Here is the transcribed town hall meeting with speaker names added based on the context provided in the dialogue. [3:46] **Mayor:** A present like a $50 bill. All right, we're going to call the meeting to order. Will the clerk please note those in attendance? Be noted. Thank you. Will you please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance? I pledge allegiance 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. All right, I trust everyone's had a chance to review the minutes from the regular city council meeting on January 9th. If so, I'd entertain a motion to approve the minutes. [4:15] **Councilmember:** So moved. [4:17] **Councilmember:** Second. [4:18] **Mayor:** Motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. (Group: Aye). Any opposed? Motion carries; minutes are approved. Minutes from the city council work session on January 16th—do I have a motion to approve those minutes? [4:32] **Councilmember:** Second. [4:33] **Mayor:** Motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. (Group: Aye). Any opposed? Motion carries, one abstention. Item three: adoption of the agenda. Any changes, corrections, amendments to the agenda? Seeing none, I entertain a motion to adopt the agenda. [4:51] **Councilmember:** Move. [4:52] **Councilmember:** Second. [4:53] **Mayor:** Motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. (Group: Aye). Any opposed? Motion carries. Item four: consent agenda. Entertain a motion to approve the consent agenda. [5:02] **Councilmember:** So moved. [5:03] **Councilmember:** Second. [5:04] **Mayor:** Motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. (Group: Aye). Any opposed? Motion carries. All right, item five: visitors and presentations. We have a quarterly finance department report. Ms. Kinser, whenever you're ready. [5:17] **Ms. Kinser (Finance Director):** Good evening, Mr. Mayor and members of the Council. I'm here to give you an update on our unaudited financial statements for the year ended December 31st, 2023. I have some bullet points of things that I'm going to be going through, but first I want to start out and say that they are unaudited. And so, as we're going through these, when we look at the numbers, we're still in the process of recording receivables; our payable invoices are coming in. There are entries that we haven't done yet, allocating interest to all of the funds. So this is really a work in progress, so it's hard to—we can see the trends of where things are going, but there’s not specific numbers that I can kind of talk about right now. So these will change. [6:05] **Ms. Kinser:** We're beginning our audit process tomorrow. The auditors will be out to do one day field work for a little bit, and then they'll be back in March. So like I said, we're continuing to work on that. There are some—we experienced some supply chain challenges still that will require some of our projects that were budgeted for 2023, we'll need to move the funding to 2024 so that when the items come in, we'll be making the payments for those. So on some of these, when you look, the expenses might be down; some of that is because we have the item placed for order, we just haven't received it and paid for it yet. So that will be coming. [6:52] **Ms. Kinser:** In the general fund, we have not received our final property tax payment. We receive our property taxes three times during the year. We get a payment in July that's for what was collected in May; we get a payment in December that's for what was collected in October; and then we get a final, smaller payment in January, and that's everything that they've collected from when they paid us in October to the end of the year. So when we look at the taxes, we haven't received all of those yet. [7:38] **Ms. Kinser:** The 2023 permit revenues are higher than our revised budget. That has been a theme over the last couple of years. We've had the school district projects that have been going on that completely wrapped up this year. So we had budgeted in previous years for the project; some of those got moved out, so that's why we didn't have any amounts budgeted in 2023 but did receive revenues for the project fees in 2023. There were fees for the apartment project that's at 3600 Hoffman Road. We had budgeted for some of those; we budgeted for the large parts, we had the building department go back and calculate what they would be, but they didn't calculate out all to the HVAC and the electrical and things like that, so that is a little over budget. [8:23] **Ms. Kinser:** And then we did have—as I was going through information from the building department preparing for this presentation—there were six new homes that were built that had values of over $450,000, which resulted in the fee revenues being higher too as we look at the fees that come in. So there were over $50,000 of fees that came in for those six new homes that ranged—there was one that was just under a million dollars and there was one that was $450,000, so they were in that range. [9:02] **Ms. Kinser:** When we look at the sports center, the sports center revenues have accounts receivable items that will still be yet to be recorded. So the final revenue, when you look at that, will be close to the budget. In the Economic Development Fund, the 2023 revenues are higher than the budget amount because