O'Brien, Olsen, Hansen, and Gabler. Also, our county commissioners, uh, Commissioner Gamble and Commissioner Sullivan. We'll start with approval of the agenda. Uh, is there a
>> I'll move to approve the agenda. Well, um, unfortunately we have to add something to the agenda. We have to add in a resolution 26-26. And what that would do is allow for us to actually convey to the real property once we do receive it in the future from
the city if they approve such an action. Um, then we'll be able to start the motion to get that conveyance between us and the developer Arbota Lots LLC. Well, with that amendment, uh, is there a second to the agenda?
>> I'll second. >> Been moved and seconded. Any discussion? If not, all in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Uh, next item is opportunity for public comment. Only one member of the public here and
he has no comment. We'll move on to new business. Uh resolution 2625 approving a development agreement with uh a limited partnership uh managed by vision uh for a 16 unit multifamily housing project in
Grand Marray. Jeff would you take us through the >> Yes. Let me just uh I want to share the agreement here. the developers agreement itself. Um resolution 26-25 should be on the screen here
momentarily as well. [clears throat] Um and so resolution 25 or 26-25 rather approves the development agreement that we have agreed um on principal between our flats and um um I'm sorry lofts
rather LLC for 16 units multif family housing project located at 1,800 >> Can you slow down and say that name again? >> Arbota. >> Arbota. A R B O T A >> A R B O D AR Boda.
>> Is that a word? >> LLC. Um and so the developers agreement um we we've since I sent out the agreement last week, we've had some uh negotiations back and forth between the
two. I'll show you uh what the changes are in just a second here as soon as I um pull that up. There were just a few. Uh, one was a concern about whether or not um if there were [snorts] certain uh units
that were I'm trying to get this to show up on screen here. So, I apologize. Share on the screen. nothing to do with the video selected. >> Um, don't know if that will work or not, but
we can try. It doesn't seem to work either. Um, >> do you want to read through the changes? >> Yeah, >> I'll just read through the changes. Yeah. So on page one uh the entity has changed names from vision um LLC we
might or vision INC rather to now Arbota A R B O D A Lofts LLC. Um and so that was the uh change that was on page one. Um and then also on article one in the definition section
under developer of course we also reflected the change in name. >> Remember they listed as an it says then the change of name and then it says and any oh and any affiliate I've got it same same arot. Yep. >> Yep.
Um, article one, item J, we eliminated the five of which will be available or rented to households earning income at 60 below. Um, and we have changed it to at the end
of J say and the terms of this agreement. Um, our item number K. Um, we changed the project assistance to say, yeah, go ahead. Can >> well, would you prefer that we hold questions or can we ask?
>> Yeah, let's hold questions because I think that some of these questions might be in further changes. >> Okay. >> Uh, there's just been a couple of changes. Um on item number K or item uh K under project assistance uh means collectively the uh workforce
housing development funds um and Ahra funds because of course the $100,000 contribution through ARPA funds that we still retained for this project. We are eliminating in that same uh sentence the word HR fund and in its place we're
replacing it with value of property as determined by the Cook County assessor at the time of execution of this agreement. >> The the I'm sorry the uh that that's under K. So could you read out how project how paragraph K now reads?
>> Yeah. project assistance is underlined means comma collectively comma the workforce housing development program funds the HR funds and the value of property as determined by the Cook County assessor at the time of execution of this agreement.
>> Okay, >> scrolling through article two, no changes. Feel like I'm back in the legislature when we're doing markups for final passage. Um um an article three um under project plans.
