and Zoning 8-24 and Coastal Site Plan. Sadly, these prior resolutions all point to the semi destruction of Jesup Green, and are the golden keys to the chain saw and asphalt machine. The town now can move forward, to devise its construction plan to slice down majestic decades old trees and pave our beloved town common.
Every RTM member had a different interpretation of what they were voting upon. Tect messages were racing around the room. The only thing that was clear: another railroad job. But it was 1:30 am; everyone was tired and cranky.
The vote taken (as reported above) was to amend the motion on the floor. There was no additional vote taken to adopt the resolution on the floor, as would have been required to adopt the motion. The Moderator had a sense this might be the case. No one wanted to wait for a proper review of Robert’s Rules of Order. No attorney was there to straighten out the quagmire of political gamesmanship.
Rep Seth Braunstein pointed out the modified motion would have to go back to the Board of Finance. Everyone else says, “huh?”
Robert’s Rules of Order says an approval of a motion to amend the main motion does not automatically adopt the motion. Therefore the only thing achieved on this matter in four hours of discussion is— absolutely nothing.
As a citizen, I challenge these inept and inappropriate proceedings; I believe the BOF and PZC need to review this new order of things. At a minimum, I urge anyone with legal chops to get thee to a courtroom pronto. In the meantime, can you spell r-e-f-e-r-e-d-u-m?
Not much of a commenter but…
Buck’s Public Opinion? I think the opposite happened last night and all those in attendance and the many who took the time to voice their concerns in emails, petitions and 1:1 conversations should be commended. Perhaps this article was written too hastily to get something out before our morning coffees (which many of us need). I urge everyone to watch the replay and not read the headlines here. Or call me.
Ari B. RTM Dist. 8 (voted yes at end of night – to do some more design work with the intent that upper Jesup goes untouched).
Save jesup green now.
I think the article fairly questions the “logic” behind the outcome of last night’s seemingly contradictory vote. On the one hand, most RTM members, consistent with the overwhelming sentiment expressed by the public, voiced a desire to protect Jesup Green from being touched in any way at all costs. On the other hand, a group of 25 members nevertheless voted to green light the further expenditure of $630,000 (on top of $400,000 already spent) pursuant to a resolution which, by its very terms, is earmarked for the “redesign and redevelopment of Jesup Green and the Imperial Lot.” To many (including me and apparently the Journal), that is a puzzling display of cognitive dissonance. Those who voted in favor must understand that while the First Selectwoman offered all sorts of soothing platitudes and unenforceable promises to consider all options, the bottom line is that the RTM has now authorized $630,000 to be spent without restrictions of any kind and with no written or oral unambiguous commitment to protect Jesup Green. So the Journal is correct to ask: what is going on?
As an RTM member who argued that adding parking should NOT be added to Jesup and trees should be protected, etc, I agree with Jeff Weiser and strongly disagree with the portrayallk that we did not represent the constituents that said exactly that. Without getting into too much detail, the resolution that we were there to vote on got amended to say that the administration would look at ALL options to find more parking, and essentially said they heard us loud and clear that Jesup was off the table as far as taking away the green space that is now there. Once that was established, those of us who argued against the parking spots being added there were comfortable that the appropriation to fund a DESIGN AND PROPOSED PLAN ONLY was ok to move forward with. I believe what we voted for DOES NOT include any parking being added to JESUP. Plus, once the design and review of a more complete downtown parking plan comes back, there are multiple opportunities to respond. As far as I am concerned, we prevented parking spots added to Jesup and protected what is currently there.
You did not, and you know it ! You prevented NOTHING !
You got absolutely zero assurances from the selectman, that jesup will remain intact.
Let me repeat that !
ZERO
and you all know it !
This article tells last nights story with absolute accuracy.
It was most appropriately titled.
And its content tells it like it was.
The author has every right to respond to a comment directed at him.
You also did not vote on the resolution.
You all voted on an amendment but not on the resolution.
I believe there is a process.
The rtm last night had two jobs to do. First was to listen to the Westport residents who showed up in spite of attempts to confuse and put them off by changing the day from the 8th to the 7th., and tagging it onto a budget discussion.