we received—we had our Tiff District number 25 that we decertified; we had received some tax increment funds, so we had to return them. When the district was certified, we had to return the funds and then they distributed that out. So there is $353,000 in excess tax increment. So that is now not tax increment—those funds are always put in the Economic Development Fund, so that's why that one is higher. [9:58] **Ms. Kinser:** In our recycling fund, we talk about this every quarter. We kind of watch where the recycling processing costs are. The recycling market continues to be in a down cycle. So our agreement with the recycling processing organization is that when they sell our recyclables, the money that they receive that's above what it cost to process it, they give back to us. So when the market is on the upswing, then we're making money from the sales of those recycling products. With it being down, they are not collecting enough revenue to offset the processing fees, and so then we are needing to make payments. [10:33] **Ms. Kinser:** It started going down in 2022 and the market was down all in 2023. I don't have the specifics with me, but it's not that one specific product is down; they kind of vary on which one is up and down. But we did, as I look back in 2023, it cost us $51,500 to pay for the recycling fees. But we can go back to previous years and we've collected over that amount in revenues because of the sales being high. So the Council in the past has decided to—we set a recycling processing fee, just a minimal amount on utility bills to help cover these costs. It's been something that when the market is high, we take the fee off; when the market is low, we add that back on, and it's usually in a reactive form. [11:33] **Ms. Kinser:** So when we built the 2023 budget in 2022, the market was high, and so we did not have a fee that were put on people's accounts for 2023. However, since 2023 the market was down, we've added that small fee in the fee schedule and it's $1.50 a quarter that will be added to utility bills. So that will help collect money to offset these processing costs until the sales of the recyclables go back up. So those were the final thoughts that I had about the finance report that was in there. [12:12] **Ms. Kinser:** The second report that is part of my presentation looks at the license bureau. And our license bureau is very active. The total number of transactions for 2023 are higher than in 2022. Much of that is because Maplewood closed their DMV in the springtime, so they referred their customers to us. So our transactions in 2023 for the year—our total transactions, so this would be motor vehicle transactions and driver's license, DNR Game and Fish—our total transactions were 85,300, and comparing that to 2022, we processed 78,575 transactions. [13:08] **Ms. Kinser:** So as we look at that, the higher transactions brings in more revenues, which is exciting to support the fund and the department. We'll see our revenues are higher when we look at our revenues coming in right now—higher than budget—and that is exciting. Those extra transactions and then with the state implementing the new fees as of October 1st helped with those. So we had budgeted for some of those revenues to come in, but it’s hard to budget when you don't know the exact number of transactions. So with that, I am available for any questions. [13:42] **Mayor:** Thank you, Ms. Kinser. A couple quick questions. Is the recycling fee of $1.50 a quarter—is that the same for residential and commercial, just put on every invoice? [13:54] **Ms. Kinser:** Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, it's just on the residential bills for the garbage because we handle the residential—up to four living units. The larger commercial and then the apartment complexes, they have their own—they create their own contract with a hauler; they don't have the city. [14:14] **Mayor:** Okay, so just residential. And so the increased volume of transactions for the license bureau—have we been able to absorb that based on current staff levels? Have we incurred additional costs? Because the revenues are great, but are we taking on operational costs to accommodate that? Are the current workers being overtaxed? Can you expound on that a little bit? [14:42] **Ms. Kinser:** Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, at this point I think we are doing well. We're helping—there are times that their lines might be a little longer, but they're not the length of the lines that they were in previous years when we were having the driver's license and kind of getting into those new driver's license with the Real and Enhanced ID there. So the lines go pretty fast; we kind of watch them and it might be about 10-15 minutes that people will typically be, unless you come in on a Monday or Friday right at the end of the month, then the lines might be a little longer. We've added—when we've had some full-time positions that have left, we've created three part-time positions, so that's really helped us ensure that we have staff in the office available to help the residents. So at this point, we're not incurring extra costs. I think it's going well. [15:27] **Mayor:** Okay. And then last question: having had a quarter's worth of the increased fees that are set by state statute, do we