This transcript appears to be from a North St. Paul City Council meeting, featuring a transition between an informal workshop (potentially involving a "Mayor for a Day" or guest chair named Ernie) and the official regular meeting. Note: While your list provided names like McKenzie and Schweer, the transcript specifically identifies **Council Members Peterson, Cole, Wong, and Thorson**. I have used the names explicitly stated in the dialogue. *** **[00:00] Mayor John Monge:** ...years ago 2018 2017 they're trying to address some roofing issues and he approached the city and said, "Well now hold on before you go tearing the roof off and putting a new one on, you know hear me out, I'm interested in the building." So, but you know obviously there's other people that have a differing opinion; they like to see it come back as a community center. You know, I haven't heard from the community on outcry that we were missing that, and in our own city appraisal from 2012—again it's dated—but even at that point they kind of highlighted within a four square mile radius all the different fitness centers that we would be competing with. And since then there's been more and, you know, coincidentally a lot of these apartment buildings are going up, they have their own fitness workout facilities in them. So, you know, and then there's the argument, "Well, it's a community gathering space." Well, you know, that can be had, but at what cost? And you take a look at other areas in the community that can provide a community gathering space—there's this building here, it was 18 million dollars; there's high schools and middle schools and elementary schools; there's various churches. Um, you know, we've just built a, you know, 1.4 million dollar renovation at Casey Lake Park that's got an enclosed facility. So it's not like we're, you know, missing some opportunity to provide that type of service to residents that are out there. So yeah, I mean, I welcome—I think it was kind of going that direction to get like a consultant to kind of present options to us, but I mean it's—I think it's laid out pretty simple. We can sell it, we can tear it down, or we can fix it, you know, and repurpose it. So I think those are kind of our options in front of us. Council Member Peterson? **[00:02] Council Member Peterson:** Yeah, I'd like to get some kind of resolve on it. It's been—we've been kicking the can down the road for years and uh, it's costing a lot of money um to maintain it. We've got to do something with it. I know the heating and the—and the roof is bad. Um, I like the fact with, you know, with our current tenant and that's going to be not into the future, but for now it's okay. I just want to see something... not right on the selling of it, but just we've got to get something on it to get it um, I don't know, suitable for—for another tenant or whatever. So I wanted something immediate. So that's how I feel about it. **[00:03] Council Member Cole:** Agreed. Something needs to—needs to be done. It's—it's been an ongoing topic in my tenure since I've been here. Um, I firmly believe the library is an asset to the city um, and don't want to disrupt that lease in any way, shape, or form until the lease either comes to fruition or we find a suitable location for—for the library within the community. And they also—I understand the cost of getting out of the lease with the county range anywhere from a half a million to 750 thousand dollars, which could potentially be a—an excessive burden to subtract from the value of the property if sold. I am not in favor of selling the property. I would like to maintain it as I believe it's also an asset to the city as the city continues to undergo the redevelopment of downtown and its space that could potentially be repurposed for something else—and something we might not even know what it would be repurposed to until—until that lease is over. And um, and it's—once—once we sell the property we lose the space and we lose the opportunity to develop it into something that would fit the needs of the—of the residents that—that reside. Um, I believe that if the city would have done a little—a little bit better job, we wouldn't have necessarily been in the situation that we're in from a maintenance standpoint. Um, so we—we take ownership to that and I don't necessarily know if um, Council is the—is the right steward to have the ownership um in making the decisions for the community center. I am not in favor of continuing it as a community center but a for-rent building, and I would recommend that the EDA take over ownership of the building. I don't know if that's done with title transfer, I don't know how that's done, but I would strongly recommend that the EDA take over the responsibility of the building and manage it as the landlord and take the responsibilities off of city staff and off of Council. I guess that kind of covers it for me. **[00:05] Council Member Wong:** Thank you. First of all, I—I'm looking at the Comp Plan right now and I see the community cafe states: "preserve and invest in existing recreational spaces, parks and lakes," and that's an updated '24 Comp Plan and that's something we all approved. Um, to me that—that's saying people want a community center or some sort of building for people to recreate in. It can also take place in a park setting as we've seen the new building come up, so that could be a trade-off. I agree with Council Member Cole in that we have an opportunity here as a city to kind of re-imagine our downtown and have that opportunity. As for the library, I'm in full support of the library and any other community services that may be available to us and our community, whether that be on the county level or otherwise. If it were to go to a commercial setting, certainly a mixed variety of businesses would be, you know, what our zoning is, but um, I think overall I'm more interested in it as a public good. Thank you. **[00:07] Mayor John Monge:** I would say uh, this has been something brewing for a long time. Like you say, you—when you—when you worked here it's been—been here for a long time and you know, it's not fair to Kokoro Volleyball to have a facility that, you know, does have a leaky roof and the library also uh, you know, maintenance that needs to be done. So I believe we've lacked that uh, ability to maintain—maintain the building, and I believe we should be able to maintain that building. You know, if you've got a new—if you need a new roof on your house, you're going to put a new roof on your house. You know, what's going to happen here is we do have to spend money to fix up that—fix up that property to the tune of that much money. You know, it is uh more than—you know, if we would have been taking care of it we may not have had this large of a bill, but you know, we—we do have that. But it is our asset, uh, something that we owned, something that is a value to the city. Something that uh, five years ago, you know, when you—when you were here that we didn't have the apartment building that's being built, we didn't have the Lily building that potentially could also be a—another viable project for the corridor of downtown. It's an asset for downtown. I don't want to lose it because we don't know what it's going to look like here in 5 years, 10 years. It could be a parking lot, it could be a community center, it could be—could be many, many different things that we don't know. Uh, but I agree that we should have probably have some sort of input from the public. Maybe, you know, the public is the one that voted for it, so you know, maybe have some sort of focus group in regards to what, you know, what is their—what is their vision for this—for this site? I believe that the library—we've had a meeting with them. Uh, they are, you know, they want to stay within our city; they like our city. That facility itself—I don't know if they're married to that site or not, but they would like to expand possibly uh, in that site. Uh, Kokoro Volleyball has—has mentioned that they are