This transcript is from a White Bear Lake City Council meeting. Based on the context provided, I have identified the speakers and applied the requested format. *** **[00:00] Mayor Dannecker:** Okay that’s seven o’clock. We’re gonna call the meeting to order. Will the clerk note those in attendance? All will be noted. Will you please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. All right, let’s jump into item two: approval of the minutes of the regular city council meeting on December 13, 2022. I would entertain a motion to approve the minutes. I have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. (Group: Aye). Any opposed? Motion carries; the minutes are approved. Moving on to item three: adoption of the agenda. We have a couple of changes. One, we have an addition, item 4I, which is a special event application for Carbone’s Pizza and Pub. Again, that’ll be item 4I. And then at the request of a council member, we’re going to move item 4D, resolution establishing regular meeting dates of the White Bear Lake City Council, to item 8B under new business. With those two corrections to the agenda, does anyone have any additions? Seeing none, I’d entertain a motion to adopt the agenda. Do I have a second? **[01:10] Councilmember:** Second. **[01:12] Mayor Dannecker:** Motion to second. All those in favor of adopting the agenda say aye. (Group: Aye). Any opposed? We have an agenda. Item four: consent agenda. Could entertain a motion to approve the consent agenda? Have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. (Group: Aye). Any opposed? Motion carries; we’ve adopted the consent agenda. Item five: visitors and presentations. We have nothing scheduled. Item six: public hearings. Vacation of easement at 3600 and 3646 Hoffman Road. Mr. Lindahl? **[01:45] Mr. Lindahl (Community Development Director):** Thank you, Mayor, members of the council. The item before you is an easement vacation request from SRD 2.0 LLC, an affiliate of Schaefer Richardson Development Company. You may remember that they were the developers of the White Bear Lake apartment site, the second phase of that development site. The applicant has already received approvals for the redevelopment of the site into that 244-unit apartment complex. These vacations are necessary to remove two of the easements that serve the previous Village Stadium site and are no longer necessary and have no public purpose to them. They would also be necessary just to clear the title work for the applicant to construct or to redevelop the site. Both planning staff and engineering staff have reviewed it and found again no public purpose for the proposed easement. There's a little bit more detail in the analysis in your staff report, but with that, staff would recommend approval of this item subject to the council conducting a public hearing tonight. **[02:50] Mayor Dannecker:** Thank you, Mr. Lindahl. At this time, I will open it up for a public hearing. I don’t have anyone on my sheet. Seeing none, I’ll bring it back to the council. Council, what would we like to do? **[03:00] Councilmember:** [Inaudible motion]. **[03:01] Councilmember:** Second. **[03:02] Mayor Dannecker:** We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor say aye. (Group: Aye). Any opposed? Motion carries. Item 6B: issuance of General Obligation Capital Improvement bonds and adoption of a Capital Improvement plan. Ms. Kindsvater? **[03:15] Ms. Kindsvater (Finance Director):** Good evening Mr. Mayor, members of the council. This was kind of a long memo, so I have some detailed things I’d like to go through as we look at this process. The city is beginning the final step of the process to issue bonds for the renovation and expansion of the public safety facility. Just as a quick review, the city is using a combination of revenues to pay for this renovation project. There are bond issues that we are doing—two bond issues, one in 2022 and one in 2023. We will be using interest earned on bond proceeds that we hold during the life of the project and there will be sales tax refunds that we received on items purchased as part of the project that we will be using. As a reminder to the audience—I know the council has talked about this quite a bit—the city council chose to divide the bond issues into two separate years. That is so that we can keep the annual issuance amount below the $10 million limit. If we stay at or below the $10 million limit, then banks are qualified to bid on our bonds, which means that we will typically have more bidders and that the interest rates will be lower. So that was a decision that the council had made; that's why we have the two issues. What we're doing now is starting the process for that second issue. We issued the one in December of 2022; this will be the second one for 2023. When we issue Capital Improvement bonds, there needs to be a Capital Improvement plan that is adopted that goes with the bond issue. The original project financing for these activities began in December 14, 2021. At that time, the city council held a public hearing for the adoption of the Capital Improvement plan for the project to begin the process to issue the bonds. With that, the city council authorized the issuance of the bonds after the public hearing for an amount up to $14,315,000 for the