Redmond Urban Area Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

This conference will now be recorded.

Well, good evening.

It is the Redmond Urban Area Planning Commission for Wednesday, July 15th. We'll do a call to order and do introductions. Mercedes Cook-Bostick, absent. Commissioner Heather DeWolf, absent. Commissioner Norman Schultz.

Here.

Commissioner Michael Rogers. Absent. Commissioner Tom Kuhn.

Here.

Commissioner Ben Schmoller. Here. And Chair Tobias Galvin. Here. All right. We will now do citizen comments for items not on the agenda. Is there anybody that would like to speak about something not on the agenda today? hearing none we'll move on to our main point tonight our public hearing regarding the comprehensive plan amendment for the lodge large large lot industrial infrastructure master plan do the thing so this will be a public hearing so I have to read some fun texts here for you guys this is the time scheduled for a public hearing regarding a legislative Amendment to the 2040 Redmond Comprehensive Plan, file number 711-26-000113-PLNGTA. The following are the rules of order for this hearing. No person shall speak without being recognized by the chair and then coming forward and stating his or her full name and resident address for the record. No person shall be disorderly, abusive, or disruptive of the orderly conduct of the hearing. No person shall present irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly repetitious oral argument. The chair, members of the commission, and with approval of the chair, officer, or employee of the city may question any person who submits oral argument. The chair may set time limitations for this proceeding. If that is done, proponents and opponents will have equal time to present their arguments. We will do a three-minute per person time limit. We will hear a report from the staff on the issue, then we'll take public testimony. Once that is complete, I'll close the public testimony and the public hearing, and the commissioners will deliberate. After the Planning Commission public hearing, a recommendation from the commission will be forwarded to the City Council, who will then hold a separate public hearing on July 28th to review and consider the record of this request, including Planning Commission recommendation. I hereby open the public hearing for this proposal. Will the staff please present the report?

All right. Good evening, Planning Commission, members of the audience. My name is Landon, long-range planner. I'm going to give a brief overview on the planning procedure for the adoption of this change and then hand it over to Jessica with engineering. and she'll give a lot more detail as to what this change includes. This is being processed as a legislative amendment, text amendment to the, ultimately to the Redmond Comprehensive Plan, more specifically to the Public Facilities Plan. It's considered a text amendment not because existing text or language is changing necessarily, but it's a supplemental document that that has a lot more detail on infrastructure related things for the large lot area in the south part of town. This was noticed with DLCD as well as a 10 day legal notice and as stated it will go to city council with the ordinance for an additional public hearing on July 28th. So that's a little bit of the planning procedure. At this point I'll hand it off to Jessica and she's got a great PowerPoint here to go over a lot more of the details.

