You are viewing this article in the archives. For the latest breaking news and updates in Ann Arbor and the surrounding area, see
Posted on Wed, Nov 17, 2010 : 10:45 a.m.

New City of Ypsilanti fee on summer festival ticket sales angers event organizers

By Tom Perkins

Event and festival organizers in Ypsilanti are crying foul over the city's plan to take part of their revenue from ticket sales to fund parks improvements.

The city plans to charge a 5 percent fee on ticket sales over the next two years and 10 percent on sales starting in 2013.

A packet distributed before Tuesday night's City Council meeting said the city planned to impose a 10 percent charge on all gross receipts, which would have included concessions and merchandise sales, prompting an outcry from organizers. Council Member Pete Murdock said the intent was never to charge a 10 percent fee on all sales.

Council passed the amended proposal 4-2 on first reading Tuesday night.

No additional fees will be charged for free events, including smaller events like weddings or the Heritage Festival.

The city’s parks' budget has shrunk by roughly $35,000 over the last three fiscal years and the new funds will be earmarked for projects like improving lighting, resurfacing blacktop pathways, improving parks buildings or addressing drainage issues. The funds will not be used for regular maintenance items such as mowing grass or emptying garbage cans.

City officials are not sure exactly how much the new fees will generate. That’s contingent on ticket sales and accurate reporting from event organizers, which Murdock acknowledged wouldn’t necessarily happen. Council Member Brian Robb said he thinks optimistically the new tax would generate $25,000 to $35,000 annually.

Part of the usage fees festivals already pay goes towards items like clean up, utilities and increased police presence, but new funds won't go toward those costs.

Several residents and representatives from festivals, including the ElvisFest and Michigan Roots Jamboree spoke against a 10 percent tax on all gross receipts. Among their primary concerns was that such a fee would drive away festivals. They also complained about what they said was a lacke of input from festival organizers.


Elvis tribute artist Kavan performs at last summer's ElvisFest in Ypsilanti. New city rules will take 5 percent of ticket sales for two years and then 10 percent after that.

Tom Perkins | For

“Where did this 10 percent come from? I know my organization was never approached by the city,” said Don Sicheneder, who works with the Roots Jamboree. He added he would volunteer to help officials develop an alternative way to generate money.

Robb disagreed that the idea has never been discussed publicly. He offered a list of dates throughout the last year on which a proposed fee was discussed or was in council or Recreation Commission documents.

Addressing concerns that additional costs would prompt festivals to look elsewhere, Council Member Mike Bodary argued that the cost — which would likely be passed on to ticket buyers — was not that significant.

He said an additional 10 percent on a $40 event is only another $4. Murdock later pointed out that for a $10 event the increased cost would only be 50 cents in the first year.

“Is that an event killer?” Bodary asked.

Murdock said he understands that no one likes paying additional fees, but the intent was not to eliminate summer events or festivals.

“I do think this is a way to capture some funds for capital park improvements that we all know are going to be necessary and wouldn't be all that onerous to the patrons of these events, because that’s who we know is going to pay it,” he said. Murdock first proposed a 10 percent fee in 2011, but amended that after Mayor Pro Tem Lois Richardson and Council Member Dan Vogt voiced concern.

Richardson and Council Member Ricky Jefferson ultimately voted against the final resolution. Mayor Paul Schreiber was absent from the meeting.

“I am also concerned about not imposing burdens,” Vogt said. “We’re asking them to carry a little extra weight, but we don’t want them to collapse under that weight.”

When asked what he thought would be a fair increase, Vogt said he didn’t have enough information on event ticket prices or how much revenue a feeit would generate. He then suggested incremental annual increases that the city could undo if the economy improved.

Richardson first said she thought 10 percent was too high and suggested a sliding scale that didn’t impact the smaller festivals as much.

“Certainly you would expect more from the larger festivals,” she said, adding she is concerned because the Heritage Festival, which is the largest of the summer’s events, wouldn’t be affected.

City Manager Ed Koryzno said city staff members are discussing increasing fees charged to the Heritage Festival.

Eric Dotzauer, director of the Depot Town Community Development Corporation and an organizer with the Roots Jamboree said after the meeting he doesn't believe anyone on council knew how much the new fee would generate and is upset no one consulted with event planners.