project. When the actual bids were opened in October of 2022, due to the industry uncertainty and the large cost increases, the bids came in much higher than originally anticipated. The total project costs were $17.8 million. As we begin to work through this process to issue these bonds, we look at the amount of the bonds that were authorized with that first CIP process—that $14 million—and we need to amend our CIP so that we have authorization to issue all of the bonds to cover the project costs. Therefore, we're holding a public hearing tonight to amend the Capital Improvement plan that was originally adopted in December of 2021. With this, the amendment would authorize additional bond funding of $3,765,000. When we add that to the $14,315,000, we come to the bond amount that we need of $18,080,000. So, even though we're issuing the $10 million of bonds this year, we don't have to have the public hearing on all $10 million because some of that was already approved with that first CIP. We're just amending the CIP so that it can cover all of the bond authorizations that we need. The Capital Improvement plan included in the packet shows that we need that $3,765,000 for the additional expenditures for the public safety facility. In addition to those expenditures, there are other expenditures that qualify for a Capital Improvement plan to be funded by these bonds. Those projects are only listed in the event that there are any contingency funds remaining from the public safety facility project. There's a contingency built in of $715,000. If that $715,000 is needed for the public safety facility project, none of these other projects would be done. They are just being added in case the contingency doesn't need to be used. Since those are bond proceeds, the only way that we would be able to spend them would be to have additional items included in your Capital Improvement plan. You can only spend the Capital Improvement bond proceeds on capital improvements that are listed in that plan. By adding those items in, it doesn't obligate the city to do those projects and it does not affect our bond issue amount at all. It's only providing flexibility. If the city council chooses not to include those extra projects, that money would need to be transferred to the Debt Service fund and then would be used to pay down the debt. One thing to be careful for: there are Arbitrage rules that apply. You can't be earning interest; it’s a complicated calculation. We watch these Arbitrage rules, so there might be some instances that we'd have to pay back some money to the IRS because of that Arbitrage issue. After the council’s deliberating, there will be the public hearing to discuss that Capital Improvement plan. Then the city council will be asked to approve that plan and the resolution also approves the issuance of the 2023 General Obligation Capital Improvement bonds. Looking at the bonds, the pre-sale schedules have been included in your documents. The schedules were built with a true interest cost of 4.489 percent. That is calculated by taking the market rate—which was 3.73 percent when those reports were run—and then we added three-quarters of a percent (0.75) to be a cushion for any interest rate changes. There is a chance that that 4.489 is higher; we're just using that higher amount for estimates. When we compare it back to our other bond issued in December of 2022, it was at 3.75 percent, so we're looking at a market rate that's pretty similar. The annual tax levy to pay the debt service for these 2023 bonds will range between $630,000 and $842,000 per year. Staff recommends that the city council adopt the resolution adopting the Capital Improvement plan, authorizing Ehlers (our financial advisor) to assist in the bond sale, establishing February 28, 2023, as the meeting for considering the bond sale proposal, and awarding the bond sale. One thing I did want to note: because this is the Capital Improvement plan bonds, this then begins the reverse referendum process. That starts a 30-day period in which a petition, if it is signed by at least five percent of the voters from the November 2022 election, can be submitted to the city clerk. If no petition is received, the city can proceed. If a petition is received, the city council will need to either hold an election on the project or seek an alternative financing option or abandon the project. I can answer any questions that you have. We do have Dan Tienter from Ehlers with us in the audience today as well. **[11:00] Mayor Dannecker:** Thank you, Ms. Kindsvater. At this time I will open it up for public hearing. Pretty confident no one's going to speak to this issue, but I'll do it nonetheless. I don't see anyone on my list. Going once, going twice. I'll bring it back to the council and close the public hearing. Council, what would we like to do? **[11:20] Councilmember Walsh:** Question. Mr. Mayor, just on the list of projects that you were talking about... just a kind of a paperwork thing. The resolution we pass in the third "whereas" references it, right? Including but not limited to finance additional costs... finance improvements to City Hall... the projects. We reference this list of projects, right? But they're not really anywhere else except in the memo. Is that good enough? I assume it’s good