have 702. We will call the town board meeting for April 6, 2026 to order. First item on the agenda is the agenda. Patrick, any changes? >> Um, no changes to the agenda from staff. Mr. Chair, >> does the board have anything? >> Nothing from me. >> Nothing from me. >> I need a motion to approve the agenda. Move to approve the agenda as submitted. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I >> I opposed. Motion carries. Approval. Payment of the bills. You signed, Steve? >> I reviewed the bill, signed the bills. Make motion to pay the bills as submitted. >> Motion made second. All in favor? >> I I opposed. That motion carries. Item four is approval of prior meeting minutes of March 16th. Anybody have any changes? >> I do not. >> I do not either. Move to approve the minutes uh for the March 16th meeting. >> Second. >> Motion's made and second. All in favor say I. >> I. All opposed. >> All right. Item five is a consent agenda. We have seven of these. Um if no one wishes to pull them off, we will pass them along. >> I'm good. >> I'm good. >> All right. Hearing none, I need a motion. >> Then we make the motion for consent u agenda items A through G. I'll second that. >> Motion's made and second. All in favor say I. I. >> All opposed. That motion carries. Right. >> Mr. Chair, >> I I apologize, but I have lied to the board. We're going to have to change our agenda. Um >> 6B will go first. We are waiting for our guest from Lo to show he or he is at the administrative offices. He's on his way right now. So, if we could do 6B first while we wait for Mr. Garcela to show, that would be appreciated. >> All right. Are you going to give us an overview on that one? >> Sure. Um so as we've uh alluded to in a couple of meetings here in the last few months uh in terms of space usage for township events being meetings or in this case elections um the White Bear Lake Area School District had contacted us after receiving a variety of concerned um uh parents about safety and security of kids at schools. Um we uh kicked around having our annual meeting there. Um we were told no. Uh we wanted to have one of our polling places there again uh for this up upcoming election. We were told no, which in the in uh at light of shooting uh in the fall at a school. Um their concerns I think were were warranted. So, we've gone back and forth um with not only Ramsey County um but the superintendent for Wiper Lake Area Schools trying to find a um different facility to accommodate us. It sounds like um they are going to make a few changes to Tamarak Nature Center so that they could um host a polling place for our precinct sinks one and five. in the upcoming election and we do have to declare those by statute. Correct, Chad? >> That's correct. >> And we are asking to declare that that spot uh or the four different uh locations for our polling places this fall, including Tamarak Nature Preserve Center. >> Well, obviously all our polling places have to be in the township. >> Yep. where we're also dealing with our annual meetings because this room handles our annual meetings and sometimes it can get a little crowded but we don't have a lot of options being a township. Um what what exactly now I my grandkids go to Tamar and I know there's some gravel >> driveway issue or sidewalk issues but is that the only thing? So, those became ADA access issues um that they are going to improve in advance of the fall elections and I will give the board some uh status reports on those as we move along through the season. Um since this is really a Ramsey County um place, I mean really it really property. >> Uh but we mentioned our own meetings. Have we explored or can we explore the township theater which is available and in the township and does have uh auditorium capabilities for our meetings >> for just a for just an annual or budget meeting >> for Yes. >> Suppose I could ask. I I think it's too late for the polling place. Yeah. >> But I I but it was since we mentioned it, I think we that's about the only other option. >> Um that's large enough uh for anything. >> Well, we had it at the um the theater. Can we not consider the White Barrett Center? >> Is that in the township? >> Well, the theater wasn't in the township. >> Yes. >> The imagined theater is in the township, >> right? >> No, no, no, no. uh lecture handful. >> No, that's not in township. >> That's what we voted. That's where that's where I had to vote. >> Um that was Ramsey County decision made because Eaglebrook was >> uh being renovated and they chose that spot. I don't know how we ended up there as a polling place, but >> Yeah. It was not the way it should been done. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Well, that cleared that up. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Um, I'm happy to check with the town Whitebeard Township Theater. >> Yeah, but as far as the polling place, I I don't think we have any other option. >> Yeah, I think and it's it's a really nice central spot, too. So, I think it makes the most sense. >> All right. Any other questions of staff? Otherwise, I need a motion to adopt the resolution. I'll move to adopt the resolution designating the polling place for the 2026 elections as noted in the uh uh material not only for precinct 1 and five at Tamarak but the rest as noted 2 3 4 and five two would be Lakeshore Players Theater which there again uh is not in the township. Number three, Southshore Trinity, which is in the township, and number four, which is Heritage Hall, which is a mutual uh property of both the township and the city of Gem Lake. Correct. >> So, I I guess we have a we have the locations, but uh our town attorney says that that really is Lakeshore Players. The Hanniful Center is not in the township. >> I'm going to have to check that to make sure. I don't It's in the city of White Bear. I don't know >> how positive it is, too. Yeah. >> How positive? >> I think the railroad tracks is the uh boundary, >> but >> So, how do we proceed? When is the deadline to designate this by the way? >> End of this month. >> So, we could bring this table this and bring this back to our next meeting. >> Why don't you approve the ones that you know for sure in the townships and we'll check on the other one. That's a question. So, Mr. uh chair or Mr. Attorney, uh the uh Heritage Hall does qualify because it's a dual it's our designated meeting hall. >> Heritage Hall is proper because it's within the boundaries of the township. Fact is, Heritage Hall is owned jointly by the city of Gem Lake and the township. Nonetheless, it's still within the boundaries of the township. >> So, that's fine. So, with that, um, I'm How can we resolve how can we make a resolution if we're miss if we're short of a spot? >> You can make the res resolution for the three other properties. >> Okay. I'll make a resolution for precinct one, precinct 3 and precinct 4 and precinct 5, excluding precinct 2 until it's clarified. Uh, if we can use Lakeshore Players Theater as a polling place. >> I'll second. >> All right. Motion's made and second. Just one comment, Chad. If if I know we have to have our annual meetings in the township orders, >> right? >> But if Ramsey County can set up polling places, do they have to be in the township? Is that a is that a statute? >> Yeah, >> that's good. That's a good point. Yeah, >> we're under the thumb of Ramsey County. So, >> yeah, they're the ones conducting it. Yeah, they do conduct it. But nonetheless, then the Well, see, now that's interesting because actually the only elections that have to be within the township are the township elections. The elections for state >> general for county and general and state and federal. They don't necessarily have to be in the township, >> but we do have two seats up for >> right >> election this fall. And normally that's become an issue simply because we've switched as was explained earlier, we've switched to a system in which the elections for the town board occur at the same time as the general elections first Tuesday of November. I'll double check it, but my understanding is the voting places have to be within the township for at least for the township board. >> We will get clarity on that. Okay. >> Motion's been made. Second. All in favor? I. All >> opposed. All right. We'll wait to hear on that. >> Our guest for 6A is here, Mr. >> All right, we'll go back to the third three-party joint powers agreement. Uh, you want to start us off with this, Patrick? >> Yeah, Mr. Chair and board. Um, Mike Gula, he is here from Lina Lakes to discuss the three-party JPA that both staff, elected officials, and legal counsel from multiple entities have been working on here for the last >> year and a half. >> Year and a half. Yeah. Let let's just clarify. JPA is a joint powers agreement. This is an agreement between the township, the city of North Oaks and the city of Lo. >> Correct. For water delivery. >> Under statute, municipalities can contract with each other under that statute, but it has to be under that statute. So, that is the background. Mike has come here to join us and answer questions and hopefully we can get this thing taken care of. Thanks, Mike. >> We just need your name and address for the record, Mike. >> Sure. Uh, Mr. Chair and board members. Uh, Michael Gchella. I'm the community development director with the city of Lionyl Lakes, 600 Town Center Parkway, Lannel Lakes, Minnesota. And I appreciate uh staff on the board uh working with us over the past year and a half or so plus or minus. Uh it's been kind of a a back and forth seesaw affair with uh both the city of North Oaks and Lo and and the town trying to get these all these components uh put together. And ultimately what we're trying to do is uh connect into the sanitary sewer system here that was installed uh uh a few decades ago going up Centerville Road and then as well as temporarily use water uh for a a period of time until we're able to get our uh utilities down to this location. So we anticipate under the terms of the agreement uh 10 years with a potential for a couple extensions on that for the water side of things. But here to uh answer any questions you might have. So temporary is in your definition of temporary is 10 years minimum. >> 10 years minimum. Yes. >> So long temporary. >> Yes. >> And what were the other two extensions you just mentioned? >> So within the agreement itself, we have a a 10-year period with an option to renew for two 5-year periods. Um and that would have to be agreed on by all parties for those extensions. And that's just simp solely for water. Uh the sanitary sewer agree uh term under this is indefinite. It's 99 years. Um, in terms of that's ultimately our our plan for flow is coming down that Centerville trunk line. And >> so you're just so I'm clear, your your water connection that you're talking about in the future comes from what you're building up on Birch off of Birch