All right, it's 5:30 and I will call this meeting of the uh BL City Council special call meeting uh to order. And we are going to uh recess now into executive session for the purpose of consulting with our city staff regarding deliberation regarding security devices and/or security audits related to information resources, technology, and critical infrastructure under section 551.089 of the Texas government code. So we are now recessed into executive session. We will return afterwards. [Music] All right, we'll now reconvene in open session at 551 and uh we will begin our uh special meeting with citizen comments which we always allow for by these rules. Any citizen wishing to appear may do so on speak to any matter on posted on our agenda uh signing up before the meeting begins. and we have several that signed up today and uh so this is opportunities for you to express an opinion on an item on our agenda. Uh so uh we will begin now with citizen comments and the first person I will call forward is Jeffrey Paige and after Jeffrey it will be Stephanie Smith. So just let you know who's coming up next. >> My name is Jeffrey Paige. I'm a citizen of public. Um I'm rising in opposition to the 3.2. Uh the impact fees and everything like that at the the developers, I think they should be raised. I mean, cuz the impact fee where I'm living out, I live off of Upland and the building out there since I've moved into that area there, it's just exploded. And if they're, you know, now you're going to pass it on. We already have road bonds for Upland and for 66 and all this other stuff. Well, you're just passing all this stuff on to the taxpayers for more taxes. You know, you're talking about impact fees. Well, if you know Michael Ward, fees are not fees, they're taxes. So, if you're just going to push it from the developers who are developing all along upland all the way up to fourth street just as in the uh road bond that you already have set up for it. I think they should pay a lot more than what they're getting right now especially beaten bow and all those and they should get they should be paying more but that's a lot of money that we're going to be spending and a lot of taxes on all the residents around. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Paige. Miss Smith and after Miss Smith, uh uh Chrisberry. Okay. >> Uh my name is Stephanie Smith and I live at 282567 Street, uh District 2, and I'm here for um item 3.2, impact fees. Uh impact fees or income. The city has less income than this last cycle. Any household or business would look to decrease the spending and not decrease income. Since they are applied to reduce the expense needed to build roads, this should be increased to 50%. You have passed bonds to provide roads. The buildings are instigated this new the builders have instigated this new expense. Impact fees are a cost doing business for making that decision and reszoning the land for such use. Um, city income does come with property tax and the council voted no new tax revenue rate. Uh, where's the increase to to revenue? Well, you say if the sales tax is down and you want it up, this increase will not affect the road building because a councilman specifically stated sales tax cannot be used for roads. Builders have been deciding to build primarily in districts five and six. If people in districts five and six want new development, let them pay the impact fee since you're giving preference to new development. You will then see if they want the decision the developer wishes by consenting to do that. New business wanting to open have fees associated with the impact traffic which varies greatly depending on the location. So many people live in districts one through four build there. Um impact uh economic factors are many. Supply and demand, discretionary income, travel distance. You presented no data to show the direct connection between specific development and the state of the economic comm. Another E economic law is the law of diminishing returns. Reducing impact fees has you chasing an imaginary benefit. There is no data to show that newly developed property benefit all the loving citizens and small business. Since benefit goes to developers, you are subsidizing the businesses of your choice. If you think the DEI is discriminary, it seems that this fits the same model. You are discriminating against the love citizens to pay for the profits of developers. The elephant in the room is the city council has been conned into this removing impact fees. Please give credibility, honesty to your fiduciary actions, the city council. Thank you. >> Thank you, Miss Smith, Mr. Barry. After Mr. Barry, Mr. Shanklin, Shankles, sorry. >> Good afternoon, Mayor Council. My name is Chris Barry, 43036. I emailed this letter. Hopefully, everybody got it, but I just wanted to read that uh letter for the record. I'm writing to express my strong support for maintaining the city of LeC's current impact fee structure as it stands today. Specifically, the 25% builder paid ratio established by the capital improvements advisory committee. Impact fees are a fair, equitable, and essential tool for funding critical infrastructure like arterial roads, water, and wastewater. Ensuring new development pays a share's cost for the demand it generates. The 25% builder pay share has proven to be reasonable and effective contribution without unduly burdening new homeowners or halting development. Some have argued for replacing impact fees with bond financing, but this approach brings substantial risk. Bond funding involves lengthy uncertain process