willing to possibly lease in the future just the volleyball, you know, for a secondary volleyball court. The school district has also made mention in past meetings that they would like to also be part of that discussion in regards to uh, possibly be a tenant in that—in that building. You know, they were years ago, but you know, as everything else, things changed through the years, programs change, needs change. Like I said, our needs for our downtown are going to be changing because of the amount of people are going to be down there and I believe that that offers potential something for our residents. You know, back in the day, you know, these models for community centers—I don't think they're built to make money, they're built as—as a park, they're built for a service, you know, for our city. Uh, and I think what happened, we got in trouble that uh, there was a point where I believe it was down to 30 percent, 40 percent uh, that we're taking the revenues. Well, that model just wasn't working. And I think the timing of uh, retirement of our uh long-time uh Park and Rec person—that kind of took away from the community center and it just—I think we lost sight of it. Uh, we lost sight of uh things that were being uh put into our city through Parks and Rec, just recreation. Uh, I agree that there's a lot more uh opportunities out there to go visit other—could be weight, you know, weight facilities, recreation—what do you call it? Health clubs, things—you know, I think we were trying to turn that into a health club, you know. But I see it as big, you know, just a large facility that uh, it could be a—mini—could be many different things. Uh, nowadays you could have indoor pickleball courts, you could have, you know, you got volleyball, you've got other things, you've got meeting spaces in there, event center type space, you know. There's just—I think there's a lot of things that we could look at to possibly make it so that, you know, it is bringing in some sort of revenue but not necessarily has to be 100 percent, you know, uh revenue. The food shelf, the toy shelf where we were looking at possibly putting them in there—we did find a home for them. At the time that we were looking at that, the legislative—legislation was potentially going to give us the two million dollars that we needed for bonding because we were going to turn it into more of a service-orientated [building], and that still potentially could be. Uh, I don't think it's going to be this round, but you know, the bonding will be in what, two years? Uh, another bonding bill. Uh, but I don't—I think we'll solve it before that. Uh, but there—but there might be an opportunity to—to get funding for—for something. And again, I don't think it's the Council's, you know, it's not our job to go out there and look so specifically. If we had somebody working on that project as yourself, I think it's going to be beneficial for us to—for you to bring in uh either a plan, Plan A, B, C, or D. But at least give us—I think the—the Council needs to really have a definite uh direction because all these other entities that are looking at it, they don't have—I don't believe they have a good feeling that we know what we're going to do with that building. They don't want to come in and go, "Well, we're going to sell it," you know, you know, they keep hearing that, they keep hearing we're gonna, you know, we need a definite answer. So I think with coming in a plan, uh getting maybe uh input from the—from the community and coming in, I think we'll—we should be able to get some good answers and be able to make good decisions on our—on the Council side. So I mean, I agree that we should keep—we should keep it as an asset for our—for our community, and that's what I've got. **[00:11] Dr. Waldron:** Okay, good. Um, well again at this point it was just uh important for me to hear from all of you what your vision is and what your respective perspectives are. And you know, we'll have to do some stuff immediately—not terribly expensive, but some stuff in terms of getting heat into the volleyball players when they're playing in the winter and so forth and to stop the leaks. And um, if you're comfortable with it, what I'd like to do then is kind of take all of this and keep working with our staff and yeah, like you say, make contact with some of the community people and bring you in a report with various options. And uh, you know, at that point you can pick which option works the best for you. So if you're comfortable with that, that's the approach I'd take—just keep working with folks and come back to you with the series of options that you can choose from. **[00:12] Mayor John Monge:** Well, I think having a person on it is very beneficial for us to be able to come up with—with some recommendations. So I mean, I'm in favor of that. **[00:12] Dr. Waldron:** That will be the plan then. Good. All right, well at some point I'll be back with a plan and some options and—and you know, as I go through some of that too, maybe touching base with some of you again too as we—um, as we work through it. So um, but thank you for your input tonight. It was really important for me to hear from you before I start going down a number of paths here. So we'll take it from there and I'll be back with the report. **[00:13] Mayor John Monge:** Good. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. All right, I'll turn it over to Interim City Manager Frandle. **[00:13] Brian Frandle:** Thank you, Mayor. The other topic on our agenda this evening is the redevelopment master plan review presentation from Brandy Howe, who is here from WSB to discuss that. Welcome, Brandy. You have 45 minutes. **[00:13] Brandy Howe:** Okay, I think I can manage to keep it in that time. Okay, well thank you for inviting me back to talk about this um project once again. Um as you know, the redevelopment master plan task force has been meeting since I believe October of last year to do an update to the 2009 plan that was a joint—joint effort by the City Council and the EDA. And so this is uh—we're at the point where we've had um come to the basically the concluding part of the process where we've had multiple meetings, monthly meetings since October to take a look at the old plan and pull forward those aspects of it that were to be retained, which was actually quite a good deal of it, and then updated as necessary in terms of what's changed, what do we want to see different, how can we provide a little bit more flexibility, and how can this be more of a showcase uh document for the general public and the—in the development community. The plan, as I just mentioned, was originally drafted in 2009. It was funded by the Met Council's Livable Communities program. It focused on the downtown and it identified key redevelopment sites and proposed uses. Oops. And many of those projects that were proposed in that document have been completed, and so it was decided I think sometime last year that City Council and EDA wanted to do an update, and so that's the purpose of this document. The study area is the same from that 2009 plan—you can see it on the screen, it's a white outline. It's kind of um faded back a little bit, so I will ask our graphics people to pop it a little bit more so you can see it better. But as you know, a lot of development has occurred since 2009 and those sites are depicted on the screen: Anchor Commons with a QuickTrip, the storage facility, and uh Gateway McKnight, Polar Ridge, the Sentinel building, Reflex Medical expanded, and then Suite Living senior housing was also a project since 2009. In addition to this being a standalone document, we took a look at some of the—the past planning efforts um that had been done in the, you know, since 2009, and we pulled forward those goals and recommendations that were applicable to the downtown and we have included them in this document as appropriate. The vision from the original plan in 2009 was looked at and it was reaffirmed in this effort and the focus remains on