Second job was to vote on “THE RESOLUTION” sent by BOF, the same “resolution” that came before P&Z.
Not some amended version.
That was not legal, and you all know it.
And if you do not, you do now.
Meanwhile 25 rtm’ers, ignored the public’s comments last night.
And that is a disgrace.
This article perfectly describes the clown show last night.
Ms Lautenberg:
If you voted yes because you were led to believe there was assurance of protection of Jesup Green, which is simply not the case, you can bring this item up at the next RTM meeting calling for a re-vote (it only requires one member who wants to change their vote) and you and others who thought that they were protecting Jesup Green can then vote “no.”
Once appropriations are passed, RTM has absolutely no power to make strong suggestions.
(I’m strictly addressing your comment and not any others that may regard procedural irregularities on which I have no opinion one way or the other.)
Great suggestion Chris. I never knew this.
I guess now all the rtm’ers who voted for a different resolution, can now ask that the assurance be given in writing as an indisputable condition.
If they don’t get it.
How perfect.
They can take back their vote.
I like that system 🙂
It gives everyone no excuse to say they thought it was a horse when it was a camel !
Unfortunately I’m afraid I think we on the RTM got the headline we deserved and should have expected here. I also heard a very clear sentiment that parking on Jesup Green should be off the table and a parking deck should be considered. If that was our goal we should have asked the Administration to come back with a clean proposal stating that scope of work instead of trying to scramble a mash-up together at midnight, when we never do our best work. Maybe we’ll get the outcome we wanted in the end, I do hope to be proven wrong.
That being said, I very strongly support the objections about the tone of this article. This should have been labeled an opinion piece, not a piece of reporting, and the author’s continued engagement in the comments is astounding to me.
Kristen,
Get off your high horse… the tone of this article is spot on !
It was an incredibly accurate report on the clown show of last night !
As for the author responding to “one single” comment !
As is his right !
Of course although you appeared to support the overwhelming public’s opinion..
you still have to ruin it with the appearance of kind of supporting the opposition..
there was only one vote last night that supported the entire public… that was a big fat resounding NO !
Apparent procedural errors notwithstanding, it would appear that some who voted for, well, something, last night, have quite different ideas about what exactly that something was. As a taxpayer, I look at this and shake my head. What a complete mess.
By the way, to those elected officials trying to bully the reporter: put your big boy pants on and quit blubbering.
Jesup Green still legally on the chopping block.
The 1:15 a.m. motion to “amend” the original motion, as read by Kristen Purcell:
To take such motion (sic) as the meeting may determine upon the recommendation of the Board of Finance and a request by the director of Public Works to approve an appropriation of $630,000 from the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) fund for the design of Jesup Green, the Imperial Lot, the Police Station land, and the exploration of a green parking structure north or south of the Post Road.
No vote was taken on the Amended Motion. Jesup Green clearly the lead item in the amended motion.
The resolutions by PZC (Coastal Site Plan and Positive 8-24 Report and the Board of Finance Resolutions all describe the appropriation specifically for the redesign and permitting of Jesup Green and PHP.
None of the resolutions indicate Jesup Green is off the table.
A majority of the residents of Westport do not favor a parking structure or the removal of trees from Jesup Green. Just beautify what is there and use angled parking spaces. There is no need to destroy the trees or hold a parking structure.
You are correct Joan, the vast majority of westporters want jesup left alone and Parker Harding “maintained” as is adding Ada spots.
Safe one way system with safe 60/40 degree angled parking.
Safe in and out, loading zones as commerce demands.
Not the catastrophe being suggested by clueless folk incapable of reading online articles which prove exactly what we – the experts, are saying.
Mr. Wieser and Mr. Benmoche,
What is IRRESPONSIBLE is what occurred during the final stretch of last evening’s RTM meeting. And you know that.
It was IRRESPONSIBLE to completely dismiss – in fact IGNORE – the opinions of THREE attorneys regarding the inappropriate utilization of ARPA funds for this project. In the face of the budget report and commentary that Westport’s economy is at its PEAK, to even suggest that these monies (which were created to assist those directly adversely impacted by the pandemic) is appropriate for this use is simply unethical and violates the spirit of the law. In addition, as Attorney Barr elucidated, it is IRRESPONSIBLE to use the slight of hand to justify this expenditure. It is IRRESPONSIBLE to unnecessarily place Westport in the crosshairs of the Justice Department. It is IRRESPONSIBLE to invite embarrassing scrutiny and “Unfortunate publicity” that you so disdain.