Thank you very much. Good evening chair and commissioners, Jessica McClanahan. I'm the director of public works and city engineer. As Landon mentioned, I'm here to present on the large lot industrial infrastructure master plan. If you're not familiar with this area, a key driving force to the need for this plan also stemmed from wanting to be able to make development understandable. You know, we didn't want to be a black box, if you will, of what's going to be required for 700 plus acres of development. So we really tried to start at the onset with looking at basic requirements. And again, I will dive into that here. But just so you know, the goal of this was to better understand what's needed from an infrastructure standpoint so that we could communicate to our other stakeholders and developers and could have a better understanding, too, of the value of that land such that these transactions could take place to spur development. That's where we all began, and I will dive into it. If you're not familiar totally with the area, this sits south of the fairgrounds and east of Highway 97. It's quite a big chunk of land. The first parcel there shown in orange is actually 140 acres, which is part of a land swap with Deschutes County for a fairgrounds extension. The second is 20 acres that are reserved for Oregon Military Department. And then that blue shaded area, which is what we're focusing on tonight and with this plan, is almost 800 acres of large lot industrial zoned land. So again, we're focusing on that blue section here and how to best take that large chunk of land and figure out how it can be developed in smaller chunks and what conditions, well, what infrastructure would be needed that would then lead to conditions of approval. So we looked at all three major infrastructure types for this type of land. That includes transportation, wastewater, and water. I will also mention that we had a pretty robust technical advisory committee that met several times. The purpose of that was to bring in key stakeholders. So on that committee sat the property owner of the Department of State Lands, some city council, some county commissioners and staff, as well as Redmond Economic Development Inc. Ready and things of that nature. So I think we had a really good swath too of partners represented as part of this analysis. So now I'll dive into each of those three infrastructure types, starting with transportation. When we looked at transportation, we were equating trips to employee count. That's one way to kind of just gauge like, oh, how big is this business going to be? And what's that impact going to be from like a transportation standpoint? So we ran a couple different model scenarios looking at our transportation network, and they ranged really from 6,500 employees up to almost 10,000 employees. For a little bit of context, our TSP that has since been amended to align with these findings, we're at 1,000 employees. So you can already see that there was more transportation impacts that we needed to account for when we assumed the type of economic growth that this land could serve. So out of that analysis of 65 to almost 10,000 trips or employees, there were five major transportation improvement projects that were highlighted. The first of which is the Red Circle, and it's a single-lane roundabout at Airport and 19th. This is actually part of the city's Eastside Arterial, which is a capital improvement project, and it will begin construction here later this year, forecast to be complete in 2027. So this project is, I would consider, in process, in progress, and it is funded through SDCs, so there's no additional impact to developers other than paying their transportation SDCs. The second improvement is shown in the yellow dot, and that is the expansion of the existing U and 27th Street and Canal roundabout, so it's currently a single lane roundabout. If you've driven in that area, you may have personally experienced the congestion that it's beginning to really see, and so as you can imagine, adding the 6,500 plus trips really does exacerbate that and make that expansion needed. So again, this is a project that's forecast on our CIP. It was part of our updated transportation SDCs that council approved a little over almost two years ago now. And it's a similar scenario where a developer would be paying an SDC and that would account for their impact towards that needed improvement. The city is, again, like I said, it's forecasting it on our capital improvement program, knowing that it's coming up. However, we also, looked at more discrete trigger points just to try to help the overall property owner, in this case DSL for now, kind of understand some of the phase gates before getting to 6,500 employees when these improvements were needed. So that's that column on the right. So the employment trigger for that was around 2,400 employees, but again, it's based on background growth and other things happening in the city, so the city is actively looking at programming that project. The next improvement is 21st Street and Airport Way. That's currently, the copper top building sits at the south and the depot and things like that sit kind of on the north part of that intersection. It's a challenging intersection because there's a lot of turning movements and it's a really wide roadway and it's got really close proximity also to the existing U interchange to get on and off the highway. So really, our TSP contemplates access control there, and that's looking at some sort of median or a barrier that would allow for safer movements, and then when the roundabout is in place, it allows for that out of direction travel through that roundabout. So similar to the previous project, that's triggered at about 2,400 employees, but again, this would all be based on also existing background growth and things that are happening. The fourth improvement is a second lane of that 19th and airport roundabout. Again, that's just to grow again to be able to accommodate those more employment numbers. We have been looking ahead and coordinating with in process development elsewhere in the city and are including a second lane in the current that's happening, so that entire improvement will actually be built here within about a year's time. However, it will be recovered through what we call pro rata or proportionate shares through our code, and that means that a developer will contribute how many trips they're sending to it to the overall capacity, and that's how that improvement is allowed to be funded today is we're banking on those in the future. And then finally, what this study also highlighted was the need for an additional access point from Highway 97. We're referring to that as our Southern interchange. And that would be something that's outside of the city's control. However, it is our duty to kind of demonstrate need. And so through this plan and through our subsequent TSP amendment, we're demonstrating that need with this analysis and these employment numbers that say in order to support this growth, an additional interchange would be needed. That's obviously a very expensive and not a fast build, and it's, again, in the state's purview, really, at this point. But we did want to show that this is demonstrating a need, but we're not burdening any development or conditions of approval on that, knowing that that is a very massive improvement. Yeah, absolutely.

Thank you, Chair. So what happens with this southern interchange if we continue to have state transportation funding problems and we hit that number of employees and the state's like, we'll get to you when we get to you. I mean, what does that realistically look like for us on just kind of do we just wait it out or what's the plan? Like how much support or wiggle room do we have with the infrastructure plan that we have in place if we don't have that southern interchange?

We are correct that it would be out of our control, really, and I can't predict the future on terms of what that picture looks like. I think for the city, immediately it looks like just accepting more congestion. It also probably would beg the question to reevaluate our own transportation system plan and see where other expansions would be needed to add that capacity or try to alleviate the capacity concerns or the congestion concerns if we don't have that as an outlet to alleviate it in that way.