“Everybody really found out in the last day or two that this is going on, and (City Council) didn’t contact any of the event organizers to get their perspective or ask for better solutions,” he said.

Dotzauer said the events in the parks are broken down into four categories based on size and fees collected. He felt the smaller festivals shouldn’t be seeing the same increases as larger events.

“I believe if they would have had a discussion with the organizers, then we could have found a much more productive solution for the community and event organizers,” he said. “I’m hopeful that we don’t lose anybody.”

Dotzauer and several others discussed their issues with council members after the meeting. Dotzauer said he spoke with the director of the Michigan Brewer’s Guild, who organizes the popular Summer Beer Festival, about the potential increases earlier in the day.

Dotzauer said he is worried the Beer Festival will move somewhere that has better incentives or lower fees, but council members who supported the resolution still contended cost increases weren't that significant.

“We still have the best deal around,” Bodary said.



Sun, Nov 21, 2010 : 9:04 a.m.

@Mick52, I'm only going to pretend you are serious for a moment. First, all of our public employees have taken pay cuts and fuloughs. Our departments have been trimmed to the bone (thus the decreased level of service). We don't have out of control spending, just not very wise spending when it comes to our parks. And what the did in California by raising all of their sales taxes and fees was hang a sign on the state that says "closed to business", just like Ypsi City council has done to the Beer Festival, which, by the way, just like all of our other festivals, is put on by a private non profit, not the city. Really, I think things are screwed up here enough with out trying to base our decisions on California's failed econimic policy. We have our own failed econimic policies. But what really makes you point irrelivent is that, first, this money is supposed to be earmarked for park investment, not the general fund (we'll see) and that the parties it effects don't have a problem with the idea, just the execution.


Sat, Nov 20, 2010 : 10:39 p.m.

AndyYpsi - It worked out quite well. Like I said, after Prop 13, they had to make up the revenues and were able to recover the loss in 12 years. I did not say it is saving Ca from its current fiscal problems. Prop 13 was a voter initiative an activity that is very dangerous and should be significantly restricted. Prop 13 was in 1978. So by 1990 the losses from property tax was made up by increases in user fees and taxes and what increases Prop 13 did allow. California's current fiscal problems is from too much spending, salaries that are too high, and benefit packages that are too generous. And a lot of ideas that turn out to be very expensive, like the $90 million train. I like to use facts, so here is a great example of how CA dug itself into its hole and continues to dig: Awesome isn't it? Take a look at the list of names, positions and salaries. This is due to contracts and the general nature of how expensive it is to live in California. But back in '78 they severely limited property taxes. Thus the increases in other taxes to make it up. Heck their sales tax is around and over 9%. Here you go: The beauty of California's sales tax is that they are combinations of the state, city, or other district tax. (In some states local govt units can set their own sales taxes). So we are getting a little off topic, but my point is that when local govts are having fiscal problems and cannot get residents to raise property taxes or implement a city income tax, you either cut things out (like festivals) or apply more user fees like Ypsi is doing here, or raise parking fees like Ann Arbor, where it is so expensive to park many people are shopping elsewhere. My personal recommendation is to raise fines on traffic violations up, way, way up make the people who do bad stuff pay. That will keep people driving safely which is good cause they probably have fewer cops to do traffic anyhow.


Sat, Nov 20, 2010 : 7:12 p.m.