identity, image, quality of life, and ensuring development that is built and of a quality that's going to endure. And likewise, the guiding principles from that original plan have been brought forward, but a new emphasis have been—has been placed on promoting high density and enhancing the bike and pedestrian environment. So I've got a side-by-side graphic of the former redevelopment plan on the top left, which is what the districts were, and the new districts have been modified a little bit based on the activities that have been—that have happened so far, and also to shape the boundaries a little bit based on the character of the area, different land uses, urban development relationships and objectives for redevelopment activities. So I'm going to go through each of these districts in the next few slides and then I'll have overall goals and recommendations and then the transportation plan discussion. The McKnight District—so going from west to east, McKnight would be the first one. And the primary goal of this district is to continue that momentum of the Anchor Block development and leverage the visibility of this site or this area from Highway 36 and the Gateway Trail. So it would be developed with a mix of uses focused primarily on office and mixed-use, possibly with an educational component. And redevelopment options for this area would be flexible based on market demands. Specific projects would include a multi-use trail on the west side of McKnight and sidewalks including a north-south connection on McKnight. Includes the seven-acre Schifsky site as well as Rotary Park. Um though Schifsky's has no immediate plans to relocate or redevelop, it's one of the most notable redevelopment sites in the city and so the goal of this area is to plan for the long-term redevelopment by working with Schifsky's on the timing and type of redevelopment that might occur. And possible uses would be light industrial, office, mixed-use. And specific projects in the short term would be sidewalk connections and installing wayfinding and interpretive signage at Rotary Park. Uh West End is presently a mix of service industrial and residential uses. Your public works facility is located here and Berwald has 10 acres in this district. So the intent with this one is to promote the West End as a thriving mixed-use area with the north half focused on a mix of employment and residential—sorry, employment plus commercial, and then on the southern end where you see the purple and the yellow would be more of a residential/commercial kind of focus. And one of the specific projects for this area was to develop a passive open space area for residents and that would be adjacent to 3rd Street on the other side of McKnight. Oops. Okay, so Downtown—this area is lies between Helen Street and Henry Streets and goes at Margaret Street. And so the primary goal of this area is to enhance the historic character of your downtown and create an inviting pedestrian-friendly environment where people feel free to walk—walk around, link around the sidewalk and wander in and out of shops. And the goal here is to develop vertically with mix of uses. So those areas that are identified between—um I might have the streets wrong on here—but basically the purple and then to Henry Street, and that might be Charles Street, those would be limited to two to three stories in height, and then the rest of the area would be able to develop to the maximum five stories based on your zoning district regulations. Uh strategies for this area are to promote redevelopment activities that would retain retail restaurants and services that would serve your downtown population, ensure adequate parking to support those new residents. And specific projects include converting Sepula Boulevard to a living street, which means it's a pedestrian-friendly multi-functional corridor that would maintain its alley and service functions for 7th Avenue businesses, and other projects include trailhead upgrades and evaluate public parking needs and possibly develop a plan for a future parking garage down the road. The Core—the Core Employment and Reinvestment District is on the opposite sides of Margaret Street. And the goal of this area is to reinvigorate it as North St. Paul's premier employment district. And so the uses proposed here are light industrial—sorry light assembly, medical office, professional office, and possibly live-work—that was pulled forward from the old plan. And strategies would be to reinvest and adaptively reuse some of that Berwald uh holdings, and projects would be sidewalk connectivity and trailhead improvements. And finally, Commerce Park is the last district and that will likely see quite a bit of change when DOT improves Highway 120. So the goal for this district is to reposition it as a contemporary retail and service node with a mix of restaurant, service, office, civic, and multi-family uses. And projects proposed for this area include multi-use trail at Division Street, which would be part of the MDOT project, uh gateway features at—at 7th Avenue and Division, and then also finish the final phase of the 7th Avenue reconstruction. So recommendations area-wide for the entire redevelopment master plan um study area would be to increase stories—sorry, increased building heights generally except for that downtown area up to two to five stories to maximize density opportunities. Design sites to be oriented toward the street with parking and loading in the rear. Improve the public realm with art and open spaces and generally create an inviting environment to enliven the streetscape. Transportation improvements in this document were brought forward from earlier planning efforts such as the Comp Plan and your urban design plan as well as DOT projects. And we kind of talked about some of these already, but specific projects include roundabouts at that 7th—sorry, South Avenue, 7th Avenue and 3rd Street, and roundabouts at the Highway 36 and Century Avenue interchange area. Continuing reconstruction efforts on 7th Avenue and Margaret Street and then multimodal corridor connections at McKnight, Century Avenue, and also expanding the sidewalk network. The plan concludes with an implementation matrix um and discusses the roles and responsibilities of various entities that would have a role in implementing the plan, including the City Council, Plan Commission, the EDA, other city commissions and other local partners. There's a regulatory framework that involves updating zoning and permitting process—processes like the sidewalk cafe that we mentioned earlier before the meeting started would be one of those things. And it also identifies possible funding sources and grant opportunities. So the next steps for the—for this project: we're going to host one more public meeting on July 7th and that will be open—to advertise and open to the general public. We're going to have a final task force meeting to talk about all the public comments. Um Plan Commission has requested to see it again before it gets a recommendation to City Council, so we'll do that on July 7th as well, and then EDA and Council will act on it on July 19th. And that concludes the presentation. Any questions or comments? I can also pull up the plan if you have any pages you want me to focus in on. **[00:23] Mayor John Monge:** You still have plenty of time. I'm just kidding. Any questions for Brandy? **[00:23] Council Member Thorson:** Yeah um, on page 21 there's a graphic from uh—is it pronounced Tapestry Segmentation or is that—is that the company that did this or is that... **[00:23] Brandy Howe:** Oh that is um—Esri is the company that makes the GIS software. They have—it's I think it's a database, so you can—it's a product that they sell. So Tapestry is the segment database that you can kind of go in and ask it for search terms and then it will generate the data for you based on their GIS. **[00:24] Council Member Thorson:** And is this—this is—it looks like it says it's data from 2021? **[00:24] Brandy Howe:** Correct. That