Yeah, sorry, maybe I didn't phrase it well.

It will not hit, I don't think we're looking at stopping development, but we would be accepting failure on other parts of our transportation network. Sorry, maybe that answered it more nicely. Yeah, okay. I saw where you were going.

I know we're looking at employees just from the large lot industrial, but do you take into account more trips for fairground and other, the airport and other things that that are going would go through the southern interchange because i think that would also beg the question and be a better outlet for talking about our need than just the lodge lawyer i think that's a huge portion of it but also adding in the other trips that we would need on top of that for people going to the airport and going to the fairgrounds

Yes, so as part of the analysis, you've heard me say background growth a couple times. We take that, we actually inflate that over time and assume a percent change. In this case, I think we assumed 2% average every year. That doesn't exactly happen every year, but in a 10, 20-year horizon, that's pretty darn close, actually. And then we also look at in-process developments. So we looked at the airport terminal expansion, which... conveniently was in progress. And so we had an updated transportation impact analysis from that project. We also had several other large projects such as the Redmond East Gateway, which I think you all are familiar with that was included as in process. And then the fairgrounds is a special use And so when we look at these transportation impact analyses, we're usually looking at our p.m. peak hour, so that's like 4 to 6 p.m., which doesn't – I know it's counterintuitive, but that's – the fairground doesn't usually have a huge impact to those day-in, day-out p.m. peak trips. So they have a code in the model that assigns them a certain number of trips, but it wouldn't be something where you think through, wow, the fairgrounds is going to have a major event tomorrow. THAT'S NOT BAKED INTO THESE ANALYSES BECAUSE THAT'S NOT THE EVERYDAY P.M. PEAK TRIP THAT WE'RE SOLVING FOR. THEY'RE MORE SPECIAL EVENTS LIKE A FAIRWELL FESTIVAL OR A FAIR. YEAH.

COMMISSIONER SCHULTZ.

THERE'S A COUPLE OF TRIANGULAR PIECES ON THAT PREVIOUS SLIDE RIGHT OFF THE HIGHWAY. IS THAT where the old brand restaurant used to be? Why are they triangular? Why are they kind of isolated like little islands?

It may be both to be honest, but I'm not sure why the parcel lines cross those boundaries or I don't have the history on that restaurant in particular.

And it also looks like the southern interchange that is being proposed via the 6500 employees will attach to Alcorn.

I think that that's kind of the let's say the vision out there So the vision right now is actually that Elkhorn is more like Maple Avenue where it's an over crossing But there's not an interchange and the reason for that is because of the spacing to the existing you interchange and again This would be out of my purview but ODOT standards right now would not allow an interchange as close as Elkhorn because of the merging on and off and ramps and things like that There's been discussion at the council level of ideas about something at a McVeigh location Our TSP contemplated something farther south towards quarry, but to be totally frank, all of that would have to be sussed out through an alternatives analysis, an environmental impact statement, and I think ultimately probably some other land use actions at the state level for each of those alternatives. So the dot that's shown here is not meant to signify an actual location. So sorry about that.

Okay, and all of the water and infrastructure headed that way will be able to accommodate whatever happens. We'll get to that. Okay.

