Re: Grand Rapids + Chicago for Reporting

--000000000000f8055e064bab7d58 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I think GR closed a long time ago, so we can just have the one Chicagl site, and no more GR? On Wed, Feb 25, 2026 at 3:00=E2=80=AFPM Joel Reyes = wrote: > I had different growth rates for both sites, they are two distinct sites > so ultimately if we just stop combining their results we can isolate just > chicago performance vs GR performance > > On Wed, Feb 25, 2026 at 12:31=E2=80=AFPM Sarah Powers wrote: > >> Hi All, >> >> Bringing this topic up again. Tim shared that Chris approved winding dow= n >> Grand Rapids. I know the incentives and targets have been combined. Joel= - >> when creating the month-over-month increase for Chicago/Grand Rapids, we= re >> these sites combined and growing together? Or did you have a different r= ate >> for Grand Rapids and Chicago? Happy to set up time to think through how >> this should be best represented. >> >> Thanks, >> Sarah >> >> On Wed, Feb 11, 2026 at 2:46=E2=80=AFPM Robert Valliant >> wrote: >> >>> Thanks Donny and Sarah. All reporting in 2026 should have these sites >>> combined! We have been combining them manually for many months for >>> incentive calculations and 2026 Financial Targets. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Feb 11, 2026 at 1:02=E2=80=AFPM Timothy Thomas = wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Sarah, >>>> >>>> I will advocate to Chris this Friday that we begin winding down the GR >>>> operation. We're not onboarding any new clients and revenue & EBITDA i= s >>>> consistently declining. The Chicago team should not be penalized for t= his >>>> negative impact in their comp plan. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Feb 11, 2026 at 12:45=E2=80=AFPM Sarah Powers >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi All, >>>>> >>>>> I'm hoping to get clarity on how we are treating Grand Rapids and >>>>> Chicago for reporting, particularly around incentives. In the targets >>>>> received so far, I see Grand Rapids and Chicago are combined. Should = these >>>>> be combined in all areas of reporting? >>>>> >>>>> For any reporting where we track against a target, if targets are >>>>> combined we will need to combine the sites in tableau. >>>>> >>>>> So I guess my questions are >>>>> a) are we treating them as one for targets? >>>>> b) if yes, is there a reason we wouldn't combine the sites for all >>>>> reporting, but still be able to keep separate offices as the layer de= eper >>>>> than the site? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Sarah >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Sarah Powers >>>>> Director, Strategic Analytics >>>>> TheKey.com >>>>> [image: TheKey] >>>>> >>>> > > -- > > Thanks, > *Joel Reyes* > Manager, Financial Operations > --000000000000f8055e064bab7d58 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I think GR closed a long time ago, so we can just have the= one Chicagl site, and no more GR? On Wed, Feb 25, 202= 6 at 3:00=E2=80=AFPM Joel Reyes < joel.reyes@thekey.com > wrote: I had different growth rates for bo