would have been yeah, based on the date that I grabbed it and it is... **[00:24] Council Member Thorson:** Is that only available annually? So we can't get like... **[00:24] Brandy Howe:** I'm not entirely sure when that—it could be annually but I would imagine that it's not because there's no more frequent than that. **[00:24] Council Member Thorson:** The only reason I asked is it just—it's got listed there the median home value, and that's obviously the housing market has been very volatile and—and increasing rapidly over year-over-year. So... **[00:24] Brandy Howe:** So to clarify, I think so the date that that is listed on here would have been the date that I pulled the data from their website. It's probably pulling either the American Community Survey um which is a five-year estimate or the census data which would be ten years. So it'd probably be either 2022 or the—the most current estimate—sorry, 2020. So this is fairly accurate. It's as up-to-date as we can get it probably. We could look at the American Community Survey and that—those estimates change annually, so we could look at that if you have a specific metric you wanted to find. **[00:25] Council Member Thorson:** Uh, only other comment I had—it was kind of a shared feedback from another individual, I think they already reached out to you and shared that, but it was the um priority on like basically everything it says "high." And you know, if—if every—I think her comment and I share that same thought is like if everything's a high priority then... **[00:25] Brandy Howe:** That was a good comment. That was one of the—there was very few members of the task force at the meeting that we had the discussion on the prioritization, and so that could be a topic that we might revisit at that next meeting with the task force. And that's on the—the last Monday this month is scheduled for this Monday, okay. So maybe that's something—and as a member we should, you know, provide you some more feedback, but uh—I mean it's easy to just say, "Yes, everything is a priority, we want to do it now," but we have—the goal would be to say well what is the most highest priority and kind of pick those things out. Um otherwise... Well, I think the thought behind that was—sorry to interrupt—no, that's okay, that there's—there's time frame and then there's priority. So yes, everything is a high priority—want it all—but the time frame you can be a little bit more specific in terms of: can we feasibly do this within the, you know, five-year, 10-year, 15-year time frames? A lot of times some of these things are going to be deferred to when the funding sources become available. So I would imagine that um—I mean I'm more than happy to entertain adjusting the timelines based on the task force and the Council's direction, but I think that it's going to be one of those practices that I'm hoping that every year when the budget process comes through, we take a look at all of our past plans and figure out: what did we say we were going to do? We're going to re-prioritize based on, you know, whatever year it is and looking forward in the future—how can we—what's the logical next step? And then we'll just check them off the list as the 10 years—next 10 years tick by. **[00:27] Council Member Thorson:** Maybe—maybe the solution is you just get rid of that whole column because if ever—you know, you just recognize that everything on this graphic is a high priority. [Music] It's more of the time frame and the potential funding sources where we need to focus on how do we accomplish these things, since everything pretty much on here is high priority. **[00:27] Brandy Howe:** Yeah, I'd be willing to eliminate one or the other of those two columns, but I would like the whole task force to provide better feedback too. **[00:27] Council Member Thorson:** Absolutely, yup. And then I'll just echo—you know, you already touched on that—just the whole goal of this because I think the last time it was implemented, maybe the communication part was lacking a bit and how it got rolled out and how businesses saw it for the first time and saw that their business was either gone or you know... And so there was this kind of uh contention that, "Well, the city doesn't value my business because I'm not in their long-term plan," or they, "you know, they want to redevelop my site and no one's spoken to me." So the—the goal here is that we're trying to plan for the future and you know, obviously things change and—and we're trying to look long-term. So that's where a lot of these things are just highlighting the potential if something were to happen. It's not like we're going to take this document and go to a local business, you know, after we implement it and say, "Take a look here, you know, it's in—it's in our—our best interest as a city that, you know, you sell your property to so-and-so or to us and then we redevelop it." It's not—that's not the goal with this document. **[00:28] Brandy Howe:** Correct. And I failed to mention, but we have had a couple of meetings so far. So we did talk to the Planning Commission and last week um had a discussion with the EDA and also the—the Business Association. So we are doing that roll-out that was directed by the task force. In addition to that, we're throwing in the one extra meeting for the general public, and I really haven't gotten any comments back from the public yet. And Carrie has put it on the website, and I believe she's put a comment link on the website too, so I have had no comments from the general public and no negative comments from anybody from the—from the groups that I've talked to. **[00:29] Mayor John Monge:** And I would say, Councilman Thorson, that's probably one of the biggest things that uh was brought up is, "My business isn't on here, what'll come," you know. And I would agree: you look at the future and what happens when—when the opportunity does come, this is what we look at. **[00:29] Brandy Howe:** Yeah, we—we had a lot of discussion about how to present the districts visually, and because the previous plan was really very specific—it had a nice looking graphic that had details down to like the building layouts and land—very, very specific land uses like medical or I forget what they all were—but this—this document keeps it fairly broad based on: we can't tell the future, we don't know what's going to go in the community center just like you talked about, but we know that the zoning allows a variety of uses and we want to make sure that our development—development community knows that we're going to be flexible with them. **[00:29] Council Member Thorson:** I noticed one of your slides had two to six stories for... **[00:30] Brandy Howe:** It would have been two to three in your downtown and then your—um your mixed-use districts allow up to five. So if they're going to go beyond that, then they would have to get special zoning authorization with the planned unit development. **[00:30] Council Member Peterson:** Another comment... out of work... a lot of work. **[00:30] Brandy Howe:** Oh you're still here for another 45 minutes! Oh geez. No, thank you. You're welcome. **[00:30] Mayor John Monge:** Thank you very much, and no other comments. Uh, a lot—a lot of work is going into that, so I appreciate the project. City Manager Frandle? **[00:30] Brian Frandle:** That's all the topics on the agenda this evening. **[00:30] Mayor John Monge:** All right, well I don't think we can talk anything else, so I'll uh motion to adjourn unless there's something else that Council Member needs to bring up. Got nothing. Motion to adjourn? **[00:31] Council Member Peterson:** So moved. **[00:31] Council Member Cole:** Second. **[00:31] Mayor John Monge:** Moved by Council Member Peterson, second by Council Member Cole. Any discussion? Not—all those in favor signify by saying aye. (Aye). We are adjourned. Brandy, you could have talked for another—she's been through a lot already. Dr. Waldron, you could have talked for another... no, I'm done. Well, that's