requiring public approval, legal compliance, and often multi-year delays. During that time, inflation and rising construction costs can significantly erode the real impact of these dollars. leading to project downsizing, postponement, or even cancellation. In contrast, impact fees that are collected at the time of permit can be allocated more quickly to infrastructure projects, ensuring timely delivery and better coordination with growth. They provide the city with a stable, dependable revenue stream that allows staff to plan proactively rather than reactively. With today's capability of offering impact fee credits, the city has cost-effective, timeefficient tool to partner with private developers to build and extend capital infrastructure. This public private model allows necessary infrastructure to be delivered in tandem with development often ahead of schedule and below public se uh public sector cost averages. It incentivizes coordinated investment and ensures the infrastructure network grows responsibly alongside our community. Improve their affairs yield measurable economic benefits. They support property value and appreciation, business attraction, work force workforce mobility, reduce transportation cost, and safer, more accessible communities. Cities that invest in wellplanned road networks position themselves for long-term success, attracting employees and growing the tax base in a fiscally responsible way. Setting impact fees at zero dollars would not only remove a key funding mechanism, it would also signal an an unsustainable shift in infrastructure cost to existing taxpayers. In a time when inflation and public service demands are rising, we must not jeopardize Levik's ability to fund the fund roads and utilities that growth requires. I respectfully urge the council to consider the SEAK proposed 75% 25%. This approach balances fair fairness, fiscal responsibility, and growth readiness for the city of Leach. Thank you for your leadership and your continued investment in a stronger leic. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you, Mr. Perry, Mr. Shankles, and after Mr. Shankles, uh, Lutrell Joy. Good afternoon, council. Joshua Shankles. I live in the 2600 block of 47th Street. I am bringing a handout to you that is an annotated version of the impact fee study committee's presentation that refutes almost every single claim that they make on their document. Not that I needed to because I spent 30 minutes pre-refuting almost every single claim that they advanced here except for perhaps the claim that Mr. McClendon advanced which was, "Isn't it awful that the impact fees will obligate the city to spend the money collected on them in 10 years?" And to which I say, "No, it's not. What we can see evidently is that your city could be run by people who aren't interested in evidence. and facts and that you do want to obligate future councils to spend the money according to how it has been laid out. Council, I have not heard a single reputation of any argument we have advanced for you and nothing but reputations of the arguments that the developers have advanced. I do not know why we are not considering implementing impact fees as it has been recommended to you by your own committee. I want to remind you that the impact fees are not dragging on sales tax. Our city's economy was cooking harder than it ever had been in 2021, 2022, 2023. It was only in November of this year that our economy started to fall off with impact fees in place. So, you cannot claim that this fall off in sales tax revenue was because of impact fees dragging on the economy. You were presented in the July 22nd meeting uh a presentation that showed there was no economic falloff from impact and fees. There was no loss in permit. There was no downturn in permits from impact fees. You guys have advanced so many falsehoods out there in the public that it makes me really astonished. You guys stand up here and pray every meeting and then go out there and tell so many dishonesties in the public. It is obscene and embarrassing. Yesterday we had this big rain event. Had it rained 10 more minutes, we would have had these new businesses that don't even exist. You guys are like, "Oh, this might impact these new businesses." They don't even exist, a constituency that doesn't even exist, may never exist. What's going to happen when we haven't kept up with drainage infrastructure and now their businesses under two foot of water because we've developed so much extra land mass and put it under non-permeable surfaces. What's going to happen then to those new businesses? Not going to make a lot of money then unless they're selling kayaks. What's going to happen to public safety? Your number one charge when you can't get a fire truck or an ambulance out to their new developments because you haven't built the the connecting road. Your number one charge is public safety. Yet, you're prepared to let it all ride because these guys want you to and you can. Yet, you have no evidence to support it. It's It's offensive. Good afternoon, Miss Joy. Uh, Mr. Hernandez. >> Good afternoon, everyone. It seems we've have the perfect storm. You're in budget session. We've been told that we have less money available than when we started on budgets. We have impact fees. And then we had technology and security problems. So, I can't imagine anything else that would h happen unless it's that the ceiling falls down in here today. I have some thoughts and observations. >> Could you pull that mic a little closer to your mouth, Mr. >> I'm not here to try to convince