Call the meeting to order. Recite the pledge. Did I forsy and justice for all? Motion to approve the agenda as >> so moved. >> Second. >> I see more presentations. or acknowledgements. Anybody here for public comment? See any open close? Uh I can get a motion to approve the consent agenda. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Any discussion? All in favor? I No public hearings and we'll go to general business and we'll address award a contract for well number five. >> So city council >> uh city council is being asked to award contract to Rener um for construction of well number five. This is a firm capacity well or a backup well. Maybe I'll have Corey give a brief explanation as to the need for the project. >> Yeah. So firm capacity well is what has to be done when basically firm capacity is your capacity with your highest producing well offline. So right now we have three wells that pump to the plant. Say well four is offline at 835 gallons a minute. You are limited to,30 gallons a minute total. So, it it's basically insurance. Um, in case a well goes down, you have a backup because even if we were uh 200 gallons a minute short, you're short and you don't have water. We have no other way to do it. So, that's basically what your firm capacity, what this well is for. It will move into probably uh a production well and rotation as things progress, but right now it's basically for backup and that's it. Um we did get three bids for um the well. Um the bid from eh Rener was very close to the engineers estimate. Um the other two from Mineral Service Plus and Shrout Companies were notably more and both of those were very close. Uh you'll note. So we do feel that the bids that we got are as good as we're going to get in the current market. So we would recommend award. This was this was also a recommendation in our uh water source treatment the 2024 water system study update that was done last year. Obviously you guys weren't on council at that time but it I believe it came back to the council in October of last year. So this is one of the recommendations um when you design for capacity uh that the DNR requires that you design for firm capacity. So it's it's not just something that we're just doing. It's part of a longer process. So strange question. Do you feel that we're doing this because of the future residential platting that we're doing just in case there's an overabundance of use in one of our wells goes down? Is that a concern? >> Well, I mean it's firm capacity. >> So, we need it today. >> Yeah, I I get that. But do you think it's >> so so right right now if >> uh hypothetically speaking if both of our high service pumps are pumping so we're pumping water the elko side pumping water the new market side the the new market side is 1,200 gallons a minute new market side is 600. If we can only pump is say our well four is down and we can only pump 1,200 gallons a minute we are 600 gallons a minute short. We have some capacity in a tower but we have 150,000 gallons if the Alcoa Tower is full and 250 of the new market tower is full and 500 under the plant. But that doesn't buy you. I This is it's it's not firm capacity is for more than a day or an hour. It could be if you have a while that goes down. It could be weeks. And if your life is anything like mine, things happen >> at about the worst time. Not when you have, you know, a ton of capacity. So I don't foresee anything happening. But also, I don't want to be the one who says we don't have any water either. So, yes, I do believe it's needed. >> So, this by no means has anything to do with Niagara and a second phase or anything. Correct. Just want to clarify that for anyone. >> No, this is what our capacity is right now. >> Perfect. Thank you. Do we need to make a motion to approve the award the contract or >> correct? So, uh, the council would need to make a motion to award the contract to eh render and suns pursuant to the city engineers recommendation. >> I will motion >> second. >> Any further discussion? >> All in favor? Hi. >> All right. >> Uh reports. >> So, uh our item under administration tonight is just review and direction related to the 2026 utility fund budgets. As the council's aware, our process is to go through and do our utility fund and rate analysis, which we did last month. This is really just incorporating the direction that we received at that meeting into the draft budget. All we're really looking for tonight is any direction from the council for any changes um based on what's presented to you. If there is none, then we would move forward make any updates necessary based on new information before final budget adoption. But these are essentially the final drafts of the at this point the final draft of the utility fund budgets. >> I have nothing. Nothing for me. >> Public works. >> Anything else? >> Um, I have really nothing to add other than it's been nice out, so we're not following snow right now, which is good. But, uh, that could turn at any given time. Um, hydrant flushing got done last week. Um, nothing special going on right now. Chief, >> excuse me for sitting back there. I don't want to get anyone sick. Uh the only thing that we really have that's the big issue is we're uh we have three unfilled positions. So, it's kind of a push right now to try and get this full. Uh we have one person in background and then we do currently have an ad out right now um to try and fill the other two positions, but that's kind of our big priority and our big push right now. >> I see that your calls are down from last year year to date. >> Yeah, they're going to fluctuate. Um if you look the last couple of years, they've been pretty um pretty flat. you know, up and down a little bit year to year, but um I think we're in that kind of