Okay, I will go ahead, give me one second, and call the meeting to order. Start with a roll call. McKe here, Lanterman here. Uh, councelor Friedrich is out with at a wedding, I believe. And Council Bar, >> I am still here. >> Nichols, >> also still here. >> Perfect. Take the stand and join me in the pledge. I aliance 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. Agenda approval. Um believe we had one. We removed item H. Uh that was the revision. And then Mr. Mayor, I would like to add uh on item four, I do have a quick presentation. Want to get to that. Oh, okay. I will make a note of that if I skip it. Uh which I should have because it's the next item. Just step in. Uh any other changes. All right. I'll entertain a motion to uh accept the agenda as amended. >> So move. >> I have a second. >> Okay. All those in favor say I. >> I. Perfect. participation. >> So, mayor and council and members of the public, uh it took us a while to design our beautiful logo and um and we've tried to put it on our water tower and just about everything else. We got we got logos uh that we've done because we take a lot of pride in our community and we want to communicate that pride and so staff has been working for a while to take it to the next level because we also want to recognize those in our community that are that are contributing extraordinarily. Uh and what does extraordinary contribution mean? Well, that has a lot to do the eyes of the beholder, right? And so, uh what you're going to receive tonight is a packet with with some coins. So, uh we have this beautiful Corkran logo coin and then on the back of it says uh for excellence in serving the Corkran community and then around it it has our vibrant connected community preserving natural character agricultural roots established in 1858. And so, uh, staff is working, Nicia and Brian Genner, uh, got these for us and they just arrived. Uh, they are numbered. And so, every, uh, every one of these tokens is accounted for. And so, as we present them or as you present them, I would ask that you work with Ryan. Uh, so on the accounting side of things, we have to account for how they are being distributed. Uh, and so each of you will receive 10 to distribute. Uh, also our department head will receive 10 and distribute. Um I wanted to start out with the first 10 uh by recognizing the 10 people that have done extraordinary above and beyond helping me do what I do in in my time here and particularly during and so I'd like to present the first one to mayor. Thank you. Thank you, sir. >> My lucky number. >> Cool. >> My team and our attorney who keeps me out of trouble. >> I don't know if every administrator talks to their attorney as much as I talk to John, >> but uh we've become great friends. He didn't go to Rowitan with me, but uh but he was there with me in spirit. So >> So what you're saying is John's got one. >> So So So these >> these are are how I'm choosing to do my 10. Uh you all get to make your choices on how you distribute yours. And there is uh a quick it says please distribute this to acknowledge instances of going above and beyond providing service to the corp community and you'll receive more coins. So these are for 2025. Uh on January at the January council meeting uh we'll give you the allotment for 2026. That's all. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Say J. >> Yes, sir. >> Some of us may want to give coins to the same people. >> It might be helpful if as like maybe on a weekly or monthly basis the list gets circulated those who can distribute them. So, we're just aware, oh, Tom already gave one to this person. Maybe I want to reink how I would give mine. >> That's a great suggestion. We'll do that. Thank you. >> That's all I have. M. All righty. On to uh open forum. Do we have anyone fill up the forum? And if so, Jay will lock it. >> Uh I have not received any cards, but if anybody would want to come and speak on something that's not on the agenda, they fill out a card. They present it to me. They'd have uh not to exceed five minutes to discuss their topic. Uh we've received no cards this evening. >> Okay. And we'll move on to consent agenda. consists of items 6 A through 6G. Does anyone want to pull anything there? >> There. >> Yeah, >> it is. Thank >> I would like to pull C. >> Like to pull C. Okay. >> C Jeremy. Anyone else? 21 place. All right. So I'll entertain a motion to approve consent agenda items A, B, and D through G. >> So move second. >> Second. >> All those in favor say I. >> I. >> See, chairman, >> uh, I I want to propose that we follow option three. But before I do that, I just want to give context for those who may revisit this topic in the future and just to try to reestablish what council's intent was when we created the rental license policy. So when we were trying to craft that policy, we were aware that there had been legal precedent when people were in a position in housing downturn in 2008, if I recall correctly. Uh there