@eastsidemom, so what you are saying is the DTCDC put the fish in the park? That seems to be what you are saying. In reality, an act of nature, one that hadn't happened in recent memory before or after the DTCDC was in charge, caused that. And when people complained, the CDC hired a crew to clean it up. You also seem to be saying that renting pumps didn't happen fast enough, and that makes it worse than renting no pumps at all. If one of the many floods this year had left fish in the park, I wonder how things would have turned out? The CDC was in charge for around a year, one flood season. So the first time they had a major flood, and with it there was a freak fish die-off, it wasn't handled as fast as you would like, and you have some other bones to pick with how the job is done. So the next step is to cancel the contract? What makes more sense, to rescind a contract financially beneficial to the city out of hand, or to lodge a complaint with the DTCDC, and demand they do better in the future? Which decision would be fiscally responsible? The implication, in saying that park maintenance is not as good as it has been, is not that the DPS doesn't do a good job. They do the best job they can afford to do, being that oh, yea, we're broke. Ask the head of DPS, they don't have the budget to send our crews to trim weeds or other tedious jobs on a regular basis. Giving the responsibility for the parks back to DPS only exasperates the situation around the rest of the city. No matter what you want to peg the cost of maintaining Riverside and Frog Island at, that is money that the city had to spend on something else under the contract with the DTCDC. The reason given for creating this tax, to raise funds for capitol improvements, was a cost that was assumed by the DTCDC under the contract. The gardens, tended by private citizens, just like they have been since they were created, do look great. Like the actions of council, your arguments fail the logic test. The fact is the city could not afford to cancel that park contract out of hand. There wasn't even an attempt to reprimand the DTCDC or work with them. Our city is broke! You don't just go throwing out things that are saving you a considerable sum of money without trying to fix them first! How can you stand behind a decision like that and call yourself fiscally responsible? And now, when council needs to fix part of the problem they created then by taxing festivals, they won't even talk with the people they plan to tax about how much money the city stands to earn, or how it would effect the festivals. The numbers are far, far off. At the 10% level, the city would exceed their stated yearly financial goal with the tax collected from just one event, the Beer Festival, that is if, it doesn't leave for a new city. Even festivals they chose not to tax came out to call it a bad plan. We've spent years cutting the budget, trimming every penny and saving as much as we can. There has been meeting after meeting to chart our financial path, to be sure we are spending our money wisely. But not here, not with the parks. There, one meeting is sufficient. No pro or con comparison needed, all we have to say is it's just not working out and well we need funds, and this is the only way to do it. Why, in this one case in the budget, is throwing away money ok? Why, when we are desperately trying to bring in business, would you not talk to a group bringing in 10,000 people and hundreds of thousands of dollars about how they can contribute to the future of the parks, and instead pass a crippling tax on them? I want a logical argument as to why this is a sane way to run a city that is headed towards receivership! Oh, and Mick52, how's that plan been working out for California?


Sat, Nov 20, 2010 : 8:03 a.m.

Not to keep beating this dead horse or should I say fish...but there were no dead rotting fish this year, and those pumps you refer to were very slow in coming, after days of smelling rotting fish. The park has flooded all the years I have lived here, the ONLY year problems arose was when DTCDC was in charge. Lori- I realize that festivals contract to repair any damages caused, I object to the implication that the fix wasn't done well by city workers. The park has been just fine all summer and it was even finer for beer fest. In fact the gardens at Frog Island have been a delight to watch grow this year too.


Fri, Nov 19, 2010 : 6:55 p.m.

This is not an unheard of or unusual move by the city. In 1978, the wise voters of California passed the famous Prop 13 which rolled back and restricted property taxes. The initiative caused a huge deficit in govt revenues. To offset the reduction, CA increased user fees, road tolls, and other taxes. It took 12 years for Ca to make up the lost revenue thanks to Prop 13. The beauty of user fees is that if you don't want to pay them you don't use the service you must pay for. The bay bridge between San Fran and Oakland costs $4 to get back to SF. Things can backfire too. New York's big tax on the rich caused many to move: With low revenues you have to do something.


Fri, Nov 19, 2010 : 2:06 p.m.

No body, including the Brewer's Guild, disputes that the park was damaged by flooding, crowds and vehicles. That's why the Guild set out to make it right from the start, first by hiring a crew to fix the damage, and then when the city told them the work could only be done by a DPW crew, by footing the bill. And that's just the thing; the resolution passed by city council wouldn't effect that at all. The language of the resolution states that this is a capitol improvement fund, anybody who damages the park would have to pay to fix it on top of the new tax and all the other fees. So the logic of "we need this to cover things like the damage caused at beer fest" is totally bogus. As eastsidemom said, when there was a flood leaving dead fish in the park under the CDC's watch they rented pumps to dry out the park and crews to clean up the fish. The park flooded multiple times this summer. Anybody see any pumps brought in to dry it out?


Fri, Nov 19, 2010 : 12:45 p.m.

See the aftermath of the Beer Fest


Fri, Nov 19, 2010 : 8:01 a.m.

@eastside : um, events by contract DO pay for clean up and repair of any damage. This is a game created by bad tactics and top of bad strategy. Just that simple. This stuff was being paid for but Robb got angry and took it out on the city (nicely done) and thus wasted a relationship AND more money.


Thu, Nov 18, 2010 : 5:37 p.m.