plateau where the days when I first started in 2010 with the recession and kind of the department having been disbanded or whatever term you want to use to it was kind of the wild west to now we're a little more stable. And as the population starts to increase, you'll see the call volume go up, but it's probably going to be a little little flat for for right now for the next couple of years. um which is is not bad. Um gives us time to kind of do other things too to kind of work on other things. >> Great. Thank you. >> Thank you, >> Chief. EMTs as I told you last time. We got seven guys that'll be going this spring right now. Northfield Hospital doesn't do our training anymore. They do our As you know, the CPR class Saturday where we're going to start on that next year and kind of So it keeps there's big interest or whatever it see right around the first of the year. for sure. >> Can I ask a quick question? Yeah. >> That $4,500 a month, how many classes is that? >> No. So that's that would cover for the year. We figured out basically we would do one class a month >> and that would cover the cost of the materials that you have to buy stuff like a month. >> Okay. >> So that's the plan right now. Kind of see how it takes off. decided we charge people $20. >> So we got four guys doing that radio just showed up today. We did get a grant for one of them. radio. That's about it. We're at about 350 calls for >> Can I ask about the >> You had said you had seven people interested in going to >> EMT class. How many days a week is that? >> So, that's going to be Right now it's set for Tuesdays and Thursdays. >> Okay. >> And then Saturday, >> are you going to send all seven at the same time? >> Yes. >> Any concern about um response having seven guys gone? Two. Okay. And it's at night. >> Okay. >> Departments. >> Your turn, sir. Joke first. Good evening. Um, yeah, there's a there's a update in your packet with updates on various items. >> Dad joke. >> Oh, you want to start with the dad joke? Sorry. I thought you wanted I thought we figured we'd end with it, but you know what? Yeah, we we'll break the ice start. My apologies. >> Uh, >> started it the tradition. So, >> given we're only a couple weeks out from Thanksgiving, I figured that's the route we'd go with this one. Um, why did the cranberries turn red? >> Because they saw the turkey dressing. Sorry to keep you hanging there, but as I was saying, so yeah, uh update updates in the in the packet there, updates on various items. Uh in particular, um the water quality uh complaints response plan. Uh some updates on that as well as we pose a few questions to you that we'd like for you to discuss tonight. Um primarily focused on the notifications to folks and and uh how we want to respond to the aquifer pump test related complaints. Um so as you're aware the the initial mailing went out with the two and a half mile radius. Those went out in August of 2024. Um since then we have re received a handful additional uh prim primarily after the last council meeting that we discussed the matter in September 25th. Um so just looking for some direction on as we try to kind of wrap that up and and and get this continue to move with this. But um first of all the first question being if if people were you know within the two and a half mile radius if they were receive the initial questionnaire and how to respond to that is there any action on staff to if we didn't receive anything from them to follow up with them again is the first question is that there >> yeah so as as uh Rich is working on preparing the offer letters and we plan on the ones that cleanly fall within the parameters the council had identified um for compensation letters. Um those will go out next week. But as we're working through, there are these you might say complaint adjacent >> ones where they didn't fall neatly in that box. Um or we just didn't talk about it at that granular level and we're seeking additional guidance. So those clear ones will go out. These are are the are these individuals that we would want to still include in that group with a second round of letters that would go out. So the first question is really was there a reason the parameters the council provided is you contacted us um and notified us that you had an issue and we sent out a follow-up questionnaire and what we found is that when we sent we either received complaints after the Oxford test and then we some additional complaints after we sent out the notice for the wellowners meeting in August of 2024 and in there there was a whole paragraph about we're receiving complaints. If you're receiving complaints, here's what you need to do to 935 property owners um who may have a well um either had or may have a well. The question is that we generally had some followup to that, but it was a pretty much a dry spell until after the September council meeting. Um during that window, there were only and since um that notice back in 2024, there's only been nine that we have received. Six of those or twothirds of them were received after the September 25th meeting of this year where we talked about potential compensation for impact. So the first question is is there a reasonable cut off for when you would be eligible to receive compensation for this? The obvious undertone is um was people were is you cared enough to send it in and why did it why did we get notified only after the city had discussed that there would be compensation involved. So we wanted direction on that item init first. The second one, the the next big question is really about those people that were greater than 2 and a half miles away and less than three and a half because there were people who did file complaints um outside of the 2 and 1/2 miles. And the council did include people that were