the last thing you want. That's the last thing you want. And at this time, I will turn this meeting over to the real Mayor of North Saint Paul. [Applause] **[00:31] Ernie:** And at this time, I am retired. Thank you. That was a lot of fun, thank you. Thank you family. And when do I get my first pension check? **[00:32] Mayor John Monge:** Yeah, thanks Ernie, I appreciate it. So at this time, Jenny, if you take the roll. **[00:32] Jennie Kloos:** Council Member Thorson? (Here). Council Member Peterson? (Here). Council Member Wong? (Here). Council Member Cole? (Here). Mayor Furlong? (Here). Quorum is present. **[00:32] Mayor John Monge:** At this time, motion to adopt the agenda. **[00:32] Council Member Peterson:** Moved. **[00:32] Council Member Thorson:** Second. **[00:32] Mayor John Monge:** Moved by Council Member Peterson, second by Council Member Thorson. Any discussion? Not—all those in favor signify by saying aye. (Aye). Oppose? The motion carries. At this time, the Consent Agenda, and I will turn it over to Interim Manager—unless you want me to read it? **[00:32] Brian Frandle:** If you like it, go ahead. **[00:32] Mayor John Monge:** Sounds good. So the Consent Agenda: Um, first item is the June 7th, 2022 workshop minutes; June 7, 2022 regular meeting minutes; June 7, 2022 HRA meeting minutes. General claims of one million three hundred forty-six thousand four hundred and thirty-nine dollars 98 cents. HR claims of eleven thousand eight hundred and thirty-one dollars and eighty-nine cents. The approval of the tobacco licenses. Also the Police Sergeants LELS Local 298 approval of the labor contract. Also the special event permit for Wreaths Across America event. Um, I—the building permit report from May of 2022. Item J: resolution approving acceptance of donations received in May of 2022. And Item K: funding and for refurbishing the snowman mold. So at this time we have the Consent Agenda. If there's an item that in—the council members like to pull, they can do so at this time. **[00:34] Council Member Wong:** If I may, Item G. **[00:34] Mayor John Monge:** Item G. We'll put that down to Item A on uh City Business and Action Items. Anybody else? **[00:34] Council Member Thorson:** Would like to pull Item K. **[00:34] Mayor John Monge:** Item K will be B for City Business and Action Items. At this time, a motion to approve the—unless there's something else—not, a motion to approve the Consent Agenda with those two items uh being taken off. Their motion? **[00:34] Council Member Thorson:** So moved. **[00:34] Council Member Cole:** Second. **[00:34] Mayor John Monge:** Moved by Council Member Thorson, second by Council Member Cole. Any discussion? If not, all those in favor signify by saying aye. (Aye). Opposed? The motion carries. At this time, meeting is open to the public, and I have one here: John Small. Welcome, John. **[00:35] John Small:** Mayor, Council. John Small, 2750 Chisholm Avenue. I was kind of hoping that Ernie would still be here, maybe I could get something done. I couldn't resist that. Ouch. Anyway, the last meeting there was a discussion about a new contract with EnCode. It was from EnCode "less than adequate" to EnCode "super," and I thought—and I discussed this with Dan—and I thought, "Oh boy, we're finally going to get a water bill that actually states how our water is—the charge is actually computed." But Dan said, "Well, that's not really true because it isn't EnCode, it's the outfit that prints our bill." And in the 46 years that I've lived in this city, I have never received a water bill that showed how the total was determined. But Dan said, "You do it—you could call Barb and she would give you that information." Now, that wouldn't be a very good use of a North St. Paul employee, to take calls to find out how their water bill was determined. You know that there's three different rates based on usage, and evidently we have that because water is not an infinite resource and you get charged more for using more. There is not a quantity discount; there's actually a quantity impediment or whatever you want to call it. But I would like to see some action on this after 46 years. You'd think a bill could actually show how your water charge is being determined—and it is being determined because we don't want people to be wasting water. Oh anyway, and I suppose there will be a presentation from one of the members tonight about the DNR White—White Bear Lake uh meeting that happened on Friday. **[00:37] Mayor John Monge:** Uh, we don't—Friday, we have nothing on the agenda for that. **[00:37] John Small:** Oh you don't? Well, I attended, it was very interesting. There is a new figure—it was 52 gallons per person, it's now I believe up to 90. They found some more water somewhere. But the situation really wasn't explained as to what they were going to do. They talked about "contested case issues" happening, and who knows exactly what that is. But it would have been interesting that uh when I said something to uh—oh, the one very interesting thing is that the Metro Council has come up with "who goes first" when this—when you have to switch to St. Paul water. The Met Council has done that. Yes, they had a member of the Met Council there that said number one is North St. Paul. The Met Council says now—and talking to Council Member Thorson, he's—he said, "Well, they only deal with sewers, they don't deal with water," but just to let you know that was part of the presentation—a very long part of the presentation as to how the switchover is going to happen when everyone in this area has to go to—to St. Paul water. So who knows, but the Met Council is pretty powerful, and so you might want to start thinking about that. We're number one in this little go-around. Thank you. **[00:38] Mayor John Monge:** Appreciate it. Anybody on Zoom? RT, can you hear me? RT, can you hear me? Okay, welcome. **[00:39] RT (Kokoro Volleyball):** Thank you very much, really appreciate you guys and thanks for having me on Zoom again. Um, unfortunately I wasn't able to find the workshop today um on YouTube, but I'm sure I'll take a look at the meeting minutes at some point. But I guess what I just wanted to touch base today again and say: we're still here, uh we still want to work with the city um and remain in the space until our next—our building is complete. Again, the timeline has remained the same—looks like April uh or May, which would be wonderful. And also wanted to thank Ron um specifically Ron Ritchie for all the work that he's been doing to ensure that the current space uh remains usable uh in the meantime. He's done an excellent job, he should definitely be commended. He's uh an outstanding city employee. So just wanted to mention that um and let you guys know that we're still here, still willing to work with you. It sounds like you might be putting together a task force of some kind. I'd love to meet with either people on that or be on it myself so we can develop a win-win for the city, whether that involves Kokoro Volleyball or not. I think we've displayed that we are here for the city, and if that involves us, great; if not, we want to make sure that the city benefits. So we are here to work with you like we said all along, and we look forward to continuing to do so. If that's a task force or Dr. Waldron uh that would be great as well. So if you have anything you need from us please reach out. I'm sure I'll be reaching out to Dr. Waldron here in a few days. And when we get back um we have a team that's competing for a national championship—believe the worst they can do is fifth place. So we're hoping for a couple more wins tomorrow and bring home another trophy. So I look forward to seeing you guys when we get back and really appreciate your time. **[00:41] Mayor John Monge:** Well, good luck with that. Thank you, and I appreciate the input. Thank you. **[00:41] RT (Kokoro Volleyball):** Thank you. Look forward to seeing you guys again soon. Thanks RT, bye. **[00:41] Mayor John Monge:** Anybody else on Zoom? If