were rental license caps that prevented people in some cities from being able to rent out their homes. And we were trying to avoid creating that kind of a situation in corporate where somebody was in a position of having to move away and they were not able to sell their home in that current market. There needed to be an out for those people who already owned a property, needed to relocate and couldn't sell the home. Uh and that's what the intent of that exemption practice was for. Person in that situation who their job is transferred to Japan and they're moving out. They can't sell their home. They want to rent it out, but the rental licenses are full in their block. That person was supposed to be able to come to council, plead their case, and council grants an exemption for that person in that situation. It wasn't intended to allow council to allow an investor to buy a property in an area already saturated with residents. So I would propose that we continue to adhere to policy as adopted by this body two years ago, one year ago, uh with that message that you're more than welcome to buy property incorporate as a rental. It just needs to be in a place where we have the appropriate number of licenses available. >> Did you want to make a motion to effect? Yes, I'll make motion to adopt option three for content. >> Second. >> And that just for clarification is on page two of that item. >> Yes. >> Can I when you're ready? >> Go for it. >> I just want to ask a question. Why was that a consent item when we needed to make a decision? >> That makes sense. option. >> All right. Otherwise, if we didn't remove it, what would have we done? >> It would have been option three. It would have been clear with no context. >> Gotcha. Okay. Sorry. >> Have a motion, a second. Any other discussion? >> All right. All those in favor say I. >> I. We are done with consent. Moving right along. Uh, all righty. We have one planning item. Um, don't know if there's anyone that would like to speak uh for public comment opportunity on it. Just checking. Nope. Okay. And we'll go into 7A, which is the Ravenia 9th edition PVD amendment. >> All right. Yes. Uh, thank you, Mr. Mayor, council members. This is an amendment for the ninth edition. I have a couple slides uh to highlight what was in the packet just for the public. If you go to the next slide, Jay. Uh Lenar is requesting a PUB amendment to modify the landscaping in two culdeac islands in the ninth edition. That's Primrose Court and Sunflower Court identified on the screen with the two red X's at the end of the arrow. And uh the change is to allow construction um without irrigation and some changes to the landscaping to reflect the fact that the islands wouldn't be irrigated. The streets were built without irrigation. And so, um, that was identified by staff as a correction. They've asked to be able to modify the plans. And it's a in front of you tonight because that was specifically listed as one of the PUD benefits is landscaped irrigated uh, culde-sac islands uh, and boulevards. The new islands would, in staff's opinion, be landscaped with drought friendly plants if approved. If you go to the next slide, in exchange for the flexibility of the PUD amendment, uh LAR was asked to provide some other public benefit to offset that. And what they've proposed is donation of a shade structure for WildFlower Park. This is an example image of a shade structure. The actual specifications were also in the packet, just not as pretty. So, I put this one in here. So, we met with park staff and re they recommended consideration of a location shown where the uh orange box and star are on the screen near the playground should the council uh uh approve the PUD amendment. The proposal from LAR was to donate the struct the shade structure and then provide that to the city for the city to install with a concrete base at some future date. We staff that is um put together a couple of options for you. If you go to the next slide, we talked internally and I outlined some of the issues in your staff report. Um is the shade structure desired? Does it uh provide at least as much benefit as uh not having irrigation in those two culde-sac islands? and does the city have funding available uh for the city of the structure or some things to think about. Uh if you do recommend approval tonight, we will send this to the parks commission next week to look at a location for that structure uh so that it would be theoretically possible that we could do it yet this year. Next slide. So there are three options in front of you this evening. Um option one is the proposal um from LAR. If the council finds that the shade structure offsets the PUD benefits of those two landscape islands for the Ravenia neighborhood and the community as a whole, then you would recommend approval of the PUD amendment as proposed. That was option one and there was a draft resolution in your packet. If you find that the donation of the park shelter does not