Yeah. Thank you. So this is transportation. Before I move on to the next slide, which I believe is, oh, it's wastewater, and then we'll get to water. Is there any questions on the transportation one before we switch gears? Okay. Looking at wastewater, we recently updated our collection system master plan. Council adopted that in July of 2025 and actually last night they also adopted updated SDCs to reflect the needed projects. So I'll walk through our analysis specific to the large lot industrial area and again kind of try to highlight to the need and the funding part of it here. So the first project that was highlighted in our updated collection system master plan is upgrades to the existing pump station that's in the area. So right now flows from the large lot industrial area gravity towards that U interchange and there's a pump station and then they get lifted up to get into our central interceptor. So there's no direct gravity connection right now. So the first upgrade is fairly minor, and it involves upsizing pumps. And so that's that $150,000. It's programmed in our collection system master plan. It's also funded through those SDCs that I mentioned are not in progress anymore. They're just now approved. The second is a full second lift station essentially there almost like a carbon copy of it and so what that does is now allows us to put you know more wet well more detention space and more pumps in and then again lift it and convey it to our central interceptor. At some point, however, we can only push so much flow through that wastewater pump station into our collection pipes, because otherwise we'd have to be redoing the collection pipe throughout the whole city. So what we then did is we looked at a gravity solution that would allow the East Spruce Interceptor to extend down essentially airport way and get to that terminus point. So again, a phased approach where we're allowed to say, yep, we can grow, we can grow, we can maximize this lift station, we can modify this existing lift station, But then we're going to hit a breaking point where we can't because the pipes now downstream aren't big enough. And so in parallel to that, we need to be planning ahead for the gravity solution, which is the extension of the East Spruce Interceptor. That's also, again, contemplated in our master plan, contemplated as meeting the need for the large lot industrial area. And it also extends the service area, as you can imagine, from where it currently terminates at Franklin. Franklin and Highway 126 all the way down here. So all of those things would also gain additional service area as part of the installation of this line. So I spoke to the cost implications of that first improvement. The second improvement, basically a second wet well is $3 million. Again, conveniently just approved and funded through SDC so they would a developer would pay their typical sdc and that would cover their impacts here and similar with the east spruce interceptor that's the bigger ticket item estimated at about 15 million dollars it's a couple miles pipe and again funded through sdcs so no other impacts to developers except for that sure commissioner schmoller thank you on this three million cost so i mean we don't know what the market will do depending on the rollout of

however much hooks up to it. What's the plan for paying for it if it's a slower development than we'd like to see? And the need, or I mean, is it going to get cracked into the ground and build it as soon as development starts and then we have a bill that developers pay back? Or if it's, you know, is it not going to get built until there's enough of demand and SDCs are accrued, ready to go? But, you know, that might slow down. I guess what's that process look like?

Yeah, so my approach and the approach that council takes is every year we look at our five-year capital improvement program. And that's the opportunity for us to try to forecast out where it's not tomorrow, but you have a little bit more runway, you know, that five, six, seven year, and start planning for those costs and figuring out how you want to, one, prioritize the funds that are available or redirect funds such that, you know, you're prioritizing the needed improvements where they need to be. So I think it would follow that same process where every year council has the opportunity to look at that with the information that's up to date and then it would get programmed and balanced with available funds. I think the good thing specifically about the options presented here are that we've bought ourself a lot of time with those first two improvements. And so it's gonna be a matter of just needing to keep our finger on the pulse with the immediacy of development, especially for that second improvement. But again, it's more manageable size, even just in terms of its physical location and scope than miles of needing to traverse. So I think that's what buys us our time too, is we're gonna know that and then have to make a plan at the council level for prioritizing the available dollars or look at other options at that time. Are there any questions about wastewater before I move on to water? Okay. So moving on to water, this ended up kind of being the tougher nut to crack, to be honest. So we mostly were handling the transportation and the SDCs, or excuse me, and wastewater through those like SDCs and master plans. When we got to water, we noticed that there was a bigger gap in terms of needed funding and what was included in those existing SDCs or other revenue sources that we have for new improvements. The first thing we looked at was what types of development would fit here. In the bottom table, I'm going a little out of order, but in the bottom table, we're looking at different types of development and just the average rule of thumb for how much water they use. The first column is showing a gallons per minute rate for a 50 acre parcel, and we chose that knowing that that might be a chunk of land that is something that gets parceled out to. Then we also were just trying to extrapolate that and look at the whole 789 acres. So as you can see, warehouse distribution has a relatively low water usage. And if you were to develop a 50 acre parcel, they use on average 25 gallons per minute through a 24 hour period. And if you were to develop all of the 789 acres that way, that would equate to about 395 gallons per minute. Light industrial is about 40 gallons per minute, and then you can see them go up from there. I think what I would highlight on this table, and I'll talk about this through the needed improvements, but there's a really big breaking point when we get to something like data center, and that's something that would probably be an additional consideration. to what we've anticipated and programmed for here. So the different improvements that we're looking at are extensions of larger pipes that allow the water to flow more efficiently, and specifically for industrial lands, we need to have adequate fire flow. So the fire flow component of this was a key driver in terms of making sure that we were able to safely serve this area. So in addition to improvement one, which is extending a larger water main down 19th Street as a backbone, we also needed to have a booster pump station that's shown as improvement number two. And again, the reason for that is we need to be able to serve on demand 3,500 gallons per minute in the event of a fire. And we just don't have that unless we have that additional pressure available in the system. So the first improvement is the extension of the main. It also includes rebuilding 19th Street itself, which is our industrial arterial standard, and all the associated sidewalks, regular sewer under the ground, things like that. And that would be a $10 million component. And then the second major improvement is the fire pump station. So I also will say that improvements one and two are technically needed today if we assume that the city is at 100% build out. In reality, we're not there. And so again, taking a phased approach, what we looked at was if we assume that today, we take today's development, we can theoretically borrow capacity from the undeveloped portions that get us to build out and that allows us to phase some of these improvements and again, kind of look for when the trigger point would be. But ultimately, we know we need improvements one and two to get us 700 gallons per minute. And now that you see the bottom table, that 700 gallons per minute gets you through pretty much development of all light industrial or maybe a mix of some warehouse light and heavy industrial. So that's why I focused kind of on those categories too at the onset. If for some reason development wanted to, you know, develop differently and go above that 700 gallons per minute, we would need system improvement three, which is the extension and additional water loop, excuse me, loop underneath the railroad and the highway and connect over, on the west side of town. So that's a bigger effort and we didn't program that as a needed cost because we thought there was a chance that development should really more be contemplated right now from a conditions of approval standpoint and a mitigation standpoint with the trigger point of that 700 gallons per minute ultimately. So in conversation with Department of State Lands as a very key stakeholder here, we went through a couple different financing options for how we could bridge this essentially $15 million gap for those two improvements. And it was actually proposed by the Department of State Lands, and the city agrees it's a workable solution, would be to put the extension of 19th Street and that larger water line kind of in the control and in the hands of the landowner or the developer, because that would allow them to only build as far south as they need. We wouldn't, for example, need to build everything at once, and that would allow that phasing aspect or component to occur. And then the city would be in charge of the $5 million fire pump station. Conveniently, 15 divided by three is five, five, and five. And if you think of the city as a partner, the landowner DSL as a partner, and then the incoming developer as a partner, that's also seemed like an equitable way to share in that expense while still, again, making sure the phasing component can happen and leaving certain things in a developer's control, such as how far they want to extend and when based on the actual development. So with that, I will open the floor for any water questions. And I don't know, Commissioner Schultz, if that answered your question that you had earlier. Okay.