not, City Business and Action Items—I'll turn it over to City Manager Frandle. **[00:41] Brian Frandle:** Thank you, Mayor. Uh yeah, Item 8: City Business Action Items and Recommendations. There are actually no items under this this evening, so we moved Items G and G—and K down; it's a little bit A and B. So we'll—number A will be the Police Sergeants uh approval of label—labor contract, and I'll turn it over to Council Member Wong. **[00:41] Council Member Wong:** Yeah, thank you. This did not have a memo, so it didn't give me much background. So I'm just kind of curious on what the financial impact for the city will be with this new labor contract. **[00:41] Brian Frandle:** Of course, we don't have Dan here. I can try and give some of the details. I don't—I can't answer that question directly, Council Member Wong, but I think we can um, you know, get that information back to the Council. We did—this is the final of the six labor agreements. We have met with sergeants, we had a tentative agreement. This is uh one of the last things that City Manager Stark did finalize before his departure. The terms are very similar to the other units. We negotiated a three-year agreement with a three percent COLA increase each of the three years, which is consistent with the other bargaining units. I think one of the things that was outside of that was there was an adjustment in terms of their classification that you'll see in there. I don't know what that uh amounts to in terms of a financial impact. I believe Manager Stark did work with Dan on that, but I don't—I don't have those numbers. That was not part of what I analyzed. Other than that uh there was the addition of a shift differential of a buck an hour regarding if you worked what's commonly referred to as the "dog watch" at night—there was a dollar an hour added to that shift. Other than that, I'd say all the terms and conditions are consistent with what we did in the other contract. So if it's—if it's just a—an issue of "Hey, what does—what do these numbers mean annually?" I think that is something that we can get back to the Council on either a Friday update or just a memo from finance to—to explain the numbers. With that, it is—it is our recommendation uh this did have staff support. Uh it is the final contract, it's a three-year agreement, so it—it does have uh staff support for approval tonight if the Council's inclined. **[00:43] Council Member Wong:** Enough information, or is that... um, I would like to see some numbers and how it impacts the budget. I mean, if it's a contract for the next three years—is that—is this something we can table or is the timeline... **[00:43] Brian Frandle:** No, you—you can table it. I would keep that—just remind you that the other five contracts are settled, so we're holding this one, it's the last one. It does contemplate our retroactivity back to Jan 1. So as long as we honor that—no, we can bring you back the numbers so you're more comfortable with the agreement if that's what it takes. **[00:44] Council Member Wong:** I'd like to move to table it then. Is there a second? Or... **[00:44] Mayor John Monge:** Second? If not, because you need a second for the table... **[00:44] Soren Mattick (City Attorney):** You do. If—if a motion doesn't receive a second, then the motion dies for a lack of a second. **[00:44] Mayor John Monge:** So the motion is to approve the uh—let me get this up here—motion is to approve the Police Sergeants LELS Local 298 approval of the labor contracts. Is there a motion? **[00:44] Council Member Thorson:** So moved. **[00:44] Council Member Peterson:** Second. **[00:44] Mayor John Monge:** Moved by Council Member Thorson, second by Council Member Peterson. Any other discussion? If not, all is in favor signify by saying aye. (Aye). Oppose? Motion carries. This time uh Item K, I believe, is now Item B and that is the funding for refurbishing the snowman mold. Council Member Thorson? **[00:45] Council Member Thorson:** Yeah, I just pulled this item. Uh, I mean I, you know, art is subjective and uh, you know, I—I would think that people in the art community are used to criticism and—and I don't—by my objecting to this, I'm not objecting to this program. But you know, the—the dollar amount that's being asked for here to me seems a little high for re-refurbishing a statue that bears little to no resemblance of our city logo. Looking at the last handout, it reminds me closer [of] the Michelin Man, the Tiger guy, than our—our snowman. But again, you know, I wouldn't be opposed to—to using money to uh to—to build a mold that more closely resembles our snowman, but even so that sixteen thousand three hundred fifty dollars—it's high. Especially with the fact that art is subjective in that I don't think this is something that taxpayer dollars should be going to. I think that the arts and culture should be funded more from donations from businesses and private individuals and then they can make recommendations on how to spend money based off of those donations. Um so that's why I just, you know, I—I support what they're doing, I just don't agree with what—with what's being proposed. So I'm going to—I'm going to vote no on that. **[00:46] Council Member Wong:** If I may just discuss a little bit about the economic and financial piece to it is that there are donation options available for the public to donate or businesses to donate. This is a collaboration with the businesses. What the ask is here is that we're looking at refurbishing an existing mold. The photo from before isn't the actual mold or what it would look like, but what the ask is is to kind of front a little bit money of—of money to sponsor the first one so we can subsidize for the businesses to make contributions and—and they can sponsor or, you know, promote their business the way they want. So it's a feasible amount of money that they can contribute and they have opportunities for themselves and as businesses and artists to collaborate. So you know, I think that there's opportunities for the businesses to make that decision um on what subjectivity or artists artistry they want to do. **[00:47] Mayor John Monge:** If I remember what uh the chair of the Arts Council said is that this would, you know, the upfront cost is there but it's also uh potential that money could be coming back in regards to sponsorships. Uh so it could be a wash for—for this. So this is this money up front, get the program going with the opportunity to get sponsorship from businesses, and this makes it a lot more affordable, like you said, for the uh for the businesses to be able to sponsor. **[00:47] Council Member Wong:** Yeah, and then looking at, you know, like you said, a long—more long-term um financial resource to continue the Arts and Culture Commission. **[00:48] Mayor John Monge:** Any other discussion from council members? Council Member Cole? (Okay). Peterson? So at this time uh the motion is to uh funding for the refurbishing and also I think it should be added that we will be purchasing uh one of the molds uh as part of that sixteen thousand three hundred fifty dollars. That includes not only the uh refurbishing but also includes a snowman. Is there a motion for—for that? **[00:48] Council Member Wong:** So moved. **[00:48] Council Member Cole:** Second. **[00:48] Mayor John Monge:** Moved by Council Member Wong, second by Council Member Cole. Any other discussion? If not, all those in favor signify by saying aye. (Aye). Oppose? (Nay). Motion carries. So this time I'll turn it back over to City Manager Frandle. **[00:49] Brian Frandle:** Thank you, Mayor. Uh yeah, Item 9 is reports of City Manager and departments. I'd like to discuss a little bit about the current environment of electric prices and current risks in where we're at with it. So FERC last month uh had—they put out a summer assessment every year. Um this year is kind of a warning um talking about gas prices um especially natural gas prices um and how that affects our rates. Um so our rates are set