up there coming from Birch. Yep. Along right now we're about a mile and a half away with our water. Uh there's a a trunk line 12-in line on at uh Holly Drive and Holly Court kind of northwest of this site and then otherwise straight up on Bir Street. >> Mike, may maybe just for township residents, you want to just give a little overview of the site. It's on the northwest corner of Centerville and Jay called Wilkinson Waters, I believe. >> Yes. Um so the intent is to service a development called Wilkinson Waters. uh that consists of about 340 residential units. Uh there are three three planned multifamily buildings as part of that. Uh there are two market rate buildings in a potential senior expansion of the Waverly Gardens Presbyterian Homes complex. And then there are four uh approximately 40 town home units that will be part of that. And there is a small commercial area on the corner that would be included in that development. Any idea when they're going to start? They finally have their JPA. >> When we have a JPA. Uh, yep. So, that we've been holding them off on uh on that. Uh, they certainly they did start grading activities last year to do some of the preliminary work and that was kind of tied in with uh some opportunities that the interchange reconstruction presented itself. So, they've done that. But as soon as they would start this May um on the initial one of the initial multif family buildings in the town homes, >> I know you have a huge pile of dirt sitting there. >> Yeah, they'll be moving that. uh one one of the board's concerns and actually our attorney because of the White Bear Lake lawsuit the lake level that um we we wanted to be certain that with us supplying water to this uh project be the city of North Oaks that there would be no water used for uh or sprinkling. So what we've included uh with the development proposals out there um is currently they are required to put it install a surface water reuse system. So they'll be using their storm water bond to provide uh uh irrigation to the entire development. The the positives there being most of it's under association or common ownership. So there's no individual single family lots within the development. So the irrigation system in its entirety will be hooked at up to that system. there would be an inter interconnect with the municipal system that would be metered um should for emergency situations we need to utilize that. So that is the only connection um if the board is if that's acceptable to the board which we can again we'll have that both that line or any of those connections metered with specific irrigation meters. >> There was there was no talk of an underground storage area was there? >> Um no not with this not with this project. because I know even the township is working on a plan for our Polar Lake Parks just to start trying to see if we could use surface water for irrigation. Sure. Trying to do everything we can to abide by this lawsuit. So, >> we've uh and and Lionel Lakes is invol has been continually involved in that over the past >> I think we're all on about year 13 um associated with that. Uh, but we did make sure from day one when they were sizing this that they could accommodate enough water within those storm water ponds to facilitate irrigation out there. >> Beth, questions, comments? >> No, I've been watching this pretty closely. I'm kind of happy with the fact that we're getting close to the end and thank you Lo. >> To be clear, the the total number of units are including the town homes and the is how many is three? uh there'd be 34 uh 300, excuse me, 340 residential units. Um and then if you factored in uh the potential commercial that could be out there, we're estimating um I think another 24 sack residential equivalency units with the commercial. >> Okay. So 360 >> Yeah. >> 370 to be on the high side. >> Yeah. >> Um >> Yes. Then uh and and this is for the purposes of this. It's all kind of in the same phase phase you're building because it's really you have a second proposal sitting out there yet. Correct. >> So um I'll say there's a future proposal being looked at um probably down the line from this. So the under the terms of this agreement, we're really servicing just that Wilkinson Waters development. There's some language in there that sets up future um future use mostly for the sanitary sewer because our our whole plan is to to feed into that line. >> Does that may ask the attorney would that require a different JPA >> or amendment >> amendment amendment to this JPA? >> An amendment to this JPA. >> Right. and and that would involve not only our the third party JPA but right back down the line like we are today with the city of North Oaks and us having one then they having the second one >> well okay remember there two separate JPA >> yes >> the two-parted JPA with North Oaks is not involved in this >> although it's we have to have that one before we proceeded this one >> correct yes um But in terms of additional units beyond the 340 residential, that has to be approved both by North Oaks, the township, and Lino Lakes. Hopefully, if they if anyone any one of the three parties could veto it if they wish. >> Okay. So, my I mean, the way it's it's written, I'm Okay. I just the question I have is I don't want to I I'm trying to figure out is is the township protected from being involved in um developer litigation as it going forward as it relates to this? Well, I'll just state publicly