Oh, and yes, we brought up tucky to demonstrate a series of poor decisions by council. You keep wanting to blame tucky and the CDC when it is the city's financial situation that has put us here, and canceling a massive money saver for the city out of hand without trying to work out differences is poor financial planning. Remember, council said it had nothing to do with tucky, because that would have been a first amendment issue. So why would council not try to fix an arangement that was saving them money instead of going straight to the nuclear option? That shows a severe lac of fiscal sense, just like not negotiating with a festival that brings in thousands of people and a few hundred thousand dollars.


Thu, Nov 18, 2010 : 5:20 p.m.

@eastsidemom, that's funny, because most people I talked to had the opposite opinion on the condition of the parks this year. The grass was mowed less, some areas were left overgrown, there was more trash and more graffiti. The Jamboree had to bring in its own electrician because none of the power was working, and we still had to pay a utility fee. No effort to speed drainage with pumps. Throwing down topsoil knowing that it was going to be trampled days later. Not to mention that the city didn't have the money in the budget to begin with. Again, just because you don't like someone or something it doesn't mean that that ting is bad it causing division. The arangement with the CDC was far from perfect, but when your city is about to go into receivership its pretty stupid to throw out one of the few budgetary bright spots.


Thu, Nov 18, 2010 : 3:41 p.m.

Andy, I did read (and have ad nauseum)this same dead horse: "So, here we are. A year and a half later, and they are crying that they do not have the money to maintain what was already being done at no cost to the city by the DTCDC!!!!!!!!! What a shame." You just don't get that the parks were not being maintained and instead the DTCDC was causing this division in the community, hence the shame...sigh... This year has found Riverside in better condition and when it was damaged it was fixed, thank you beer guild :)


Thu, Nov 18, 2010 : 1:50 p.m.

@eastsidemom, Don's point is that night, we were there to discuss the use of the word Ypsitucky not the park contract. That was not on the agenda. The DTCDC was given no chance to defend themselves, council just used the impossibly vague statement it's just not working out to make the jump from some of us don't like this word to we want you out of the parks Fun fact: if I started a new festival next summer, reserved my park dates, and then decided to call it Ypsi Sucks Fest the city wouldn't have a legal leg to stand on to make me stop, just like they didn't back then. The fact is, some people not liking a word or a group is legal grounds for absolutely nothing in the United States. Otherwise, we'd have the radical right trying to chase Muslims out of cities all over the country. If we halted everything that upset the older generation, we'd still all be wearing suits every day and listening to Frank Sinatra and Dean Martin. But we live in America, where the will of the majority is not supposed to be imposed on the minority, and vice versa. But I digress. We're not here to talk tuck, we're here to talk bad decisions. In fact, council's actions that night didn't even prevent the CDC from using the hated tucky word, and Mr. Robb admitted as much during the debate. And again, at that time, Mr. Robb promised that the city could afford to end the park contract, a contract that covered both maintenance and capitol improvements. This resolution clearly proves that to be untrue. So now we have one action the defies logic and city finances, followed by another where there was clearly no effort to craft a workable solution with all parties involved. No one even knew what a ticket to Beer Fest cost, until they looked it up during the meeting. All council would have had to do was table the motion, talk to some event organizers, and craft a better solution that could meet their financial goals in a more equitable way. All of the event coordinators asked them to do just that, and council ignored them. To recap: that's a chance to craft a workable solution acceptable to all, but a decision to ignore all input and forge on. I find your comment on the condition of the parks after Beer Fest interesting. First, Beer Fest didn't cause the weather, they were a victim of it. They were flooded out in the middle of their event, unlike the Orphan Car Show, where the weather moved through the night before, giving them time to cancel. Now the year before, under the DTCDC, the park flooded too, but when the public raised an outcry, the CDC rented pumps to dry it and hired a crew to clean up the mess (read: dead fish) The city made no effort to dry the park this year and let the water recede on it's own, so right there, we can see a negative effect of that earlier decision to end the CDC contract, and one that directly led to damage of the park. Here's where it really gets fun. The folks at beer fest knew they had to make it right, so they had the old CDC maintenance crew out there on Monday starting repairs, including aerating the newly compacted soil. The city immediately stopped this crew, then charged the Beer Fest over $5,000 for repairs, which in reality turned into: dump some topsoil and spread it around after the ground dries, even knowing that the Jamboree was the following weekend, and dumping topsoil could have created a second disastrous mud pit had it rained. And we were told in no uncertain terms that, had this happened, we would be held responsible for damages. So, clearly, if you rent the park and damage it, you are made to pay, and this resolution won't change that, events will pay this tax and pay for any damages, too. Public opinion at that meeting was oppose to this resolution. Council was urged by all parties not to drop the notion of capital improvements fee, just to rework it into something more even handed. Even the Heritage Festival, who is not effected by this, thinks it's a bad idea. Our second biggest, and most economically impacted festival, was on the phone beforehand, throwing out phrases like deal breaker and examining our options. And to top it all off, we wouldn't even be having to talk about how to fund parks if it weren't for a previous rash decision by council. When do we stop and tell our council to be open, honest, and cooperative, and to make these decisions based on clear and well presented fact? We can't afford to have this stuff rammed through with no thought of the consequences.