greater than 2 and a half miles and less than three and a half miles that showed up to the council meeting. But there are well owners out there who may not have who legitimately did not receive that notice that the other 935 potential well owners did. And the question is how do you want to handle those? Is there a um if they contacted us before the 25th or some point after that um etc. How do you want to handle those? At this point, we have not received anybody from that falls into that category that didn't already contact us prior to the 25th or was at that meeting. Um, but we think there is a possibility that as word gets around that there are checks being cut that we might see people contacting us about that. So, those are the two key areas um that we're looking for. Um the first question where in the memo it says does August 24 August 2024 notification to will owner of the issue and how to file a complaint disqualify that owner from being included in this review. So essentially is I think that's just the initial higher level question that if we notified you and we can verify that you received a notice and you and you did not follow up does that automatically disqualify you for consideration at this point regardless of regardless of time frame and then the other two questions are a little bit more nuanced based on specific situations. >> And I just have a quick question. Why was there no like cut off date included in the original notification? >> Um, lack of foresight because we well we at that time there we were just collecting information. There wasn't intended that we're planning for people to notify us that we're going to be doing providing any sort of compensation because we didn't have enough information and didn't know what was going on at that point. We hadn't completed our research. So this was more of it was moreformational um that hey if you had a if you had a concern please contact us. So that was based on the our inability to anticipate that we'd be at this particular point in time. Now we just wanted people to notify us if they have a problem so we could collect information. It was subsequent to that that a decision was made related to compensation after we determined what the cause was. So the August 24th notification that went out that was to 935 >> in 2024. >> In 2024 >> Yeah. 2024 that was 935 people. >> Correct. >> Okay. Out of that 935 people did how many did you say we heard from? >> Um I believe it's earlier in the memo I want to say it's somewhere around 20 less than 30 is like 21 or something to date. We're still We're still uh individuals. Are you talking about individuals that would be eligible for the >> I'm I'm just talking about in August of 24 when we sent that notification of the issue to 935 people. Did anyone write back, email back anything within shortly after August of 24 before September 25th, 2025? >> Um, I don't I don't have those specific numbers, but in the memo it indicates that the number of individuals that contacted us after December 31st of 2024 was nine. That doesn't include if they contacted us via that special email address, right? >> No, this is everybody. This is all >> this this is the context >> after >> after August of 20 24. >> Y >> individuals that contacted us before the end of 2024 was nine. >> Um that contact us after the end of December 31st. I do not have a number for who contacted us between August and December. I just have a number for who contacted us after December. >> And that was just used as a reasonable date because it's a notable time frame and it was four months after the notice was sent out. I know that we did have people contact us from when we sent that notice out. I just don't have that information available to me right now. for this. It' be my preference that everybody's here on the council. Um, as we're we're starting to drill into it. That's my preference. >> I I'm going to agree with you on that, Mayor. I think it's very important that we have Amanda and Josh here because they were here in 2024 as well. Um, and one thing I do have to point out is that we're just determining who would be eligible for the the low threshold $300 compensation. We will respond to all complaints that we've received, but they would go in if they aren't eligible for the immediate $300 offer, they would just go into the all other complaints category and would be dealt with on a case-byase basis as we're working through those. Did they indicate anything um an opinion when in any meeting that you had with them as far as what they would have thought or on their opinion on it on the questions >> of the these individuals? >> Yeah. >> I haven't had conversations I can't tell you if I've had conversations with these individuals or not. Amanda and Josh, did they weigh in at all on this? >> Um, the only feedback I got is Josh said he would be comfortable with whatever decisions you guys made on agenda items tonight. >> Um, Amanda didn't give any specific feedback on on this item. >> I This is just a sensitive issue all the way around and I just again my pre preference is that they're here. Yeah, the the our big push right now is to get out the letters to the individuals who um met the criteria that the council previously identified. These are I guess you'd say these are potential additional ones. The timing isn't as sensitive except to the fact that they're going to get that letter later than >> other individuals. >> If we wait on this, does that delay us getting those letters out? >> No, we're still moving forward. So the the other ones that clearly fit within the criteria identified, those are planned to go out next week. >> It's the nine that we're we're discussing of whether you lump them in with >> it's it's really these additional nine and then anybody