City Council - Regular Meeting

I'll call this meeting to order for the city of Montgomery for February the 24th. Uh it's a regular city meeting u today and thank you Stan. Any of you will all stand? I'll call in order and we'll ask for invocation for stand please. And then father we thank you for another day father to serve the cit citizens of Montgomery. We thank you father for wisdom and knowledge father to do what's right and and be fair and just. And we thank you for this beautiful day in Jesus's name. Amen. Amen.

Amen. And I forgot to say that Stan Johnson is here, Casey Olsson, Carol Langley, myself, Sarah Countryman is out on business today. So that we do have quorum. And now for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Honor the Texas flag. Algiance to the Texas one state under God. One and indivisible.

Okay. Public forum. Do we have anybody to speak? We'll move on to the consent agenda. Uh all consent agendas are considered to be routine the city council and will be enacted by a single motion. There will be no separate discussions on these items unless a council member requests an item to be removed or considered separately. What do y'all desire? Okay, I'll take it. So, um I make a motion to accept the consent agenda as presented.

Okay. The consent agenda was number four, considering possible action on the city council meeting of February 10th, 2026. Number five, consider and possible action on an ordinance of the city council of the city of Montgomery declaring unopposed candidate in the May 2nd, 2026 city of Montgomery special election to office, cancelling the electoral, providing a cereability clause, and providing an effective date. Number six, cons uh consideration and possible action on authorizing the city administrator to go out for a requis request for qualification for a construction manager at risk. All in favor say I. I. All opposed. Mayor approve. Second.

Second. Oh, I'm not sure. Okay. Thank you. You did? Okay. I didn't hear it either. Sorry. Now. Okay. Uh the next one is presentations and we are going to pull seven and eight due to the fact that it has I was told to do it.

Yes. the uh candidate is not able to make the meeting tonight. Uh the city council will receive comments from the public on the royal list of items. Speakers will be limited to three minutes each. Persons wishing to participate to speak during the public hearing portion of the meeting must sign in to participate prior to the meeting being called to order. Number nine, convene into public hearing on the application of Chesmmeire Homes for a special use permit to place a temporary construction trailer on a residential lot located at 702 Gun Court in the Redberg development known as Briarley. It is 603 and we will go into public hearing. It is 604 and we're public hearing. Uh regular agenda. Uh number 10, consideration and possible action on the application submitted by Chesmire Homes for a special use permit to place a temporary construction trailer on a residential lot located at 702 Guner Court in the Redbird Meadows edition known as Briarley. Do I have any?

Good evening, Mayor Prom and council members. This agenda item is for a special use permit application. This is the fourth of five builders in the Brierly subdivision. They're requesting approval for to place a temporary construction trailer on the site. Uh PNZ has recommended approval subject to the same conditions that the other um construction trailers that are already on site there at Briley similar conditions. And anyone has any questions, any discussion? How many we got out there now? I mean, gosh,

we have four. There's four builders out there or five builders out there. There are four construction trailers. three currently at their location. This is for the park. Do I hear a motion to accept this? I make a motion to accept item number 10 as presented. Thank you. Second. Second. I have a first and a second consideration on say I. I. All opposed. Motion carries. Number 11. Consider consideration possible action on the partial replat number one for more estates.

Good evening council. So I would like to direct your attention to page page 41 of your packet that will show the proposed um that isn't confirmed today. Um what this is doing is existing more estates consists of two lots. Um what this replot is doing is making it one lot with one commercial reserve. So we have directed the developer and their surveyor to uh adjust their linework for lot lines um to adhere to all existing requirements as far as building setbacks, visual barriers, etc. Um and what this will allow them to do is develop that commercial reserve track or reserve a excuse me on the east side of their property. This was presented to planning and zoning and approved after February 3rd P&Z meeting.

So the lot one Mhm. that is residential now will remain residential and the lot it connects to commercial piece of property. Correct. So on if you look on page 41 you'll see which now is all one big piece. Correct. Correct. Yes ma'am. So if you look on page 41 of your packet you'll see the appropriate building lines and visual areas so that they're properly spacing and providing that visual coverage between the existing residential lot and the future proposed uh commercial development. So,

if I'm buying this piece of property, if it goes up for sale and I'm buying it, I'm buying a piece of commercial with a piece of residential, just the bought one would be bought if you were purchasing the residential portion. Reserve B, as I under or reserve A, excuse me, as I understand it, will be leased out in the future. We haven't had any plans come to us as far as developing that track. Um, but that would just be leased out as I understand it. So, you would only be purchasing either the residential or leasing out the commercial. Did that does that answer your question?