enough, but it’s not really in the resolution anywhere. If you look back in 10 years or in five years, the list of projects is in the memo we got—is that enough, or is there something else I'm missing like a CIP list that is officially passed somewhere? **[12:15] Ms. Kindsvater:** Mr. Mayor, members of the council, there is the five-year Capital Improvement plan that was part of your packet, and that's where that details exactly what the projects are. **[12:28] Councilmember Walsh:** And we have previously [passed that], or is it just our rolling five-year plan? I'm just trying to tie it all together so somebody could find that through our actions, it's not just a list and it's in a memo somewhere. **[12:35] Mr. Lindahl:** Mayor, members of the council, the second "whereas" references the Capital Improvement plan, and the projects are related to the Capital Improvement plan, which is that document that Ms. Kindsvater is referring to. **[12:50] Councilmember Edberg:** Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Ms. Kindsvater, with regard to the list of possible uses for available contingency funds found on page three of the memo—if we have contingency, does the decision about which of these projects [to fund] have to come back to the council for approval? I personally think I would have some priorities for which items are of greater importance than others, but who gets to make those decisions according to our process here? **[13:20] Ms. Kindsvater:** Mayor, members of the council, that would be the city council. Those items were taken directly out of the city's 10-year Capital Improvement plan. We took out items that fit into the qualification that could be paid by those Capital Improvement plan bonds, but that would be the council's decision. **[13:40] Councilmember Edberg:** So the fact that they're listed here simply makes them "fair game" for us to decide. If we do have contingency available to us that goes unspent, you would then bring back recommendations on how we would allocate that contingency among these kinds of projects? **[13:58] Ms. Kindsvater:** That is correct. **[14:00] Councilmember Edberg:** Perfect. Thank you. **[14:02] Mayor Dannecker:** Anyone else on the council? **[14:05] Councilmember:** Move to approve. **[14:07] Councilmember:** Second. **[14:08] Mayor Dannecker:** A motion and a second. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor say aye. (Group: Aye). Any opposed? Motion carries and the resolution passes. All right, moving on to item seven: unfinished business. We have a second reading: development review process zoning ordinance text amendment. Mr. Lindahl? **[14:25] Mr. Lindahl:** Thank you, mayor, members of the city council. This is the second reading of a zoning ordinance text amendment related to the development review process that the City offers, specifically including the items that would have processes for neighborhood meetings and concept plan review. Just by way of quick background, this process originated from goals in the comprehensive plan and the city's housing study. The council asked staff to work on these issues; we brought this item for discussion to the Planning Commission back in October of last year and to the city council on November 8th. Staff was directed to prepare an ordinance, which is what's before you tonight. The Planning Commission reviewed this item and held a public hearing on it back on November 28th and received no comments. The city council held the first reading on December 13th. At that time, the council approved the first reading and had some questions about how the neighborhood meeting process could impact individual residential applications that could come forward for certain conditional use permits (CUPs). Some notes from about the ordinance for the second reading: In relation to those residential CUPs, we looked at the overall list of conditional uses that could apply to those residential districts. We narrowed them down to four: daycares, home occupations, the authorization of a second curb cut or driveway access, and earth-sheltered homes. We agreed that those could be exempt from the neighborhood meeting process, meaning that those applicants wouldn't be required to host a neighborhood meeting for their neighbors. Since the first reading, staff has reviewed this list again and noted that home accessory apartments (accessory dwelling units or ADUs) are also residential conditional uses. Staff is recommending including that as a fifth item that would be exempt from that neighborhood meeting process. I think it's important to note that in each situation, these are conditional uses that would still require the applicant to come forward with a plan, a public hearing, and notice of that public hearing to their surrounding neighbors. It still includes a public process. The second item staff wanted to note as part of an addition to the second reading: we've added to Article 2 to avoid some potential conflicts in the term "concept." Because we're labeling a "concept plan process" in this ordinance, and the PUD (Planned Unit Development) process also has three stages including a "concept stage," we are just eliminating the term "concept" from the PUD regulations to avoid confusion. It’s a housekeeping kind of thing. While tonight isn't the public hearing, we