else that might come in outside of that that's in that beyond two and a half and less than three and a half. Do you want to create an eligibility criteria for them? And you don't have to make a decision on that tonight. We'll still be getting out. Obviously, the bulk of the the letters will still be going out, but it is one of those areas we anticipate that um once the letters start going out, people are going to say, "Well, what about me?" And so, these are areas that we anticipate that we're going to need some additional guidance in. >> So, to me, it seems like we're building off of the criteria that we created back in September. >> Yeah. either clarification or do you want to expand upon it? So, for example, um there are I'm aware of at least one individual for sure who had contacted us via email prior to the meeting on the 25th clearly after the end of last year. Um who other than the fact that they didn't come to the meeting had a similar comment. I'm you know I didn't get notified of this or I was beyond the two and a half mile criteria. And so the question is how do you handle those people before the 25th but after maybe the end of 2024 after there was a reasonable immediate response period. >> So we're talk we're talking 12 months between contacts essentially. >> Yeah. Where's that where's that reasonable is there a reasonable cut off for somebody or do you think it's appropriate to set a reasonable cut off after they would have received the notice? >> Well, the two and a half to three and a half would not have been >> and that's that's the issue there is they they did not receive a notice um from us because our area of influence that was determined or potential impact that we should be responding to as determined by the DNR was two and a half miles. So, we did not send notices beyond that. So I guess the broad question is how do we categorize them as far as >> are they eligible or are they eligible or not? So what we would do at this point >> if they're in the two and a half to three and a half if they're in the two and a half are they eligible for for the I don't want to say automatic but the threshold is relatively low. they we had sent out they sent back a questionnaire that and the symptoms they indicated are consistent with what our findings were to indicate that they were impacted. Do you want to add that or if you don't it doesn't mean that we may not respond to those. It just means that we will evaluate those on a case-byase basis and the threshold for the information we request may be higher based on that case by case evaluation. We won't be handling them as a category. We'd be handling them as an individual. I think we handle I mean if we're going to go and and not put this off till two weeks from now I think we handle everything as a case by case. >> So bring them all in. >> Yeah. >> So that so >> it's fair. >> So we stick with the original criteria that you identified and anybody that falls outside of that criteria would be handled on a case-byase basis. Yeah. >> Can I just maybe advocate for one crowd? What about an individual, one for sure, who didn't? Because the council said, "Well, if you came to the council meeting, you're now eligible regardless as long as you're under three and a half miles." What if they did contact us prior to the meeting on the 25th via email? >> Then, so are you asking, do they get the letter or do they get case by case? Do do they do they get the Well, in this case, the people that are getting the letter, we sent a questionnaire to and they followed up. In this case, they would be eligible to the point that we would send them a questionnaire. And if the and if the information we get indicates that they are consistent with what we think was the Oxford test impact, then they would be eligible for the 300 bucks. So, anybody that's not getting a letter right now is somebody we would have to follow up with most likely regardless to some degree. It's just a question of whether or not they are potentially eligible or it's just going to be you go in the all other pile and we'll just take it on a case by case basis. >> But they did contact us and you feel that it warrants the questionnaire? Um, if you I would suggest that whether somebody if somebody contacted us prior to the meeting on the 25th, I would pose the question to the council whether they did it by email or actually showed up at the meeting. Is there a difference between the two? >> I don't think there's a difference. >> So based on that, I would suggest then the guidance would be anybody that contacted us regardless of method prior to the meeting on the 25th would be eligible. And if they haven't already filled out a so we would put them into the process and if it's consistent with our findings and they have all thewise the other meet all the other criteria that they would be eligible for the $300 compensation. Anybody that contacted us after the 25th would go into the all other complaints pile that we would um address on a case-by case basis. I think that's fair, especially given that we didn't have a end timeline in that original notification letter, which we couldn't have seen coming. >> Yeah. And under that circumstance, according to what I the information that we have in the memo, um that would be an additional and just to check with you, Luke, that would be an additional nine individuals. >> Correct. >> I think that's as fair as it can be. >> Okay. >> Even without I think If we had everybody here, they would all agree to that. >> Okay. >> I think that's >> because there's no way you could be any more fair than that. >> Do you have any commentary or concerns, city attorney? >> Okay. >> All right. So, that's the direction that we needed tonight. >> So, we don't have to >> That answers all three of your