Thank you, Navid, so let me start with clarifying a point, because I think this has been a point of technical confusion, perhaps at this point, but in the past, disagreement. So this project started out, we thought it was going to be a CSO control project. When I say that, I mean it was going to reduce. We thought in the master plan, which is conceptual reduce CSO discharges. So we really thought it was going to be a CSO reduction project. As we went through the design, still a good optimization project. There's a lot of good reasons for doing it, but when you see us talk about things like CSO reduction, and I think Director Baker, you had a question like this, and I I saw your face. I I gotta answer this question before you for you ask it, because I think you asked it at me before. The idea is it doesn't reduce CSOs in glwa system. It does. It does reduce overflows in our Member partner system. So when you use the word system pretty broad, right? It could be our system. It could be the bigger system. So for example, Dearborn and in the Rouge Valley communities, Wayne County communities on the west side both have overflows from manholes that are not far upstream of our pipe. The reason for that is our pipes very, very full. When NaVi talks about things like surcharge, that means, you know, you have pipe. And the pipe we call the crown, the top of the pipe, that means the sewer level is above that. And when designers design connections to our pipes, they have certain assumptions associated with how pipe helpful, that pipe is going to be this pipe that he that we're going to work on to reduce that, that sewer level surcharges as much as, say, 10 feet. No designer expects, when they made those connections, that that pipe would surcharge that much. We're seeing, you know, a higher rain intensity, rain and the other big piece about this idea of CSO and SSO discharges is the location of this. It's way down by our water resource recovery facility in the southwest part of the system. So that's an area where this big system drains to this and by virtue of being down there, the water collects there, and the hydraulic grade line are the sewer levels high. So it affects those Rouge Valley communities in Wayne County. It negatively. It affects the Dearborn. Dearborn negatively affects Detroit. Negatively in the Oakwood district, it also affects Melvindale and Allen Park negatively. These are the communities that are way down by the water resource recovery facility. So I just wanted to clarify that, because I think it's been a point. I mean, I myself, I. To be honest with you. So when the designers came back to me, when they were doing basics of design, because I was the project manager for the master plan, I said, time out, and I probably put them through eight hours of presentations to me as to why it wasn't a CSO project, because it when you went from conceptual design to actual design, the hydraulics always wins, right? The system kind of balances itself out, but it's still a good project. So so that was the first point I wanted to make. So let me, let me talk a little bit about cost allocation methodology and what we did. So Nebby was exactly right. We talked to the on our committee, and they said, hey, you know, the cost allocation for this project was TBD. How that happened. Was last year, glwa presented a cost allocation method. We have three cost pools in our in our wastewater cost allocation. One is called conveyance. It's based on total flow. One is called treatment. And this is for the asset that the wastewater treatment plants 50% total flow, 50% sanitary flow. And then there's a CSO combined sewer overflow bucket also cost pool. That's why I brought that up. So we put it out there as a 100% conveyance project, because JL, W, a standard process is to have a single cost pool for each capital project. We have a lot of capital projects, right? We don't typically slice and dice these projects. So, but, but we had identified that this project had multiple benefits, and there had been, in previous years, a concern and a question about the cost allocation of this project. When we published that last year, it was like fall of, you know, 2023 we had a couple communities contested, we have a process for that, right? They contested the cost allocation. That process that we go through starts with meeting those commuters, talking about what their concerns are, and working through it. This is fairly technically complicated part of the system, so we were doing that. And as we did that, we got to the end of the year, and it was starting to get, oh, is this going to affect charges? And they said, well, let's, let's ask our charge consultant at the time the foster group to go through some things. We went through that and I said, You know what? Sewer shares. Our cost methodology isn't going to update for three years. We have, we have more time to work through this. Well, what happened was, we come to you with this contract. You're saying, Yeah, I understand you had more time bought, but now's the time before you award the contract. Let's figure out the cost allocation. So okay, that's fine. Took that on that was in July, July's on our committee. About the middle of July. We had three meetings