Stand and join me in the pledge of allegiance. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Okay, first thing is to approve the uh agenda as presented. Does anyone have any questions, issues with the agenda? Now, we did get an updated one. So, this one should be the that has the 2026 ambulance agreement in there. So, I know we got two packets, >> correct? Any questions? If not, I guess I'll take a motion to approve the agenda as presented. >> So move. I'll >> second. >> Got a motion by Rick Syler, second by Maggie Bass. If there's no other questions, all in favor say I. >> I. Any opposition? Okay, passes. 5-0. Next on the agenda is the consent agenda. Does anyone have any questions or any issues with items in the consent agenda? If not, I guess I'll make a motion to approve the consent agenda. >> Second. >> I got a second by Rick Syler. If there's no other questions, all in favor say I. I. >> I. Any opposition? Okay. Passes. 5-0. Uh doesn't look like we have any government agency updates today. Uh public forum. Again, this is a time when anyone can uh address the council. Uh I do not have anyone on the list. Um so I guess we'll move on public hearings. We have one public hearing on ordinance number 358 and that's regarding the uh vacating certain easements in the plat for the new business park. Ken, do you want to give a little introduction to this and then >> Yeah, I've just got a very short summary for the uh council here tonight. If you recall, uh, back on February 17th, which is the same night that the city council approved a purchase and development agreement for the sale of the last two industrial park lots to Aventus Investments LLC, we introduced an ordinance and scheduled the public hearing tonight for the vacation of a drainage and utility easement located between lots four and five, block two, New Prague Industrial Park, 11th edition. This will facilitate their combining of the two properties and the construction of a single 50,000 square foot building uh for multiple tenants in the industrial park. We did provide notice to all utility companies and adjacent property owners and as of the time of writing the memo, we did not have any comments regarding the vacation of the easement. However, we are required to hold a public hearing at tonight's meeting. So, with that, I can turn uh the floor back to the city council uh to get the public hearing opened. >> Okay. Is there any questions at all from the council before Okay, I guess I'll make a motion to open the public hearing. >> Second. >> Second by Rick Syler. If there's no questions, all in favor of open the public hearing, say I. I. >> I. Any opposition? Okay. Um I do not have anyone on the list to speak about this vote >> adoption. >> I I would say Mr. Mayor even even if no one signed up since this is a just in case. >> Yeah. I just if anyone would like to speak on this um item uh come forward state your name and your address. Again, if you would like to speak on this, if you want to address the council on this uh adoption number 358, come forward, state your name and address. All right. Now, I guess I'll look a motion to close the public hearing. >> So, move. >> I will second that. So, I got a motion by Rick Syler, second by Chuck Nikolai to close the public hearing regarding this uh ordinance for adoption. There's no other questions. All in favor say I. >> I. Any opposition? Okay. Passes 5-0. >> I will make a motion to approve ordinance number 358 vacating certain easements in the plat of New Prague Business Park 11th edition. Second. >> Is this the second reading then? >> Second second reading and adoption. Correct. >> So of this 358. >> Yes. >> Okay. Did you have a question, Sean? >> No. >> Your hand raised. I didn't know if you were >> Oh, no. >> So, this is the second reading of this is because this isn't an ordinance, is it? >> It's an ordinance. Yes. Anytime we vacate uh public way including easements, we need to Okay. >> Thank you. So we did the first reading at the >> correct >> last meeting. That's one >> on February 17th. >> 17th because wasn't it 30 days or so? >> Correct. Y >> and then this will go into effect 30 days later or just >> this will go into effect upon publication which would be in the New York Times next week. >> Okay. >> Okay. Okay. So I have a motion by Maggie Bass to approve the second reading of the ordinance number 358. >> Second. We got a second by Rick Syler. >> Bruce. >> Yeah, Bruce did it. >> Oh, you did. You see, you guys are moving way too fast. >> So, I got a motion by Maggie Bass, second by Bruce Wolf. There's no other questions. All in favor say I. >> I. Any opposition? Okay. Passes 5-0. Moving right along. Right along. City engineering updates. >> Um, I don't know if Matt, you want to add anything to what we have in our packet? >> Nope. Unless you have any questions. >> Does anyone have any questions? I assume uh once we quit getting snow, we'll probably start uh meeting with the contractors and at least for the 25 to go over the >> uh yes, close out 25. Then um we had talked to the project BCM from the 2020 24 project. Sorry, got my ears wrong. 24's project to try to get them to complete that project. So, >> um, >> and did you you get some positive feedback finally or? >> No major updates yet. >> Leave it at that for now. >> Any, uh, more color of the There's a comment in Chris's update about a review meeting held on Alton Avenue. Is there any more color that came out of that? >> I'll give that to Ken. That was part of it, but that was >> Yeah, I'd say the biggest update out of that um update meeting that we had on Thursday last week was largely I think the consensus of the early findings and the county uh and the city were to look at roundabouts being added to that alignment on um Alton Avenue, which would be similar to what we have on Alton Avenue south of Main Street next to Coborns. Um, if you recall, the old study had just channelization and um, possible signals in the future on there with multiple turn lanes and different things. So, I think that was a a a big uh thing that was determined at that meeting. And then I think it we expect within about a twoe time period to have a draft back that will show uh a roundabout at what would be Alton and First Street as it would cross east west over Alton. Um, and then I believe they will also show a roundabout at uh where Alton would intersect with 12th Street Northeast, kind of we'll call it close to the wastewater treatment plant. But that intersection as well, it actually helps straighten out the alignment a little bit of 270th. That's that gravel road that runs over to um um Faith Point Lutheran Church. Yep. >> Okay. And then that'll eliminate the curve. it it would eventually largely get rid of the curve on 270th in that intersection, but you still have a curve on Alton as it kind of has to >> connect back up with um counter road 15 as it comes south from County Road 2. >> Okay. >> I'm not sure if it's a result of this meeting or maybe Josh's update, but then was there an agreement or understanding that the project would be a phased in project like u improving just a part of the road? Yes, that's to be determined. Um, some different things could could happen there. We would likely have phasing on different portions of the road for construction and also be phasing on what portions would need to be potentially closed with a median uh being closed off depending on the traffic levels and development that would happen adjacent. So, similar like we have with uh Alton Avenue uh adjacent to Cobborns, there are open medians basically between Maine and Third that will eventually close. We'll probably have something very similar here as well. And depending on how much of the roadway is needed for certain developments, you may or may not need to go all the way to the roundabout to have kind of an alternate way to circulate back out. Those things have not been determined yet at this point. >> But is it safe to assume that the the substantial part of the improvement of that whole road would not be done at one time? >> I would say it would be very safe to say that. Correct. Okay. >> Okay. Any other questions on the uh engineering updates? Okay. If not, we'll go to uh next on the agenda ordinances for introduction. Uh we do not have any ordinance for introduction. So, next on the agenda is ordinance for adoption. Uh looks like we need to do the second reading of u the resolution for the unified developmental code. So Ken uh do you want to do a little introduction on that or? >> Yeah, I'll give you just a brief update. So you recall on March 2nd, Bolton M did a presentation of the 15 month plus uh process that went through for the unified development code which is largely the rewriting of the zoning and subdivision ordinance but also incorporates pre previously written flood plane ordinance uh building code ordinance and a few other ancillary items that are related to development. um just we have an all one uh area of the code for ease of uh basically review and and look up when we have development proposals. So we did introduce the ordinance on March 2nd. We did not have any uh public comment at that meeting. Um I did want to note the UDC draft uh or final draft that was in the packet. I did have one copied and put on the front uh counter there and then Alyssa also updated the digital version, but we did make 74 changes and it sounds like a lot um to the online version, but it was largely punctuation that had been missed when we did the accept changes uh review from the um the draft that was in the packet. Um just commas, periods, and capitalization got corrected. So, we had 74 of those. I just want to be transparent and upfront that um we did make those changes from uh Friday when the packet went out to today. Just kind of cleaned up some grammatical um and punctuation type things. So nothing of substance. Just want to point that out. >> Okay. That does not change uh the context at all. So >> we we still approve the first reading and so this is basically just some cosmetic improvements. >> Correct. So, this would just be the second reading with that final clean version uh which was updated in your packet. >> Okay. Any questions for Ken? >> I have one more. Um Ken, the in the news recently in Blaine, I think it was the ADU thing has come up again >> and that's always been a concern of mine. I know we talked about it at length in the planning commission um and whatnot. Um, does this still give the city I I'm fine if it's a family member and whatever else, but when people do it to just make more income um or because of a political feeling that they have um in allowing or not not even renting, just allowing other people to stay in these. Is that still a permitted structure ability or >> Yeah. So, I'm going to pull this up out of here. So, we still do have in in this draft accessory dwelling units being uh permitted in all of our single family residential districts. What that would allow and let me just get to that particular language here. Um, one second. As I get to that, >> can you tell us the page, Ken? >> Yes. once I find it that way. >> I'm just in the definition area. I didn't read. >> Yeah. So, the definition doesn't really get at whether you know family members or not. I just wanted to get to the um kind of the meat of the ordinance. So, if you go to page 169, no, it jumped on me. Sorry, it's a huge document. It's taking forever. Um, sorry. Page 223 of the council packet. if you have that page number, but 169 of the actual um UDC ordinance. That's where we get into the details of the accessory dwelling units. Um it does not limit to just family members is written currently. Um it would allow or would require, excuse me, a uh permanent residence, uh the person that owns the property to either live in the primary home or the accessory dwelling unit. Doesn't matter which one. So, you can't just have a tenant and a tenant, >> right? Well, I I think what the the problem was and what was caused the uproar with some of the neighbors was that this individual really wanted it for to bring in uh homeless families or something or just the homeless in general. It he didn't even limit it to the families. I believe if I got I watched it on the news, but >> one in Blaine. >> The one in Blaine. >> I I think you're that's the way I interpreted it. >> Yeah. And I just want to make sure that new Prague doesn't get into