anybody. Um, but I do have some thoughts. You know, budget season, you set a budget for one year, okay? But everything we do for that one year has implications for future years. And I think this is one of those times when we need to remember that impact fees were not experimental. They grew out of the comprehensive plan which we conducted for the entire city. Every meeting we had different groups of people who came to talk about what they would like to see do better. Not that they were opposed to things, but what would they like to see better? Even the builders and developers had their own committee that met along with the times that we were having the comprehensive plan and the impact fees grew out of that discussion. Everybody had input. I went to every meeting we had and and people cared. They wanted things to be better. Impact fees serve a purpose and that is to try to get our streets and thorough affairs uh built sooner. council members were being told were telling people, I know 130th Street, you guys would like a better road, thorough affair, but we don't have the money to do it. And so this is one of the mechanisms that you can use that doesn't affect the tax rate, the taxpayers, or the citizens of some have said they don't understand impact fees. Well, if you don't understand it, go educate yourself because it can be done. We all did it. I am concerned that we did not know about the the exemptions and the effect of the exemptions on the monies that were available. I think that needs to be explained. And I am concerned that there was no video of the last meeting. So, some of us are kind of having to go by the seat of our pants. But rather than vote on something you don't understand, postpone it and go educate yourselves. I think you'll be surprised. Thank you for your attention and for your service. >> Before I start, does everybody have one of these? Do y'all have this? No. Okay, let me give it to you. Oh, you got it. Thank you. Great. >> And after Mr. handers will be uh Will Alberi. >> Let me know when you're ready and we can start the time. >> And just to address just a comment that Miss Joy made, the the reason we didn't have video available n last meeting was because of the issues that we were facing here at city hall. and you can go look at you can go watch the meeting but we were not up live at that time so wasn't that we were not wanting people to see what we were doing up here we just could not broadcast it at that time okay >> all right hello council Adam Hernandez communications chair for love compact 820 Main Street uh first thank you to the council members and others who are standing up for the good of the whole city over the greed of a few there's been lots of focus on the bad because having zero impact fees is such a bad idea for love. So, I want to recognize council members Martinez Garcia, Harris, and Collins. I also want to recognize Thomas Payne, who has continued to advocate for the good of the city over his own bottom line. I think it's important to mention this during this vote that will have such a heavy impact on Loick's future. Now, I'd like to make sure Councilman Rose is aware of a few things because District 4 currently stands to lose the most here, sir. I just wanted to make sure you have all the facts before you make your final decision because there's a lot on the line, sir, for you in particular. The information you've been given may be inaccurate, including statements by council members Gashin Wilson and Mayor McReer and the impact fee task force. We've debunked all those non-factual statements before today, and you don't have to take our word for it because we provided the official city, state, and federal documents that back it all up. In front of you, you should see a sheet that I've provided with a map on it. This shows the service areas A through H overlaid on top of the city council districts. To make this a little easier to see, you'll see that service areas A and F, which covers district 5 and six, have collected about $6.5 million combined since 2021. Service area E, which is almost entirely in district 4, has collected $5.1 million. Voting for 0%, Mr. Rose is telling your constituents that they should have paid that 5.1 million while developers pay zero and make more profit. Altogether, impact fees have brought in about $14 million in four years, which is just developers paying a portion of their fair share, not even 50/50. You campaigned on lowering taxes, Mr. Rose, but this would be raising the amount we all pay higher and faster than necessary with more interest. Ask yourself, if you vote to set impact fees to zero here today, are you ready to explain to your constituents why you felt they needed to pay more taxes than necessary? The other three have already made their decisions and they're likely to stick to them. Your single vote, Mr. Rose, your single vote could be the deciding factor here today will be the deciding factor here today. I hope you'll stand in integrity and stand up for the taxpayers in your district and for the values you campaigned on. The motion for zero impact fee should be voted down and a motion should be made to accept the seat committee recommendation as written. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Hernandez. Will here Mr. Combi and after him, uh, Thomas Payne, >> I want to thank you for this opportunity to be able to speak to the city council and the mayor. Um, on the drive up here, I was trying to figure out some questions about the impact fees and what they do. I was able to talk to one of your engineers that work for the city and u one, there a lot of questions that I got asked about this. Uh, I glad that we had Joyce, one of the former former city council members, come up here and said when they looked at this thing, they did their homework. And I don't know if all you guys have done y'all's homework or not. There's a lot of questions you got to ask concerning how much does it cost per mile to build uh for the developments of the city? you know, and uh that's that's one question I have to ask is how much have y'all done y'all's homework yet to get a finite number to say what it cost the city and the taxpayers on this and and I don't think anybody clearly has that number and that that's a sad situation. Our former city council person here comes to us and says, "We did a lot of homework. We studied this. We talked to people on both sides of the aisle and they studied everything and they come up with saying positive impact fees is what we need for the city and for the taxpayers. But um apparently some people see a little bit different. I don't know what's changed. We've collected $14.3 million that's happen helping the taxpayers of this city. I think that's very important and that's a good number. Now for the future that could go up to about $20 million in a fiveyear period. I'm just throwing that out there. And I know that we've had a shortfall in the city here lately. I think that's what I read in the newspaper. So, um, you know, I think there's another thing that I'd say just common sense wise. There's a saying here in Texas, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. So, I think the system that we have now is working for the taxpayers. And you guys need to realize this. I appreciate you guys. They're being fair uh fair judgmental on on understanding that we need to work for the taxpayers and that's what you guys were elected for, not no personal agendas down the line. So you guys need to kind of figure if you're going to work for the taxpayers or you going to work for somebody else and that's all I have to say. >> Thank you, Mr. McCroy. >> Mr. Payne and after Mr. uh Jordan Wheatley. Mayor, with your permission, I would request a couple of additional minutes. >> Okay, I'll grant those if you need them. >> Thank you. >> You can talk fast. it'll save me from having to speed read. >> All right. >> And and make it easier to understand. >> Um the first thing I want to to say is that I was involved with impact fees in Luk going back to the original days of the developer builder developer council before the city even embarked on creating impact fees. I was asked to serve. I was glad to do so. I was elected the first chairman of the impact fee committee. I was the chairman of the committee until fairly recently maybe a year or so ago when Chris Barry who works for beatenbo came onto the committee and I felt it was time for a change in the chairmanship and so that occurred and he was elected the chairman but I still served on the committee until Friday and I don't know how many of you were aware I know there have been a lot of IT problems I discovered from the before the meeting at least one of you didn't receive my letter but I sent a letter to all of you under the city manager and staff on Friday resigning effective immediately from the impact fee committee. I didn't do so as any u anything that's designed to influence your vote. I did so because the actions of the council last Tuesday placed me in a position of untenable direct and immediate conflict of interest with the city. and so I can't stand up and speak with my city of love hat on. So now I'm speaking to you as just a regular citizen. With that said, um most of y'all campaigned as being for the citizens of book. I'm very concerned because you talked a lot about being fiscally conservative and I'll just say that there is a difference between being fiscally conservative and fiscally responsible. The two are not necessarily the same thing. Crippling the city financially, which is what you are in the process of doing is not responsible. You have serious budget problems. Your plan is to issue bonds going forward. But first, you think it makes sense to do away with your only source of funds outside of the general fund to pay the debt service on those bonds, thereby putting all of the citizens further on the hook. I believe that if you first take money out of the pockets of the citizens unnecessarily, then ask them to support you spending more money to take more money out of their pockets, you will not be able to get support for a bond. then where will you have left the city? We would be a billion dollars behind building roads by the time another bond might come around. This makes no sense. There is no intelligent reason for eliminating impact fees. The four of you who voted on the 12th to set impact fees to zero are, as far as I'm concerned, doing this either because you aspire to a higher political office and believe this is the way to get there, or you aspire to get reelected to your current office and believe this is the way to get there, or your voting is instructed by the special interests that you serve, which ties back to A and B above. On August 12th, Councilman Glashine stated, "Impact fees are a failed experiment." This is totally misleading. Number one, they were not as an experiment at all in any way. Number two, here are some facts. There have been $14 million approximately of impact fees collected to date. Of that, five have been spent enabling the substantial completion of $26 million of roadway product projects in Lok, Texas. The remaining 9 million in the