So, previously residential. So, it is currently residential and commercial. So, the zoning didn't change. It's just the lot lines that are for the residential tract and the reserve commercial tract. So what they did was made the commercial track bigger. Yes. Essentially which which actually took in residential property. No. So the residential property and boundaries didn't change or rather the zoning configuration of it. Previously, it was partial zoning or partial residential, partial commercial, but the residential and commercial uh components of it remain the same.

Caleb, I was going to ask you, I thought there used to be a pond on that piece of property. From my understanding, there isn't, at least today, and that's all we've been uh provided. So, during the permitting proc or not permitting, planning process, they submitted survey for that. There was no pond on the track. Carol, you think there used to be a pond? I don't know if it was on that property or this next piece. Oh, might have been. Yeah, it might have been on Thomas' property, but it's not there anymore. Correct. If it was on this property,

right, they closed it, covered it in. Any more discussion? Can I hear an action item that y'all would like to make? I make a motion to accept item 11 as presented. Casey, accept that motion. Do I have a second? Second. Stand. Second it. Any more discussion? All in favor say I. I.

All opposed. passes as F. Number 12, consideration of possible action or approval for a standby letter of credit Trioint Homes, Texas, Inc. for lift station number five, rec relocation project.

So, just to paint the picture um and I'll defer to legal for their input, but this is in regards to the relocation of the station number five that is a part of the Legacy Grove Trioint development. As a part of their development, they were required to fund the relocation of the station 5 which is currently located on state highway 105. It is being relocated further in inwards towards their development. The plans have been designed and bid um and they were uh we did present a recommendation of award at believe back in January, excuse me, back in January. Um at that time uh the developer did request that they come up with or be allowed to uh provide a payment plan for the proposed uh project because it did exceed our previous estimates that we did provide them. So they were not expecting the full amount. The full amount and letter of credit and I'll hand it over to Daniel is in the amount of 2.2,931 2,931 30,491 $19.70, excuse me, with a 10% contingency for any additional potential clients discussion. You have anything to say, D? I mean, uh, all this does, it protects the city of not having to put up, um, any money on there. So, the the developer is, uh, responsible for it. And this is the, um, it acts as security for them having to deposit funds with the city or to the city for the funding of the project kind of in stages. So, it's having a payment plan with security um, that doesn't force it won't force the city to uh, put up cost for it. So, as required by the development agreement, they are supposed

to deposit funds within a escro agreement that would in turn be paid towards the contractor once they submit payment request. And so, what we're recommending with that is as we WJ receive and review pay estimates, we'll be sending them over to Trip Point for their review and then to the city once we've reviewed and then the check for that payment amount would be cut to the city and we will be pulling from that cash account. We also are requesting that they maintain a minimum $150,000 balance just in case in the event that there is any delay on their processing time or our review time that we're not delaying construction of the project. And the developer and their engineer are here if you have any specific questions for them.

Good evening. Uh Brad Sullivan with Trip Point. So I don't want to argue the additional deposit, but I would like to advocate for no additional deposit. Um, so we've been working with council and the engineering for quite some time and uh, you know, the project's 100% more than what we've originally thought it was going to be with feasibility. Um, the letter of credit is for the full amount plus 10% contingency. And um we kind of feel like having an additional 150,000 in escrow is kind of a little over the top and so we kind of like to advocate for that not to be.

So you're asking for the 150 that we're we're requesting that you maintain a balance or an extra 150 the balance. So maintain a balance. Well, so here's the reason why we maintain a balance. Cuz if we don't maintain the balance in there by you, then we got to cut the check. That ain't happening. I understand 100%. However, the letter of credit covers the full amount.

So, but if you go bankrupt and run high tail, the letter of credit is worth about what it's written on. So just as a reminder, uh the action tonight is authorizing us to have this letter of credit executed. So then we can then execute the contract with uh AR turnkey and begin the project.

Are they going to sign it like this? As far as with the deposit being I mean with the count needing to be at that amount. You can make that uh as a part of your uh approval make the recommendation that if I'm correct make the recommendation that they authorize a letter of credit contingent upon deposit and minimum balance of 150,000 within their project escrow cuz it's not in this correct. It's not in It's not in the letter of credit. Correct. Okay. Okay. That was just so extra. Yes, ma'am. Okay.