that situation as well. Um, >> and I believe I'm just reading through it again. I believe we have a limitation on short-term rentals written into here. I'm just verifying that real quick. >> What happens if are not utilized for short-term rentals? >> So, we do have that covered. >> What if it's a not rental? If he's not getting any, he's just allowing individuals to there. You know, I I I couldn't address the legal point of that. Um, >> well, it forced Blaine, if I'm not right, it sounds like some of you guys have heard a little bit about this, but they I think did a moratorium on it for a year so they could study it and get more >> I was so I don't know if you've gotten the So, I've been sending you guys legislative updates the last couple weeks from the scale lobbyist. There is mention of this exact incident in the update that I sent this afternoon um referencing back that they are um currently considering a prohibiting all ADUs in Blaine um kind of because of this. But at the same time um the state as they have for the last number of years is now is again looking at potential proposals for um basically requiring increased housing. And so obviously what we have in our code can work now, but the state for a number of years now has been trying to kind of force density on communities and we'll continue fighting back on that as well. But >> well, I I would think that when they had the trifecta a couple years ago, they could have passed it, but now that it's a little more closer, I don't know how I don't see it passing again. But I just want to make sure New Prague doesn't get in a situation like Blaine did where neighbors versus neighbors, people's political views on one way or the other against the others. And then um you know the the the potential of allowing essentially um you know maybe atticts or whatever else in somebody's backyard which also is adjacent to many other backyards. So, are you may maybe we can suggest a conditional use permit for an >> You could go that route. We talked about that. You could go that route. >> Yeah. Because if the state hasn't mandated anything yet, I would had hesitate to get ahead of that, you know, and just say we're going to allow it. Um, but maybe just allow it on a >> one-on-one basis. >> So, so I do know we talked about this as well. There are a number of communities who are trying to get ahead of the state a little bit that way um because actually um it's kind of a bipartisan effort the last few years um both in to decrease the cost of housing. We're going to cut regulations and allow people just to do more. Um, a lot more and more cities are trying to in some way allow accessory dwelling units to be able to say, "Hey, we aren't just stonewalling these things." Like, we do allow them. So, the state doesn't need to supersede us on this, which is, I think, one of one of the reasons why we fit it in here in the first place. >> That's why we're suggesting the way we have it written. >> And so, yeah, I mean, if we want to even talk conditional use, that is more than what we allowed before. And I think that's certainly an option that we could go with. >> Yeah. We're not saying no, but to your point, Sean, I think we need to be cautious about how these dwellings are going to be occupied and have a better understanding on a user basis. >> So, I will note that any accessory dwelling unit, we would require a rental uh license, which obviously has to have an inspection and everything of that sort. So whether they're charging rent or not, we would obviously be inspecting it through that as well. And uh as I noted before, we would not allow short-term rentals. Um so if it was people coming and going uh whether it be uh homeless families or anyone for that matter, we would not allow that. You'd have to have a long longer term lease than than a short term, which I believe we have defined as 30 days or less in the rental code. So every 30 days they could be cycling people through. >> I'm not comfortable with that. >> Yeah, I'm not either really. >> I can see where that could create it. I if we don't lock it down in in a statement like this, then it it's that gray area and then somebody threatens to sue us like happening in Blaine and then we have legal fees and everything else. I'd much rather see us somehow in whatever legal terms that we can to be the ones that control that as opposed to um letting it up to the homeowners andor >> I I I think it's certainly something we can explore. I would say that >> but if we approve this tonight though and then are we locked in for a period of even two months or even three months? I mean, >> I I mean, being a zoning code, we could start changing it as soon as next next meeting. Like, there we have that for the code. I will say, and I'm not I'm just saying I'm I don't know if we're allowed to basically say who can and can't rent within a building. Like, obviously, you can put time limits into place. we've seen um I'm not aware and it's certainly I think a question that we would have for legal as to is there a way to write this if we are concerned about who may be renting or um how it may be rented out is maybe a better word >> well even in our rental property do we allow that monthto-month rent or that that short-term rental you know >> 30 days and up is what are allowed under that Okay. >> But I don't think we're talking about rental. I think we're talking that someone's going to go to someone and say, "Hey, you know what? I have an ADU. You can live in it because I know you're having some hardships." That's that's what your concern is, right, Sean? >> There's no rental agreement. It just, hey, you can live here. And I think rental agreement or not, just that shorter tenency, whoever the the tenant is, in my opinion, I would want to get city attorney's opinion on that, but I believe that would be prohibited under our current code. We would also need a license. So if they didn't have one for that unit, then you know, obviously we could compel them legally to obtain that, get an inspection like any other rental unit. even if they're not renting, even if there's no ex exchange of compensation. >> I think the this is my opinion. I would have to check with legal. I believe uh offering that for another, you know, household as it were be, whether it be a single person or not, that's a separate unit that would be being rented. I think that would trigger the the rental code provisions. >> So So how about I recommend this? How about we move forward with this tonight, but you guys basically remove that section of code and staff can do some digging with legal on the language within that particular piece and we can bring it back whether it's the next meeting or two meetings from now or whatever ends up being and it could well it ends up being the first amendment to our new UDC. But um you can pass the rest of the code without ADU language tonight. It's it's possible. >> I would be okay with that. Yeah. just so that we can explore it just a little bit deeper. >> Yeah, I uh I think that works if we can pull it out. >> Okay. And we can pull that out in the second reading. It's >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I mean, yeah, you're you're not >> you're not adding anything. >> You're not adding anything at this point. So, >> okay. Any other questions? Okay. I guess I'll look for a motion for this resolution. uh pulling out the >> It's actually an ordinance to be clear. >> Pardon? >> I just want to make clear it's an ordinance, not a resolution. >> Oh, >> the ordinance. Okay, I'm sorry. >> We do have a resolution next, but >> Oh, okay. I might jump in my Okay, the ordinance uh pulling out the accessory dwelling units section of the ordinance. >> So, move. >> I'll second. And I got a motion by Rick Ser, second by Sean Ryan. So that would be section F, right? Or letter F of the >> correct. >> Okay. So letter F of the just for clarification uh to be taken out and revisited in the future. So okay, I got a motion and a second. If there's no other questions, all in favor say I. I. >> I. Any opposition? Okay, passes. Now we have the resolution, right, Ken? >> Now the resolution would approve summary publication of the ordinance. So we have to put the 269 pages of the code in the paper. I know the paper would probably love that, but I don't afford that. >> Are we going to get a Christmas card from the paper? >> Okay. I'll make a motion to approve resolution number CC26031602, a resolution approving the publication of ordinance number 359 by title and summary noting that the ADU section of the publication of the ordinance rather um is not published. Does that make sense? I Okay, Sean. I got a motion by Maggie Bass, seconded by Sean to approve resolution number CC 260316-2 um taking out the section F of the ADU uh part. So, there's no other questions. All in favor say I. I. >> I. Any opposition? Okay. Passes 5. >> So, what will be published is a link then? Uh yeah, on our website we'll have that available and a full printed copy that people can come in and look at. >> So the pe the newspaper will have a link or the just the address to >> Oh, the the summary publication just say they can check our website. We won't put the actual link in there. Yep. >> So we don't have to have all pages in the >> No. Nope. >> It'd be the biggest prank time they had. >> I hate to see that. >> Okay, next. Um Sean, do you want to talk about or Robin? Sean or Robin want to talk about uh moving the uh money from the ambulance account fund 651 to fund 101? >> Sean, >> I just had a quick question. Chuck and I were talking before the meeting. Um so, uh with this the corrected version was what 209 209,000 that's going to go into the general fund. >> Correct. Is that um is is that money is going to be used for the new police station on the buy down of those bonds or did we have that fulfilled with all the funds we transferred at the last meeting? >> So we haven't identified the intent of those um account closure funds yet. >> Yeah. >> So in 20 at the end of 2025 we'll have it on our assigned funds like fund balance listing. You guys get that after or like when we're presenting the audit. um we list what our fund balances are designated for. So this would be a line item as one of the designated funds to say this was ambulance and now it's under the general fund. So it's not just going to get commingled. Um but as far as a plan for that um that's still to be discussed if that's going to go for police station contingency or um potential needs for city hall. >> Yeah. So, if you remember when we were kind of going through that, um, we discussed this is one of the fund sources for not having to borrow against contingency. This would be it. I guess my recommendation at this point was to continue to let that sit just to make sure that that project gets wrapped up and doesn't need the cash. And then afterwards, at that point, um, we would discuss of where this 209 would get designated, whether it's for city hall repairs or whatever that may end up being in the future. But um as of right now, there's not a specific location that this is the just closing out the funds for the bookkeeping part and then we'll keep track of it on the other side um for the next few months while the police station is being completed. >> What I guess my other question would be why didn't we do it on the last meeting when we did all the other ones? Why did we wait for this one specifically? I mean, we talk about not co-mingling funds, but it seems like if I had all that information on the last one, because I thought that covered the bonds and now all of a sudden we're pulling this one out, >> it just seems a little makes me just a little suspicious. >> I I'll honestly speak to I I forgot um it was just a change on the 26 budget that we took away fund 651 and put it in the general fund. Um, so full honesty of being human. I have a post-it note throughout the year. I have to close these bond accounts. I have to close these really old accounts. And since we just made that change, it was something we talked about. Didn't make my special post-it note list. And I think it was the day after the council meeting, I came to Josh and I said, I should have closed the ambulance fund as well, just to have it wrapped up. >> Okay. >> Um, it wasn't on the auditor's radar either. It it's a discussion for those funds we already did with the auditors. We go through like