the developer never had any right to sue the township because the township never had a go a contract with the developer. >> Yeah. Yes. But with that said, the only the only party that can enforce this agreement would be either the township, city of Lena Lakes, or the city of North Oaks. And it should be there's language, I believe, in the should be hang on a second here. I'll point it out to you. Well, Chad, by by law, we don't have to give supply water to anyone. We're we're being good neighbors here and making this work. >> No, I I I do I do appreciate that. I'm just trying to make sure that the language is such that if this gets stalled in in the development process because we once our we agree to give the water to Lino Lakes, I don't want to be drugged into issues that have to do with delays that are beyond the issue of hooking up to our water or sewer. That's all I'm asking really. >> I'm sorry. I was looking for the note. >> Oh, that's fine. I'm I'm trying to f is there language in there that beyond just providing the water and the sewer that if it it gets delayed in the development process that we're held harmless going forward as it relates to the water or sewer that we are assigning our name to to agreement. >> Well, again, our only obligation, the township's only obligation is simply provide the water and provide the sewer sewer access. That's it. >> That's it. >> If there's a delay for some other reason, such as a zoning issue, planning issue, doesn't involve us whatsoever. And it's clear in that in this JPA that that doesn't involve us. It's just the supply of the sewer and water. >> That's because that's our obligation to that. And I would point out actually I was looking for it. It was uh it's actually the last clause of the agreements on page 12. No third party recourse uh under that language. No part there no third party has recourse against the town, Lino Lakes or North Oaks under this agreement. So basically this contra this creates no contractual rights in any third party such as a developer. That was we made a point of adding that >> this was in the insurance side of Steve coming out and understood. I think we've all scrutinized this in a lot of different ways. So >> yes, just for for the public, this is not a two-page document. It's a long detailed and arduous job to get to this point. So I just want to make sure I'm clear. >> No, no, it's it's there. >> Okay. >> The amount of water that we're allowed to draw, the DNR um tells us how much. Correct. Right. >> If they decide to change the number, do we have to go back and change our our agreements? >> Oh, that's a good point. >> Because it'll always be Whitebeard Township. >> That is, you know, that's a good point and that's something that we have to be concerned with because the DNR could change the township's allocations anytime it wish. >> Now, again, the township has the right to challenge those uh the those changes through an administrative procedure, but the DNR can do it. Well, what if you know, like I mean, let's face it, it's getting hotter. Maybe the water will dry up for some reason. You know, you just don't know. And if this, you know, if that happens, then we couldn't fulfill our agreement, correct? Or we'd have to preserve water us first. Well, we have we have a cushion. >> Okay. shall we say and there, you know, for what we're allowed to what we uh use and what we're allowing to go through the city of North Oaks and now Atlanta Lakes, we still have a cushion. So, unless they really come down with a hammer, I don't see that happening, but who knows? It's it's the DNR. >> Did you see a CO pandemic? >> Yeah. >> I mean, I'm just curious. >> That's right. I mean, that's a that's a that's an important component to this. the we're kind of operating a little bit here in the dark, Mike, is I I think you would attest with everything having to do with the lake level lawsuit is that we don't have anything firm that we have to follow right now that's not subject to being changed from the administrative courts here in the next couple years. >> And yes, >> and and and that might reflect on what's going on environmentally. So I I mean that's something that does need to be taken into cons. >> Well, just like you commented on the the rates that we charge are no more or no less than our own township residents, >> that would almost work with the same allocation. No more, no less. It it's allocated there's only if the state determines that we only have our allocation is going down, which to our knowledge is not the case. >> Um you know, we almost proportionally have to have some agreement that you These agreements are subject to the same reductions if it's a >> just for the residents. We pull all our water from an aquafer underground. We don't use any surface water where a lot of communities either use surface water or they get it from uh St. Paul water which they're pulling at surface water. So we're at a little bit of a disadvantage if like you say if the DNR monitors our wells and if they feel that all of a sudden they're going to limit our water usage. I hate to say it, but the first ones we'd have to eliminate would be North Oaks, Orlando Lake. >> Last ones in >> or any JPA, >> right? >> Yeah. >> So, our residents come first obviously. So, at a with that event happening, who knows? If I knew that, I wouldn't be sitting here be a rich man. >> So, is there language to to protect this? >> No. Well, there is language