did receive some comments by email this afternoon supporting staff's recommendation to include accessory dwelling units as being exempt from the neighborhood meeting requirement. With that, I'm happy to go through any portion of the ordinance that the council may have questions on. **[17:40] Mayor Dannecker:** Thank you. I'll just offer my initial comments. Subsection one, "purpose of intent," I think sums it up: "It’s the city’s intent to expand and enhance the dissemination of information to the residents and to encourage greater involvement by the community in the planning process." That's certainly what I've heard from residents. I think this makes great strides in doing just that. It is an opportunity for early involvement and give would-be developers a chance to feel out whether or not there's actually a viable project to be had. I see this as a win-win all around. I do have one housekeeping matter: in subdivision 5B on page three, we still have "Park Advisory Commission" as one of the commissions that will receive notice. I would want to strike that language because it has no application in this ordinance. But other than that, I think it looks good and I would recommend the council to adopt this ordinance. Council, do we have questions for Mr. Lindahl? **[18:50] Councilmember Edberg:** Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So we would strike the Parks Commission even if we were trying to build an earth-sheltered building in one of our parks? I see, okay. Mr. Lindahl, we had some conversation about required distances—who must be notified about various kinds of developments. My take-home from the last council meeting is that we are talking about mostly voluntary... well, they're part of our process, so they're not voluntary in that regard, but developers have this opportunity to speak to the community. Would you clarify for me again the minimum state requirement for who must be noticed and address any thoughts that have occurred since our last discussion about what that proper distancing ought to be? **[19:45] Mr. Lindahl:** Mayor, members of the council, thank you for that question. The statutory requirement for public hearing notifications is 350 feet. As a practical matter, staff currently has the practice to look at where that 350 feet lies and include adjacent properties as makes sense. If the 350 feet touches two or three houses on a block, it seems to make sense that we include the whole block. So it's at least 350 feet. It is the practice of this ordinance to carry that standard forward. **[20:25] Councilmember Edberg:** I would propose for our council conversation—I get it, I'm the only one interested—I've lived through two of those processes where we used 350 feet and it was grossly, thoroughly, tumultuously inadequate for the noticing. There was visible, tangible anger. Folks said, "Why did I not receive a notice?" because they're two blocks away, but these are big projects on multiple acres. 350 feet from a five-acre parcel for development is inadequate. I think that is inadequate to achieve our purpose of informing and engaging the community. Are there certain kinds of projects of a certain size that would merit larger distancing? Since we're the ones providing the list, we can't hold the developer accountable for having outreach if we don't give them a robust list. The second piece is that we enact our ordinances to help developers understand local dynamics, but a second purpose is that we empower our citizens to know how to use our regulatory process to defend and support their interests. I suggest that we have done a god-awful job as a city in empowering our citizens on how to understand the development process. We don't educate. We have been to the point... maybe this is changing... Mr. Lindahl, a question: do we have educational support? Is it going to be consistent so that an average citizen can read it and say, "These are the things I can do, these are the points where I have leverage," and will it be in writing? Because all of our previous issues, we are always starting with a verbal explanation that says "we're just at the beginning of the process," but the only people that know the process are some staff and developers. I think that puts an inappropriate imbalance in that conversation. How do you think our city should respond? **[22:40] Ms. Crawford (City Manager):** Mayor, councilmembers, if I may jump in—that is our goal. That's something that came out of the housing task force: a "layman’s terms" guide. A one or two-page thing that can be on our website. We're doing the legal side of it right now. We'll put this into a more layman's term and have that document on our website. I will just add that the planning department and Community Development Department regularly meet with residents who may have questions on larger projects to inform them. We may not publicize that regularly, but we are certainly always here and willing to meet with anyone. **[23:25] Mr. Gilchrist (City Attorney):** Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Council. Just one quick clarification: state law in almost every case really only requires 10 days' published notice. It's only in those situations where they're rezoning property of five acres or less that the 350-foot mailed notice is required. Plenty