which accounts are kind of dormant and this one wasn't on their radar either. Not trying to blame them at all. Yeah. >> But it just wasn't discussions because it's a new closure and uh new budgeting area >> and and it wasn't it wasn't dormant like it was used in 25 when they paid rent and then we had some expenses. So yeah. >> Yeah. Like we still had activity in December. >> At the end of 20 at the end of 25 this was a fully functioning fund. >> Okay. Great explanation. Thank you. I appreciate that. I >> So, >> sorry that I get a little >> So, with the error, >> I mean, >> so the with the expenses when the police station's done and and obviously the ambulance just has the two bays there with some offices. >> Um, are they not going to be charged? Are there's not going to be any expenses related to the ambulance fund anymore? >> Yes. >> It's going to just be absorbed by the police station and fire station. >> Yes. All of the revenues and expenses that were previously going into the ambulance fund have just been moved out into the general fund with the police and fire stations. >> Okay. >> I would just like to reiterate the comment because it was understood and I think agreed upon by the council that this fund could be used would be used to eliminate the need for such a high contingency on the on the budget for the police station. I can't recall the exact contingency amount. I want to say 6 or 700,000 >> something like that >> that we reduced the bond because we assigned this money plus a couple other areas that we would be able to use for contingency if needed. I'm hoping that so far we won't need any of it. So, it was probably hopefully will be shown to be a very good um decision that we made. Uh hopefully and if that occurs um then we have to decide what to do with the money. But I just want to be make sure we remember that we did assign this as contingency. So, we don't have the ability to use it today or to move it until the police station is wrapped up. >> Yeah. >> We we did agree to that. >> Okay. And I I don't doubt that. Where I got confused is that last meeting rolling those funds together equal the dollar amount that was equal to the first year's bond payment or close to it. And those two numbers I had in my head. And then all of a sudden now we got this other 209. And I just wanted to see why it wasn't all done at once, which I got a great explanation. So I I didn't mean to imply that I we were trying to do something that different. I just remember the numbers last week equaled or were similar to the prepay of the bond payments. So I thought that was wiped out and now I just saw this one pop up. So that's I just want to clarify what I remember all the numbers. I don't know what the first payment is but I >> I remember. >> Okay. Any other questions or clarifications on this? If not, I guess I'll look for a motion to approve resolution 26 CC-2603-6. >> I got a motion. I got a motion by Rick Siler. And I will second that. So motion by Rick S, second by Chuck Nikolai to approve resolution number CC-26-3-16-3 transferring uh from fund 651 to fund 101. Any other questions? All in favor say I. I. >> I. Any opposition? Okay. Passes 5-0. >> General business. Are you going to take this, Josh? The summer. >> Yeah, I can take this. Um, so as you uh may or may not remember, last year we did adjust city hall hours between Memorial Day and Labor Day, adding an extra hour on the front end, Monday through Thursday, and then just cutting the day short on Friday to kind of account for those hours. I know we kind of talked about how how would that go and we hadn't brought that back yet. So kind of looking at the data that we were able to keep. Um about 50% of the mornings last summer we did have either an in-person counter interaction or at least one phone one if not many phone interactions in the morning. Um many days involve both. And quite frankly this is just at the utility desk. I know speaking with Ken, his staff, um that extra hour became invaluable when people would submit a permit late at night and then want to pick it up first thing in the morning and allowed his staff time to actually be able to get that stuff done so they get working um in the morning. So, uh kind of as as on terms of the actual closed hours on the afternoons, um the impact at least outwardly seemed to be minimal. I don't know if you guys heard any complaints one way or the other. it did seem that people seem to shift pretty quickly. Um to the point where once we did open up back again, people were confused that we were even open. Um Fridays tend to be our slowest days anyway and the Friday afternoons are much slower than Friday mornings. Um, so I would say kind of the comments we received, um, we didn't really receive any any complaints and we did have a number of people comment when they would call first thing in the morning and we would actually pick up instead of having a voicemail to have to return to them. They seem to be appreciative. I guess in my opinion, the shift seemed to be fairly fairly positive uh, in 2025. And uh, I guess I would recommend we try it again for 26. Uh, kind of shifting back from Memorial Day to Labor Day. um opening up an hour early and then just kind of cutting short on Fridays. Uh and assuming it goes well again, maybe it just kind of becomes a permanent thing that during the summer we have those shifted hours that allow people with with the increased sunrise allow people to get in either before work um or contractors to get in first thing in the morning because I know they tend to like to be in but not break their day up. So certainly take any questions forward or if you guys had comments that went another way. I know, like I said, the comments that we received as staff generally were fairly positive from the community. So, >> okay. Anyone have any comments for Sean? >> For Sean. Okay. >> Jeez, I asked questions, but I not every time. >> No, I did not have any >> complaints or anything about it. >> I'll make a motion that we approve the summer hours. >> Yeah, I knew I knew he was going to do it. >> I'll second it. Okay, I got a motion by Sean Ryan, second by Maggie Bass to approve the summer hours again for 2026. >> I >> There's no other questions. All in favor say I. >> I. Any opposition? Five. It passes 5-0. Police report. >> John, you want to take this one, too? >> Matt said he was interested. Wanted to >> Tim, I'll let Tim handle this one. Oh, thank you. Um, wanted to provide I think we've talked about in the past kind of an overall snapshot of of the police department on an annual basis. Um, I don't know, at least in my time that I've seen one of these before, so I thought it was important in other agencies do it. um communities provide this to their councils uh and in their community for that matter on what we're doing, how we're doing it, numbers, um things like that. Um that being said, I did a lot of of research and looking other police departments, bigger, smaller, everywhere in between. And and this is what I came up with and in some conversations with with Josh, this is kind of what we landed on. Um, if there are things that you would like to see more of, less of, specific things that I can speak to, I'm happy to do that moving forward. Um, I don't know that I need to go through this slide by slide. Um, but just, you know, high high level, we remain fairly consistent this year from from last year. Um, one notable is our our calls were up from 7449 to 8139. Um, kind of spread out through our our part A and part B's throughout the year. Um, one one thing that we are noticing is the investigation part of our job is getting more difficult every day. um that entails a lot of computer work, a lot of search warrants, a lot of forensic, a lot of digital world that everybody start that everyone's living in now. So, as you can imagine, finding those things in and investigating these things becomes more difficult. It becomes more conversations, more paperwork, more digging. So with that under the understanding that we have currently one one detective and it would be great if that's all the detective did but she has other duties too. She runs our our evidence along with another officer. She's part of the Scott County uh sexual assault response team. Um is on the wellness committee with the city. Um does a number of other things. So, we're continuing to monitor that and and look at how we can best serve the community in a timely fashion and a thorough fashion at the same time. Um I don't I don't want to get into a position where we have to make somebody wait an extended period of time to get a response from an investigator if that's the case. So, um that's one thing that we're we're continuing to monitor. Um as you can see, our organizational chart is in there. We have uh the chief, the record staff, and then we have two patrol sergeants who oversee um the patrol officers. They work in two different teams. So when one team is on, the other team is off. Um that allows that other supervisor then to have that time off and the officers that are working contact that supervisor that is on on their team. So that has worked uh really well for our supervisors. Currently, we were authorized for 12. We have 11 right now. We're one we are one short. Uh currently working through a a background investigation right now um with no issues thus far. So hopefully we were able to to move forward. Uh the two records two two civilian records position, one is a full-time and the other is a threequarter position that we identified a few years ago. uh by utilizing our resources and identifying that we could we could utilize that threequarter position and and save the save the time and and salary there. So, um a little bit on our patrol, our detectives in in our SRO. Um we are part of the uh Tri County SWAT team. We have one member on there. Uh we are members of the Southwest Metro Drug Task Force and the can in the Canon River Drug and Violent Offender Task Force which allows us to work both the Scott County and the Lour County side. So we're again unique in that that we have the two two counties that we work with um two sheriff's offices, two human services to everything. So, it is a it is a unique situation that we're we're in and very few other agencies are in, but we we work well with with all of those agencies and developing those those relationships with those people when we need them. So, I also included some information on um the vandalisms in parks. We tracked that this summer since we put the um cameras were installed from May through October. Um you can see those numbers and the cost associated with some of the damages in the parks. Um some of the unreported incidents are damages that we know happened that didn't get reported to us for whatever reason and we have since fixed that with the parks and the and the city staff. So anything that happens there now gets reported to us. So I would have a much clearer uh picture of that at this time next year. And then uh we did we have discussed kind of at length here the the flock cameras. So some examples of of cases that we have we have worked on and and had some success with. So um you can see that both locally and I mean, even out of state, there are some things that are happening that people from out of state are coming in here. And contrary to popular belief, there are some bad people that come through New Prague. Whether we want to like that or not, that's just the reality. So, I would take any questions, concerns, anything that I can answer. The LPR license plate reader. I see. What is the condor? >> Those are the ones that are in the parks. >> Oh. >> So, those don't those don't have an LPR on them. >> They don't read license plates. Those are just the the cameras that capture the activity there. >> Okay. >> I just have a few uh questions on the page 330. I think it talks about traffic accidents. Curious if the number 128 seems like a big number. Is there a concentration in certain area of town that we we get the bulk of our traffic accidents uh out of that 128? We see more on the heavily traveled roads. So we respond to more accidents on um highway 19 21 um 37 and then we do get a fair amount around the high school area too just with the um inexperienced drivers and the activity that goes on there during during the school year. So those are probably our main our main areas of of the most that we respond to. Obviously