This transcript features the Canon Falls City Council meeting. Based on the provided list of officials and the context of the dialogue, here is the formatted transcription. **[0:28] Speaker Name:** [Background Noise / Paused] **[4:56] Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Call to order City of Canon Falls City Council meeting for Tuesday, February 20th, 2024. If I could get a roll call please. **[5:05] City Clerk Sara Peer:** Guesmi? **[5:06] Council Member Derek Guesmi:** Here. **[5:07] City Clerk Sara Peer:** Nordin? **[5:08] Council Member Steve Nordin:** Here. **[5:09] City Clerk Sara Peer:** Jeppesen? **[5:10] Council Member Ryan Jeppesen:** Here. **[5:11] City Clerk Sara Peer:** Johnson? **[5:12] Council Member Diane Johnson:** Here. **[5:13] City Clerk Sara Peer:** Kronenberger? **[5:14] Council Member Laura Kronenberger:** Here. **[5:15] City Clerk Sara Peer:** Nobach? **[5:16] Council Member Chris Nobach:** Here. **[5:17] City Clerk Sara Peer:** Montgomery? **[5:18] Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Here. Uh, we're going to rise for the Pledge of Allegiance, but as we stand, we are going to observe a moment of silence in honor of the heroes that lost their lives Sunday in Burnsville—the two police officers and the medical technician firefighter who were gunned down. So we are going to respect them and have our moment of silence before we say the Pledge of Allegiance. **[5:55] Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Please join me in saying 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. Thank you, everybody. If I could get an approval—before I ask for the approval of tonight's agenda, we're going to remove item C from the consent agenda. There is some ongoing paperwork for the John Birch Park user agreement that has been brought up, so we were going to remove that from the consent agenda. With that said, if I could get a motion to approve tonight's agenda. **[6:34] Council Member Diane Johnson:** So it's not on the agenda at all? **[6:36] Mayor Matt Montgomery:** It's not on the agenda. It's being removed from tonight's agenda. **[6:41] Council Member Diane Johnson:** It's all right. Move to accept the agenda. **[6:43] Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Motion from Diane. Do I have a second? **[6:45] Council Member Ryan Jeppesen:** Second. **[6:46] Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Second from Mr. Jeppesen. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Carries. Nobody has signed up for public input, so we're going to go straight to consent agenda. The consent agenda items may be adopted under one motion as presented or may be removed for discussion and resolution as Council business. Item A: the just and correct claims for the accounting period that ended on February 15th. Item B: the meeting minutes for February 6th, 2024, City Council. Item C: approve Minnesota Energy Resource easement. Item D: approve the new therapeutic massage practitioner license for Karen O’Connor. Item E: resolution 2739 approving the conditional use permit for a used car dealership. And that is going to be it for the consent agenda. Is there anything the council would like to see pulled down? Hearing none, I'd seek a motion to approve the consent agenda. **[7:23] Council Member Derek Guesmi:** Motion. **[7:24] Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Motion from Guesmi. **[7:25] Council Member Diane Johnson:** Second. **[7:26] Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Second from Diane. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Carries. Brings us to Council business. Resolution 2738 authorizing the interfund loan for advance of funds to the EDA from the City of Canon Falls to finance Hardwood Estates. Laura, if you would like to start with this. **[8:13] Laura Qualey (Community Development Specialist):** Thank you, Mayor and Council. Um, the EDA last year, uh, in February and in April, had brought the Professional Service agreements forward to the council for the engineering services and construction for Hardwood Estates, and then the bid for Albits and Excavating. That resolution had been approved in October of '23, and the construction costs for that were 1.2 million estimated. Then, anyway, February 1st, our EDA met, and based on our auditor's guidance—after they had reviewed everything from '23—they had determined what fund from the city and which one from the EDA account would be the best ones for the interfund loan to be set up for, and which one the EDA should use to repay back the city account. So the EDA had passed a resolution at the February EDA meeting. So this evening, I am bringing forward a resolution to the Council basically requesting approval for resolution 2738 to establish that fund loan. That would be from the general fund of the city to the planning and EDA fund to cover the cost for construction of the Hardwood Estates. So, um, I would entertain any questions that you might have, but basically, it would be a 20-year term. The sum is $1,245,800 plus the engineering of those Professional Service agreements from WHKS. So that would be in addition to that 1.2 million. And then it would be the EDA reimbursing the city from the Planning and Zoning/EDA fund to the general fund over a 20-year length. With the lot sales that we generate, the sales from the lots that we sell is what we'll use to