from the standpoint that >> the town can terminate it without cause, but >> three years. >> Three years. >> Mhm. >> So, in other words, any if the if the township terminates it, it the termination is not good for three, it would wouldn't be in effect for three years. The same thing we had with the North Oaks JPA. >> Mhm. and we say with the new norks JPA >> and understanding that as the potential from our partners on this. I think if we got to the point where the cuts on our use of water were so severe from the DNR that we would have to issue a three-year notice of termination. I think during that interim time we're working out amendments to the current JPA to accommodate those cuts. >> We would also be fighting this in court for three years. >> So that's right. I mean that wouldn't matter. >> I mean there's a lot of implicit guarantees as well as explicit. Um >> would there be some sort of >> would force me masure be >> force masure? Yeah. We could add a force majour clause to this. That's not part of it right now. That seems like force. I mean, if water was, you know, becoming rare, you know, you might want to, you know, this is all taking place at the same time that the we're working on our 2050 comprehensive plan, which includes um anticipating our future water water needs for any development that within the township and uh correct me if I'm wrong, we were doing an assessment of our future water needs. currently >> that haven't been finished yet, have they? >> No. >> But again, too, we're not this board is not going to be able to read tarot cards on what's going to happen in the next 10, 15 years. I don't even want to know the basis. But the problem is is is the as as remember Arner pointed out this contract can be you know that the the allocation set by the DNR can be terminated at any time >> or reduced >> reduced yes >> terminated is not I don't >> I mean I'm probably used rather uh harsh there but it could be reduced and it has been reduced in the past. >> Yes. It was already been d believe 100 100 million gallons was taken away >> uh about a decade ago >> and the township did a great job of starting to conserve and we're actually working with those parameters >> which is something Lakes or the city of North Oak has to work with the same parameters we do. So >> and I think that's included in the JPA that that you you follow the same >> allocations per household per yeah per resident that we do. So, um, so I mean I think it's other than this issue, it's pretty concrete. >> I didn't mean to throw a bunch. I know I was I read also read the U TKDA report uh over the weekend and they indicate that the Lakes Development Project would use 25 million almost 26 million gallons uh annually >> and we have the capacity. we have the capacity. uh you know does the board want to add language stating that in the event the um I believe believe we have like a 100 million gallons approximately of uh excess capacity >> cushion >> cushion >> isn't it just basically Chad part of the JPA is is uh that right to terminate aren't we already covered there >> it's not really I mean that's the um is not in there. >> No, no. I'm saying if if if the DNR does something drastic, we have the right to terminate their this JPA >> with three years notice, >> right? And and like I said, three years would we would be in court. >> Yeah, we would. >> So, I don't know. I don't know if it's if it's worth getting that involved or in depth trying to guess what could happen. >> Yeah. I mean, that's fair. Uh I would say this. I don't know if it'll take three years this time around, but given what's going on with White Bear Lake, three decades wouldn't surprise me. >> Well, oh, we're only on what, year 10, 12, >> 13. >> Uh, 2011 was when they filed their first laws. >> Oh, jeez. >> Yeah. >> And it's still not with >> All right. Any other questions of Mike or of councel? >> So, Mr. Chair, Mr. Attorney, >> right? >> Is there any additional language that we need to add to this? The one that has been was presented to the board with your packets. >> I would say this. Um, I reviewed the April one changes >> and I reviewed uh Larry Larry Popppler's comments on the April one changes and I have to agree with Larry on every single one of them. >> So, Mike comments. Yeah, I think we uh what we ultimately sent out for the board packet was adjustments to based on Larry's comments. >> I think if Mike's if if they're comfortable adopting those take one more pass. >> No, I mean we this is something that should get done taken care of. Yeah, >> I I think as long as as Larry's comments are incorporated into the final there, I and there's comfort from both the board and legal that there's uh room for worst case scenarios that we can amend this or work through a termination of three years. Why wouldn't we pass it tonight? I guess you could adopt a resolution saying subject to the uh adopt sub subject to inclusion of the changes recommended by the township's public works director and town engineer. >> Yep. >> You can approve it. >> Noting that uh Final X has agreed to those changes. >> Yeah. >> Um so what you have in there is a red line as well as a final. The final edition does have those those comments in there. >> Yes. >> All right. Is board comfortable that? >> Well, I I think it went as far as we're going to get with it. I mean, it's subject to Larry's. >> So, what you're looking for tonight is to pass this resolution of the third party