have some indication of whether or not that increase is enough to kind of shore up that deficit that we were experiencing? Is it working? Is it too early to tell? What can you say about that? [15:47] **Ms. Kinser:** Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, I think it's helping. Any extra fees that come in are definitely helping us. We had hoped that it would be a little bit more; it's not quite what it would be, but I think that it's going to help us shore that up. [16:03] **Mayor:** Okay, so it's fair to say at the end of 2024, once we've got a full 12 months under our belt, we'll know if that fee increase really righted the ship. And if not, then we can have that conversation about whether or not looking for more fees. Okay, thank you. Council, any questions for Ms. Kinser? Councilmember Edberg. [16:21] **Councilmember Edberg:** Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Ms. Kinser, just looking at that, playing off the question that the mayor just asked—looking at the last quarter, our revenues in the license bureau are right about $80,000 a month now. I'm going to guess that they were not $80,000 a month earlier this year, but—and I fully expect that there are seasonal variations. Do you have had any opportunity to project what you think that revenue amount might be on a full-year basis going forward? Where my brain's going is we captured $857,000 in the year to date for 2023. If we're at 80, that's almost another $100,000 of gross revenues (80,000 times 12). And if it's better than 80,000 on a sustained basis—okay, that's clearly good news for us. Do you have any sense of trajectory and margin? [17:21] **Ms. Kinser:** Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, so when we were working on the budget, we looked at past transactions and then used that to build our budget. I haven't had an opportunity at this point to go back and see how close we were. I because I had made an estimate for October, November, and December, so I need to go back—we don't have—I haven't had an opportunity to go back and compare those to see how close my estimates were to see maybe the estimates of our transactions are higher, and then we would be getting more revenue again in 2024. [18:11] **Councilmember Edberg:** Okay, we'll just wait. Thank you. [18:14] **Mayor:** Council, any other questions for Ms. Kinser? All right, thank you very much for the report. Item six: public hearings—we have nothing scheduled. Item seven: unfinished business. Second reading of an ordinance amending the zoning code regarding notice and voting requirements. Mr. Lindahl. [18:35] **Mr. Lindahl (Community Development Director):** Thank you, Mayor, members of the Council. This, as you mentioned, is a second reading of a zoning code text amendment that's related to the notice and voting requirements for zoning amendments and Planned Unit Development (PUD) applications. We really, as we talked about last time, presented this as a housekeeping kind of item initiated by staff to bring the zoning ordinance regulations in line with the requirements of the city charter and state law. [19:04] **Mr. Lindahl:** Staff has worked with the City Attorney, and the City Attorney has provided a memo recommending that we also make these changes to be consistent with state law and the city's charter. What these changes would do would again change the approval voting requirements from a super majority (or a four-fifths vote) to a simple majority (and that's a three-fifths vote). That applies to all rezoning applications except for those that would propose to change residentially zoned land to commercial. There is still a standard in state statute that requires that to be a super majority, and our revised code reflects that. [19:50] **Mr. Lindahl:** The Planning Commission held the public hearing and reviewed this in November that produced no comment, and the Planning Commission recommended approval. The Council reviewed this at a first reading back on January 9th and recommended that we bring it back tonight. So after conducting a second reading and answering any questions that the Council may have, staff is recommending approval of adopting the proposed ordinance as it's presented and then also approving the accompanying resolution that would allow publication of that ordinance by summary and title. And with that, I'll take questions. [20:30] **Mayor:** Thank you, Mr. Lindahl. Question for our City Attorney. So this is a pretty simple housekeeping matter. Right now, our ordinance is not in parity with both the charter and state law. But we certainly could amend the charter as a matter of public policy. How would that relate to state law? Would we, as a home rule charter city, have the latitude within the state statute if we so chose down the road to revert back to requiring a super majority for these kind of decisions? [20:54] **City Attorney:** Mr. Mayor and Council, good question. The Attorney General's opinion—you may have remembered I referenced earlier—related specifically to the amendment provision that used to require a super majority vote. Then they amended the statute to only require that simple majority vote. The Attorney General opinion that came out after that where a city asked—a charter city asked, "We have a higher vote requirement in our charter; how do these two reconcile?" The