there are accidents that happen all over the community, but the majority of them happen in those those areas. I appreciate that. In a lot of these you show the the history from prior year to this year in that area traffic accidents. You mentioned the six personal injury. Do you know if if the severity of the um injuries in the last year or two have gotten more severe or less over time and or are they always kind of the same? >> You know, it it it varies from year to year. I don't think that >> there's a trend at all >> there. No, a trend. I I know across the state and across the country um with the devices that's been the cell phones and distractions in the in the vehicles. That's been a big push throughout the the state and the country to enforce that the distracted and the impaired driving leads to a majority of the crashes and especially the fatal fatal crashes that happen in the state. So that is tracked by um the state and we get those numbers from office of traffic safety every month. those numbers, those fatality numbers and in and the contributing factors to those crashes. And at the end of the year, um that's maybe a good note that I could include that for the year end for next year to include those numbers >> the uh >> in this report too. >> The section talking about group A and group B. I was just wondering is group A and group B a standardized definition in law enforcement. So >> that's how Yes, that's how we that's how we have to report the crimes every year to the FBI. We have to report those crimes as A and B and then they separate those out into the groups. >> So we could compare ourselves with other other communities our size and say we've done more group A, less group A, you have this many of that type of thing. >> Yep. >> Um when people consider someone a safe community, is that how you measure it or how do you measure what's a safe community or do people even have such a thing? >> There are there are different matrix to that. It's how you want to quantify, you know, when you think about part A and part B crimes. What is the drug violation, right? Was it a possession or was it a a big drug ring? Right? So, that could still quantify as a a drug violation or an assault. Was it a first-degree felony assault or was it a somebody punched somebody in the face and it was a a fifth degree assault? So, I think when you when you start to look at how bad is it, yes, you can compare these numbers part A and part B, but I think in order to compare yourself apples to apples, you need to break down those numbers with the city you're comparing to to see what exactly those cases entailed and were they charged out and what were what were the um I guess what was the the details of that incident if that does that make sense? >> Yeah. In the records area, do do these uh requests for data or records? Does this include for investigations? Like would these include requests from prosecutors? >> No. >> Okay. So, these are just um >> Yeah, that's not a request. >> Not involved in the case request for data or records, >> right? This is just just records requests. >> It could be the individual involved in an incident requesting that. Okay. >> Yep. It could. And and then I was curious on the Tri City SWAT. What how much time is involved in the person that's dedicated to that? Our our person on that they train monthly. So they have a a training day. It's the second Tuesday, I believe. Don't quote me on that, but I believe it's the second Tuesday of every month. They they have a training and then they do a a week-long training or a four-day training um as a team down in Camp Dodge down in Iowa. So they do that and then any um call outs, they have tier one and tier two call outs. So the tier one is a full call out, you know, barricaded subject that would require a full SWAT team to come out. And on the tier two, they'll do some some warrants with drug task force or if they're looking for um somebody that doesn't require a full a full team, but they want some tactically trained officers, they just go in their uniforms and they they assist with those types of um those types of warrants or arrests. And just to piggyback on your comment, I think sometimes when I talk, they don't always um kind of figure into their thinking that New Prague has changed quite a bit as far as um the amount of people that drive through, >> right? >> Our traffic um and to our credit, it's valuable that we do have traffic because it means the reason why we have two quick trips. uh for someone to invest millions of dollars in not one but two of them. They're looking at numbers of cars that drive through, >> right? >> And the other issue that's changed in our dynamic in New Prague is that we have we have a couple more retail or shops that are destination shops in in the fact of Coburns and High where we have many more people that come from outside the city limits coming in that don't actually live in our area. So our police are servicing a much greater population than just the city to protect the city if that's fair way of saying that. >> I would uh I agree wholeheartedly with that. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Anyone else have any questions? Uh for Tim, thank you for the information. Uh I think it's it was very valuable and I would hope you'd continue doing that annually for >> Yeah, like I said, let let me know if there are changes or things that you would like to see. Um just one brief addition to that is we did have our body cam and our uh license plate reader audit on the 10th. So that was completed and uh our auditor I was not in the room but when I came back um one of the sergeants had made the comment that our auditor commented that she was going to send more agencies to us so we could train them how to do this so they're better prepared. So, credit to those guys that that got that ready and their their information and everything prepared for them. And um we'll wait to hear the results and I'll be happy to share those with you when we when we receive them. So, >> all right. Well, good. Good. Thank you. >> Josh, are you going to take the uh it? I could ask Sean, but I'm gonna move on. >> I can I I can, but >> you can or you gonna have Ken? Well, I was say I I can, but Ken wrote the memo, so I got to make sure I I I say that correctly. So, >> yes, >> Ken, you can >> or you can. No, I can I can give a background. Um, I forget who all was on the council back in 2019, but uh before we had a contract, >> I think it was. >> Was it everybody? >> Yeah. All right. What about that? >> Um anyway, if you remember back in 2019 then um we did not have a contract for uh managed IT services at that time. Uh we had been using um just a couple of individuals um that eventually led into a company called CIT. Um and then we were looking for kind of a longer term solution. But 2019, we uh contracted with a firm called True North Consulting Group at the uh urging and recommendation of the League of Minnesota Cities to help us kind of determine our technology um needs. Back in 2019, we were looking to rewire all of our buildings, put in wireless wireless access points, and kind of completely refresh everything at that time. So, um, through that RFP process back in 2019, that was about a $20,000 contract to have True North, um, help us with that at that time. We ended up in 2020, um, actually late 2019, and then implementing in early 2020, right before COVID hit, um, a contract with CTS out of North Mano to do managed it. And then additionally, they did all of our rewiring, added these wireless access points throughout um city hall and number of other improvements to our IT um services that we were uh not receiving or receiving and just making sure we had them um kind of packaged together from one firm. Um you know, it's been six years um almost right on the nose here because I think COVID hit about um March of 2020. Um and that was right when CTS was implementing um our our new equipment and our getting our wiring done. And we just wanted to make sure that uh in the course of that six-year time period if are we getting the service that we um should be getting um basically re-evaluating our needs and um in order to do that felt it would be appropriate to put another RFP out um to managed IT u service providers uh whether that be CTS resubmitting or other firms um that might be interested in providing uh the service to the city of New Prague. Um the one thing we talked about even back in uh 2019 was we do not have anybody on staff that's a true IT professional. Um you know we all know a little bit about our areas, but as a whole we're not experts in the field. Um and in order to write an RFP, I think the last RFP was probably close to 100 pages if I remember correctly. I don't think any of us could do a a a a good service of writing one up and hoping that it met all of our needs and getting that out for uh proposals. So, uh, we reached back out to, uh, the league and asked what, um, they knew of firms in the area and, um, we al also reached out to our former True North Consulting Group who has been bought out, now is known as PMY. And those are really the only two firms that um we could find that do this type of work to help write an RFP uh for uh municipal agencies to find uh a managed uh IT service provider. So the two proposals we got were obviously significantly higher than in 2019 um when we only had to pay about $20,000 for the work. Um, PMY was touch over 43,000 and Quintilian Consulting was uh right at 32,000 even. Um, we did put the two proposals in the packet for you to review. They're very similar. Um, there's not much variation in that. And these firms uh are the the two of the very few um that even do this type of work anymore. But um ultimately Quintilian has the lower um cost. They came highly recommended by the League of Minnesota Cities who has been utilizing them uh more recently uh for projects that they have internally um and they're also recommending them to other cities as well. Uh but basically what this would do is provide um the drafting and uh helping the city and ultimately present a recommendation to the city council on a possibly new managed IT services provider could also obviously lead to the same provider that we have currently uh but may have a different um look in the type of uh managed IT services that we are provided um ultimately and what we need. I think one of the probably one of the biggest things that gets brought up quite a bit is uh we don't do not currently have uh you know 24-hour coverage for it issues for the police department. That has kind of a continual issue. I would say Tim could probably speak to that a little more, but um over time um that's become more and more of an issue. So this would help get us uh some of those items incorporated into a new managed IT services RFP. And um I don't know other Josh Robin if you have anything else to add to that but I wouldn't say we've been unhappy with CTS but you know obviously as we have grown into we never had a managed IT services provider prior to CTS it's kind of a check and balance in a way to make sure that we're we're getting that value and um are there things that you know we're missing out on you know technology changes quickly um you know what else should we be looking at uh out there that we just aren't thinking of because we're not in the the field. >> Yeah. Very similar to I mean we did our city engineer a few years ago I think a financial adviser last year and it was just kind of next on the docket almost. So yeah certainly stand for any questions. I know like as we've talked about even coming this year for the 2026 budget um we did budget a grantee that we weren't necessarily planning on spending all this year. Um some of that comes into savings for future unexpected um costs andor future known costs such as every four or five years when you're looking at upgrading server equipment instead of paying for all that in one year. So, um, we do have kind of designated IT dollars already set aside within our current budget that would be able to handle this. >> Do we have a current contract with CTS? >> Our current Yes, we do have a current contract with CTS. Um, I'm trying to remember the exact language on what it's it's at at this point, it's a rolling contract with a with a just time period to get out. I believe it's 90 days or 60 days or something like that. I can't remember off top of my head, but we did look that up, but yeah. So, it's an automatic renewal only with a 90-day or 60 to 90 days. >> Yeah, something like that. >> What is that costing us a year? >> I believe right now roughly. >> Yeah. I'm I'm just trying to think. You look at the bill every month. I believe it's a little over $12,000 a month. We pay >> I think it's about 13,000 >> $13,000 a month for basic services. That doesn't include um as Ken mentioned outside of um c or customary work hours. So, if a uh patrol officer who only works at nights has a problem, we have to pay like emergency rates for that. Um, I would, as Ken mentioned, I would hope with this. If nothing else, we maybe almost run two contracts, one contract to the police department, one contract for the rest of the city to hopefully handle some of that off work hours. But yeah, I believe right now the sta the standard monthly bill is a little over $13,000 a month. >> Okay. So Tim is uh CTS doing all the wiring and everything at police station. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Their portion of it. >> Okay. Any other questions? Okay. I guess I'll look for a motion to uh approve the um recommendation to go with uh what is it? Winon Consulting uh to help us write an RFP for our IT services. >> I'll make a motion to approve the proposal from Quintilian Consulting in the amount of $32,000. >> Second. >> Okay. Motion by Maggie Bass, second by Rick Syler. There's no other questions. All in favor say I. I. >> I. Any opposition? Okay. Passes. 5-0. Next is the ambulance uh thing. And I think Josh, you're going to take this. >> Yes, I can take this unless Sean wants to. >> No, I'm going to run that joke into the ground. Um, so I did include the update. >> We're going to change your name. >> That's That's fair. Usually Jeff. Um, I did include So, we met with the ambulance uh for our quarterly meeting on Friday afternoon after the packet had already gone out. So, I didn't want to have Alyssa have to re-release the packet again. Um, but I did include their kind of quarter year-end update in paper on there. It has also now been included um on the digital version if you want to go grab it there. But basically, we met them real quick uh at the end of 2025 and uh went over the year. Um generally it looks like call volumes are down but it is how they are trying to keep track of actual calls within cities. They used to keep track of their calls uh based on the truck that was supposed to be in New Prague, how many calls that truck was doing. But if that truck ended up in Mano um after a transport and then got a call and could do two or three calls in Mano before coming back in the old days that would count as new Prague stats. Now, they're keeping new Prague stats in New Prague. All that to say, you go to the end of their update. Um, this year they are looking at about at about uh a $520,000 loss in New Prague. Um, I bring that up because as we got to discussing about their uh potential with our our I'm stumbling over all my words. Current agreements expiring in May, May 1st. Um they really have only one ask I guess change. They'd like a slightly longer contract. Um according to them their finance team likes a little more written stability and they are also requesting that uh I guess the rent and utilities at the facility be waved. Um their request comes off of the fact that they have had a couple bad years just generally um across the board. Uh, and I know as anecdotally as I've been involved with ambulance both here and at my at my prior job, you are hearing more and more where um ambulance services are actually requesting a small basically stipen for being able to provide services. And I did I was straight up and asked like straight out asked like is that something you could be requesting this year? And they said no, we we don't plan on requesting that with the next contract. um we don't think we're there where we need something like that yet. But um so to that end, the contract that I included in your packet um does include bas does basically change to a 10-year. They would request anywhere from a 5year to a 10-year. Um even though it is 10 years, it does still provide language both for the city and for North to get out of the contract at any time throughout. Um for any reason, you'd have a 365day out. Um, if for some reason there was insufficient levels of ambulance service or um, Maggie would know the term not meeting the terms of the agreement, we would have a 90-day out um, period with built into the contract. I did also include a draft of the potential new facility lease. Um, basically with their request to um, eliminate rent payments um, and utility payments within there. I know I guess my recommendation being as as as I look at it um I know that speaking with both Chief Appan and Chief Renda, they do thoroughly enjoy working with North Memorial. Um I know Chief Renda tells horror stories and I'm sure Tim could as well of speaking with their colleagues in other cities um working with other potential ambulance services. we seem to have it good here and knowing that other communities are going so far as to having a small adder on the util every utility bill or something like that to help support an ambulance. Um in my opinion the good relationship we have with them and that they seem to work well in our community um with uh the small cost of them not having to pay rent to continue that relationship um I guess to me makes sense. I don't know. I know Chuck, you've sat in on a few meetings now with them. Um, if you've got any other commentary to add, I guess. >> Right. I mean, the the reason for the five and 10 year five or 10 years, that's how they uh budget their capital equipment in fiveyear increments. So that's why, you know, instead of the three-year that we currently have, that they would re, you know, would like a five. Obviously, a 10 would mean a little bit more uh longevity for them to do the capital equipment type of uh budgeting items. I know Sean did or Josh did talk to God dang it, it's a mental block now. Josh did ask him, you know, uh, how do you, you know, continue to function with, you know, losing money? And he said what the CEO and the president of North Memorial feels that it's their obligation to make sure everyone has a vehicle or someone to get them to when they're in need to get them to a a facility. And >> yeah, I mean, he was honest. He said it's a combination of that. It is a combination of they obviously don't want competitors coming into territories they currently hold. >> Um and I think I mean off the records they've spoken past meetings about hopes that some sort of legislation at the state or even federal level starts to make this palatable again. I know a large majority of their revenue comes from Medicare and Medicaid payments and they make very very very very little on those Medicare and they don't cover their costs when the federal government reimburses them for runs. So I know that they're continue to hope that something can happen there too to once again make it more palatable, I guess. But yeah, they they he was honest. He said it for some reason had this contract. A lot of their people like living here. Like he didn't know if they'd continue to work for them if if for some reason didn't. So there did seem to be a real desire to figure out how they could continue to operate here. >> And I know in the past that we have had struggles of you know the term of the contract. You know it was two years, three years and then we had some negotiations with another uh potential provider. And so I guess in my eyes I'm happy to see the length of the contract going out 10 years. Um I think it's a val very very valuable service to new prag. >> Well we had a public hearing though when we went to three years didn't we? >> There was public comment. Yes. >> Yeah. Going back to that we took public comment. We ultimately stayed with North at that time because there while there were opinions on both sides of people who thought we should go somewhere um both of our chiefs at the time they liked working with North like there there were really no reasons to not continue working with North at the time and then I think if I'm remembering right the council basically said well why don't we do this for three years and if something's not going well we can make the change at that point and I guess everything that I've seen at this point things have gone very well, which is why I have no problem recommending a much longer term. And as I said, there is language in there that allows an out if for some reason it does go sour on us. Your previous comments uh mentioning about competition, keep competition out of the area um teams um in concurrent with the previous comments about substantial loss and why would you stay in that type of thing. So I the the previous renewal was a very difficult circumstance and situation um for a lot of different people and it was I I still have scars from that but um so I I know that we went through that process part of back then North Memorial Memorial had costs that were attributable to to North Memorial administration in there. And so I don't know if any of that's still the case now, but that's how it was explained to me back then. So this could very well have changed. I think they did change how they accounted. And all of this is really compensation for people that actually live in New or work in New. I don't know that. Or if it's if we're paying for um support from North Memorial Hospital, all that. I don't know the details. I'm not sure the number is going to change that much. if it does because it's been a very difficult industry to work in. I think I think we even approved um an application for a grant for them a couple years ago. I think that they received money from the state of Minnesota that we we helped them facilitate to get it. So, the dynamics have changed quite a bit in three years to the negative side for this kind of industry. But um but that makes me think too, there's constantly work trying to be done to improve it in certainly in the outstate areas of Minnesota. Um so what it's going to be like two years from now, three years from now, four years, I I don't know, but I'm I'm kind of thinking there may be some changes since things have changed in three years. Um so I'm that's why I'm a little reluctant on a 10-year lease to try to support something like that. when our previous uh our agreement was three years. I think that's too short. But this rental agreement, I didn't see in this verbiage that we have the opportunity to get out except for 6 months or something before the expiration. So, I may have missed that, but I just didn't see it. And I think I think you're referring to the agreement for ambulance services, which is a separate agreement, correct? >> Yep. So, I've got two. >> We can get out of that in certain amount of time. So, I've got two agreements in your packet. If you go to the lease facility agreement, and I'll say that because I don't I know you guys are looking at one big PDF and I look at little ones, so I don't have the page number. Um >> Oh, yeah. There it is. >> Yeah. Section six under termination if uh it either either will terminate 10 years from now or if the tenant ceases to provide ambulance services. >> 359. But that doesn't provide the city to terminate for any particular >> well so if if you then go to the ambul if if the city terminates the ambulance services in the other agreement um I believe that is section six in the services agreement. It does provide that any party may terminate the services agreement with 365day notice or 90-day notice if they break some term of the agreement and then the lease contract is then linked to that. So if they're no longer providing services, the lease contract automatically terminates. Now to that point, Bruce, with this long of an agreement, maybe it makes sense to say, "Hey, maybe we do a services agreement for 10 years, but a building lease agreement for five years." And so we can re-evaluate the situation 5 years from now, and if things are looking healthier at that point, maybe we can um say look at rent again or whatever it would be. I don't think the building lease agreement has to necessarily follow along with the services agreement at that. >> Yeah, but they're they're connected. I mean, >> yeah, I guess I'm not sure why you wouldn't want them to be the same. >> Well, only