with the communities, and I spearheaded this myself, because I was the person in charge of working through this before, when I was the chief planning officer. So given a short timeframe in the SRF schedule, which is very tight, I thought this is the best way to do it. I wouldn't normally do it, but it was the most effective way. So move forward. We had a four hour meeting. The first meeting, four hour meeting in person. Second meeting, two hour meeting in person. Third meeting in August, to our meeting in person, we pulled together those that contested the cost allocation and those that had responded to that. So this, this contesting the cost allocation is something that that we talk about in our Member partner outreach meetings. This isn't something that was up behind a closed door. I think we said, you know, they're they have a concern with this. We're going to work through this. So we pulled together this group. It was Detroit Wayne County reps, Oakland County reps and Macomb County reps, and myself. And so there were 10 of us, and we worked through this. So as we work through this, we did not get a unanimous support for any given hybrid allocation. So I'm going to talk talk through just high level points on page 87 of the PDF, principal points of the discussion. And I think this is really important, all the parties you agreed unanimously. This is a good project. Glwa should build the project. So this wasn't about whether we should build it on it was about how we paid for it. The second one, I have parties understood and agreed to the technical points noted below. Number one, its primary benefit is to reduce the sewer level during wet weather. Number one, primary, right? Second, the project provides emergency backup for the water resource recovery facility. Abby talked about that. And the third is what I talked about extensively. It is not a glwa CSO control project. It does help. It doesn't help glwa system. So number three, and I said this at the beginning and throughout the discussions, the parties were not fully aligned with a cost pool assignment, so we worked hard to get convergence, and we had concurrence generally, but we didn't get unanimous concurrence. So moving on, the parties agreed the dispute of the project's cost allocation should be resolved timely. You heard NaVi talk about the fact that SRS SRF has tight timelines, and we are, we are the recipient of $20 million grant for this project, which we absolutely want to be able to get so the parties that, yep, we gotta, we gotta get this one done. But what we also want to do is we don't want to set a precedent for future projects. This project's unique. If we're going to walk through this project and we're going to make a decision, but other future projects, if there was, if they were contested, we would take them on their own merit. We wouldn't layer the solution on others. So there that was number five, number six, Oakland and Macomb representatives requested, and we agreed, for this project alone, that the value of the asset and related depreciation for the purposes of calculating charges by the cost of service study would be the actual cost of the asset, less grant funding. This is a subtlety that if you want to, if you have questions about it, I can talk to you about it. We just talked about charge consultants. It's about how we allocate costs, and it's about our asset registry. We're going to get into too much of that. I don't think that was a big point of of dispute, but it was a point that was important to some of the members. So number seven on the next page, Macomb Oakland and Wayne County Representatives requested that glwa reopen the discussion, including of including an element of peak flow in our cost allocation. This is the bigger topic. Bigger topic is some of our member partners, namely Oakland and Macomb primarily, but also Wayne stepped in on this as well and said, Listen, you guys need to add peak flow. And I will tell you, we don't have peak flow. We've we've taken this up multiple times, and the reason we don't is because we are struggling to accurately measure peak flow from unmetered communities such as Detroit Highland Park, Hamtramck and other communities in the inner ring. That has been a, you know, to change a cost allocation if you can't accurately measure it's pretty challenging. So in the past, we've taken this up, you know, turned it over, looked at it eight different ways, and set it back down. So we can't do it. Can't do it. So we committed to picking that back up and having the conversation again. Technology moves forward, perhaps now we can, we can have that conversation and come to a conclusion. And then lastly, I put down the cost allocation method. This is the administration's recommendation for cost allocation for this project and this project and this project alone, this was the charge that you gave me, Director Hendricks, we were at onr, right. What's our recommendation? This is our recommendation, 50% in that original cost pool that we had had used solely, 25% in the treatment cost pool, zero and the CSO cost pool and a new wet weather cost pool, wet weather volume. It's not peak flow rate, but it's volume as a proxy for peak at 25% so this is where we came to