AG opined at the time that the statute preempted both the ordinance that had a higher vote requirement as well as the charter provision. [21:41] **City Attorney:** So I think, unless you want to disagree with the Attorney General's opinion—which is not out of the sake of possibility—but I think with respect to amendments, I think you need to stay aligned with the statute. I didn't look at this specifically, but my recollection—well, in fact, I did look at this back when this issue came up some months ago—there is not a similar statutory voting requirement for PUDs. So I think you do have some flexibility there to carve out for yourself through your charter how you think you should treat those as a city. So I think that there is some flexibility there for PUDs, which I know was the question that came up at the first reading. So I do think you have some flexibility there. If it came to the amendment language, I'd say best not to try that. [22:27] **Mayor:** Okay, thank you. Okay, so Council, on the heels of that—I know there's some talk at the first reading that maybe as a matter of policy we want to revisit that, which I'm open to, but that's not what's before us today. What's before us today is kind of a housekeeping matter. What would we like to do with this? I would entertain a motion to approve the ordinance. [22:45] **Councilmember:** Move to approve. [22:47] **Councilmember:** I'll second it. [22:48] **Mayor:** Any further discussion on this? Seeing none, all those in favor say aye. (Group: Aye). Any opposed? Motion carries; the ordinance passes. We also have an accompanying resolution. I would entertain a motion to approve that resolution. [23:02] **Councilmember:** So moved. [23:03] **Councilmember:** Second. [23:04] **Mayor:** I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor say aye. (Group: Aye). Any opposed? Motion carries; that resolution passes. [23:13] **Councilmember Edberg:** Mayor? Yes, please. Point of information—or it's like... okay, thank you. Your discussion with the City Attorney regarding the discretion that we may have regarding PUDs is something that I am interested in pursuing. I think a couple other voices at our last meeting indicated an interest in at least discussing. Do you have a preference—well, given that some members have expressed that interest, do you have any guidance for us on when you would like to receive that kind of suggestion or what process we might use for either study or whatever? And I don't think we need to do it rapidly, but something sooner rather than later in my mind might be good while it's relatively fresh. So do you have any guidance for the Council? [23:58] **Mayor:** Well, I'll defer to Mr. Lindahl in a minute, but I'm open to whenever. If it's important to the Council, then we'll bring it before this body and do what we need to do. Mr. Lindahl, did you have comment on that? [24:11] **Mr. Lindahl:** Mayor, members of the Council. Staff would suggest that we actually have a prime opportunity to have that discussion as part of the zoning ordinance update discussion. Two of the members of the Council sit on the advisory committee for that. And if it's the pleasure and consensus of the Council, we can certainly, you know, add that specific item as a discussion point. I can tell you that as we're—working with the consultant team—discussion of our PUD process and how it works will be part of the zoning ordinance update. And so it would be very easy to just fold into that discussion then also a recommendation or some feedback from that group about the voting standards for PUDs as well. [24:59] **Councilmember Edberg:** Thank you, Mayor. So member Walsh and I are on the zoning committee. My recollection, Mr. Walsh, is that you were open to that discussion as well. So Mr. Lindahl, would you make plans to incorporate this discussion in as part of the zoning? I think that's a great suggestion and you've got access to the voices that are interested in thinking about that. So do you need further guidance from the Council or are we good to go? [25:30] **Mr. Lindahl:** No, I think that's pretty clear direction and we can make sure we add that to our to-do list. [25:35] **Mayor:** Thank you. Okay, and just as a matter of process, if it would indeed require an amendment to the charter, if maybe the City Attorney or Mr. Lindahl could refresh my recollection of how this body sends word to the Charter Commission? Because we haven't done it during my tenure. I'd like a little primer on that, whether it's tonight or down the road, if the City Attorney knows off the top of his head. [26:00] **City Attorney:** So Mr. Mayor and Council, I don't know that there's a formal process that I'm aware of. I've been around long enough to see some communications go back and forth. The times I've dealt with this, it's the city indicating that "We would like you, Charter Commission, to consider this, and here's why," and then they have that discussion. But perhaps someone knows a more formal process, but I haven't seen it. [26:24] **Ms. Crawford (City Manager):** Mayor, I would just add—we did ask the Charter Commission to analyze the terms for City Attorney, and we did that via a letter from the Mayor to the Charter Commission. I think a letter collectively from maybe the Council chair and the Mayor could come to the Charter