repay back that loan. It can be paid back in whole or in parts at any time. And then after that 20 years, it can be re-evaluated by whoever is sitting in your chairs if it is not you at that time. So, I would take any questions that you have. **[11:06] Council Member Ryan Jeppesen:** Who made these, like the loan agreement? Like who actually set 20 years, 0%? This is the actually the only problem I have with this, is the 0% part of it. You know, like Neil [Jon Radermacher] brought up, it has to be kind of run like a business. Well, there's no way a banker's ever going to give you a $1.2 million loan for 20 years at 0%. At least mine won't. So that'd be my only question. **[11:45] Laura Qualey (Community Development Specialist):** Okay. Well, and I guess, you know, from the beginning with this project, I guess my answer to you would be—and Neil [Jon] can certainly respond from his perspective too—but you know, with the difference between the EDA doing this project, our goal is not to necessarily profit from the sales of the lots. It's about the economic churn that it will create—whether it's the increase in the student enrollment, it's the workers hopefully that will move here that will either open businesses or start working for employers that are already here and spend money in our businesses. So that's different than a private developer that's looking to profit from it. So there's always kind of a blurry line when we're talking about the EDA being a government entity and the city being a government entity; it's kind of "robbing Peter to pay Paul" when you look at it that way. So if we look at it as a partnership, that's kind of where we look at—you know, hoping the city wouldn't charge an interest rate to the EDA. So that's our partnership and way of making this project happen. **[13:28] Council Member Ryan Jeppesen:** Do we not charge interest on our loans to like Keith Myers and...? **[13:34] Laura Qualey (Community Development Specialist):** We do. Yep, yep. And we do have—and we just re-evaluated and readjusted that policy just a couple years ago actually. Before it was like at a set 3%, and a couple years ago we did just re-evaluate that. And you know, but we have other incentives that we can use when we work with businesses as far as tax abatement or tax increment financing (TIF). In this case, we're creating market rate housing. There could be some ways, I suppose, if we wanted to structure a TIF district around housing, but it gets to be pretty complicated and harder if you're not doing a multi-family or income-based type of development. So it's hard for us to apply for incentives for ourselves in this particular development. It’d be different if we were given the land to help reduce the cost, but in this case, we're trying to make the best out of what the situation is. So I guess I'll defer to Neil if he has any other explanation. **[14:50] Jon Radermacher (City Administrator):** Well, you can do whatever you want. You can charge whatever interest rate you want. To me, the EDA is not an Enterprise fund where it's not a business fund—like your water, your sewer, your storm water, those are Enterprise funds. The EDA is more of a partnership. Now, if you were borrowing this money from the sewer fund, would you put an interest rate on it? Probably. Um, it really depends on the Council's feelings towards what's going on. But with the EDA, like Laura said, there's no incentives that we can go after. I mean we could, but then we'd have to change the development into something that probably wouldn't be as attractive to the city. So you as the Council can put any amount of interest rate on that development as you please. We put a 0% on there to be in a partnership. Now, the thought process all along was to borrow this as a one-time thing, use this money as the additions go through, and lot sales would create enough income—minus the payback of the initial—to fund the second phase and the third phase. You can change the terms and pay back all the money and then re-borrow it on another interfund loan, but we lumped it all in one because they thought we would use that cash to fund the next phases and then at the end of the day, pay the money back to the city. We're all—the EDA is the city. So that was a thought process. In reality, yes, you have the ability to charge what you would like. We used 0% as a partnership. So if you want to have that discussion, we can put whatever number you want in there. I just tried to make it simple for me to understand, and the 0% makes sense to me because it seems like we're borrowing money to each other inside the city as a whole, and to charge another account interest just doesn't seem to make sense to me. You're taking money from this fund to give to this fund, and it's kind of like in the same household. I'm not saying that you're wrong, I'm just saying that it's one big part of the whole system. It's not like "they're the EDA and we're the city"; they're part of the city and it's the same pie, we're just moving the pieces around. That's how I looked at it. If the Fire Department needs a new truck today and they don't have the funds available, they get the funds from us, and that payback is relatively the same way—we get the money back that we gave them in the first place at no extra expense. Are you sure of that? **[19:05] Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Well, I