Thu, Nov 18, 2010 : 11:58 a.m.

Yes, they ought to.


Thu, Nov 18, 2010 : 9:15 a.m.

@ Lori...Apparently you did not attend beer fest and see the damage caused by the weather conditions and crowds. Should all Ypsi citizens pay for that damage through a city income tax. That would be on top of their already high property taxes. I think not. Seems like a compromise is on order and yes city council aught to study this issue more, or share their findings if they have already done so.


Thu, Nov 18, 2010 : 9:09 a.m.

Don: Interesting how memory serves: "To change the name from Ypsitucky, it was an absolute circus..." Wasn't this the whole problem. The gross insensitivity of this group to not "get" that the name was so divisive, not just between the "poor immigrants that came to work the factories from Kentucky" but dividing Ypsi by age. I remember and resent the issue still. They screwed it up for themselves along with the dead and rotting fish. That said...City council aught not kill the golden goose anymore than the state should kill the movie industry here. We cannot afford to shew away business.


Wed, Nov 17, 2010 : 8:46 p.m.

Hello, Don, Director of Michigan Roots Jamboree here. Please make no mistake, if the city wanted to increase fees we have absolutely no issue with it if it was communicated, researched, thought out or even public. We pay a fee to rent the park, we pay for city police, ambulance and also any cleanup necessary after events which amounts to thousands of dollars. This doesnt include the massive overhead it takes to put on events of this scale. Ypsi is not free, just one of the most cultured, unique places to spend time in SE Michigan. Understand what was put on the agenda- To charge 10% of all gross reciepts. This means: All ticket revenue, Vending revenue, Merchandise, Beer sales and even sponsorships which in this economy we have worked so hard to obtain. Not 10% of profits, not 10% of ticket sales (no matter what Murdock says, a mistake like that should have been corrected in the beginning of the meeting if it was truly a mistake) The fact is, that if we would have had this charge last year as it was written, there would be no 3rd year for MRJ. No next year for Elvis, no Ton Up Festival and Michigan Beerfest would vanish. All of the volunteers for the festival believe in Ypsilanti. At no point when we created Michigan Roots Jamboree did we consider another venue. I have personally organized 100s of events this year alone in Ypsi surrounding music and arts. Love for Ypsilanti is a huge understatement. So "Ypsilanti" post, please have your facts straight. Between Andy, Erik and Myself, we have volunteered thousands of hours in the past year to help make Ypsi a better place. This doesnt even include all of our good friends, musicians and artists who also have volunteered countless hours. If you would like a list of different initiatives, I would be happy to provide one. We want not only for Ypsi to continue to house these great events, but to also attract new events as well. My concern is to keep events like Michigan Beer Fest here with many other cities trying to court them away. To echo Andy's comment: When it was on City Council's agenda to vote whether to ask us to change the name from Ypsitucky, it was an absolute circus. Brian Robb decided to change the initiative on the spot, vote 3 times until they got their way, to rip the contract to maintain the parks away from the DTCDC because he assured everyone, that the city had the 20k per year to maintain not only parks but to continue the capital improvements on the park, piggy backing on the DTCDC's work. So, here we are. A year and a half later, and they are crying that they do not have the money to maintain what was already being done at no cost to the city by the DTCDC!!!!!!!!! What a shame. The same politics that have, and will continue to damper any real progress in our community. The DTCDC led the march to create the Gazebo, were integral on making Ypsi wireless and added many new lights to the park to make it safer, all along while making sure the park was clean and maintained. Again, at no cost to the city. City Council has had no conversation with any of the event coordinators or the organization who had attendence figures on all ticked events, no plan on revenue (because they never asked for any numbers from anyone!) They might of well just put a dartboard up and whatever number they hit would be what they would demand. On second thought, maybe that is what they did! We received nothing but blank faces and no explaination on the research that was done. Thank you Councilwoman Richardson, Thank you Councilman Ricky Jefferson for using common sense to say, hey! maybe we dont have enough information especially when we have these resources who have the experience that can help find ways to increase revenue and vote no on an on-the-fly amendment that makes little sense. After all, it is still November and doing a little research and tabling it until December may have worked out even better for the city. Id like to thank Councilman Boudry, even though he voted for the amended resolution to pass, he did put his foot down and keep the "10 percent of Gross reciepts" from going through, keeping the saavy politicians from passing thier buddy's ideas. Also thank you Councilman Vogt for questioning the validity of the 10 percent and bringing up the fact that like the rest of council, he didnt have enough information to make an educated fiscally responsible decision. All in all, I are happy to pay more fees. I would like it evenly distributed according to impact on the park, but you cant have it all. Ypsilanti is becoming such an culture filled bright spot for Michigan. I am happy to continue to put my time and efforts into helping. I just hope that Council listens to the public, acts accordingly, and puts the best interest of our community first because that has not been the case. Paul, we really needed you last night.