questions there for you. Um no the last well it does to the extent and I just want to confirm what I think the direction he gave is that if somebody contacts us now regardless of circumstances after the 20 any contact after the 25th it goes into the all others pile >> individual review >> individual review regardless of distance regardless of what but if you contacted us at this point >> so August 2024 to September 25th 2025 are in the compensation eligible >> depending on findings. Yes. >> Just want to click that. >> Yeah. So, basically what we did is we said, okay, if we sent you a questionnaire and you followed up either previously or going forward because you made contact with us prior to September 25th and your symptoms and you indicated that you had issues during the OP for test and they're consistent with our findings, you know, you meet those basic elig eligibility requirements, then yes, you would be eligible. But if you are contacting us now after the 25th of this year um or you don't follow up as appropriate then no you would not be eligible just broadly stated. >> And is there going to be a deadline on this new letter that's going out? >> Yes. And it is the council given us direction that they would have a window in which they would have to respond >> and for clarification and anybody that would have incurred a cost above 300 >> that is also an individual review of their case. >> Correct. There's a process for somebody that feels that the $300 is insufficient compensation for their circumstances. The letter will outline the process that they need to follow and there will be a time and timeline by which they need to to do that. So, and then we'll review those on a case- by case basis. >> What kind of timeline are we giving them to gather all of their paperwork that they would need for proving their side to us? >> I have to recall. I think it's 30 days. >> I think that's what >> the direction you gave. They basically have 30 days to respond to either >> we're very with explanation >> sign they either have to sign the waiver and send it back within 30 days or they have to um indicate that they want to enter that other process within 30 days and from there it'll be as long as it takes to to work through. >> We all agree we agree. >> Yeah, I think I have clear direction on that. Was there any other updates you had? >> Um, just what's in the packet if there's any any questions regarding any anything else that was included there. Um, paving was occurring out on Highlands at Eagle View today. Uh, sidewalk is was wrapping up today at Parkway Meadows. So, stuff starting to construction season is wrapping up. So, >> awesome. >> All right. Uh, any developments speak on that? >> Yep. So, uh, two things under um the general updates. Uh, last week, um, Renee on behalf of the city attended the annual commercial industrial real estate professionals event in Minneapolis. Basically, it's a good old marketing the city, recruiting developers event. Um, this is event is one of the largest commercial real estate networking events in the year within the region. And so that's one of the two it's it's one of the ones we attend annually to try and market the community. Um, also, uh, this we did receive a formal petition related to the 80 acre Sullivan property. Staff is working with the township attorney and has finalized with a lot of work on Andrea's part and the township attorney's part and Rene's part have finalized drafts of the orderly annexation agreement, the joint powers agreement, and the pre-development agreement of which the develop of which the township needs to approve all three uh, to make it all work. Um right now staff intends to attend the 122 um township board meeting to ask their consideration of those items. Um at this point we don't have any reason to anticipate any major issues with that. Um there we previously gone out to talk about the development and the general terms and that all seemed to uh they seem to respond favorably to that. Uh the last item is that staff will be meeting with the DNR on Monday to discuss uh the adoption of the shorland ordinance as previously reported to the council. Um we had received notice in the last year that we needed to adopt a shoreland ordinance um as required by Minnesota state statute and we are currently working through that. but has also reported there are some difficulties. This statute or the rules that they've established kind of assume you're dealing with undeveloped areas not putting it in place after you have development around it and um already already land guidance that affects property significantly. And what we've kind of heard is that there's nobody currently in DNR staff since this is a relative this rule has been in place for a long time. they really haven't been through this before where somebody's come in where they're already a developed or partially, you know, they're already a developing city where this is being put in place. So, we have to work through some of those um nuances of what's going to be required. So, our staff is currently working on that. We're also going to be bringing in our consulting planner who we'll be primarily assigning this project to going forward based on our current staffing limitations. Um, that's all I have on that. And then I also have an update on the planning commission discussion on residential lot standards. So the planning commission is having a discussion about whether or not we need to make changes to our residential lot standards. As the council's fully aware, the industry for detached housing has continued to change and that um taking a look at what's appropriate for our community, but also looking at what our standards need to be in order to be able to comply with MED councsil density requirements um within