think when we look at the entirety of Hardwood Estates, when the EDA brought this up, we were asking the city for support in this. And I understand you're absolutely right, in the private sector alone you're going to have an interest rate, but these are two piggy banks under the same umbrella. So to charge one entity to try to pay back the other, it ends up costing our community in the long run. Well, I'm willing to gamble on the future of Canon Falls. I support this community, and I think that our votes in the past have shown that Hardwood Estates—I don't want to say it's a "safe bet," but we all believe in this community. We want that place to be full. We made that decision months ago; we're not waiting for the private sector, we're not waiting for interest rates. The EDA didn't act independently because we knew it would have cost more money. Once we had the support of the Council, we said we're moving forward with this project. We sell the lots, we pay back, we open the door for phase two, three, and four. I feel like this is just working together in concert, and if at 0% we can not cost our taxpayers any extra money, it's the right thing to do. Any other questions or comments for Laura or Neil? **[20:36] Council Member Diane Johnson:** I will say it costs us money to loan the money without interest because it means that it's not available for other projects. But that's just another... I won't argue. I would agree with Ryan that I think we should charge at least 5% interest. The other thing is I think the length of the loan should be 5 years. I think that the lot sales instead of "as they will be" should be "must be" used to repay the loan. And I think in 5 years, the new Council at that point should have the opportunity whether or not to fund phase three or phase four, as opposed to this Council tying the hands of future councils. So I would like to see this redone to have a 5-year loan, the lot sales used to repay the loan... and I have a spreadsheet because I wanted to get my numbers straight. And I know the city has already agreed to all of these things, but when we say... there again, you never have a loan where you have an open-ended number. So we've got the actual one bid plus engineering costs and I'm assuming the other costs that we've incurred up to this point, which the city has already paid. We've already paid out $749,319.16 out of the fund 413. So I'm wondering when they're asking for this money to be transferred—I know that's some kind of an accounting trick where it's the loan for the whole amount, but a lot of it's already been expended, so there only be the remaining amount that actually was put into that fund. I mean, we're asking for at this point a 1.414 million dollar loan if you add in the engineering cost. Most of that has already been paid, or a great deal of it. There's only $665,000 left on the excavating company. So I'm assuming we don't give them all of that money if we've already spent a good deal of it, but that I'm assuming is some kind of an accounting thing that it comes out as that amount that the loan would be for. **[22:25] Mayor Matt Montgomery:** But let's put a pause on breaking the numbers down and maybe walk back to the general purpose of the interfund loan for advance. Am I correct to say that this is what our auditor had suggested us to do? Because we had already agreed as the Council that the city would basically be like the co-signer, if you will, to support this project. That has already happened, right? Okay, so this was our auditor saying, "Hey, there should be a structure so that the funds can go back and forth so that you get the loan from and then you pay back." So all these details and these numbers—I'm not saying that they're irrelevant—but we're talking about tonight the interfund loan itself. If terms are still flexible, I guess we can talk terms—the percent and the years. I think it's extremely dangerous to try to push it to five years because we've seen communities like Goodhue do a housing development; it can take 15 or 20 years and they're still building houses. We were looking long-term. I don't think that trying to build our community is handcuffing our future. I would hope that that Council—not necessarily on board with the project but betting on our community, on our future, on our growth—would see that. Trying to limit that window to 5 years I think is more dangerous because then this would be wasted money. Then we would be costing our taxpayers more by saying, "Well, we gave it a shot, we didn't like it, we shut it down," and now it's a field with two houses in there. I think that's silly. I think the ball is rolling downhill, we keep this project on track, and I hope that it's a nice responsible growth. I would love to see those lots sell and be able to pay back this loan and say that it's a success within 3 years, but I don't want to limit ourselves to a term just because we had this idea to say "well we should make it shorter and charge our city more." I think that's foolish. Any other thoughts, questions from the Council? **[25:13] Jon Radermacher (City Administrator):** I just got one comment that Diane did send out a little spreadsheet here, but what we're talking about is an interfund loan for a certain dollar amount. The EDA has paid money for the first payment and the second payment out of their fund, right? And a lot of this money was paid