bank at the same 5:1 ratio, will support another $45 million worth of road projects, a total of $71 million. He also stated impact fees have suppressed commercial growth. There is zero evidence of this. If suppressed, it has been the combination of skyrocketing com construction costs and the doubling of commercial interest rates postcoid that is responsible in cities that have impact fees and cities that do not. More than one of you have talked about how complicated impact fees are and how you just do not understand them. How about if you spend the time to understand what you're voting on before you vote to more heavily burden all of the citizens? Is it your plan to do away with everything you do not understand? >> You have 30 seconds. >> If you do not mess it up tonight, impact fees will be responsible for 100% of the cost of building Quaker Avenue without one penny coming out of the general fund. The dividing line with impact fees is between people all over Leuk, not in one district, who will never pay any impact fees and new development, which I believe should at least pay some slightly extra portion of the cost of new development. I acknowledge that doing away with impact fees would be a significant benefit to me personally, but each of us has a greater responsibility than to think only of lining our own pockets. I leave you with this quote from Adam Smith. widely regarded from the 1700s as the father of economics and the father of capitalism. There is no art which one government sooner learns of another than that of draining money from the pockets of the people. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you, Mr. Payne. Mr. Wheatley. We're all glad to see you here. Thank you. Thank you. Uh let's see here. I thought I had a couple slides here. This one. And Okay. Thank you guys. Jordan Wheatley, 3917 114th Street here in Love, Texas, United States. Here to talk about uh impact fee second reading to send roadway impact fees to zero. Uh we represent the four major progrowth uh associations here in Lok, as you guys know, 4,800 member businesses. I've decided not to not really talk about impact fees tonight. I I think we've beat it to death. And so, um, I'm going to more talk about the future and where we go from here. And >> Mr. comments should be gerine. >> I will make that decision, Mr. Shankles. Thank you. >> So, here we go. I think in order to know where you're going, you got to know where you've been in the last 15 years. So, uh, quick timeline here, uh, in respect to roadway infrastructure. 2009, we passed a bond, $43 million. Uh, that also include the green roof fire truck or the fire engine houses. 2020, we had a failed road bond. I will note there was no pack there. There was no education on any of that. It was it was rushed and uh it failed dramatically. 21 impact fees started and then in 22 uh the growth committee rallied together and formed a pack and helped pass a $200 million road bond 68% in favor. We did it again in 2024. rallied that same education and advertising uh pack to pass a $ 103 million road bond. I think it's imperative to know that our four associations were greatly involved with educating the public on exactly what they were getting and why. Um it's extremely important. below. I I want I put these in red because I want you guys to see exactly what was running in the background, sucking the life out of uh our uh volunteers, our our love volunteers, city council, city staff. These items were all running in the background and we came up. Can I have some more time? the same two minutes I granted Mr. 2016 through 2018 we did the CPAC. Of that I will note it did come out of it to uh advise road bonds just as much as it did impact fees. 2019 through 2025 UDC still ongoing major major time crunch. Uh I do want to I do want to thank Mont McClendon, Terry Hullman, Corey Dylan, Victoria Whitehead, Kristen Sager, Robbie Wallace, and Chris Barry for getting this across the goal line. There were several moments in the time that the UDC was dead and those individuals picked this up and took it across the goal line. 2019 through 2025 SEAK uh aotted over 200 meetings inside city council and outside city the city hall just in private meetings. Uh not a very good return on investment only $12 million. So, you can also see 14-year gap there as a result with no road bonds with all these ongoing distractions and no one really working on a real real plan of how we're going to get ahead. Meanwhile, our three local school districts, LISD, FISD, Cooper ISD, passed $2 billion in bonds. Two billion in voter approved bonds. I say all this and I show all this because if we mirror what we have done in the last 15 years, it will not be good. Even if we only pass $300 300 million in road bonds in the next 15 years, it will not be good. If we mimic any of these red lines in the next 15 years, it will not be good. We have to have a real plan going forward. This is a merely a suggestion from our four associations and our u it is merely a roadmap. Quickly 10person committee consists of one member per district, two additional a city engineer and Heather Keester. She is fantastic. She knows our roadway infrastructure inside and out. You >> have 30 seconds left. >> Quarterly meetings. We will present them to council. The great thing about this, you guys can accept our our findings. You could deny them. You can edit them or you can act on these quarterly reports. We're going to aim to make these projects beneficial and equitable to the needs of all districts. We need a strategic 15-year planning plan for roll out