provide the same benefit as those two irrigated islands, then you should recommend denial. Uh and that's option two in your packet. And then um option three was something that staff talked about and I have spoken with LAR about uh and that is sort of um a modified version of their proposal which is to say LAR would provide all of the materials for the shade structure including the concrete and we would work for how we would get that done and then staff would simply provide the labor to install the structure. I did not include a resolution in the packet. I did include a red line on your desk tonight and I'm realizing I forgot to send it to LAR but it says that if it's passed I'll send that and that's the option three version. So, uh Lar is here tonight as well and Kevin and I are happy to answer any questions and work closely with Kevin on this as part of the infrastructure close up. Quick couple clarifications. I think I know the answer but just for the record um if we were to approve this the islands would still be landscaped. would just be a change of the type of landscaping to something that could survive without regular irrigation. >> That's right. There'd be two main changes. What we would do is we would add a three-foot um concrete strip around that uh which would reduce some of the um uh mulch near the curb which public works supports and it would still have mostly native grasses and there would still be one tree in the center of the island as proposed today. But those native grasses are more drought and don't require the irrigation. >> Gotcha. Is there enough area there to support those trees when they get to be full sized? >> Uh we believe so. We did look at it with a landscape architect. So that's been in there and unchanged. And that reduction of that three-foot perimeter still remains uh adequate for the types of trees that are proposed. >> You said one tree >> one tree in each island. Yeah. >> Are the trees already there? >> I think they are. Yes. Mr. Mayor, I'm sorry I asked a question without asking you first. >> How did we miss this as far as irrigation and everything else? How was it missed? >> Well, >> or is it more question >> when we've done it in when we've done it in the other culde-sacs, right? The other islands in Ravenia are irrigated. >> There was a lot of mixed irrigation. They've been installing a lot of it over the last two months. you. >> I'll be quiet. >> No, feel free. This is >> No, I just just so much is missed and whatever and overlooked and it's just it's frustrating when we've got an agreement and well, wait a minute. It's not convenient, so we'll buy a building. I I I if if anybody's going to put it up, I don't want our staff to put it up. I want LAR to put it up. If we're gonna do that, I I I >> it's a mistake on their part or is it a mistake in combination with us? >> If I can think it's their responsibility to make sure it's built for plan >> and and this has been known for a while, not necessar >> Yeah. I think I think the difference here is that it's our part versus an HA turned over entity. So we did build the park originally, right? >> No, I understand that. >> There's some element of us controlling like the park that is part of why the alternate how we came to the alternate. >> So then >> so so a desire to maintain a sense of ownership and >> yeah just we it just we built the park. So it's just we generally build our park versus having someone else do it. So >> understood. So then my issue it goes down another way with that answer. Then whatever the cost of this needs to be then that money needs to be given to park dedication and then parks decide what goes on with that whether it's in wildflower whether it's in our we're we're changing and doing things in Heritage Park and we were talking we weren't going to do much of anything in other parks until Heritage Park got done but now we're adding an amenity to a specific park and those kind of things. You I hope you understand what I'm saying. >> So if if I understand what you're saying, if I can recap, uh what you what I hear you saying is that uh the value of that should be contributed to park dedication and then that potentially invested someplace else. Uh >> invested in what parks commission talks about or our staff talks about. So parks did was was talked to about this and they see value in this in terms of uh contributing to to your point. I had this understanding too that uh no no additional park dedication dollars were going to be spent on this park until other park development had occurred. Uh and that that's that's how it been communicated to me. >> Well, we talked to the parks commission. >> This this was discussed with them. Yes. >> Okay. No, that would >> staff just staff and but it has come up before with the parks commission the desire to have the shade structure park and I do I do think >> I just don't I don't want them overlooked. I mean I I get feedback from planning and parks saying >> you're making decisions