Casey, you want to make the motion? I just want to make sure I understand. The original So, maybe I just misunderstood. Are we asking them to have an extra 150,000 over 150,000 or a minimum of 150,000? So the letter of credit is in the amount of the 2.3 million let's call it and then we're asking within that so minus the 150 from that minimum balance within their escrow uh agree or escrow account with the city. Okay. And that's and that's what you're reducing not wanting to do. Okay. So it wouldn't it wouldn't reduce the letter of credit? No, it would not reduce the letter of credit.

So we would have a $2.3 million letter of credit. We would also have $150,000 in this escro account. We also have an escro account to pay for engineering services that was at $100,000 the last time we received a ledger which was November. So it could be a little bit lower now. Um so so you have you have an escro account with the engineer firm with the city for engineering services and then also for Okay,

but that's not in here. We would have to add it. Yeah, we would have to add it. That's a recommendation from you, Caleb, right? Correct. To add 150,000 to this. Yes, sir. But it shouldn't it again to Brad's point it shouldn't change the amount of the letter of credit.

So on the letter of credit I'm assuming and maybe I'm wrong. I'm assuming any funds not needed for the project. You don't we don't the letter of credit you don't have to maintain the letter of credit. So the way that it's set up is we will we will pay the the bank their fee on the full amount of the letter of credit and reduce it every quarter that that's when they charge us for it uh based on what we have paid out. So we won't know until it's time to pay once once say the project's 2 million instead of 200 the extra 293,000 this letter of credit does not hold you to pay an extra 293,000. No, as I understand it, it should

correct.

No, I think we should

No, that's not on the agenda, by the way. Only the letter of credit. Yeah. I can amend it, right? Yeah. Yeah. So Stan, you have any amended. Okay. So, I make a motion to approve item number 12 to the standby letter of credit with an amendment to add the 150,000 escrow count and to have the 150,000 um on deposit. Yeah. Yeah. Total. Not an extra. No, not an extra. Just not extra. Just total.

Yeah. I'll second. We have a motion and we have a second. I'll Any more discussion? All in favor say I. I. All opposed? Passes with the amendment of of the added 150,000 escros. Number 13, consideration and possible action on the acceptment of public infrastructure for the Lonear Parkway 12 waterline extension project.

Good evening again. So, this project is um the waterline extension also being completed or funded by, excuse me, the Trioint Development. Um they were required to extend the existing 12-in water line that is located on Lonear Parkway up to their uh subdivision entrance. They have done that and the contractor has uh completed all outstanding punchless items. We walked the site on December 22nd and all punchless items were complete as of January 27th. And so we are recommending that we enter into the one-year warranty period for this project um which will be ending on January 27th of 2027. January

27th of 2027. Included with this uh is the completed punch list items uh for the project.

Any discussion? Make a motion we accept agenda item number 13 as presented. I have a first. Do we need a second? A second. First and a second. All in favor of number 13 as written say I. I. All oppose. Number 13 uh is pass as written. Number 14, considerable and possible action on the various requests regarding the required tree assessment for the Caroline Court, formerly known as Villages of Montgomery Development number 252.

This item is in regards to Caroline Court again village of Montgomery, which is approximately located across the street. their variance request um is for the required tree assessment that is required with every preliminary plat. So their preliminary plat or excuse me their development would require a essentially when they submit their preliminary plaque they also have to submit a tree assessment. This tree assessment requires that the developer or their representative take pictures of every existing tree from four different angles. uh provide the condition uh height, description, and species of each tree on their development. And they are citing financial hardships to complete said uh tree assessment. We'll say the property is extremely late. Um and they have quoted a price of $120,000 for that tree assessment in addition to what they're already having to do for uh general site development uh and engineering of the site. And addition to that um they are uh being reviewed and we're making the recommendation rather that we review them against the previous ordinance for landscaping and canopy requirements which would require them to provide 20% minimum canopy within the total gross area and 12% landscaping of again the total gross area of their development. So, can we can we put forth a s a different suggestion as far as can they get us a count of how many trees instead of taking pictures of all?

May I?