Um well, computer is still trying to catch up here. No changes. Article 4, construction, no changes. Article five, project assistance. Scrolling through that, I don't believe there's any changes. Article
five. Yeah. In article six itself uh there are some changes under operating covenants uh we have added now a couple of different things and so if we go to item
let's see here C I'm sorry uh B rather um everything is intact at the end of the last word as you see it it would be um let's see here including tenants a
tenant affidavit attesting the applicable tenant conform with income requirements. Then we have an addition in the event the developer after developing goodfaith marketing efforts to qualify applicants
for a period of not less than 60 days is unable to secure qualified applicant or designated affordable units at the required income level. developer may lease such unit to the next available qualified applicant at market rate provided the developer leases the next
available unit of equivalent size to a qualified applicant notwithstanding the foregoing uh comma an applicant whose household income exceeds the applicable 60 to 80% AMI maximum by not more than
10% shall be deemed a qualified applicant for the purposes of satisfying this article provided all the other program eligibility requirements are met. So before I go on to C and letter B, what basically is happening is if the
developer in the future cannot fill a unit for a qualified applicant at that 60 or 80% AMI, we're allowing them to sell that unit at market rate. And and [clears throat] then if uh when that is filled by somebody with market rate then
another unit of an exact same uh qualifications becomes available then that will revert to a market rate that was otherwise 60 or 80% AMI. In addition to that what also we're doing is we're allowing a little bit of that flexibility. Now we've had this
discussion before with the heights and we previously had this discussion at gunflip view. I'm working with our legal council to have such a policy that will actually be voted upon um in in um August here. Um they're
working on that currently right now, but this is the first time you will actually see this in a document in a more permanent form. In the past, it's been more of an agreement with Gunflim View is between Jason and the folks at PNR. And with the gunflint view, it was
between myself and the folks at Cook County Real Estate Fund. Okay. Um on numbers or letter C uh we are including changed market conditions colon if either party reasonably
determines the material and unanticipated changes in market or economic conditions are likely to materially impair the project's continued financial viability. The party may provide written notice describing the relevant circumstances together with
reasonably available supporting financial information and any proposed modifications to this agreement. The parties shall therefore meet and confer in good faith regarding reasonable amendments intended to preserve the project's financial viability while
maintaining the material public purposes and benefits of this agreement. Nothing in this section requires either party to agree to any particular amendment or require the HA to provide additional financial assistance. Any amendments
shall be the subject to applicable law funding source requirements and all required approvals of the parties comma and shall become effective only when set forth in written my computer. Hold that
thought. It switched pages on me. Okay. Six. Okay. The parties shall therefore meet and confer in good faith regarding reasonable amendments intended to preserve the project's financial viability while maintaining the material
public purposes and benefits of this agreement. Nothing in this section requires either party to agree to a particular amendment or require the H to provide an additional uh there's where we left off financial assistance. Any amendments shall be subject to
applicable law funding source requirements and shall required and all required approvals of the parties and shall become effective only when set forth in a written instrument executed by both parties. Period. Unless and
until the amendment becomes available. >> I'm sorry Jeff. >> Just a clarifying clarification on that, Jeff. So that what you just read is is a a new paragraph C that replaces that precedes the utilities. >> Correct. >> And am I and it's it's saying that so if
if economics it basically saying on a one-off basis [clears throat] >> they can request uh release from the conditions of the of of the development agreement. But that's not a but is that I'm I'm don't know if
you want me to hold the questions or not, but is that I find that confusing about whether that uh they're saying that that does not require that does not consist of an amendment or doesn't require an amendment to the agreement because then I wonder what what happens to the agreement going
forward if if if you've made some exceptional changes. >> Yeah. So what what really has happened is that we um had negotiated they were looking for some SATA funds which we cannot because we are in a point where we are receiving as many funds from the
state as we can give out sustainably one for$1 that we're expending right now. And so instead of getting those SAHA funds to help subsidize the the um EMI rents at 60 80% what we're allowing for
is and what we've agreed to is up to 10 years of those 16 80% preserved rents or $100,000 upfront for upfront development costs related to um those ARPA funds that are available that have to be spent
by the end of this year. So the 60% references to the So the 60% tanch is basically removed and and we now have 80% for longer period. Is that the am I guess I'm trying to understand what's what's the new deal? >> It would be both 60 and 80%. This is
just a preservation of that in the agreement. And if for some some chance it ends up being that they it doesn't it isn't financially viable to continue with that, we would be coming back to the table to discuss in in good faith
what are or what what would we do going forward on that >> but but not amending the agreement. >> Correct. Okay. Wait, I didn't mean to interrupt. You can go. I'm confused. >> Oh, these are fine questions. And if you had a question before too, we can go
back to it. Otherwise, maybe we'll keep going. Um, and then, um, utilities becomes D. Uh, as a result of that article, All right, my laptop kind of wants to keep jumping around here. We were on
article six. So, utilities on page nine now becomes D. On page 10, if my laptop will go that far, my goodness. Uh, it doesn't want to go past 10. Here we go. 10. Um, license and permits becomes E.