Commission that way. [26:44] **Mayor:** So then it just becomes a question of for this—but I'm happy doing that. I mean, then it's properly before us because that's the predicate that needs to fall in place, otherwise our hands are tied. So if that's something that I'm getting some head nods that we want to do, I'm fine indicating that and starting that process, because that in and of itself can take some time. And just timing it with the zoning code revamp—is that sufficient? We can get going on that sooner rather than later, to my way of thinking. [27:18] **Councilmember Edberg:** It's excellent. I think the worst situation that I can picture is that one or more requests for PUD might come in, and they would be—I'm going to guess that it would have to be covered under our current three-fifths rule. And then any four-fifths that might result from conversation and changes down the road would apply to future applications. So we've got a little donut hole here, but it's probably manageable. [27:49] **Mayor:** Okay, very good. We'll do that then. All right, item 8A: 2502 County Road E Redevelopment Grant application on behalf of Element Design Build. Ms. Shimik, are you taking this? [28:02] **Ms. Shimik (Community Development):** I am. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mayor, members of Council, we—I am here tonight requesting Council's approval of an application for a grant to the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) Redevelopment Grant Program. That state department operates a few grant programs that are intended to facilitate the redevelopment of Brownfield and contaminated sites. This particular program is intended to incentivize the redevelopment of older blighted industrial, residential, or commercial properties, recognizing that these projects typically have higher costs in development that are specifically related to the redevelopment of the site that a greenfield project would not have. [29:00] **Ms. Shimik:** This program was designed by the legislature to bring blighted sites back into productive use, which might not otherwise be attractive investments to developers or communities. The program requirements are that the eligible applicants are cities, counties, port authorities, and other public agencies. Private developers may not apply to this particular program; however, the public entities who are eligible for the program are eligible to apply on behalf of private projects. [29:34] **Ms. Shimik:** I'd like to point out that the grant program does require a 50% local match; however, that local match can come from a variety of sources available to the local agency, including from the private developer. In this instance, Element Design Build has approached staff requesting that we apply for this grant application on their behalf, and they would be committing the local match funds. They're not asking the city to contribute any funds to the program. [30:03] **Ms. Shimik:** They, based on their financial analysis, anticipate the redevelopment cost for the site to be about $230,000 and are therefore requesting about $115,000 from the state program. The uses that they're looking to offset at the 2502 County Road E include demolition of existing structures, demolition of existing hardscape, city water connection upgrade, city sewer connection upgrade, stormwater piping, biofiltration basin, street curb apron and sidewalk replacements, and the Jansen Avenue sidewalk addition. All of these are eligible expenses for the program. [30:47] **Ms. Shimik:** This is a competitive program. They offer semiannual grant applications typically due on February 1st and August 1st, if I recall correctly. This year DEED anticipates awarding about $2 million for each round. Staff is recommending that Council adopt the attached resolution approving the grant application and authorizing the mayor and city manager to enter into any necessary contracts in regards to the project. And with that, I will stand for questions. And also, Ryan McMillan is here on behalf of the developer to answer any questions Council may have of him. [31:33] **Mayor:** Thank you, Ms. Shimik. So just so I have this straight in my head: bottom line is it doesn't cost the city anything. We're standing in as a pass-through to help a developer build a project that the Council's already approved in the first place? That about it? [31:46] **Ms. Shimik:** Yes. There are some—it does require some administrative time on staff's part; however, I've reached out to a fellow metro area community and really we can structure it so that that time is minimal. So from a staff time standpoint, we're not overly concerned about that. We're certainly well-suited to manage that, absorb it, and it's not a concern. [32:10] **Mayor:** Okay, very good. Well, it seems like a no-brainer to me, but if the Council has a thought on it... [32:16] **Councilmember:** Approve. [32:17] **Mayor:** I have a motion. Do I have a second? [32:19] **Councilmember:** Second. [32:20] **Mayor:** Any further discussion on this? Councilmember Edberg. [32:22] **Councilmember Edberg:** Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So the additional nuance that I would add to your synthesis is that funds are being used to address high-priority issues including some of our own infrastructure—whether that's sidewalking