Yeah, the the developers engineer is also here to speak as well. And um so just a point of clarification, we don't necessarily want to not do the tree assessment because it's a financial hardship, but the way the current ordinance was rewritten is that you we're supposed to do this assessment, provide documentation of all these trees. But there's nothing that actually says in the ordinance says, hey, when you propose to remove this tree, when it's this size tree or this number of trees, you have to mitigate by planting x amount. It actually says just provide all the documentation, but there's no replanting. There's no mitigation requirements in the current ordinance at all. So, it's a $120,000 tree assessment that doesn't actually benefit or provide any information other than telling you how many trees we're about to remove. There's no requirement for planting, replanting, mitigation at all. So, instead of doing a tree assessment that doesn't do anybody any good. It's more of can we just refer back to the old ordinance that requires mitigation and requires a minimum amount of planting two trees per lot for all residential lots plus 20% gross area or that area in the residential zone areas which um you know is really the intent of what they're trying to do. They're not trying to just clear everything and and not beautify the project. Okay.

Okay. In your behalf, I actually read that ordinance 78 for about three or four pages. And uh Mr. Hannah, Mr. Hannah, even is this one of our Scott stop gap or it's the problem is the interim. We're in the interim with KKC. Correct. That's why it's unclear. And after I've read a lot on it today, a lot I would really my vote will be that we will definitely grant the variance. Yeah. We don't want to go through and do the assessment and then just not extraund $20,000 for something that's just information that doesn't, you know, it's going to turn this plot into pages. Correct. He wants to review that.

Nobody and no developer is going to take down a specimen tree because that's just going to lose its value anyway. So, uh, after reading that art 78, I definitely vote to Well, I wouldn't go so far to say what you said about no development taking down a tree because they'll wipe them all out and come back and plant saplings in a heartbeat. So, well, they do, but that where they're talking about, I don't think that that's even an issue. It's just mostly

Well, I will say that I mean, the majority of the trees will come down just because the topography and the the way the site's positioned. There's a lot of topography on these side of the hill. The surveyor did developer did before even knowing this went and had somebody go walk the site and then they they did identify some specimen trees they would keep. So we've designed um kind of like a retaining wall around part of them to where they can try to keep those. Um and that's all that the their forester found. Um so we are going to try to preserve those best we can but it's kind of impossible to do the rest of it. you when you um buy this property for investment purposes in building, do you um do you physically actually walk the property? I mean, how do you know there's not a 400 year old oak tree sitting in the middle of it? You know what I'm saying? Cuz I I have a problem with this tree stuff. I don't quite understand what we're trying to do except keep the greenery going. But um

and I'm not the tree expert. I'm just the engineer and we usually make our job easier to tear down trees. But when the developer seeks the interest, they're actually they did they had our retreat for go walk the site, hire a professional to be able to go identify these areas. So they did that. They asked us to preserve them. We'll walk the site in terms of just you know design. Um but we're not necessarily looking for specimen trees and things that we want to get. Usually that's going to be more on the developer side. It sounds like they So do you have that report from the

I don't know if there was a physical report. The only thing I got was identified the group of trees that he said this is and I was just told this is what I want you to preserve and said okay but I have not seen a physical report just a a survey with the location of trees. Is that something that you can do? Sorry. Can you preserve those trees? Uh yes from what I've seen today yes we can. And it is um I kind of gave you the general location of the

as he's passing that out. We are reviewing their plans currently with the with a landscaping plan. So we'll be able to show y'all when we come back for a plan approval of the subtension is commercial. Now I think the only thing that may cut those through is that that's right where our sanitary. So the city is bringing sanitary all the way across that area. So that's the only thing that I think could cut those through. So we may have to reposition the sewer alignment just the rest of it. Put that in variance acceptance that you save those trees that are recommended.

Um let me look at one thing real quick. Give me just one moment. And again, uh, as I was saying, they will be required to submit their landscape plan with their civil plan for review and approval, which y'all will have opportunity to see and review. So, even if we granted the variance tonight, they still have to submit the the landscaping and we can at that point. Okay. Correct. Yeah. And this is just a variance of the plat move forward. We still have to the reviewer masquerading, which has a planning plan that would have to come in and get approved to show how we're meeting the older organization to this. Yeah. middle. I'm just going to look to see where those trees are aligned with that sear extension.

All this commercial. It's going to happen. I don't think I'm about ready to send you

I just if they had somebody walk it and they identified some trees that that should be saved. Yeah. If it's just a bunch of scrub. Yeah, I get it. Right. So, this tree I have to give developer. See if I can eat into the commercial a little bit more. That's where that's the only thing we put this little thing.