It was IRRESPONSIBLE to try to wordsmith this resolution on the fly in the manner that it occurred.
It was IRRESPONSIBLE to fudge this resolution at 1AM when the public had minimal (if any) opportunity to review it and comment.
It was IRRESPONSIBLE for the RTM to assert in this resolution that this amended resolution was “At the request of the BoF and P&Z” when it was not.
At 1:20am Mr. Wieser correctly acknowledged that the RTM is not authorized to discuss new business past 11:30pm unless the RTM votes to do so. THEREFORE, considering that the amended resolution was never noticed to the public, and its intention WAS DIFFERENT from the one noticed to the public, this “Amended resolution” could be considered, for all intents and purposes, to be “new”. Therefore, it was IRRESPONSIBLE to violate the SPIRIT, if not the letter, of the RTM rules that prohibited such action past 11:30pm. THERE IS GOOD REASON TO NOT DISCUSS NEW ITEMS PAST 11:30pm that have to do with FAIRNESS, CONSIDERATION OF THE PUBLIC, and RECOGNITION THAT FATIGUE IS A RECIPE FOR BAD DECISIONS. Regardless of how any RTMer wants to parse it, THE AMENDED RESOLUTION IS A NEW ITEM.
It was IRRESPONSIBLE for the RTM to consider moving ahead on Attorney Weisman’s petition in his absence.
It was IRRESPONSIBLE for the RTM to attempt to consider Attorney Weisman’s petition at 1:35am when zero members of the public would be available to speak – a de facto attempt to silence public sentiment.
It was IRRESPONSIBLE for the RTM Deputy Moderator to say “I don’t want to come back!” as the basis for the above 1:35am!!! This is an RTM leader?
It was IRRESPONSIBLE for the RTM Moderator to denigrate the plaintiffs in the pending lawsuit that was filed against the P&Z with his ” I suspect it will be a commenter”. His statement translates to: “Concerned residents who take the time to comment are “second class” citizens”. What does it matter if the plaintiffs have ever commented? The public fully understands that many members of the RTM, including its Moderator and Deputy Moderator, have historical disdain for residents who exercise their right and obligation to comment. Now Mr. Wieser’s written comment serves to verify this in print. I imagine that you just provided a service to these and future plaintiff’s.
Personally, given all the above IRRESPONSIBLE things that I and others have pointed out, I think that the video of last night’s RTM meeting will play exceedingly well for the plaintiffs in court. Listening to Mr. Bolton’s irrational metaphor about blindly throwing darts in a pub as a basis to approve vs. Mr. Cohn’s rational articulation that the plans presented to the P&Z were “flawed” and require thoughtful reconsideration will prove quite a juxtaposition.
The complete disregard for the merchants who spoke at the RTM meeting will prove that they have been intentionally sidelined.
The “Keystone Cops” finale of last night’s RTM meeting – with confusion reigning, and with cogent pleas by Mr. Gold, Mr. Hayes Mrs. Johnson, and the sole member from the public Mrs. Simonetti, for LOGIC to prevail being dismissed – should prove quite entertaining when juxtaposed with Mr. Izzo’s juvenile stunt.
AND, the videotape of the RTM’s (and Deputy Moderator’s) desire to disrespect a certified petitioner and coincidentally suppress public involvement at 1:35am will serve well to elucidate how this RTM treats serious resident petitioners. In conjunction with Ms. Karpf’s recent statement at the Rules Committee Meeting that she doesn’t want petitioners to have the ability to appeal (ie “voice”) their concerns to the RTM (in conjunction with the Moderator’s denial of last year’s Parker Harding petition AND the RTM’s continued assault upon the Town Charter and Petitioner Rights) this should be quite declaratory for the merchant plaintiffs.