So I don't know how much control we have over what businesses do end up going into the large lot industrial. Because I know there is some strong opponents to data centers in and around the city, myself included. But do we have that much control? This might be a ready question. But when we do get people that are interested in land around here, do we have any say in that? I know we can zone things in certain ways. But right now, this is not in the city. So we can't zone it a certain way. It is in the city. Is it? Okay, so after 2028, we could rezone that. Okay. That's my question.

Yeah, and I don't know if this answers your question, but I will say that, again, the core purpose of this was to help the landowner and potential developers understand what would be most feasible so that they could kind of see what would make sense, too, from what they would have to put into it. So someone could say that they wanted to have some portion of this be a data center and it goes through the proper land use and et cetera channels. The offset to that is they're going to have to pay more because, as you can see, Improvement has no funding except for that sole developer. So I think it kind of went hand in where we tried to at least get rid of the black box and say, go in with your eyes wide open and know that there will, if there's greater demand, it will require greater investment and that might help people make those business decisions too.

Thank you. Commissioner Schmoller.

Thank you, chair. Uh, I know, You've gone over water in these ones, but just anecdotally from my curiosity about gas or power and those needs and supplies, I've heard kind of lately from some circumstances from builders in certain neighborhoods about gas supply troubles at certain times of year with natural gas being choked and demand on it. And I was just curious to what those needs or infrastructure demands look like in this area. I imagine that, you know, if heavy industrial or stuff there might, or any manufacturing that might go in there, you might see needs for that. And what those discussions with partners, if any have occurred or what they look like,

Yeah, unfortunately, this plan and my role in it was not with franchise utilities. I know maybe there have been other conversations, and maybe I'm looking at Steve Curley here, if he has input later on, but I do know anecdotally that Pacific Power is working on some improvements in this area, but I can't speak to their timeline or their capacity, unfortunately, yeah.

Any other questions about water?