of communities do impose upon themselves a higher notice requirement than that. So, to the extent you're already providing 350 for all of these, you're already over and above what state law requires. It's just a question of how much more do you want to go. **[24:00] Councilmember Edberg:** So it's only slightly less inadequate than what I had asserted. **[24:05] Mr. Lindahl:** Just a couple of comments. I would note for you that in subdivision four, it reads: "The area of notification may be modified by the city staff based on specific projects." That clause is included to allow for staff to recognize larger projects that require greater notice. We should be using our website and social media—the electronic means that more of the public is tied into now. And there will be an extensive conversation during the zoning code update process about how we make our processes more streamlined, clear, and effective. **[25:00] Councilmember Walsh:** Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I was just going to add to the chorus. I agree the 350 sounds really small. As you're using that discretion, "over-communicate" comes to my mind. It's always better to over-communicate. And as you're talking about communicating, we're going to talk about the local newspaper soon. That layman’s explanation would be a good commentary in that little spot in the newspaper that everybody reads. **[25:35] Councilmember Hughes:** My entire interest in this system was to ensure that we got community feedback before a developer came in and created a concept and then neighborhoods hated it. The entire purpose of this non-concept is to avoid exactly what you're talking about. It seems like simply by definition, if we don't get the information out there wide enough, then it will have failed anyway. I think the entire purpose of this is to make sure that we don't get yelled at anymore, which I'm looking forward to. **[26:15] Mayor Dannecker:** I agree. That was the whole point of this. I understand both points. I do currently trust City staff to know when we should modify and deviate from that. I don't see any need to modify this other than striking the Park Advisory Commission language. Need a motion to approve the ordinance, again with that language struck. **[26:40] Councilmember:** So moved. **[26:41] Councilmember:** Second. **[26:42] Mayor Dannecker:** A motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. (Group: Aye). Any opposed? The ordinance is adopted. The second item is the resolution that is before us. I would entertain a motion to approve. **[26:55] Councilmember:** [Motion made and seconded]. **[26:56] Mayor Dannecker:** All those in favor say aye. (Group: Aye). Motion passes. Moving on to item 8A: the 2023 annual appointments. Ms. Crawford? **[27:05] Ms. Crawford:** Thank you mayor, members of the council. Every year the city council adopts annual appointments—the annual newspaper, city attorney, prosecuting attorney, and the administrative hearing officer. In your staff report, we have the organizations listed with the representatives for Ramsey County League of Local Governments, VLMOR, Ramsey County Dispatch, NYFS, and Metro Purple Line. When it comes to appointment of the City Attorneys, we have a proposal from GDO Law as well as Kennedy & Graven. Staff does recommend reappointment of both. For GDO, we're looking at a yearly contract of $136,000, which is a decrease from 2022. For Kennedy & Graven, we're looking at a monthly retainer of $3,634. When we move to the administrative hearing officer, Jim Rathburn has been our hearing officer since 2019. I do recommend that you reappoint Mr. Rathburn at a three percent increase for an hourly rate of $37.13. Then for the designation of the official newspaper, the White Bear Press has expressed interest; they are the only newspaper that submitted a bid. **[28:30] Mayor Dannecker:** We've got really five different categories. Let’s start with the appointments to various organizations. We haven't heard anyone that wants to change from last year. Any objections to continuing with the 2022 appointments? Seeing none. The second portion is Kennedy & Graven. Mr. Gilchrist is here. Does anyone have any objections or comments? **[28:55] Councilmember:** I wonder if Mr. Gilchrist would yield to some questions? **[28:58] Mayor Dannecker:** Nobody wants to fire Troy? We’re good with Troy. I think he’s earned his fee in the last year. I want to make a comment on GDO and our city prosecutor. Ms. Crawford and I met with them and said we’ve got to get the rates down. To GDO’s credit, they gave us a proposal that is a significant reduction and they are ready to sign a three-year agreement holding that rate steady once our City Charter allows for longer-term appointments. I hear nothing but positive feedback. Anyone have issues with moving forward with GDO? **[29:45] Councilmember Edberg:** I will support the staff's recommendation. I'd appreciate hearing any perceptions on their work on our behalf in court, but I also want to note that within the past year, we've had two separate occasions where associates in the firm have come to our conversation. Have those conversations been assessed and are we prepared to enter into another extension? **[30:10] Ms. Crawford:** Mayor, Councilmember Edberg, our contract