rollouts of future road bonds. You ask anybody right now, we don't know. We don't know when the next one is. We have to have a 15-year plan. We have to create a real time bond status web page. You ask anybody what's going on with the 24 projects right now. Really, uh, there's only a handful of people in in city hall that know, but we need a real time page that Dr. Wilson can pull it up. She can see where this project is. Mr. Clasheen could pull it up. He can see where a project is. To end with, we'd be this would be a standing committee consistent to a fluid council, and we would continue to refine and improve our pack education campaigns. Mayor, I want to thank you for your continued uh campaign promises for prog growth, pro business, and doing away with these impact fees so we can get on with life and get on with a real plan. Lastly, I don't know how many times I have to say it, developers do not pay impact fees. I've never paid an impact fee. I never will. Love it. Citizens pay impact taxes. It's all rolled down to the citizens. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes the citizen comments. Thank you each one of you who come and prepared uh your comments for us and your uh uh presentations as well. We appreciate that uh very much. I think everyone here understands this is a an important issue. Uh we all take it seriously and it's u u something we're uh we've given a lot of thought to. I think all of us have. So let's begin our regular session. Now we have two items on our agenda 3.1 3.2. The first is a u a second reading of uh amendments to our udc uh ordinance number 2025- I think that's an O0095. um approving amendments 1 through 30 and numbers 32 through 56 to the unified development code. Uh if anyone wishes, we can have another presentation of this from Miss Sager. Does anyone wish to have another presentation for Miss Sager? I don't see anybody asking for that. All right. With that uh being said, then I will call for a motion um to approve this on a second reading. So move Do I have a second? Is there any discussion? I see none. All in favor, let it be known by saying, Do we need to do this as a recorded vote? >> No. >> No. All in favor, let it be known by saying I. I. Any opposed say nay. I hear none. That passes. All right. Moving on for item uh 3.2, the second reading uh of this ordinance. Consider ordinance number 2025- 0 0096 amending chapter 41 impact fees of the city of love code of ordinances with regard to roadway impact fees. So we don't need a further presentation I don't believe on this unless anybody requests it and I see none. Do I have a motion? Do >> I have a second? >> Second. >> Have a motion to second. Any discussion? >> Mrs. uh Mayor Prom. >> Thank you, Mayor. I just want to apologize to the citizens because more than likely you will be facing a tax increase and that is unfortunate. I've originally asked and I asked the folks that, you know, have been campaigning for this to keep it as it was. This is not a good time for the public to incur more taxes and yet that's what we're going to do. I get it. We have to work though for the greater good and I appreciate all the work from all parties. But for me, I don't think that now is the time when we have had um losses in sales tax and property taxes. It's not a good time. And although we don't think $14 million is really important, I God, if I had even a million, that'd be great for me. But when it impacts all the citizens now where as impact fees is only for certain people and what really concerned me was that recently as we were re reviewing budget we also saw that we were raising fees for some areas in parks from streets from fire and it was for those individuals needing to use those things. So it doesn't impact everybody. It's as needed. And that's what impact fees is as well. And so, you know, I just encourage the public to make sure that you let your um districts know that it is disappointing that we will be increasing taxes to them when it should be as something that is just benefiting some, those folks should pay for it. And I get it. We pay for everything collectively but in this particular case I am completely against it and it is um as Mr. Payne said stop draining money from the pockets of the people. Thank you. Any further discussion? I see none then all and we don't have do we have to do this as a recorded vote? We do not have to do this as recorded. Okay. So, okay, Mr. Rose, >> I just want to clarify what we're voting on here. Is this what we passed last time at the zero? >> Yes. Okay. Yes. Thank you. >> For some that don't understand. >> Okay. Uh, the mayor promised for a recorded vote. Mr. Harris though I've before we go. Mr. Harris. >> Yeah. I just want Mr. Rose >> the question that he asked. I didn't hear you. So this is what we lost the vote on the impact fees for the other day. >> This Yeah. So the ordinance should be in your backup that has been that was passed the last council meeting um setting the the both maximum and the actual collection rate of the impact fees at zero. >> Okay. >> So yes to to answer your question this is the ordinance you voted against last time. It's to set the rate at zero. >> Oh set the rate. Okay. Thank you. Any further discussion? Okay, Mayor Pro Tim has called for a recorded vote. So, if you'll bring that up and everyone has cast their vote. The vote is 52. All right. So, that amended, do we call it the amended ordinance? the ordinance uh setting it back to zero passes 5 to two. All right, no other items on our agenda. With that, our meeting is now adjourned. [Music] [Music]