--00000000000090f33a064babce2d Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Perfect. I don't believe it has officially closed, but is heading down that direction of shutting down. Let's keep them separate then, and isolate just Chicago for targets. @Timot= hy Thomas would you want Grand Rapids to still show up in reporting for now? On Wed, Feb 25, 2026 at 12:03=E2=80=AFPM Robert Valliant wrote: > 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 jus= t >> 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 >>> down Grand Rapids. I know the incentives and targets have been combined= . >>> Joel - when creating the month-over-month increase for Chicago/Grand >>> Rapids, were these sites combined and growing together? Or did you have= a >>> different rate for Grand Rapids and Chicago? Happy to set up time to th= ink >>> 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 G= R >>>>> operation. We're not onboarding any new clients and revenue & EBITDA = is >>>>> consistently declining. The Chicago team should not be penalized for = this >>>>> 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 target= s >>>>>> 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 d= eeper >>>>>> than the site? >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> Sarah >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Sarah Powers >>>>>> Director, Strategic Analytics >>>>>> TheKey.com >>>>>> [image: TheKey] >>>>>> >>>>> >> >>