states that they are to provide an annual update and they have also been giving me a quarterly update that I have related to council members via email. They are prepared to continue to do that. **[30:25] Mayor Dannecker:** Our city hearing officer, Mr. Rathburn? Anyone have any issues? I haven't heard any. And lastly, our official newspaper, the White Bear Press. Mr. Johnson is here; I want to invite him now forward. **[30:45] Carter Johnson (White Bear Press):** Mayor, council, staff, I'm Carter Johnson, publisher of Press Publications. We're a local newspaper here with more than 125 years of service. We're delighted to serve this great area. Our office is made up of a staff of roughly 24 to 32 employees and then nearly a hundred contractors—mostly youth carriers. Our goal is to be your best source of community information. Our association did a survey: 86 percent of Minnesotans read newspapers online and in print. With the election we just went through, 8 out of 10 newspaper readers vote. Something new at Press: we've started an arts in the community page. Our weekly audience is 69,289. We're delighted to serve you. **[32:00] Councilmember Jones:** I do have a comment. Thank you to Mr. Johnson for being here. Also would like to thank Mr. Paulson for being here. I'm gonna miss Deb and I really wanted to take that time to say thanks for finally letting her retire, Carter. It’s about time. No offense to Mr. Paulson, I appreciate the exuberance, but thank you Mr. Johnson for being here tonight. **[32:30] Mayor Dannecker:** I would entertain a motion to adopt the resolution before us. **[32:35] Councilmember:** [Motion and second]. **[32:37] Mayor Dannecker:** All those in favor say aye. (Group: Aye). Motion carries. Item 8B: establishing the White Bear Lake Council meetings for the year. Ms. Crawford? **[32:45] Ms. Crawford:** Thank you mayor. In accordance with our city charter, we set the dates of regular monthly meetings for the year. They are the second and fourth Tuesday of each month except for election conflicts. There is only one meeting scheduled for December. Meetings begin at 7 PM. Work sessions typically begin at 6 PM on the third Tuesday of every month. I am requesting that you adopt the public meeting calendar via the resolution. **[33:15] Mayor Dannecker:** This was pulled from the agenda to discuss. We had a lot of work sessions in the last year. I’m optimistic that we’re not going to have to exercise use of every third Tuesday this year. I want to suggest trying to do work sessions after a council meeting so we’re only tying up one night. I want to see if people are open to that. **[33:45] Councilmember Jones:** If we anticipate a shorter agenda, I’m okay on those nights. I do not like the meetings beforehand; I can't stand them. It always feels like we're pressed for time. But I have no problems with after-meetings going until 10:00. **[34:10] Councilmember Edberg:** I support the idea of setting aside time. My personal request is that we cancel them more than a couple of weeks in advance. Tying them up has an impact on our other professional lives. **[34:25] Mayor Dannecker:** I hear all your points. I think we'll be more efficient this year. I would entertain a motion to adopt the resolution. **[34:35] Councilmember:** [Motion and second]. **[34:37] Mayor Dannecker:** All those in favor say aye. (Group: Aye). Resolution carries. Item nine: discussion. Nothing scheduled. Item ten: Communications from the city manager. Ms. Crawford? **[34:45] Ms. Crawford:** I do not have anything tonight. **[34:47] Mayor Dannecker:** Welcome to 2023. I will note that at the next council meeting, we will have a closed session to discuss Ms. Crawford’s annual performance evaluation. Your feedback is due to Mr. Juba by the 19th. With that, I would entertain a motion to adjourn. **[35:05] Councilmember:** So moved. **[35:07] Mayor Dannecker:** All those in favor say aye. (Group: Aye). We’re adjourning. Wait, we have another meeting. We have a housing meeting. I call the White Bear Lake Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) meeting to order at 8:06 PM. Please note that Mr. Edberg is being fussy. Roll call: Member Walsh? (Here). Member Hughes? (Here). Member Jones? (Here). Member Edberg and Member Eggstrand? (Thank you). I need an approval for the minutes. **[35:35] Councilmember:** [Motion and second]. **[35:36] Mayor Dannecker:** Adoption of the agenda? **[35:38] Councilmember:** Second. **[35:39] Mayor Dannecker:** All those in favor say aye. (Group: Aye). Our agenda is election of the Chair and Vice Chair of the HRA. I will take nominations for Chair. **[35:45] Councilmember:** I nominate HRA Member Jones. **[35:50] Member Jones:** It was a tough year last year. Those two meetings were really something else. I don't know if I can handle it. **[35:55] Mayor Dannecker:** I will accept that nomination. Any other nominations? Going once, twice. Councilmember Jones being nominated for Chair. All those in favor say aye. (Group: Aye). We need a Vice Chair. **[36:10] Member Jones:** Mr. Chair, based on proximity to the gavel, I nominate Edberg for Vice Chair. **[36:15] Mayor Dannecker:** All those in favor of Mr. Edberg being Vice Chair of the HRA say aye. (Group: Aye). We have a Chair and a Vice Chair. With that, we are adjourned.