out of their fund. They're not asking you to put that in this interfund loan; that's already money that the EDA has paid out. So when you look at these numbers, that's for the total amount, but there's a whole bunch of that in that spreadsheet that's been paid by the EDA. It’s not part of this interfund loan. **[26:01] Council Member Diane Johnson:** Well, okay... **[26:03] Jon Radermacher (City Administrator):** Fund 413—where all of the engineering/excavating is—that's the project number. Every time we do a project, we attach a number to it. Your 2024 reconstruction project has a project number; everything that we do with that goes into there. We don't grab and put it over here so we know what everything costs. Now, this interfund loan will be a circle. It'll start out as general fund money, it'll go to the EDA money, and then it'll go to 413. **[26:48] Council Member Diane Johnson:** And I'll—like I said—I only go with what I can figure out from what limited information we're given. At least it was nice to be able to find it all in the one fund. **[27:10] Jon Radermacher (City Administrator):** And just so you know, you're spot on with that $749,000 because it matches our spreadsheet off the account. **[27:14] Council Member Diane Johnson:** I never guarantee that I type in numbers correctly! I have a tendency to transpose. **[27:23] Jon Radermacher (City Administrator):** But the EDA on your spreadsheet—EDA has picked up two payments. They were... **[27:29] Council Member Diane Johnson:** Yeah, I have that. That's under fund 260. I have them having paid that. Yeah. But I also know the council did agree—the old Council—that if they couldn't make the repayments, the city would help out there also, I think. So we need just to be aware of that. I would still—and I will agree with Mr. Mayor that I'll let the finance people figure out how the money goes around in circles—but I would still like to have an actual number for the loan. Are there going to be more engineering costs on phase one or phase two, or are we pretty much done with those? **[28:19] Laura Qualey (Community Development Specialist):** It should be under those two because the first Professional Service agreement was for the pre-construction, like the pre-plat and the conceptual designs and everything. And then the second one was including all of the infrastructure, all of the oversight of Albitson (or whoever was going to get the bid). It was everything included in that. And then once the bid for the excavating company was assigned, that was at 1.2 million. **[29:02] Council Member Diane Johnson:** Do we still owe them more on those contracts, the engineer? **[29:05] Laura Qualey (Community Development Specialist):** Yes, because the construction isn't done yet. **[29:08] Council Member Diane Johnson:** So like I said, I would just feel better if we had more of a "real" figure in terms of the amount to be considered this loan. And I'll say five years might be too soon, but I would like it to be on 10 years, because I do think if we haven't gotten 29 homes built in 10 years, Matt, we got more problems than that. And yes, I want to see it succeed now that it's there and this money is all committed and spent. But I also want us to be flexible enough that if 10 years from now when we're looking at phase three, we might say we need to move in a different direction based on whatever the needs are of the community at the time. I don't know that any of us have a crystal ball and can see 10 years. I mean, everybody now is saying we don't want to limit it to single-family homes; we want to intersperse townhomes and apartments in different neighborhoods to get more housing units built. **[30:31] Laura Qualey (Community Development Specialist):** And that's also why we're doing it in phases. We start with 29 in phase one, and then depending on what the housing needs are after that is complete, the whole phase two, three, and four might be built out in 10 years. You don't know. **[30:46] Mayor Matt Montgomery:** But I think we could also press pause in this and take action in 10 years and change things versus putting the finish line 10 years earlier than what we're talking about right now. I just don't see any harm in the 20 years, 0%. I don't feel that there's any advantage to try to move the finish line earlier; I think that limits us and maybe even puts more pressure on trying to push it. **[31:26] Council Member Ryan Jeppesen:** Well, the Council could change it too, couldn't they? 10 years down the road, could the EDA change what they're asking for? **[31:29] Jon Radermacher (City Administrator):** Sure. **[31:32] Council Member Derek Guesmi:** Is this money budgeted already in our budget for this? **[31:38] Jon Radermacher (City Administrator):** Yeah, all this stuff was approved. We talked about where we were going to get it all from back in that time period. All we're doing tonight is following our auditor's advice. We depend on them; we pay them a pretty chunk of money every year—it's $30-plus thousand to do our audit—and with that, they help us set up these funds. We want to do it once and not twice, so we ask them how to set it up before we even start. They're the experts in the field, and this is their work; this is how they wanted it set up. So we're just bringing it to you to get it onto the next audit for 2023. **[33:01] Council Member Ryan Jeppesen:** One