Obey all laws becomes F. Um, the next one is payment of taxes which is G. Assessment fees and changes uh charges rather become H. Obligations and claims become I on page 11.
just really wants to keep messing with me here today. Page 11. Here we go. Article 7. Um, there's no changes to that here. Moving on. Article 8, nothing. Article 9
entrance. Um, there are no changes to that. We're on page article 10 now page article 10 on page 20 B letter B public parties remedies for
developers defaults um or is eliminated seeking reimbursement of WHDP funds or HR funds advanced under article 5 as well as reimbursements of
the value of the property at the time executed by this agreement as determined by county assessor. Instead, we have a new four which is seeking reimbursement of the property assistance. And
on page 21, there is property assistance defined above as including the MHA the WHP funds and H funds. Is that just re is that a substantive change or is that just a wording change?
>> Project assistance is what K and the first section refers to it as. >> Correct. >> Project assistance means >> means that all >> it's it's a change based off consistency from the >> Yeah. No, I I didn't know if was if that was a deal change or or wording change.
It's just a wording change. >> Yep. Just Yeah. Semantics really. Yep. Um, let's see here on page 21. Um, we don't have any changes there with article 10. Um, article 11,
um, nothing. Article 12, no changes. I think we're getting to the end. Article 13, no changes. Article 14, no changes. Article 15, no changes. with the exception of now um on page
I'll get there and the developer name >> our our page numbers don't match your page numbers >> good point okay [laughter] on my page 26 um in the case of developer is now our Boda Loft LLC yeah
>> um on page 27 I'm sorry article Um 18 I think is where we're at now. Yep. 18. 19 and 20 there are no changes. 21 there's no changes. 22 23 and 24 there are no changes.
25 no changes. Um and then we get to the end there. >> Yeah. Signature >> the signature pages and kind of from there article, I'm sorry, exhibit D on my page
37 has been formatted the form of income certificate compliance certificate itself um at [clears throat] the end of what you have we also included not withstanding the foregoing comma an applicant whose
household income exceeds the applicable 60 or 80% AMI um maximum by not more than 10% shall be deemed a qualified applicant for the purposes of satisfying this article provided all program eligibility
requirements are met. This is kind of a consistency change from above when we were talking about catalyzing the I guess for lack of better words the legal room that's available for folks to get into an apartment that's affordable
for their needs. Um, uh, exhibit E, um, let's see here. Doesn't look like we've made any changes there either. And exhibit F, no changes there either. And
exhibit G, no changes either. So, um, maybe this is a good time to pause, Mr. chair and take any questions from what we've discussed already. >> All right. Uh well, first I'd like to move approval of the
resolution before you do the discussion. And I mean just generally kind of a proform uh from Robert's rules if I remember them correctly. And I would move approval of resolution 26-25
with the insertion in uh the now therefore be it resolved section uh that uh the H housing redevelopment authority Cook County Board of Commissioners hereby approves the development
agreement between the HR and Arbota LLC project at 1800. I would after Arbota LLC, I would have add in substantially the same format as the attached uh
uh modifications or no, excuse me, in substantially the same format as attached. However, modifications may be approved uh if needed by the chair, approval of the chair and vice chair. Uh I'm setting
that up just so that if there are further things that get noticed and need to be corrected, there's a way of doing that. Um and but taking at least without having another formal board meeting, but
putting it in the hands of uh Commissioner O'Brien and and me. Uh, and I'd be happy to entertain any discussion on that aspect of it, but I did talk to our our council Chris Verda at uh in in
Duth and and he said that's he adds that a lot to a lot of his work like this to just allow some future flexibility if it's called for. So, uh, that would be my motion would to approve this
resolution with that a, uh, added to it. We'll count on >> I'll second the motion just with the comment that if that happens, I'd like the board to be informed. >> Oh, yes. >> Before you before you finish it. >> Yes, >> that's fair.
>> That's that's Yeah, we can add that as well. Been moved and seconded. All right. We have questions uh on some of the aspects here. Commissioner O'Brien. >> Um I few things. one one um I
one I've already raised with Jeff which is that you know the construction uh article five I believe um includes language that there's an automatic delay that the in the event of a force measure event or something that there's an automatic delay of 180 degrees or 180
days or more in the in the in the required construction deaduh period that's very reasonable I I just want to and Jeff has a has a voicemail and to confirm with MHA that there's a matching provision on their side that the funding
would in the event of a force majority. I just want to make sure we're we're lined up there. We don't risk approving an extension and then being short of the 1.3 million. So, um that that's one. Second, um I want to um question maybe
I've seen this elsewhere, but do we have um you know financial information about Arbota? And I mean do we have to just give us comfort that the that of the developer own finances or what I don't have much background on our vot.