without our input. So I don't want that >> next week. It was more council wasn't going to be in support of it. It didn't seem worthwhile considering the parks and trails, but that why it was strategic to get this in front of you tonight so that it could go in parks and trails if it was. >> Okay. >> So, I would argue I would argue it's not correct me if I'm wrong. This isn't park dedication money, >> right? >> So, I we use the term park money, not spend the park. This is not park dedication money. this this is a benefit that otherwise would not occur but for this circumstance and their proposal >> and the PUD that we're being asked to modify should have benefits to the larger community and I think this would I I agree with parks dedication being allocated toward additional areas which is why we're doing city park heritage park now I don't think that precludes us from working when we have opportunity in other areas >> is is the what's the cost of irrigating the island >> two islands. >> Is it comparable to the cost of the donation of the structure? >> I'm sorry. >> I think I think the proposal was to have a one to one not necessarily a cost a cost benefit but a one to one benefit for the community whereas you know a strip of six feet probably people are less val >> I thanks I I cut Jeremy off. I'm sorry. >> So I I agree with I think it was you who said it makes sense for us to accept an alternate if it's of sufficient benefit. I think if LAR builds it as well as donates the material that gets closer to an equal value. Uh I think it would be a fair value if there was also maybe a basketball half court or something that was installed at the same time because that park has a lot of youth. It's there's a a lot of kids from multiple neighborhoods who congregate there and use it regularly. It's always been very hot. There's not a lot of shade on the site. I think this meets that need. Uh there's also not much for kids who aren't, you know, 10 years under to do at that park because all that's there is a play structure and they grow out of that relatively early. So having something that would be an amenity for older kids, I think would be a value as well. thoughts on that regards regarding even feasibility or or spacing of that? I don't know if we have the space for some of that. >> Well, I I do think that there's templated for the future the potential of a half court uh if I recall from some of the plans that I've seen. Uh but I think an important feedback would be you know Corey is that within the realm of feasibility as you approached us with this as a proposal only and could I get you because it's I want you to come up to the microphone should be pretty selfised. >> Yeah. >> I could be wrong. That's not a judgment. >> We got agree. >> Can you hear me now? >> Yes. Um we have not discussed uh I guess the basketball court was you know a new new thing that we haven't talked about but um we felt the original proposal was um of equal value to the islands so um I don't know that we would we would go above and beyond that at this point just wanted to ask >> Yep. Fair enough. One thing to counsel if we are considering this, my strong preference would be the updated option three that Kendra had made a draft resolution which includes all the materials >> and assembly or >> nose by public. I I I think also, correct me if I'm wrong, Kevin, I think public works actually would want to assemble it. >> Yeah, I think the the the middle ground option that we developed was basing materials supplied by the developer. That was the approach that we did with the original park and we thought alternative to the Has the HOA been informed of this? Did they express that position? >> Spoke to the HOA president um yesterday and she wasn't super familiar with it, but the general idea, she seemed sense objection. when they had the HOA meeting, they talked about their proposal to connect some residents irrigation system to these islands as a long-term stop gap, which doesn't seem likely to be a great proposal. Um, so I I think either of these approaches is better than that from a long-term sustainment perspective. Yeah, >> not to dig up old things, but where are we at on punch lists and stuff? Uh, conversations related to >> sidewalks still creatures growing out of them and replacement, those kind of things. >> We're really close and we probably at the next meeting we'll have several additions to close out. There's 15. won't be all of them, but a significant amount of them. So, they've done a lot of work this year. This is one of the this is basically the biggest unknown decision to try to close it out. >> So, we're anticipating bringing uh several phases for >> to be put into warranty. So, that that just puts them into warranty. >> Okay, Mr. Mayor, are the sidewalks better? Have they been replaced? I think last time they were growing again >> and they were growing through again in the spring. Where they were growing through has been ground down and