and upgrades to the sewer system, etc. There's a public benefit that is derived from these upgrades as well, and they certainly speak to the interests that were raised in the approval process for the project. So I don't personally put these in the bucket of "subsidy of business." I think there's a public purpose that's being served as well. [33:04] **Mayor:** Any further discussion on this? All right, all those in favor say aye. (Group: Aye). Any opposed? Motion carries; the resolution passes. Item 8B: 2024 Legislative Priorities. Ms. Crawford, are you handling that? [33:20] **Ms. Crawford:** I am. Thank you, Mayor, members of the Council. So since beginning in 2021, the City Council has annually adopted a legislative priorities agenda. And so tonight we are going to talk about the potential 2024 legislative priorities. At a work session on January 16th, the Mayor and City Council did discuss, as I said, potential legislative priorities for 2024 and requested that five be brought forward for further consideration tonight. [34:05] **Ms. Crawford:** There is a narrative included in the Council packet which further discusses all of these, but just the five that are brought forward tonight are: 1. Supporting legislation providing funding assistance for building capacity for Urban Forest Management and meeting the cost of preparing for and responding to EAB (Emerald Ash Borer). 2. Continued funding support for lead water service remediation. 3. Support legislation to allow chief law enforcement officers the ability to access the National Crime History Database. 4. Oppose legislation that would limit or preempt local government zoning authority. 5. Lastly, clarify laws pertaining to the authority of school resource officers that they have in schools. [34:51] **Ms. Crawford:** The city is also a member of the League of Minnesota Cities and Metro Cities, and both organizations also create annual legislative priorities agendas. And the five outlined here before you do align with either current or previous League of Minnesota Cities and Metro Cities legislative priorities. Thank you. [35:12] **Mayor:** Thank you, Ms. Crawford. I'll just note for the record we had a good discussion about this at the last work session. We came to a good legislative agenda and list of priorities, so I have nothing further to add. Council, anything to discuss? Otherwise, I'd entertain a motion to approve the resolution. [35:30] **Councilmember Walsh:** Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'll move to approve the resolution. [35:34] **Councilmember:** I'll second. [35:35] **Mayor:** Motion and a second. Any further discussion? Councilmember Walsh. [35:37] **Councilmember Walsh:** And then just a comment—I mean, I voiced this in the work session, I just want to note my—I don't love one of the items. It's not enough for me to move to take it off the list or derail the agenda. I'm going to vote for the agenda, but this preempt local government zoning authority—the more I've been thinking about it, the more I don't love our involvement in it. It's really not for White Bear Lake; we're really, as we know, kind of built out. We don't have big developments coming in, big plots of land. [36:09] **Councilmember Walsh:** A lot of this legislation that this piece of the agenda opposes is things like requiring developers to use stone fronts on their new houses, lot size limits—they have to be a certain size which requires a large or leads to a large house. It just leads to a lot of things that increase the cost of housing in Minnesota, which does affect White Bear Lake. The general metro area and state cost of housing going up is not a good thing for us as a city. [36:39] **Councilmember Walsh:** And then this one bullet point about, you know, increasing funding for state housing programs, which is something that this resolution would support—that's actually counterintuitive. The more the state puts money into programs like that does not actually bring the cost down. It's a kind of a perverse economic function similar to childcare and other things where the state puts money into the current system without changing any of the parameters; it actually doesn't address cost. So I don't love this one, but like I said, it's not enough to derail the entire agenda, which I think is really good, and I will help promote it at the Capitol. [37:16] **Mayor:** Very good. Any further discussion on this? Seeing none, all those in favor say aye. (Group: Aye). Opposed? Motion carries and that resolution passes. Item nine: discussion—nothing scheduled. Item 10: Communications from the City Manager. [37:44] **Ms. Crawford:** I do not have any updates tonight. [37:46] **Mayor:** Very good. All right, I would entertain a motion to adjourn. [37:49] **Councilmember:** Move. [37:50] **Councilmember:** Second. [37:51] **Mayor:** All those in favor say aye. (Group: Aye). We're adjourned. [37:55] **Councilmember Walsh:** That res—quick. We're staying here? I should have thought of this earlier, but it's not too late. We passed a resolution on consent tonight that refers to an agreement that the City Attorney drew up between us and—I should see that agreement. I passed a resolution to approve an agreement... I have no idea... yes, trust you guys, but I really feel like I should see the agreement that I voted on.