by you guys at the beginning of the year. It's the fuel clause in addition to that rate that can make the—the cost of electricity go up a little bit. So you know, we're seeing two, three plus cents uh per kWh rates uh during some months. Um so where we're at is the—the future prices of gases from the hubs around the country are—have gone up already anywhere from 77 percent to over 230 percent. Just drastic price increases. And that's just due to—well over the past decade prices and emission levels for lower than other—were lower than other fossil fuels like coal. But um with fracking being drawn back quite a bit um we're not seeing the amount of natural gas that we're used to. Normally our reserves for the city—not the city, but the country's reserves are built up to about average this time of year. I think they're getting close to that now, but due to the cold spring that kind of cut back on the reserves that we had as well, which adds to the price increase. Natural gas is the number one fuel source for electricity across the United States at about 38 percent approximately, followed by coal at about 22 percent. Our power agency does not buy any power that comes from coal. We are all either natural gas or renewable resources, so it's a concern. Um and we've already seen that our summer rates go into effect come June, and I believe we're looking at a—environmental or uh energy adjustment clause that was about two and a half cents I believe. So we're seeing these costs. Um I just wanted to make you aware of that. Um another concern: um the NERC is a North America Electric Reliability Corp. Um so they have put out kind of a warning—I've heard about it talked about in the news a few times this year as well. Um it's kind of an unprecedented array of risks right now that we haven't seen before, really ranging from capacity shortfalls, extreme weather which can cause droughts or fires. Last year California did see rolling blackouts that they were having to do, which is just really unfortunate. But with this perfect storm, if you will, we could potentially see that ourselves. It would be rare, but it could happen. We do have a system in place uh so the federal government—the local large utility here is uh of course Xcel Energy. They would contact them about having to cut a certain amount of megawatts off of their system. That breaks down—if it came to us as a smaller utility, they would first start with some of the larger utilities in our power agency. But if it came down to us, they could be calling and say, "Look, within 15 minutes you need to cut four megs," which I could—would end up being killing half of the system if we had to do that. This is rare, but I just want to make you aware of it. You would see this coming because you would have probably a string of days of 90 plus, you know, and not really cooling off that much in the evening—probably three, four days in a row. So you'll be hearing about it on the news, you'd see other places that were doing rolling brownouts or blackouts. It's just a pretty tough time. Then you add to it the war that's going on and, you know, they're really looking for as much gas as they can over there in Europe, so which makes our rates increase. You have supply chain issues... like I said, it's just kind of this perfect storm of things that—that potential is there. Probably stronger now than it's ever been, but still hopefully a rare situation that we would see that. But I did want to make you aware of it and our customers aware of it in case something like that were to happen. We just hope it doesn't, but we're prepared for it any way we can. And if we had to do that to cut that load, it would be probably for a maximum of about four hours at a time. So uh, my policy would be uh I would probably have to dump the downtown first. My concern would be more residents um in their homes if you had that kind of heat, and then we would just try to pick the best circuit we could for something else if we had to do that. I don't—this isn't meant to be a scare tactic. I just don't want it to be... **[00:54] Council Member Cole:** Is that a complete shutoff of certain areas? **[00:54] Brian Frandle:** It is. To—to drop that kind of load, it would be a complete shutoff of a circuit. **[00:54] Council Member Cole:** So when you're saying the downtown shutting it off, that would—that would be what would have to happen? **[00:54] Brian Frandle:** That and probably another circuit. I would be more apt to want to keep residential's homes on over businesses. But like I said, this would all be talked about quite a bit in the news that something like that was on the way. We would get it out uh—I'd speak with Carrie and we would talk to our customers and get out the best we could. But hopefully it doesn't happen. It's just a rare time right now, so I just want to make you aware of it. Yeah, good news—sorry. Uh so far so good, things are going good with that. **[00:55] Mayor John Monge:** All you have? **[00:55] Brian Frandle:** That is all I have, yes. **[00:55] Mayor John Monge:** Uh, reports of Council Commissions and Committees? Council Member Cole? **[00:55] Council Member Cole:** Actually can I ask Brian a question? (Sure). Yeah, and I apologize for not knowing the answer to this. I've lived in other communities throughout the years in which I basically gave control over my usage to um the electric company that was providing the service to my residents to where they could go in and shut it down for 10 minutes or 15 minutes or—or decrease the—the usage by... evidently they had ways to turn off certain—certain things that controlled my home. Do we have anything like that here? **[00:56] Brian Frandle:** We used to. Uh and they're load control programs. And what we used to do is control the air conditioning units on homes for people who signed up for the service. We were also given a credit for doing that through our power agency, but that credit went away and the cost of the program was prohibitive, so we ended up stopping that program. It's not to say that we won't look at something in the future, but right now we do not do that. **[00:56] Council Member Cole:** Okay, thank you. Is that—that box we have on the outside of our... **[00:56] Brian Frandle:** It is. **[00:56] Council Member Cole:** Okay, good to know. **[00:56] Mayor John Monge:** Anything else Brian? Any questions? Not. Uh, Reports of Council Commissions and Committees. Council Member Cole? **[00:56] Council Member Cole:** All right. The EDA met on the 14th um here in the afternoon, uh which was really just a couple of topics in mind. One was the downtown redevelopment plan, which Brandy presented at the workshop—Brandy from WSB presented at the workshop. So there was just more or less to bring the EDA in line and up to speed for those who aren't—those that don't sit on the committee to—to come, you know, to be up to speed and bring—and bring it along. We also discussed the vacant space at 2579 7th Street. Uh, as the EDA continues to look at creating a green space and parking, the costs still continue to come in incredibly high. Um and so they're still looking for additional ways to do something with that space to—to clean it up, but you know, no—no—no decision was—was made at that point. Um tomorrow night at six o'clock, I believe there'll be a community meeting here. I don't even know where it was supposed to be—in the park? So is it in chambers? Um from 6 to 6:30 for the community to come in and sit with the Park and Rec, and I don't even know who else is going to be in attendance at this point because this isn't what was planned. Um as well as the regular Park and Rec meeting will be at 6:30. I don't know if it's going to be here, if it's going to be over—it's going to be in chambers as well. Um so, good. That's all I got. **[00:57] Council Member Wong:** Um, we have no new updates from either the Arts and Culture Commission or the Planning Commission except for the next meetings, which: Arts and Culture Commission will meet on July 