tred. Um, and we have not removed the willow drive to this point. >> Well, the only way you're going to be able to do something, you have to put a barrier down. Even if you dig it up, you're going to get to take up everything. We did put in several hundred feet of barrier last fall as well at the same time as prior to replacing um as a way to deter some of the >> it's it's been frustrating through those residents and such. So I'm I hear a lot and such. So thanks for the effort and it's I'll be quiet. >> Uh I like the option or I guess the modified option that councelor Nichols had with the with the sport court or the half court. But if I understand you correctly, that's a that's a deal breaker. Is that correct? >> At this point, yeah, I don't think we would >> with that response. Then I'd like to make a motion to approve option two. I'll second >> it's up on >> that's the denial of the request. >> Okay. >> Okay. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion on that? >> I I'd vote differently if if things would have been better, a better relationship, things completed on time, those kind of things. But good motion. Would it be different if it was a different amount of Is it Is it the principle of it or is it the perceived value? >> Oh, for me? >> Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you were talking to him. >> Uh, no. I I mean, it wouldn't be fair to make a decision like that based on principle. I just don't see the value to the neighborhood. And I think what uh Councilman Nichols said, I I thought that that was a good idea and I saw that as a as a huge benefit to the neighborhood. But assuming uh that, you know, Lar sees that as a as a nogo, then uh you know, then I see this as a nogo. And uh again I made the motion to adopt option two. >> Yep. >> Let me just throw one other thing before we I just want to continue the comment. Thank you. There's nothing that stops us from creating our own shape structure as well. We have a substantial amount of park dedication. There is a value. Sounds like it's not going to be a huge amount of additional effort for staff to construct it if we're willing to do it if not provided the material. So we could make that a goal for 2026 or even 2025 if we chose to. So for me that's why it's not a benefit >> because we could easily do the same thing ourselves for 3000. >> Yeah. And the playground that was put on there is like 65k to install. So it's a very underdeveloped lowcost park as it is. I think you can certainly make the case that in order to achieve parity with the new parks that are going to be built in Belweather and Heritage Park and in whatever we're going to call the Tivera area park um it'll make sense to look at that in the future regardless. Okay. Before we take a vote, um I would throw out just to see your um interest level in this or feasibility of this. If we were to consider something like that option with all of the materials plus a um picnic table or a table and two benches to go in it. That be something that you think >> Yeah, we would be open to that. >> Yep. >> So perhaps a little bit. That's where I think I >> I would still be against it because I don't think taxpayer money should go to pay public works to erect this you know sh you know whatever you call it this shade building I don't I don't know why corporate taxpayers should pay to build that but I mean public works prefer to do so oh I get that but why should we have to pay for that if we do it ourselves or Maybe Lar should cover the cost of that of the Yeah. I mean, who's covering the cost of of laying the irrigation? Are we? >> No. So, why should this be any different? >> I don't I mean, we technically have it. I don't know I can't speak for an equipment we'd be able to based that that calculate the install cost to be >> it'll be on time and materials basically so I wouldn't be able to tell you the number value but we would track our time and apply some basis for labor >> John do you see any issue potentially in language that says you know plus reimbursement for installation calculate Yeah, mayor and council. I I I think you can build that in as as a kind of an amendment opportunity if you want to. Um, but you probably want to just specify direct staff to schedule that would make the most sense to me. >> So that's an option to option three. We do a Anyone else want to discuss that before we vote? >> Mark, council member Landerman brings up a good point. If the labor is included in the costs and the fee towards LAR, that would be an option for me. >> We could amend that resolution. >> Were the benches part of the original proposal or is that an addition? That would be an addition >> because the picture showed benches, but maybe that wasn't part of the material. >> I think that was just an example. >> That was just because I think the specs are not very nice to look at. So, that was just an image of what it looks like completed. It does not their proposal was just the spec that's in