All right, well, this pretty much wraps us up. So next steps are to bring it back to where Landon kind of started us. Here we are tonight, July 15th. This is the hearing, public hearing at Planning Commission based on the outcome of the hearing today. We would take this to council for a public hearing. Currently that's planned for July 28th, again, pending outcome this evening. And then after that, the outcome is really this amended annexation agreement and master development plan and an amendment to our comprehensive plan or the public facilities plan as Landon explained earlier. So with that, I guess I'm happy to answer any other specific questions or I'm sure Landon could be available for any of the technical land use component questions.

Do we have any questions on land use? Hearing none, I guess we'll open it up to public comment. Anyone in the public would like to speak on this large light industrial. Hearing none, I will close the public hearing and the commissioners will deliberate. Any further comments or questions from the commission? Commissioner Schultz?

All I can say is with all those east side, I guess, improvements with the roundabouts and things from 126 on towards the airport and heading this way towards the fairgrounds and the golf course and what we're talking about here, I commend the city for the work they've done. I've been following this for a while and It looks like to me that the capacity issues with the infrastructure, the water is taken care of, and I'm glad that one of the commissioners brought up the fact that one might, could be a water guzzler, but I was in the back of my head, not just the data center, but I thought if some large industrial user, we don't know who that would be, were to come in there and want to really inhale a lot of water out of there, well then we could accommodate that with doing something different. But I like the pipe size. it's very good so we don't have to keep going back every five years and digging it up like i've seen elsewhere but so you'd be commended for the work you've done thank you commissioner schmuller thank you yeah good work staff appreciate it and the questions uh are the answers to my questions for sure perfect

I saw Commissioner DeWolf was online. Any questions, Heather? Hearing none. Yes, thank you, staff. I think I was one of the counselors that actually approved the money that we went towards this. master plan so I really appreciate all the work you guys put into it and I think it will really help our ready and everyone try to make people understand what they can do on that land I think it's the largest available industrial land in the state currently if I could say that close to be so it's definitely a feather in our hat of bringing great businesses to our community so very excited about what happens outside of this so I will entertain a motion if somebody wants to do it.

Chair, I move to recommend the City Council approve the proposed amendment to the 2040 Redmond Comprehensive Plan, adopting the 2026 Large Lot Industrial Master Plan as presented in the staff report.

It is moved. Do I hear a second? Second. Moved and seconded. Any further discussions? None. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.

Aye. Aye.

Aye. those opposed hearing none the motion is passed perfect we will move on our next meeting is august 19th so put that on your calendars and then we'll end with commissioner comments any further comments from the commissioners commissioner schmoller

Thank you, Chair. Again, thanks to the staff. I recently had the opportunity to serve on the Redmond Nuisance Board, and we had an interesting hearing situation come up. I think it was frustrating and regrettable for the neighborhoods involved, but the circumstance involving, you know, I think was the way I read code, pretty straightforward how it came out. you know, I think our code needs a little updating and revisiting, modernizing. I would like to see situations with little businesses succeeding in neighborhoods in writing our code in a way that benefits and protects everybody, gives them maybe feeling a seat at the table. And, you know, I want our code though to be flexible and I appreciate staff's efforts to try things that are new to help our community grow, modernize, and not just make it traditional cookie cutter. I think that's one of the things that makes Redmond special. But, um, I know I've talked to Kyle and other staff here that I might like to see parts of our code revisited to help modernize and see little instances of businesses in the neighborhoods working fluidly and well together. And I guess I'm hoping we're ready to take on this discussion when the opportunity fully avails itself. Mr. Commissioner Schultz?

I too attended that hearing and it was rather interesting because I hadn't been around a nuance board or whatever it was. Nuisance. It was a good collaboration of people from the community and with the planning staff and stuff like that and how things can be taken a look at and I concur with Commissioner Schmoller that we should take a look at that and see if we can't clean it up a little bit.

Perfect.

Any other Commissioner comments?

All right. Thank you, guys. Thank you, staff, for this. It was enjoyable. And just to be a father, please stay hydrated. It's hot out there. And, yeah, keep your burns to yourself. We don't need to create any more fires. Thank you, guys. I'll entertain a motion to adjourn.

I move to adjourn.

Do I hear a second? Second. Move the second in. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

We are adjourned. Thank you, everyone.