the community. And so right now the status of the they had their first discussion here um in October and the status of the current discussion is that um under our current R1 our lowest density um district uh the minimum lot size is 80 ft. There is no proposal to make the changes to that standard for that district because it's believed there are locations and circumstances where larger lots um would not be only desirable but most appropriate. For example, lots that have slopes um natural other areas that have natural features that may require large lots um just general locations within the community. However, uh the commission is discussing that for the R2 district um which does provide for um smaller densities. The R2 district currently provides for a 70 foot minimum lot width. There is discussion of moving that to 65 ft and then expanding the areas in which R2 could be located within our comprehensive plan. So right now our two districts are primarily where they can be um zoned by right um or or more eligible or current eligibilities along um primarily transportation corridors and this would open that up um the specific criteria haven't been identified but opening up the geography in which our two districts could be applied. Um, so any questions on that? Okay. So, they they'll work through that and once they have a uh a more defined framework, it'll come to the city council for feedback. >> Actually, the front and the I'm just kind of reading through the the graph that they have here. The setbacks, will those stay the same then or are they going to adjust those as well? >> My understanding is the setbacks would remain where they are today. would they would be quite honestly it'd be consistent with what we're approve what we've approved in some of our three most recent our two most recent subdivisions. So >> um no no parks update >> um we did meet in October for CC. I think the minutes do a pretty good job of describing the activity um at the meeting. Uh, one of the things that we talked about was composition of the um, CC completing the survey of the current organizations that are even if not actively participating um, have been part of the organization over um, the long haul and basically finding out who wants to continue to participate and to what level. so recommendations can be brought back to the council related to revising the composition. Uh the other key area was just talking about availability of volunteers and people to help out. Um the core of the CC has continued to shrink over the years and it's really just for people that do most of the heavy lifting. And um the idea is that if we revise the composition, we might be able to get new blood in more hands and which would um which is something that's needed within the organization. Kate, do you you were at the meeting or No, >> I wasn't there. >> Sorry. >> No, that's okay. >> Um Yep. >> But I would agree to obviously make a new composition of hopefully other people or businesses or residents or something that want to help out with the CC. >> Yeah. The general trend that we're finding is that people are happy to contribute financially but actually getting manh hours towards stuff is getting increasingly difficult. Um, so on one part good, but on the other part it becomes challenging because if you don't have the people, you can't put on the events regardless of how well it's funded >> scales tomorrow morning. It's uh basically making the legislative platform pitch to our legislators. I of course will be giving the perennial pitch on the I35 interchange. Following that though will be the RTF board meeting. And I think this is the where do we go from here? As I've previously reported to the council, there are multiple members of the RTF who've indicated that they are not looking to continue to participate in the RTF after 2027 for similar reasons to why we aren't um looking to do that either. So, I think this is really um everybody putting their cards on the table and then a discussion about where things need to go from really need to go from here. Um quick question for a moment. As far as um the I35 when they came out that morning, >> has there been any feedback yet about what their findings were or what they're thinking when they came out and did the study at 6:30 in the morning? >> It wasn't a study. This was basically getting important people to come out and see the issue to see the situation and circumstances first f firstand. >> Okay? >> So, this was a straight up I want you to come look at it. So, it wasn't a formal study. Um, and it really was a lobbying effort to try and create firsthand knowledge of what's going on out there. >> Do we feel that we finally got our point across or how do you feel? I feel that there was acknowledgement of the issue. How that translates into funding within within priorities within the agency and for the state remains to be seen. >> Got to do 50 first, right? >> Sorry, that was a scroll. >> Should we skip over I35 or >> Well, we're not meeting till the new year, so we can skip it. >> Okay. Okay. Nothing there. How about um back to executive committee or service delivery? Is there anything on that? >> No. Service delivery uh is scheduled to meet on Monday. There's only one item and it's really just kind of wrap up on the open burning um permitting going to online with the DNR within the county. So, um depending on the availability of the speaker, we may or may not um have the meeting on Monday. It might get that item might get postponed to December. So, Like I said, nothing on I35 LMC Metro Cities Policy Committee. >> Those are done for the year. So that will be coming off the agenda until next year. >> Okay. Uh any discussion? >> Nothing from me. >> Uh >> motion to adjurnn. >> Second. >> Okay. Hi. >> Hi. Ajourn.