>> Yeah. And maybe it would be best to um um to also um include in our discussion today. We do have um Ryan Nelson um on the phone here or on the internet rather >> and maybe Ryan wants to step in have
that conversation with us today specifically if you have any questions about that. Um I I have seen a bank letter which says that they are working on the funding with the bank in Duth. Um but maybe Ryan are you available to to
step in and have that conversation? Yeah, happy to. >> Thank you. >> So, Ryan, this is Commissioner Chris O'Brien. Just cur curious what has been provided in the way of um you know the the your
demonstrating financial demonstrating your financial capability >> uh to this project specifically. At this time, we haven't um been asked for any financial information that would really um pertain to just this
project, but I can say the history. Um we've done 14 developments since 2016 um 16 and been successful at each one of them. Um developed over a thousand units since 2016. So this um this project
would definitely be a viable project for us and not have any issues to um get financial backing or um have that you know ability to provide the equity that's needed to do the project but willing to provide um information as as
you guys would request I guess. >> Thanks. It would be useful to if we had that potential to share it. >> Yes. Um that that's how >> a little background I guess we we did do
the gunflint view. Um I've I was the one that was originally involved with that from the beginning and um followed through with it um and got that project completed. So that project speaks of uh some of the success that we've had.
>> Yeah. So I maybe the question at least the question in my mind is the creation of the LLC of Arbota lofts that's that's sort of to protect your parent company from from legal liability down the line somewhere is that why why does that
happen and why didn't we hear about it before today? That's my question. Um, well, we it took us a little while to dig up a name that we thought was best fitting for that. And, um, this whole thing's been moving, you
know, pretty quickly, but also, you know, there's been some things that we've felt pretty pretty good about moving forward with it, but, you know, also we've been a little um, [clears throat]
not I guess We've done everything we could up until now to get to the point of the development agreement. Um, but you know, we also have other things going on. So, it's it's taken a little bit of time to be able to get um responses back to Jeff and make this all
come together as quickly as it has. So, um there's there's no real name for the or there's no real reason for the name change um other than it was just the creation of the actual entity and Vision was um the developer and will still be
the developer, but Vision won't own this property. This property will be owned by, you know, two individuals. One of them is part of Vision, one of them isn't. And um it does allow us to have you know
protection in the future in case of uh something happens on the property or or whatever it is. It it just allows us to have protection. >> And who are the general partners of the partnership or the partner?
>> So the partners the the two owners um will be Ryan Nelson and Kyle Anderson. um two of the owners of Gunfund as well. >> Thanks. >> One more question. All >> right.
>> Well, I just want to make sure that I'm understanding the um 10% wiggle room provision. And just let me as I understand it, um the idea is that the guidelines
are set apart for for 60 and 80% of AMI. Um and but what's new is that there's a uh if the marketing of those units is not successful over a period of 60 days then there's then there's the
flexibility then the developer has the ability to sell lease those at market rate and then if a new in um if a new unit comes available then they you know then you try to market it to qualified in the but
with the understanding that qualifi the definition of qualified. It's is it only in that scenario that the definition of qualified would go up to 70 or 90% or is it >> um it would be across the board for the qualifications itself just like how it's
actually working now at gunpoint view and has since it started back in 2025 and how again with the heights as well. But the trigger is different a little bit when it comes to the um switch from the 1680 to the market rate.
>> That is a new thing for sure. Yeah. And that's reasonable. But I just so the effective guidelers will have a opportunity to vote on the specific language of that policy at the next meeting. uh it's being drafted now
in response so that it won't just be a handshake or a verbal uh agreement which is what it's been up to this point for the other two projects and I think that's progress. I'd rather see it be something that we actually have a goals on. I agree that I agree. >> What I And it took a lot of digging, one
of the requests was made by the folks at the heights to get this information so we could, you know, like at least agree to it and principal. Um, it took a lot of digging to find the conversation between Jason and PR. And so when that was the case, I thought to myself, we've
got to do a job of making it more permanent. >> That's that's my concern and and well addressed. Thanks. Uh so Christopher Vera is working on that as we speak as well. Yep. So that should be next month here. We'll be seeing that one. >> Great. >> And further commissioner Johansson
>> is there um does the um the Minnesota housing um you know workforce development funds do they trigger a prevailing wage? Are we going to have a surprise with that again or or is that known? >> Yes. >> He knows it.