that you were talking about like if if if the status of the industry changes and maybe certain maybe they're getting reimbursed a lot more for Medicare two years from now and now they are better able to float a rent payment. We we services are going for 10 years, but in five years we'll look at the lease agreement again and maybe in five years we will start charging them rent and enter into another five-year lease for the two bays. And that that's all I was saying for that. And so they it it kind of looks at the building the potential lease agreement halfway through the services agreement. >> Well, I I can't I can't speak from experience and understanding the financials of all this. I I'm aware of the difficulties and some of the challenges they have, but at the same time looking for the residents of New Prague. When we built the police station, we had uh made overures that we need to renegotiate the lease, increasing the lease payments because of the new building and the facilities. to turn around in this short period of time and think that we're gonna not charge anything. It seems to be a gigantic step to regardless if it's 500,000 or $5 loss if they've been paying it and concerned about the not losing the competition for it. I think at the least it deserves a little more due diligence I guess on it or I guess I need a better explanation as to why we wouldn't charge any rent or but yeah you know didn't when we were working on this last time um we wanted to see their numbers or something like that and um they denied it now their numbers you know they're reporting that they lost money off of us this year or you know right now how can we even tell that I know I didn't make as much money last year so you guys are going to pay more now I I guess I guess Rick that's just that's just part of our part of our agreement with them I know they even mentioned that they get audited was it what did they say Chuck three four different five different agencies audit them annually >> just due to the business they're in I guess and so I mean the numbers that they're giving us allegedly I mean according to our agreement they'll share that financial information that they do with us quarterly as to where they're at and so short of us I guess auditing them to verify their numbers like that I feel like that's what we'd have to do if that's kind of the comment you're making I don't know what that would even cost or whether like they wouldn't have to necessarily succumb to an audit from us and I guess I guess to me, Bruce, the the relationship that we've had with North, knowing the troubles in the industry, the the amount of money that it is kind of in total, like I said, what is it? Um $15,000 a year. um or just under that is is why I guess I am okay maintaining that relationship to help keep them in New Prague. Um I I guess that that's just kind of where I stand on that. Like I said, I know talking to both Steve and Tim, they were had nothing but great things to say about North Memorial um and wanting to try to keep that relationship as well. Who was involved in the discussions with North Memorial about the lease agreement? >> Uh the four of us kind of talked about with them at their meeting on Friday. >> The four of who? >> Oh yeah, sorry. Myself, uh Chief Applin, Chief Renda, and Chuck was there as well. >> Okay. Thank you. >> So, you've come to the conclusion that you can't keep the rental payment the same that they would walk away? >> I haven't come to that exact conclusion. I guess >> that was the only thing they were asking for. >> That that was the only thing that they were asking for. >> They weren't asking for any other stipen or anything at this time, >> right? >> Could we wave them for a year and Well, I mean I don't like doing it either. >> Well, >> well, yeah, I know. I know. I know. Looking back at the last one, I think their request was just that it holds steady um to what we what we if you remember right last time, three years ago, I think their one request for the building was that we hold rent steady at what they had been paying that they because we'd kind of gone back and forth a little bit about raising it at that point. And they basically they they I think at that time they had kind of said, well, if if the rent goes up, then we we don't know if we can make this work. And they would just keep a truck in town, >> right? and they said they they were going to think about building their own building and getting a different spot and they went through that exercise too and they said they were going to do that that they were not going to use our facility at a certain period of time too after that discussion too. So, you know, it's in a short period of time, three years, there's been a lot of things talked about and deliberated about, but >> if you were going to build a new building or or rent a new building from someone that was going to build it, I think at at the time >> Yeah. say if I yeah if I remember right from that conversation when we when we had gone back to them about raising the rent that is when they'd begun exploring well wealth does it make sense otherwise and they ultimately we ultimately kept rent the same and for them it didn't make sense they couldn't work the financial numbers to find any like I would say even at this rate they're probably getting a subsidized rate for where they're parking their ambulances like that it's just it is >> I think that's agreed upon by everyone it before after. But when we started discussion on the police building, I thought you and the mayor, Mayor Dwayne at the time, we're going to have conversations with them during the building about raising the rent >> and yeah, >> we're providing the new facilities. Did those discussions ever happen? >> They happened very, I will say, very lightly, I guess. Like it was floated a couple times and it was always kind of floated back that yeah, we can certainly look at it, but I don't know if it's going to happen. And that's where finally yeah they came back with that the request of obviously we are requesting it actually goes down due to due to our numbers. >> Don't you remember me getting mad saying what are you going to sit down at Cobra's parking lot like a taxi and then go to each call. I mean >> so yes I I yes I did mention to them about the possibility of raising a rent and their response was our one request is to lower the rent due to the cost which I'm assuming then no they like like they would not want to increase >> right. I'm just surprised because we've only started building the police station not that long ago. And if we had the discussion about the next contract renewal, we're interested in at least raising a little bit to go from that discussion about a year ago to we want nothing. It that it doesn't seem to fit in my mind that that you'd come to the table. It it seems like we're two ships sailing in this, you know, apart from each other. something something just doesn't add up there. But um maybe that was a way they deferred um um so that we didn't raise the rent claim we're broke. >> Did you say these numbers were specific to New Prague or >> Yeah. >> So yeah, the 2025 numbers. >> Okay. >> Yeah, for like the calls and whatnot. 2025 is specific to New Prague for the 2024 run numbers. Those were the numbers for trucks that were stationed in New Prague. >> Okay. And is their ambulance service area still the same? I mean, do they go all the way to Vesley and Union Hill and H Highleberg and Cedar Lake and >> Yes, they do. >> So, this map is correct in here, this part of it. >> Correct. Yes. >> So, is there a breakdown of how many come outside of that? I'm just wondering if we should do something like with the rural or they do something uh with the rural fireboard where they should be paying some of that. Why does that fall on the backs of new pre? Because over and above the $1,500 rent, there's heat, there's air conditioning. I don't know what kind of wear and tear they put on the building with the car backing in and out. uh you know, is there special exa, you know, uh exhaust, uh fans and whatever else that you know, there's much more than just the rent. I mean, it'd be nice to have that full amount. I mean, >> is it $300 a month to heat and $300 a month to cool and >> Yeah, I I don't have that exact number exactly what the obviously that area will will take for for utilities per se. Um, yeah, I will say Yeah. So, going back to those run numbers, 2024, if a truck started this morning in New Prague, all of its runs for the day got sent back to what is our considered our called it PSA, our service area. Um, if it went to Fairbow on a run and then happened to get call and be the closest call, it might do a pickup in Farbo and stay there half the day before it comes back and and like they'd rotate somebody around and >> but the 2024 numbers track that original truck and every run it did came back to the new Prague area. Now the new one, if that truck leaves the new Prague area, the one that takes its place responds to a call in New Prague. Now that only that response in the new Prague area comes back to us. Um, in terms of working with the uh rural like we could certainly contact rural fire. I guess there's not really a board per se set up for for for the ambulance and I don't think it follow probably follows the fire district exactly in that it's it's kind of broken up like a lot of ambulances. I mean, I think our service area is the same as it was 20 years ago when New Craig City ran the ambulance. They they responded all all within that service area. That's kind of how the state breaks them up. So, I think I think that was stat or I think that was done by the state. Maybe not by statute. >> Yeah. Yeah. I I think the state basically decides what the service area. >> Your example then if if uh the rig leaves New Craig picks somebody up in London and delivers them to Northfield, would that be on New Craig's number or >> uh without looking at the map? Um if it is within if if where it picks up the person is within the service area, it's considered a lawn a new Prague pickup. If it picks up a person outside of the new Prague service area, it goes to that service area. So they might drive them to Mano or Northfield or whatnot because that is where where the care is needed, but that's still considered a New Prague run. If they get picked up in Montgomery, which is part of the Montgomery area, and driven back to New Prague, that pickup would then go to the Montgomery area. >> Do they service M? >> No. >> No, I don't think they do. In that instance, if it was like a >> Right. But they have a rig in Farold, I believe. >> Correct. Wasika and New Prager is our region. >> Yeah. Yes. Yeah. They have they have rigs in Farbo. So yeah, if they picked up someone in Farbo and had to bring them up to New Prague, that become that's a Fairbow run, not a New Prague run. >> But if they pick them up in Lawndale and deliver them to New Prague, that Fairboat run is a new break count. >> Yeah. Uh so yeah, if that fair truck drives up here and while it's up here then picks up someone in Lawndale and brings it back, that second pickup becomes a new brake pickup, >> where before they were just whoseever truck it was. >> Well, I I I support Sean Sean's idea. I think that's a good idea that no longer is this a thing that we can I mean we we don't have to be the entity that decides the ambulance service. We choose to want to keep that ability, but the the economics of it, if they're going backwards on us and we're servicing a much bigger area than this, the residents of New Craig, I mean, it seems fair to see if other people in the service area help pay for it. >> Mhm. >> Besides just the residents of New Frank. So, I will say this, the one, if you look within the agreement, one thing I took out was section six, um, referencing an advisory committee. Um, there are communities that have an ambulance advisory board, similar to a park board or a planning commission that kind of oversee the ambulance service area. And maybe kind of the recreation of that board, and I don't think it necessarily belongs in this agreement per se. Maybe the recreation of that board becomes a way of reaching out to the townships that are involved and trying to create a more of almost a joint powers board then that would oversee something like that because that that becomes the question of how you are making that