I spent, you know, hours on this and it meets those. Um, and, you know, we can agree or disagree with that. We can we can look at any of those that may need to be changed. Um, you know, there are some quirky provisions in there, honestly. Um, you know, with regards to, uh, you know, choosing your front yard and things like that, but, you know, it does meet it does meet the codes. It does meet the building code. It does meet all of the things that we want. And so I can't find a reason why we would not move it forward.

I go back to the the challenge that we've we've had about passing, you know, these or these ordinances and these zones across the entire R1 spectrum and it's 70ome% of the city and this is the kind of thing that starts to happen when we when we do that large papering and why I was frankly a fan of smaller cuts at that early on, right?

Maybe just something to clarify for the public. Um, you know, this is for a I think you use language mass mass capacity data data storage center or something. I can't remember the exact language. Oh. And with all of the um debate around data centers, I think it might be useful to clarify for the public the difference between what Seagate is and what a data center is.

I don't understand the free money thing. I don't. And so if somebody has some insights, I'd be happy to hear them.

Uh the the Minnesota Investment Fund originally was the Minnesota Forward Fund, which was approved, I think, six years ago, five, six years ago, when uh when the federal government was working their way through the CHIPS Act... so it's it's basically an incentive for them to stay within within uh the state of Minnesota and and the United States as well because uh the the competitors right now are are all offshore.

Uh and technically, not to be uh specific, although I know that our city attorney loves specificity from our turning this morning. uh that this they have to meet certain uh job and wage goals for that money to be considered. So I I understand the concern of it being free money, but it is a grant from the state and in order for that to be uh in the correct agreement. It is set up that certain goals would be met and there would be some sort of verification of what they have applied for and then that those goals were met.

The proposed amendment itself is a recognition of delays that are caused by the pandemic. So CO 19 and as outlined in the staff report, the contract language does contemplate that there may be unavoidable delays that exist and it includes an opportunity for an extension for the performance period and that is why we are here today.

And the result of that is what is here today, which is a two-year extension to the performance period. So, there are two terms by which uh performance needs to happen, and that is at 10 year and 20 year marks. And this extension would provide for two years of extension at each of those. So from 10 to 12 and then from 20 to 22 years. Additionally, it does modify a provision that requires an amount of valuation of construction in or at those terms. and it reduces the $500 million valuation at that 10-year term, which would now be 12, to 400 million, but then increases the amount at year 2020 or year 22 to 800 million. And then it's important to note that there is a requirement for $1.2 billion of estimated value of improvements that still would remain and has not modified.