>> Um yeah. So, I've had a conversation with uh Minnesota Housing Finance Agency. They looked at the workbook that the folks over at Arbota and Vision were able to create and um it's an update on the current work or the previous
workbook from the previous developer. And when [clears throat] Sarah looked at it, number one, she kind of does this all day long. And so, she can see where the red flags are, where the places are that are on fire. She could not find any of those in principle on the first blush
of looking at that and that was a good thing let me tell you that was a good thing to hear. Uh and with that um she wanted to make sure that there were prevailing wage requirements as noted by the department of labor and industry.
Um, and so I made that that request or that um, you know, that that was part of the calculations and um, Shannon responded, Shannon Grayson responded from and on behalf of vision and our vote our vote of laps saying that that's
the case. Okay. That they're included. >> Yeah. >> Further questions or comments? Commissioner Gamble. >> Thank you, >> Mr. Chair. I just had a question. >> Commissioner Gamble, if you could put your mic. >> Oh, yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah.
The [clears throat] um question was uh the change proposed change language. Who reviewed that on behalf of the HR? >> Um on behalf of that, it was our legal council over at Fryburger. >> Okay. >> Yeah. And there was a green thumbs up and it was changed at about 11:00 this
morning. So that stuff fast and furious this negotiation has been and the process of legal stuff and couple of holiday vacations not mine but uh with other folks and stuff and so you know things are happening in the summer right we're human we have plans and that sort of thing so this is this is literally
break neck speed that we're able to get this accomplished and I I have to commend a lot of people in this process to be able to get to this point today and I'm really thankful that we're able to get as much accomplished as we're able to get. Thank you. >> Yes. >> And I think the thanks goes to the
developer as well. So, anything further you'd like to add? I don't I don't have anything further other than just um telling you guys I appreciate the opportunity today to be in front of you and um also you know appreciate the
trust in the HA that uh we could come up there and provide another um 16 units of housing for the Grand Marray. >> Thank you for that. >> Thanks. Uh it's moved and seconded. Uh, is there
any further discussion? No, just Brad. >> I would propose one additional amendment to the developers agreement. As I was saying today, we've been moving at a break neck speed. I just received a sketch from the surveyor on this
property. To be fair, um I don't believe that the the developer has really had a chance to take a look at that quite yet and how that matches with the actual plans that they have provided us. And so I want to make sure that anything that
we're doing also includes their approval for what the site sketch and the site development will look like. um the surveying Northshore surveying company I believe was in uh Ministry Ross's office um about 1:30 this
afternoon with the sketch in hand showing him as well. And so I want to make sure that our partners at the city have also had an adequate amount of time to look it over and develop uh their feelings on this. And so what I would suggest is that we also make the
approval of resolution 2625 contingent upon the approval of both the developer and the city who owns the property and are going to be conveying it to us to make sure that we get we got exactly the right thing for for this property. >> That's an addition to the development
agreement. >> Yeah. Um it's actually referenced in the developers agreement. So, >> okay, >> as part of that, I want to make sure that that's included. >> So, noted
Commissioner Olson. >> So, plan approval. Can you speak to the timing of that and the process and our involvement? >> Uh, yes. And so um upon us
continuing to have the negotiate or discussion rather and coming to a final vote today on resolution 25-20 26-25 and 26-26 which is the conveyance. The next stop will actually be for the city council to
have a discussion. I want to say that would be the third week in August and that would be when they would take action. And then also the EDA because they do have the $1.3 million in in
grant funding from the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency. They will also need to take approval at their next board meeting as well. This triggers both of those entities having their discussions about this as well. Um in the end, the developers agreement will be between us,
the city, and the EDA. And so all three entities at some point will have to see this and take formal action. And then from there the timeline is such that we'll continue to go through the process of conveyance of the property as best as we can. This is we can do everything
here. The the bottom line is we don't want to make uh we don't want to hold up anything in a way that would prevent construction from starting this year. And um as it stands right now, there is a possibility we could get to the point where there could be some groundbreaking
before, you know, the end of the year, I think, is what we're looking at now. And that will help set us up to completion of the project before the end of 2027. And of course, January 1st, 2028 is the absolute deadline when it comes to this
project for those grant funds. >> Okay. So, it states in the in the agreement, I think that there was a 30-day and a 15-day uh plan review uh that you as executive director would
be performing. So, what would you be reviewing? The the actual designs and the lot plans, the all of the all of those documents. >> Correct. >> And will the board have an opportunity
to weigh in? >> I would hope so. That's that's exactly how I want to operate this and you'll be involved process. I would suggest particularly Commissioner Olsen who's got the expertise absolutely >> on the board to take a look at the plans.