While I agree that there were many great comments made at last night’s RTM meeting – particularly by the engaged public that engendered applause – THAT FACT DOES NOT EXCUSE WHAT FOLLOWED.
Mr. Grauel’s article was spot on – it was harsh, but IT IS ACCURATE FROM THE PUBLIC’S PERSPECTIVE.
I do not expect Mr. Wieser, Mr. Benmoche, and others who live inside the RTM bubble to comprehend how they appear from outside their cocoon. Before accusing him of being irresponsible in his reporting, I suggest you first look in the mirror and get your IRRESPONSIBLE house in order. You both may believe and feel good that in the end you portrayed what the citizenry wanted you to do.
The bottom line is that you are incorrect.
I believe the RTM decision is flawed yet I understand the motivation to move forward and avoid delay, delay, delay.
In order to keep everything on track and to honor its commitments the Administration must:
1. Provide a detailed analysis of how its $630,000 planning budget is to be spent and set up a contingency fund in the Town budget to cover the possibility of ARPA funds being denied or clawed back.
2. Treat a parking structure as a viable alternative and devote the necessary resources to analyze this option. While the Administration committed $57,000 (from the contingency portion of the $630,000) for this, it is a paltry sum and additional monies should be devoted, as necessary.
3. Consider charging the Public Site and Building Commission with analyzing the parking structure alternative. One of its members, architect Joe Valone, at the request of an RTM member, has already done groundwork and prepared a preliminary design. The PSBC should be able to do cost projections as well.
The Administration should not be wedded to its initial proposal as tempting as that may be. Even-handedness going forward will, hopefully, satisfy those many Westporters who feel that we have been heading down the wrong path.
The RTM must see to it that commitments are kept and that the will of the electorate is respected.
Jimmy Izzo also proceeded to do a clown show in an effort to take the piss out of a resident “brave “ enough to speak( no wonder so few do)
How dare he !!!!
The absolute nerve of him !
This is how 75% of the rtm operate.
Again disgraceful !
Intimidation.
Just not becoming of an rtm !
In fact he should reconsider whether or not he actually represents his constituents !
Skullduggery !
U.S. Department of Treasury guidance for municipalities and other recipients on how to spend American Rescue Plan Funds (also called State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds or SLFRF) is found at https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/coronavirus/assistance-for-state-local-and-tribal-governments/state-and-local-fiscal-recovery-funds.
A direct link to the updated (April 2024) document Compliance and Reporting Guidance: State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds is also found at https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/SLFRF-Compliance-and-Reporting-Guidance.pdf.
From page 4-5 of the guidance document see this exerpt:
B. Statutory Eligible Uses
As a recipient of an SLFRF award, your organization has substantial discretion to use the award funds in the ways that best suit the needs of your constituents – as long as such use fits into one of the following seven statutory categories:
1. To respond to the COVID-19 public health emergency or its negative economic impacts;
2. To respond to workers performing essential work during the COVID-19 public health emergency by providing premium pay to eligible workers of the recipient that are performing such essential work, or by providing grants to eligible employers that have eligible workers who perform essential work;
3. For the provision of government services, to the extent of the reduction in revenue of such recipient due to the COVID–19 public health emergency, relative to revenues collected in the most recent full fiscal year of the recipient prior to the emergency;
4. To make necessary investments in water, sewer, or broadband infrastructure;
5. To provide emergency relief from natural disasters or the negative economic impacts of natural
disasters;
6. For projects eligible under the 26 surface transportation programs specified in the 2023 CAA
(Surface Transportation projects); or
7. For projects eligible under Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (Title I
projects).
Appendix 1 of the guidance document itemizes Expenditure Categorys. See pages 49-55/61.
Unfortunately for this circumstance the shoe does not fit any of the categories. Therefore using the ARPA funds for a parking lot/green space/design does not work !
We could buy defibrillators with the funds though. Or renovate the health department.
But vanity /trophy projects are not included..
It should be returned to the fed, covid is over, money is not free.
But somehow, a thrown chew toy of vague assurances was enough to free a sizable portion of the RTM — so loathe to go against the flow — to vote yes on appropriating $630,000 in American Rescue Plan Act funds for the design project.
That’s excellent reporting. Bravo.