happen. any sort of any sort of support from somebody outside of New Prague, you're having to get a governmental entity on board with figuring that support out because it isn't a perfectly drawn line of you could follow the townships or you could follow the fire district. It it it's its own lines and we'd have to figure out how and I'm not saying no, I'm just saying we'd need to figure out how to encapsulate the people within those within that line. It is. I mean, when we went through this before and believe me, I talked to the legislators, a lot of people about this at the time. It's kind of an odd thing. The residents of New York can decide the service for an area outside of our area. >> So, it it is an odd >> at at a previous position, we had a city who was very upset because they were three times our size and yet we ran the ambulance for them and they did not appreciate that. Well, according to the map, it's 147 square miles is the their service area on page 365. >> And that's what I think the state gave us, right? When we had our own Correct. So, we were told, don't ever give up your territory. >> Yeah. But I recall way back when mail, >> this must have been what? >> Late 2018 20 when we signed a contract. Mail came in and they wanted >> Yeah. You were here for that. >> Yeah. But I wasn't here for the the last >> last one. >> And I remember that was the thing was hey, you know, you don't want to give up your territory. >> And I'll even say that as to a few years ago Mayo was saying, why do you guys even want that? Like let like we'll take it off of your hands. And like I've had past colleagues that tell me no, don't ever give it up. Um, North Memorial has told us like don't give this up. Like it's the territory that people want. >> What's the value of it now if economics aren't there? >> Is it just that we can decide who gets it? >> I think I think it's the slight control of we get to decide who serves it. Like theoretically if Kenondich started Kenich ambulance and we gave Kenandich ambulance our territory and maybe he decides well I can't make the numbers work so I'm just going to run one ambulance four hours a day or there's certainly state I don't know what the state minimums are but if if that's the minimum and that's all he decides to run the ambulance basically then we um get a lot of aid calls like we start having other ambulance services have to respond to us or If maybe Ken then picks up a second one, but he keeps his ambulance up in uh Shakipi, we are then at the whims of having to wait 30 minutes for an ambulance stroke from Shakipi where when we when we have control of the territory, we get to decide. >> I hate to who is servicing point you there, bud, but we got Mayo ambulance service right there block away. >> We have Mayo Hospital. >> We don't have Mayo. >> We could use their ambulance service. They have one. >> We've been down that path before, >> but I don't know. They I don't think they dedic would dedicate a ambulance in time. >> Yeah. So I I guess I'll say this >> the issue that we had before with May. >> Oh no question they would. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I'll say this. When I was when I was at my previous job in Dodge Center, we were 20 miles away from Mother Mayo as it was referred to and they they wanted our ambulance service and we were told don't give it up. Like they'll Mayo may hang out in town but if the numbers start going south they'll just start sending an ambulance from Rochester. They'll stop housing the ambulance in Dodge Center. So that would be the one thing that I'd fear of us giving it up is we no longer control where that ambulance comes from to service our territory. I >> I'm not advocating we change. I don't know anything derogatory and I think they do a good service and I'm not advocating anything as far as the service. >> But just to be clear, we had two proposals and Mayo's proposal did provide for a full rental of the property and service of units and uh dedicated units on site in our city. So that there was not a question about that. And actually after I think you went back to Mayo because we wanted to take another run at it. I I think it was you. >> Sure. Yep. I think it was him too. >> And um I don't think they appreciated being rebuffed and >> they were not interested that time. >> So we ended up taking maybe less than what we had the city had wanted to take. So, as far as the service, there could have been arguments made that they would have provided a few more whistles and bells, but the city council unanimously approved renewing it with them. >> I say give them the five years that they're requesting and um that's it. >> But they're asking for 10. >> Well, five or 10. >> I was going to say they said five to 10. I just put 10 in here um >> just because >> just so we don't have to deal with it again in five years. But if we'd prefer five years, we certainly can. >> I mean, eventually if they don't turn things around, either they'll drop us or they're going to ask for some compensation to have the service in my opinion. Um, I mean, I do like your idea, Sean, of you know, it's like no different than our fire department. It's like, you know, we're servicing more than this than the city of New Prairie. >> You know, they're going out to, you know, Vesley, Lawndale, Unionale, and they're getting that all for free, you know, and it's just Medicare or Medicaid or their insurance that's paying for it. But that's not >> Wouldn't um um North have to charge them instead of us? You know, if Lon's deal wants in on the the deal, you know, >> they so North gets entirely paid by whoever it services. So whether it's an insurance company or private payer, there's at this point within the new Prague service area, there's no fee >> going. >> We're talking about the rent though. We're talking about the other cities putting in on the rent. Isn't that correct? >> Well, >> because they're not going to do anything for Medicare or all of that. I mean, they're not even deal with that. No, but it's just like the fire department. they they since there's not expenses per se, there would be some kind of stipen that would eventually go towards North Memorial to offset these losses of half a million dollars >> or 500 million, I guess, >> andor the expenses that the city of New Craig incurs with our new building and >> right >> rent, >> you know, kind of like the fire department, you know, their rural association pay or some half of certain fire trucks and this and that and I don't know who you talk to. I mean, you have to talk again if it's not a clean thing. I mean, are you you know because they said what what did they say that 10 were 10 miles too far into Scott County. So, we're getting kind of penalized on some grant money. >> Yeah. Basically, that's >> Yeah. Yeah. There there's grant money for outstate Minnesota, but because we're 10 miles into Sky County, we don't classify as outstate Minnesota. >> So, we got that's for some new equipment and things like that. So, that's stuff that they're going to have to belly up on. What if we were to make both agreements um the end date five years out instead of 10 years out and then have discussions with H Highleberg and um Lansburg Township and the other townships um to discuss the cost of us housing the ambulances here in New Prague at our police station, but yet they're getting serviced. Just open up those conversations and see where it can go. >> I think the rural fire board, you could make that decision and tack on a $2 fee at next, you know, per address or whatever it is. >> Yeah. I don't know what they >> Yeah, I guess I would have to look and see how the rural overlays with this and it because I would imagine if there's any residents in the rule that aren't within the ambulance, obviously they're going to fight that. But um >> I don't know there there has >> covers 43 more square miles. >> Oh, it does. Well, I don't think I like the idea. I don't know that you can get it exact. We're talking about a statement, which isn't a levy issue. It's >> a little different than that. So, it doesn't have to match up my mind. If someone wants to volunteer and support, if Helena the township wants to support it or whatever township or whichever. I don't think they're going to be I don't think I mean it's obviously up to them, but I don't know that they'd be levying a direct levy for this purpose. >> Yeah. I don't know how they would pay a stipen. >> Yeah. I don't know how they do the rural >> Yeah. Yeah, I'm not sure how they >> I thought it was just a yearly fee that they they pay every whatever month >> property staff >> and you get the blue sign with the number on it and you're you're in. So >> yeah, I don't know >> if it's $150 a year, they make it $155 and five of it goes to the ambulance service or tie it in. I don't know if we legally can do it or whatever else. I'm just thinking I don't know if we'd have to go to each individual township and and each individual city and try to coordinate all that because that seems like it'd be a lot of work for >> Yeah. >> which >> so isn't necessarily a lot of money but it's >> I mean it looks like basically the only cities really is H Highleberg and Vessel right >> and Union Hill. >> Oh that's right. It's not Union Hill and St. Benn but I think it's from the township though. Yeah, Helina and all the they're all covered. Yeah, >> right. I mean, I think that's something we should explore. Um, but if we if we're going to explore that, do we tell North, hey, we'd like to keep the rental as is and but we're going to explore, you know, do we give them a time frame within a year that a decision will be made, you know, with the townships that they're going to start paying a fee to the city which will then get given to North Memorial for having that service >> or just put towards the expenses. >> Yeah, that's what I was thinking too. You know, heating, air conditioning, and you know, all of that toward the expense that New Prague is having to pay for the two bays and the offices. >> But what if it's more than that? Well, it sounds like they agree to pay utilities. >> They didn't specifically mention utilities. I made the assumption that it was included in their that they didn't want to pay it, but it's yeah, it's so if within here I took the utility payment out as well, but we can certainly leave that into >> that was my thought on it as well that this they're going to be in there for free. >> Mhm. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Across the board. >> Yeah. >> I thought the the red line showed K utilities. I thought >> the red line show it out. >> It's like section 10. or that they wouldn't pay any utilities either. >> Right. Right. >> It would just be the utilities would be covered in the police station and fire department's general fund >> and I don't know how much it is. I you know >> they were paying up to >> Yeah, they were paying up to $5,000 a year previously. >> But did they do they have less space now than they did before? >> Yes. Well, this is really blowing my mind from >> 18 months ago. They're going to build a brand new building and >> and now they >> I don't I don't think they were ever going to necessarily build a brand new building. I think they were going to explore it to see if it was a cost-effective option >> and they quickly realized, >> right, and they definitely went through the process and figured out the cost and they did go through that process. So, >> and u so so I I took them for their word that that's what they were looking into and and it was discussed at a city council meeting. So, >> I don't think that was a I don't think it was a blowing smoke in your face kind of thing. No, I I don't think they were blowing like like I always just understood them that they were going to consider that an option and I think they quickly realized that it wasn't an option that made cost effective sense for them with the cost of building. They know they'd even looked at a few buildings around town and Right. >> Yeah. So, when you say quickly, I'm not sure what you mean by that, but >> I I guess I guess when I say >> Yeah. a couple months of due diligence and realized that >> that didn't make sense for what they were trying to accomplish. When is your contract up as of now? >> Yeah. >> End of April. >> This year. End of April. >> This year. Yeah. >> Get this compile this information and bring it back