Okay. Uh do I hear a motion? Yeah, I'll make a motion to accept the variance request regarding the required tree assessment for Caroline core val number 252. Do I hear a second? I'll second. You're all seconded. All in favor say I. I. All oppose say nay. Number 14 pass as written. Thank you. Uh, number 15, consider consideration of possible action on the Neargo Development Agreement. Development 2411. And let me tell you, we just got this while ago.

Yes. Yes. So, again, in front of you'all tonight is um a development agreement for the Maago track that is located along Malago Drive. Um, this is directly behind Stewart Creek, Stewart Creek Elementary, Montgomery Junior High. right? Junior High. Yes, Junior High. Not Montgomery Elementary that's outlined on y'all's uh agenda packet.

Um just to kind of give y'all a brief summary of brief summary of where we are and how we got here. Um so the feasibility for this project was presented back in uh September 2024. uh and theou for this project was uh presented and executed in June of 25. This now is just the development agreement. The next stage of the development process for the developer um as outlined in the development agreement uh nothing of substance change from feasibility toou development agreement. Um they still require annexation um into the city, require confirmation of septic um providing a septic feasibility in the event that a variant is granted to allow them to have septic on their property as well as uh impact fees for water line or water, excuse me, and the requirement that they extend water from the existing dead end on Miago Drive and tie it into an existing line on Lonear Bend. um just northwest of their development. And so that's outlined in your um development agreement packet that I handed out earlier. Don't have a page number.

Is it section 33 impact? Is that where it's at? No, it would be for attachment C. What page is that? Again of 45 pages in the realm of 20, page 20, you should see an outline of um aerial exhibit showing the existing infrastructure and the track highlighted. I personally would like to table this till the next council meeting. Well, Considering that we got this so late, I don't really see that there there's a problem with that because we just, like I said, we just got it before the meeting started.

Was there anything um is there anything in the development agreement that is I don't know. Are we making any special exceptions other than the suit treatment?

No. So, the the that's the only one of note. Um again, there is um language in there that would protect the city from any potential CCN um encroachments. There is what we believe to be a graphical error on what's showing on the PUC's website versus what's actually in place. Uh developers engineer um can attest to that and they are working through that with their legal team, but from what we understand of it and our legal team has reviewed it as well that shouldn't present any conflict with u future service to these tracks. Um so the only one of note would be the septic variance which they would have to come back for again um once they're ready to submit that. Daniel read this.

Yes sir. Did they get a copy of it today? They already received a copy and again excuse the confusion on that. We were working through uh we hours of the night to get this on this uh meeting agenda with the President's Day uh time jump on staff. We had to get this out a little bit earlier than what we normally would and we just dropped the ball on sending it out to council prior to but the developer, their legal team, uh city staff and legal have all seen iteration of this copy well before today and again do apologize for that. Did they have any concerns about it? Any questions? Yeah.

Um, so I'll just speak on behalf of the developer. Um, so developer is um, looking at getting this hopefully approved um, and move forward. They would immediately move forward with the annexation process. Um, they do have a contract with another developer who would actually take this project over, take the development agreement over and move forward with developing and building. Um it's a K Khob Danny I believe who has the contract who's currently doing hills of town section 5 the city. Um they have no issues. Zach mentioned the CCN thing was really the only thing we were going back and forth with a little bit. This graphical error basically says within the agreement that the city will not provide any services to any buildings within that. So if we don't get it released and there's a building in it all would provide service. But as long as the building pads are outside of it, then it's fine. We're working with the blue topaz, the CC and holder, um to just, you know, work through them with that. But I don't see any issues. Um we still have to come forth with you all to get the variance for the septic. Um if we do get the variance, I think it's written in there that the city would never be obligated to provide sewer service, correct? Because the you variance, which they understand as well. the development agreement for you feasibility and all the presentations we've done in the past we talked about in the past also there's nothing new from what was presented previously in the feasibility and again theou what shall I have seen are you still live and happy with this

make a motion are our lot sizes so they are uh 3/4 acre 3/4 3/4 acre um the average home price as we last heard was $650 50,000 650 to7. Yeah. So these are uh they are presenting a a well produced product and they have no issue. You're not trying to get a variance for build lines or anything like that. No variance being requested. Okay. We may do a tree assessment variance. I don't have any issues with it. I don't think we did. Yeah. I'll make a motion to approve item number 15 as presented.