thing we got to remember: when these houses are built, we get more tax revenue. These houses are getting built a lot sooner having the EDA do it than waiting on a private developer, because we've sat and waited for how many private developers around town? The EDA is already going. And another thing too is if we charge interest, that's a direct increase in the cost of our lots, which we're trying to hold down anyway. If the city has to have a little skin in the game to get the houses up and the new homeowners starting to pay taxes, I think it's a gain. The 20-year thing—the reason I like that is in 10 years you might have a Council that shuts it down, and now we got a half a field and everybody's staring at that thing. We've already had one of those things going on on the south end of town. Once this thing starts rolling, I just think we need to make sure it keeps going. I just feel good about it the way it is. **[34:10] Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Any other questions or comments? If not, I would entertain a motion to approve resolution 2738. **[34:25] Council Member Chris Nobach:** Motion. **[34:27] Council Member Derek Guesmi:** Second. **[34:34] Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Motion from Mr. Nobach, second from Mr. Guesmi. All those in favor? Roll call. We'll take this vote first. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? **[34:41] Council Member Diane Johnson:** No. **[34:42] Mayor Matt Montgomery:** So that's a 5 to 1. It passes. Council Business Item B: introduction and first reading of ordinance 404, an ordinance of the City of Canon Falls amending City Code chapter 152 related to zoning. Zach, you want to take this one? **[35:10] Zach (City Planner):** Yeah, good evening, Mayor and Council. For you tonight is an ordinance text amendment amending parts of our city code relating to zoning of residential treatment facilities. Currently, there's a moratorium in place that prohibits residential treatment facilities from operating in residential areas; however, that moratorium expires in May of this year. So for the past five-ish months, we've been working with the Planning Commission to figure out a way where we can have these facilities operate in our city while also making sure the public is safe. You'll notice there's a new definition in your packet that separates the definitions from treatment facilities from centers that deal with emotional disturbance or drugs, that sort of thing. These new facilities that deal with drugs/emotional disturbance are now called "rehab centers," and there's language in our city code that prohibits them from operating in residential areas. These rehab centers were allowed and they're still allowed in the B2 districts—the south end of town—via a conditional use permit. However, we also added some new conditions that must be met in order for them to obtain their permit. So this has been going on for a while now. I did a lot of research into what other cities are doing, working with our City Attorney Shelly to make sure we follow all the Minnesota statutes. What you guys have is a product of all that work. I'll take any questions that you guys might have. **[36:52] Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Does this affect our moratorium in any way at the time being? **[36:56] Zach (City Planner):** Uh, no. I think we're just going to let our moratorium expire and then when this—when you guys hopefully approve this—then it'll take effect then. **[37:05] Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Perfect. Great job on this. With any existing business that acts like this, is it a conditional use permit? Could we ever put some of the regulations that are put in this document—which are wonderful—can we...? **[37:25] Zach (City Planner):** It can't be renewed. It's never under inspection or anything. It's grandfathered. If there was to ever be a new owner, then could we... **[37:34] Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Okay. Because, not to get off track, but I remember when we talked about conditional use then it was basically like road parking and it was very limited. I love the language in here about the trees, the fencing... it just seems like there's more aspects of control that's fair to the people who live in the vicinity. It's obviously a good business and has a great intention and that's wonderful, but I really like how this was put together. Any other questions for Zach? Hearing none, I would seek approval or a motion to approve introduction and first reading of ordinance 404. **[38:15] Council Member Diane Johnson:** So moved. **[38:16] Council Member Ryan Jeppesen:** Second. **[38:18] Mayor Matt Montgomery:** I got a motion from Diane, second from Ryan. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? It carries. Gets us to reports. Chamber of Commerce—Maggie is not here, but after our last meeting, the chamber breakfast was held and I got to give the State of the City address. In my State of the City last year, I said that our economy was promising, and this year I used the word encouraging. I know they sound really similar, but what I said is last year we had a lot of ideas that were floating out on the horizon, and now those ideas are here and coming to fruition. Lots are sold, the parking lot at the Keller Bartman apartment complex is full, people are moved in. We are seeing these things grow right before us, so it's thrilling. I also got to talk about the year that was 2023. Honor all of our people: Brenda, Suo, our police team. The things that we dealt with this last year—I'm sure a lot of you remember the evacuation at The Terrace. We were dealing with the Terrace a lot, talking about what we're going to do with that building. Tim Malchow had to go there last March and lead an evacuation to keep residents safe in a building that was deemed uninhabitable. We had a shooting, we had a SWAT team have to come, we had a lockdown for our community. I know that lives were saved that day; things could have been much, much worse. And then the apartment fire, which I know that Suo has been awarded for. I've never met anybody that's in law enforcement or medical services or firefighting that does it for the recognition or the awards, but the stories that Chief McCormack said of that day—breaking through the window, saving two young kids and then getting hit by a falling curtain rod, being taken to the hospital for smoke inhalation and burns and then returning to work that same night—I think that says a lot about Suo. I think it also says a lot about our EMS staff and their willingness to put other people's safety as their priority and to see it through. So that was the chamber event; it was a very good breakfast. Finance committee met on the 12th. Steve or Derek, if you'd like to...? **[40:41] Council Member Derek Guesmi:** Oh yeah. Um, we talked about the liquor and sexually oriented business fees. If we do change anything, it'll be later this year, and then we discussed the Canon model assessments. **[40:54] Mayor Matt Montgomery:** All right. The Library Board also met on the 12th. **[40:55] Council Member Lisa Zimmerman:** Yep. Nicole got a grant to help pay for doors, and there's going to be a new Selco app available. I checked before the meeting; it's not there yet. **[41:09] Mayor Matt Montgomery:** All right. Planning Commission also met on the 12th. **[41:10] Council Member Chad Johnson:** We had two things on the agenda and we had two public hearings. One was to discuss the conditional use permit for "Cars under 10k" which we approved tonight—which is going up across from Nate's shop up there where the old car lot was. And the other one was the text amendment relating to the zoning of residential treatment facilities, which we discussed and passed tonight too. So that was all we had. **[41:33] Mayor Matt Montgomery:** All right, thank you. Jed, anything from you? **[41:34] Jed Petersen (Public Works Director):** I don't have anything tonight. **[41:35] Mayor Matt Montgomery:** All right. Zach? Sir? Laura? **[41:36] Laura Qualey (Community Development Specialist):** No. **[41:37] Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Chief? **[41:38] Chief Jeff McCormack (Police Chief):** Thank you for the moment of silence at the start of the meeting. I just like to thank those that reached out to Chief McCormack and our department to show your support for our police officers. It's greatly appreciated. **[41:51] Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Thank you. Sarah? **[41:52] City Clerk Sara Peer:** Just a reminder, there is not a council meeting on March 5th. That will be the presidential nomination primary that will be happening here. So 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. I'll be here, come see me. **[42:07] Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Neil [Jon], anything you'd like to add? **[42:15] Jon Radermacher (City Administrator):** Nope. **[42:16] Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Lisa? **[42:17] Council Member Lisa Zimmerman:** No, I'm good, thank you. **[42:18] Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Ryan? **[42:19] Council Member Ryan Jeppesen:** See you in a month. **[42:20] Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Derek? **[42:21] Council Member Derek Guesmi:** No. **[42:22] Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Diane? **[42:23] Council Member Diane Johnson:** No. **[42:24] Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Steve? **[42:25] Council Member Steve Nordin:** I want to say thank you or congratulations to the Bomber dance team; they made it to State and got to perform. I think in one of the categories they placed sixth, so congratulations on another great year. Um, yeah, that moment of silence—for whatever reason this one... we've dealt with too many of these things as a country and as a state, but this one hit me hard. I have very close friends and family who are in law enforcement. And yeah, this one... I've heard horror stories, and when you go deal with domestics, it just seems like you never know which way things can turn. So our thoughts and prayers are with you guys, and you definitely have our support as a community. And if you ever need anything to go and assist Burnsville, you let us know and we support it. **[43:08] Mayor Matt Montgomery:** All right. I would take a motion to adjourn. **[43:10] Council Member Derek Guesmi:** Motion. **[43:11] Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Motion from Guesmi. Do I have a second? **[43:12] Council Member Lisa Zimmerman:** Second. **[43:13] Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Second from Lisa. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? We're adjourned. Thank you, everybody.