to us. That's all you can do. Um we're trying to figure out whether the the other cities that are involved, whether they're townships or cities, um how much are they willing to contribute to have ambulance service. >> I don't think we can do that in in a period of six weeks. And if we sign a contract for five years, there's no threat that's going to work on any of the townships or the other cities because they know we have a contract for five years. So why do they have to do anything? >> I know. I >> But if I remember right, that last time though, we worked for a series of months going back and forth with public meetings with Mayo and them and different and presentations when our contract had already expired >> and um we opened the mic up and there was a lot of people that had you know Ronnie was >> Yeah, I certainly don't want to get into that again if we don't have to. >> So what's the what where do we go folks? >> So I I guess we could go back even I mean do we want to say we'd like to hold it the same? Maybe we don't reduce it all the way and you say meet halfway in the middle. Um or or maybe make it an escalator. Maybe you say we'll we'll do 26 for free and 27 at a half and 28 at where we were. When discussions with North Memorial occurred based on the changes in the lease agreement, is this where everybody landed? >> I don't know if this is where this is just where they this is where they said this this is this is our one request. As you can see, we're not making any money at this. And so, anything we can do to help offset that. >> So, was this >> we we did not as staff tell them yes, we we will agree to this. >> That was the only thing they you know, and as Josh even asked if you know, are you guys going to request some kind of a stipen >> being you're losing money to have our service? Are you guys gonna he says as of now? No. The only thing would be if we could eliminate the rent. Well, I think then I if we eliminate the rent, I would want to put back in the utilities because I I don't think the city should have to pay for the bays and their use of the offices. I could compromise on eliminating the rent or reducing it to the amount that's in the lease agreement and um add back in. >> Do we know what we don't know what the utilities are yet though? Right. >> Well, I think >> we we don't. But I mean I think >> as I said 500 a month. >> I I'd say prepar like I said we were previously it was five grand a year or $416 a month is kind of what we were charging. Just >> Yeah. I don't know what the new >> with less space I mean, I don't even know if the rent is right. >> Well, let's put a number in there for utilities and see if they'll be agreeable to that and then reduce the term of the agreement to five years. Gives us an opportunity to talk to the surrounding townships. the you know I'm just talking out loud but the the rent the amount it we we've discussed in the past that it's below market rent that we've been charging them >> and even if we stick with that rent and go back to our existing agreement and pay utilities I think that's what we have now it's not the most substantial expense that we're talking about in their operation >> no >> and as they have said when we went through this in the past part of The value that they want to service this area is it provides a savings and overhead for the whole group was the the water fair >> so that's part of what they they said that they're looking at when they look at the operation as well. So um >> and I don't know what other cities do you know farboat charges them or do they because they're in a a city facility, I think. >> Yeah. I don't know. >> I don't know what Wasika does either. Maybe that'd be interesting to find out if they charge rent or utilities, you know, then if it's like, well, let's just be consistent with the three main hubs in the region. >> Well, should we find that out and then just table the agreement? table until the next meeting. >> Okay. >> Yeah. See if we can just find that out. And then I think also just for future, you know, and if they come back, well, you know, this this and this and you know, I we let them know that, hey, we're looking at options to try to get you some to to some offset, you know, similar to the fire rural association. I don't know. >> What? >> I'm just trying to think of an excuse for the next meeting after this discussion. >> Why I can't make it. >> We want you to go up to Mayo and talk to that doctor again. >> That meeting, don't we? >> Yeah. Oh, that's right, Bruce. I forgot. >> Okay. So, we're good. >> Yeah. I'm just kind of >> I wasn't involved in the last contract. >> I'm just kind of floored that we build a brand new building and this is the first we hear about their their foray into a a rent-free facility. It's uh >> staggering to me. >> Okay, I'll make a motion that we table this until later. You got the direction, Josh, to give us some information on how the other >> facilities are doing it and things like that. >> Okay. >> Did we need a vote on that or not? >> No. >> Okay. We're giving direction. Okay. Budget timeline. Josh, I'd ask Sean, but he would have a different objective than you. Uh this was really just more of a m miscellaneous object as we were um you know we've we've come out of budgets and so it's time to start talking budgets again. Uh really just kind of a timeline that we are looking at uh potentially for this coming year. Uh of note if you take a look at that in the past um we have done our truth and taxation hearing uh the first meeting in December and then we have formally approved everything the second meeting in December. Um there is not anything that says we have to do it that way. Not all cities do it that way. Some of them wrap them up on the same night. The way the meetings are landing this year, um I am recommending that might be a way we will look at wanting to go. The reason I say that in is that the second meeting of December is December 21st. Um you are getting awfully close to Christmas. I know in the past when the city council meeting has landed on or very near a holiday um the city council has said if we don't have to meet we'd rather not do it. I think it was two years ago we did that for the 4th um of July. So with it being that late in the month just by how everything is landing out um I guess the way this current timeline is showing it would have us being approve it approved on December 7th. Obviously, this isn't a written in stone proposal by any means, but it it does also just kind of move everything through the budget a little bit in terms of when we'd be meeting. Also of note, we have generally met the one time if maybe two times before our preliminary not to exceed levy. Um, we did move that this forward a little bit and hold our first budget workshop at the end of July. So that hopefully we could have at least two, if not even a third if we really needed it before a preliminary levy that we didn't necessarily feel rushed in making any preliminary discussion. So as I said, this is just more of a working timeline that we are currently working on inhouse for the 2027 season since we all know that budget is our favorite time of the year. So let's keep talking about it. Any questions? >> Yeah. No, I think that makes sense. I like the rationale of after the truth and taxation just approving it. >> I'm going to be gone that meeting though. I know already. But >> you know already >> cuz I haven't my niece's wedding >> Saturday before in San Francisco. >> Do you want me to do you want me to put any ambulance discussions on that day as well so we can >> That' be perfect. Let's push. >> Well, why don't we just keep it as is? And like you said, it's not etched in stone. And >> but right now you have all meetings uh the same time as city council dates. >> Yes. Which is what Yeah. what we did last year. So we kept that the same. >> Yeah. And then if you will look there are optional meetings that we have worked in there as well if for some reason they're needed. Um anything italicized isn't a planned one at this point. But obviously we can add off city council meeting dates as well. But yeah, right now they're all planned to be part of city council meetings. >> Yeah, I don't know how I feel about that just because it was we get buried into issues on city council and then we start the meeting at 8:00 at night and then sometimes I worry that either we're tired and we miss questions that we should be asking or we don't want to ask questions because we just want to finally get out of here. We >> don't budget meetings either before or after council meetings. Well, I thought we say the truth in taxation before. >> I think he's talking Sean's saying general budget. >> General budget meetings. >> Oh. Oh, okay. Gotcha. >> Unless we know I mean I I don't like having extra days for for budget meetings um out over and above the the city council meetings. But when you lump those two together unless we can city staff can pair that council meeting down. >> Not doing anything on the weekends all summer. Unless we do them at start the budget meetings at 5. >> Well, I know this isn't written in stone. So, I just I just want to say my piece. We can talk about it. >> Your your point is very fair because you know here it is 10 minutes to eight and we just getting through our regular packet and then if we go into a budget session. >> Yeah. >> Two and a half years left. >> I do think at that point we tried our best John. I think we had that one budget meeting. It was like the first one in October last year that it was it was just gnarly. Like we we >> that one got away from us a little bit. So >> your point's taken. >> Okay. >> So anyway, >> okay. >> Depending on how the budget goes, I'm certainly open to starting at five >> and then having a regular council. So maybe we can just kind of judge where things are are moving and adjust accordingly. >> Okay. All right. Okay. Um, anything else? Rick, >> Matt, you guys are right on it this weekend. Good job. Thank you. Thank you guys. >> Okay, Bruce, you got anything else? Sean, >> talking to you, Sean. >> Yes. Thank you. I've been uh uh asked by several people now that the police station is get looking like it's more and more complete. >> Do we have any updated timeline on when that's done? And is there going to be an open house for members of the community? >> So, I will speak for Tim until he takes the microwave away. No. Well, either one of you. I No. Yeah. So, I believe last I heard it was or kind of May um is kind of when we're looking at opening. Obviously, depend on I don't know where they're floating in May, but May is kind of where we're floating. And then, yes, I think our plan is to have um kind of tours where people obviously there'll be certain areas that people won't be able to go into, but they can get in and see a lot of it. So, that is our plan to have those open house tours. Um, I'd say even at that point, um, I will say this for Tim, if there's any of you guys that would like to see it a little early, like where it stands now, we can certainly set that up as well. Um, to kind of get >> There's got to be a turnover date, isn't there? >> When it's done. >> Well, that's not the way we do things. No, like I said, yeah, they're hoping to be done in done in May and so then we'll get it turned over. But >> okay, all Maggie. >> Yeah, I just also want to give a shout out to uh Matt Renda and his crew. >> Going to be able to get out of the building. >> Fabulous plowing work that was done considering the snow event that we had. >> I was plowed by 10. >> Josh, you have anything? Uh Maggie took the words right out of my mouth. I was going to do it so Matt couldn't. But um yes, I think our plow guys did phenomenally this weekend. I know even when I got out to pre-shove myself out at 9:00 a.m. on Sunday morning, my street had already been done and many of the streets in town were very passable by that point and looks incredible already. So yes, I'll jump in on Matt. So it looks awkward if he does it now. So shout out to his guys. >> Okay, that it. >> That's all I got. >> Robin, you got anything? Ken, Tim, Matt, you sure? >> Okay. Mitch, you good? Ryan, Patrick, >> I don't have anything. So, >> move to a >> I'll second that. All in favor for a German say I. I. >> I. Any opposition? >> Thank you, everyone. >> I was kidding when I said I was plow Dash. I haven't gotten dog in a really long time.