I'll second. I have a first and a second. Any discussion? All in favor say I. I. I. All oppose. I n. Okay. Stand opposed. Number 15 passed as presented with one opposition by Stan, Mr. Stanson. Number 16, consideration and possible action authorizing the city administrator to sign the consent encroachment by and between the city of Montgomery and the developer JDS Plannersville Road LLC development number 206.

All right. So on this item, this is uh essentially authorization for uh city to execute a encroachment agreement with Briley Development. Uh this is pretty standard language. You all seen a couple of these in recent council meetings. Um, this is essentially just stating if any repairs have to be done to a public facility located within a public utility easement that any private facilities located within same easement would not be on the responsibility of the city to repair once the repairs of our infrastructure have been made. On page, I believe my uh iPad isn't showing color, but on pages 84 and 85, you'll see the proposed improvements that they're uh recommending within the utility easement, sidewalks, um and walking paths for their residents. Um none of substantial note in the event that we have to do any repairs to the sanitary sewer and storm sewer that are located within those easements. Um, just kind of making it clear as to what's being uh encroached upon within this agreement. And the developer is here if you have any specific questions for him. There's nothing no major infrastructure. Make a motion we accept agenda item number 16 as presented.

A second. I have a second. Uh all in favor say I. All oppose. Number 16 pass as written. Number 17, consideration possible action on the exceptions of the public infrastructure on Bryley phase 1B WSB and P. Good evening again. Uh so you didn't even get a chance to sit down, did you?

No. newfound appreciation for Chris. Um, but this item, the last item I have in front of y'all today is for the acceptance of the public public infrastructure, excuse me, related to Bryley's uh phase 1B. This would include sections 3, four, and five or no, I'm sorry, four, five, and six. These are all of the sections just adjacent to WAC Cemetery. uh included in your packet, you'll see a land plan on page 111 that shows those three tracks. And this is again just accepting the water, sanitary, and drainage and paving infrastructure related to those sections within the one-year warranty. So, we'll still have a year to capture any deficiencies that we note within those uh water lines, sanitary sewer lines, storm lines, or pavement um and can bring those to the attention of the developer who will then have their contractor make those uh appropriate repairs. And this would be scheduled to end on February 4th, 2027. Any discussion?

24th. I'm sorry. 24th. 24th. Yeah. There's a typo in our certificate of acceptance. That should be February 24th. Do we need to um amend just to clarify that the one-year warranty will end on February 24th of 2027. and we can send out that updated certificate of acceptance for y'all's record as well. I have a motion. I make a motion to accept item number 17 with the amendment to clarify that the warranty will end on February 24th, 2027.

Second. I have a second from Stan. All in favor say I. I. All opposed. Number 17. Uh, motion is carried. Council inquiry. Pursuant to Texas Government Code section 551.042, the mayor and city council members may inquire about a subject not specifically listed on this agenda. Responsibilities are limited their existing policy or a statement of specific factual information given in response to inquiry. Any deliberation or decision shall be limited to a proposal to place on the agenda for a future meeting. Any

So I was expecting to see um the oneway street from pe from from MEC meeting. Yes, we're we're going to bring it in the next meeting. We had to get a little more u design idea because we were talking about, you know, coming back the other way. So we wanted to make a real clear picture of what that would look like. What is that? McGawan or Yeah. McGowan. Can be both because McGallen one and prairie the other. Yeah. Maiden. Maiden. Is it maiden? Maiden back the other way to to create kind of a loop through there. We're trying to get all that on a map so we can explain it better.

So yeah. So, I was just expecting to see it to tonight, but if they want to, they're working on it still, then no problem. Any other inquiries? Stand. No. No. The other inquiry is about did did we need to see anything from the signs, the expenditure for the signs? No, you've already approved the way finding.

Okay. you will be seeing uh I for those of you who don't know on the I call it the Raven Fen house the EDC approved doing that project. So the house the readings and everything will be coming to the council. He'll be doing that over the next few meetings uh to move that across. So that's kind of exciting. Exciting. That house was built in the 1800s. So that's very exciting that we're going to be able to part of that house. Yes. That's really nice. Good. It's in good shape, too. So that's nice. It is. It's in good shape. Okay. So we don't have any items for reflecting on each agenda. I do I hear a motion to

I make a motion to adjurnn. Second. Have a motion and all. All in favor say I. I. I. All oppose. Meeting is ajourned and it is 6:43. Let's see.

All right. See you around.

Yes, sir. Good to see you.