6th at 6:30 here in Sandberg, and then the Planning Commission will meet on July 7th at 6:30 here in the chambers. **[00:58] Council Member Peterson:** Yes, this 19th Avenue student housing house is really going well. Maybe the driveway will be poured on Thursday. Everything inside is done and it's supposed to be finished by the 10th of July. So everything's on board on it, and that's all I have. **[00:58] Council Member Thorson:** Yep. The Master Redevelopment Plan Committee will be meeting on Monday the 27th at I believe 6:30 here at City Hall. **[00:58] Mayor John Monge:** General business. Council Member Cole? (Nothing at this time). Council Member Wong? **[00:59] Council Member Wong:** Um, I just wanted to thank um Lisa Ritchie and her work with the Arts and Culture Commission. They were out at the Music in the Parks and also at the car show, and they had a pretty good turnout of a lot of youth but families coming out to kind of check out what's going on and contribute to painting the art cart. So, thank you. **[00:59] Council Member Peterson:** I don't have anything. **[00:59] Council Member Thorson:** Yeah, two items. Um, brought to my attention that back in January of 2019 there was an excess—or a accessibility audit that was supposed to be performed, and she was inquiring on the status of that. I just, you know, just dropping this on you, but I don't know if that's something we can follow up on to see if that was actually done and what information we have or, if not, what the status is on following up on that. And then uh earlier today I contacted our attorney at—a question about potentially something that we may have overlooked at our last HRA meeting. And can I just turn over to you, Soren, and let you explain? **[01:00] Soren Mattick (City Attorney):** Thank you. I talked to Council Member Thorson. You'll recall at the last HRA meeting there was authorization to buy a um a lot, I think with the ultimate idea of maybe subdividing the lot and/or—and then doing a student-build on it. There is a provision in the state statutes that talks about before you buy or sell that the Planning Commission is supposed to weigh in on it. In the past, we've included in the resolutions that the City Council and/or the HRA waives those—waives that review. I know that that's received—I don't know if I'd say pushback, but I don't think there's uniform agreement on the Council about that. Council Member Thorson looked at the resolution that was adopted um and he's correct that there—there was no such waiver of that in that resolution. Um so the concern, while it's a technical one, the law says you are supposed to um have the Planning Commission review it. They didn't, and there was no waiver on that. Um so in terms of correcting it, you know, you can waive it, but that takes a two-thirds vote, which means four out of five. We—I believe the plan to go forward was sustained by a three-to-two vote, so I'm not sure we have the votes on that. You can send it back to the Planning Commission to receive their input at this point. In terms of sort of pragmatic aspects of this, our office is working on the purchase agreement. I think we have something in principle finalized with the seller. The idea is that we would be closing on it within 30 days. So whatever the path forward is to correct this—sort of dot our I's and cross our T's—I would recommend that one, we either send it back to the Planning Commission to get their input, or two—and I don't have a resolution here—we waive that criteria knowing that it's going to take four out of five votes. **[01:02] Council Member Thorson:** I think we send it back to the Planning Commission. If we can... can we set up a meeting sooner for the Planning Commission? **[01:02] Soren Mattick (City Attorney):** Yeah, if they're able to. The Planning Commission has the ability to have a special meeting too. Um you just have to post it like you would a City Council meeting. Once you do a special meeting, you are limited to what's on that agenda. So you know, you should—if it's—it's a one-item agenda to discuss the purchase, that can't, you know, evolve into other topics. Um but depending how you view that, one—it's kind of nice to have a one-topic agenda, you know, it's somewhat limited in and out. But if you want other things you could do that at that time. But otherwise yeah, you're limited to the agenda. You basically need to post it and then you have three days' time. So you could do it well within the 30 days. **[01:03] Brian Frandle:** Mayor, we—we did call a special session for that after finding this out. Um so we called that for next Tuesday. Um otherwise we would have to wait until the first Thursday of the month for the regular meeting. So um we did get that sent out. We do have a quorum for that meeting and that will be next Tuesday. (What time was?) Maybe 6:30. Yeah, we—it's posted, we have it out. So... **[01:03] Council Member Thorson:** Okay, so it sounds like it's going to go back to the Planning Commission? (Yes). Okay, and that they need to review it and provide, you know, their thoughts on it. That's what the statute says, and like anything, it's advisory. **[01:04] Council Member Thorson:** Okay. Anything else, Council Member Thorson? (That's it, thank you). **[01:04] Mayor John Monge:** Uh and I have: Veterans Park—we have 1368 pavers as of this time. Veterans Park is also hosting on Thursday, June 30th from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. It is called [Music]—what is it called? It's called Wreaths Across America. And it's a giant semi set up, there's kind of an educational trailer set up in regards to veterans and uh what this uh group has done is educate people in regards to veterans and in what they do year-round. I believe it's a bi—it's a big exhibit and Minnesota is one of the—the few states that—that is getting this. So that's uh Thursday, June 30th from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. down at Veterans Park. And I also like to uh mention: a thank you just came across my email today and it is uh from a resident uh sent out to Lisa at Community Development. "Thank you so much for your assistance and follow-through with getting our new home address to the appropriate county postal service, etc., including our local fire department. I realized that probably wasn't your job but you went the extra mile to ensure the issue is being resolved. You absolutely made my day today. As you may have experienced yourself, moving can be stressful on its own, but to not have our address recognized in any systems when we attempt to update our address or have purchases delivered here have been very frustrating. We appreciate you helping this matter. Both of us have lived in North St. Paul our entire lives and you have reconfirmed our decision to stay and buy our new home in North Saint Paul. With much gratitude from a—from a resident." So a nice shout out to—to Lisa. And I want to say thank you for Ernie today for uh being the Acting Mayor. It was a tough job, I know he had to make a lot of decisions uh that he had to make dealing with staff and—and all that. So thank you, Ernie, for doing that. Don Bienick, what would you do? **[01:06] Don Bienick:** Sure. Again tonight, can you come up? Yes. I wish somebody would get the streets right in North Saint Paul. They mentioned 7th Street—2579 7th Street. Well, that number would be over by County Road C on 7th Street. We have two different ones: 7th Street and 7th Avenue. I deliver mail here so I want to tell you all right now: don't make a postman angry. **[01:07] Mayor John Monge:** Okay, we'll make note of that. Thank you. Uh anything else? If not, uh we have no uh closed session. So motion to adjourn. **[01:07] Council Member Peterson:** Moved. **[01:07] Council Member Wong:** Second. **[01:07] Mayor John Monge:** Moved by Council Member Peterson, second by Council Member Wong. Any discussion? If not, all those in favor signify by saying aye. (Aye). Oppose? Motion carries. We are adjourned. You.