Wed, Nov 17, 2010 : 8:06 p.m.

This is a tax increase - just like a hotel tax. TAX increase. Hmpf and these people said Ypsi didn't need a tax increase now they have proposed the bux tax - something we kind of got blackmailed into but for the good of all AND this little ditty - bad tactic on top of bad strategy on top of... a lie


Wed, Nov 17, 2010 : 4:52 p.m.

Regrettably, the City has had to cut a number of positions over the past 20 years due to economic situations beyond its control. How can anyone suggest taking away someone's job, his means of supporting himself and possibly his family, rather than asking everyone to pay a tiny bit more to have fun?

Sandy Castle

Wed, Nov 17, 2010 : 4:06 p.m.

If the event organizers feel the need to raise the entry fee to cover this, it could affect the number of people willing to go to their event. My husband and I looked into going to Elvis Fest and the Jamboree this year, but both events were, I think offhand, $25. per person. I could be off a little, but it was close and adding dinner into that mix, we felt it was just too much money. It's a tough situation, for sure.


Wed, Nov 17, 2010 : 3:24 p.m.

The real problem here is not that there will be another fee (renting the park has never been near free) but the uneven and arbitrary way this was done. Even the folks from Heritage Fest find this unfair, even though they aren't effected. The math is bad. The Beer Festival, who's beer sales and ticket sales are one in the same, stand to pay $15,000 - $30,000 to the city with this deal. Why would they stay at that rate? Other events can absorb this hit, but will they? Are you telling me the hit rod shows couldn't get a better deal in Canton or Plymouth? What Brian and Pete still refuse to discuss is how they created the need for this fee by canceling the DTCDC park management contract in 2009. Under that agreement, the DTCDC was paying for all maintenance and capitol improvements. They wouldn't give a clear answer on their motives then, but they did tell us there would be no increased costs for the city. By passing this resolution, they pretty much prove that wasn't true.


Wed, Nov 17, 2010 : 1:31 p.m.

They could just say to heck with making people pay and have free events, but still have drink and food sales more people would go because it's free to get in and because of that more drinks would be bought and the city would still get it's cut from the drink and food sales.


Wed, Nov 17, 2010 : 1:02 p.m.

Boo hoo hoo, ypsi is strapped for cash, half of this county lives within seven minutes of ypsi proper, yet the city is commercially empty, makes no sense. If you don't like the tax then go to another park and see how much parking and access roads are available, deal with it.


Wed, Nov 17, 2010 : 11:56 a.m.

So these events organizers love Ypsi so long as Ypsi is free, but will bolt to another venue if they have to pay a modest fee? Sounds to me like they don't actually love Ypsi, just that Ypsi is free.


Wed, Nov 17, 2010 : 11:55 a.m.

$35k... cut an employee, or part of 1...