>> I've already noticed some discrepancies uh in stair layouts and stuff I I could address but no need today. >> Please send them offline to me and we'll make sure that they get addressed. Okay.
>> Any further questions or discussion? Call a question. All those in favor of resolution 25 or 26-25 signify by saying I >> I >> opposed. Carries
on the 20 resolution 26-26 regarding conveyance of the property. >> Yes. And so once we get to the point where the city council has had their their amount of time that they feel
comfortable with um um the point where they want to convey the property perhaps to us and that's our hope that's our goal um then that would trigger us having the ability to be able to convey that property from the HR to the developer which is again Arbota
Lofts LLC and so 26-26 basically ally allows for us that to have that conveyance and for that legal process to continue. And um the last time you saw exact same mechanism was in uh 2025,
I'm sorry, early 2026 after the uh county commissioners um conveyed property to us for the purpose of building homes at the corner of Creekville and Gunflint Trail. Mhm. >> Um and so it's exactly the same mechanism and we'll be using that same
mechanism for this process as well. New players [clears throat] but same or same type of project. It's 16 units at 1800 West Highway 61. >> So what are we approving? What was the resolution asking?
>> Um I'm sorry. So the the um resolution is for conveyance of real property for the purposes of constructing um I multif family apartments at 1800 highway 61. >> Also moved.
>> Is there been moved? Is there a second of motion 2626? >> Second. >> It's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion or questions of the commissioners? >> Hearing none. Call a question. All those in favor of motion the resolution 26-26
signify by saying I. >> I I >> I opposed. >> Motion carries. >> There any further business to come before the commission? >> No, I just again wanted to take a moment. Oh, go ahead, Ryan. You
>> just one quick question. And um Jeff, do you >> do you know um I see that survey that was sent out. Um it didn't really list like the domestic water sizing or it kind of has the shut offs located on
there, but I didn't see the sanitary like hookup or the sanitary sewer um on there. I didn't see it. So, it was real clear for us because I understand that there was a hotel there. >> Yeah.
>> Um, prior to this, I'm assuming that the water size to that was probably not probably not sufficient to what we're going to need, but I just want to make sure that we got at least a, you know, 6 in water service um, somewhere that runs by there, which
I think I was told before that it did. And then the sewer I'm not too concerned about because obviously I think that there's sufficient um sewer hookups around there. >> So I was just curious if if the surveyor could get
um them locations on there of where like the water man actually is. I see like I said I see their shut off locations but I don't see like the actual water man or the sewer main on there. Yeah, looks like a pressurized sword man or something, but >> just curious if there could be a little
more clarity on that. >> I appreciate that for what it's worth. And that's part of the reason why I said let's make sure this is contingent upon approval because you barely have seen this. I mean, literally this is just about an hour ago. I received I think 40. So it's now 3:58. So that's about
the timing for today on this. So, let's talk offline about this between ourselves and the surveyor and the city of Grammar. >> Okay. Appreciate that. >> I appreciate that feedback. Thank you. And I'm going to assume that the motion
that we just made passed includes the same language of sub in substantially the same form as recommended but with the ability to approve changes um by the consent of the
chair and the vice chair. >> Okay. >> Yeah. And then informing the board of any changes. >> Yes. for >> any other business from the commissioners or from the executive director.
>> Hearing none, do I hear a motion to adjurnn? >> I'll move to adjourn. >> Moved. Is there a second? >> I'll second. >> Any discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor say I. >> I opposed. >> Meetings adjourned.
adjourn and sigh and Jeff [laughter] busy day. >> Ryan, thank you. Enjoy your summer. >> Thank you, Ryan. >> Appreciate your quick work on this. >> Yeah, thank you. appreciate everybody's
time today and look forward