JPA. >> We have Lol is a good partner. Um I I worked through this as best we could between the organizations as well as North Oaks and also a developer on the outside um to get through this. So >> can I ask one question? >> So the irrigation component is only going to be used in an emergency. >> Yep. That'd be in the event the pond's dry and >> but you're still subject to the same irrigation bands that the town agreed to in the settlement agreement. >> Yeah. >> Well, that's not so bad. >> I know. >> Is that clearly? >> Yeah. I don't know if they can ever turn it on. >> Is that clearly spelt out in here? >> Yeah. >> Okay. Uh last question I'll ask is uh if we don't have you just said the pass is subject to the town changes that the town engineer and public works director wanted. Why are we signing this thing before they've approved it at their end? >> You could you could make it subject to >> well passage. >> I I don't know why we're the lead if >> we always lead. Well, I don't think that's the right >> it's a simply a question of timing is the problem. >> Is it to get started? I mean, when's your when is the city council of North Oaks or excuse me, of Lionel Lakes meeting to pass this if we passed it? >> About an hour ago. >> About an hour ago. >> Oh, so they did approve it. Uh and M Mr. Chair and board members, our council did approve it. uh they did give staff authority for for any modifi non-substantive changes uh subject to city attorney and the city administrator's review and approval on that. So, we had incorporated everything. I think I believe what's in your packet is what I sent out last Thursday or Thursday that incorporated discussions Larry and I had had um made those changes uh I think primarily related to the um fees um >> with with the board being able to set the fee and we made sure that the language was in there uh that it as long as it's commiserate with what the the town is charging its own residents. Um, I did note in the uh discussion um we had some back and forth with uh with Larry, Mr. Popppler, regarding um a deduct for any Met Council fees um that were in there. Um just so that we wanted to make sure we weren't getting build twice, once from you and once from Met Council. Um, I think as we work through that, we may end up scratching the language that we put in and I'm I noted in my red lines. Um, just because we're doing that analysis and we think we're we're covered on our side. So, um, I think we've I think we've managed to address all those comments. >> But what you're telling the board right now is that this has been passed by Lo. >> Yes. With the substantive additions that the town engineer and the and our public works director recommended. Is that >> Yes. Okay. talking about the red line that's in your packet, the one that was t that was prepared after April 1st. >> But the clean copy >> the clean cop is in there. >> The clean copy has all those changes already incorporated in it. That's in here. Correct. >> Yes, it does. >> Okay. So, tonight I mean I'll I'll make a motion. I guess that's what you want. I mean, you want me to do it? I'd be more than happy to try. >> I don't think I could last. >> All right. I'll I'll move to pass a resolution of the joint powers agreement between the town of White Bear, city of North Oaks, and the city of Lionel Lakes subject to the uh already incorporated changes recommended by the town attorney and public works director Ed. >> Well, actually a little different. And I say that you agreed that the town board approves the J the version of the joint powers agreement between the town of town of White Bear, city of Lo Lakes and then city of North Oaks as set forth in um as as of changes were the April 2nd 2026 version. >> I'll make that motion. >> I'll second it. >> All right. Motion's made and seconded. All in favor say I. >> I. Just a point of of order though, we did not have this discussion with the city of North Oaks on their two-party JPA. >> You're right. >> So, I I don't know. I don't want to see like we're coming down harder on them. But eventually, if it goes through the city first, you guys are a little susceptible anyway cuz >> you're running the route. So, >> well, if Marthos doesn't approve it, we're back to square one, >> right? >> Right. Sort of. Sort of not quite square, but we're back. >> All right. Thanks, Mike. Appreciate you being here. I appreciate your time. >> Hope we didn't mess up your council members. >> No, appreciate the time and and consideration from your staff and as well as yourself. So, thank you very much. >> All right. All right. Item seven is public hearings. We have none. Eight is new business. We have none. And no added agenda items. This is open time where any of you students want to feel free to come up to the mic, give your name and address, get on TV, and all your classmates will want an autograph. >> Hearing none. about any residents that are here. >> I need a >> some other residents. >> Anybody else want to talk here for anything in particular? >> Now's your chance. >> Going once, going twice. >> Okay. >> All right. I need a motion to see agenda material and supplements. >> So moved. >> Second. >> All in favor say I. >> And I need a motion to adjurnn at 7:39. >> So moved. >> Second. >> All in favor say I. >> I. >> We arejourned. Uh, all you classmates, if you want to come up, we'll sign off your papers for you. >> Do we have to tear down, Patrick? >> Bring your papers up. Come on up.