your book, which is not any benches or picnic tables. >> Okay. >> So, so no, no benches. >> Well, here's what I would propose. So, to clarify, there' be the option to deny, which is what we have on the table. able to vote here shortly or what I would do if that does not succeed uh would be to amend option three to include whether it's a picnic table or table and two benches determined by the planning or parks and trails commission whatever fits best with our park we have itemized list of types of stuff we created that I believe they're >> so whatever fit that. So it be it would add add in table and benches and add in that cost the calculation for reimbursement of the installation >> and a cork flag. >> We can do the >> So does that clarify the >> a quick suggestion. We've got one motion seconded also on would it be better instead of us sitting here and putting the whole punch list together and everything else that we maybe table this and let some negotiation happen and come back next meeting or is that out of? >> I mean you certainly could table it I think. Um, but if I'm not sure what we would be tableabling it to do, we'd need direction about what we were tableabling to do. If it's to get a cost estimate from LAR of uh installing the shade structure as proposed with a bench or picnic table combination, we could certainly do that. And they could revisit whether they still want to proceed with the PUD amendment under that scenario and bring back those costs. We could certainly do that. >> That's what I'm asking. could make the motion today. >> We've I think the motion today. Um if you were worried about that, I I think we could maybe add language to the effect of it's this if not this existing plan. >> Mayor, I think the risk of tableing it is just that it probably won't happen either the work this year. I was >> I was going >> I was going down the road of what would be best and not to change the motion in in the second on the on the dis yet right now, but >> we wouldn't change that. So, we're still going to vote on this. >> Okay. >> And if it passes, then it passes. If it doesn't, then someone >> has a follow bring up a follow. >> Makes sense. >> Makes sense. Any other questions? >> I'm more comfortable now that it is not the city's responsibility. >> All those in favor say I. >> I. >> All those opposed. >> If that fails, 3 to one. So I will make a motion to amend the resolution, which I believe is 2025 95. um to include as we discussed uh the materials as is all of the materials as is redlined in Canvas version um in addition to a table and event or picnic table whether it's all one thing or three separate things can decide that or staff can decide that um and the cost installation being reimbursed based on the schedule. >> Mr. May friendly suggestion the way I heard that sounds like only one table in a 20 by 20 foot structure seems a little sparse. Do you want to do two tables or maybe pull up the picture again? I would I would like their involvement resolution to >> a minimum of or not to exceed >> minimum of between two and four >> two picnic tables or the equivalent >> something like that the equivalent of structures in the >> given the latitude benches make more sense. >> Okay. Yeah, I'll take that. Probably two two picnic tables or the equivalent. >> Okay. So, get my motion then. >> Do we have a second? >> How many are in the photo that we saw? >> Is it far? Yeah. Okay. >> Yeah. And I would be clear, I'm not certain this is the same size shape structure. It was just intended to show how it could fit in the park. >> Um, so I apologize if that >> What is the size 20? >> The size proposed is 20 by 20, which is on page >> 58 I believe. Have the dimensions. Yeah, it's a 20 by 20 structure. I guess I don't see the page number on there, but but it's very similar looking to that. I just I I want to be clear. I don't know for sure that that was the same size. I don't know. >> There were other renderings renderings that we were given from the manufacturer, but again, I don't know that that's for sure a 20 by 20. >> So, was there any other further questions on that or is there a second? We we're writing it in all cost beared by the >> but the city and they will reimburse city adopted rate >> because we still think it's important that the city do the installation. We understand that. But >> yo, >> the two picnic tables or equivalent tables depends tables equivalent. Yep. And all materials plus reimbursement. >> So with that, where did that picture come from? >> Kendrick, >> we were given that from the manufacturer of the structure. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Whereas this one shows two long picnic tables and outside of the structure. So depending on the size of the picnic tables too, >> I mean it feels like looking at it, it probably is 20 by 20. I just want to be sure clear that I don't have any information to actually give me the dimensions. >> A good start and might be the right exactly and if not it still I think adds value in that a lot of times people are bringing a chair to the park but don't have a shaded area to sit >> and if all those table was being used, you could take your whole chair, put it in the shade area. >> Oh, looking at this, you know, I I I think we should get four benches out of it. >> If I could propose something as I did used to kind of work in the world of picnic tables and benches a lot. >> Uh so, so the big difference between these is this you're going to get one or two butts per seat around it. This one you're going to get four to five on each side, but there's only two picnic tables on here. So, I think your suggestion of two or the equivalent gives a lot of latitude to figure out how to maximize the space for people. >> Uh whether whether that be a a combination of picnic table, couple benches, or whatever it is, they'll they'll figure out how to maximize this 20 >> again with parks involvement. Park commission. Cool. I'll second. Any further discussion? All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. Thank you very much. >> Thank you for your time. >> Okay. On to we have no unfinished business. Uh new business. We have three items that are all public hearings. We'll start with 9A and I will go ahead and open. This is for the uh certification of delinquent recycling to Henipin County. We go ahead and open the public hearing >> to the no public members. >> Natalie, do you have any uh passionate comments about it? >> I move to close the public hearing. >> Second. >> Second. >> All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Perfect. And then uh the item itself itself. Oh, >> can I make a motion to approve resolution 202591? >> Certifying the uh recycling fe. >> Correct. >> Second. >> Any further discussion? All those in favor say I. >> 9B. We'll go ahead and open the public hearing. >> I move to close public hearing. >> Second. >> All those in favor say I. >> I. I. Um, >> I make a motion to adopt resolution 202592 certifying delinquent water and sewer utility fees to Henipin County. >> Second. >> Any further discussion? All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Okay. 9 C. I'll go ahead and open the public hearing. >> I move to close the public hearing. >> Second. >> Uh, all those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. Uh >> I move to adopt resolution 202593 certifying 2025 delinquent escore account balance. >> Second. >> All right. Any further discussion? >> All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Good job. >> Be proud. >> What's that? >> Bottom would be proud. >> He would be proud. >> Mark's proud. >> Welloiled machine. >> Staff has no reports. Mr. Mayor. >> All right. staff has a report. Council reports >> I I one whether it's not whether it's an issue or not. Um our longest serving reserve officer if if folks don't know is not doing well. Um he was our reserve was a reserve officer for us in the city for over 40 years. and uh there's issues. So keep him in your thoughts and the family in in your prayers, please. John Keeper is who I'm talking about. We celebrated his 40 year three years ago, four years ago. >> And uh it is >> Yep. So it just we we talk about exemplary deals and volunteerism and all that stuff. You guys have heard me say we need volunteers for this city to exist and touch that is a volunteer that will be cherished of that. So just >> thank you. >> Only thing I have is I think I mentioned this earlier. I'll be meeting with um Representative Morrison on Tuesday along with some other mayors and I always try to uh start the conversation on some funding that process again for the city hall project or some of the project there and we'll also look into the state we'll look at process at some point as well. Um And that's really it for now. Um, anyone else? >> Hey, uh, city council schedule, just to clarify or highlight. Um, oh, actually, I did have one other thing prior. Sorry. Uh, if you're listening now and you haven't seen it yet, we're up for water tower of the year. Go on the city website or socials and you can click the link and vote for our water tower. It's open through the 17th of October. Uh, >> a national competition. Yes, you can vote once per email address. So, hop on there. >> I got plenty of email address. >> Go email account for free. Open to the 17th. And uh yeah, so >> vote on social, spread it, vote. >> I bet you can't get us over a million votes, Council Member Lman. I bet you can >> if we win by daily. >> There you go. Um, >> but yeah, so that should be on the city website and socials and there's some QR codes around city hall that I have hanging up right now. Um, other than that, city council schedule. Next meeting is the 23rd work session at 5:30, council meeting at 7, followed by the next meeting would be uh November 13th, work session at 5:30, meeting at 7. With that, I will entertain a motion to adjurnn. >> So moved. >> Second. >> All those in favor say I. >> I. We're journed.